# Neanderthals used make-up



## Brian G Turner (Jan 9, 2010)

Interesting story here:
BBC News - Neanderthal 'make-up' discovered


----------



## Grimward (Jan 9, 2010)

This is going to set Covergirl (new slogan "Hairy, Scary, Neanderthal Cover...Girl?) back a hundred years (or, perhaps, 40,000 would be more correct....).


----------



## J-WO (Jan 9, 2010)

Can you blame them for using makeup? Just look at 'em!


----------



## Wybren (Jan 9, 2010)

Thanks Brian, that is really interesting stuff! This really opens up to the possibility that Neaderthals also may have used art ie rock art etc, I mean if they went to all that trouble to make complex pigments then surely they could be using it for all sorts of uses not just for cosmetic use. Thats really going to annoy some of those palaeoanthropologists who had thier hearts set on paint/art as being what made humans different.

I have always (well since I started study in this area anyways) thought that neanderthals were not the dopey brutes that people made them out to be. They actually have a larger crainal capacity than modern humans, and while they are not as gracile as we, so as they dont appeal to our sense of beauty, that is neither here nor there as long as they were attractive to their own kind. I just think in the war of the Hominids that _Homo sapiens_ were just better breeders than  _Homo neanderthalensis_. You sort of see it with other primates too, where the Gorilla and Orangutan have a slow breeding rate because it takes time to reach sexual maturity and they invest such energy into each offspring that it is upwards of 3 years between pregnancies. This gives them a slower replenishment rate and makes them more susceptible to extinction should some outside influence come in and deplete their numbers.

I am interested to see what comes out of this find!


----------



## Gary Compton (Jan 10, 2010)

Wybren said:


> I have always (well since I started study in this area anyways) thought that neanderthals were not the dopey brutes that people made them out to be.


 
I'm putting me mascara on as we speak. Just whacked the wife over her head with me club and going down to the forest to meet up with the lads!

This time next millenia I might be civilised!!


----------



## J-WO (Jan 10, 2010)

Wybren said:


> Thats really going to annoy some of those palaeoanthropologists who had thier hearts set on paint/art as being what made humans different.



Indeed, will we have to broaden our understanding of the term 'human' itself?


----------



## Wybren (Jan 10, 2010)

J-WO said:


> Indeed, will we have to broaden our understanding of the term 'human' itself?



Not really I mean Human just refers to our species, so nothing changes there, and the Neanderthals were not a subspecies of _Homo sapiens _like the Bonobo is of the Chimpanzee. If they were still about today, all it would mean is that the Hominidae family would have 5 species instead of 4. What it does mean is that all those Palaeoanthropologists who have spent a life time dedicated to the study of prehistoric art and communication and symbolism who believe that the invention of _Art_ was the trigger that separated us from the other apes are now going to have to re-examine everything.​


----------



## J-WO (Jan 11, 2010)

I guess I mean human in a wider, more nebulous sense.  Not very scientific of me, I know, but I do think there's a difference between the terms _Homo Sapiens_ and _Human_.
If Neanderthals created art, buried their dead ritually etc, I'm more than tempted to put them in the humanity bracket.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 11, 2010)

Of course, ritual isn't REALLY needed. But not leaving the dead laying on the surface of the earth is a good idea. If for nothing else, it helps prevent pestilence.


Neanderthals using makeup paint. One couldn't think of them as actually human, hmm? Where'd you get that notion?


----------



## Wybren (Jan 11, 2010)

It is quite easy to think of them as human, as they were very similar to Archaic Homo sapiens, except our ancesters were more gracile and had smaller brain capacities, and some class them as a subspecies of _Homo sapiens _( _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_) so I see no problem with them being classed as human (some might), it would be like how Chimpanzee's and Bonobos are put under the same umbrella as Chimpanzee.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jan 12, 2010)

Does this mean the time has come for someone to update Jean Auel's saga with a less brutish version of the Neanderthals? How inkeresting! Neanderthals have always been seen as part of the human family tree to my understanding, but this does bring them closer to us. It would certainly fit to see us outbreeding them rather than outthinking or outimagining...


----------



## Wybren (Jan 12, 2010)

Procrastinator I would just be happy if she finished the last book! 

I think with the Neanderthals, because they were not as attractive to our eye that they were assumed as less intelligent and brutish, unfortunately a by-product of humans thinking they are superior to every other creature on the planet. 

