Comments on: Reconstructing Neandertal Vocalizations

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:42:00 +0000

File not found for either audio sample

By: tina t

tina t — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:56:05 +0000

As someone who teaches this every year I am always puzzled by this debate. It is of interest of course, and worthy of study, but so much of it is besides the point. We can understand a parrot when it imitates a person – but it certainly doesn’t sound like a human or have the same vowel sounds. People with no vocal aparatus use machines to speak that sound very strange. International students in universities often speak vowel sounds strangely to the ears of local natives but can be understood. Why does what sounds Neandertals made have any bearing on their ability to communicate? They probably had a whole range of subtle sounds that they understood to be different, that we would have a hard time hearing. The fact that ‘we’ and not ‘they’ made it this far is the only reason why we see their speech as having some deficit.

By: Science covers some news from this year’s meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists « Anthropology.net

Fri, 02 May 2008 15:46:22 +0000

[...] of gliding, the divergence of Homo habilis and H. erectus, and Neandertal speech.’ The last topic is something I covered, so you may wanna read a more professional [...]

By: pKay

pKay — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:10:02 +0000

Haha the sound is quite random. I think I would get annoyed of it though after a while listening to it.

Anyhow, great blog post mate. Keep up the great work!

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:51:35 +0000

I find that Neandertal vocalization thoroughly delightful and funny. Could you make it downloadable? I think it would make a great error beep.

By: Anne Gilbert

Anne Gilbert — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:50:29 +0000

Well, IMO, the research stinks, especially, again IMO, if it was in any way derived from Lieberman’s “ideas” on this issue. Other lines of evidence seem to suggest Neandertals (probably) had the same speech and language capacities we do, whatever they might have sounded like. And, like Kambiz, I found this um, “reconstruction” of a Neandertal voice, pretty laughable.
Anne G

By: It’s a good thing they died out then, eh? » HENRY

It’s a good thing they died out then, eh? » HENRY — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:38:05 +0000

[...] For something less stink, see Kambiz’s piece at Anthropology.net [...]

By: Kambiz

Kambiz — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:35:50 +0000

No Nemo,

I’m not saying that. Robert McCarthy is the one who said that. He studied the bones and presented his finding at the AAPA 2008 meeting. His conclusions were that Neandertal anatomy prevented production “quantal vowel” sounds that underlie modern speech and that they were unable to track audible cues between individuals. I suggest you read before you write a mistaken comment like that.

My issues with the research were that I found the voice reconstructions comical. Also, based upon a previous study by DeGusta et al., I do not feel confident with inferring vocalization based upon morphology.

Again, I recommend you read in detail before commenting.

Kambiz

By: nemo

nemo — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:27:17 +0000

You seem to be saying that an individual incapable of speaking as you do would be incapable of speech. Is that what you mean? Also, to say that a Neanderthal would be incapable of “modern speech” is a straw man attack. They were not “modern” Homo sapiens, but that in no way means that they could not have used vocal apparatus to communicate. I personally have no evidence as to whether Neanderthals spoke, but I am fairly sure that their having “humorous” voices is irrelevant to the argument.