Wednesday, August 26, 2026

Giants in Scripture and in the world

 



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—

when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown”.

 Genesis 6:4

  

As the above text indicates, giants have existed both before and after the great Flood.

 

Evidence for giants can be found throughout the world – though one always has to be on guard against fakes:

Were There Giants? What the Evidence Actually Shows - ScienceInsights

“By the 1800s, public fascination with giants was so intense that it became profitable to fake them. The most famous case is the Cardiff Giant, unearthed on October 16, 1869, on a farm in Cardiff, New York. Two laborers digging a well hit stone three feet down, cleared the soil, recognized the shape of a foot, and eventually uncovered a ten-foot-tall stone figure of a man. Crowds paid to see it, and many believed it was a petrified ancient giant.

The whole thing was a setup. The farm’s owner, William Newell, had buried the statue the year before. His cousin George Hull, an atheist and amateur science enthusiast, had carved it to make a point about the tension between science and religious faith. Hull wasn’t wealthy, and the scheme was also designed to make money, which it did. The giant became so popular that P.T. Barnum offered to buy it. When the owners refused, Barnum simply made a replica and displayed that instead, claiming his was the real one. The owners tried to sue, but the judge reportedly said, “Bring your giant here, and if he swears to his own genuineness, you shall have your injunction.” By December 1869, Hull confessed, and the hoax collapsed”.

 

President Abe Lincoln, himself of unusual configuration, which some call “gigantism”, is purported to have been interested in the discovery of giants in North America.

 

 

The ancestors of the giants, the Anakim, about whom the Israelite spies reported (Numbers 13:33), had apparently survived from the raid of the four northern kings at the time of Abram - about half a millennium earlier - when giant peoples such as the Rephaïtes (Deuteronomy 3:11), the Zuzites (Deuteronomy 2:20 links them with the Zamzummim, another clan of great stature) and the Emites, “a people great, numerous, and tall” (Deuteronomy 2:10-11), were overcome (Genesis 14:5).  


Later, as the army of Israel will make its way through Transjordania (Dr. Osgood distinguishes this region, as IV, from the Early Bronze III civilisations in Canaan), they will encounter, and defeat, the fearsome Og, giant king of Bashan.

(The account of Og’s defeat is recorded in several passages, including Numbers 21:33-35Deuteronomy 3:1-11, and Joshua 12:4-5). 

 

“Og king of Bashan”, we read, “was the last of the Rephaïtes. His bed was decorated with iron and was more than nine cubits long and four cubits wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites”. Og’s bed was about 14 feet long and 6 feet wide or about 4 meters long and 1.8 meters wide.

Now, that’s a giant!

 

While some ancient Jewish legends can be helpful to the point of being vital, I think that we can take with a grain of salt the one that has King Og clinging to Noah’s Ark:

The Amazing Story of Og, the Giant King of Bashan | Mayim Achronim

“Midrashic texts famously record that Og was the only survivor of the Great Flood, aside from Noah and his family. When the torrential rains began, Og jumped onto the Ark and held on tightly (Zevachim 113b). He swore to Noah that he would be his family’s eternal servant if Noah would allow him into the Ark (Yalkut Shimoni, Noach 55). The Talmud (ibid.) states that the rain waters of the Flood were actually boiling hot. Yet, the rain that fell upon Og while he held unto the Ark was miraculously cool, allowing him to survive”.

 

Was Og the original Procrustes?

 

As Einstein would have said, it is all relative. (Or, as a football guru once remarked: ‘You don’t have to be Norman Einstein to …’).

 

Therefore, when speaking of giants, it needs to be noted that human beings were on average somewhat smaller, or shorter, than are those of our own era.

The Neanderthals, perhaps the long-lived antediluvians, who continued on for a time after the Flood, were not necessarily tall, but they were apparently very strong, with marvellous eyesight far surpassing our own, and with a much longer life expectancy.

 

Again, the walled cities in Canaan that Israel’s spies described as being “fortified and very large” (Numbers 13:28), would be miniscule by comparison with our own cities. But to an invading people lacking siege weaponry, even a relatively small, walled city would loom as formidable.

 

One does not need to be a giant to be very strong.