This is is an iteresting article if your interested in knowing a bit more 
What Makes Us Human? Neanderthal Genome Holds Clues | Wired Science | Wired.com


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jan 12, 2010)

Tx for the link Wy, that will be interesting to see what they find! The lactose thing is intriguing...maybe there was interbreeding and that may account for lactose-intolerant humans? Who knows?


----------



## Parson (Jan 12, 2010)

The Procrastinator said:


> Does this mean the time has come for someone to update Jean Auel's saga with a less brutish version of the Neanderthals? How inkeresting! Neanderthals have always been seen as part of the human family tree to my understanding, but this does bring them closer to us. It would certainly fit to see us outbreeding them rather than outthinking or outimagining...



I don't believe that Jean Auel portrayed the Neanderthal's as brutish. She portrayed them as individuals some of whom were brutish and some of whom were anything but. In a lot of ways her books could be seen as a kind of alien contact story with a stone age setting.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 12, 2010)

Wybren said:


> It is quite easy to think of them as human, as they were very similar to Archaic Homo sapiens, except our ancesters were more gracile and had smaller brain capacities, and some class them as a subspecies of _Homo sapiens _( _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_) so I see no problem with them being classed as human (some might), it would be like how Chimpanzee's and Bonobos are put under the same umbrella as Chimpanzee.




It is easy to think of them as human, that's what I meant to convey. I suppose how I worded it might have been confusing, but I meant to say, "Where'd you get the notion that they weren't human?"

The only difference is the slightest genetic difference between them and modern humanity-and I seriously wonder if this is "evolution" at all.....

I wonder what evolutionary standard has placed the notions of greed, heartlessness, and destruction of the earth within our genes.....?


----------



## HareBrain (Jan 12, 2010)

Manarion said:


> I wonder what evolutionary standard has placed the notions of greed, heartlessness, and destruction of the earth within our genes.....?


 
Such behaviour is entirely in accord with our genetic programming, I'm afraid (and not just us: a male lion will kill the cubs of other males; elephants and other herbivores will destroy an entire ecosystem if their numbers get too high).

The only long-term hope for humanity, IMO, is if we use our advanced consciousness to overcome our genetic instincts, which are all about gaining advantage over others: if not other individuals, then other groups.


----------



## The Procrastinator (Jan 13, 2010)

Parson - I get what you're saying, but my no doubt fallible memory of the books (read many years ago) was that _sapiens_ was portrayed as superior to _neandertalensis_ in some fashion - was it in terms of imagination? I know that brutishness was not how they were all portrayed, but my impression is that the _sapiens_ of the time very much had that opinion of them (wrongly). 

Harebrain - advanced consciousness-  shame its not so widely spread...


----------



## Parson (Jan 13, 2010)

I also read them years ago. But as I remember (My memory is also subject to serious deterioration) _sapiens_ was shown as superior in a couple ways. One was that we were portrayed as more adaptable. Perhaps related to that we were also shown as a race whose women could do the same things as men. Whereas the _neandertalensis _was shown as more static. But they had the advantage of "memories." They grew up knowing things about language and so the signs were inbred. The vocal had to be learned. Also the healers knew medicines whereas Ayalla [sp] had to learn which roots etc. could be used to helped cure which disease. Her advantage was that she could extrapolate from the knowledge and try things in combinations that her teachers could not conceive of. 

A long way of saying that I think Jean A. saw _neandertalensis _as different, but not necessarily as inferior to us. Each had their own strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## J-WO (Jan 13, 2010)

Here's something that has always perplexed me about our portrayal of Neanderthals- why are they always pictured as dark haired and swarthy? Those living in Europe, at least, would surely have been blond and white due to living in the middle of an ice age.  Too much melanin content would have prevented vitamin D production etc.

Are these depictions, as I suspect, some hangover from the Victorian outlook, ie- 'Well these Neanderthals were savages so there's no way they could look like they come from Kensington.' ?


----------



## HareBrain (Jan 13, 2010)

J-WO said:


> Here's something that has always perplexed me about our portrayal of Neanderthals- why are they always pictured as dark haired and swarthy? Those living in Europe, at least, would surely have been blond and white due to living in the middle of an ice age. Too much melanin content would have prevented vitamin D production etc.


 
Vitamin D production depends on sunlight, not temperature. If they were living in the location of modern Spain/Greece etc, why would they be any less dark than the current inhabitants of those lands?


