Were Homo Neanderthalensis smart?

>tfw he has my brow

have I never succeeded at anything because I have an inferior neanderthal brain, bros?

Yh they were they had synthetic adhesives invented long before us, not to mention you need to be smart to thrive in ice age Europe, they may look like apes but thats because their brain structure is different from ours, crows have small heads yet have the reasoning skills of human 7 year olds this is because the brain structure of crows is alien to us since it goes back to 286 million years ago. Neanderthals are genetically distinct from us that they are still smart yet look apish, it could also some of our more ape looking cousins like Denisova could have been smart as well.

Are you a slav, user? I've only ever seen slavs sporting neanderthal brows.

Perhaps because you human, the sloped forehead of neanderthals have nothing to do with their intelligence.

Valuev would be the best example of it.

A lot of words just to really say nothing.

You are obviousy retarded user.

the proportions seem wrong, neanderthals were very long headed, more so than modern humans, with the additional brachicephalism that gave them about 150cc of additional brain mass compared to the average human
I don't doubt that the prefrontal cortex might have been smaller but the skulls aren't proportional

Yes

Would you neaderthal loli?

>Same forehead as the Neanderthal
that explains a lot of things

That's a big skull.

...

really makes you think

I am not the one saying a bunch of ultimately empty words to cover up for the lack of a proper argument.

Oh, and punctuation. Try it sometime.

Looks like shakira

...

T H I C C
H
I
C
C

Jesus christ no wonder our ancestors went full muh dik on these creatures.

Is this representation proportional? Must've looked ridiculous to see some 5'5 muscular manlet with a head that overproportionally big

seems so

...

HOLY SHIT!

they were a lot wider and more stout though

I should add though, the typical cro-mag on the right is quite short faced and wide skulled, while modern Euros can have fairly long faces all around, so that can perhaps be misconceiving as skull shapes in humans even from a specific group can vary quite a bit

According to Louis Cachet, the white man comes from the neanderthal.

The homo capensis had a larger cranial capacity than us.

I think its safe to say, that werent the smartest hominids the ones that survived.

Boskop skulls were just poor fucks suffering from hydrocephaly

>Louis Cachet?
>I wonder what this man's credentials and theories are
>google
>fucking varg vikernes smiling face

fuck you, why are you faggot so into that asshole?

They'd be treated as abbos in Australia, who out of all human groups are the most divergent from homo sapiens. They'd be absorbed eventually.

I always thought the meme about this Russian dude being a Neanderthal was just a joke.

But that side profile... Holy shit. Literally like a living fossil. Is this just a coincidence? Or does he have a lot of expressed Neanderthal genes?

I think it's just a condition(can't remember its name) producing some features that look archaic, like the massive brow ridge.
But at the same time he has a massive chin and a short head, which aren't archaic.

I don't think Varg would be the first to come up with it, I guess he is perhaps following some fringe multiregionalist idea.

Actually you can see in the picture how his features, apart from the massive brows, are not neanderthal-like at all. Just brutish-looking.

Nope, but they were gays and it's why they were extinct

No Homo Neanderthalensis

They were literally so closeted they went extinct so 'No Homo Neanderthalensis' became a factually correct statement.

Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern humans, scientists find theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientist

There are groups of people in Africa who are more genetically isolated from the rest of humanity than australian aboriginals. Abbos have been isolated for 90k-150k years, there are african cultural groups looking at more like 170k-270k years.

For a context of comparison, humans have been largely distinct from neanderthalis for 550k-650k years, and we could still breed with them to an extent.

Imagine her mouth, never having brushed her teeth (much less bathed) once in her entire life, rank with bits of mammoth fat and deer flesh. Neanderthals also had stronger jaws, used for chewing tough meat and (when they could find them) tubers, so I'd be wary of putting my penis in such a jaw. They are also known to have engaged in cannibalism. Whether this was a desperate/pragmatic survival thing or routine is uncertain.

