![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What do editors think about the addition earlier today of the crytozoology material? I don't spend a lot of time in the paleoanthropology articles so I don't know whether there's a consensus whether it's appropriate to add cryptozoological speculation to them. I'd be inclined to leave out such speculation, since there's so much of it, and since the evidence isn't of the same caliber as the research that's generally cited. Maybe as an external link? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
numbers := kya = k years ago
I don't understand why the citation was deleted regarding Neanderthal survival after 30,000 years ago, nor do I understand the edit summary for that edit. I hope this can be discussed. The two versions seems to say the same thing, except that it doesn't make sense to me to say that Neanderthal "traits" survived. Later the article uses "traces." is that what is meant? I believe I'll make that change. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that you mean the latest skeleton with Neanderthal traits. But why delete the citation that also discusses traces of Neanderthal culture? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC) My mistake. I agree with the deletion of the citation. It doesn't directly deal with evidence of late Neanderthal survival. Will edit the lead to conform to the remaining citation. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC) neanderthal tools from 24,000 years ago were found and a skeleton from 28,000 was found hope that helps some one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need the list of the names of the tool cultures in the lead. To my mind, it's unnecessary detail. The main point of that sentence is indicating the time span of Neanderthals. I think it would be fine to put back the information on bones. And the names of the tool cultures could be put later in the article, if it isn't already there. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) No response, so I made it a footnote. I like the chronology of the bones. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Should this, or better yet the original paper in Cell that it is based on, be included somewhere in the article? The first complete mDNA sample from H. Neanderthalis? [1] Edhubbard ( talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
How should this new information be added to the article? From Cell magazine, hot off the presses: A complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequence was reconstructed from a 38,000 year-old Neandertal individual with 8341 mtDNA sequences identified among 4.8 Gb of DNA generated from ∼0.3 g of bone. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years. Of the 13 proteins encoded in the mtDNA, subunit 2 of cytochrome c oxidase of the mitochondrial electron transport chain has experienced the largest number of amino acid substitutions in human ancestors since the separation from Neandertals. There is evidence that purifying selection in the Neandertal mtDNA was reduced compared with other primate lineages, suggesting that the effective population size of Neandertals was small. [8]-- —CynRN ( Talk) 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
could you drop the sequence string either above is not true or they sequenced something else. I hope (the divergent amino acid substitutions} is not in cytochrome b :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
full thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't understand this, partly because I didn't understand the English. Let's see if we can rewrite it.
In spacial Neanderthal range was found specimen dated to 5.3 kya having also similar anatomical characteristic. Safely may be estimated that this characteristic is persistent in major H.N. area from 5300 to 0 ya.
Also, seems like we'd need a source and more detail. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope all is understandable. If not point to point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes i do. Plese say what originaly you did not understand so the text may be rephrased to be easier.
did you overlooked a point? 5 having also similar anatomical characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Progress. I deleted that clause, so now the referent of your sentence is clear. So what kind of specimen was found 5,000 years ago and what suggested it had red hair? Was it a Neanderthal specimen? How could that be, if as the article says, the latest Neanderthal presence dates to 25,000 years ago? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why the tool cultures have been added to the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. Please explain why this information is important to the lead. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
We really shouldn't be adding something like this, which is meaningless to a general reader, without more context.
Please let's discuss. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much for the feedback. This IP seems quite knowledgeable and hopefully we can work out something that is meaningful to a general reader. Here's his latest version, which I just removed from the article and which I still think is too technical.
The same paper show 4 amino acids substitutions in mtDNA translated to changed COX2 protein [10] of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit II. Human amino acid on HS/ HN differing positions: 22, 54, 95 and 146 in COX2 is most similar to Baboon/ Macaque while Neanderthal mtDNA decode is more similar to Hominidae proteins of Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan. RAO hyphothesis assumption is based on matrilinear replacement of stronger Neanderthal by weaker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa; however Baboon and Macaque are even behind great apes family but more distant gene transitions are known to biology.
