Talk:Neanderthal

Neanderthal/Denisovan Split

This sentence, in the Evolution section, seems to me to be a typo: "Neanderthals and Denisovans are more closely related to each other than they are to modern humans, meaning the Neanderthal/Denisovan split occurred even earlier."

If ""Neanderthals and Denisovans are more closely related" then their split must have occurred even later.

However, I am neither a paleo-anthropologist nor a paleo-geneticist, so am reluctant to make the change myself, in case there is some weird fluke of which I am unaware. However, when I ask google when the split occurred between Homo Sapiens and N/Ds, the top response it about 500Ka while when I ask about the N/D split, the top response is 300Ka-400Ka. The second masked avenger (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

ETA: The cladogram here agrees with my point, showing the N/D split to be later than the HN/HS split (The dates shown are only roughly the same as the ones I mention above).

And you'd be right. Looks like something got mixed up with the mtDNA suggesting Neanderthals share a closer last common ancestor with modern humans instead of Denisovans. I've fixed it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent edit

Dunkleosteus77 you have reverted my change dating the emergence of Neanderthals 130,000 years ago to 400,000 years ago with the comment "H. neanderthalensis did not emerge 400,000 years ago". The Smithsonian at [1] and the Natural History Museum at [2] both date them as 400,000 to 40,000 years ago. 130,000 years ago, which is the date you have reverted to, is far later than any date I have seen. What source do you have for saying that they emerged so late?

You have restored the comment in the lead that they may have survived thousands of years longer than 40,000 years ago in Gibraltar. This appears to be based on one recent article at [3]. All other recent sources I am aware of reject the late Gibraltar survival, and one article is insufficient to be referenced in the lead, although it may be worth a footnote.

You have also restored the statement that the 120,000 to 140,000-year-old Israeli Nesher Ramla population may represent one of the Neanderthal refugia which repopulated Europe after the Penultimate Glacial Period. The source at [4] does not say this. It says that Nesher Ramla represents a late survival of an earlier homo which may have interbred with the Neanderthals.