 

There is no indication, for instance, that the immensely powerful Samson was an actual giant – except in his faith (cf. Hebrews 11:32).


And this man in the 1930’s, who pulled a full bus with his teeth, was certainly no giant.

 

Could you do this?
He pulled this loaded bus along with his teeth. This actually happened in 1935 or 36.

 

The Philistines, not included in the report of the spies - but figuring at the time of Abram, and then, again, at the time of kings Saul and David - appear to have been a tall race, including various giants, such as Goliath.

 

Also needing to be taken into account is the fact that the reluctant spies exaggerated the truth, so that, now: “All the people we saw there are of great size” (Numbers 13:32). 

 

And, again (13:33):We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim)”.

 

Any mention of the Nephilim, either then, or today, is bound to attract interest. 

What is the significance of the fact there were giants in those days (Genesis 6:4)? | GotQuestions.org
Genesis 6 records the expansion of the human race and its descent into further corruption. The writer records that there were “giants on the earth in those days” (Genesis 6:4, NKJV) and offers a brief explanation of how that came to be.

 

As humanity multiplied and began to be numerous on the earth (Genesis 6:1), the “sons of God” took wives (Genesis 6:2), and they began to increase. In light of the rapid multiplication of humanity and its evil, God limited the human lifespan to one-hundred, twenty years (Genesis 6:3). Prior to that time, people lived a very long time—even up to around nine hundred years (see Genesis 5). Though lifespans were decreasing on their own, God intervened to limit them greatly. Despite this significant limitation, there were giants (Hebrew, Nephilim) in those days—in the days of Noah. These were mighty men of renown and were apparently the products of relationships between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” (Genesis 6:4).

 

The giants in those days were extraordinary, leading some to suppose that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 and Genesis 6:4 are fallen angels and not merely regular people. In that theory, these fallen angels took on physical form and procreated with women. The demon-human hybrid DNA resulted in giant size and, apparently, enhanced physical abilities.

 

There are three objections to this theory: First, there is nothing in the text that suggests the “sons of God” are angels. While the phrase can be used of angels (as it is apparently in Job 1:62:1, and 38:7), it is also regularly used of people (e.g., Matthew 5:9 and Luke 20:36). Second, there is no indication that angels are physiologically compatible with women and can procreate with them (unless this is the only instance).

 

Third, the theological implications are significant enough that one might expect some further explanation. Instead, we only see the offspring referred to as “giants” (Nephilim) and mighty, but nothing beyond that.

 

Others have suggested that the sons of God might be people possessed by demonic beings. As in the other view, the phrase sons of God would still refer to fallen angels. While this view would resolve the physiological implications, there is nothing in the text that would suggest this possibility.

 

A third view is that there were giants in those days simply because humanity hadn’t been fully genetically corrupted—everyone was big and tall and mighty—and God intervenes to shorten human lifespans. This theory takes the biblical account at face value, that these sons of God were simply men. In any case, there were giants in the land at this time before the flood and “afterward” (Genesis 6:4). There were still giants during the time of Israel’s conquest of Canaan (Numbers 13:33) and David’s time (1 Samuel 17:4–7). If these Nephilim were superhumans resulting from demonic and human cohabitation, it seems they would have died in the flood (Genesis 7:21–23). The fact that they were still around after the flood is either evidence that the fallen angels performed the same act again at some point after the flood, or it is another indicator in support of the third view that these giants on the earth from time to time were exceptional, but not superhuman. ….

[End of quote]

 

The view that (fallen) angels are able to have offspring with human beings seems metaphysically ridiculous. However, it is apparent from the story of Sarah in the Book of Tobit, that these malevolent entities are not beyond lusting after human persons. Asmodeus, described as “the worst of demons”, and jealous of the beautiful Sarah, will bump off seven consecutive of her husbands, until young Tobias, guided by the healing archangel Raphael, will come and save the day.

 

The girl had been driven to the verge of suicide (Tobit 3:10).

 

Thursday, August 20, 2026

Ancient handbags of consistent design emerge across vastly different cultures

 



If ever we needed proof for the common origins of our world civilisations.

