Neanderthal appreciation thread

[Joso]

Neanderthal skull types and their corresponding phenotypes in modern days

People says that these typea of craniums came from neanderthals and that persons with these craniums tend to be very inteligent.
Can you guys explain better about it?

Some things i found about it in the site neanderhall.nfshost.com:

"Neanderthal Type Gallery / Explanations

This thread is going to be a gallery which shows various modern Thals in our three types: Amud, Archaic and Mousterian, with some descriptions showing the variety of individual variations which may show up.

The Amud Neanderthal Type

"Amud" is really a misnomer, since we use it to describe people who are not necessarily a strong match for the actual Amud cranium. The Amud Cave is located in Israel, and some Neanderthal remains were found there, including the well-known Amud 1 skull. Amud 1 is a nearly complete male skeleton. He is believed to be around age 25 by scientists, but if our theory is correct that Neanderthals aged more slowly than Sapiens, he could be older than that. He is 5'10 tall and has a cranial volume of 1740 CC, which is the largest brain of a Neanderthal ever found.

Amud has a modern and gracile appearance, but has no features that could be specifically called Sapiens. It is clearly Neanderthal. this is in contrast to the Skuhl / Qafzeh hominids, also found in the same area, which are considered to be modern humans since they combine Neanderthal and Sapiens features. Despite this, the Amud skull actually appears more progressive and gracile than the supposedly "modern human" Skuhl and Qafzeh hominids.

This type has been referred to as "transitional Neanderthal", since it seems to be a forward evolution of the Neanderthal type. Later Neanderthals often have a similar look, mostly in the Middle East, but some more modern European Neanderthal remains also have this look.

When the term "Amud" is used here, it is referring to individuals who show significant Neanderthal traits, but are also progressive and gracile, just as the Amud 1 skull was. Today, "Amuds" appear even more progressive and gracile than the Amud skull. Just as we would expect, Neanderthals today have evolved a more progressive phenotype than the Neanderthals of 30,000 years ago (ie. Amud 1), in the same way that Amud 1 had evolved a more progressive appearance than the Neanderthals of 100,000 years ago. Of course, our modern-day "Amuds" have Sapiens features as well, since everyone is mixed and pure Neanderthals no longer exist. This does not prevent some individuals alive today from displaying significant Neanderthal morphology. Gone are the traits such as a heavy brow ridge, low sloping forehead, and lack of the chin, but other Neanderthal traits that are not considered Archaic still show up in these individuals.

Here are three individuals from the photographic section of Coon's The Races of Europe. Coon did not recognize any Neanderthal influence here; this was my doing.

http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe271.jpg
http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe321.jpg
http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe243.jpg

Some scientists:

Ernest Rutherford
https://www.algosobre.com.br/images/stories/assuntos/biografias/Ernest_Rutherford.jpg

Bob Moog
https://images.pcworld.com/images/article/2012/05/moog-11363410.jpg
CTR Wilson
http://www.nndb.com/people/726/000099429/ctr-wilson-1.jpg

Alan Turing
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/131224084938-alan-turing-story-top.jpg
(Note Turing's rather high test bone structure and jaw area. He can be considered robust in a progressive sense. This trait does not come from Neanderthals, but some individuals labelled as Amud may also show this higher testosterone phenotype)

Lord Kelvin
http://www.nndb.com/people/607/000050457/lord_kelvin.gif

Josiah Gibbs
http://www.steelmaker.ru/files/Gibbs_0.jpg
Gibbs is an exceptionally progressive example, with almost all of the traits usually thought of as Neanderthal having been stripped away, only the essentials remaining (that is, the socket depth and proportions of the face). He has a high forehead, strong chin, narrow nose, and very gracile-progressive facial morphology.

