Just curious.

I never studied history, but my vague understanding was that Neanderthals where basic hunter-gatherers. Their tool-usage was limited to sticks and rocks, and they lacked any structured language or symbology. (bit like modern football hooligans). In that context, it seems unlikely they would have left any enduring monuments.

Meow Purr.

Yeah... from what I remember learning in history class the Neanderthal's were nomadic. Kinda packed up their sh** and went where ever their food did.

Have to agree with the Cat. Neanderthal's were highly nomadic and never stayed in one place for very long. They were forced to follow the food hence small settlements at best I would think. I think caves would be as close to a settelment as it would get as they would have to abandon in order to follow there food source.

everything I've seen in the archeology stuff says cave dwellers and nomadic tribes, what's been said above.

Doesn't stop me from believing they did build cities though that have been destroyed (or taken over), that they were very intelligent, and that they were cannibals.

Cat:

Most people who study the subject seem to think they had a fairly complex language based on bones found in the early 1980s and a new genetic finding recently (there are at least two threads on it here at UM -- this is one of them.)
They also had several stone shaped tools: spears, hammers, knives and axes. They may even have had art and music.

--Jaylemurph

Scientists doing DNA test's claim Neanderthals had ginger hair, according to this mornings TV news, can you imagine a city full of ginger's.

I have read that they buried their dead with all their belongings so they must have believed in some kind of afterlife. Also they apparently took care of their sick and injured, because they have found several individuals that had very grievous injuries that had healed over, indicating that they had been fed and cared for while they recovered.

Any building remains found (dated or not) would automatically be attributed to homo sapiens.

I can tell you, there were no Cities of Neanderthals.
Neanderthals were the highest evolved versions of ape. They had settlements, but that was it.
By their times end, Annunaki extraterrestials landed in Mesopatamia. They looked like we do because they mated with Neanderthals, and started organized civilization. They originated from the constellation Orion. Their heads were slightly larger and they were very skinny. Eventually, they wiped out the rest of the neanderthals.

I've also read that they buried their dead. Also they have been found with shell jewelry. I don't believe any structures attributed to neandethals have ever been found.

Actually I think that neanderthals are called homosapiens neandertal and modern humans are homosapiens sapiens.

Both were homo sapiens.

Then you don't have a very good understanding of evolution. Ape are apes, hominids are hominids. They have shared ancestors, but hominids did not evolve out of apes.
Furthermore, since they had things like language, society and religion, it's a fundamental mistake to suggest the Neanderthals were apes.



Oh where to begin with this?
Sitchin, the pater of Annunaki non-sense, suggests that they arrived from Nibiru, a mythical giant planet from /within/ our own solar system.
As I understand it, it's the "Draco" Reptilians that come from Orion. Star Trek argues in the same way that nubile green slave girls come from there.

Not, of course, that there's a shred of historical evidence to suggest aliens ever came here mine gold to save the oxygenated atmosphere of their super-Jovian sized planet, got randy with any form of hominids and created us as slaves, so maybe we can leave the Annunaki out of this thread?

--Jaylemurph

they were cave dwellers, they did not build.

from what i understand from the books i have read neanderthal's were not as primitive as was once thought
recent skeletons that have been unearthed show evidence of a more sophisticated HYOID bone in the throat that is responsible for complex speech
this means it wasn't just grunts, and they may have had a rudimentary language

i believe as they were nomadic hunter gatherers they would have carried skins to cover branches and trees they may have chopped down, these branches and trees were obviously availabe practically wherever they went

They definitely carved stones. If you Google Neanderthal and tool you can bring up lots of images of what they produced. They used a technique called Levallois, which means they carved little flakes off with a hammer that was not much harder than the stone they were carving. There isn't a lot of evidence that they looked for the hardest stone they could get to carve softer stone. Mostly it seems like they found a piece of flint that fit nicely into their hands and then created a cutting or pounding surface/edge on the part of the stone that stuck out when they held it. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levallois_technique for info on the technique they used. There's quite a bit of evidence suggesting that Neanderthals buried their dead in a ceremonial manner. There's a lot of flowering plant pollen around the bones, suggesting that they buried their dead with flowers. Also, there's a lot of red ochre around the bones, so they may have colored the bodies red before they buried them. For me, this puts them in the human category.

