Are neanderthals oppressed?

There's plenty of evidence, it's just dismissed by the magnates of academic anthropology and always has been. We're not ready to be objective

Neanderthal's were being classified about the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species - look at what a shitstorm that started. Do you think humans are ready to consider that we might not be the smartest hominids to ever live?

My Uncle was a professor, he told me about a test an anthropologist would give his undergrads to test their objectivity. Two groups were presented with the same photographs of two similarly altered femur bones; one group was told it was a human site, the other a neanderthal one.

>Group who think it's sapien celebrates these remarkable flutes carved out of bone, probably in veneration of their dead - some burial practice showing a proto-religion and sophisticated culture of not only tool making but social recreation too!

>Group who thinks it's neanderthal comes to the unanimous conclusion that this is either evidence of some thals who out of desperation resorted to cannibalism, hence the teeth marks - or evidence of thals incapability to dispose of their dead (dogs must have gotten to them).

SAME EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN.
Anthro-racism baka.

It all goes back to the Aristotelian idea:

>"Of all the animals, man has the brain largest in proportion to his size."
Well... Neanderthals fuck this mentality up BIGLY. These European Hominids with higher Encephalization Quotients not only revitalize race science but also evoke the idea that intelligence is not necessarily conducive to survival.

It's very troubling and a truth best left ignored according to our current academic climate.

Neandertal probably was smarter.

If only he had not relied so heavily on Megafauna.

RIP In Peace, Smratest Monkey

I have both, what's bad about it?

So Neanderthals were tfw when too inteligent to live.

Abos didn't even have pitch and resin glue. Thals managed to have that.

The apparent lack of Neanderthal technology and percieved unintelligence is mostly down to low numbers that prevented the dissemination, survival and adaptation of ideas.

This is nonsense.

>X-ray frames of neanderthals
I hope you don't believe this shit

Nice argument there. Sure showed him, that one statement where you just brushed it off and disagreed without saying anything substantial to counter him or back it up.

Even if he was smarter, he definitely had greater disadvantages than Modern Man.

Modern Man is much more of a generalist, with greater all around physical ability.

"What's throwing?"
Asked Neandertal man

I thought anthropologists abandoned the notion that Neanderthals were knuckle dragging retards in the 90s

You should always dismiss someone's opinion entirely when they start using their uncle as a source.

They abandoned it earlier than that. I took more anthropology courses as an undergrad than anything else and I never heard a single person claim that, never read a single paper or book that claimed that, and the fact that they had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans was presented matter-of-factly and nobody was remotely shocked by the information. Dude's talking out of his ass.

I thought I remembered reading somewhere that the neanderthals were incredibly static. They would use the same stone ax "tools" for hundreds if not thousands of years while homo sapien cultures next door slowly improved them.

If they were smart then they must have been racist-conception-of-asians smart cranked up to 11. Maybe they had comparatively great memory and good spatial analysis but not an ounce of creative thinking. They just did the same shit over and over until literally the earth changed for them and wiped them out.

humans spent 190,000 of the past 200,000 years living at the same level as Neanderthals

They were probably just out competed by Cro Magnon.

Sapiens were less dependent on Ice Age conditions and Fauna, and had lower energy requirements. Also, we could fish and had ranged combat.

You can be as physically strong as you want, but a Strong Ape is nothing next to a 1200lbs deer.

Bullshit. Humans domesticated dogs, made complex art and invented pottery.

>I thought anthropologists abandoned the notion that Neanderthals were knuckle dragging retards in the 90s

They didn't, neanderthals weren't human persons with a stockier frame. Neanderthal sites do not show evidence of advanced symbolic reasoning. This is not to say they were wholly dumb in a brainspeed sense, but probably had a greatly lesser faculty for language and symbolic abstraction.

What about the cave?

>I took more anthropology courses as an undergrad

> the fact that they had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans was presented matter-of-factly

They taught facts matter-of-factly? Well it's good to see that western academia has not fallen quite as low as I have been lead to believe kek.

