It is accepted that Neanderthals, just as the Habilis before him was capable of building structures, such as huts. There was never something we could call a city, but more comparable to an indigenous village. For those who understand German there is a very a very good site about this: http://www.zum.de/Faecher/Materialien/beck/13/bs13-39.htm

actually its Homo Sapiens Stupidus, but don't let the complexities of a long dead, easy to learn easily checkable primitive language challenge you too much, you're ancestors were much better at it.

ehm... if we speak of complexities, you should have noticed that it would be imbecillus ... but as you said... long dead language. By the way, Stupidus really means "stunned" or "senseless" so it would not be the word we want either. Though, according to the Nelson's Medieval Latin list it was generally accepted as meaning "stupid" in the English sense by scholars of that time.

ED: so the real specification would be Homo Sapiens Bardus

We are Homo sapiens sapiens, however neanderthals are Homo neanderthalensis, different species, not a human sub-species.


Neanderthals where the same genus as us all the humans and apes are the same the same family, Hominidae

Actually we are all the same family, Hominidae. Humans, chimps gorillas are also the same sub family. Hence we are more closely related to gorillas , than chimps are and closer to chimps than gorillas are.

Hi kanji. Are you saying that modern day Indigenous Australian are Neanderthals - that they are not the same species as the rest of us?

"Neanderthals had many adaptations to a cold climate, such as large braincase, short but robust builds, and large noses — traits selected by nature in cold climates." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal). The Australian climate wouldn't be considered cold. Also, Indigenous Australians do not have a larger braincase, nor are they generally seen as having short but robust builds. Kanji, I do not agree with your comment.

Avs

A lot of interesting insight being used, makes me wonder.
If the world today was suddenly was hit by a mass extinction, and say 5 thousand years in the future someone uncovered the city of New York, what time would they say we created cities? 2007? 1800? We know it was thousands of years before this. Defining a date for a city and its people would be a very hard task.

Who buried the conquered? Was it Neanderthal? Or was it the conquerers?
Could Neanderthal be great mimickers? Did they pick up on tool use from Humans? or could they have picked up discards of the humans?

I suggest these hypothesis to ponder.

surely they'd do it the same way that anyone in the sci fi movies does it, theyd walk up to a newspaper dispenser and get a copy without having to put any coins in (apparently all machines give free credit after Nuclear war has been announced) I'm gonna be standing outside my bank waiting for the cashpoint when it gets declared here. woohoo
or they'd pass by a bank and see one of those wall calendar things stopped when the electricty was cut off when the zombies hit the generator station

either that or they'd do as Essan suggested earlier in another thread and claim







you got it the wrong way round. Neanderthals predate us by about 200,000 years and didn't dissapear until we invaded what was formerly their territory. So if anything we are the great mimickers.

Well, according to what we know, we did overlap over 100,000 years. So there is bound to be room for interaction.

I'm just thinking on the basis of how we conduct ourselves in our early years, its quite likely cross contamination could have occured.
If a dog grabs my hammer off the table and suddenly we were hit by deathrays and Mr Paleo in 5000AD uncovers our bones, hehe, you get my point?

but dont mind me, I like to pick apart CSI when it comes on tv...

Just giving some food for thought.

I wonder what their temperment was like.

Isn't the evidence for Homo Sapiens having 'cities' or 'villages' only about 5,000 to 8,000 years old?

So, even for us, thats a relatvely new thing, and Neaderthal was already longggg gone by then....

Hi guys,

Neandertals did build structures, but they were made of material that is decomposable. Mammoth and other large animal bones, wood, animal skin and other natural materials were used to make shelters, and once they were abandoned, it was only a matter of a short time before these materials began to deteriorate.

The oldest known stone structures found so far created by men are found at Jericho, which date back to about 11,000 years. The latest evidence suggests that Neanderthals were on the planet until about 30000 years ago. There's a 19000 year difference between when Neanderthals became extinct, and when humans starting using stone and other less biodegradable materials to build structures. It's easy to understand why we don't find Neanderthal cities, there isn't a whole lot remaining because of the nature of the materials they used.