------------------------

edited to include a gruesome question: Will scientists ever clone Neanderthal DNA to see what they were like? Can you imagine being the only living example of a sentient species? How lonely.

Well actually .. Only a small percentage would be 'Ginger'

And they were hunter gathers so there were no cities ..

Even the 'Tribes' they traveled with were mainly family groups so it wasn't anything too big ..

Neanderthals has become a very vague term, used to describe ANY un-evolved human. I'm sure some "Neanderthals" had
made caves to live in, some later ones maybe even made tents/huts. But no, population was sparse back then and rarely if ever were there dense population (cities) of Neanderthals living together in one area.

Honestly I'm a little bit annoyed with a number of posts in this thread where people are speaking in absolutes. Our understanding of early hominids, including Neanderthals, is expanding virtually daily, yet so many people here are saying "No, they did not have cities.", or "no, they were only cave dwellers/hunter gatherers". That seems sort of simplistic if you ask me, as has been pointed out science has been discovering that Neanderthals were potentially much more advanced than previously thought.

Am I advocating the concept of modern intelligence or a Neanderthal metropolis? Not at all. At best I suspect we'd be discussing a small collection of potentially mobile huts, or heck, even a small cave network. It really depends on how you want to define a city; do you define it as a modern city, with artificially constructed dwellings and several thousand people, or a small tribe living together in that cave network I mentioned?

The lack of evidence of Neanderthal cities or towns suggests for now that they may not have existed, but it just seems to me that it's jumping the gun a bit to speak in definites about an area of hominid history that's continually being reassessed.

Edited to add:



Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about a similar concept where a Neanderthal is brought from the past to the present day. It's called The Ugly Little Boy, you might enjoy it.

I loved that story!! it beautifully described a mother-child relationship even if they were from two different class of the human evolutionary chain!

And buried with flowers. A tradition carried through to modern times. I threw a rose onto my father's burial casket, as it was lowered into the ground.


A generation ago, I wrote a High School essay upon man's predecessors. The Time/Life books of that time made the claim Neanderthal would perhaps be hard to distinguish from a longshoreman, or construction worker. Attractive, young women walking past a modern construction site might make that same claim?

Many North American tribes were "hunter/gatherers", but also are responsible for many burial grounds and such. I think most of what is believed about neanderthals is just guesses. Just to bury your dead shows me alot, but add to that burying them with flowers and such shows much inteligence.

As has been pointed out I dont think we've yet found evidence of a neanderthal city, or if we have we havnt recognised it yet!
doesnt mean they didnt have them though.
If they didnt develop them till close to the end of their species time here, and didnt leave manay artefacts with them it would be an enourmously lucky find on our part.
I forget how long ago we're talking here but time claims everything eventually. I mean apart from fossils, few homonid artefacts last more than 20000 years. Even stone tools and ceramics get worn down after that long.

Whatever we are labelled then. sapiens sapiens is it?

Apologies; based upon the evidence that we have (or lack of, however you wish to view it), neanderthals were nomadic and did not establish settlements of any size or permenance that would equate them to what is commonly referred to as a city.

Why would only a small percentage be ginger? Are you basing this on the low percentage of ginger people in today's population?

"A DNA study has concluded that some Neanderthals also had red hair, although the mutation responsible for this differs from that which causes red hair in Homo Sapiens." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair)

"A 2007 study confirmed that some Neanderthals had red hair and pale skin color; however, the mutation in the MC1R gene arose independently of the mutation that causes a similar pigmentation pattern in modern humans." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal)

Avs

Homo sapiens sapiens is now virtually extinct. Most modern humans belong to the sub-species Homo sapiens idiotii

Thanks for clearing that up Essan
I still think any remains of neanderthal cities/buildings that were found, would be attributed to us/humans/hairless apes/whatever.