What sophistry did your opinion machine of a professor give you to explain their larger brains offering them no salvation?

Or was this question not even asked?

Neanderthals - ancestors of whites. They had big brains, but Middle East civilizations had had political and ideological dominance in Ancient Greece and Italy. Current Europeans - mix of Neandhertals and Arabs.

Not sure what you mean, this perhaps?

nature.com/news/neanderthals-built-cave-structures-and-no-one-knows-why-1.19975

It's all up to interpetation, but their symbolic expressions never seem to be abstracted further from the immediate and concrete. They would bury the dead, but why would they not leave flowers, mementos, or anything else with the dead?

At best, they were intellectual peers burdened with an autistic rigidity

there isn't any evidence for what anyone in this thread is claiming t b h.

here are some facts to clear up differentiating neanderthalis with sapiens.

neanderthalis, denisovae and sapiens are three offshoots of heidelbergensis, and these three hominids shared common ancestry around 300-500k years ago. all three of these hominids continued to adapt to their respective environments and contexts, just like everything else alive on earth. neanderthalis hung around europe and west asia, denisovae around east asia and sapiens in africa.

around 50-60k years ago, a bottlenecked group of sapiens in what we now consider to be the middle east began making significant technological advances. whether this is due to superior inherent intelligence or cultural traditions, there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever. this group of sapiens, "cro-magnon", are the ancestors of all living humans other than sub-saharan africans, australasians and negrotoid populations. these people would expand and genetically absorb almost all pre-existing populations outside of sub-saharan africa, australia and some remote parts and islands of asia.

why we consider neanderthalis and denisovae to be a separate species that is not human, I am not sure, as we could breed with them. it makes just as much sense to differentiate cro-magnon from australasians or africans. there is even the possibility that australasians are descendants of one of these heidelbegensis offshoots, which is not popular to discuss in academia.

I see little reason to consider a species we could breed with a separate species.

Nobody knows exactly why they died out. Being displaced/outcompeted by humans is one possibility (and that could have happened violently or peacefully, with Neanderthals interbreeding with a much larger human population until eventually there were no pure Neanderthals left). Inability to adapt to a changing climate is another. Any given archaeologist/anthropologist is going to have their pet theory they favor, and they're by no means mutually exclusive (as with most standing mysteries in archaeology, e.g. the Maya collapse, which of course had no one single cause -- although that hasn't stopped people from publishing papers trying to establish one, because academia is silly sometimes).

The upshot is, there's no definite answer, and anybody who tries to give you one without mentioning the level of controversy is peddling bullshit.

You're wrong. Again, this is a controversial area -- nobody's sure what their social structure was like, there's no consensus even on the extent of their material culture, people have different opinions on how their intelligence & capacity for abstract reasoning compared to modern humans -- but absolutely nobody thinks they were "knuckle dragging retards." As for their capacity for language, there's evidence for that as far back as H. heidelbergensis, even H. erectus. Neanderthals may well have been less developed in that regard than AMHs, but the classic image of them crudely gesturing and grunting is simply bullshit with no basis.

>denivosan
into the trash it goes. All they have is a finger bone and a tooth to go by.

talking about the red deer cave people makes more sense

>it makes just as much sense to differentiate cro-magnon from australasians or africans. there is even the possibility that australasians are descendants of one of these heidelbegensis offshoots, which is not popular to discuss in academia.

What? Oceanian populations and Negritos have the same ancestors as other Eurasians except for some minor Denisovan admixture in some of them.

Just in the last 10000 years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K2

Not really, they had less prefrontal cortex

and an enormous amount of genetic evidence of interbreeding with a hominid in the area in modern humans.

and eurasians have the same ancestors as sub-saharan africans. I am talking about two specific migration waves that happened before cro-magnon's development in the middle east, that we now refer to as negritos and australasians. "oceanian" is an umbrella term that contains these two peoples as well as descendants of cro-magnon.

