Talk:Neanderthal behavior

Human/Neanderthal hybrids and speech

I know next to nothing about Neanderthals but surely the fact that we have evidence that they mated with Homosapiens is the strongest evidence to suggest that they had complex language?

Why would Cro-magnon man mate with Neanderthals 45,000-60,000 years ago if they couldn't talk to each other? I guess it's possible rape was involved but if Neanderthal tools are found with Cro-magon tools, wouldn't that suggest that they shared things and interacted?

Supposed (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Chimps can mate without talking and it is not certain that modern humans had language before 50,000 years ago. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Neanderthals weren't chimps. I believe Homo neanderthalensis is the genus and species, not Pan neanderthalensis. They may have been a different species from us but they're in the same genus, genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.89.229 (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that the concept "the same genus" has no empirical content beyond "a certain set of researchers happens to use the same generic name for some species". "Genus" has no generally accepted operational definition.--MWAK (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Neanderthal Predation (NP) theory

Is there any article on this? (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Them and Us: How Neanderthal Predation Created Modern Humans Paperback – September 13, 2014

This accessible, intelligent and page turning read sheds new light on how Neanderthals evolved and the origins of human behavior, uncovering what it means to be a modern human in the 21st century. Neanderthal Predation (NP) theory begins with a radical new assessment of Neanderthal behavioral ecology by pulling together new archaeological and genetic evidence, showing they weren't docile omnivores, but savage, cannibalistic carnivores - top flight predators of the stone age; Apex predators at the top of the food chain, and what happened next - when humans became prey. "Danny Vendramini presents a truly unique and innovative picture of the role of Neandertal predation in human evolution…Vendramini pulls together countless different threads of scientific evidence to re-cast Neanderthals as "apex predators", proverbial "wolves with knives" who were effective rivals with our ancestors…. It has been a long time since I read a book about human evolution that I enjoyed so much." Associate Professor John J. Shea. Stony Brook University, New York. (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This was already discussed 13 years ago, see the archive. The conclusion then seems to have been that Vendramini's work represents an exaggerating minority standpoint and is not a serious scientific publication, therefore it doesn't belong into this article. I think that's still a reasonable assessment. Also, from what we know today, both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans sometimes practiced cannibalism, so that's certainly not something that could be held specifically against the former. Gawaon (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Violence

Remove reference to evidence of violence. One skull is frankly and shockingly insufficient evidence on which to base such a statement. 166.181.87.93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scientific textbook. That skull was written about in the peer-reviewed literature and presented as evidence. That constitutes a reliable source (in the Wikipedia sense). We do not claim that Neanderthals were violent and it is not our place to decide whether evidence is sufficient. Unless it can be validly argued that the paper would be given Undue Weight, we are in principle bound to reflect it. "It's only one skull" is not much of an argument because the skull can be placed within context, e.g. other indications of intraspecific violence, such as specimen Shanidar3.--MWAK (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"We are in principle bound to reflect it" seems odd reasoning referring to a popular book by a non-expert. For good reasons, we chiefly aim to cover the current scientific consensus within any given field, including major areas of disagreement. WP:FRINGE theories may occasionally be mentioned shortly, as long as they are clearly labelled as such, but we certainly don't "have to" mention them. Gawaon (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I fear there has been a misunderstanding. My remarks were meant to answer 166.181.87.93's demand to "Remove reference to evidence of violence" which in turn was a reaction to C.P.E. Zollikofer; M.S. Ponce de León; B. Vandermeersch & F. Lévêque (2002). "Evidence for interpersonal violence in the St. Césaire Neanderthal". PNAS. 99 (9): 6444–6448. Certainly Vendramini's sensationalist book can be safely disregarded :o). I took the liberty of inserting a new heading.--MWAK (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Gawaon (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)