Once the general point is clear and details that are too technical eliminated in favor of more general language, we can put it back. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
"from a 38,000-year-old bone"--what happens if interbreeding occured in an area 37,000 years ago, or 30,000 years ago? One fragment from the early modern human settlement era is no proof that interbreeding did not occur. It may even have occured 40,000 years ago--just not in the area that bone came from. Considering the very low population density of both modern humans and neandertals, we can't assume mixed genes from a specific area would have spread quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.118.240 ( talk) 01:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The same paper showed four amino acid translations in mitochondrial DNA. [11] It suggests Homo sapens is a closer relative to baboons and [or?] macaques, while Neandertal is nearer chimpanzee, gorilla, or [and?] orangutan. The Recent African Origin hyphothesis is based on matrilinear replacement of Neanderthal by H.sap.
"Neanderthal skulls were first discovered in Engis, Belgium (1829) and in Forbes' Quarry" So why isn't H.nean. named for Engis? I presume it's because they weren't recognized as sufficiently different. Some explanation is in order. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Another question about the origin of Neanderthal....It seems to be infered that Neanderthals did indeed evolve Europe; from the information provided on this page it is almost impossible not to come to that conclusion, but yet nowhere is it stated explicitly that Neanderthal is a species that originated in Europe. For instance, I see two well documented inferences -- (1) Neanderthal traits are said to have appeared first in Europe; (2) Map of neanderthal sites points exclusively to Europe. It is put forward in the tool section that H.erectus and H.heidelbergensis are the ancestors of H.Neanderthals; it is, however, undocumented. H.erectus seems like a likely candidate, but without a credible source, I simply assume that someone came to this conclusion by his or her own logic. What got me thinking about this was the previous understanding I held, that all hominids evolved in east Africa; though, I don't know why I thought this. Also, if it is the case (that they evolved in Europe), exactly where in Europe did they evolve? It seems like there would have had to been some smaller region that acted as an "evolutionary hub" (though perhaps not...)
Likely this is another one of those things were knowone knows for what the deal is for sure. Even so, as I was trying to piece together human evolution and the progression of hominins, this was one of the obstacles I ran into. In that case, even if nothing is known for sure, it might be helpful to add a section about Neanderthals own history (migration, evolutionary ancestors, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahoevel ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Editor 71.201.241.2 continues to add lots of content that is problematic, because of the English and because it's too technical and is meaningless to a general reader. I don't have time to go through the many many edits. Not sure what to do. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's the Section that I reverted from the introduction. i hope this can be used in a separate section Autodidactyl ( talk) 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. to link the Aurignacian to H. neanderthalensis is a stretch. To link them to the Gravettian would seem to be pretty far off. Furthermore, the Lagar Velho child is highly dubious and it is far from unequivocally a mix between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. The archaic traits it can be argued to exhibit are furthermore not autapomorphic to H. neanderthalensis. Adding to this is that recent DNA analysis (as is seen in the text) does not suggest mixing - which of course could have changed later in principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.87.114 ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you trying 'in good faith' find out the truth perhaps i can ask for help to wording off the coincidental/non_coincidental host switching from Macaque and sourced here. Do you think it is relevant to this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's another phrase that I don't understand:
present day DNA (mtDNA, nDNA) sequencing to find differences in ancient signals in subpopulation gene pools.
Mainly the word "signals." Could we rephrase this? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted these two sentences from the lead:
The prospect of coexistence as two reproductively separated species may be mistaken, due to misdating of modern (5ky old) human bones. [14] This continues to be reported as correct in popular mass media. [15] [16]
It doesn't seem like the lead is the place to get into the debate regarding interbreeding. The context of these sentences didn't make any suggestion either way regarding that issue, so I don't understand why it was inserted. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe there is no reference to Michael Crichton's 'Eaters of the Dead' under his section. He produces extensive detail in his novel alleging that the 'Wendol' described in his book are a tribe of Homo Neanderthalensis having survived to recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.161.140 ( talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
When did the term start developing its negative connotations - usually used of a male's attitudes towards women (in general or particular)?