----------



## J-WO (Jan 14, 2010)

HareBrain said:


> Vitamin D production depends on sunlight, not temperature. If they were living in the location of modern Spain/Greece etc, why would they be any less dark than the current inhabitants of those lands?



True enough for those in Greece and Spain, but what about the more northerly climes? What applied to Homo Sapiens spreading across Europe would surely apply to Neanderthal. And I imagine the Ice ages cloud cover would preclude a lot of sunlight as well as temperature.

On the other hand, I might be missing something. I'm no expert on any of this.


----------



## HareBrain (Jan 14, 2010)

J-WO said:


> True enough for those in Greece and Spain, but what about the more northerly climes? What applied to Homo Sapiens spreading across Europe would surely apply to Neanderthal. And I imagine the Ice ages cloud cover would preclude a lot of sunlight as well as temperature.
> 
> On the other hand, I might be missing something. I'm no expert on any of this.


 
Interesting question - when did northern Europeans become white? I know there were no humans in Britain during the last ice age (though there were before: Boxgrove Man was 250,000 years old if I remember right) so I assume there weren't in other northern climes either - France might have been the northerly extent of their range, and the sun was probably strong enough there (in combination with unwashed skins, which helps vitamin D production because of the oils, unless that was a piece of nonsense I read once).

But 10,000 years is surely not enough time to develop white skins, longer noses etc.

Just thought: aren't Inuit fairly dark? You'd have thought they would need as much whiteness as possible.


----------



## The Judge (Jan 14, 2010)

HareBrain said:


> Interesting question - when did northern Europeans become white?
> 
> But 10,000 years is surely not enough time to develop white skins, longer noses etc.



I recall reading that it was about 15,000-18,000 years ago, so not that long really.

The darker complexion of Inuit, might it have something to do with the effect of the sunlight on snow?  If there isn't enough sun during winter months to give pale skin any advantage, and then too much sun/sun effect during the summer which would make pale skin a liability, there's no evolutionary pressure to change any further, perhaps.

J


----------



## Dimentio (Jan 17, 2010)

The Neanderthals were never more than 3000 in numbers. I actually think they were merged into Homo Sapiens. On Neanderthal remnants, they have found genetic traces indicated that the Neanderthals were blonde and red-haired. The Neanderthals only existed in Europe and Asia Minor, and blonde hair is only existing naturally in Europe.


----------



## Parson (Jan 18, 2010)

Dimentio said:


> The Neanderthals were never more than 3000 in numbers. I actually think they were merged into Homo Sapiens. On Neanderthal remnants, they have found genetic traces indicated that the Neanderthals were blonde and red-haired. The Neanderthals only existed in Europe and Asia Minor, and blonde hair is only existing naturally in Europe.



Only 3000? Wherever did you find that figure? As for merging in with modern humans, it didn't happen. We have common ancestors way, way, back but DNA suggests that there was little or no interbreeding.

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html


----------



## Dimentio (Jan 18, 2010)

Parson said:


> Only 3000? Wherever did you find that figure? As for merging in with modern humans, it didn't happen. We have common ancestors way, way, back but DNA suggests that there was little or no interbreeding.
> 
> http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html



My fault. I meant 30 000. Estimates from the size of settlements and the numbers of settlement indicate that they at most were 30 000. That DNA shows no interbreeding doesn't disqualify that some genomes might have been transferred to modern human beings. The Neanderthals were so few that they probably were easily assimilated into the hundreds of thousands of Cro Magnon humans who immigrated from the south-east.


----------



## Parson (Jan 18, 2010)

Dimentio said:


> My fault. I meant 30 000. Estimates from the size of settlements and the numbers of settlement indicate that they at most were 30 000. That DNA shows no interbreeding doesn't disqualify that some genomes might have been transferred to modern human beings. The Neanderthals were so few that they probably were easily assimilated into the hundreds of thousands of Cro Magnon humans who immigrated from the south-east.



Hmmmm, dubious methinks. Without a complete DNA profile of Neanderthals, no one wants to go out on a limb and say with absolute certainty, but science certainly points away from significant genome transfer. (I assume that when you say "That DNA shows no interbreeding doesn't dfisqualify that some genomes might have been transferred..." that you mean "little interbreeding" because I am flummoxed as to how a stone age culture could pass along genomes without inter breeding.)