However, in the Ukraine, there have been about 10 sites found that contain mammoth bone wind shelters, fireplaces, and postholes for other shelters. It points to the idea that Neanderthals did create basic cities, or at least, small groups of them built a more permanent home than what was previously thought.

Sourcy

(The rest of the information came from my brain, school, and random reading. You can check me if you want.)

Thanks for the info SunDog. I've never bought the assumption that they were just wanderers.

Let me guess,
Jean Auel's "The Clan of the Cave Bear," right?

That was some heroine. Invented everything from the flint fire starter to oral.

My kind of cave woman!

Don't know myself, but Auel had us living in those mammoth-bone shelters.

Harte

LOL. My daughter's name is Ayla.


But seriously, I know that those books are fiction. I really wasn't referring to fantasy novels when I mentioned things I have read. I have studied anthropology, in school and on my own time, and try to keep up with any new findings or news.

Was there anything in the information I posted that you disagree with?

Well, you know what they say about people with red hair.....

As did the fine people who brought us 10,000 BC.

And surprisingly, no-one's used that as reference work yet.

--Jaylemurph

Ah yes... Ayla the ur-Martha. And a great single mom, too!

Oh please don't think I was coming anywhere close to using Clan of the Cave Bear as a source of factual information.

I thought you knew me better than that by now?

Neanderthals were not apes. They wore body paint (make up). They wore jewelry (carved ivory pendants with some parts painted red). They carved art with various geometric designs. They buried their dead with grave goods, generally orienting the bodies in an east-west orientation. They had needles and sewed clothing (towards the end of their existence as a species). They had a wide variety of tools.

At Bruniquel, in France, Neanderthals went deep into a cave (which would have required artificial lighting) built a square structure and burned a bear on it. Most experts assume this was a religious ritual.

An archaeologist named Ivan Turk found a Neanderthal flute carved from the thighbone of a bear in a cave in northern Yugoslavia in July 1995. A musicologist named Bob Fink analyzed it. Fink proved that this flute, thought by radio-carbon testing to be between 43,000 and 67,000 years old, produced four notes, and that it had half and full tones. This discovery shows that Neanderthals probably used the seven-note scale, the basic formula of western music.

The fact that they were hunter-gatherers does not mean that Neanderthals didn't have permanent homes. Each group had homes in several locations-- a winter site (often a cave), a summer site near the valleys where herds congregated, and some fall and spring campgrounds used while following animal migration routes. The same sites were used year after year.

I didn't mean to imply that /at all/... it as just a general statement of disbelief that no-one at all here at UM has used the movie as a fact. Yet.

--Jaylemurph

No worries, Sunny, I didn't mean it the way it looked!

I enjoyed that book myself. It's just that it was that novel that first introduced me to these mammoth bone shelters, so I always think of it when they are brought up.

No, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Harte

You're welcome.

Actually though, most researchers agree that Neandertal were basically nomadic, which accounts for their widespread habitation all over the world. (Think of it this way, at the time, they encompassed more of the globe than any other animal, indicating that their migration was more constant and more broad.) Scientists can use nonlocal artifacts (a stone tool made out of a mineral that is not present in the area) to show that sometimes they moved very far, and spread out across several continents. One study even involved analyzing the enamel of a 40000 thousand year old Neandertal tooth to discern if that particular Neandertal wandered or not. Linky!

Of course, there were probably groups that made a more permanent home, but that was probably towards the end, during an Ice Age, when migrating was less effective, and they stayed where food was available. They probably made camps out in the open, in caves, in woods, wherever there was a little shelter, or wherever they could build shelters. We find more artifacts inside caves, but that is not an indication that Neandertal only lived in caves, or that they didn't move once they had built a shelter inside one. But, items in a cave are much more well preserved than any artifacts that were left behind out in the open, so of course it is natural that we would find more evidence of them in caves.