Given that the structure of Neanderthal society is unknown surely the term is unappropriate - why not (historically known culture of choice)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) in my opinion neanderthal should really be a good thing to be called considering they were stronger and had larger brains than homo sapeins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Neanderthals were stronger than us, but slower and had little running resistance. In addiction you have to remember that Neanderthal brain was heavier and bigger than ours, but that doesn't mean that they were more intelligent. The term "neanderthal" started to develope negative connotations because at the beginning of the XX century archaeologists tought that these men were really primitive and ape-like. Xzn1989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.237.254 ( talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For Richard G. Klein is becoming increasingly clear that the Neanderthals and their modern human successors did not mix and coexisted with modern humans up to 15,000 citation needed years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe. [17] In the same source abstract is writen oposite : it remains unclear why they disappeared shortly after modern humans arrived in Europe Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner believed that the population of Neanderthals was never much more than 10,000 individuals. [18]
An interesting article in Science Daily debunking the stupid Neanderthal myth. [2] What about adding something about this in the lead? Maybe: "Although Neanderthals have sometimes been portrayed as dumb brutes, research on their stone tools suggests they were as intelligent as modern humans." TimidGuy ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
New investigations debunk longheld textbook beliefs of inferior intelectual capabilities by showing that early stone tool technologies developed by Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. ? Rokus01 ( talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Brain size [3]. The paleolithic Homos Sapiens had also bigger brain size than global average but, the population in some European areas till today have large brain size. The effect of averaging (800 - 1800 ccm) is today 1300 ccm. Again this is only average worldwide Homo brain size. Unfortunately the data of 19,20 century Homo's brain sizes are almost entirely quoted in older sources. 71.239.229.11 ( talk) 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving here some material recently added regarding the FoxP2 gene.
Past research suggests the gene's modern human variant evolved fewer than 200,000 years ago. Now scientists find the Neanderthal FOXP2 gene is identical to ours. The ancestors of Neanderthals diverged from ours roughly 300,000 years ago, according to the latest thinking. Some studies have suggested that the two species might have intermingled after that, however. "It is possible that Neanderthals spoke just like we do," paleogeneticist Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, told LiveScience. Krause noted that some might suggest that interbreeding or "gene flow" (aka sex) between modern humans and Neanderthals led to us having FOXP2 in common. "However, we see no evidence for gene flow in the Y chromosome sequences," he said. Instead, the modern human and Neanderthal Y chromosomes are substantially different genetically.
The information on FoxP2 could maybe be developed somewhat, but we'd need sources using proper citations, and we'd need to use appropriate style, such as avoiding use of first person. We'd need to begin by identifying the point here that we're trying to add. The article may beg the question whether FoxP2 is introgression or convergent evolution or inheritance from a common ancestor or interbreeding. But ideally, we'd reference scholarly sources. Krause's comments aren't really that edifying, just seemingly tossing out possibilities. There are so many unresolved issues with this, such as the possibility of contamination and the likelihood that other genes are also involved in language, I guess I'd be inclined not to make too much of this beyond what the article says. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(Corrected typo for clarity Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
The anatomical difference may be due to changes in mating position. The preferred by large brainer birth pelvis moved pubis bone up. So the possible sexual behavior modification was changed due to this anatomical fact.
Even if Neanderthals extinct the nonanimalistic behaviour may be picked up by hidesaping incoming African Homos and with some substantial spatial differentiatial preferences used till today.
But since we can observe in nature (internet) enormous quantity of those (and surounding) anatomical body parts, it is easy to distinguish that beside flat and low some pictures present bunny hills in the area where the pubic bone moved up in Neanderthal, making possible to wider opening at birth for larger brained children.
The other aspect easy to observe (see internet) [19] is the anatomical future stil preexisting in Africa population where pelvis bone morphology stretching the-back a-back to make easier the more evolutionary rooted way to mixing genes into zygote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 ( talk) 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain this in Wiki-English? Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Since this has gotten changed twice now, let me point out my objection (since it's evidently not clear...). The 50K/30KYA dates are end dates, by which time the characteristics had disappeared. It may've been in progress until c30KYA, but by that time, it was pretty well done. Unless you're can demonstrate, & source, continuing changes after the 30KYA mark, leave it alone. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"almost exclusively carnivorous" This has been bugging me for awhile, so let me pose it. Is there evidence this contributed to their extinction? First, H. sap is omnivorous. Second, & the thing that got me thinking, is the relationship between sabretooth & their prey; it's believed, FWI read, when Mammoth ( HBC or otherwise) died out, the cats (which relied on them) did, too. Could/did the same happen to H. nean.? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
my wording meant if the neanderthals ate only meat and had only those teeth then they would die but they didnt they ate 95 percent meat and had sharper teeth which could change in a few generations of need —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
read more:
Cannibal feasts? In 1939 Guattari Cave on Monte Circeo, Italy, yielded stone tools and a skull of a rather heavily built Neandertal from the last glacial (about 50 thousand years old). What made this particular specimen a cause célèbre, though, was less the fossil itself than the supposed context. The original discovery had been made accidentally, by a workman, in almost complete darkness, and the skull – one of many bones lying on the cave floor – had been picked up and replaced on the ground by the time the paleontologist Alberto Blanc was called in. A reconstruction by Blanc showed the cranium lying inverted, a gaping hole in its base pointing straight up, within a ‘crown of stones’.
