So I see a lot of different information about these people. Some places don't seem very reliable and there's tons of conflicting information.
Things like whether they
>had primitive boats
>used manganese dioxide to make fire
>had the ability to make complex sounds for communication
Does anyone know anything or have reliable sources for this kind of thing?
Sorry if this is more appropriate for Veeky Forums.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
phys.org
upload.wikimedia.org
news.nationalgeographic.com
twitter.com
They didn't have blond hair like that.
I fucking hate retarded artists doing reconstructions they have no idea about.
She looks like shakira
Source? Why couldn't they be blonde?
anything but brown hair and brown eyes is a mutation
>Source?
His ass, bcoz nobody knows
much about their appearance.
look tards
apparently you aren't educated enough to know blonde hair is only 11000 years old
apologies to
you're not a tard but the other guy is
Damn she got some DSLs
It's probably why they went extinct
Nobody knows all that much about Neanderthals. A lot of it is pure speculation. We really need a lot more ancient skeletons to test their genetics to get a better idea of what they were like.
Things we do know for sure are that they interbred with humans, and that Eurasian humans even today contain some neanderthal DNA. We also know that their brains were probably physically larger than modern homo sapiens. Personally I think they had their own form of speech, maybe not like ours, but certainly possessed verbal communication.
Neanderthals were overspecialized and had worse hips for childbirth than homo sapiens.
Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Amerindians are about 4% neanderthal. Though that percentage has been dropping over time. They used to be more but neanderthal traits are probably not advantageous.
Underrated post.
There are almost no cultural artifacts or tools associated with neanderthal sites before homo sapien arrival into Europe. The most I'm aware of is a bead necklace and a cave with some paintings of hands, but dated to the same period human sites around the mediterranian have tools and complex paintings of wildlife and such. It's only after homo sapiens went into europe do you see neanderthal sites that have tools or artifacts, most of when are attributed to be copies or stolen from homo sapiens.
also, neanderthal had a differently designed lyranx than homo sapiens that would have made speech harder for them. The last one is false. All the others are more than likely false.
All humans have some percentage of DNA similarity with neanderthals except some pockets of sub saharan africans.
She looks like Shakira
And I bet her hips dont lie
I'd fuck her. I know she has not washed or shaved even once in her entire life, but I would.
topkek
Melanesian are Denisovian
Why would they?
pic related, map of neanderthal DNA.
Not sure what you're trying to say.
Aussie Abos, Paupans and some other SEAsian darkies are Denisovian admixture only.
Posting a map as an explanation, without even giving a hint at how to read it, is not helpful in the least.
Again, source? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just want to know how we know exactly when blonde hair came about.
Read the paper dickhead. I'm not going to waste my time teaching a pop-sci babby who thinks neanderthals ought to be blonde.
Truu maaaaaan
>Read the paper
I hope you aren't referring to wikipedia. Is this you? If not what fucking paper are you on about? I asked for a source at the start of the thread and nobody has even referenced any paper. Why are you getting mad at me for not reading a paper I'm asking to be directed to?
so you're not going to believe cited wikipedia?
whatever then you're a lost cause
I believe the wikipedia sources, but you posted the wiki link already after you called me a dickhead. What was I supposed to do, look up "blonde" and scan the whole wikipedia article for the evolutionary history of it?
they're literally linked by little numbers beside the text
i mean you could always just click on the second google link too
I seriously thought that was a photoshop of taylor swift with a neanderthal face?
>they're literally linked by little numbers beside the text
I know. I'm not retarded. You told me to read "the paper" (obviously referring to a singular paper) and then instead posted a link to wikipedia, which has multiple sources. Which paper are you referring to?
>i mean you could always just click on the second google link too
You realize google links are different depending on the person right? When I look up blonde wikipedia isn't even the first thing to pop up. Maybe your second hit was a paper on evolutionary history because you spend your time reading about evolution like a fedora wearing atheist.
No I'm not that guy. Reverse image search the picture or google the filename. I don't have the paper on hand anymore.
now you think i'm some other guy
i never even told you to search up blond either because that wouldn't get you the evolution of blond hair
now if you searched up evolution of blond hair that would probably get your results
Sorry for the confusion. Thank you for the help.
Fuck you again
just leave the fucking site
Screw off. It's not common knowledge that blonde hair started 11,000 years ago. Stop acting like I'm a bad guy for being skeptical.
Oh look.. /pol/ is pretending to know anything about genetics again.
you're not a bad guy for being skeptical
you're a bad guy for being a dick to people who said something without instantly posting the source
We know they buried their dead with flowers
That's kind of eerie if it's true. As primitive as they were they still felt a need to revere the dead.
I'm not being a dick. I'm asking why. Instead of using your brains to explain, you're using someone else's words and pushing me away from the discussion. If you don't have time to explain your thoughts, why are you posting anything at all? Instead of just telling me to read the paper, why not get started in discussing it?
