Comments on: Neanderthal Tools Were a Match for Early Homo Sapiens'

By: Alex the digga

Alex the digga — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:39:40 +0000

I have a large collection flint tools of Neanderthal and early human its obvious that they had skill, neanderthals semms to be more leaning towards awls and scrapers and later on finer blades (spear/knife shaped blades) possibly copying there competitors for game, I have no doubt they did adapt to the changes in game,temp etc as the tools did. On they fur side of things i know guys that are so hairy they look like a gorrila, but seriously think wooly rhino, mammoth, mastadon etc cold climate adapted animals they developed side by side with neanderthals so you would expect them to have eccess body hair but being hairy does not make them less intelligent and im sure they would have wore some type of clothing with all the scrapers and awls they made.
Music mmmm…didn’t someone excavate a neandy flute?
The extinction of Neanderthals is probably from a multitude of reasons changing climate,dwindling resources disease (similar to native americians and other aboriginal peoples) and conflict, I suspect conflict as we know they where pushed to the periferals of europe, if early cromagon can kill his own kind i suspect they would kill Neanderthal on site or at least force them out of their hunting ranges. “CAN YOU DIG IT”

By: Piers

Piers — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:50:40 +0000

My gut feeling is that Neanderthals had fur similar to gorillas. I don’t believe the Hollywood recreations that show them dressed in animal skins. It is a shame that when bones are discovered, the additional material is cleaned off as that could contain evidence of the fur. It should be kept for the day when we have scientific equipment to properly analyse such material. Modern humans were naked because we probably evolved near the coast where food was plentiful and being naked was an advantage when swimming and drying off. The obvious place is in S E Asia where the climate is perfect for no clothes and there are plenty of islands, fresh water and food. The present evidence is that modern humans came from Africa but I wouldn’t be surprised if further evidence is discovered in the future that shows we developed into what we look like now by spending 100,000 years or so in southern India, Indonesia etc. When children want to go for a holiday today, they all want to go to the beach. Is that just coincidence? No child says, “Please Dad, can we go to the savannah?”

By: Jb

Jb — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:14:52 +0000

Sapien lol

By: Day Brown

Day Brown — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 17:57:07 +0000

The female pelvis cracks open to facilitate birth. But the Neanderthal bones were too robust, so their females could not birth the hybrid. Hybridization will have many fertile males but few females because there are too many ways for the changes to result in infertility. Which is why Sykes, “The Seven Daughters of Eve” finds only 7 indigenous mtDNA lines in Europe while there are scores, even 140 in Africa, and everywhere else.

By: SPM

SPM — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 01:40:20 +0000

I suspect the reason why Homo Sapiens made smaller straight edge tools was because they were lighter and more portable. Homo Sapiens were nomadic hunters who tracked herds of animals, while Neanderthals stayed put and ambushed herds of animals on migration routes. Saving weight would therefore be a huge advantage to Homo Sapiens even at the expense of slightly reduced functionality because it would allow them to carry larger numbers of tools and hunting implements with them to cover for breakages.

The DNA evidence so far indicates no human DNA in Neanderthal DNA, but that humans living outside Africa have a small number of genes in common with Neanderthals, and these are not restricted to Europeans. This seems to indicate that the genes were transferred in the middle east, at the beginning of human migration out of Africa, perhaps by a human population with a small scale contact with Neanderthal ancestors over a long period since the beginning of the divergence of humans from Neanderthals at the boundary between the two species (in Israel). The lack of recently evolved human DNA in Neanderthal DNA would indicate that either humans and Neanderthals could not interbreed, or if they did, their offspring were sterile. I am convinced that if Neanderthals could have interbred they would have, and that we would have seen hybridization of the two species in Europe, with a high proportion of Neanderthal DNA in Europe in particular, rather than the very minimal levels spread out to all non-African humans that we see.

By: Colby Tennett

Colby Tennett — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:10:30 +0000

The following website is usually exceedingly astounding. Methods to make one by doing this!

By: sbd

sbd — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:26:20 +0000

I’m not convinced by the evidence that there was no inter-breeding between Neanderthal & Cro-Magnon human beings. Such interbreeding, if it abruptly became an accepted practice for one or many survival reasons, could explain the Neanderthal disappearance into the larger Cro-Magnon gene pool.

By: Tor

Tor — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:55:39 +0000

Disease can wipe out a group of modern people today that have never had exposure to it till some outsider brings it into their area. How many diseases were being carried by Cro-Magnon? Diseases they had built up immunity to but that laid waste to Neanderthal? Look at history and how many times a group of people have been decimated by someone carrying disease into their community.

By: Wilmer

Wilmer — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:33:55 +0000

From its start in the 1800s, the whole discussion on the Neanderthals is based on the view of mans evolution. If you don´t believe in evolution, but has some form of creationist look on history of mankind, you must see the Neanderthals as apes. The Neanderthals has become the famous “missing link” between apes and man – even if they were so much more advanced than what would represent a true missing link. When looking at all the evidence of Neanderthal culture, their tools, their fires, their hunting habits, their burying of their deads, it´s obvious that they were quite similar to what came after them. The question is if the whole debate has exaggerated the differences between the two “species”. If we see the Neanderthals as developed some 100 000 years ago, living as a more robust Ice age hunter in Europe, and other less robust humans living in warmer climate at the same time, the whole idea of two different species becomes more difficult to accept. Sure; the Neanderthals disappeared, but not because they were primitive or less human, but because the need for being that robust became less important for survival. Still some of us, like the Australian aboriginals, are more robust and “Neanderthal-looking”, but they are not to be seen as “primitive”. What happened is rather that the evolutionary force to be robust disappeared in a better climate and with better tools and a more civilised culture. The impact of more gracile humans from the South is also an important explanation for what has happened, and should not be forgotten. The “difference”, though, should be seen as coming with time: the Neanderthals were, first and foremost, EARLIER human beings, even if more robust tribes were living in Europe for quite long.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:16:19 +0000

X- External nasal structure is probably less important to “smell” as the amount of brain devoted to analyzing it.
Y-Inteligence has little to do with species survival- look at the roach.