two human types of completely different species ?
Not all that different, really. If they could interbreed, then they were fairly closely related.
Up to the present, Homo Sapiens Neandertal and Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been seen as different species. That may be about to change, but IF it does, it been only recently; but the participants in our saga were less informed.
Some differences in the skull structure:
competing for habitat. That would need to be factored in
I suspect it'd be like when the White man was competing with habitat for the Indians, the Native Americans, the native Mexicans, the Moors, or other White people.
Plenty of race mixing was involved.
This fits my example of Tasmania. But the American pushing the frontier, or even the first settlers/pilgrims recognized the original inhabitants as being human. They shared interpreters, material goods, and ideas.
The offspring from sex between fully developed modern humans and a creature that was no doubt considered an animal, would find a hard time finding a mate in a hierarchical human society.
Like creoles and mestizos?
You seem to be “eat up” by race. I thought we were talking about two early versions of humanity, but you want to bring it forward to today’s tensions surrounding race and imputed racism, I suspect because you see everything through that political filter. I guess that works for you and your ilk.
Remember, that child would have imbued on it the lowest of low status of it's mother (an animal and a slave) in finding a mate.
you assume that the neanderthal was basically a ******? [!!!?]
I was making no such assumption! Here I was making reference to maternal status. Entertain the idea for a moment, that early in human history, in hunter-gatherer societies, the female endowed status on her offspring. The child of a low status female was either stigmatized or imbued with her clan status.
It seems to me that the status of a female from “the others” would have from the start held the lowest status. Since it would’ve been doubtful (my assumption) that they would’ve kept both male and female slaves, there would not have been many marital options for the female slave.
With the statement: "...you assume that the neanderthal was basically a ******?" you escalate your racist rhetoric
The impregnation of slaves by their masters describes my own preferred most likely scenario. That situation was slaves taken in battle, and consequently raped as "spoils of war."
Or bedslaves bought at the market to fill Jeffersons chambers
I'm not sure of the relevance. But what you seem to be saying (versus what I am saying) is that the Neanderthal’s and Sapiens’s societies were not much different from that of today’s modern day society. These were pre-civilization tribal societies living in clans. The first civilizations came into being with the first cities, etc.
To the contrary, the flat-headed beetle-browed Neanderthals with barrel chests and short lower legs, awkward gait, and inability to speak
projecting much? You've evidence that they could not speak? They must have ben able to speak, given their culture, art, and collective hunting.
As far as communicating in hunting parties I suspect that it would've been largely hand and body signals as it still is today. It has been theorized that PART of the reason that men are less verbally articulate than women is derived from the fact the male was the hunter, and silent signals were more useful than vocal ones that would give their presence away. In hunter/gatherer societies (essentially all early human ancestral societies), the females were the gatherers, and spoken/verbal articulation would be more of a help and less of a hindrance for them which may have added to their superior verbal skills
As for their art, I’m not sure what their art would’ve had to do with their ability for expansive use of language, beyond what we have already deduced from their larynx/hyrax bone, about which it is enough to say that they did not speak so that Homo Sapiens would have recognized it as being speech. That, at least, is the essence of what I implied in my mention of their “inability to speak.”
Neanderthal man speaks after 30,000 years - CNN.com (herewith quoted from the link)
"They would have spoken a bit differently," McCarthy said at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Ohio this month. "They wouldn't have been able to produce these quantal vowels that form the basis of spoken language."
The result is a single syllable that sounds strange and unremarkable: part croaking frog, part burping human. But McCarthy says that's because Neanderthals lacked the "quantal vowels" modern humans use.
You seem to be hung up on the theory that I am concluding that Neanderthals were inherently inferior to Sapiens. Well they no doubt were in various ways that would have been useful for their survival after the retreat of the glaciers when their competition for habitat became more acute from Sapiens (or Sapiens Sapiens). They actually had a larger cranium than their competition. The implication of their physique, as I have understood it, is that they were not built for running after game but for organizing for a kill, and taking it down at close quarters using spears (and ?). They had no bows and arrows or javelins.
would seemed to have been but animals to their conquerors. Consider the attitude of the British towards the native Tasmanians arriving on their Island. The Tasmanians, at least, had the distinction of being human.
Neanderthals, being of fairer skin, would be better compared to 'the dirty french' or 'german cavemen' or some other European group you might hate at you klan rallies [!!!?]
PROJECT MUCH? Since you purport to read me your version of my pedigree, I’ll play the game:: To my way of thinking a “klan” (as you referred to it) is made up of people who hate, are angry, and are given to intimidation; in part because they are insecure. They even wear masks to hide their identities.
When I look at the face in your Avie, I see an angry, hateful male, given to attempts at intimidation, whose probably not getting enough of something and needs to deflect that deficiency from what otherwise might be useful conversation into insults for a feeling of power, all within the secrecy of the internet.
(uh oh, what is Care going to say, after that flattering?)