There isn't really a solid explanation of why the species disappeared from the planet, but the one most agreed with in the scientific community is that they were unable to adapt as well as Homo Sapiens, therefore the stronger of the two top-level carnivores were Homo Sapiens, and the Neandertals diminished until there were no more left. There are examples of wholly (genetically) Neandertal people living in Croatia as recently as 28000 years ago, who had more anatomically modern characteristics. They were beginning to evolve into an animal more suited for survival in the changing climate and rising population of their competition, but did not have enough time.

They really were nomadic, but that does not mean that they did not build long-term shelters, and left behind plenty of evidence for us.

Some sources...

Sources on artifacts left by Neandertal

I guess it depends on the definition of nomatic at that time. Do we consider the early Americans (of the british colonies) nomads since they expanded west to cover most of the rest of the continent? Of course they would move about, but that could be for many reasons. Natural curiousity for one. They could have been widespread for this reason. They could have had permenant homes and sent out a small group to explore the unexplored. So much assumptions so little real evidence.

Absence of evidence of permanent abodes is evidence of absence of their usage by Neandertals.

Expansionism is not Nomadism. Nomadism does not account for the presence of Neandertal in diverse places. The lack of evidence of any structures that were lived in for any substantial amount of time indicates a nomadic culture - not how widespread they are.

Harte

Right.

We already know how widespread the Neandertal population was. We have evidence of it in several continents, excavations of skeletons and tools, some cave paintings, etc.

If the Neandertals were not nomadic, we would also have evidence of more permanent structures (foundations, layers of different structures in the same place, evidence of upkeep or maintenance of said area.) And we don't.

To be honest with you, I think the correct word to use for Neandertals (and probably the earlier of homo sapiens) would be migratory. They followed the food, and probably set up small semi-permanent camps where they found it. I think it was as basic as that.

Absolutely.

My point was that you don't have to be nomadic to be widespread. I mean, look at H. Sapiens today, right?

Migratory, following the food, of course, since they didn't grow any and they didn't (apparently) practice animal husbandry (never used that term before without cracking some rude joke about it! Oops. Still haven't, I guess!)

Harte

So you could make many similarities between neanderthal living and the tribes of native americans (some, not all). Semi-permanent homes. Follow the food sources.

I was watching a neanderthal special on the science channel once, and these archeologists found the remains of a large neanderthal village that could support more than 100. Not much of a city, but more of a small town

I think it would have been hard for them to build cities. Seeing how they lived during the Iceage. And no Obama didn't cause the iceage.

LOL.

That was awesome. +rep for you.

I watched some of a show on history last night. Clash of the cavemen or something like that. They mentioned how they found neanderthal bones in fires of other neanderthals and were saying that they were cannibals. I thought what they were implying was a little off the wall. To say neanderthals were cannibals is the same as if I were to say we are cannibals. I don't doubt that there were probably some (tribes, groups, clan) who would resort to cannibalism, but I wouldn't say neanderthals are cannibals.

Now they are reporting that neanderthals carved stone tools and spearheads. If they indeed did that, then I see no reason why they would not have constructed some sort of monuments.

I guess it depends on why they would have constructed some sort of monument - to what? why? I don't think their lifestyle left time for other things such as building monuments. They lived a fairly mobile life with an emphasis on survival, similar to Aborigines, who stayed stone age until white man arrived c.1770 and have no monuments. Time and tools doesn't build monuments, a need for them does. Only once basic survival needs are met does a people start building monuments. I don't believe Neanderthals ever surpassed a basic need to survive.

Neanderthals are named after the location where the remains were first discovered. The Neanderthal, Germany.
At first people believed it was a small community, but now they appear all over Europe. This suggests there was a large number of them.