----------



## Dimentio (Jan 18, 2010)

Parson said:


> Hmmmm, dubious methinks. Without a complete DNA profile of Neanderthals, no one wants to go out on a limb and say with absolute certainty, but science certainly points away from significant genome transfer. (I assume that when you say "That DNA shows no interbreeding doesn't dfisqualify that some genomes might have been transferred..." that you mean "little interbreeding" because I am flummoxed as to how a stone age culture could pass along genomes without inter breeding.)



Ah. ^^

I meant that due to the few number of Neanderthals in Europe during the time of the Cro Magnon immigration, the interbreeding which occurred did not affect the genome of the Cro Magnon population so much. Instead, the Neanderthals vanished, due to their fewer numbers. I am in agreement that this is only a theory, and most scientists are rejecting it due to a lack of proof.


----------



## Moontravler (Jan 19, 2010)

Excuse me for being overcome...- I've just found this website and this is my first post here. I just cannot believe there are so many threads in the history section... 

I actually joined for the ..-you know, the SFF thing, hoping to find some fellow SF geeks, and there I scroll down and find this fantastic history forum.

Please excuse my off-topicness, and my... er.. the lack of erudition in this post, but I just need to somehow express my heartfelt glee and happiness at having found all of you. Oh...  

*happiness* 
*Me puts on some lipstick to appear on-topic*

/me looks back at the thread and wonders if general consensus still says that homo sapiens has its roots in Africa....Oh, nevermind, actually.


----------



## Ursa major (Jan 19, 2010)

Welcome to the Chrons, Moontravler.

And yes: although it is focused at the SFF community, there are all sorts of things to talk about on this site (if only because the SFF community - as represented here - is interested in all sorts of things).

But we still like to talk about SF and Fantasy. If you want to, you can put something about the types of SFF you like in a (your) thread in the Introductions section.


----------



## Moontravler (Jan 19, 2010)

Thanks, will do, and so sorry about the off-topic, but at the  book and gaming sites I normally frequent, nobody ever wants to talk history with me, so please excuse my momentary loss of self-control there.


----------



## The Judge (Jan 19, 2010)

I've been thinking about this.  As far as I can see from this report, the scientists have found traces of pigment on shells, which shells are in some way associated with two separate centres of Neanderthal habitation (three if you count the black pigment one).  How do they leap from that to concluding the Neanderthals wore body paint?  Why couldn't they have used the pigment for daubing on walls?  Why couldn't it be they liked pretty coloured shells to look at?  Granted this might still evidence some form of symbolic thinking (well, perhaps not the pretty shells) but it seems a bit different to what they're saying.  Also, they refer to 'complex recipes', but unless the pigments involve ingredients sourced from a distance, why couldn't the 'recipes' have just been a matter of chance discovery, ie children messing about with mud?  

OK, I'm too lazy to do any further research, but am I missing something here?



PS Welcome aboard, Moontravler.  You want to talk history - find a thread and go for it!


----------



## Parson (Jan 19, 2010)

Well said, your honor !

I had been thinking along similar lines myself but was hesitant to say something like this because I was sure that there must be some obvious  clues and insights I was missing.


----------



## The Judge (Jan 19, 2010)

Well, there you are, Parson.  Fools rush in where angels - and Parsons - fear to tread!


----------



## Parson (Jan 19, 2010)

I didn't say that. I wouldn't say that. 

I would say that my advancing years has taught me advancing humility about my insights and abilities. Unfortunately more of this seems rather needed.


----------



## clovis-man (Jun 16, 2010)

A quote from ironictimes.com:

*Find: Neanderthal Men Wore Makeup*
Took forever to get ready.


----------



## J-WO (Jun 17, 2010)

Newromanticerthals.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 27, 2016)

Neanderthal behaviour is increasingly regarded as much more complex these days - highlighted by the latest discovery of circles made using stalagmites, deep within a cave system, that is believed could only have been used before human settlement:
Neanderthals built mystery underground circles 175,000 years ago


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 27, 2016)

Maybe they were really a different flavour of human. After all the difference between various diverse groups today is huge.


----------



## J Riff (May 27, 2016)

War paint.


----------



## Parson (May 28, 2016)

J Riff said:


> War paint.


Exactly what I was thinking, but in some sense that would also qualify for makeup. Beauty doesn't have to be the object for makeup.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (May 28, 2016)

anti-snow glare, sun cream, anti-chap cream, camouflage, priestly or leadership status?
However people for all of RECORDED history have been using make-up in very diverse cultures.


----------

