The Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age, lasted from c. 2 million years ago to the end of the last Ice Age.
This was the emergence of hominids using stone tools, through to hominids resembling homo sapiens bodily, and later to the rise of our own species outright.
This also saw the rise and extinction of various other hominids, one of whom were the Neanderthals.
Neanderthal remains were first found in what is now Germany, and soon were discovered around Europe and the Middle East.
Their skeletons looked like ours, though their bones showed they were on average shorter, stockier, and more robust. The average Neanderthal was probably far stronger than the average modern human. Their skull shapes were also different, and it seems they had on average larger brains than us. This doesn’t mean they were more intelligent than us necessarily, though we have found evidence of basic art and funerary rituals in Neanderthal sites.
All non-African humans also share 2% of their DNA with the Neanderthals, referencing past inter-breeding with them. Given that we had the same ancestors - presumed to be homo heidelbergensis - it is fully plausible that homo sapiens and Neanderthals were biologically compatible. Neanderthals are said to become extinct c. 30,000 years ago, around the same time that modern humans became more prevalent in their territories.
Findings over the past several decades have shown they were not the savage brutes we once thought. They clothed themselves, had basic art and culture, and had concepts of spirituality and symbolic thinking. Their tool use also was more advanced than previously thought, and the intelligence difference between them and us was potentially equal.
Predation
As aforecited, Neanderthals were stockier, more robust, and physically stronger than modern humans. We know this from noting the tendon connections on their remains, as well as their bones being denser and larger than those of modern humans.
From observing coprolites (,i.e. fossilised faeces). we can see their diet consisted mainly of meat.
These facts form part of an interesting theory, first proposed in 2009 in the book “Them and Us”.
The book was poorly received, since it made controversial claims on not only the nature of Neanderthals but the nature of interactions between ourselves and them.
As an overview, the theory espoused is:
Homo sapiens was a prey species for Neanderthals, especially in the Levant (current-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine). We know that there were interactions between both species in the region.
Neanderthals would prey on human settlements, killing and eating the men and taking the women away to rape them and bear offspring.
Neanderthals had a layer of fur, were dark in complexion, and resembled humanoid great apes in stature and gait.
This period of predation occurred for tens of millennia, when various environmental catastrophes in the Mediterranean region led to a decline in their food sources and thus led to their extinction.
Due to predation, only 30 modern humans existed in the entire Levant, and that all modern humans are descended from this population. This is cited as the cause of minimal genetic differences between contemporary human populations.
As said, this is an…. interesting theory. But it’s more about the author infusing his own thoughts into proven science.
Does the theory hold?
No, it does not.
Science is based on new evidence.
But there IS no evidence at all to support this theory.
It is true, as stated, that Neanderthals were more carnivorous than modern humans. We by contrast are natural omnivores, and cannot handle a predominantly meat-based diet. Granted, some Inuit communities eat only seal meat, however for most of us we need a mix of meat and plants for health.
It is possible that Neanderthals were apex predators in their environs, though bears, cave lions, etc. would still have been formidable in this sense.
There is no evidence that Neanderthals preyed on and ate modern human males. Or otherwise ravaged homo sapiens females en masse.
In Neanderthal excavation sites, there is no evidence of modern human bones denoting signs of butchery, or otherwise cracked or opened. Just as we can note animal bones being cut for food, or to take off meat from them, the same can be seen in bones of all species.
There’s also no evidence that Neanderthals were furry or otherwise had more hair than we do.
We also have no evidence that they were darker than us on average, or had a near gorilla/chimpanzee-esque appearance. Below is a comparison of modern human and Neanderthal skeletons:
We can tell they were fully bipedal, just as we are. Though their bones were more robust, meaning they were hardier and stronger than us.
Reconstructions have shown their faces resembled ours, and we know this from basic anatomic principles applied to all species. This is how we know what dinosaurs and other extinct species looked like. We also use this technique for deceased modern humans. There is some margin for error in the method, however, it remains accurate to a high degree.
Take these examples of recreated visages of deceased people, and whose portraits were well-known. One such example is King Richard III of England, who resembles his contemporaneous portraits.
Good science
The scientific method, albeit shortened in this case, is thus: - observation, hypothesis, analysis, theory, peer review, and established orthodoxy. We can note gravity’s existence via this method. Newton’s apple (which may not have existed incidentally) led to him hypothesising and analysing, leading to his theory of gravity. Einstein used observation, hypothesis, analysis, theory, and peer review to refine Newton’s theories and add his own insights to physics understanding.
In the field of history, we can say that King Athelstan or the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius existed due to careful examination of the evidence available, via written records, monuments, etc.
The same is thus true of paleoanthropology.
“Them and Us” should be welcome via its challenging of the established narrative. However, it cannot be seen as factual since its conclusions fly in the face of what we know. And it has no real plausible debunking of the established facts.
For instance, some footprints were discovered in Norfolk, England several years ago that showed hominids lived in what is now the United Kingdom for millennia earlier than previously thought.
The oldest known modern human remains were thought to be from Omo in Ethiopia. However, older remains were found in North Africa, predating the Omo findings by 100,000 years.
Mitochondrial Adam was found to be from what is now Cameroon c. 300,000 years ago, previously outlasting the prior evidence by 100,000 years.
Details in all sciences are updated via new evidence.
“Them and Us” is just a story tale, which in a near teenage edge lord-esque manner lays out a narrative bare without any substantiation.
It’s not change that is the issue here - change is inevitable and change can be for good. But any change isn’t necessarily good. All change should be questioned, and surely if a change is positive it can be easily or readily argued for.
Good science rests on legitimate challenges to established thinking.
The Neanderthal Predation Theory just isn’t that.
It doesn’t mean it should be dismissed - it just means that any real evidence substantiating it is severely limited.