Here are some more individuals:

Iban Zubiaurre, an athlete from the Basque Country. Like Turing, he is an example of an individual with a higher test yet progressive phenotype, which is a non-Neanderthal trait. The Neanderthal type of high tests manifests in a heavy brow ridge and the archaic fleshy style, which he lacks.
https://www.aupaathletic.com/noticias/fotos/Zubiaurre-Present4-050701.jpg

Peter Cushing, an actor. He is another example of the very progressive type, like Gibbs, with most Neanderthals features replaced by gracile-progressive morphology.
https://wendylovesjesus.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/peter-cushing-complete-memoirs-front-cover.jpg

Clay Marzo, a professional surfer with Asperger's syndrome
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSKWHlUphIujXpNyI_RsvZrUnHF5JxkZ NsqwkTL1w9BDVykem9x

Pekka Strang, a Finnish actor
http://s3.amazonaws.com/production.mediajoint.prx.org/public/piece_images/515461/TomOfFinlandStrangFB.jpg

Now, I will explain my theory as to why some modern-day Neanderthals have such a progressive appearance. We have noticed certain features that seem to correlate to psychological traits, such as deep sockets, eye size/spacing, face length, and skull shape. People with these traits usually show great intelligence and creativity, which were positively selected for in the olden days. Thus, these specific Neanderthal traits were also selected for and remain extant in the gene pool. Neanderthals had other traits as well, such as a low, sloping forehead, heavy brow ridge, large nose, and lack of a chin. These traits do not correlate with psychological characteristics that lend themselves to high intelligence and creativity, and they are also seen as archaic (ie. less physically appealing), maybe for that reason. This means that they have not been selected for to such a degree.

(edit: They actually may contribute to a certain type of creativity, and several great scientists do show archaic traits. However, I do not believe they correlate with intelligence in the same way that the progressive Neanderthal traits do)

What this means is that today, there are many individuals born who show only the key, progressive Neanderthal traits, without the presence of those that have not been selected for. And so, for our purposes, someone with a fully gracile-progressive phenotype who still exhibits the traits such as deep sockets and occipital will be considered a Neanderthal in our terminology, despite having little superficial resemblance to the historical Neanderthals.


EVEN MORE EXAMPLES:

https://ghoussoub.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/h4070229-portrait_of_william_timothy_gowers_mathematician-spl1.jpeg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1968-100-21A,_Martin_Bormann.jpg

The Mousterian Neanderthal Type

Like "Amud", our use of the term "Mousterian" is also somewhat problematic. Basically, there is a specific Neanderthal phenotype that looks noticeably different from most others. However, the same term has been used to refer to a tool-making style, used by most early to late Neanderthals (some late Neanderthals used other tool-making styles, however). Both usages of the term are named after Le Moustier, a site where a Neanderthal skeleton was found in France. Our usage of "Mousterian" refers to a phenotype that resembles the Neanderthal found at Le Moustier, while the more common usage refers to the tool-making style that was found there.

"Mousterian" is narrower in scope than "Amud". The latter refers to any individual with a combination of Progressive and Neanderthal traits, while the former refers to a specific phenotype that resembled the remains at Le Moustier. Mousterian individuals may be very archaic, or only slightly archaic. The most defining trait is a shorter face with a broader lower jaw.

This individual shown in The Races of Europe is a good example of the Mousterian type. Again, Coon did not point this out; the discovery of Neanderthal features in this individual was made by myself.
http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe264.jpg[/img]

Another, more archaic example:
http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe041.jpg

Here are some scientists:

Glenn Seaborg:
http://www.nndb.com/people/745/000055580/seaborg-1941-sm.jpg
Seaborg is quite an archaic example, with a strong brow ridge and recessed chin.

