You ought to read up on the latest findings rather than postulate so much using old stereotypes and hyperbole.

“We can not say that barbarians were more inteligent than the citizens of the Roman empire, although the Barbarians ended up conquering the Roman empire and its territories. ”

Much of your long discourse is dominated by stereotyped historical interpretations that have no basis in actual historical fact.

Actually, the historical detail of the historical records show that the Germans were superior to the Romans in many ways. They had a higher moral code, they disdained the wild Roman sexual, and violent practices, and their code of honor made them a better bet in the Roman military than the Romans of the late empire who were often deposing one another, through assassination, either violently, or passively (poisoning). Romans suffered from genetic problems caused by lead poisoning in their plumbing as well as the practice of putting lead in their wine. The Romans were violent and aggressive, overcome by the idea that they must conquer and subdue “the world.” Many of the groups they conquered were only inferior in their aggression.

But the Romans rotted from within. They became too cosmopolitan, suffered from too much cultural diversity,and too much liberalism. The only times Rome was strong was when austerity and discipline under a strong, moral leader prevailed. That liberalism allowed the superstitious religion of Christianity to rise and destroy philosophical reason, replacing it with a fanatical view toward an imminent end of the world. Read Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.”

Thanks for taking the time to read my reply. Most of the time I comment on articles it seems I am a “lone ranger”, seems like I am the only one reading.

The theory about desease bringing the Neanderthal people to its demise is the most plausible theory in my view.

Other theories speak about hybridization, and others about full anyhilation at the hands of Homo Sapiens.

I see no evidence of hybridization. For that to have happened, the evidence would be clearly visible, either in their physiques, or at least in the archeological record.

I see no evidence of Neanderthal physical characteristics in any human race. Craneal shape, supra orbital crests, nose, clavicle lenght, rib cage shape, forearm proportions, thickness of bone walls, size of hands and feet, as well as thickness of said parts, size of joints, muscle mass and development ( as ascertained by muscle attachment points ) shape of the hip bones and ramus, etc, is not evident in extant human races.

Not only that, but for any hybridization process to take place, there should had been co-existence of Neanderthal and H Sapiens in situ. No archeological site shows remains off both species at the same place, in the same geological time and physical location. All we find is separate quarters, never a single episode of cohabitation.

For these two species to interbreed, the matings should had happened on numerous occassions, thousands of times, over a period of time this two species were contemporary. There would be remains of mixed individuals, and plenty of mixed bred individuals would had mated with other mixed bred and with fully H Sapiens and fully Neanderthals. The fosil and archeological record should evidence these array of posibilities. Unfortunately, until that happens, no evidence of hybridization exists.

The genetic record as well excludes and precludes that hypothesis from coming to fruition.

The theory of anyhilation of Neanderthals at the hands of H Sapiens is not been substantiated by the evidence. To butress such contention, the evidence should show mass graves, or neaderthal remains dump sites, with neanderthal bodies showing evidence of arrow injuries, beatings, and the like in a massive array, as if been victims of a genocidal attack by H Sapiens.

We would also find remains of H Sapiens been attacked and injured in a retaliatory attack by Neanderthals. In fact, evidence on both sides of a war between both species would clearly show the results of such alledged grudge between these two contemporary species.

Nothing of that sort has manifested in the record.

I am inclined to believe that H Sapiens invaded the lands once belonging exclusively to Neanderthal peoples. H sapiens must have introduced disease ( like the case of europeans introducing chicken pox, german measles , mumps and other dieseases to the american natives )that cause pandemics amongst Neanderthal populations.

Although stronger than H Sapiens, Neanderthals lived in harmony with its own species. Intra specific wars between Neanderthals was not the norm, evidence does not show the opposite. For many times as longwer as H Sapiens, Neaderthals lived and dominated the land, and time and again, rode the capricious weather changes and extremes the glacial periods brought in. Neanderthals proved to be inteligent beings, and part of that inteligence is long time adaptation to climate changes that were dramatic, and intra species cohesion.

Tools made by H Sapiens for a while were more advance, but that is not a result of more inteligence on part of H Sapiens, that is the result of H Sapiens traveling through different terrains, adapting to different surroundings, while Neanderthal peoples did not travel, Neanderthals were adapted to their land and their tools suficed. It is the story of two different species, one established in its territory, with fauna and flora known and under control, and another moving beyond its boundaries, perhaps pushed by necessity, lack of food and opportunities ( climate change?) hence developing new tools as it moved through different situations.