Also,
>Or was this question not even asked?
of course it was brought up. At least several times. I mean, I don't exactly remember specifics, it's been a while since undergrad, but the point I'm trying to make is, while I don't know what happened that gave you such a low opinion of "western academia," your pessimism is unrealistic. Excessive cynicism is just as naive as wide-eyed idealism.

The divisions between species are fuzzy and often arbitrary. There are plenty of species, not just in this area but in others, that can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Why separate species? Convention, convenience, ease of classification and communication, all of the above. Some people do classify Neanderthals as H. sapiens neanderthalensis, and they're no more wrong nor right than the other guys.

Nope. Domestication of dogs happened very early as did artistic innovations. Pottery is 20k ago or so

>but the classic image of them crudely gesturing and grunting is simply bullshit with no basis.

What you stated is not true, in the same way people with intellectual disabilities are not categorically 'retarded', or 'freaks', or whatever, but stereotypes draw upon something. Academia hasn't rejected the idea of neanderthals having significantly less intelligence or a peculiar and less adaptive mode, so the cultural figure of the dumb brute is granted enough slack to remain

/pol/ thinking neanderthals as genius autists being cucked out of existence is ridiculous, so is the more subtle notion of a superior neanderthal

>Implying Humans do not Come from H rhodesiensis
>mfw Lumpers are near

tfw you build 30 foot wide painted and decorated dwellings during the Würm using the bones of all the mammoth you've slain - only to be slandered by soft handed liberals who go to College with mummy and daddy's money to fill their shrunken minds with lies that make nice lullabies.

tfw people still operate under the supposition that incompetence is the only thing that will result in the extinction of species/bloodline.

tfw I can't reconcile this nonsense with the fact that the greatest mind our planet has produced considered his greatest accomplishment to be life long celibacy.

tfw
thinks he's special

So how would Homo Erectus behave if we brought them back to life?

you're right, I lump rhodesiensis with heidelbegensis without hesitation.

I know what I'm talking about but I don't have a clue what you are on about.

The genetic division between the humans of Eurasia doesn't follow your description.

I'm not sure why we're still arguing to be honest -- I'm not trying to claim there's universal acceptance that Neanderthals were "smarter" than humans (insofar as that's even a meaningful claim), or even that it's anything other than a minority theory. Fortunately most archaeologists do not go on /pol/. But equally the idea that they may have been comparable to humans in intelligence and had relatively complex social structures and so on is also taken seriously. Hence, "controversy."

In general, the trend has been one of increasing respect for their intellectual capabilities, whatever they were, which doesn't mean the inevitable conclusion is that they were geniuses or even as sophisticated as humans.

celibacy is the cause of massive intellect, not the result of it.

imagine how much more knowledgeable and skilled you would be if you didn't spend any time worrying about the opinions of others, getting a gf, sex-related stuff, all of these things.

I bet you don't even believe in our Lord and Savior, H. ergaster

>tfw user who probably took antho classes at an american college thinks I care about his opinions

>tfw despite his digits he has the reading comprehension skills of a Neanderthal caricature.

I thought Ergaster was a more intelligent Erectus.

genetic drift strongly suggests common ancestry pre-dating the emergence of cro-magnon between eurasians/americans and australasians/negritos. this is not a popular subject in modern academia, I wouldn't be surprised if it was treated with delicacy wherever you went.

Some people lump him in with Erectus, claiming him as an African representative

...

Everything is done with computers. It doesn't matter if it's popular or not. The programs they wrote to analyze human genetic variation aren't biased.

What do you mean? Erectus was in Africa.

that's what I'm telling you. studies on genetic drift confirm common ancestry with other eurasians pre-dating the emergence of cro-magnon, making it physically impossible for them to be descendants of them, even by the most conservative estimates when it comes to australasians in particular.