Ludwig Boltzmann:
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZ7yb99nbTvUl1AaOA5F8Mg6Hb4lnjQ WVIyOP75aG3T640B5i-

And some musicians:

Ludwig Van Beethoven:

https://richardgwyn.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ludwig_van_beethoven.jpg


Claude Debussy:
http://blog.thecurrent.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/9/files/2013/01/Claude-Debussy-9269290-1-402.jpg

Alon Goldstein, an Israeli pianist:
http://media.oregonlive.com/ent_impact_performance/photo/alon-goldsteinjpg-479e9092d94719b5.jpg

The Archaic Neanderthal Type

As I explained in the Amud section, there are progressive and archaic Neanderthal features. The progressive features are ones that correlate specifically to psychological traits that would be selected for in a K-selected society. The archaic features are ones that come from archaic hominids, such as the heavy brow ridge. Usually, but not always, Archaic features involve strong robusticity.

Archaic traits may show up anywhere, in any kind of combination. An individual who would be a Neanderthal based on our face reading of progressive traits, but who also has archaic traits, will be called an Archaic Thal. The only exception is if they fit the Mousterian phenotype, yet still show strong Archaic features (ie. Glenn Seaborg), I will just refer to them as Mousterian or as Archaic-Mousterian.

Nikolai Valuev is a classic example that has been used to describe the archaic Thal. He has an exceptionally strong brow ridge and low, sloping forehead.
https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nikolai-valuev1-e1269724958134.jpg
His skin and facial flesh has a coarse, rugged appearance. This is called the Archaic Fleshy Style. The combination of this trait with his immense size and gentle nature outside of the boxing ring gives him the designation of Gentle Giant Syndrome (GGS), as coined by Koanic.

Sebastien Chabal, a French rugby player, is a similar example, but somewhat less extreme.
http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/sebastien-chabal/sebastien-chabal-20071012-323736.jpg

These individuals in The Races of Europe may be thought of as Archaic Thals:

http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe042.jpg
http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe044.jpg

The Basque football player, Aitor Karanka, might be one of the closest living humans to a Neanderthal.
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Aitor+Karanka+Real+Madrid+CF+Press+Conference+E4Fd WxjR24al.jpg

Carles Puyol is another archaic Thal football player.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkNSUTwqMWF2XCDXphCFJA29lSQAep5 XNzm92_PEQodbvg0RtGqA

The Jewish author Israel Zangwill is not very robust, but he still has many archaic features: the low, sloping forehead, receding chin, and large nose.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Israel_Zangwill.jpg

It is the archaic features, not progressive ones, that give a person the superficial resemblance to Neanderthals in the eyes of most people, especially those not familiar with Edenism. This is where facereaders must be careful. In Edenism, designation of Neanderthal status is based mainly on the progressive traits. Some individuals have Archaic traits, but lack progressive Neanderthal traits. By our system, they are not considered Thal, even though most people would consider them to superficially resemble Neanderthals.

http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe043.jpg

Small, narrow-spaced eyes and a lack of receding periorbital sockets are Cro-Mag features.

And, finally, I am posting my latest facial composites for the three Thal types I discussed in this thread. I'm finally starting to be really satisfied with these morphs. It sure took forever to get them this good, but they should be more helpful than ever:
http://neanderhall.nfshost.com/phpbb/download/file.php?id=913&t=1

Source: http://neanderhall.nfshost.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=701

[Joso]

Restored Neanderthal Skulls

There are several features and forms that are "unique" to Neanderthals which modern people may lack or possess, in one way or another. Most of the photographs on the web are of fossils that have been severely damaged without reconstruction. The nasal bones, for example, are frequently missing. Just for convenience's sake, here are photos of complete or restored Neanderthal skulls:

The La Ferassie 1 Neanderthal 75,000 B.C.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BiHtmJTAhxg/TyijNr0wR5I/AAAAAAAAENw/Ty__0OnaXNw/s480/Neanderthal+skeleton.jpg[/img]
Amud 1 Neanderthal 50,000 B.C.

http://willdoherty.org/wordpress/wp-con ... CN4018.JPG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UNtCIFADbYg/T ... 1205_n.jpg

Even a casual observer can point out the obvious traits of Neanderthals from those pictures -- brow ridges, long, broad noses, "high cheekbones", etc. But there are many other features that Neanderthal skulls have which are a bit more subtle to the inexperienced observer. For example, Neanderthal skulls have a remarkably "puffy" appearance compared to all other primates. Their braincases are globular. Their brow ridges are usually double arched; although as you can see in the Amud skull, this is not always the case. Their palates and their jaws are broadened. They lack a canine fossa. Their oribts are angular, like aviator glasses. All of these features combined give Neanderthals an "inflated" and voluminous appearance. I personally have always thought of their skulls as being very similar to a Jason Voorhees hockey mask, particularly the one in "Jason Takes Manhattan."