No Neanderthals did not have cities. We didn't have cities either at that time. The last remains are dated around 25,000 years ago.

Their tool kit was pretty similar to modern humans for a long time then the modern humans lept forward in complexity. It has been theorised that this competitive advantage allowed for modern humans to replace Neanderthals. Not happening totally at once but over thousands of years the competitive advantage allowed us to gradually take over their hunting grounds and more of our offspring survived.

I alway think it would be amazing if they had survived - how would we treat them? Would they be an underclass, our slaves, treated like animals or what? Something similar to us but still so different - we would probably have a different view of ourselves as well. Like how would religion have fitted them in? Ah questions question!

Seeing how badly we can treat people of other races I suspect we would not be kind.

You know, I marvel at how easy it is for people to agree with Anthropologists and Archaeologists. Do any of you who claim to know what Neanderthals were doing have any idea how much fossil evidence we have of those times? We have I'd say 8% or less of what was around during that time. So much has happened; ice ages, meteors, floods, etc. All of those things contribute to the loss of archaeological data. There are so many holes in the evolutionary data on humans there is no way we can extrapolate anything from what little we have. I am so disappointed in Archaeologists. They speak in absolutes, just like someone else pointed out in this thread. We know almost nothing about Neanderthals. Their DNA is 99% like ours, that's quite a lot of similarity, compared to the 95% someone else claimed in this thread. Then again, we share a similar amount of DNA to rats or mice or something.

They could have had little communities, I wouldn't necessarily call those cities, here's the definition of a city: "Towns and cities have a long history, although opinions vary on whether any particular ancient settlement can be considered to be a city. Cities formed as central places of trade for the benefit of the members living there. Benefits include reduced transport costs, exchange of ideas, and sharing of natural resources. The first true towns are sometimes considered to be large settlements where the inhabitants were no longer simply farmers of the surrounding area, but began to take on specialized occupations, and where trade, food storage and power was centralized. One characteristic that can be used to distinguish a small city from a large town is organized government. A town accomplishes common goals through informal agreements between neighbors or the leadership of a chief. A city has professional administrators, regulations, and some form of taxation (food and other necessities or means to trade for them) to feed the government workers. The governments may be based on heredity, religion, military power, work projects (such as canal building), food distribution, land ownership, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, finance, or a combination of those. Societies that live in cities are often called civilizations. A city can also be defined as an absence of physical space between people and firms."

Now that should clear up any confusion of what a city is defined as. Definitely had city's in ancient times, but not really as long ago as Neanderthals. Their latest dwelling was 35,000 years ago, and after that we don't see their fossils anymore. Somewhere between 35,000 years and 10,000 years ago we started to create societies. I believe the worship, sense of community, sharing, was definitely alive and well for thousands of years before we made city like dwellings, but when it comes to commerce, chiefs, economy, etc those things happened later. At least the evidence we have is telling us that. I think it's interesting that out of thousands of years we started making cities just a few thousand years ago. Why did it take us so long? Did it really need to take 30,000 years for us to create cities? Doesn't that seem ridiculous?

Actually, the way you describe them, it's me before my first three pots of coffee!

I guess I should clarify. When I started this thread I used the word cities in its most basic form. I meant more like communities or villages. I was also curious if they may have built any structures or monuments. I know we may never know of any monument though. What are the oldest known monuments?

most all Neanderthal remains have been found in caves

this to me doesn't suggest a high technology when it comes to building anything substantial to keep the rain off

I am so disappointed in Archaeologists. They speak in absolutes, just like someone else pointed out in this thread. We know almost nothing about Neanderthals.


