I don’t think Neanderthals were “giants,” but Gigantopithecus was. It is thought that he/she evolved into what is today Bigfoot, according to some physical anthropologists.
Neanderthals had on the average larger brain size than Homo sapiens and they weren’t “dumb” as the article above points out. (Check you Dr. David Frayer on YouTube:
“Year of Darwin: David Frayer” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbLq0F0VEdw )
But, Homo sapiens excelled in tool-making. Does handiness make Homo saps. smarter?
If “modern” contemporary humans are so apt to get into war (as the U.S. does and has done for decades now) it sure seems likely human’s more “primitive” ancestors who lived in the distant past did the same.
But, we needn’t even get into a discussion about weaponry and warfare just look all the destruction our “advanced,” non-killing “tools,” i.e. technology, has done is doing to the planet. (Think Japanese nuclear reactors; think BP and the Gulf of Mexico; think “dead zones” along the coasts of all the continents of the world; think the “great garbage patches” in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; think PCBs and other industrial chemicals found in the bodies of wild animals from the Arctic to the Antarctic; think that right now you have any number of 200 potentially harmful industrial chemicals in your body.)
If Homo saps. are more evolved than other primates, it seems to me, they have failed to display it. I can’t help but feel that Homo sapiens are an evolutionary dead-end. Sorry to say ’cause I is one and am living in the mess we made.
We are the most successful primates at increasing our population.
I wonder if Neaderthals were called “giant” just because they were stocky and muscular, and only slightly taller.
Neanderthals’ height averages between 164 and 168 (males) resp. 152 to 156 cm (females). This height is indeed 12-14 cm lower than the height of post-WWII Europeans, but compared to Europeans some 20,000 … years ago, it is practically identical or even slightly higher. – link
You guys keep using a brain’s volume to represent how intellectually evolved a species is/would be, but this is not the proper way. Especially in a case in which the volumes are only /slightly/ different, density is the key marker for intelligence. Since we have no living Neanderthals, nor any preserved brains of Neanderthals, the only evidence we can seriously consider are levels of technology at roughly equal intervals of existence. The fact that we have outlasted the Neanderthals does not mean /we/ are smarter, but their brain volume being a little greater is not evidence — at all — that /they/ were smarter.
Apparently you don’t need the soft tissue of the brain itself to measure brain volume if you have more or less complete skulls. Physical anthropologists have been doing this for some time. This is how they figured that Neanderthals have on average larger brains than both modern and archaic humans. [1]
But, Sam, your right. Brain size itself may not correlate with intelligence. For instance, Homo sapiens brain averages out to be 1,350 cubic cm., but the females of the species have on average smaller volume than the males. Yet, they certainly are not, on average, any dumber than the males.
One reason females are not on average dumber than males, despite having smaller brain volume, is because they have greater neuronal density in their cortex [2]. I don’t think we can talk about neuronal density among Neanderthals, but having a large brain volume has already given them a head start when comes to “intelligence” – whatever that really is.
[1] Holloway, R.L., Jr. (1981) Volumetric and asymmetry determinations on recent hominid endocasts: Spy I and II, Djebel Ihroud I, and the Sale Homo erectus specimens, with some notes on Neanderthal brain size. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 55:385–393
[2] Haug, H. (1987) Brain sizes, surfaces, and neuronal sizes of the cortex cerebri: A stereological investigation of man and his variability and a comparison with some mammals (primates, whales, marsupials, insectivores, and one elephant). Am. J. Anat. 180:126–142
I’ve insisted for over 50 years that there were others here before the “American Indian” migration because many have more European-features. The reply was always “don’t be ridiculous! !!!”
It must have been the draw of Disney Land. I don’t think Disney World had opened then.
I don’t think Neanderthals were “giants,” but Gigantopithecus was. It is thought that he/she evolved into what is today Bigfoot, according to some physical anthropologists.
Neanderthals had on the average larger brain size than Homo sapiens and they weren’t “dumb” as the article above points out. (Check you Dr. David Frayer on YouTube:
“Year of Darwin: David Frayer”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbLq0F0VEdw )
But, Homo sapiens excelled in tool-making. Does handiness make Homo saps. smarter?
If “modern” contemporary humans are so apt to get into war (as the U.S. does and has done for decades now) it sure seems likely human’s more “primitive” ancestors who lived in the distant past did the same.
But, we needn’t even get into a discussion about weaponry and warfare just look all the destruction our “advanced,” non-killing “tools,” i.e. technology, has done is doing to the planet. (Think Japanese nuclear reactors; think BP and the Gulf of Mexico; think “dead zones” along the coasts of all the continents of the world; think the “great garbage patches” in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; think PCBs and other industrial chemicals found in the bodies of wild animals from the Arctic to the Antarctic; think that right now you have any number of 200 potentially harmful industrial chemicals in your body.)
If Homo saps. are more evolved than other primates, it seems to me, they have failed to display it. I can’t help but feel that Homo sapiens are an evolutionary dead-end. Sorry to say ’cause I is one and am living in the mess we made.
We are the most successful primates at increasing our population.
I wonder if Neaderthals were called “giant” just because they were stocky and muscular, and only slightly taller.
You guys keep using a brain’s volume to represent how intellectually evolved a species is/would be, but this is not the proper way. Especially in a case in which the volumes are only /slightly/ different, density is the key marker for intelligence. Since we have no living Neanderthals, nor any preserved brains of Neanderthals, the only evidence we can seriously consider are levels of technology at roughly equal intervals of existence. The fact that we have outlasted the Neanderthals does not mean /we/ are smarter, but their brain volume being a little greater is not evidence — at all — that /they/ were smarter.
Apparently you don’t need the soft tissue of the brain itself to measure brain volume if you have more or less complete skulls. Physical anthropologists have been doing this for some time. This is how they figured that Neanderthals have on average larger brains than both modern and archaic humans. [1]
But, Sam, your right. Brain size itself may not correlate with intelligence. For instance, Homo sapiens brain averages out to be 1,350 cubic cm., but the females of the species have on average smaller volume than the males. Yet, they certainly are not, on average, any dumber than the males.
One reason females are not on average dumber than males, despite having smaller brain volume, is because they have greater neuronal density in their cortex [2]. I don’t think we can talk about neuronal density among Neanderthals, but having a large brain volume has already given them a head start when comes to “intelligence” – whatever that really is.
[1] Holloway, R.L., Jr. (1981) Volumetric and asymmetry determinations on recent hominid endocasts: Spy I and II, Djebel Ihroud I, and the Sale Homo erectus specimens, with some notes on Neanderthal brain size. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 55:385–393
[2] Haug, H. (1987) Brain sizes, surfaces, and neuronal sizes of the cortex cerebri: A stereological investigation of man and his variability and a comparison with some mammals (primates, whales, marsupials, insectivores, and one elephant). Am. J. Anat. 180:126–142
I’ve insisted for over 50 years that there were others here before the “American Indian” migration because many have more European-features. The reply was always “don’t be ridiculous! !!!”
I am pretty sure that archaic humans followed the buffalo from Eurasia to North America some 500k years ago.