Mike Christie you have worked extensively on radiocarbon dating. What is your view on these points? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I should have time to take a look at this later this weekend. Radiocarbon dating is only useful up to about 50,000 years ago, though, so I doubt it will be relevant here. It sounds like this is more about which sources represent the current consensus on dating? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The timing of the transition between Neanderthals and their ancestor Homo heidelbergensis is ultimately ambiguous and arbitrary and varies between different researchers, but a lot of researchers do indeed place the transition during the late Middle Pleistocene prior to the onset of the Late Pleistocene, so I can't say I agree with D77 here, but I don't think the NHM and the Smithsonian are the best sources, and we should be citing the academic literature for this sort of information. If Dunkleosteus77 can find a source for Neanderthals being exclusively Late Pleistocene, we should present both views, with a sentence like "some researchers consider Neanderthals to exclusively date to the Late Pleistocene after 130,000 years ago, while other researchers suggest that the earliest Neanderthals date to the late Middle Pleistocene from around 400-300,000 years ago onwards, which other researchers attribute to Homo heidelbergensis Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Some researchers, such as Stringer, no longer think that H. Heidelbergensis is the ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals. See [5]]. The dating of the origin of the Neanderthals is, as you say, disputed. Most researchers put it at around 400,000 years ago, eg. Rebeccca Wragg Sykes, Kindred, p. 19 says that they became a distinct population around 400-450,000 years ago. Trenton Holliday, Cro-Magnon, p. 49 disputes Stringer's view that the 430,000 Sima de los Huesos hominims are Neanderthal on the ground that, although they are clearly ancestral, the full suite of features are not seen until the 230,000 Ehringsdorf fossils. Putting the origin this late seems to be very much a minority view. I do not agree that the Smithsonian and NHM are not the best sources. They are leading centres of research on human origins. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the researchers working at those institutions are some of the foremost experts in the field, but I think that museum website blogposts are lesser sources than peer reviewed academic works for topics like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77 this is also incredibly bizarre, as when you unilaterally split out Sima de los Huesos hominins from the H. heidelbergensis article about two weeks ago your opening sentence for the article was The Sima de los Huesos hominins are a 430,000 year old population of archaic Neanderthals from the archeological site of Atapuerca, Spain. [6] Why do you have such a strong opinion about this if you aren't even consistent about when Neanderthals originated in your own edits? I have found many of your recent edits/and condensations in archaic human articles to be careless and sloppy, like you did not properly check the sources or did not do enough literature research. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• This article is about the species Homo neanderthalensis, not the entire Neanderthal clade which is where that 400,000 date comes from. The Sima de los Huesos hominins are excluded from H. neanderthalensis and are beyond the scope of this article. Per https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253958 "the present analysis has shown that they [Sima de los Huesos] differ from Neandertals in several cranial regions that are considered taxonomically diagnostic of H. neanderthalensis. We argue the SH p-deme is sufficiently different from H. neanderthalensis as to be considered a separate taxon". Per https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.25190 "Direct comparison of the enlarged mandibular sample from Atapuerca (SH) with the Mauer mandible, the type specimen of H. heidelbergensis, reveals important differences from the SH hominins, and there is no morphological counterpart of Mauer within the SH sample, suggesting the SH fossils should not be assigned to this taxon...the combined anatomical and genetic evidence suggests the Atapuerca SH hominins share a close evolutionary relationship with, but remain distinct from, the Neandertals." I would caution against using a website source that was probably last updated in 2012 when that wing of the museum opened. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3252 is the only one cited after late-survival in Gibraltar because it gives the full overview of the debate. I mean I can certainly expand on the evolution of the Ebro river frontier hypothesis and related models, and the issues of dating sites to this time interval, but to claim it's a fully debunked fringe theory is just untrue Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Chris Stringer is one of the world's leading authorities on Neanderthals and he says 400,000 to 40,000 at [7]. The Smithsonian says the same in a referenced article (not a blog) at [8]. Steve Parker ed. Evolution the whole story p. 557 says 350,000; Svante Paabo Neanderthal Man, p. 208, 350-400,000 to 30,000 (this was in 2014, before the redating of the extinction); Paul Pettitt, Homo Sapiens Rediscovered, pp. 72, 74, no date for emergence but occupied Levant from 300,000 years ago and disappeared by 40,000; Anne Gibbons, Science at [9], genomes of Neanderthals sequenced dating to between 400,000 and 50,000 years ago; Reilly et al, Current Biology [10], 400,000-40,000 years ago. The mainstream view of leading experts is 400,000 to 40,000. Some experts do not think that the early Sima fossils should be classed as H. Neanderthalis, but that is very much a minority view. I only know of one recent paper which dates survival after 40,000. It is not fringe and I did not say so, but it has not been accepted by other experts so far as I know, and so should not be more than a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

And in that article notice how Stringer says "Neanderthal-like" instead of just Neanderthal. He does this in other places too, like https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03244-5. The date of 300,000 years in the Levant is clearly in reference to the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex of specifically Tabun Cave and Qesem Cave, and he's being a little reductionist for brevity's sake since it looks like Pettitt's only saying that claim in passing. This technocomplex is normally described as "pre/ante/early-Neanderthal" which means in the "Neanderthal clade". And maybe the Sima de los Huesos being a separate taxon was a minority view a decade ago when all of your sources were written. I just gave you sources from last year. Like Paabo's book came out a few months before Arsuaga and colleagues for the first time decided to separate the Sima de los Huesos hominins completely from H. neanderthalensis and heidelbergensis; which resolved what Paabo pointed out in his mtDNA study a few months before publishing that book where he calls the designation of the Sima de los Huesos as heidelbergensis problematic. It's also published 2 years before the nDNA study where Paabo describes the Sima de los Huesos as "related to the ancestors of Neanderthals" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you are right about the 430,000 year old Sima. Recent papers describe it as Neanderthal-like. But the 400,000 date is still widely accepted. It is given in the Stringer interview, in the Smithsonian article, and the recent papers I have cited above by Gibbons and Reilly et al. Of course, all paleontologists would agree that as the change was gradual, a definitive date cannot be given. Most think that 400,000 as an approximate figure is reasonable. Stringer no longer thinks that Heidelbergensis was an ancestor, but I do not know how widely his new view is accepted. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The approximate 400,000 year date is in reference to Sima de los Huesos, and again they're not saying that's when H. neanderthalensis appears, they're saying that's when this lineage starts evolving in Europe (so again, Neanderthal clade vs classic Neanderthal). For instance, in https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.130 2022, Stringer has a section here called "NEANDERTHALS EVOLVED IN EUROPE FOR AT LEAST 400 KA YEARS" and he starts it off by talking about Sima de los Huesos but describes them as, "Analyses of these bones and teeth suggested that they could be early relatives of the Neanderthals, and this conclusion was supported in 2016 when ancient DNA was recovered from one of the SH fossils, placing it on the Neanderthal lineage." So, not Neanderthal, but early relative / Neanderthal lineage. As for heidelbergensis, I'm not really sure which study you're referencing, but in this study he says (in the same section) "in our view, there is currently not enough evidence to establish the exact nature of our LCA with the Neanderthals from about 600 ka, nor where it lived" after discussing facially-derived and late-surviving heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis. As in, he's not outright rejecting heidelbergensis as the LCA, he's just saying at the moment there isn't enough evidence to make a compelling argument for what the LCA is. The previous year https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03244-5 he already rejected these kinds of specimens as a potential LCA candidate "It is impossible to identify any early Middle Pleistocene fossils as definitively representing the common ancestral population for H. sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans, but it is possible to identify groups that probably are not, namely Asian H. erectus, facially derived H. heidelbergensis across Africa and West Eurasia, and the Neanderthal-like Sima de los Huesos hominins." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have pointed out four reliable sources which say 400,000. It is not for Wikipedia editors to reject the date on the basis of cherry-picking sources which use slightly different language. The date is not just based on Sima. Stringer says the 400,000 year old Swanscombe fossil "is generally regarded as belonging to an early Neanderthal woman" in the NHM article at [11]. A few experts, such as Holliday, put the date later, but none at 130,000 years ago, which is the date you reverted to in your edit.