This photo

http://sweet211.ru/images/news/13f0d336e67ec7dbf4986193b5e11ef11.jpg

is a good example of the stark contrast between some modern skulls and Neanderthals. The skull on the left has big brow ridges, and in the flesh someone might say that person resembled a Neanderthal. But below the flesh, the characters of this skull are frighteningly different. The modern human skull looks deflated and craggy. The Neanderthal is by comparison smooth and luxuriant.


Not all modern skulls are like this, of course. Some are nearly identical to a Neanderthal and many others are inbetween. This Japanese skull lacks a canine fossa and has the "puffy" visage of a Neanderthal, but if you look at the jaw it has flaring gonials, another "craggy" modern trait you will never find on a Neanderthal.

There are other features of equal importance which are impossible to determine on the living in photograph: All but perhaps one Neanderthal mandible has an asymmetrical mandibular notch, a flattened lamboidal region on the skull, an enlarged nucheal plane, or a retromolar space. Yet these features also occur on living people, and are sometimes absent in Neanderthals. Saint Cesaire lacks a retromolar space, yet many Arikara Indians and the Skhul-Qafzeh Neanderthaloids have one. Still however, even when such features exist, they may occur for different reasons that they occurred on Neanderthals. Takeru Akazawa, the discoverer of the Amud Neanderthals discussed this in great detail in the following pages why some Neanderthal features are found in Neanderthaloids but with an entirely different structural formation.

To keep things brief, I will only list basic superficial qualities which would characterize a Neanderthal:

Face very broad - usually over 150mm without flesh
Face usually tall - upper facial height 78-94mm
Brows frequently large and vertically projecting
Jaw usually massive
Mandibular breadth usually exceeds mandibular length
Mouth usually orthognathic, but sometimes extremely prognathic
Nose always long and usually broad - always taller than 60mm and broader than 42mm
Brain size large
Vault height frequently low but sometimes moderately high
Zygomatic retreat (aka midfacial "prognathism")
Face when viewed in profile usually has a "hatchet" appearance, due to several factors
Chin usually vertical, slightly projecting and only rarely absent
Cephalic index aside, the forehead is usually broad.
The shoulders and neck are extraordinarily broad

These reconstructions are fairly accurate if not a little exagerrated. Since there is still no conclusive data on the skin coloration and eye and hair color it is impossible to tell.

La Ferassie 1
http://avantyra.com/upload/iblock/9c4/9c4a6b200847eb1854d5119e166e008d.jpg

Amud 1
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4113/4844849131_f668d31538.jpg

Guattari + La Chapelle

https://www.donsmaps.com/images2/neanderthalcaselli.jpg

Figure 1: Unidentified Swedish male, with a mandible of Tabun C2/Heidelberg proportions.[/img]

http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe041.jpg

Iron Tail - Amud

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Chief_Iron_Tail,_Informal,_Profile.jpg

Wolf Robe ~ La Ferassie 1

http://www.american-tribes.com/messageboards/dietmar/wolfrobefront.jpg

Richard Wooden Leg - Shanidar 4
https://www.lautenbach.name/fotolaut/1381woodenleg2.jpg

Sophie Wooden Legs - Forbe's Quarry

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/b6/f5/b4/b6f5b4e2694ff101a79b9a81aef3f205.jpg

