Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
UM-Bot

Neanderthals spoke like modern humans

26 posts in this topic

A new fossil discovery suggests that humans were not the only species capable of complex speech.

Far from the stereotypical 'cave man' seen in movies, the Neanderthals are believed to have been capable of using complex language and spoke in a way not dissimilar to the way people do today.

Read More: http://www.unexplain...e-modern-humans

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they spoke a language. Why anyone would ever think that they were less than human, I will never understand. They stood upright, hunted, created art, buried their dead, etc. They were humans.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that has ever made/tried to make a stone arrowhead would soon realize how difficult it is to be as sophisticated as a Neanderthal.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably spoke better than some of the people who post on this forum.

Proly ur wundering if your who Im talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This suggests they also practised singing and stand up comedy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This suggests they also practised singing and stand up comedy.

"Two cavemen walk into bar. Ouch. Thank you. Be here all week."
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . sup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I hear about Neanderthals, the less seems to differentiate them as a species of homo, to simply a group within Homo sapiens. I'm obviously not saying there aren't, but I mean it seems like there's less.

Edited by TheSpoonyOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people aren't seeing that they're being compared biologically. Just because they spoke and thought like homo sapiens, doesn't mean they were homo sapiens.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people aren't seeing that they're being compared biologically. Just because they spoke and thought like homo sapiens, doesn't mean they were homo sapiens.

Precisely. We don't know that they spoke anyway; there is indirect evidence and they probably had language, but sounds in the air leave no fossils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.pngCRYSiiSx2, on 24 December 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

I think a lot of people aren't seeing that they're being compared biologically. Just because they spoke and thought like homo sapiens, doesn't mean they were homo sapiens.

Let me restate your statement..because you just confused the hell out of me...I know I'm not that bright...but...

Neatnderthals and Human Beings are being compared biologically. They spoke like humans. They thought like humans. Homo Sapiens are humans but Neanderthals were not...because of the biological differences you see. Just because they walked like humans, and talked like humans, and thought like humans, and used tools like humans, doesn't mean they were human.

k just checkin'

Can someone tell me what the hell I missed here? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neanderthals are of the genus homo as are we. They were, however, almost certainly a different species. (Like horses and donkeys are different species but in the same genus).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I hear about Neanderthals, the less seems to differentiate them as a species of homo, to simply a group within Homo sapiens. I'm obviously not saying there aren't, but I mean it seems like there's less.

That's still an ongoing debate between scientists, whether Neanderthals should be classified under the sapien classification or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's still an ongoing debate between scientists, whether Neanderthals should be classified under the sapien classification or not.

I think that misstates it a little; there is always room for doubt but I don't think Neanderthals have ever been seen as sapiens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that misstates it a little; there is always room for doubt but I don't think Neanderthals have ever been seen as sapiens.

I've seen papers published using both Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Sapien Neanderthalis, and recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I hear about Neanderthals, the less seems to differentiate them as a species of homo, to simply a group within Homo sapiens. I'm obviously not saying there aren't, but I mean it seems like there's less.

I think a lot of people aren't seeing that they're being compared biologically. Just because they spoke and thought like homo sapiens, doesn't mean they were homo sapiens.

Neanderthals are of the genus homo as are we. They were, however, almost certainly a different species. (Like horses and donkeys are different species but in the same genus).

That's still an ongoing debate between scientists, whether Neanderthals should be classified under the sapien classification or not.

Let me clarify.

Although if you wiki the term you can find, like ShadowSot wrote, that there's a debate about what they exactly were, in terms of simple classification, Neanderthals are considered sapiens. Indeed, the full name of the species is Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, while our species is Homo Sapiens Sapiens (so, we should be sage twice).

With these recent findings I'd say that finally we're starting to see them in a light that makes them justice.

They buried their dead (and maybe - maybe - they taught to our ancestors), they made artistic objects, it appears that they made art rock too. They were able to idealize and had the ability of abstraction.

They lived alongside with Sapiens Sapiens for roughly 70.000 years in what today is Israel, and we found caves with both Neanderthals and Sapiens burials.