My comment about Stringer rejecting heidelbergensis as an ancestor is based on an article in Current Biology in 2024 at [12]: "I had the view for a long time that it was the common ancestor of us and Neanderthals about 500,000 years ago. Now I think that’s unlikely and that the common ancestor lived further back and did not look like heidelbergensis." Dudley Miles (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

And I just pointed out to you that your pop-science sources are oversimplifying for a less technical audience. And if you stopped cherrypicking such non-technical sources and quick, nonchalant interviews to explain a pretty technical idea, you'd also figure out that Stringer is not claiming Swanscombe is H. neanderthalensis but, like Sima de los Huesos, part of the Neanderthal lineage. For instance https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.3137 2019 "the Swanscombe skull (UK, about 400 ka – a possible Neanderthal ancestor)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You cite Stringer saying a posssible Neanderthal ancestor in 2019. By 2024 he had decided that Swanscombe is an early Neanderthal and that Heidelbergensis is not an ancestor. We have to go by the sources, and I have cited journal articles for 400,000 as well as an interview setting out his current views. You have not cited sources for a later date, or given any date apart from 130,000 in your revert edit. Hemiauchenia what do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

At least on WP:PALEO, there is a general convention to stay away from pop-science magazines, the news, and interviews. This is because they are a quick, simplistic, generalist, non-technical overview of the subject, which as discussed in #Overtrimmed? is not why people come to Wikipedia. More pertinent, per WP:WPNOTRS we should stay away from primary sources. An interview is a primary source Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This paper has an interesting discussion:

Morphological and genetic data indicate that the Neanderthal clade emerged after 700 thousand years ago (ka), and mosaics of Neanderthal morphological features appear in the European fossil record ca. 450 ka during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 12. Archaeological assemblages dated to MIS 11–10 include technological innovations developed by populations within the H. neanderthalensis lineage, and advanced flake-based industries (e.g., the Levallois technological system) emerge by at least MIS 8 (ca. 300 ka). Hominins unequivocally recognizable as morphologically Neanderthal were present in Europe by MIS 7, ~ 200 ka.

