c b wrote:
>
> Chris Doss
>
> Awesome: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8448660.stm
>
> ^^^^
> CB: Why are Neanderthals often pictured as male ?
>
> Some anthropologists claim that Neanderthals had bigger brains than
> homo sapiens sapiens. (smile)
>
Carrol: I'm not sure what the (smile) is for; brain size is not the only measure of intelligence, and is no measure at all as to the organization of that intelligence.
^^^^ CB: Very true. I smile because it's complicated . Here's how it comes up in paleo-anthro , though. They measure the cranium size of the fossils of the apes, missing links and homonids. One way they decide whether a fossil is closer to "us" or to apes is the size of the cranium and impliedly the brain. And of course "intelligence" or in this case symboling, signifying, decoration/sense of aesthetics is attributed to this greater "intelligence" of humans. ( and greater "intelligence" of humans than apes is inferred from greater brain size by biological anthropologists; as between humans greater brain size is _not_ a measure of greater "intelligence")
So, with big brains, and probably language and symbols, signifying, it is not surprising that Neanderthals decorated themselves, i.e. had aesthetics. See what I mean ?
There are , as you say, limits to inferring "intelligence" from brain size, but in the context of paleoanthropological discussion, the place we find Neanderthals, Neanderthal cranium size is significant.
^^^^^^^
Carrol: For that we have to depend on the archaeological record, which is hard to interpret. The Neandethals, incidentally, are not an 'ancestor' of humans: they belong on a different twig of the homo twig. There is the evidence of one grave dug up in Iraq about 70 years ago that at least sometimes they supported disabled individuals who would have been unable to care for themselves but nevertheless had a normal life span (whatever that was).
Carrol
^^^^^ CB: Correct. When I was in school in the late 60's, there was a hypothesis that Neanderthals and humans were the same species ( homo sapiens Neanderthal and homo sapien sapiens) . This would mean we could interbreed, produce viable offspring together. But since then mytochondria dna ( calling Ian) evidence has put them out of our species.
They probably were very "smart" . My hypothesis is that the individual Neanderthals were so smart that they could get along a bit too lonesome. In other words, they had an anti-social tendency. This ability to go it alone became an adaptive _dis_adavantage relative to
we highly social and group oriented homo sapiens (us) when some environmental change and struggles came along.
Take that Social Darwinists !
Remember fitness is relative to a concrete environment. And environments change.