I agree.

there is more information available about Neanderthals than any other hominid species with the exception of our own

are you guys just making this up as you go along or are you taking lessons in ignorance ?

there have been 232 news articles in the last month alone according to google news
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=...sa=N&tab=wn
11,600 since 1999, please read them all and then say that there is no information available
http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?hl=...range=1980,1998

Neanderthals Living in Europe during the last ice age probably followed the herds of mega fauna as they migrated from place to place in search of food. I was also thinking that an ice age climate would probably not be very conducive to permanent settlements. Has anyone heard if they did cave paintings, or any kind of rock art?

To give what I am about to say credibility I would like to state that I am a thesis away from having my Master's in Anthropology and have studied Neanderthals pretty extensively.
I am not sure what the OP means by cities but the first offical civilization was Mesopatamia. Some of the first settlements appeared about 8,000 years ago with the appearence of Jericho and other small settlements. So the answer to the question have there been neanderthal cities is no. Neanderthals nor early homo-sapians lived in what we consider to be cities. Neanderthals lived in groups but it would not qualify as a city.
Neanderthals are widely misunderstood by the general public. They are not the big, dumb, brutes they have been portrayed as, they had very large brains and were extrememly innovative.
Neanderthals AND early Homo-Sapiens were hunter-gatherers meaning they were nomadic. They traveled with the seasons and their food sources.
Contrary to popular believe Neanderthals DID build permanent complex shelters used to weather the winter months. They also used caves for shelter but the typical idea people have of them living in caves their whole lives in inaccurate. They typically built teepee style shelters from mammoth bone, wood and covered in animal skins. These structures were used for many, many years so they were made too last. They dug deep holes in which they inserted poles that served as the infastructure of the building, they used animal guts for string to bind the structure together.
They also learned how to preserve food and spent the summer months stocking up on food to cure and store to last them through the winter. In addition to hunting with spears, they laid traps to catch smaller game.

A previous poster said neanderthals used simple tools - that is not entirely true. The tools they used are tools that fall into the Mousterian class meaning they were made from soft hammering. That means they had to make their hammers too usually out of antler, bone and/or wood. Their tool kits consisted of sophisticated stone flakes(a type of stone tool), many different axes each engineered for different tasks and a variety of spears.

Socially, there is evidence that leads scientists to think they lived in small nuclear type 'families' basically meaning a male and femal mated for life and they occupied the same space with their offspring. It is also believed they had interactions, such as trading, collaboration for hunting groups, mating, etc with neighboring groups. Anatomically, the shape of their throats is very similar to homo-sapiens which most-likely means that they could make very similar sounds to homo-sapiens. It is not known if they actually had a form of language but considering almost all mammals use some form of communication and the fact they physically had the ability to make vocalizations it is pretty likely they communicated vocally.
They were the first hominid to bury their dead. That discoveries as Shandihar gave scientists great insight into their social lives. It implies they formed deep attachments to eachother, the fact items have been found buried with the dead implies that they may have believed in some form of afterlife and the fact they even contemplated a concept like that shows the level of intelligence they had.
And finally, artwork. There has not been much evidence found to support the idea they were an artistic bunch. There have been no cave paintings found. There has been some pieces of stone art found that suggests they carved figures into stone. The most significant find was a piece of flint with a human face carved into it. It is estimated to be about 35,000 years old.
Neanderthals disappeared about 35,000 years ago. There are many theories as to what caused their extinction, the most prominent and most likely is they could not compete with homo-sapien. It is also speculated homo-sapien killed them off.

http://hometown.aol.com/sobaokokoromo1/Youtaino.html

http://www.freewebs.com/redheadfacts/facts2.htm

This is a pretty good sumation of what I learnt about them in university.

When people say it's annoying that archaeologists speak with authority about their finds of course they do, its their job! Of course anything in life has the unspoken qualifier 'to the best of our knowledge'.

Archaeologists as a profession are always finding new information to complete and sometimes change the picture of the past, there are lots of internal squabbles but generally most people do the job with the intention of moving with whatever new theory fits the information best. *steps down from highhorse*

Agreed, get back on your horse. Study like that gives you the right. Well done, getting of your hiney and having a go is far superior (not to mention oodles more accurate) to philisophical maybes.