“Ignoring the fact that the cave floor was covered with stones and bones, and that here was no certainty about exactly where the skull had come from, Blanc built on the tradition of Krapina [Gorjanovic-Kramberger, 1906] and the Drachenloch to spring to the conclusion that the Guattari skull represented the remains of a cannibal feast. The individual had been killed by a blow to the right side of the head; the head had been severed from the body and placed upside down in a ring of stones; the skull base had been broken open to extract the brain (exactly as the anatomist Franz Weidenreich had suggested had happened to the Peking Man skulls from Zhoukoudian): the empty braincase had been used as a drinking cup before being replaced on the floor; and the broken animal bones scattered around the cave had accumulated as a result of further sacrifices associated with this bizarre cannibalistic ritual. We know now that Guattari Cave was in fact an ancient hyena den, and that the Neanderthal skull was simply one more of the numerous mammal bones with which it was littered” (p. 101). Actually, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals is far much older and based on a tragic misunderstanding. Trinkaus & Shipman (1993, pp. 104- 5) tell this story as follows:
“In his writings about La Naulette [a Belgian cave discovered in 1866], Dupont explicitly denied an extraordinary claim about the Neandertal fossils that had never yet been made (in print): that they were the remains of a cannibalistic feast. He argued that the fossils were naturally broken and located within a cave but were not associated with worked stones or hearths – items for which he deliberately searched. For all his care, he uncovered only broken animal bones and the three human bones. Perhaps he was indirectly responding to the charge of cannibalism that has been raised before, by a Monsieur Spring, who was writing of the more modern finds at Chauvaux, Belgium. Spring had found shattered human and animal bones mixed together in hearths and took this as logical evidence that both animals and humans had been treated as food. But Dupont’s finds did not include such evidence.
Bizarrely, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals started here – with a case that particularly did not suggest cannibalism – and has persisted, lingering about Neandertal remains like a poisonous miasma, until the present day. A purported summary of Dupont’s findings, written in English by C. Carter Blake [1867], stated that Dupont believed the La Naulette remains showed evidence of cannibalism. Was it mistranslation, misunderstanding, or carelessness? Then, in 1930, Ales Hrdlicka, a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian, again attributed to Dupont the claim that the La Naulette remains showed signs of cannibalism”.
source: by by Johan M.G. van der Dennen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.60 ( talk) 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just glancing over the article and got pretty discouraged. It needs so much cleanup, and I don't have time to work on it. The article has become quite skewed toward the view of the aggressive IPs who've been editing, and it's filled with their nonstandard English and nonencyclopedic commentary. I'm sorry to see this happen to what had been a pretty good article. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This may be relevant to speech as the mentalis muscle contributes to moving the lower lip and is used to voice a bilabial click.