 

Andriy Nurzhynskyy has written

 

Ancient Handbags: Mysterious Sacred Objects

Found Across Ancient Civilizations

 

Ancient handbags have puzzled archaeologists and researchers for decades.

 

Mysterious symbols appear in artwork and artifacts from multiple ancient civilizations, from the Sumerians to the Mayans. These peculiar accessories appear in carvings, statues, and paintings dating back thousands of years.

 

Even more intriguing is the striking similarity between these depictions despite vast geographical distances and cultural differences. The bags often appear in the hands of gods and rulers, suggesting they hold significant ceremonial or spiritual importance.

 

Modern researchers continue to debate their true purpose and contents while examining the connection between these ancient accessories and their potential role in human civilization’s development.

 

The Mystery of Ancient Handbags in Early Civilizations

 

Ancient handbag depictions appear across multiple civilizations separated by vast distances and periods, creating an archaeological enigma. Archaeological findings at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey reveal handbag-like artifacts dating to 10,000-8,000 BCE [sic], marking some of the earliest known representations.

 

These mysterious objects demonstrate consistent patterns across civilizations:

….

The distribution of similar handbag symbols extends to:

 

  • Mesopotamian stone carvings
  • New Zealand Maori artifacts
  • Native American petroglyphs
  • Turkish archaeological sites
  • Mexican ancient ruins

 

Archaeological evidence indicates these handbag symbols transcend purely practical purposes. Their appearance in religious contexts suggests symbolic significance, while their presence in multiple unconnected civilizations points to a shared cultural understanding. The consistent representation of these objects in the hands of deities creates questions about their role in ancient spiritual practices.

 

The repetitive nature of these handbag motifs across different geographical locations challenges conventional explanations of cultural diffusion. Their presence in isolated civilizations without known contact raises questions about independent development versus ancient global connections.

 

Sacred Handbag Symbols in Mesopotamian Art

 

Mesopotamian art features distinctive symbols resembling handbags carried by divine figures. Archaeological evidence reveals these objects appear frequently in Sumerian and Assyrian reliefs dating from 4000-1750 BCE.

 

The Anunnaki’s Divine Handbags

 

Archaeological findings indicate these objects were ritual buckets carried by gods and minor deities called Apkallu. Sumerian texts identify them as containers used in sacred tree-watering ceremonies, particularly for date palms. Consistent depictions show divine figures holding these bucket-like objects in precise positions during ceremonial scenes.

 

Theories About Their Sacred Contents

 

Several interpretations exist regarding the contents and purpose of these ceremonial vessels:

 

  • Ritual Water – Archaeological evidence supports their use as containers for purified water in tree-watering ceremonies
  • Sacred Offerings – Depictions show the ships associated with religious rituals involving food or plant materials
  • Ceremonial Tools – Some reliefs portray the containers alongside other ritual implements used by priests
  • Divine Objects – Ancient texts reference these vessels as carriers of divine powers or celestial wisdom
  • Agricultural Symbols – The buckets’ association with date palm cultivation suggests agricultural significance

 

The artistic representations maintain remarkable consistency across different periods of Mesopotamian civilization, indicating their established role in religious practices.

 

Ancient Egyptian Handbags and Ceremonial Use

 

Ancient Egyptian handbags served dual purposes as practical carriers and sacred ceremonial objects. These accessories held profound symbolic significance in religious rituals and burial practices.

 

Materials and Construction

 

Ancient Egyptian craftsmen created handbags using Indigenous materials:

 

  • Woven grass fibers interlaced with sedges for durability
  • Reed stalks combined with flax for structural strength
  • Date palm leaves braided with doum palm fibers
  • Leather pieces stitched together for elite accessories

 

The construction methods involved:

 

  • Intertwining multiple plant materials for reinforcement
  • Weaving techniques that created durable carrying surfaces
  • Strategic placement of stronger materials at stress points
  • Decorative elements incorporated into the weave patterns

 

Royal Accessories in Hieroglyphs

 

Egyptian hieroglyphic depictions feature handbags in significant contexts:

 

  • Sacred scenes showing priests carrying ritual pouches
  • Royal processions with attendants holding ceremonial bags
  • Funerary art displaying protective amulets in bags
  • Temple walls adorned with images of deities holding sacred containers

 

  • The divine connection between handbags and religious ceremonies
  • Specific placement of bags for sacred objects
  • Detailed illustrations of bag designs indicating status
  • Consistent patterns in depiction across different periods

….