I don't know an Anthropologist that does speak in absolutes? Pretty much everything that I have seen has that qualifier as outspoken. That's to cover their butts in the event of such squabbles I believe? Squabbles seem to go for some time to - the debate over H. habilis and H. erectus lasted decades before a desicion was reached. And still not all accept the findings.

Interesting to ponder how a modern human might interact, I 've wondered myself. I know that Sapiens seem to have outdone the Neandertals and occupied that niche, however, the Neandertals had a far more robust structure and larger brain capacity (although brain estimates have not been adjusted for their more robust builds). It seems like we sound to be the smaller and weaker of the species. Amazing sapiens dominated I always thought.

ME NO LIKE!

Isn't that the wondrous thing about evolution? Very complex, definitely not just survival of the fittest in the way fittest is usually interpreted. We are having our 'moment in the sun' and most likely won't be around for ever, just like all the other things that have flourished on earth.

There's definitely a small but vocal minority here that'd disagree with you.

-- Jaylemurph

I would expect nothing less! Thats why I posted here not on the archaeology forum down below

As irritating as that minority can be for me, I value them immensely. Keeps me intellectually honest, as it were.
[But this insane assumption that historians en masse are involved with a cover-up is personally offensive, especially from people who can't be bothered to learn about the study...]

--Jaylemurph

i find myself forced to point out that if you take a member of the aboriginal Australian natives and put them side by side with a Neanderthal they look identical right down to the sloped forehead. Also the aboriginal skeleton is the same as the Neanderthal skeleton which is very human, the only difference is the shape of some of the bones. Having said this the aboriginal peoples are just as smart as your average person. They were living in caves and grass huts only a hundred years ago, and in some cases they still do.

It is my opinion that the Neanderthal never died out or evolved. Its still here and is completely human.

As far as the Neanderthal skeletons they claim are different from humans, lets not forget the pig tooth they made a complete species out of before they discovered it was only a pigs tooth and not the missing link between man and ape. I would suspect that a great many of these bones they find are simply from humans, the only difference is that the shape of the bones are different in a few places. In most cases a full skeleton is never found. At most they find three or four pieces.

There is, but they are wrong.
If one comes up with a theory - how do you verify it?

I think it is easy to do things "your way" (Not directed at you, I really like your posts, and I would be suprised if you were part of this minority? You seem quite knowledgable, logical and well spoken) but it takes effort to get up and go to classes, do homework, chase sources, this is what gains repect from myself. Effort.
Like hippies/ferals, anyone can laze around, refuse to shower, refuse a days work, continue to exist on the government, and sit on the beach all day, anyone can do that, anybody. It takes effort to get up, have a shower, shave, respect ones diet and learn. It's hard work, and I really feel that this hard work deserves praise and authority over those who put no effort in. The final collaborative effort of institutions also verifies findings. Without people doing this hard work, we would all be swinging in trees.
That's why they are so vocal, easy to sit in your chair and yell at someone. Get up, go into the field and find out for sure - that takes effort and can be pretty darn hard work. A such, Betsy gets my respect. As did that much missed member, Frogfish.
I find adult education equally deserving of repect. It can be even harder for some. Hard work is hard!
Hope I explained that clearly. Hope I did not get you offside, I have enjoyed your posts.

They were indeed different, the rib cage was far rounder, thay had larger brain cases and were stockier than us. Some believe they interbred with us. There was a good BBC (may have been new scientist)article on the Rib cage recently, cannot seem to find the link, can anyone help ? It had a good rendition of the robust body shape. I think you would enjoy the read.
ROFL, they have found more than a Neandertal tooth.

Here is a good map of the Neanderthal range.


The same site says that the mitocondrial DNA of tester Neanderthals was significantly different from any human group now alive.
Neanderthal

I think they died out only due to inferior tool use. And perhaps by being out bred. The Sapiens population was likely larger then the Neanderthals and compitition favored the smaller Sapiens.

Thats homo sapiens imbecile (if, we got to stick with Latin....)