Pollen was found with deliberately buried neanderthal skeletons in iraq. Apparently its possible the pollen came from bees though
>if it's true
kek
>As primitive as they were they still felt a need to revere the dead.
It's been said that elephants pay respects to the dead too. It would hardly be surprising if the Neanderthals had some sort of burial ritual or even a religion. I think we're very guilt of underestimating both Neanderthals and the rest of the animal kingdom because of this strange sense of exceptionalism, as if we're the only creatures doing anything more than just surviving on this rock.
lmao I bet it's shakira
It's racist to make them black because that would be racist
>it's racist to make them x race
now thats racist
How did you guy get a picture of Shakira before she put on makeup?
>It is now hypothesized by researchers that blond hair evolved more than once
>you aren't educated enough
>to share my unfounded opinion
fgt pls
Haha, thought the same bro
yes because they found genes that may be responsible for blonde hair outside europe
that doesn't mean it evolved in europe multiple times and unless there's a study that comes up showing it did there's no reason to believe it
proving the point
The list of shit found with them in burial, as well as found in their settlements, is getting longer with each passing year.
Musical flutes
Jewelry
Unique knapped stonework
Woodworking tools
Textile weaving
Fired glass spear points
More I'm probably forgetting.
Some burials this side of the ice age.
Last I heard a year ago genetic researchers were working to determine hair color, expecting to find red.
Good point.
This irritates the shit out of me. In artists renditions too.
Without thinking about it, most people automatically assume Neanderthals would be filthy, unwashed snaggle-toothed and nappy looking as fuck. Ask yourself what species of mammal in the entire world goes around looking filthy and unkept and never bathes itself. None. And of all of them, you're saying one evolved from primates. Primates, the species whose main claim to fame is their insanely highly developed socialization skills. Socializing while... grooming. Primates and their descendants spend more time grooming than any other genus we know of. Out of all their highly developed species of descendants, you're saying the one sufficiently intelligent and capable they lasted 160,000 years, weathered at least one ice age in person, was intelligent enough to invent all this shit everywhere they went, spread all over the world and survived all manner of horrors, were concerned with their appearance enough to dressed in garments with decorative flourishes and made and wore jewelry, coexisted and cohabitated with humans for millenia... they were capable of all that, but were the one species to never bathe & live their whole lives covered in shit and blood and old food and never washed their hair or made themselves look attractive to the opposite sex.
The only reason to come to this conclusion is, our egos inherently reject the idea of another intelligent species having been on this planet, because it means we are just another revision, and not the end-all-be-all of the world, so our gut reaction is to belittle them as much as we can, in as predictably a way as a species obsessed with grooming and personal appearance would; by considering them ugly, mangey beasts.
There is no evidence for it, or evidence to speculate it, and only evidence to the contrary. Yet every fucking artists red diction shoes them as filthy and disheveled as possible.
I'm too lazy to go source hunting, you do your own homework, but generally it's because they found cave remains with pigmented objects and firepits with a high concentration of magnesium.
first link on google:
phys.org
AND
yes, they may have been blonde, but not everyone, but it's likely they had different mutations regulating the types of melanin. meaning, not the same "blonde genes" much like people with high concentrations of Denisovan DNA, melanesian i think, have blonde coloured hair despite not being the same mutation. they also found remains with red hair, and it was also due to a divergent mutation. making it, in the scheme of things, sort of a moot point.
yeah, well they had been around for a long while too, so there could have been lost industries among them, but If i remember right they did use soap, quite simple to make out of animal scraps, and likely were herbalists, but there is debate to what extent. Then there's levallois flakes (i might be wrong about the name), literally sharper than razor blades, chipped from rock, better than a straight razor IMO. all of which is not necessarily intrinsic to neanderthal culture either
but you know how it is, you develop these fancy glass shard, pine pitch spears, got instant firestarters, got herbal soap, living that modern cave-man life, and a sabertooth tiger comes up on your clique during a harsh winter carrying sand fleas or something and the survivors are all back to using clubs and eating raw meat.
This is nonsense. The DNA similarities are in non-coding regions. Primitive hominids did not donate any gene alleles to humans that you can uniquely find in any given human population. In fact less than 2% of gene alleles are unique to any continent.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're from /pol/ and you believe that only Europeans that mated with neanderthal, whom you think are superior, somehow make white people better.
>phys.org
50,000 years ago places it in a questionable grey area when they could have just learned to copy humans.
What the fuck does any of what you two posted have to do with whether they groomed or bathed?
Humans didn't even experience the Great Leap Forward until 40,000 years ago. Neanderniggers went through theirs at least 70,000 years ago that we've found so far, possibly later.
The "blonde genes." Part.