Broken Arm - La Chapelle Aux Saints
https://i.etsystatic.com/5520048/r/il/2a633d/1002528040/il_570xN.1002528040_ku02.jpg

Ivan Turgenev (cranial capacity largest on record 1800cc) - roughly equivalent to Amud.

http://moniqs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/blog7-300x194.jpg

Unidentified British male of the "Black Bridge Type"- Homme de Spy

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/PSM_V52_D183_Black_breed_from_the_shetland_islands .jpg/430px-PSM_V52_D183_Black_breed_from_the_shetland_islands .jpg

Wilouskin - Homme de Spy

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CQz2-EPsgT4/UeCv2lY_6ZI/AAAAAAAAAbs/UOpwEdUQSEw/s1600/kl2qHhR.jpg

Chief Ghost Bear - Saint Cesaire approximation

https://i1.wp.com/myvintagephotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Ghost-Bear.jpg?fit=504%2C641&ssl=1

Here are some faces that I am highly impressed by:

Charles Darwin
http://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/02/09/science/darwwin190.jpg

Leo Tolstoy

https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/leo-tolstoy-1.jpg

Lord Kelvin

https://media.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/v446/n7135/images/446505a-i1.0.jpg

Jahn Teigen (he is Norwegian, but appears Native American)
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/46/463/463647/Teigen_858.jpg

These are some of the best examples I've seen of what we call here "Archaic Thals". This basically means non-gracilized modern Neanderthals who have enough proper growth and environmental factors to show a clear superficial resemblance to Neanderthals. That is in contrast to what we call "Amud", which refers to more gracilized and reduced modern individuals, or "Mousterian" which refers to more short-faced, Alpinized types.

Source: http://neanderhall.nfshost.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=874

[Joso]

Real Neanderthal phenotypes vs. modern Thal

we don't have any proof that the phenotypes that some people calls "Thal" are actually derived from Neanderthals.

It's clear that a tiny percentage of Europeans and East Asians, as well as a larger percentage of Native Americans, have a look that is most definitely Neanderthal-inspired. Here are some examples:

http://www.nordish.org/bilder/troe041.jpg
https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/bilder/troe044.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/PSM_V52_D183_Black_breed_from_the_shetland_islands .jpg/430px-PSM_V52_D183_Black_breed_from_the_shetland_islands .jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/John_Mica_Portrait.jpg
http://www.quimlab.com.br/guiadoselementos/plutonio/plutonio92.jpg
http://neanderhall.nfshost.com/phpbb/download/file.php?id=1421&t=1
https://tahlequahmugs.com/tahlequah/images/2012/04/23/dusty_ray_lawson.jpg
http://1.vgc.no/drpublish/images/article/2013/07/30/23078535/1/990/955060.jpg
https://aznbadger.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/pete_postlethwaite_229178861.jpg
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1397/33/1397332635657.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/4b/ef/584befb05e4fb80b26b1a0b5baf7127d.jpg
http://www.american-tribes.com/Lakota/Oglala/RedCloud/MaryGoodRoad4.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/50911/small/LPLP_2_117.jpg?1380404428

These people should be at least somewhat how Neanderthals actually looked. Anyway, the problem is that what we've identified as "Thal phenotypes" are often similar to the above phenotypes in certain ways, but in other ways, are farther removed from them than average. For example, most of our "Thals" have narrower than average heads and greater than average height:width ratio, as well as a thinner than average bone structure. This means that in some ways, we are LESS Neanderthal than most living people.

Back in the days of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, there was no Caucasoid race. What we know as the Caucasoid race originated in the Neolithic era. Our "Thals" are a specialized subset of modern Neolithic Caucasoids, not any sort of archaic throwback. I don't believe we should be calling ourselves Neanderthals when we are actually less like Neanderthals than the average person in some respects. I do think that this Neolithic subset could be considered to have some sort of "noble physiognomy" and for whatever reason, does have a resemblance to the true Neanderthal phenotypes in certain ways.