It seems that at minimum, the date for the emergence of Neanderthals should be placed at 200 ka, not 130 ka. It would be useful to have a paraphrase of something like this in the text. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The paper says that populations morphologically Neanderthal were present in Europe 200 ka. It does not say that early Neanderthals were not Neanderthals. Indeed it says that "Middle Paleolithic Neanderthal populations occupied Eurasia for at least 250,000 years prior to the arrival of anatomically modern humans." This puts their origin over 300,000 years ago. A primary source is a research paper (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), not an interview with an expert which explains their views. The interview was in Current Biology, which is not a pop-science magazine, and I cannot find anything in WP:PALEO about staying away from interviews. WP:RS cautions against "news reports describing early science and medical breakthroughs,[20] especially those which do not interview independent experts", implying that interviews with experts are reliable sources. A summary of the sources might be that early Neanderthals date to around 400,000 years ago, and classic Neanderthals around 200,000 years ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I did say "at minimum", which was referencing Dunk's 130 kyr date for the emergence of Neanderthals. What that bit at RS is referring to is churnalism news reporting that takes the latest scientific studies as gospel and doesn't ask other uninvolved scientists for comment. What "interview" means in this context is that they asked uninvolved scientists for comment. It's not a blanket statement suggesting that interviews with scientists are reliable, and indeed I'd strongly reject the view that non-peer reviewed interviews should be used in preference to peer reviewed publications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The interview primarily references Stringer's comment that he no longer believes that Heidelbergensis is an ancestor, which confirms what I have heard him say in a lecture. The 400,000 is based on sources which include two journal articles and a Smithsonian article, all of which I have linked above. Looking at the sources again, 300,000 to 400,000 would be better than a straight 400,000. The only source I know who says less than that is Holliday, who says 230,000. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Stringer, while somewhat prominent, is but one of hundreds of researchers who work on Neanderthals. It's hardly a field that dominanted by a handful of specialists (as some fields of paleontology defintely are) such that we would want to look to look to the opinion of one person to settle what is obviously an ambiguous issue and contentious issue such as this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a distinction between "early Neanderthals" from MIS7 and MIS5e and "late Neanderthals" (or in other words, "classic Neanderthals"), but yes it is true that is neanderthalensis, so I'll add MIS 7 and expand on it in Evolution (right now it only specifically mentions "classic Neanderthals"). Interviews are still primary sources no matter where they're published. We also try staying away from these and additionally news sources because authors can make claims here that otherwise wouldn't have survived the peer review process. A research paper is a secondary source because it goes through the peer review process. That's why we can't use predatory journals or pre-prints which haven't gone through a peer review, because those are still primary sources. As for the date of 400,000 years ago, refer to my previous comment about https://doi.org/10.48738/2022.iss2.130 Stringer, 2022 Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

A research paper is regarded by Wikipedia as a primary source. See WP:RS, which says "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." Your comments do not address my citation above of journal articles which give 400,000 as the origin, which are primary sources according to these criteria, but as reliable as the sources you cite. It may be best to refer the question to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This is quite a strange stance from someone who is advocating that we use interviews as sources. This 2024 paper makes a distinction between "Preneanderthals (≈MIS 14-9) [from around 500,000 until around 300,000 years ago) , Early Neanderthals (MIS 7-5e) [~250,000-115,000 years ago), and Late Neanderthals (MIS 5d-3) [115,000-40,000 years ago]", which could be useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think it is strange. There is disagreement what sources should be considered reliable according to Wikipedia criteria, and it would be helpful to get expert advice. The paper you cite puts Early Neanderthals later than any other source I have seen, and so is a relevant contribution. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Neanderthal

Previous peer review

A few months ago I made a major cut of content, in response to concerns the article was far too oversized (which it definitely was). The cut version was quickly criticized for being too overtrimmed (again, fair). I am opening this PR for a formal discussion on how this article should look like, and how much / what kinds of contents should be apportioned to daughter articles (Neanderthal anatomy, Neanderthal behavior, Neanderthal genetics, Neanderthals in Southwest Asia, Neanderthal extinction, Neanderthals in popular culture, Neanderthals in Gibraltar). I appreciate any and all comments!

Thanks, Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Jens

• rounded supraorbital torus (the brow ridges) – singular/plural mismatch; should this be (bulge that forms the brow ridges)?

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• explain occipital bun

"bony projection" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• male dimensions of maybe 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) and 75 kg (165 lb). – weight is not a dimension, right?

Well mass in physics is a dimension, but I don't know if it's different in a vernacular sense Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• ponchos – I would link this

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• footnote 2 (b) could be much more concise, it is a bit repetitive

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• A number of Neanderthal fossils had been discovered before their antiquity was fully understood – You then list Engis 2, but this seems to have been understood as old?

Engis 2 was at first classified as belonging to a child with Ethiopic affinities sometime around the Great Flood Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• This hypothesis was notably opposed by – do we really need "notably"?