Anyway, they certainly possessed a degree of intelligence. Much smarter than chimps. They could learn and pass on tool-making, and probably had rudimentary language. But I recall reading that one of the reasons for their extinction is that they just weren't fast-learners, and got outpaced by both climate change and humans (they were already in slow decline when humans showed up). They were not very social creatures, certainly not compared to humans. They lived in smallish family groups, but never (so far as we can tell) larger groups of multiple unrelated individuals as humans do. This would most certainly have been a 'chicken-or-the-egg' scenario limiting their overall potential.

Neanderthals are smarter than humans they couldnt adapt due to mechanical physiological reasons not intelligence reasons. They were built for the ice age so the warming of Europe would eventualy kill them.

>Imagine her mouth, never having brushed her teeth (much less bathed)
>le stupid caveman never bathed or washed their mouths may may
You have to be 18 to post here kiddo.

...

>they were smarter than us by a mile we were retarded savages compared to them.

No they weren't.

Yes they were as they developed in ice age Europe while we developed in Africa so obviously we were morons compared to them.

Africans don't have Neantherdal admixture but have the most primitive skull shape the lowest brain capacity and the lowest IQ someone explain.

>Neanderthals are smarter than humans
First of all, 'were'. But even that statement I would be cautious about making. Smarter how? They were good tool-makers, and were better with textiles (sewing and weaving) than contemporary humans, but they were specialized to fairly stable conditions, and showed little skill with rapid innovation (a human speciality)

Evidence seems pretty clear that neanderthals didn't live in large groups (male-led family groups), and towards the end were suffering from shallow gene pools (i.e. a thinly-spread population). They certainly weren't stupid, but overall, humans were quicker and more adaptable.

Neanderthals are not cavemen, doofus.

There is evidence of the possible use of toothpicks, but you can try an experiment yourself. Simply don't brush your teeth, ever, for a year, only using a toothpick once every couple days. You may avoid some cavities (depends on your diet, as prehistoric people almost never ate sugar, which is tooth enemy #1). But your breath will be pretty rank. I guess neanderthals just didn't care, as they probably didn't kiss. They certainly groomed themselves from time to time, but again that does little against smell.

What's that cherrypicked photo trying to show?
>believing in physiognomy
>2016

t. someone who doesn't know what physiognomy is

t. someone who has nothing of value to add in this thread but pseudo-scientific myths.

>acknowledging people of sub Saharan African descent tend to have a certain skull and facial structure is pseudoscience
sod off

It means blacks are living fossils.

>pretending that it's somehow meaningful

Fucking pathetic back-peddling. If you're going to write "Africans ... have the most primitive skull shape the lowest brain capacity and the lowest IQ someone explain", at least have the balls to stick to your position.

This is Veeky Forums, take your garbage to /pol/ or /x/ or whatever.

Neanders are not human so human measurements have no meaning to them so they can have apish skulls and it doesnt mean anything, but blacks are human and by human measurements its means that blacks have defective frontal lobes.

Would you like to pet the rabbits now?

No; I'm simply saying you have no idea what physiognomy is.

Noting the difference between race skull shape and size is NOT physiognomy.

>being literally this autistic
OK, here: Racial craniometry, phrenology and other scientific racism measuring techniques are also junk "science".

People should talk about Homo Erectus more I think. They were around much longer, cooking over a fire started with them, and they're much more interesting overall yet no one ever talks about them.

>junk science
But if so why are they true? It is very obvious that blacks have defective frontal lobes because they do act like lobotimized people.

>junk "science"

Nope

For you

nice

>we were better at using tools while they were better at making more complex tools.

UM Wut more info pls

They aren't, moron.

>BUT LOOK, NUMBERS ALWAYS MEAN SOMETHING!!
You haven't proven anything. And protip: you can't, and frankly Veeky Forums isn't the place to disprove your cretin-tier pseudo-scientific junk theories.