Most extant languages don't have a bilabial click, or hardly any click sounds for that matter. So I'm sort of struggling to find the relevance of this to hypothetical language ability. If it is relevant to expressing or developing language, this should be properly cited itself, if it isn't, then it doesn't belong in the article. Shinobu ( talk) 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
africa may use clicks but no eurasian language i know of does and thats were the neanderthals were —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could point out the differences between a modern human who has a sloping cranium and a Neanderthal's sloping cranium. The way this article is laid out (modern humans have this head type while...) it suggests that no modern humans have sloping craniums. If there is to be a diagram (or picture at least) indicating that modern humans have straight foreheads then shouldn't there be some explanation as to why some humans don't have straight foreheads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.155.78 ( talk) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
But there are recorded modern humans with sloping heads steeper than some Neandethals found. Can someone explain the difference? 213.94.233.223 ( talk)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What do editors think about the addition earlier today of the crytozoology material? I don't spend a lot of time in the paleoanthropology articles so I don't know whether there's a consensus whether it's appropriate to add cryptozoological speculation to them. I'd be inclined to leave out such speculation, since there's so much of it, and since the evidence isn't of the same caliber as the research that's generally cited. Maybe as an external link? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
numbers := kya = k years ago
I don't understand why the citation was deleted regarding Neanderthal survival after 30,000 years ago, nor do I understand the edit summary for that edit. I hope this can be discussed. The two versions seems to say the same thing, except that it doesn't make sense to me to say that Neanderthal "traits" survived. Later the article uses "traces." is that what is meant? I believe I'll make that change. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that you mean the latest skeleton with Neanderthal traits. But why delete the citation that also discusses traces of Neanderthal culture? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC) My mistake. I agree with the deletion of the citation. It doesn't directly deal with evidence of late Neanderthal survival. Will edit the lead to conform to the remaining citation. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC) neanderthal tools from 24,000 years ago were found and a skeleton from 28,000 was found hope that helps some one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need the list of the names of the tool cultures in the lead. To my mind, it's unnecessary detail. The main point of that sentence is indicating the time span of Neanderthals. I think it would be fine to put back the information on bones. And the names of the tool cultures could be put later in the article, if it isn't already there. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) No response, so I made it a footnote. I like the chronology of the bones. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Should this, or better yet the original paper in Cell that it is based on, be included somewhere in the article? The first complete mDNA sample from H. Neanderthalis? [1] Edhubbard ( talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
How should this new information be added to the article? From Cell magazine, hot off the presses: A complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequence was reconstructed from a 38,000 year-old Neandertal individual with 8341 mtDNA sequences identified among 4.8 Gb of DNA generated from ∼0.3 g of bone. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years. Of the 13 proteins encoded in the mtDNA, subunit 2 of cytochrome c oxidase of the mitochondrial electron transport chain has experienced the largest number of amino acid substitutions in human ancestors since the separation from Neandertals. There is evidence that purifying selection in the Neandertal mtDNA was reduced compared with other primate lineages, suggesting that the effective population size of Neandertals was small. [8]-- —CynRN ( Talk) 21:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
could you drop the sequence string either above is not true or they sequenced something else. I hope (the divergent amino acid substitutions} is not in cytochrome b :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
full thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't understand this, partly because I didn't understand the English. Let's see if we can rewrite it.
In spacial Neanderthal range was found specimen dated to 5.3 kya having also similar anatomical characteristic. Safely may be estimated that this characteristic is persistent in major H.N. area from 5300 to 0 ya.
Also, seems like we'd need a source and more detail. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope all is understandable. If not point to point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes i do. Plese say what originaly you did not understand so the text may be rephrased to be easier.
did you overlooked a point? 5 having also similar anatomical characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Progress. I deleted that clause, so now the referent of your sentence is clear. So what kind of specimen was found 5,000 years ago and what suggested it had red hair? Was it a Neanderthal specimen? How could that be, if as the article says, the latest Neanderthal presence dates to 25,000 years ago? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why the tool cultures have been added to the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. Please explain why this information is important to the lead. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
We really shouldn't be adding something like this, which is meaningless to a general reader, without more context.
Please let's discuss. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much for the feedback. This IP seems quite knowledgeable and hopefully we can work out something that is meaningful to a general reader. Here's his latest version, which I just removed from the article and which I still think is too technical.
The same paper show 4 amino acids substitutions in mtDNA translated to changed COX2 protein [10] of Cytochrome c oxidase subunit II. Human amino acid on HS/ HN differing positions: 22, 54, 95 and 146 in COX2 is most similar to Baboon/ Macaque while Neanderthal mtDNA decode is more similar to Hominidae proteins of Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan. RAO hyphothesis assumption is based on matrilinear replacement of stronger Neanderthal by weaker but more social/modern wave of H.S. from Africa; however Baboon and Macaque are even behind great apes family but more distant gene transitions are known to biology.
