RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us

RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

knottier -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 4:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt A very interesting article and great side articles on Neanderthal Man: Neanderthals Talked Like Us What they said and to what degree of sophistication cannot be known from the kind of evidence they're using. There are some theories that they are the part of humanity that provided the genes for Aspergers - not a condition known for sophisticated speech. Another theory holds that they had higher pitch voices neanderthal articulation

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 5:11:37 AM)
It looks like an interesting article, but I can't access it.

jlf1961 -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 5:47:20 AM)
I agree with the idea that all of the 'evidence' does not actually prove anything. Short of obtaining viable neanderthal DNA from a number of sources and cloning a breeding population of these individuals, there really is no way of knowing if they could talk or not.

DomKen -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 7:01:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I agree with the idea that all of the 'evidence' does not actually prove anything. Short of obtaining viable neanderthal DNA from a number of sources and cloning a breeding population of these individuals, there really is no way of knowing if they could talk or not. I think there is no doubt they could talk but how sophisticated that communication was remains a mystery. The Neanderthals made reasonably sophisticated stone tools. Passing on those techniques would have to involve some sort of verbal communication. The same is true of what we know of how they hunted.

MercTech -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 8:01:01 AM)
Barbecue - To some it is just putting ground meat on a fire. Other places it is the thing you put the charcoal in to burn your frantfurters. In the Carolinas it refers to slow cooked pork seasoned with vinegar and mustard seed then pullled and put on bread with coleslaw. In Memphis it refers to a dry rubbed piece of meat slow cooked. In Texas it refers to meat cooked with a sauce with sweet and hot components and needing a bib for the juice dripping. Personally, I favor the Texas style. I am convinced the origin of such barbecue was when railroad workers from Hunan Province of China discovered Mexican chili peppers. The similarity between Hunan cooking and Texas style barbecue are phenomenal. Lactose tolerance is very much a European thing. The majority of the world doesn't tolerate milk that way. Ok, bottom line seems to be that modern man is really a hybrid of the Cro Magnon and Neanderthal breeds with only central and southern Africa having populations that do not carry a hybridism with the Neanderthal.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 8:51:46 AM)
A quote from the article: As for when an individual of any species first communicated in a complex way via sound, it’s possible the sound was a whistle, Mark Sicoli, an assistant professor in Georgetown University’s Department of Linguistics, told Discovery News. Sicoli studies whistled speech still used in parts of Oaxaca, Mexico. "Hypothetically, whistled speech could be as old as the earliest languages," Sicoli said, adding that it could even have been a component of proto-language, the precursor of human language used by the earlier hominid species. Whistle speech. I wonder how (if?) that's related to the click language used by the San Bushman tribe.

theshytype -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 10:45:21 AM)
Although its a possibility (anything is, really), I just can't see whistling as being a natural enough sound that would cause our earliest ancestors to use as their main form of communication. Looking at babies, and the way they play with their voices, creating different sounds particularly vowels, has always been what I pictured. Whistling isn't mastered for quite some time, it took several years for mine. Clicking, on the other hand, are sounds that babies can do, all three of mine have, so it seems more natural than whistling. Because they appeared to be similar to us in several ways, I wouldn't be surprised if their speech was more complex than what some give them credit for. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/opinion/global/Who-Are-You-Calling-a-Neanderthal.html?_r=0

knottier -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 11:21:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt It looks like an interesting article, but I can't access it. here's another source, the 'free pdf' link should give you the whole thing click