I must remind you that this is a SFW board

Yes they are, listen fucktard there is this called the AVERAGE BLACK HUMAN, yes not all blacks act like psychotic children but 90% of them do.

Homo :DDD

I think Veeky Forums has a boner for neanderthals because they were so similar to us. Much more relatable than homo erectus.

On a side note, how far back would you have to go before hominid women wouldn't find you attractive?

I imagine that if I were to meet a homo erectus woman I'd look like a neonatal alien in comparison to most men she'd seen.

>On a side note, how far back would you have to go before hominid women wouldn't find you attractive?

Up to some crucial bottleneck phase perhaps?

Anyway, it's interdasting to think how naturally a person would relate into his/her mother. Maybe a grandmother, yes? And grand-grand-etc. mother? And yet, we slowly slide into Homo Erectus with whom we could have trouble relating with.

Fast forwarding into early primates, mammals, etc. Our relatives.

The odd part is that we can relate to domesticated animals much better than we can our close relatives. I find apes to be alien and terrifying, and I think I'd react to many early hominids the same way. A dog, on the other hand? Easily relatable.

Maybe something with apes fail to trigger the nurturing instincts unlike some other mammals.

could it be that the tendency to dehumanise others we dont like is a instinctive remainder from a time humans still lived next to other hominids?

>long headed
>braciphalic

You're not very smart, are you?

>I'd look like a neonatal alien in comparison to most men she'd seen.
>mfw that describes my current relation to Homo sapien women in the year 2016 perfectly

That's called the Uncanny Valley, or the original German concept "unheimlichkeit". (First fleshed out by Freud, which is one of his concepts that isn't considered junk today.)

Things which are familiar, yet somehow 'off' and unusual, cause a cognitive dissonance, and tend to lead to rejection of that thing, rather than rationalization (and acceptance).

With apes and hominids, we can clearly see ourselves/our origins. Thus it is a bit freaky. It's the same reason most people don't like robots which look too 'human', and why aliens and horror movie monsters are usually humanoid. It's just scarier that way.

It's known as "uncanny valley", humans react negatively to things that are humanlike but not human.

>those lips
imagine da succ

Uhm premodern humans have much better teeth. starches are hell on teeth. They literally know which people were "poor" and who was "rich" in some ancient burial grounds because poor people couldnt afford grain so they had good teeth, rich people had awful teeth

Doesn't take much to beat modern humans at intelligence, our advanced are accomplished by 1% freaks of humanity who surpass normal intelligence. There are many animals that are smarter than that bitch Kelly down the road.

Hey fuck you. We asians dont have a chin.

Are we archaic? But we dont have brow ridges unlike white ppl so i guess were ok

Asians, American Indian/regular Indians and caucasians share a lot of neanderthal DNA but blacks have non.

The aborigines of Australia literally have no structural difference between homo erectus but people wont acknowledge them as being the last remaining homo erectus.

They were just regular people with odd features that the evolutionists turned into hunched over ape-men to fit their twisted theory.

That's bullshit but I believe it

It aint bull. It's in my anthropology textbook. Right next to a picture of an aboriginal with a walk-e talk-e and he's smiling the caption reads "But they're clearly modern"

Or something like that.

I googled all I find are a bunch of stormnigger blogs provide proofs

>It's in my anthropology textbook.
Is it mein kampf?

Here's a neanderthal and skhul humanoid (unknown taxonomy)...

thegeneticgenealogist.com/2007/05/15/are-aboriginal-australians-and-new-guineans-the-modern-day-descendants-of-the-extinct-species-homo-erectus/

There's tons more just adjust your search criteria. I would take a picture of my text book but I took that class in 2011 and the book is at my parents place. It's pretty funny though. I think we're in denial about physiological differences. I think people are afraid if we acknowledge that we're different we'll kill each other more.

...and here's an abo skull.

I'm still skeptical abos are dumb but no way are they Homo Erectus dumb