Once the general point is clear and details that are too technical eliminated in favor of more general language, we can put it back. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
"from a 38,000-year-old bone"--what happens if interbreeding occured in an area 37,000 years ago, or 30,000 years ago? One fragment from the early modern human settlement era is no proof that interbreeding did not occur. It may even have occured 40,000 years ago--just not in the area that bone came from. Considering the very low population density of both modern humans and neandertals, we can't assume mixed genes from a specific area would have spread quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.118.240 ( talk) 01:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The same paper showed four amino acid translations in mitochondrial DNA. [11] It suggests Homo sapens is a closer relative to baboons and [or?] macaques, while Neandertal is nearer chimpanzee, gorilla, or [and?] orangutan. The Recent African Origin hyphothesis is based on matrilinear replacement of Neanderthal by H.sap.
"Neanderthal skulls were first discovered in Engis, Belgium (1829) and in Forbes' Quarry" So why isn't H.nean. named for Engis? I presume it's because they weren't recognized as sufficiently different. Some explanation is in order. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Another question about the origin of Neanderthal....It seems to be infered that Neanderthals did indeed evolve Europe; from the information provided on this page it is almost impossible not to come to that conclusion, but yet nowhere is it stated explicitly that Neanderthal is a species that originated in Europe. For instance, I see two well documented inferences -- (1) Neanderthal traits are said to have appeared first in Europe; (2) Map of neanderthal sites points exclusively to Europe. It is put forward in the tool section that H.erectus and H.heidelbergensis are the ancestors of H.Neanderthals; it is, however, undocumented. H.erectus seems like a likely candidate, but without a credible source, I simply assume that someone came to this conclusion by his or her own logic. What got me thinking about this was the previous understanding I held, that all hominids evolved in east Africa; though, I don't know why I thought this. Also, if it is the case (that they evolved in Europe), exactly where in Europe did they evolve? It seems like there would have had to been some smaller region that acted as an "evolutionary hub" (though perhaps not...)
Likely this is another one of those things were knowone knows for what the deal is for sure. Even so, as I was trying to piece together human evolution and the progression of hominins, this was one of the obstacles I ran into. In that case, even if nothing is known for sure, it might be helpful to add a section about Neanderthals own history (migration, evolutionary ancestors, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahoevel ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Editor 71.201.241.2 continues to add lots of content that is problematic, because of the English and because it's too technical and is meaningless to a general reader. I don't have time to go through the many many edits. Not sure what to do. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's the Section that I reverted from the introduction. i hope this can be used in a separate section Autodidactyl ( talk) 17:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. to link the Aurignacian to H. neanderthalensis is a stretch. To link them to the Gravettian would seem to be pretty far off. Furthermore, the Lagar Velho child is highly dubious and it is far from unequivocally a mix between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. The archaic traits it can be argued to exhibit are furthermore not autapomorphic to H. neanderthalensis. Adding to this is that recent DNA analysis (as is seen in the text) does not suggest mixing - which of course could have changed later in principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.87.114 ( talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you trying 'in good faith' find out the truth perhaps i can ask for help to wording off the coincidental/non_coincidental host switching from Macaque and sourced here. Do you think it is relevant to this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 ( talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's another phrase that I don't understand:
present day DNA (mtDNA, nDNA) sequencing to find differences in ancient signals in subpopulation gene pools.
Mainly the word "signals." Could we rephrase this? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted these two sentences from the lead:
The prospect of coexistence as two reproductively separated species may be mistaken, due to misdating of modern (5ky old) human bones. [14] This continues to be reported as correct in popular mass media. [15] [16]
It doesn't seem like the lead is the place to get into the debate regarding interbreeding. The context of these sentences didn't make any suggestion either way regarding that issue, so I don't understand why it was inserted. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe there is no reference to Michael Crichton's 'Eaters of the Dead' under his section. He produces extensive detail in his novel alleging that the 'Wendol' described in his book are a tribe of Homo Neanderthalensis having survived to recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.161.140 ( talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
When did the term start developing its negative connotations - usually used of a male's attitudes towards women (in general or particular)?
