What would a Neanderthal civilization look like?

Uhh... the reason they went extinct is because they couldn't adapt and their technology fell behind.

We're adapted to a more-meat-than-not diet. It's agriculture that caused us to eat so many plants.

No. They went extinct because they were adapted to densely forested landscapes where they could ambush their prey, and when Europe warmed up a bit and grasslands started to spread, they lacked the physiology to actually run down their prey, like Homo sapiens can. We out competed them on open ground for food. Neanderthals, essentially, starved to death. Although, I'd argue that if they were as omnivorous and adaptable as previous posters have claimed, they would not have died from starvation and turned to cannibalism rather than go out and forage in the woods.

However, I don't recall ever reading that they had better technology that we did. Equal, maybe, but if anything slightly more cumbersome and rough. Their fingers were so large that they lacked the nimbleness of our human hands to create the same things.

But your assertion about the human diet is also false. Homo sapiens evolved as opportunists, eating both meat and plants, not just one or the other. We are, however, more plant adapted. Fruits, tubers, veggies, and even some grasses were all much more of a part of the human diet than meat. However, we did eat meat, clearly, as evidence by the fact that we hunted :rolleyes:. But a tribe of humans can't kill a mammoth every day. That would be a rare treat. On a day to day basis, a tribe or family might share a rabbit, a pig if theyre lucky, but will feed mostly on the plant life around them.
 
No. They went extinct because they were adapted to densely forested landscapes where they could ambush their prey, and when Europe warmed up a bit and grasslands started to spread, they lacked the physiology to actually run down their prey, like Homo sapiens can. We out competed them on open ground for food. Neanderthals, essentially, starved to death. Although, I'd argue that if they were as omnivorous and adaptable as previous posters have claimed, they would not have died from starvation and turned to cannibalism rather than go out and forage in the woods.

Right about the open country part of this, but Neanderthal extinction supposedly came when the coldest part of the last Ice Age compressed forests against the Mediterranean, to the point where there wasn't enough forested habitat to sustain a viable Neanderthal population.

Piecing together various extinction theories, the picture I get is that Neanderthals could kick our ancestors' butts in a forested habitat because they were specialized for ambush-hunting and considerably more powerful--probably two or three times as strong on a pound for pound basis. Our ancestors specialized in open country and endurance hunting--nowhere close to as strong but much better at distance running and moving over long distances to follow game herds.

Our ancestors were adapted to move a lot, not just on the hunt but also because they had to in order to survive in open country. They lost strength compared to their ancestors but gained endurance. Since they were moving so much, they also had to pare down the weight of their tools compared to what the less mobile Neanderthals could get away with carrying. That's significant in terms of developing civilization, as we'll see later.

Neanderthal versus modern humans: Think football (American version) linebackers versus marathoners, only the Neanderthals were far more massive and stronger than even an NFL linebacker. The disadvantage: those massive bodies wore out their joints fast when Neanderthals had to move a lot to follow migratory game in open country. When you find Neanderthal skeletons in what had been open country, they're usually crippled with arthritis.

Neanderthals probably used open country only when they were forced to. It was sub-optimum habitat for them. At the same time, a residual ability to operate in open country may have saved them at the height of various glacial advances, as long as there wasn't competition in the open country.

When modern humans spread to the open country to the north of Neanderthals, they took away the ability of Neanderthals to use that habitat in emergencies, because modern humans were better in open country. At that point, it was just a matter of time until a glacial advance reduced the forests to the point where they couldn't support a viable Neanderthal population.

Implications if that's all true:
- Neanderthals generally used heavier, less specialized tools than moderns, because those tools took less effort to make and since they moved around less the extra weight didn't matter enough to justify the extra effort to develop lighter tools. When Neanderthals were forced into open country they developed lighter-weight tools.

If Neanderthals won out over our ancestors, there had to be a reason. Possible reasons: either forests pushed north and into the Middle East to create a continuous forested belt that let Neanderthals spread back into Northern Europe and south into North Africa or a branch of Neanderthals adapted to open country.

If Neanderthal adapted to open country and beat our ancestors there, then they would probably do so by adapting in a lot of the same ways we did, and would probably end up looking and acting more like us than their Neanderthal ancestors, which kind of defeats the purpose of this exercise.

If Neanderthals won because their forest habitat spread, I'm not sure you end up with civilization. If you did, that civilization would probably have less trade because Neanderthals weren't good at long-distance travel and because their tools didn't require specialized material (good quality flint, among other things) to the same extent.

I suspect that a Neanderthal civilization would have more trouble than our ancestors did in using aquatic resources and would be less likely to develop sea-faring. Those big, muscular bodies wouldn't float at all well, which means that swimming would be mostly shear power, and exhausting. That doesn't mean they would completely avoid aquatic resources, just that using them would be more dangerous to Neanderthals than to moderns.

There could also be subtle differences in the way Neanderthal minds worked. Modern humans can barely, sometimes, create complex political structures that last a few hundred years before they fall apart. Tweak the balance between selfishness and altruism or planning ahead versus short-term thinking even a little and you might end up with Neanderthals never being able to go beyond a tribal society. Or on the other hand, you might end up with them able to establish their equivalent of Egypt and have the same dynasty ruling three thousand years later.

Would Neanderthals be able to read? Ability to read couldn't have been selected for directly until civilizations developed, so there had to be some other use for the mechanisms that later let us read. Would Neanderthals have selected for those pre-reading mechanisms? Would Neanderthals be better or worse at math and physics? What about spatial relationships? Would they be master architects and engineers or would they stink at those things? Neanderthal lawyers? Accountants? Would some of them be good at those things?