Source: http://neanderhall.nfshost.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1068

[Joso]

The type that i find the most interesting:

Amud 1

Amud 1 cranium cast without the mandible:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Amud_1._Homo_neanderthalensis.jpg

Amud 1 is a nearly complete but poorly preserved adult Southwest Asian Neanderthal skeleton thought to be about 55,000 years old. It was discovered at Amud in Israel by Hisashi Suzuki in July 1961, who described it as male. With an estimated height of 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in), it is considerably taller than any other known Neanderthal,[1] and its skull has by far the largest cranial capacity (1736[2]-1740[3] cm3) of any archaic hominin skull ever found,[note 1] making it, according to Ralph Holloway, one of the most famous specimens of Neanderthal skulls.[5]

The skull was found very high in the stratigraphy and was not only mixed with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts, but also with pottery from levels further above. Because of this the first two published dates of Amud 1 and other remains were not taken seriously when they suggested an extremely recent time (by Neanderthal standards) of 28,000 and 20,000 years. It has since been redated by ESR to about 55,000 years.

Like other Neanderthal specimens in the Levant (such as Tabun C1 and the Shanidar specimens), Amud 1's skull is long, broad, and low, with an especially large nose and a big face, pronounced midfacial prognathism, and a large palate and lower jaw. To the contrary of other Near Eastern Neanderthals, its brow ridges are slender and its chin, though still minimal by modern human standards, are somewhat developed. Although Amud 1 is considerably taller than any other known Neanderthal, its body is stocky, robust, and has short limbs, similarly to the cold-adapted bodies of Classic West European Neanderthals.[1]

Suzuki initially interpreted these features as intermediate between Levantine Neanderthals (the Tabun and Shanidar specimens) and Levantine anatomically modern humans (Skhul and Qafzeh).[6] In 1995, Hovers et al. argued that its cranial and mandibular particularities made it fully Neanderthal,[7] and although rejected by Belfer-Cohen (1998), this is now the accepted classification. Amud 1 is highly progressive for a Neanderthal and has many derived traits shared with early anatomically modern humans and even modern humans.[8][9]

The skeleton is currently held at Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amud_1

[Joso]

What you guys think about these informations? Are they true?

[Joso]

Neanderthals, more close to modern humans than we expected

Like many Native American tribes, Neanderthals liked to adorn themselves with bird feathers, as recent discoveries suggest.

1-Feathers of the bearded vulture, wood pigeon and chough piquigualda, as well as a fox fur and an eagle claw, have been incorporated into this scientific reconstruction of a Neanderthal by the Italian paleoartist Fabio Fogliazza:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/medio/2013/04/25/portada_dsc0075_1979x1460.jpg

2-A scientific reconstruction of a Neanderthal shows the ornamental use that these made of bird feathers and mammal skins.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/medio/2013/04/25/dsc0026_1200x1800.jpg

3-The paleoartist Fabio Fogliazza has imagined the appearance of a Neanderthal, with his face painted and adorned with feathers, claws and furs.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/medio/2013/04/25/dsc0016_1910x1444.jpg

4-To carry out the reconstruction of the Neanderthal its author, the Italian paleoartist Fabio Fogliazza, of the Paleontology Laboratory of the Museum of Natural History of Milan, spent about six months. He started by modeling the facial muscles with clay and adhering them to a mold of one of the best-preserved neanderthal skulls known, the one discovered in the La Ferrassie cave in the Dordogne, France. Later he added the skin, also clay, giving expression to the face. Then he proceeded to create a negative of the mold with an elastic silicone and then a positive with synthetic resin, to which he applied the color of the skin and facial paint based on reddish ocher pigments (almagre) and black, the latter made with dioxide of manganese. The added feathers and the claw belong to the species documented in Fumane.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/medio/2013/04/25/dsc0153_1936x1296.jpg

The reconstructions made by paleo artists are so good and realistic that we are forced to ask ourselves if we would really win something by going back in time. We would see the species in motion, yes, but even that is achieved with modern digital animation techniques. Now, the noises produced by the animals disappeared forever, their grunts, roars and bellows, are not easy to reconstruct, and a trip to the past would serve to put sound to the documentary of prehistory.