This doesn't make any sense.
Cro-Magnon is just a word used for Anatomically Modern Humans(AMH) in Europe.
These people were also close relatives of these Australasians you keep speaking of.

Nobody claims Africans are descended from Cro-Magnon, do they?

Cro-Magnon was just the predecessor to Modern Middle Easterns/Europeans, not Humanity

>why we consider neanderthalis and denisovae to be a separate species that is not human, I am not sure, as we could breed with them.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160606103654.htm

yeah we could mate w them, kind of, with sketchy results

a black nignog fucking your white arian waifu will produce an offspring as fit as you would with her

sorry

>yeah we could mate w them, kind of, with sketchy results
>a black nignog fucking your white arian waifu will produce an offspring as fit as you would with her
>sorry

>mooga fooga wooga grrr hrrr grrr hurr ffffrrsrs rrrrr tal tal tal

>>mooga fooga wooga grrr hrrr grrr hurr ffffrrsrs rrrrr tal tal tal
the most intelligent primate right there

mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/modern-men-not-carry-neanderthal-7710245

grrrhrhrh hrhhr hgfgtrr grrrr grr hurr grrr tal tal hrr

That's a really bold unsourced claim there user

>/pol/ thinking neanderthals as genius autists being cucked out of existence is ridiculous, so is the more subtle notion of a superior neanderthal

pol uses neanderthal interbreeding as an get out of "Out of Africa" free card.

ooga booga rockstop, then start throwing spears and raping women

>modern man
>forehead sloping like that
That's papuan tier forehead, and they're the most neanderthal looking modern man.

On the other hand, how could east asian become overachiever in US? They generally have the smallest cranial volume.

better genetics

google.com/amp/io9.gizmodo.com/if-we-cloned-early-humans-should-we-put-them-in-a-zoo-1718953915/amp

Really makes you think

>be a highly intelligent Neanderthal master-race
>dumb, sexy Homo sapiens bitches hanging around your campsite
>fug them instead of your own kind
They race-mixed themselves into extinction, just like Europeans are doing now.

on top of that, the cited 2% is almost exclusively (aside from height, back hair genes etc) in non-coding regions

you just know 0 about genetics

Overwhelming consensus among people who study this shit is that Neanderthals and humans interbred extensively, I'll take their opinion over an anonymous poster on a Congolese rice futures trading forum.

Larger cranial capacity doesn't necessarily mean used for better thought, nor even larger brains to begin with. There could be more redundant structure to help cope with damage, as well as enhanced damage preventing structures. It may be to help them function better in extreme cold. The brain itself may be less efficient or not "wired" as well for abstract thought. Maybe they had uncanny visual memory, and motor control, but shitty fine dexterity in their joints due to harsh use or being overbuilt for robustness. (I'm not saying any of this is more likely than anything else, just that they are possible and things like expert flint mapping would still be possible - good motor control would be needed with gnarly hands).

1. okay, if it makes you feel better to ignore data thrown in your fucking face

2. neanderthals were fucking retards, despite all the feelsy hopes people have about them, if we cloned one he'd be a retard - they left nothing, but ergaster tier tools

pic related btw, carved out by sub saharan africans 8k years ago, even they are smarter than the fucking neanderthals

>losing to literal brainlets
>muh master-species
top fucking kek

/pol/acks just can't comprehend things that don't have a cuckold narrative

The Venus of Willendorf was carved 25k years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

You seem to know your stuff. What about lateralization?
And with wired you mean connectiveness?

Also about this topic, individual intelligence doesn't matter that much. Shared intelligence is much more important and being able to pass knowledge to younglings.

>neanderthals had the 'tism

This is about the best explanation we have so far. They weren't "smarter" or "dumber" (whatever those mean) but they were more rigid and set in their ways. A modern human encountering Neanderthals would have found them to be extremely non-receptive to new ideas, even to the point of xenophobia.

So... which is more closely related to modern Europeans, Thals or Abos?