Neanderthals v Humans

close
Littlestone L
Littlestone Oct 29, 2012 22:01:04

Neanderthals vs. Humans: Who would win in a fight?

Tsk, that’s the headline from The Independent Online – would have thought they’d have come up with something a bit more intelligent in the body of the article if not in the headline itself but no, we’ve got an artist’s impression of a few ape-like creatures squatting round a fire followed by the question, “...what would happen if modern man and his prehistoric ancestor were to square off?”

Tsk again, Neanderthals are not our ancestors – they’re descended from the same ancestor (Homo heidelbergensis) as ourselves. Sorry if I’m sounding nerdy on this but I’ve got a very soft spot for our Neanderthal cousins (and from recent TV progs it seems we even carry 2-3% of their DNA) and get fed-up with the inaccurate and out-of-date bad press they still get.

More germane to TMA, I’ve often wondered if they (Neanderthals) might not have been the ‘builders’ of some of our ‘simpler’ stone structures. Dunno if anyone has done any research on that but the idea that some of our structures might be the work of Neanderthals, and not Homo sapiens, is fascinating.

T thesweetcheat
thesweetcheat Oct 29, 2012 22:10:53
Replying to Littlestone

Interesting thought - you would have to find a stone structure that dated back far further than anything yet reliably dated, I would think. Rock shelters/caves obviously not counting!

I share your annoyance with the tone of the piece too. Too many B-Movies (or Harry Hill) being watched by the sub-editor maybe.

T tiompan
tiompan Oct 29, 2012 22:17:22
Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:
Neanderthals vs. Humans: Who would win in a fight?

Tsk, that’s the headline from The Independent Online – would have thought they’d have come up with something a bit more intelligent in the body of the article if not in the headline itself but no, we’ve got an artist’s impression of a few ape-like creatures squatting round a fire followed by the question, “...what would happen if modern man and his prehistoric ancestor were to square off?”

Tsk again, Neanderthals are not our ancestors – they’re descended from the same ancestor (Homo heidelbergensis) as ourselves. Sorry if I’m sounding nerdy on this but I’ve got a very soft spot for our Neanderthal cousins (and from recent TV progs it seems we even carry 2-3% of their DNA) and get fed-up with the inaccurate and out-of-date bad press they still get.

More germane to TMA, I’ve often wondered if they (Neanderthals) might not have been the ‘builders’ of some of our ‘simpler’ stone structures. Dunno if anyone has done any research on that but the idea that some of our structures might be the work of Neanderthals, and not Homo sapiens, is fascinating.

I can't see how that would work for LS . There are no monuments/stone structures pre Holocene attributable to anyone and Neanderthals weren't around by the end of the Pleistocene .

H handofdave
handofdave Oct 30, 2012 17:25:32
Replying to Littlestone

I believe that they would qualify as our ancestors in the sense that we do contain their DNA in varying amounts... if we're Europeans. Sub-Saharan Africans do not... Apparently, Neanderthals were always a northern hominid and did not venture down into Africa.

I would guess the Neanderthals would have been capable of erecting some small structures, but would they have gone to the trouble of hauling and finishing large megaliths? Speculative. The sort of grandiosity that homo sapiens is famous for doesn't seem to have ever infected the other branches of our tree, but as so much is gone to time, who can really know for sure.

T tomwatts
tomwatts Nov 1, 2012 07:58:05
Replying to Littlestone

I'm trying to envisage something that could precede the long barrows/stone rows of Dartmoor etc...

M moss
moss Nov 8, 2012 08:42:18
Replying to Littlestone

Well picked up in the news this morning in Scientific American is the following....

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/11/07/oldest-arrowheads-hint-at-how-modern-humans-overtook-neandertals/

L Littlestone
Littlestone Nov 9, 2012 08:22:53
Replying to Littlestone

Interesting news this morning on the discovery in France of an almost complete skeleton of a mammoth thought to be between 130,000 and 190,000 years old. “Two tiny fragments of flint blade have been found embedded in the mammoth's skull close to one of its tusks.” The fragments may have belonged to Neanderthals.

T tomwatts
tomwatts Nov 17, 2012 22:59:21
Replying to Littlestone

http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/09/23/inenglish/1348403145_969956.html