 

Mysterious Handbags in Mayan and Aztec Carvings

 

Ancient Mesoamerican civilizations incorporated distinct handbag symbols in their artistic expressions, mirroring similar motifs in other ancient cultures. These representations appear in various ceremonial contexts, suggesting their significance in religious practices.

 

Cross-Cultural Similarities

 

Ancient handbag symbols transcend geographical boundaries, appearing in multiple civilizations:

 

  • Sumerian stone reliefs display identical handbag motifs in religious ceremonies
  • Assyrian artworks feature similar depictions in divine contexts
  • Dogon tribes of Africa incorporate comparable symbols in wall paintings
  • Ancient American petroglyphs contain matching handbag-like designs
  • Turkish archaeological sites reveal related symbolic patterns
  • Maori artifacts from New Zealand showcase parallel representations

 

1.      A universal cultural understanding of their significance

2.      Possible ancient communication networks between civilizations

3.      Independent development of similar symbolic representations

4.      Common religious or ceremonial purposes

 

Modern Archaeological Interpretations

 

Archaeological studies reveal ancient handbags served multiple functions across diverse civilizations, combining practical utility with profound symbolic significance. Modern interpretations focus on understanding these artifacts through advanced scientific analysis and cultural context studies.

 

Practical vs. Ceremonial Purposes

 

Ancient handbags balanced everyday functionality with ceremonial importance across various societies. Archaeological evidence from Mesopotamian sites shows that these bags contained practical items like tools and ritual objects such as incense or sacred herbs. The craftsmanship of recovered specimens indicates distinct categories:

 

Everyday Items:

 

  • Storage containers for personal belongings
  • Carriers for trade goods
  • Portable vessels for food transportation

 

Ceremonial Functions:

 

  • Ritual containers for religious offerings
  • Status symbols in religious ceremonies
  • Sacred vessels for specific ceremonies

….

 

Thursday, June 4, 2026

Neanderthals were not a different species

 



“… some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare

them with Neanderthals”.

 Günter Bechly

 

  

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to me (Damien Mackey).

See e.g. my articles:

 

Neanderthals need to be re-written

 

(5) Neanderthals need to be rewritten

 

Messing with the Neanderthals

 

(5) Messing with the Neanderthals

 

Neanderthals could speak

 

(5) Neanderthals could speak

 

See also Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s book (Buried Alive).

 

We read at:

New Evidence for Human Nature of Neanderthals | Science and Culture Today

 

Fossil Friday: New Evidence for the Human Nature of Neanderthals

Günter Bechly

February 2, 2024

 

The reconstruction of Neanderthal appearance and behavior has quite a checkered history. After an initial controversy over whether the fossils really represent ancient humans or just malformed modern humans, Neanderthals were described in 1864 as distinct hominin species, Homo neanderthalensis. For a long time they were considered as brutish cavemen with a club and almost gorilla-like appearance.

 

Then the scientific opinion shifted and Neanderthals were more and more recognized as human-like and even as geniuses of the ice age (Husemann 2005Finlayson 2019), based on an avalanche of new evidence for complex human behavior (Nowell 2023Vernimmen 2023). We now know that Neanderthals used fire (Angelucci et al. 2023), buried their dead (Balzeau et al. 2020Dockdrill 2020), created stone circles (Jaubert et al. 2016Callaway 2016) and bone tools (Soressi et al. 2013), made jewellery from eagle talons (Radovčić et al. 2015Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. 2019) and used feathers as body decoration (Peresani et al. 2011Finlayson et al. 2012), made cave art with paintings and engravings (Rodríguez-Vidal et al. 2014Hoffmann et al. 2018aMarquet et al. 2023), played music with bone flutes (Turk et al. 2018), used ochre as pigment (Roebroeks et al. 2012Hoffmann et al. 2018b) and sophisticated fibre technology (Hardy et al. 2020), produced flour from processed plants (Mariotti Lippi et al. 2023), dived for seafood (Villa et al. 2020), cooked food and self-medicated with herbal painkillers and antibiotics (Hardy et al. 2012Weyrich et al. 2017), and even produced glue from birch bark with a complex chemical procedure (Blessing & Schmidt 2021Schmidt et al. 2023).