Maybe we'll discover that they weren't Homo Sapiens, but surely they were Sapiens.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you confuse the use of a word in a scientific name with the origin of the word. "Sapiens" means "wise" and scientists apply that to the modern human species ("wise man") (kinda ironic). Many animals are wise in various ways but to my knowledge only one has this name attached. No doubt Neanderthal, being our close relatives, had a lot of brainpower, but the general view as I understand it is that it was indeed a separate species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all sounds pretty racist to me. Like a Fir tree telling a blue spruce he is not a pine in a way? Or, sometimes a donkey is better than a horse and sometimes a horse is better than a donkey, it depends on what they are doing, but they are still of the same genius. Each different and each probably thinking they are better than the other LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It all sounds pretty racist to me. Like a Fir tree telling a blue spruce he is not a pine in a way?

Your analogy is not very apt, as both species are of the genus Homo. A fir tree is NOT a blue spruce, is it? Just like Homo Neanderthal is NOT Homo Sapien.

Or, sometimes a donkey is better than a horse and sometimes a horse is better than a donkey, it depends on what they are doing, but they are still of the same genius

Except that Homo Sapien was better suited to survive. As is evidenced by the fact that I can open my front door and see a few hundred Homo Sapiens and no Homo Neanderthals.

Yes, I know there's Neanderthal DNA evidence in some Homo Sapiens, but by and large, we outlived them as a species.

Nobody knows for sure why not. I have suspicions, involving our "human" nature, though. I also have a hypothesis that Neanderthals are the bogey man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you confuse the use of a word in a scientific name with the origin of the word. "Sapiens" means "wise" and scientists apply that to the modern human species ("wise man") (kinda ironic). Many animals are wise in various ways but to my knowledge only one has this name attached. No doubt Neanderthal, being our close relatives, had a lot of brainpower, but the general view as I understand it is that it was indeed a separate species.

No, I don't confuse anything. Maybe you are.

The scientific name of our species is Homo Sapiens Sapiens, two times. Genus Homo, species Sapiens, subspecies Sapiens. It's also called the anatomically modern human, and appeared, as far as we know, roughly 100-120.000 years ago (although there's a fossil found dating 195.000 years ago). It differentiates from its predecessor, Homo Sapiens (only one). Some say that our predecessor was Homo Sapiens Idaltu.

I was the ironic one when I translated the meaning of "sapiens" from latin, but who invented the name wasn't for sure. They meant that we are the most intelligent and wisest species there is and has always been ('till now).

We're indeed a different species from Homo Neanderthalensis, but we're different subspecies (although the debate, like I wrote in my previous post and like ShadowSot wrote, is still open, if consider them a completely different species from us or a subspecies).

I'd say that what we're finding in the last years are pointing towards the subspecies direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iam sure they did speak like humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's still an ongoing debate between scientists, whether Neanderthals should be classified under the sapien classification or not.

I'll have to read the arguments for and against at some point, it sounds fascinating.

I've sometimes wondered if, were Neanderthals to exist in today's world with modern humans, how they would be treated and viewed? Whether there would be 'Neanderthal rights' movements, whether there would be a push to argue/classify Neanderthals as no different in any meaningful regard from Homo sapiens sapiens man?

Edited by TheSpoonyOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to read the arguments for and against at some point, it sounds fascinating.

I've sometimes wondered if, were Neanderthals to exist in today's world with modern humans, how they would be treated and viewed? Whether there would be 'Neanderthal rights' movements, whether there would be a push to argue/classify Neanderthals as no different in any meaningful regard from Homo sapiens sapiens man?

It depends. On the one hand the more gracile neanderthls didn't look much different from HSS. It might be that for the most part we'd interact with vary little differenc.e

On the other hand, they may have had unique differences in behaviour that would have set them apart from HSS that didn't leave tangible evidence.

And it wasn't that long ago that there was racim against Irish and Italians, so even slight difference could be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. On the one hand the more gracile neanderthls didn't look much different from HSS. It might be that for the most part we'd interact with vary little differenc.e

On the other hand, they may have had unique differences in behaviour that would have set them apart from HSS that didn't leave tangible evidence.

And it wasn't that long ago that there was racim against Irish and Italians, so even slight difference could be enough.

There would no doubt be racism (speciesism?), but it's the justification that would be interesting, I mean there's a huge difference between seeing the Irish and Italians as lesser in the past, and seeing a different species of the genus homo as equal, which I'm fairly certain many would argue they were in such a reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fiddly point, but mine own: even if Neanderthal was incapable of speech, as was thought to be the case until fairly recently, that doesn't mean he was incapable of language. He could have communicated fluently with structured whistles, clicking sounds or hand motions. Speech isn't the only mechanism for language.

Edited by PersonFromPorlock
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.