A lot of people see the craneal features of Neanderthals, and immediately assume it was a inferior species. Being stronger physicaly, and having a rugged face does not mean inferiority, or less inteligence. This only tells of different adaptations. For hundreds of thousands of years, Neaderthal peoples dwelled in cold climates, which called for larger noses and nasal pasages to warm up the air inhaled. Larger Supra orbital ridges were indeed perfect adaptation to cold air.That larger cavity warmed up blood and vessels needed to warm up cold air running up the nose tract.

Had Neandethal peioples been less inteligent, savages as many try to portray Neanderthals in comparison to H Sapiens, then, given the superior strenght and power Neaderthals had, it would be Neanderthals the species that would had exterminated a fragile H Sapiens.

As in todays civilizations and in our history, many times savages destroy the educated peoples. The barbarians did it to the Roman Empire. But it does not have to be a physical war like confrontation. Many times, the superior society retreats and refuses to comingle with the inferior ones, in a passive manner. While the inferior beings gain territory, the superior beings walk into a dead end road, and end up disappearing.

It is my undertanding, from interpreting the latests studies on the subject, that Neanderthal people were superior to H Sapiens. Superiority can not be graded on tool fabrication alone, cognitive skills and behaviour can not be discerned from tools alone, but the record shows H Sapiens is a destructive and quarrelsome species, actively and pasively destroying other species living in the planet. We can not say that barbarians were more inteligent than the citizens of the Roman empire, although the Barbarians ended up conquering the Roman empire and its territories. I can not infer that H Sapiens is more inteligent than Neaderthal men, only because H Sapiens survived, while Neanderthal men did not.

Desease as well as territorial competition , together with a search for H Sapiens free land, drove Neanderthal peoples to oblivion.

Sometimes superiority of mind can push that individual to retreat and hence,indirectly, give away territoty. Sometimes the brutes end up taking over. Inteligence calls for inteligence, inteligent beings do not enjoy the company of less inteligent ones.

I would, however, take issue with your statement that “Neanderthal men and women were better adapted and were more inteligent than it’s relative [Homo sapiens].” This just doesn’t seem to be the case in light of several lines of evidence. Many people, when they learn that the Neanderthal brain was slightly larger than that of anatomically modern humans, associate their larger brains with larger intelligence. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. The Neanderthal brain was on average 1200-1900 cc whereas the cranial capacity of anatomically modern humans is 1300-1500 cc. But one must consider cranial capacity in relation to body mass. Biologists have long used encephalization quotient as a rough estimate of the possible intelligence of an organism.

The EQ of a resus monkey is 2.09 but the EQ of a much heavier, more massive whale is only 1.76. EQ is determined by dividing brain weight by 0.09908 (body weight)^0.76237. The EQ of an. modern humans is roughly 5.4 but the heavier neanderthal is about 4.8, noticeably different [1].

But there exist several other lines of evidence (see my more recent article on Cognitive Science). Among them, and very hard to discount, is the evidence of technology. The technology that exists among human populations far exceeds that of the Neanderthal, showing abstract thought and planning that exceeds that of the Neanderthal. Stone tool technology alone showed significant differences between the two species with human tool kits including more specialized lithics such as burins and denticulated blades. It was also after the human populations dominated that art appears in the archaeological record. Cave paintings and figurines start appearing between 45,000 and 30,000 years ago, just after the demise of the Neanderthal.

So,when you conclude that the only way a more “dominant and successful species could disappear” is through the introduction of “viruses and bacteria,” this argument fails because one of it’s premises is unsound. Namely that the Neanderthal was superior to humans in cognitive terms. They may have been, but the evidence is in favor of a superior human cognition (again, see my earlier article on Cognitive Archaeology).

Finally, “Homo sapiens took off only after the Neanderthal species disappeared” is also an incorrect statement. Modern humans were doing quite well in Africa and the Levant (though they were displaced by Neanderthals at around 80,000 years ago in and around Israel and Jordan) going back to about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Thank your for commenting. I’d recommend authors like Erik Trinkhaus, Christopher Stinger, Colin Renfrew, and Richard G. Klein for further information. Its a very broad and complex line of study and your intuition is good, but intuition has to be tempered with data and evidence. I’m certainly not the expert on Neanderthal evolution, so I defer to the authors above for elucidation.

1. See McHenry, H.M. (1994). Tempo and mode in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91, pp. 6780-6786; and McHenry and Coffing (2000). Australopithecus to Homo: Transformations in body and mind. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, pp. 125-146.