 

New Anatomic Data

 

But it is not just new evidence for Neanderthal behavior that overturned our previous crude image of Neanderthals as dumb brutes, but also new anatomic data. Contrary to earlier beliefs, more recent studies have demonstrated a fully upright posture with typical human spinal curvature called lordosis (Haeusler et al. 2019). The latter authors concluded that “after more than a century of alternative views, it should be apparent that there is nothing in Neandertal pelvic or vertebral morphology that rejects their possession of spinal curvatures well within the ranges of variation of healthy recent humans.” 

 

There even exists compelling new evidence for hearing and speech capacities (Conde-Valverde et al. 2021), which “demonstrates that the Neanderthals possessed a communication system that was as complex and efficient as modern human speech” (Starr 2021).

 

Correlated with this fundamental rethinking of Neanderthals (Nowell 2023) in terms of their anatomy, culture, and mental capabilities, their classification has also changed over time. At first they were considered as a different species, Homo neanderthalensis, then they were just considered as a subspecies of modern humans, Homo sapiens, and since the late 1990s again as “an unambiguously demarcated morphospecies” (Tattersall & Schwartz 2006; also see Harvati et al. 2004Márquez et al. 2014, and Wynn et al. 2016). The new field of paleogenomics brought insight into their DNA (Green et al. 2010), which was considered as sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a separate species status again (Clarke 2016), even though there was also evidence for hybridization and genetic admixture with modern humans (Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023). Paleogeneticist and Nobel laureate Svante Pääbo (2014) called the controversy of the species status of Neanderthals as unresolvable, because of the arbitrariness and fuzziness of species concepts (also see Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023Nowell 2023, and Stringer 2023). The controversy still continues as is evident from a recent article titled “Are Neanderthals and Homo sapiens the same species?” (Heidt 2023), which discusses the fact that “scientists have been vollying the question back and forth for more than a century”. Nowell (2023) wrote: “From their initial discovery until today, Neandertals have shifted between “being recognized as human or being pushed to the constitutive outside of humanness,” what Drell (2000, p. 15) describes as “the oscillating dichotomy of Same and Other.”

 

Of course, the undeniable evidence for significant and common genetic admixture (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016Villanea & Schraiber 2019Callaway 2021), which makes up 1-4 percent of the modern human genome (Reilly et al. 2022), would suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common gene pool and belonged to the same biospecies. Even the skeptic and ID opponent Michael Shermer (2010) agreed in an article for Scientific American that the genomic evidence suggests that our Neanderthal brethren were not a separate species. Strong reproductive isolation barriers that limited the amount of introgression were proposed by Overmann & Coolidge (2013), but many experts remain unconvinced. Paleoanthropologist Bence Viola from the University of Toronto said (quoted in Vernimmen 2023): “Homo sapiens clearly recognized Neanderthals as mating partners, which suggests they thought of them as humans — maybe ‘the weird guys living behind the mountains,’ but still, fellow humans.”

 

But what do we make of the anatomical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans? Don’t they support a separate species status? Actually, this would not follow even if the differences lay outside the range of variability of modern humans, because that is also the case in many other subspecies of living animals. However, some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare them with Neanderthals.

 

Of course this also had some typical Darwinist racist connotations. Just like Neanderthals, native Australians were considered primitive and inferior. Nevertheless, the similarities are real and have been confirmed by modern anatomical studies (e.g., Wolpoff & Caspari 1996), which concluded that “the interpretation of Neanderthals as a different species is very unlikely.” ….

 

 

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Neanderthals could speak

 

 


“As well as archaeological artefacts, researchers also point to similarities

in their vocal anatomy with modern humans and their known cognitive abilities. Neanderthals had larger brains, on average, than modern humans and while

this doesn’t mean they were necessarily smarter, it does suggest they were

a highly intelligent species - just like us”.

Will Newton

 

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to me (Damien Mackey).