To think Neanderthals only lived in caves, suggests that there are a lot of caves throughout Europe, which is not.
Is it possible they lived in wooden houses? Yes, why not. More likely they build their homes whit large grasses, the way the Afrikaner still do it today.
The material is all around and leaves no traces.
Some caves have been discovered as places where they have lived.
Now it is said that modern man has killed/murdered/destroyed the Neandethals. But there could be a possibility that viruses did the job, the same way the Spanish killed the Incas

And another thing.
If Stonehenge were not build, we wouldn't have known about some kind of civilisation in the stone-age.
We would still be thinking that they were stupid like cows and only thinking about food and creating the next generation.
Someone stood up, possibly created some kind of religion and got his people erecting these huge stones.
There is little evidence of a settlement near Stonehenge.
Maybe Neanderthal monuments did exist, but we did not notice them or have already destroyed them. Oh, what a great story can be created if we convince people that there was a large settlement where no is Berlin....

Neanderthals used their Homes, Food, Clothing, and Tools and Weapons to survive in the wild Environment they lived in. These early men built permanent homes, to shelter from the long, harsh winter of the Ice Age. In the summer, they

followed the herds, and lived in tents and caves. Winter homes were Ice Age huts, built teepee style, from branches and mammoth bones, covered with animal skins. These huts were used for many years, so they built them carefully. Holes were dug, deeply into the ground. Poles were inserted into these holes, and then tied tightly together at the point of the teepee, at the top, with string made from animal guts. Warm furs were laid over this structure and sewn tightly in place. Large rocks were piled around the bottom, to help hold the hut together. For Food, these hunt-gatherers are a variety of seeds, berries, roots and nuts, as did their ancestors. They also are fish and seemed to have an ample supply of freshly caught game. There lives were not a constant struggle for survival because they were such good hunters. They learned to organize hunts and to cure and store food for the long winter. Hunting was done individually and in-groups. They used traps, which allowed them to catch food while they were busy doing something else. Fisherman used bows and arrows, nets woven from vines, fish hooks, and even poisons. Some groups built rafts and canoes, to catch bigger fish in deeper waters. Neanderthals also used clothing to survive. In colder climates, early man learned to soften leather to make warm, comfortable clothes, sewn together with string made from animal guts, using

needles made from bone. In warmer climates, they made cooler clothes from woven grass, and even from bark. They made necklaces and bracelets out of shells, teeth, feathers, flowers, and bone. Some decorated their

bodies with paint and tattoos, made from natural dyes. That’s not the only way they survived. The most important way they survived was from their tools and weapons. Man had learned to be a skilled toolmaker. Weapons included stone axes, knives, spears, harpoons, wooden bows and sharp stone tipped arrows. These tools and weapons were used for finding food and protection and other ways they could use them. It is obvious that Neanderthals used lots of ways to survive their harsh environment.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...about_neand.htm

I'm not sure about the validity of that site but did have some good reference to how they built a shelter. I think grasses would not have been suitable for the cold European climate and harsh weather.

I'm sorry to be such a pain.

Neanderthals arrived in Europe aprox. 200000 years ago an extinct 30000 years ago.
the last iceage was 21000 years ago.
there is a 9000 year gap between them

Today there is evidence about the possibility that the Neanderthal and modern man have lived side-by side.
I hope your dutch is up-to-date:
http://www.neanderthalers.nl/einde.asp

no Dutch, shame. I'm not really getting what you are saying with the dates, do you think Neanderthal survived later than 30,000-35,000 years ago?
You are not a pain, this is very interesting.

I found this:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html
In-between. By around 60,000-55,000 years ago, conditions around the world had become warmer, though still generally colder than today. The ice melted back partially, and there followed a long 'middling' phase in which the climate oscillated between warmer and colder conditions, often in sudden jumps. During some parts of this phase, conditions in the tropics may have been moister than they are at present, and at other times they were drier. Generally, the mid-latitude zones seem to have been drier than present, with cold steppe and wooded steppe instead of forests.

Cooling again. After about 30,000 years ago, the Earth's climate system entered another big freeze-up; temperatures fell, deserts expanded and ice sheets spread across the northern latitudes much as they had done 70,000 years ago. This cold and arid phase which reached its most extreme point sometime around 21,000-17,000 years ago (18,000-15,000 radiocarbon years ago) is known as the Late Glacial Cold Stage (and is also sometimes called the Upper Pleniglacial).