DomKen -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 11:31:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theshytype Although its a possibility (anything is, really), I just can't see whistling as being a natural enough sound that would cause our earliest ancestors to use as their main form of communication. Looking at babies, and the way they play with their voices, creating different sounds particularly vowels, has always been what I pictured. Whistling isn't mastered for quite some time, it took several years for mine. Clicking, on the other hand, are sounds that babies can do, all three of mine have, so it seems more natural than whistling. Because they appeared to be similar to us in several ways, I wouldn't be surprised if their speech was more complex than what some give them credit for. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/opinion/global/Who-Are-You-Calling-a-Neanderthal.html?_r=0 You should keep in mind that we have likely evolved to be better at speaking. Earlier hominids probably didn't have quite that facility. Neanderthals were similar to us and also very different. They were built much more robustly, their limb proportions were different and they were almost exclusively carnivores. The biggest difference is that there was something clearly different about their minds. Their material culture, tools and other things they made, were static over very long periods of time. H sapiens in the same areas at the same times showed quite significant advancements in tool making (this is also evidence that the two species probably had limited social contact).

theshytype -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 1:08:18 PM)
I don't argue that we evolved to be better at verbally communicating. Different animals find different means of communicating - there's a need to. Modern day humans not only need to talk, they love to talk. They obviously did not have the education, the transportation, or the sheer numbers in population that we currently have. A singular "language" is near impossible in their time. Still, each clan would have a need to communicate to some degree. I would assume each clan had their own form of communicating. Some could have been similar, some could have been far different. From grunting, to whistling, to moaning or humming. The article I linked showed some similarities, including different materials imbedded in the dental tartar of discovered Neanderthal fossils. Not just meat, but also vegetables, nuts, and non-edible materials. My guess is if they found a berry that made them ill, they'd share that knowledge with another in their clan. With some evidence they buried others, I assume they had compassion. I think it's easy for us to say we're more intelligent. And yes, I agree, overall we are. However, we have great advantages over Neanderthals. Not just genetics. I wasn't born with the knowledge I have. I was taught. I had many teachers. My teachers had many teachers.

DomKen -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 2:45:17 PM)
It is safe to assume that Neanderthal language was similar in bands that lived close to one another. The groups were too small to be genetically stable so members had to move between bands or the population would not have lasted as long as it did. They did eat some none plants but there is a lot of evidence that they were far more carnivorous than H sapiens of the same region and era. As to intelligence, They were there first and we moved in and in a fairly short period of time they were gone and we remained. Physically they were far more powerful so there had to something we had that allowed us to out compete them to the point that they became extinct. The evidence. rapid improvements in tool technology and rapid spread of that technology, seems to indicate a kind of innovative intelligence not found in Neanderthals.

theshytype -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 3:45:06 PM)
Innovation only signals to me better social skills. The willingness to exchange ideas with others outside the core family. More brains, more ideas. Really, how many modern day humans can claim they have made contributions towards innovation? Is it possible that it wasn't a lack of intelligence that killed them off, but the fact that they were unwilling or unable to socialize with other groups, share ideas, and increase population? I've taken a clip of the attached article, as it does a fine job of how I view Neanderthals: The “neurotypical” way in which most people see the world today is only one way of doing it. As enlightened studies of autism repeatedly drive home, we need to appreciate those variations as part of our human spectrum rather than just labeling them defective or abnormal. With or without all our cognitive abilities, the Neandertals and Denisovans survived under amazingly hostile conditions for hundreds of thousands of years. Their different ways of thinking may have been dominant throughout long stretches of the past, and might even have had advantages over our own under their circumstances. The lesson that these ancients offer is that we should broaden our minds about how broad minds can be. http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/savvy-scientist/what-neandertal-dna-can-teach-about-race-autism-and-more/575 ETA: The article mentions autism and I just want to make clear that no way do I support any idea that Neanderthals share a corellation with today's autism. But, and as the article mentions, is used as an example of how different brains work differently and should not be taken as a lack of intelligence

MasterCaneman -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/27/2013 3:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Barbecue - To some it is just putting ground meat on a fire. Other places it is the thing you put the charcoal in to burn your frantfurters. In the Carolinas it refers to slow cooked pork seasoned with vinegar and mustard seed then pullled and put on bread with coleslaw. In Memphis it refers to a dry rubbed piece of meat slow cooked. In Texas it refers to meat cooked with a sauce with sweet and hot components and needing a bib for the juice dripping. Personally, I favor the Texas style. I am convinced the origin of such barbecue was when railroad workers from Hunan Province of China discovered Mexican chili peppers. The similarity between Hunan cooking and Texas style barbecue are phenomenal. Lactose tolerance is very much a European thing. The majority of the world doesn't tolerate milk that way. Ok, bottom line seems to be that modern man is really a hybrid of the Cro Magnon and Neanderthal breeds with only central and southern Africa having populations that do not carry a hybridism with the Neanderthal. But what are the finer points of Neanderthal barbeque over Cro-Magnon barbeque? Or was it regional like it is now?