See e.g. my articles:

 

Neanderthals need to be re-written

 

(5) Neanderthals need to be rewritten

 

Messing with the Neanderthals

 

(5) Messing with the Neanderthals

 

See also Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s book:

 

And, again:

 

New Shocking Discovery About Neanderthals Changes EVERYTHING!

 

Recent discoveries have revealed that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in the mid-Middle Paleolithic Levant not only coexisted but actively interacted, sharing technology, lifestyles, and burial customs. These interactions fostered cultural exchange, social complexity, and behavioral innovations, such as formal burial practices and the symbolic use of ochre for decoration. The findings suggest that human connections, rather than isolation, were key drivers of technological and cultural advancements, highlighting the Levant as a crucial crossroads in early human history.

 

We read at:

They interbred – but could humans and neanderthals actually talk to each other? | Discover Wildlife

 

They interbred – but could humans and neanderthals actually talk to each other?

 

Our ancestors lived alongside Neanderthals for nearly 200,000 years [sic], often interbreeding with them. But could they understand one another?

….

Will Newton

 

Published: May 25, 2026 at 2:46 am


 

We might be the only species of human alive today, but just a few hundred thousand years ago [sic] there were a handful of different species living across the world.

 

The Neanderthals were one of these species, and … they’re our closest cousins.

 

….

 

How closely related are we to Neanderthals?

 

It was long thought that we (Homo sapiens) evolved from Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and that these stocky ‘almost-humans’ were a transitional phase between chimpanzees and modern humans. This ‘March of Progress’-style image is often how our evolutionary history is depicted, but it couldn’t be further from the truth.

 

 

Instead, modern humans and Neanderthals are sister species that evolved from the same common ancestor [sic], diverging from one another roughly half-a-million years ago. As a species, Neanderthals emerged earlier than modern humans, roughly 400,000 years ago compared to 300,000 years ago, but it wasn’t until 130,000 years ago that ‘classic Neanderthals’ really appeared.

….

Regardless of who this common ancestor was, genetic studies show that Neanderthals are our closest relatives and share up to 99.7% of our DNA. These similarities run so deep that some suggest Neanderthals may actually represent a subspecies of Homo sapiens and should be renamed Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

 

Could Neanderthals speak?

 

The linguistic ability of Neanderthals has long been debated. From their discovery in the mid 19th century until quite recently, they were often portrayed as dim-witted ‘cavemen’, their communicative abilities thought to be limited to grunts and simple gestures.

….

 

It’s clear from the wealth of archaeological artefacts left by Neanderthals alone that this was simply not the case. The discovery of clothes, jewellery, weapons, and sophisticated homes crafted by Neanderthals paint a picture of people who could not only communicate, but collaborate and even create art.

 

As well as archaeological artefacts, researchers also point to similarities in their vocal anatomy with modern humans and their known cognitive abilities. Neanderthals had larger brains, on average, than modern humans and while this doesn’t mean they were necessarily smarter, it does suggest they were a highly intelligent species - just like us.

 

In order to find out just how well Neanderthals could speak, a team of researchers from the University of Iowa examined their genetic code for genomic regions known as ‘human ancestor quickly evolving regions’, or HAQERS. These aren’t genes, rather sequences that affect how and when certain genes are expressed, and they’ve been shown to have a large effect on human language development.

 

What these researchers found as part of a study published in April, 2026, surprised them. Neanderthals not only had HAQERS, but they were even more prominent than those found in humans today ….

 

If that was the case, and Neanderthals were capable of language, surely they could have found ways to communicate with the humans they bumped into - right?

 

Could humans and Neanderthals communicate?

 

It’s clear, based on the genetic evidence, that humans and Neanderthals regularly ‘bumped’ into one another - in more ways than one…

 

In 2010, researchers successfully sequenced the Neanderthal genome and discovered that modern humans of non-African descent carry roughly 2% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. Some populations carry even more: the proportion in East Asian populations can be as high as 4%!

 

This genetic evidence proves that humans and Neanderthals interbred quite regularly, and suggests some may have even lived together in mixed groups. The individuals living in these mixed groups, nurturing and raising hybrid offspring, must have been able to communicate to some degree. ….