I wonder if Neanderthals existed today, as some unconnected tribe in a remote village, would they be considered Homo Sapiens? They are close enough to us that it may have seemed unjust to classify them as "sub" human. Since they only exist in fossil records now, we may be taking a stricter definition of "human" when it comes to them.

> if Neanderthals existed today, as some unconnected tribe in a remote village

I was wondering if that would make a good story for a TV show/movie. The UK government protecting a secret village is the Scottish wildlands, an intrepid investigative journalist, and ... well I never did get much past the idea :)

The theory laid out in Sapiens is that Neanderthals, along with other early humans like Denisovans, lacked the ability for symbolism, and that ability is what makes humans human. Chimps and Neanderthals can communicate and make tools and maybe even discuss hunting. But only humans can tell stories of an imaginary man-bird hybrid who we must sacrifice to.

Yeah I've read Sapiens and it's a fair speculation, but I've seen no real evidence to this point. Lot of other reasons Homo Sapiens^2 coulda been good at killing off Homo Sapiens^1.

The art is the evidence, no? Sculptures of a bird-headed man implies mythology, or at least imagination.

Some people just doubt everything by default. But interpreting artifacts of a very different and distant culture is tricky.

I wonder if iPhones get sorted under "ritual artifacts" by the archaeologists of 10.000 AD.

Yeah I have nothing against healthy scientific skepticism. This just feels more like asking "Do New Guineans have art?" than "Do coyotes have art?" where the null hypothesis is ".... yes? unless there's something unexpected going on here?"