Would you say Neandrathals are superior to modern humans?

Question

In addition to being much stronger physicaly than a modern man (about 2 or 3 times), they auctualy had a larger brain as well!

They died out since their population never excedded 10,000 and homo sapieans did, but if they hadn't don't you think they would be more worthy of developing civilization than modern humans?

Answer 1

We modern Humans 'suddenly' appeared and have been on this planet for around 45,000 years, and in that time we have gone from flint axe to space travel, with all the sophisticated technology required.  Neanderthals dominated Earth for 290,000 years (i.e. 5 times longer), but advanced only to using simple tools, painting a few pictures, wearing animal skins and burying their dead, in all that time. Plus, we Modern Humans co-existed with the Neanderthals for around 5,000 yeas.  We survived, they didn't.

So, no, I would not say that the Neanderthals are(were) superior to us.

Answer 2

No.  their strength was a result of their environment which was cold.  And their brain size, contrary to Dr. Quakensmith above me, was a result of their inner womb development.  So Neanderthals were born with huge brains that never grew much.  Homo sapiens were born with smaller brains, but they expand much more once outside of the womb.  We are smarter, it is nothing to do with muscle mass or brain size.  Sapiens learned more outside of the womb and became smarter.  End of story my friend.

Answer 3

Their larger brains reflected their larger body and cold adaptation. They had a lower cranial vault and had a much less advanced social system, tool innovation, hunting strategies, and dwellings than their contemporary H. sapiens. While bigger than humans, they were much less fit for their environment: especially as the earth warmed up.

Answer 4

The Neanderthal were successful for many centuries. The evolved physical adaptations to cope with the harsh climate of the ice age and had technology that allowed them to live quite well. There's evidence that they lived at the same time as archaic humans. In theory what effected one should have harmed the other. For years it was thought that modern man

simply killed off the Neanderthal as he moved into their territory. Neanderthal were cast as primitive cavemen competing with advanced, technologically superior humans. This theory is no longer accepted

Today DNA evidence shows that we are not descended from the Neandertals. One theory, disproved by this discovery, was that Neandertals interbreed with homo sapiens and their descendants live on today. One exhibit has even given a Neanderthal stature a shave and dressed him in evening clothes.

There may be some validity to the argument that man's technology caused him to be more effective and Neanderthal could not compete in the use of resources. The Neanderthal "tool kit", (the stone tools, spears, and hunting materials) does not appear to have significantly changed from the time the race first enters into the fossil record. While their aveage brain size was largerNeandertals show heavy wear on their teeth, suggesting the teeth were used as a vice, third arm and for processing food. Their bones are often found to be broken and then healed. Perhaps their hunting method caused these injuries (the same injuries are found among rodeo cowboys). Given these facts early man may have had an edge.

As the Neanderthal were extremely specialized in their adaptation to the ice age, the change in climate may have been the reason for their extinction. Once the glaciers melted, the available living space suited to them would have vanished or been greatly reduced. Unable to adapt, they may have died out.

One thing you missed was mobility. Humans with their light frames would have been faster runners then Neandertals. The end of the ice age caused steppes to form. This favored the humans while Neanderthals were relegated to smaller and more isolated patches of forest. Humans were also taller then the normal 5 foot tall Neanderthal males.

About brain size:

"Comparison of Cranial Capacities

                                                  range (cm3)  Average (cm3)

  

chimpanzees                               300-500  

australopithecines                       390-545  

Homo habilis                                509-752         610

Homo erectus                               750-1250      970

Homo heidelbergensis                1100-1390    1206    

Neandertals                                 1300-1750      1450    

modern Homo sapiens                900-1880      1345 "

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo...    



"Note: There is a considerable range in body size among

modern Homo sapiens, including large numbers of small

people.  Subsequently, the average brain size is smaller

than would initially seem likely. However, the average for

some modern populations (especially European and most

African ones) is slightly larger than that of Neandertals"

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo...

Finally:

"NOTE:   It would be a mistake to assume that a minor difference in overall brain size is directly correlated with intelligence among archaic or modern Homo sapiens.  However, the gross difference in cranial capacity between the earliest human species and recent Homo sapiens probably does reflect potential intelligence differences.  In order to trace the development of intelligence, speech, and other mental capabilities, it is more useful to examine changes in specific brain regions and the genes that control their development."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo...

In short, size may matter, but how the brain is constructed matters even more.

Answer 5

Examine if you can the Y- chromosome of the neanderthal- it was rapidly shrinking in size from about 100,000yrs BCE resulting in ever decreasing fertility among already small groups of 10 or less individuals (a similar fate awaits h. sapiens in the next 1000000 yrs). If we accept the 'out of Africa' hypothesis with h. sapiens taking over the neanderthal environment it is also easy to visualise hot climate adapted disease-resistant h.sapiens creating havoc among a cold adapted neanderthal population who did not share their resistance (much in the way early European settlers decimated the populations of the new world with disease).