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• progressive" Neanderthals which would eventually evolve into some local subspecies of H. sapiens (polycentricism), or in Europe into either the modern European subspecies or the "classic" Neanderthals. – progressive ones evolve into classical ones?

reworded Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• "splitters and lumpers" – I suggest to remove this. It is not needed I think.

the terms splitting and lumping are used frequently on this topic Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• are more closely related to Neanderthals using nDNA' – "in their nDNA"?

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• recognisable by a genetic signature – needs explanation

"rather than anatomical landmarks" what part needs to be explained? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• The Neanderthals were the first human species to permanently occupy Europe – earlier in the article you said there might have been an earlier one?

The key word here is "permanent", Europe may have been a population sink for earlier species and regularly depopulated Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• proliferating weakly harmful genes due to the reduced effectivity of natural selection. – stated earlier already, not sure if it needs repetition

• Neanderthals may have been at a demographic disadvantage – "disadvantage" compared to whom?

added Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Locations of Neanderthal finds in Eurasia (note, part of Spain is cut off) – I would simply write "finds in Asia", since the map only shows Asia (this is what is highlighted in yellow).

Well, the map does clearly show all of Europe (aside from the tip of Spain) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• I would think that, per WP:Proportion, the Description section is slightly too short. There are some important points that could be mentioned (e.g., lack of the chin). I mean, not much more, but a bit more is needed I think.

I'll get to re-expanding Description. Anything else in specific I should expand? (Right now I'm thinking mostly dental anatomy which I don't think is the most generally interesting) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• They appear to have eaten predominantly what was abundant within their immediate surroundings.[106] Cro-Magnons, in contrast, seem to have used more complex food extraction strategies – I don't see the contrast because the two points cannot be compared, and no idea what a complex food extraction would be.

expanded Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Neanderthals, nonetheless, were frequently victims of animal attacks.[94] – already mentioned

• The arts – strange title. Why not just "Art"?

It used to be Art until someone changed it to that a few years ago I assume to match the human article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• As is the case with animal attacks and the incest, traumatic injuries are repeated throughout the article several times.

Not sure what to do on this point because they all become very relevant to a lot of aspects of Neanderthals Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Neanderthals used ochre, a clay earth pigment. While modern humans have used this for decorative or symbolic colouration, it has also been used as medicine, hide tanning agent, food preservative, and insect repellent. – So what does this say about Neanderthals? Seems to be about modern humams, so why is it here?

reworded Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• The quality of medical care may have ensured their survival as a species for so long. – Nonsensical sentence in my opinion (basically everything ensured their survival)

removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• The behaviour is not indicative of a religious belief of life after death because it could also have had non-symbolic motivations. – For example? Which non-symbolic motivations would have included the mentioned grave goods?

Well the source doesn't actually specify but, for example, it could've been randomly/accidentally flung into the grave while shoveling on dirt Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• The Finlayson's speculate that Neanderthals viewed the golden eagle as a symbol of power. – I think, if kept, this needs context: Why this particular bird?

expanded Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• introgression – link

should I link to interbreeding between archaic and modern humans or introgression? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Assimilation had long been hypothesised with supposed hybrid specimens, and was revitalised with the discovery of archaic human DNA in modern humans.[191] – There was already an entire section on this, why repeat?

about interbreeding, not about assimilation of entire populations Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Historically, the cause of extinction of Neanderthals and other archaic humans was viewed under an imperialistic guise – is "imperialistic guise" the right word? Do you mean "white supremacist guise"?

Well one, that entirely depends on the meaning of "white", and two the source talks more about "an imperialist view of race relations" than specifically white supremacism Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am also not sure if that quote is warranted, or if that is undue weight (it is the only quote in the article, and a misleading one if people do not read the text).

I think it neatly summarizes the conventional wisdom of the time, the colonization of Australia was a super common analogy to explain Neanderthal extinction Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Refs 37 and 177 are duplicates. Does 177 have to have that quote? 40 and 42, as well as 49, 95, and 102 are also duplicates.

fixed (I thought there was a bot for this) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• I also did copy edits. Hope this helps. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Missing date

The article gives an extinction date, when it has turned out that they did not technically go extinct, but were subsumed into Homo Sapiens. But it fails to give the date when they appeared as a species. FatBear1 (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)