Given that the structure of Neanderthal society is unknown surely the term is unappropriate - why not (historically known culture of choice)? Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC) in my opinion neanderthal should really be a good thing to be called considering they were stronger and had larger brains than homo sapeins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Neanderthals were stronger than us, but slower and had little running resistance. In addiction you have to remember that Neanderthal brain was heavier and bigger than ours, but that doesn't mean that they were more intelligent. The term "neanderthal" started to develope negative connotations because at the beginning of the XX century archaeologists tought that these men were really primitive and ape-like. Xzn1989 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.237.254 ( talk) 16:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For Richard G. Klein is becoming increasingly clear that the Neanderthals and their modern human successors did not mix and coexisted with modern humans up to 15,000 citation needed years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe. [17] In the same source abstract is writen oposite : it remains unclear why they disappeared shortly after modern humans arrived in Europe Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner believed that the population of Neanderthals was never much more than 10,000 individuals. [18]
An interesting article in Science Daily debunking the stupid Neanderthal myth. [2] What about adding something about this in the lead? Maybe: "Although Neanderthals have sometimes been portrayed as dumb brutes, research on their stone tools suggests they were as intelligent as modern humans." TimidGuy ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
New investigations debunk longheld textbook beliefs of inferior intelectual capabilities by showing that early stone tool technologies developed by Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals. ? Rokus01 ( talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Brain size [3]. The paleolithic Homos Sapiens had also bigger brain size than global average but, the population in some European areas till today have large brain size. The effect of averaging (800 - 1800 ccm) is today 1300 ccm. Again this is only average worldwide Homo brain size. Unfortunately the data of 19,20 century Homo's brain sizes are almost entirely quoted in older sources. 71.239.229.11 ( talk) 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving here some material recently added regarding the FoxP2 gene.
Past research suggests the gene's modern human variant evolved fewer than 200,000 years ago. Now scientists find the Neanderthal FOXP2 gene is identical to ours. The ancestors of Neanderthals diverged from ours roughly 300,000 years ago, according to the latest thinking. Some studies have suggested that the two species might have intermingled after that, however. "It is possible that Neanderthals spoke just like we do," paleogeneticist Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, told LiveScience. Krause noted that some might suggest that interbreeding or "gene flow" (aka sex) between modern humans and Neanderthals led to us having FOXP2 in common. "However, we see no evidence for gene flow in the Y chromosome sequences," he said. Instead, the modern human and Neanderthal Y chromosomes are substantially different genetically.
The information on FoxP2 could maybe be developed somewhat, but we'd need sources using proper citations, and we'd need to use appropriate style, such as avoiding use of first person. We'd need to begin by identifying the point here that we're trying to add. The article may beg the question whether FoxP2 is introgression or convergent evolution or inheritance from a common ancestor or interbreeding. But ideally, we'd reference scholarly sources. Krause's comments aren't really that edifying, just seemingly tossing out possibilities. There are so many unresolved issues with this, such as the possibility of contamination and the likelihood that other genes are also involved in language, I guess I'd be inclined not to make too much of this beyond what the article says. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(Corrected typo for clarity Jackiespeel ( talk) 16:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
The anatomical difference may be due to changes in mating position. The preferred by large brainer birth pelvis moved pubis bone up. So the possible sexual behavior modification was changed due to this anatomical fact.
Even if Neanderthals extinct the nonanimalistic behaviour may be picked up by hidesaping incoming African Homos and with some substantial spatial differentiatial preferences used till today.
But since we can observe in nature (internet) enormous quantity of those (and surounding) anatomical body parts, it is easy to distinguish that beside flat and low some pictures present bunny hills in the area where the pubic bone moved up in Neanderthal, making possible to wider opening at birth for larger brained children.
The other aspect easy to observe (see internet) [19] is the anatomical future stil preexisting in Africa population where pelvis bone morphology stretching the-back a-back to make easier the more evolutionary rooted way to mixing genes into zygote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.11 ( talk) 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain this in Wiki-English? Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Since this has gotten changed twice now, let me point out my objection (since it's evidently not clear...). The 50K/30KYA dates are end dates, by which time the characteristics had disappeared. It may've been in progress until c30KYA, but by that time, it was pretty well done. Unless you're can demonstrate, & source, continuing changes after the 30KYA mark, leave it alone. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"almost exclusively carnivorous" This has been bugging me for awhile, so let me pose it. Is there evidence this contributed to their extinction? First, H. sap is omnivorous. Second, & the thing that got me thinking, is the relationship between sabretooth & their prey; it's believed, FWI read, when Mammoth ( HBC or otherwise) died out, the cats (which relied on them) did, too. Could/did the same happen to H. nean.? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
my wording meant if the neanderthals ate only meat and had only those teeth then they would die but they didnt they ate 95 percent meat and had sharper teeth which could change in a few generations of need —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
read more:
Cannibal feasts? In 1939 Guattari Cave on Monte Circeo, Italy, yielded stone tools and a skull of a rather heavily built Neandertal from the last glacial (about 50 thousand years old). What made this particular specimen a cause célèbre, though, was less the fossil itself than the supposed context. The original discovery had been made accidentally, by a workman, in almost complete darkness, and the skull – one of many bones lying on the cave floor – had been picked up and replaced on the ground by the time the paleontologist Alberto Blanc was called in. A reconstruction by Blanc showed the cranium lying inverted, a gaping hole in its base pointing straight up, within a ‘crown of stones’.