Also, many primate do groom but to not appear to have groomed hair. Look at primates like baboons. Also, other primate have actual fur that covers most of their body. Human hair evolved very differently. Whether they groomed each other and tried to make their hair look nice is purely speculative. I'm sure the artists were going for what human hair would look like with minimum grooming.
These kinds of people are always looking for any reason to make neanderthals look superior to homo sapiens, even though they were far behind it terms of technology and socialization.
Sure, but homo sapiens had already developed several tools, cave paintings, and cultural artifacts before they went into Europe. Most neaderthal tools and cultural artifacts date to after 40,000 years ago (contact with homo sapiens) and are attributed to homo sapiens. neaderthal artifacts found before that time are very primitive.
it's all a grey area
not really m8, its a groovy story of possibilities.
>Whether they groomed each other and tried to make their hair look nice is purely speculative
true, but often they are depicted with dirt on their faces and whatnot, which, would lead to infection and acne, pustules putting their vision and sinuses in risk of permanent damage, so, they probably did wash in some capacity, be it smoke baths, dirt baths, water-baths or licking each other's faces
>These kinds of people are always looking for any reason to make neanderthals look superior to homo sapiens, even though they were far behind it terms of technology and socialization.
yeah, i mean homo sapiens have TVs and smartphones, what did they have? wait, even though they aren't around, they have a 2-4% stake in everything we develop.
>These kinds of people are always looking for any reason to make neanderthals look superior to homo sapiens, even though they were far behind it terms of technology and socialization.
Your approach to the timelines involved here is novel.
Your adherence to your preconceived conclusions that fly in the face of evidence is not.
Ok, how do you explain things like cave paintings and tools?
There is only one cave painting site that is possibly attributed to neanderthals and it's some fucking hand prints. Meanwhile, human ones from around same period are of animals, people, and objects.
No they aren't, what planet have you been living on? The oldest settlements we've found detail their entire sophisticated process for shaping stone tooling, a complex process completely unique to them, thirty millenia before humans were even scrawling stick figures on cave walls much less later cohabitation in the southern migration.
Try again.
Hominids started to develop stone tools almost 2 million years ago. Neanderthals only made simply awls and skinning tools while homo sapiens were making things like hand axes.
>hand prints
>same period
Jesus Christ. The handprints are from Chauvet, a human painted cave...
Everyone in this thread, time to start doing some reading up on this shit on Nature .com before talking authoritatively on any of it, much less forming sweeping opinions on it. Fucks sake.
Neanderthal may have been bright and all that, but that's what people say about autistic savants, we don't have enough evidence to be anywhere near definitive. By some definitions even chimpanzees are intelligent. we know Neanderthal had tools, sewed materials, made fire, primitive genius for thriving in their environment.
they may have had different behavioral conduct that was prohibitive to developing into the apex that was homo sapiens, living in smaller communities, they may have had the basic social norms down of no-murder, no-theft, no-rape(one could only hope), etc. but the mask of social standing in a community wasn't there, it was closer to that of a family, picking your nose by the camp fire.
this lack of socializing may have been environmental or due to fertility rather than neurology, they lived in a sparsely populated Eurasia/MENA, some studies show they were probably considerably inbred due to closed gene pools, again due to a sparsity of mates, distance between tribes, etc. say a whole area the size dozens of sq miles belongs to 2-4 families of 2-4 people, that presents a serious problem in genetic liquidity.
whereas the homo sapiens likely lived in communities of 20 or more, possibly bordering hundreds, but that's just speculation, and their persistence hunting allowed for a more mobile lifestyle.
but like whatever, what's really trippy is those 2 million year old homo erectus skulls they found in georgia or china or something.
but like... wouldn't the handles of those hand axes rot away unless they were found underwater?
Im talking about El Castillo, which is attributed to neanderthals.
Also, the Chauvet paintings had a few animals where you can clearly make out what they are including horses, heyenas, and bovine.
Human cave paintings from around 35,000 years ago in Chauvet
upload.wikimedia.org
40,000 year old neanderthal paintings
>muh superior neanderthals were more advanced!
Realistically, would you even notice a Neanderthal walking down the street. Since all non-Africans have some N. genes in us, then SOME H. must have more N. genes than others and a few would have a LOT more N genes.
Any trustworthy links you know of?
that looks creepy
some faces don't go very good with blonde eyes
>blonde eyes
Surely you mean blue. It may also be the fact that whoever did that shoop gave her a glow-in-the-dark shade of blue, which would look unnatural on anyone.
>proving the point
>that my opinion is unfounded
fgt pls
another millennifag beginning
a statement with "so"
GTFO fgt pls
...
This refers to a newspaper article from 2006, not a scientific article.
Bonus: it is also behind a pay wall.
Quite a lot of new knowledge has been gained the last 10 years, especially when we are talking about Neanderthals and the early Europeans. Any more up to date reputable sources?