In the case of extinct human species, we could in this way know what kind of sounds they emitted when communicating, if they were similar to ours or, on the contrary, similar to those of chimpanzees, although even this can be determined through of fossils. But even then we would not know if they "spoke", if they had a language like ours, because we would not be able to say whether the vocalizations they produced "meant" something. Our communication is based on symbols, and behind there must be a mind capable of creating and managing them. Curiously, there has never been a universal human language, not even "before Babel", because each community coined its language, and had the Neanderthals human language, we would have to see if they understood those of Central Asia with the Iberians. The fragmentation of a language is a matter of time and distance.

The reconstruction that was done in the past of the Neanderthals was that of very ungainly beings, with their knees bent, but it has been known for a long time that the complete bipedal posture, of the same type as ours, was reached more than four million years ago. of years, with the first australopithecines. The Neanderthals were wider in hips and trunk than we were, and very muscular, with short legs and forearms. The forehead was fled, under the eyebrows there was a bony thickening that made them protrude, and they lacked a chin.

In those ancient reconstructions they put chimpanzees' hair all over their bodies, and that made them look very primitive. Today they are represented with hair and beard, and the rest of the body is not very hairy, and thus they look much more human. However, there is no scientific evidence to support that they had hair (ie, hair of continuous growth) and beard (also of permanent growth), since our species is the only one that shows this type of hair in the current biosphere. Maybe one day we will tell the paleogenetic (the study of the DNA of fossils). If we could look through time, we would resolve that doubt at a glance.

Any photograph or engraving of a current human group or of the last centuries, whatever it may be, will show its members more or less naked, but always adorned. Ours is a species that, in addition to the natural features that distinguish the sexes, modifies its body to control its image, that is, the way in which others see us. This includes how to trim your hair and beard, the deformations to which in some cultures the lips or lobes of the ears are subjected, or those that were practiced on the skulls of young children to mold them, not to mention the hoops to stretch the neck of women, the cuts in the skin to produce scars (scarification), tattoos, mutilations, extractions of teeth or the sharpness of them and a long etcetera. If we could peek into the world of the Neanderthals, we would see if they were as human as we are in these ways of changing the body.

Can we imagine a Neanderthal with a huge plate on his lower lip? It seems little compatible with the type of life they led and their way of feeding. We know for sure that they did not tear or sharpen their teeth, or deform the skull of their children, or self-mutilate, but there are other modifications of the body, such as the perforation of the nose, which leave no trace on the skeleton, and we will not know if they were common practices. And it is not a simple curiosity, because these cultural practices are inseparable from the symbolic language. If the Neanderthals fixed their hair, for example, they were sure to talk.

But, in addition, humans of all cultures color the body and decorate it with necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings and many other symbolic objects. That the Neanderthals protected themselves from the cold by covering themselves with skins is safe, but did they paint their bodies? Were objects hanging from the neck or around the wrist? Did they put ribbons or feathers on their heads? It would be enough to have the certainty that they used any of these elements so that we knew that their mind was as symbolic as ours.

The Neanderthals transported red iron oxide, also called red ocher, to their caves and perhaps used it as a pigment to paint their bodies, although they could also give it other uses. Perhaps they were adorned with leaves or flowers, of course, but these plant elements do not last and are not part of the archaeological record.

A headdress of feathers on the head of a Neanderthal would have a great effect on those who saw it, especially if the feathers were of large gliding birds, such as scavengers and raptors. But feathers are not preserved, so how will we know if they used them?