“Ignoring the fact that the cave floor was covered with stones and bones, and that here was no certainty about exactly where the skull had come from, Blanc built on the tradition of Krapina [Gorjanovic-Kramberger, 1906] and the Drachenloch to spring to the conclusion that the Guattari skull represented the remains of a cannibal feast. The individual had been killed by a blow to the right side of the head; the head had been severed from the body and placed upside down in a ring of stones; the skull base had been broken open to extract the brain (exactly as the anatomist Franz Weidenreich had suggested had happened to the Peking Man skulls from Zhoukoudian): the empty braincase had been used as a drinking cup before being replaced on the floor; and the broken animal bones scattered around the cave had accumulated as a result of further sacrifices associated with this bizarre cannibalistic ritual. We know now that Guattari Cave was in fact an ancient hyena den, and that the Neanderthal skull was simply one more of the numerous mammal bones with which it was littered” (p. 101). Actually, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals is far much older and based on a tragic misunderstanding. Trinkaus & Shipman (1993, pp. 104- 5) tell this story as follows:
“In his writings about La Naulette [a Belgian cave discovered in 1866], Dupont explicitly denied an extraordinary claim about the Neandertal fossils that had never yet been made (in print): that they were the remains of a cannibalistic feast. He argued that the fossils were naturally broken and located within a cave but were not associated with worked stones or hearths – items for which he deliberately searched. For all his care, he uncovered only broken animal bones and the three human bones. Perhaps he was indirectly responding to the charge of cannibalism that has been raised before, by a Monsieur Spring, who was writing of the more modern finds at Chauvaux, Belgium. Spring had found shattered human and animal bones mixed together in hearths and took this as logical evidence that both animals and humans had been treated as food. But Dupont’s finds did not include such evidence.
Bizarrely, the claim that Neandertals were cannibals started here – with a case that particularly did not suggest cannibalism – and has persisted, lingering about Neandertal remains like a poisonous miasma, until the present day. A purported summary of Dupont’s findings, written in English by C. Carter Blake [1867], stated that Dupont believed the La Naulette remains showed evidence of cannibalism. Was it mistranslation, misunderstanding, or carelessness? Then, in 1930, Ales Hrdlicka, a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian, again attributed to Dupont the claim that the La Naulette remains showed signs of cannibalism”.
source: by by Johan M.G. van der Dennen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.60 ( talk) 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just glancing over the article and got pretty discouraged. It needs so much cleanup, and I don't have time to work on it. The article has become quite skewed toward the view of the aggressive IPs who've been editing, and it's filled with their nonstandard English and nonencyclopedic commentary. I'm sorry to see this happen to what had been a pretty good article. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This may be relevant to speech as the mentalis muscle contributes to moving the lower lip and is used to voice a bilabial click.
Most extant languages don't have a bilabial click, or hardly any click sounds for that matter. So I'm sort of struggling to find the relevance of this to hypothetical language ability. If it is relevant to expressing or developing language, this should be properly cited itself, if it isn't, then it doesn't belong in the article. Shinobu ( talk) 22:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
africa may use clicks but no eurasian language i know of does and thats were the neanderthals were —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachoop ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone could point out the differences between a modern human who has a sloping cranium and a Neanderthal's sloping cranium. The way this article is laid out (modern humans have this head type while...) it suggests that no modern humans have sloping craniums. If there is to be a diagram (or picture at least) indicating that modern humans have straight foreheads then shouldn't there be some explanation as to why some humans don't have straight foreheads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.155.78 ( talk) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
But there are recorded modern humans with sloping heads steeper than some Neandethals found. Can someone explain the difference? 213.94.233.223 ( talk)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)