Talk:Neanderthal behavior

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannah M Weinstein, Keri M Sullivan, Autumn Johnson, Lgrant22, Njamison95, Sjane19, DStreit99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

hypothesis has no place here

 * "Neanderthals may have had an elaborate proto-linguistic system of communication that was more musical than modern human language, and that pre-dated the separation of language and music into two separate modes of cognition. He called this hypothetical lingual system 'hmmmmm' because it would be Holistic, manipulative, multi-modal, musical and mimetic.' "

Pure speculation that can never be tested. This is a theory that can never be made into a hypothesis. Pure speculation.

We might one day find musical instruments near Neanderthals, but we are never going to find any books or audio records.

Even if we one day manipulate DNA to create a new Neanderthal, we can never know if their language was "Holistic, manipulative, multi-modal, musical and mimetic.'"

In fact the overwhelming probability is that Neanderthals had a number of languages, depending on region and era.

We should be presenting facts, not untestable speculation. So what is this untested and untestable hmmmmm theory doing in a wikipedia article?

50.71.50.249 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding musical instruments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_flute Cerumol2 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is published in a reliable source and widely known and referred to. That is the criteria for inclusion, not whether it is scientific. (also it is incorrect that claims about history are not testable - they are hypothetically testable (for example with a time machine), but practically untestable, this means that the hypothesis is scientifically valid in Popperian terms).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is really foolish and bad science to include a source that hinges on pure speculation just because you the editor thinks (and that is solely YOUR opinion) it's "reliable" and "widely referred to". That should NOT be the criteria for inclusion as it is completely untestable and the person above rightly asserts. For example, it is valid to claim that Neanderthal tool making changed little over the years. This is provable because excavation sites show this. But to then extrapolate and state that this means or implies they had a "reduced capacity for thinking" is pure speculation on somebody's part, it doesn't matter if you obtained the information from Science magazine (which you didn't) or Nature or any other journal "of repute" it CANNOT BE PROVED. It is speculation and you or they are, just frankly, making it up. So your paragraph here:

"Neanderthal toolmaking supposedly changed little over hundreds of thousands of years. The lack of innovation was said to imply they may have had a reduced capacity for thinking by analogy and less working memory. The researchers further speculated that Neanderthal behaviour would probably seem neophobic, dogmatic and xenophobic to modern humans.[6][7]

is absolutely bogus. YOU CANNOT PROVE that because their tool making skills didn't change they therefore couldn't think as well as humans. It's even more ludicrous to say that we humans today would perceive them as "neophobic, and xenophobic" (which are very judgmental standards we apply to each other), simply because their tool making skills didn't change. We have NO idea how we would perceive the habits of Neanderthal should we meet one today. Did it ever occur to you that they didn't change their skills because they did not NEED to change it and xenophobia and dogmatism has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT? No, the editors of this article need to seriously amputate half of it b/c most of it is just absolute drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.237 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The hyoid bone is associated with speach capability. Also the gene was discovered as well.72.161.226.183 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Advanced Bone Structure
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8963177/Neanderthals-built-homes-with-mammoth-bones.html

Point A; not mentioned in detail in article

Point B; provides clear evidence of use of Ochre while article on speculates

Point C; shows advanced use of bone, article claims limited use of bone tools --Senor Freebie (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Carnivorous NOT
The referenced source for the opening statement of the article ACTUALLY concludes:

"Therefore, the emerging picture of the European Neanderthal diet indicates that although physiologically they were presumably omnivores, they behaved as carnivores,  with animal protein being the main source of dietary protein."

I have changed the wording to reflect the conclusion of the (all the) research cited. There seems no debate on the issue in the references.

LookingGlass (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Neanderthal behavior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061124102938/http://www.icp.inpg.fr/OHLL/lesPubliRapports/JPhonetics.pdf to http://www.icp.inpg.fr/OHLL/lesPubliRapports/JPhonetics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Neandertal cannibalism and Neandertal bones used as tools in Northern Europe
See this article] about Goyet in Belgium. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Art and adornment section
I'm amazed that the recent finding of an eagle talon necklace written up in the journal Nature (March 11th 2015) has not been mentioned here. The journal unequivocally states that the talons were made into a necklace from the Neanderthal period in Croatia. It proves that Neanderthal humans wore jewelry. You need to add it here. the link is https://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-wore-eagle-talons-as-jewellery-1.17095. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.89.229 (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2017 (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)

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)