Sophisticated  language and elaborate body ornamentation and art is necessarily associated with larger (h. sapiens) groups as necessary indicators and differentiators of role and status. So if we had been the successors of neanderthals, we may have been stronger, more intuitive but culturally less elaborate. As to possible interbreeding..consider the neanderthal jawbone..the mandibular nerve is recessed in 100% of the 'species'.  Archaic H.sap jawbones display the grooved mandibular nerve feature exclusively. In modern humans the neanderthal trait is expressed in 8% of the population. Are we still here??

Answer 6

almost all animals are "superior" to modern humans in their own environment. It is our ability to adapt and to use tools to survive in much wider ecological niches that has given rise to our civilization. Neanderthals, while stronger,and quite intelligent. were physically more specialized to a sub arctic climate and not as able to adapt to other climates and  ecological zones.

Answer 7

If they had been superior they would be here and we wouldn't.

I think you might mean that their population is estimated never to have exceeded 100,000 because 10,000 is pretty low.

It is believed they died out because they did not have the tools needed to prepare them for a major climate change. Modern humans had developed the ability to sew and layer clothing, Neanderthals, who were naturally hardier, never developed some of these tool making skills. When the ice age came and temperatures fluctuated badly, the Neanderthals pretty much froze to death. At least that's the latest theory.

They had large brains but it functioned differently from the brain of modern man. There is little proof they had language (though I'm not to sure how you could prove that) etc, but I came across an interesting article that claims they probably did not suffer from many of the mental disorders we do because of the rapid maturation of their brains.

Either way, they co-existed with modern humans for a short time and then they dies out.

We planned ahead, they couldn't that makes us the natural survivors, I guess.

I've included a couple of Discovery Channel links but I could probably find you more academic articles if you want.

Answer 8

Brain size has no bearing on  intelligence.

Physical strength can only assure survival in certain circumstances.

We are superior because,frankly,we survived while they did not.

Answer 9

Their brains were bigger because their bodies were, it didn't make them smarter. The relative size was about the same.

Also, reconstructions of their inner ear show they were just not as agile as us, and they could never have run as fast, as their legs were short.

We're here and they are not, we win!

Answer 10

Modern humans are descended from Cromagnon man which mostly wiped out Neanderthal man because of their smaller more intelligent brain and capacity to think laterally, plan and use advanced tools and weapons.

As far as I know, only one case of a cross breed exists and was the child of a skeleton found in Spain.

Answer 11

There is a theory that homo sapiens consummed the neanderthals. Your theory defies natural selection theory.

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Homo_s...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolu...

Answer 12

okay i would not rank either species as superior. against everyone elses views and blogs here, they need to do more reserch and not just pick the first web sit that the search engine comes up with. as to brain size and cranial capacity to learn and acquire knowledge, neanderthalensis was indeed on average above that of homo sapiens archaic andand us homo sapiens sapiens. no we did not evolve fronm the cromagnon man, nor did cromagnon man destroy neanderthalensis prior to our arrival. neanderthalensis did have sewing and tool making, and their technology never changed beacuse the enviorement they were in was fairly stable. however after two species of sapiens came through and competed for resources as well as dramatic climate change came about, the end of the ice age, so to speak, the partially sedentary life style of neaderthals could not compete for reasources, if you figure they moved twice a year to seasonaly following gaming herds, when sapiens were constanly moving their seasonaly returns would be less. there is no evidence of conflict or warfare between the two lineages nor is their any irrefutable proof of inbreeeding or not. due to the larynx bones in the throat and back of the toung bracing bones, we are certian that neanderthalensis had vocal capabilities like us, but what the language was we probably will never know. as for size and strength neanderthalensis was indeed bigger boned so to speak but on average were more or less similar in size to us, so running ect, as others ignoramous have said has no effect of them. the only way i feel neanderthalensis may be concidered superior to sapiens is in the fact that unlike us they did not become a virus killing the planet they call home.

as far as developing society and being worthy, no one is worthy and for civilization the had it, shared tool making processes, identical tool kits, family groups , stable migration patterns, and returned reused recidences, so for civilization even a family group of bonobo chimps can say they have society, and civilization the only thing lacking we have not found nor given neanderthalensis credit for was art, and much of the cave art found dates to near the cusp of sapien outliving neandferthalensis. could very well have been done by neanderthalensis. since over half the animals depicted are of megafauna, and not southern climatic animals. so no one is superior, but i would say neanderthalensis is more fun.

Answer 13

The probably superior strength of a Neanderthal to most modern humans is not the independent variable that indicates superiority.  Otherwise, the branch of that species would still thrive.  I think their demise resulted from their lack of a language, a lack to make a plan that would result in a future result, the small size of their brain which really provided them with only the ability to provide for their immediate needs, and often did not only do that.  I believe evolved from a different branch of one of those of the common ancestor from which homosapiens originated.  More and more is being learned about how they lived as more evidence is discovered from newly discovered sites of habitation, and the mapping of the existing specimens of DNA.