Relationships with Homo sapiens From 45,000BC to 30,000BC Neanderthals and H. sapiens coexisted together. Although the exact relationship between the two species is unclear, from archaeological evidence we can tell that they were in contact with each other. H. sapiens are known to differ from Neanderthals by being taller and thinner, with an absence of an obvious brow ridge, and being more intelligent. This intelligence allowed them to develop better “technology” that challenged to Neanderthals, and allowed them to prosper. Stringer and Gamble (1993, p.193) mention that ‘Paul Graves’ explained that their relationship was a positive one. Since the H. sapiens had this better technology, they showed it to the Neanderthals, and ‘traded’ it with …show more content…
As to the reliability of this theory, it should be taken with a pinch of salt, as communication with another species would have been difficult, since communication with other Neanderthals would have been difficult enough. It is known that the early humans became more and more skilled at coping with the environment (Stringer and Gamble, 1993, p.193), possibly through Neanderthals or more likely just from experience, this meant that their populations increased. With the increased population, there would have been economic competition between the two species (Stringer and Gamble, 1993, p.194), with the end result of the humans coming out on top. The early humans displayed better hunting tactics, as mentioned earlier, by hunting seasonally, allowing the gazelle population to stay at a constant level. They may also have better tools for gathering food and materials. It is worth pointing out at this point that Stringer and Gamble (1993, p.193) thought that the two species did possibly interbreed, as evidence shown from a skull of a cro-magnon shows a building occipital bone. Neanderthal DNA is now found in modern humans. The relationship between the two species best describes why the Neanderthals became extinct. When the early humans …show more content…
sapiens is definitely the main one. However this doesn’t mean the others are any less important. When they first came into contact with their rivals, the H. sapiens, that’s when the real trouble and their downfall started. Competition for food became a problem, and since their technology couldn’t out do the early humans, they were forced up north. However as the climate grew warmer, their prey started to die out, meaning resources grew scarce. Although they could have stayed where they were and tried to find new sources of food, they just couldn’t compete with the early humans. This point isn’t the actual cause of the extinction, but it does speed it up a significant amount. Their way of life was a dangerous one, and even though it probably caused many deaths it wouldn’t have caused their extinction. However if they didn’t live a dangerous life hunting, then that would mean they developed better tools and technologies, which would have meant they could have rivalled the H. sapiens. If health problems weren’t common, then perhaps they may have had longer life expectancies, which would mean their young would have had longer to learn how to hunt and gather, meaning they would have been a more successful species. If the humans never moved from Africa, then the Neanderthals may have been able to successfully adapt to the warming climates, and adapt better hunting techniques