The first answer to this question came in 2011 from an Italian site in Veneto, in the Prealps, called Fumane. It is a cave that was used by the Neanderthals. Among the bones of animals that transported to the place are those of various species of birds. Many of them are of the wings and have traces of being broken intentionally, or peeled, and some show polish indicating that they were used. But there are six especially interesting because they present cuts produced by stone instruments in order to dismantle them. They belong to a wing of the bearded vulture, another of red-footed kestrel, another of pigeon, two of chough piquigualda (all of them dated around 44,000 years old) and another of black vulture (from an older level). These parts of the body did not provide any food to the Neandertals, so they were not taken to the cave to eat them. A very reasonable explanation is that they used the wings to pluck the feathers and use them as decoration. That is at least what the authors of the research think, led by the Italian anthropologist Marco Peresani, of the University of Ferrara, and funded in part by the National Geographic Society.

In this grotto has also been found a phalanx nail of royal eagle with cut marks that indicate that they extracted the claw (nail). It is conceivable that they also used the claws for their personal grooming.
From this idea, Fabio Fogliazza, of the Paleontology Laboratory of the Museum of Natural History of Milan, imagined the appearance of a male Neanderthal with carefully cut hair and also adorned with feathers of lammergeyer, dove and chough piquigualda, subject with strips of deer skin. The ears have been decorated with dove feather cannons and the neck is covered with a fox fur, from which hang eagle claws. The face is painted with red ocher (red color) and manganese oxide (black color).

To reconstruct the head the paleoartist has resorted to a replica of a very complete Neanderthal male skull from the La Ferrassie site in the French Dordogne. Of course, it is not known who used the feathers, whether they were men, women or both sexes. Nor is there any idea of ​​what they meant to Neanderthals, but if they had any meaning (age, social status, gender, belonging to a group ...), they were already symbolic objects, a form of coded language to send a message to others , the expression of a rational mind.

On the other hand, this is not the only site that has provided evidence of the use of feathers by Neanderthals. In three caves of Gibraltar (Gorham, Vanguard and Ibex) have been found also bones of wings of raptors and corvids with signs of having acted on them. The interest of the Neanderthals for the wings of the great birds of prey (eagles, hawks) and the scavengers (vultures, vultures), as well as for the corvids, is very remarkable, and extends to many other sites in Europe, as they have shown in a 2012 study Clive Finlayson and other authors. Finally, in two caves of France (Combe-Grenal and Les Fieux) have been found phalanges of golden eagle and osprey (another great raptor) with the same characteristics (cut marks) as those of Fumane.

The consumption of birds by Archaic Neanderthals has been attested in the Bolomor Valencian field, in a study headed by the archeologist Ruth Blasco, which was a great surprise last year because until then it was thought that small animals had only been hunted systematic by more modern humans, long after the Neanderthals were extinct. However, their interest in raptors, species that are always little abundant because they are at the top of the ecological pyramid and have little or no nutritional value, have to obey reasons that are not obtaining calories. And the value of feathers for decorative purposes is a very worthy hypothesis to be taken into account

These theories change the image of the Neandertals, never better said. There is more to see the reconstruction of the Neanderthal with feather headdress to imagine a human being like us. In addition, we know that they made fire, they were experts carving the stone and their economy was not different from that of their contemporaries of our species. They also buried the dead and it seems that we carry a few genes of theirs (except for Africans living south of the Sahara). There are already many indications that seem to prove that the conscious mind, symbolic and capable of expressing itself through language is not exclusive of Homo sapiens and that it is not a question of everything (us) or anything (the other species). But it is also possible, and opens a fascinating perspective, that the Neanderthals had another kind of conscious mind, a different mentality.

Source( in Spanish): https://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/historia/grandes-reportajes/neandertales-mas-cerca-de-nosotros_7201/1

[Biguá]

Cro-magnon ≠ neanderthal

[Joso]

Cro-magnon ≠ neanderthal

I know but most of modern cro-magnids have a lot of neanderthal genes and can look physically very similar to neanderthals, for an example: The brünns of Ireland are considered as cro-magnids but they also look a lot like neanderthals because they have a considerable amount of neanderthal genes.