This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neanderthal behavior article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Neanderthal behavior appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Neanderthal behavior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
See this article] about Goyet in Belgium. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
Is there any article on this? (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2022 (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)