What about social structure? Would they be monogamous, polygamous, as flexible as human societies are? Would they easily form hierarchies with kingdoms and empires or would they be too independent?

Would Neanderthals develop religions? Modern humans as far as I know, pretty much universally develop religions of some sort, and substitute ideologies with strong elements of belief when those religions are discredited. Is developing religions a universal aspect of becoming intelligent or is it unique to modern humans? If Neanderthals didn't develop obsessions with the afterlife and forces beyond them, how would that influence how their societies developed?

And this is getting long even for me.
 
Actually, it would be interesting to see the Neanderthals still existing when the Humans had already progressed to the Neolithic Age and/or Bronze Age, I wonder how would humans interact with them ITTL.
 
Right about the open country part of this, but Neanderthal extinction supposedly came when the coldest part of the last Ice Age compressed forests against the Mediterranean, to the point where there wasn't enough forested habitat to sustain a viable Neanderthal population.

As far as I know, Neanderthals didn't use needles. Maybe their hands didn't quite have the fine control. But their furs were wrap-around clothes, not like our sewn clothes. Ours insulated better.

Even though they were better biologically adapted for cold than us, our alloewd us to exceed a biological adaption even back then.

If Neanderthals didn't develop obsessions with the afterlife and forces beyond them, how would that influence how their societies developed?

Neandethal burial customs hint that they did have a concept of the afterlife, or some kind of spirituality.
 
DaleCoz said:
[Many, many insightful remarks;)]

And this is getting long even for me.
I'd have been perfectly happy to read on.;) Very thoughtful, & thought-provoking, stuff.:cool::cool:
Umbral said:
Neandethal burial customs hint that they did have a concept of the afterlife, or some kind of spirituality.
Damon Knight makes a good point: religion is actually a survival characteristic.:eek: If you believe it when someone tells you there's a lion you can't see in the bushes, you don't go investigate & get eaten.:eek: So you pass on your "belief" gene.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, Neanderthals didn't use needles. Maybe their hands didn't quite have the fine control. But their furs were wrap-around clothes, not like our sewn clothes. Ours insulated better.

Even though they were better biologically adapted for cold than us, our alloewd us to exceed a biological adaption even back then.
.
They did have awls, so they laced up clothing, far better than mere fur wraps. But admittedly not as good as sewn clothing, so your point stands.
 
I'd have been perfectly happy to read on.;) Very thoughtful, & thought-provoking, stuff.:cool::cool:

Damon Knight makes a good point: religion is actually a survival characteristic.:eek: If you believe it when someone tells you there's a lion you can't see in the bushes, you don't go investigate & get eaten.:eek: So you pass on your "belief" gene.
That's has nothing to do with religion.
 
That has everything to do with religion, which is based in belief in a supreme being nobody can see but accepts on faith.
OK but I confess that I also struggled with your example of the lion in the bushes. Not going to check if there's actually a lion in the bushes is prudence, not faith... I know I wouldn't investigate and I have no faith.
 

ingemann

Banned

A interesting aspect with non-nomadic forest living hominid, could be that they begin to select trees for the ones giving the best fruit and remove the other. it could be the beginning of nut and fruit based agricultural society.

Another aspect are physical changes. Modern Homo Sapience are quite different from Cro Magnons, who was much more robust build, but also bigger than pre-Industrial agricultural Eurasians. So we can expect Modern Neanderthals to be smaller and more delicate (through still stronger than modern humans). As Neanderthals was already smaller than Cro Magnons and forests tend to favour low people we may end up with a Neanderthal 140-150 cm tall, but with a more robust build than modern humans...:confused:... I think I have just created dwarves:eek:.
 
A interesting aspect with non-nomadic forest living hominid, could be that they begin to select trees for the ones giving the best fruit and remove the other. it could be the beginning of nut and fruit based agricultural society.

Another aspect are physical changes. Modern Homo Sapience are quite different from Cro Magnons, who was much more robust build, but also bigger than pre-Industrial agricultural Eurasians. So we can expect Modern Neanderthals to be smaller and more delicate (through still stronger than modern humans). As Neanderthals was already smaller than Cro Magnons and forests tend to favour low people we may end up with a Neanderthal 140-150 cm tall, but with a more robust build than modern humans...:confused:... I think I have just created dwarves:eek:.

Somebody upthread mentioned dwarves already. And the idea of an agricultural society is neat!
 
OK but I confess that I also struggled with your example of the lion in the bushes. Not going to check if there's actually a lion in the bushes is prudence, not faith... I know I wouldn't investigate and I have no faith.

Believing that there is a lion in the bush and associating certain circumstances (such as the time of the year or the weather or the noise the bush makes) with there being a lion in the bush and then avoiding all bushes when similar circumstances crop up is the root of faith and superstition.
 
The question which evolutionary advantage religion might have is indeed quiet interesting. Personally I liked this npr interview about the subject. The basic idea is that a divine observer encourages cooperation by "watching" and "punishing" those that break the rules, even if nobody is really there. It even works with photos of eyes (here).
 
Last edited:
Believing that there is a lion in the bush and associating certain circumstances (such as the time of the year or the weather or the noise the bush makes) with there being a lion in the bush and then avoiding all bushes when similar circumstances crop up is the root of faith and superstition.
I understand what you're saying but I'd argue that faith/superstition is not the survival characteristic in itself but a symptom of the real survival characteristics: the ability to learn from experience and to disseminate that empirical knowledge...
 
Top