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/29/2013 6:02:13 PM)
OMG TY so much. This is a great article on the subject.

DomKen -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/29/2013 6:13:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theshytype Innovation only signals to me better social skills. The willingness to exchange ideas with others outside the core family. More brains, more ideas. Really, how many modern day humans can claim they have made contributions towards innovation? Is it possible that it wasn't a lack of intelligence that killed them off, but the fact that they were unwilling or unable to socialize with other groups, share ideas, and increase population? I've taken a clip of the attached article, as it does a fine job of how I view Neanderthals: The “neurotypical” way in which most people see the world today is only one way of doing it. As enlightened studies of autism repeatedly drive home, we need to appreciate those variations as part of our human spectrum rather than just labeling them defective or abnormal. With or without all our cognitive abilities, the Neandertals and Denisovans survived under amazingly hostile conditions for hundreds of thousands of years. Their different ways of thinking may have been dominant throughout long stretches of the past, and might even have had advantages over our own under their circumstances. The lesson that these ancients offer is that we should broaden our minds about how broad minds can be. http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/savvy-scientist/what-neandertal-dna-can-teach-about-race-autism-and-more/575 ETA: The article mentions autism and I just want to make clear that no way do I support any idea that Neanderthals share a corellation with today's autism. But, and as the article mentions, is used as an example of how different brains work differently and should not be taken as a lack of intelligence Only a few H sapiens are innovators but we do copy those innovations when they occur. Either such innovators were much rarer in H neandetalis or their peers did not adopt such innovations when they occurred which is simply not supported by the evidence. There is no evidence of a lack of social contact between Neanderthal groups. If long term inbreeding had occurred we'd expect to find both morphological and genetic evidence and we don't.

theshytype -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/29/2013 6:48:03 PM)
I think you're missing my point. No, there is no evidence showing they lacked social skills. Nor is there evidence, that I have seen, to prove they were not intellegent. You're using lack of innovation to imply they were not intellegent, which I personally do not see how one necessarily equals the other.

DomKen -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/29/2013 8:44:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theshytype I think you're missing my point. No, there is no evidence showing they lacked social skills. Nor is there evidence, that I have seen, to prove they were not intellegent. You're using lack of innovation to imply they were not intellegent, which I personally do not see how one necessarily equals the other. They had the physical advantages and were in place first. There has to be some reason they went extinct while we thrived.

theshytype -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/29/2013 9:00:23 PM)
That does not prove lack of intellegence. It can help support your theory, but does not provide enough proof to change my own.

DomKen -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/29/2013 9:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theshytype That does not prove lack of intellegence. It can help support your theory, but does not provide enough proof to change my own. Add to that the lack of innovation in tool design and the fact they didn't even adapt the new tool designs of the H sapiens that lived nearby and it does produce a lot of evidence that in at least some ways they were less intelligent than H sapiens.

MasterCaneman -> RE: Neanderthals Talked Like Us (7/29/2013 9:28:12 PM)
Some have said that it wasn't latent intelligence, but an inability to adapt to change that done them is, as well as the propensity to cluster in smaller, less homogenous groups, leading to inbreeding that may have been the mechanism for their decline. H. Sapiens also had a fairly limited tool kit for most of its early (pre) history. How The Survived, as well as the ability to better orchestrate hunts. The best evidence for Neandertal hunts was more simple and brutish, whereas H. Sapiens was better at using organized techniques to take advantage of their greater ability to think about what they were doing.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875