It seems that during the extinction phase of 35,000 years ago, the world was heading into a big freeze. One would generally think the Neanderthals died out from the warming up, not the cold....then again warm weather could have worsened a virus. I'm even thinking virus from an animal like bats in the caves, caves would warm up inside and bat droppings are viral anyway let alone in a warmer environment.
Possibly the Neanderthals by that stage just weren't capable of surviving the harsh new colder conditions since this is when the ice sheets started spreading across Europe again.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...about_neand.htm
But these are just theories. However, it has been suggested that they disappeared because they are our direct ancestors, they evolved into modern humans.

Thought that was an interesting idea........there is an interesting skeleton found in Kow Swamp, Australia that shows an archaic skull AFTER a gracile one, this just does not fit into current thinking. This is also apparent at Lake Mungo, in fact Australia throws out much current thinking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70509161829.htm
Australia's archaeological record provides several apparent inconsistencies with the “Out Of Africa” theory. In particular, the earliest known Australian skeletons, from Lake Mungo, are relatively slender and gracile in form, whereas younger skeletal finds are much more robust. This robustness, which remains, for example, in the brow ridge structure of modern Aborigines, would suggest either interbreeding between homo sapiens and homo erectus or multiple migrations into Australia, followed by interbreeding.

The archaeological data also indicates an intensification of the density and complexity of different stone tools in Australia during the Holocene period (beginning around 10,000 years BP), in particular the emergence of backed-blade stone technology. The first dingos arrived at around the same time, and it is thought both were brought to the continent by new human arrivals – leading to theories of a secondary migration that has resulted in disputes regarding the single point of origin theory.

http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/KowS.html
That article doesn't say it but I always had a feeling that Neanderthal man may have survived and migrated further evolving more and changing as the climate changed. The cultural similarities between them and Australian Aboriginal in the stone age rock building, spears and style of adornment are comparable also to each other. There are many sites that talk of Neanderthal and Aboriginals links.

All over the midwest US there are burial mounds and other structures, if you will, that native tribes built. They were in similar lifestyles as the neanderthal were.

I'm going to translate a part I found on Wiki, (so much for my credability) I hope it makes sense:

First men and apemen lived before the Pleistocene period in Afrika. During this period the first man came to Europe. Known hotspots for findings are the Balkan, France and Spain.

During the Pleistocene period the "Heidelbergman" lived on Earth (Neanderthal)

Neanderthal lived until aprox 40000 year ago in NW Europe

"Sternheimman" wandered the earth during the Saalien period (?) We know little about them by the found remains of the artifects they made and the remains of their bones.

First traces of modern man in the Netherlands are dated in the end of the last glacial period (iceage). The Netherlands were habited by wanderin, hunting men of the "Hamburgculture".

In Siberia the first discovery of remains of human hunters was done by Russian Archeologists in 2003 (carved stone, bones of hunted animals and carved Mammuth-ivory)
It is most likely to asume (I'm being careful) these are dated about 30000 years old and are from a period during the last glacial with a temporary warmer period. It is possible thes men have colonised America.
and perhaps Australia?

I had to translate from:
source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijstijd#Onder...g_van_glacialen

But your idea about Stonehenge isn't true. There are at least a half dozen or more settlements or other indications of Homo Sapien influence in Britain that are much older than Stonehenge.

