That is a reach. Just because the short article does not provide details about the indentity of the orche users, does not mean that the consensus opinion of the experts is that they were humans, or even human ancestors.
The article is a reach too. We don't know what the orche was used for, maybe to hide a stench until it was warm enough to go dispose of the bodies. It does not take a lot of abstract thought.
Compare the detail in the article with this article..
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994497 This is from modern humans. Look at the incredable distance between whatever the orche users were doing and what these humans were doing.
The article I am referencing is supportive of the special creation hypothesis, at least as regards the sudden emergence of art and unquestionable abstract thinking.
Here is a quote from the article.....
The skill with which each ivory carving was created shows that the first sculptors were not limited to crude and simple designs, as archaeologists once presumed.
"Instead of a gradual evolution of skills, the first modern humans in Europe were in fact astonishingly precocious artists," writes Anthony Sinclair, from the University of Liverpool, in the journal Nature.
Note: As much as I enjoy our jousts, I will not be able to spar with you tonight. As I am sure you are aware, "The Return of the King" opens. Farewell.
That is a reach. Just because the short article does not provide details about the indentity of the orche users, does not mean that the consensus opinion of the experts is that they were humans, or even human ancestors. I've given you three other web pages plus this article. If you think the concensus of opinion is anything other than "modern humans," feel free to document that fact. All you have so far to support your bizarre claim (that Qafzeh is a Neanderthal site) is a chain of inference leading from what one authority did say, albeit for reasons you reject, to what nobody but you says.
We don't know what the orche was used for, maybe to hide a stench until it was warm enough to go dispose of the bodies.
Ocher is a pigment, not a perfume.
Compare the detail in the article with this article..
So something improved over the 60K years, or maybe we just don't have the good artifacts from 100K years ago yet. You confuse yourself very well. Can you confuse me?