cormac

That's the other part I need to translate:
Aggregationmodel:
where the replacement primarily looks at the differences, the Aggregation model has specially attention for the similarities between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man.
According to this model the Neanderthal and the modern man are subspecies of the Homo Sapiens and therefore capable to reproduce.
The aggregation of these (sub)species, would have thinned the genes of Neanderthal, who where less in number.
This hypothesis suggests that the differences between modern man and Neanderthal are little.
The development of speech and language of Neanderthal and modern man had reached the same level
If Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon had met, they would recognize the other one as human as himself.
The thoughts of different species only lives within the mind of scientists who try to analyze the situation.
Lats say the Aggregation model is correct, than one would expect some intermediate-sub-species are to be found in the period that modern man and Neanderthal had met (between 40000 and 28000 years ago). Individuals who would had inherited Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon characteristics.
Some say it already happened. One of the most remarkable fossil findings is the Lagar Velho child. This child was found in 1994 in the Lapedo valley in Portugal. The body of the child was coffered with red ocre (? NL:oker) and was given a rabbit as a grave gift. Further analysis of the remains shows, according to the scientists, that although the child clearly belongs to modern man, there are some typical characteristics commonly known for Neanderthal. The Laga Vleho child is dates approximately 26400 years old. In Romania recent Cro-Magnon finds are said to have Neanderthal characteristics.

Note of the translator: Could this combination be the reason the child died?

Source: http://www.neanderthalers.nl/einde.asp

My dear Cormac,

True, absolutely true.
But the big question is of course, are these settlements found because of the existence of Stonehenge or...
My remark was a bit short through the corner. Thank you.
I actually meant, there would be a lot less known about the Stone-age Homo Sapiens if Stonehenge weren't built. I think. I don't know. It just a big landmark saying: Hey All Of You Modern Guys, Look What We Built. Try To Find Us.
Don't you think?

I get what you're saying in general, as an "attention-getter", but do you think that would be true about such places like Skara Brae, Barnhouse Settlement, Knap of Howar all from the area of Orkney, Scotland or Balbridie Scotland. All these sites predate Stonehenge by many, many centuries and are hundreds of miles away.

As to the differences between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, from this article:

Neanderthal DNA Sequencing



This indicates that although similar in appearance, they would have been incapable of reproducing.

cormac

What can I say.
There seems to be a lot of info on the net.

About ancient sites.

You have got to start somwhere. You do not build a church first and than think about a place for yourself.
When you have got enough food, clothes, shelter, etc. You know, the first needs for life. Than you can think about a religion, or the greater good...

I think thats what happened in England. I'm not an archeologist, so I might be mistaken.
The homes of the stoneage man where probably a different build than the buildings of the Neanderthal.
Besides, Stoneage man did some early agriculturing/farming, so he was able to stay at one place.
Where the neanderthal was more a gatherer and needed to follow the food.
Like native Americans.

About Mixing DNA.
I'm combining my sources. If I'm wrong, than I'm sorry.
Translation:
{A very important argument against the aggregation model is the DNA research you mentioned.
Several surveys indicate that Neanderthal did not contribute in the modern man gene pool. Our latest common ancestor would have lived at least 800000 years ago. The researches are controversial (for the opponents) with a number of studies, the techniques would have been misaligned and with some other researches there would be a matter of contamination. At excavations and at later analysis of the fossils they would be held in hand for too many times, this resulted more in a DNA test of the researchers then in the fossils}

I'm not giving it to ya.

The first part of that I would agree with. The second part's a different story. Even if there were modern human genetic contamination in the tests, of which it is just a possibility at this point, it would tend to indicate a closer relationship to modern humans, not a more distant one. Meaning that if contamination did happen, a non-contaminated test result would show up as a much older split in our latest common ancestor. Effectively saying that we are even less related than believed.

cormac

I don't think they were quite intelligent enough. Also they were pretty nomadic so they didn't stay in one place too long. I doubt they would gather enough people to make a civilization anyways.

I think Gaia227 has explained most of it in October 2007:



take a look at page 4 of this thread. And although its quite stimulating for the mind, I believe this story has gone far enough.

yes mostly were nomatic but some were in places were they did not have to leave from were they were to hunt and gather for some were in a place that all was provided for them and they could think of other thing's in life like making a better home be it out of bedrock or careing for there old and sick and in some cases even evolve more so then all those other one's who had to hunt and gather and move with the herdes for food .