Who were the Neanderthals—and why did they go extinct?
Neanderthals were our closest known relatives and walked the Earth between at least 400,000 and 40,000 years ago. But since their fossilized bones were discovered more than 160 years ago, there are still many questions about what they were like.
The bones were uncovered by limestone quarry workers digging in Germany's Neander Valley in 1856. At first, they thought they'd uncovered the remains of a bear. In fact, they'd stumbled upon something that would change history: evidence of an extinct species of ancient human predecessors.
Researchers soon realized they had already encountered these human relatives in earlier fossils that had been misidentified throughout the early 19th century.
The discovery galvanized scientists eager to explore new theories of human evolution, sparking a worldwide Neanderthal fossil hunt and tantalizing the public with the possibility of a mysterious sister species that once dominated Europe.
Who exactly were these ancient humans, how did they live, and why did they die out? Here's what to know about them. The skull of a female Neanderthal rests alongside other Neanderthal remains discovered in Gorham's Cave. Located on the eastern side of the Rock of Gibraltor, this archaeological site has yielded important insights into Neanderthal life. Photograph by KENNETH GARRETT, Nat Geo Image Collection
Homo neanderthalensis, were named by geologist William King, who based the name on his findings near La Chapelle Aux Saints, in France.
At first glance, fossilized bones suggested that Neanderthals were human-like. But a closer look reveals the characteristics that differentiate our ancient ancestors from modern Homo sapiens.
They looked similar to humans but had a more prominent brow ridge, protruding faces, and rib cages that were shorter, deeper, and wider. In addition, their eye sockets were much larger, which may have enabled them to see better than modern humans.
Researchers believe that their brains were roughly the same size as ours, although they were more elongated. Though debates on the size and structures still rage today, researchers agree that the average male was about 5 foot 4 inches tall, while females stood at about 5 feet.
(You may have more Neanderthal DNA than you think.)
These hominids once lived throughout Eurasia. Researchers believe that due to the species' adaptation to the region's cold climates, they had compact, massive musculature and would have required up to 4,480 calories a day to survive.
Megafauna like mammoths, elephants, and woolly rhinoceros made hunting an important facet of their life. Living and traveling in small groups, they used tools like spears to satiate their meat-heavy diet.
They also ate plants, which MIT geobiologist Ainara Sistiaga has said is evidence that Neanderthals 'probably ate what was available in different situations, seasons, and climates.'
Sometimes, this included eating their own. In 2016, scientists studying remains of Neanderthal skeletons from a cave in what is now Belgium found 'unambiguous evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism in Northern Europe.' How intelligent were Neanderthals and what did their lives look like?
Researchers initially assumed Neanderthals were brutish, hairy thugs capable only of crude thought and bloody hunting.
But some scientists have changed their tune as evidence has accumulated of some surprisingly human-like characteristics among these human ancestors.
Neanderthals used tools in domestic and hunting contexts, flaking rocks to create weapons, scrapers, and axes. Woodworking was also common. They cut and whittled sticks they used to dig or form spears. Neanderthals used materials such as flint to make tools that they used as weapons, axes, and more. This specimen is from the Pinilla del Valle site, in the Lozoya Valley, near Madrid, Spain. Several Neanderthal fossils have been found here since excavations begin in the early 2000s. Photograph by MARCO ANSALONI, SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY (Top) (Left) and Photograph by ROBBIE SHONE, Nat Geo Image Collection (Bottom) (Right)
Despite their assumed ability to withstand the cold, they are also thought to have processed animal hides and crafted clothing that could cover up to 80 percent of their bodies.
Like humans, they are thought to have covered their feet and other sensitive body parts. But since the clothing has long since disintegrated, researchers can only infer how they may have dressed.
(Take a fascinating look inside the world of Neanderthals)
Another breakthrough was the discovery that Neanderthals may have been capable of symbolic thought. A few archaeological Neanderthal sites have yielded decorated eagle talons and objects thought to have been used in burial rituals—evidence, some say, of advanced thought and tradition.
Then, in 2018, researchers announced they'd discovered evidence of cave paintings from 65,000 years ago—the oldest artworks of their kind. But the abstract nature of this art continues to fuel debates among scientists about how complex their mental capacities truly were. Why Neanderthals went extinct 40,000 years ago
Whatever their cognitive abilities, Neanderthals were ultimately doomed. However, their extinction is just as contentious as other facets of their lives. Scientists still debate what caused them to disappear around 40,000 years ago at the end of the ice age.
Researchers know that in at least some cases, Neanderthals coexisted and even mated with Homo sapiens, which emerged in Africa about 300,000 years ago. But Homo sapiens eventually won out genetically, and the vast majority of modern humans' genes come from our African ancestors.
Some surmise that competition from early modern humans for food and shelter, or evolution that selected for more successful human traits, contributed to the Neanderthals' extinction. Others think that because Neanderthals lived in such small groups, they simply became outnumbered by humans.
(Go inside the last days of Neanderthals)
Another hypothesis involves climate change: Scientists have documented a thousand-year-long cold snap in central Europe that coincided with the Neanderthals' extinction about 40,000 years ago and that could have depopulated the species.
Cooling is thought to have been less severe in areas populated by Homo sapiens. Those who embrace this theory believe that once Neanderthal populations declined, humans moved in and eventually became the dominant species worldwide. Neanderthal cave paintings created some 65,000 years ago inside the Andalusian cave of Ardales. Researchers have found such paintings in three caves in Spain, including this one. Photograph by JORGE GUERRERO, AFP/Getty Images
Despite their species' demise, fascinating remnants of Neanderthal genomes can be found in some modern humans. Up to 4 percent of the DNA of human populations outside of Africa, the cradle of Homo sapiens, can be traced back to Neanderthals. That overlap shows that Neanderthals did interbreed with humans.
(How do Neanderthal genes affect your health?)
'Ironically, with a current world population of about 8 billion people, this means that there has never been more Neanderthal DNA on Earth,' write prehistory experts Peter C. Kjærgaard, Mark Maslin, and Trine Kellberg Nielsen.
Given how long it's been since Neanderthals roamed Eurasia, it's impossible to truly reconstruct how they lived and died. But the mystery of these human ancestors—and tantalizing hints that Neanderthals were much like us—continues to drive research, and controversy, to this day. Editor's note: This article has been updated to clarify how Neanderthal faces and bodies differed from modern humans. A reference to Neanderthal DNA in modern humans has also been revised to specify that the DNA was found in humans living outside of Africa. This story originally published on March 6, 2023. It was updated on July 24, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Geographic
5 hours ago
- National Geographic
Eating too much of this favorite food could increase your diabetes risk
Not all potatoes are created equally, according to a new study that analyzed nearly four decades of health data to understand the potential links between potato intake and diabetes risk. Photograph by Gerd Ludwig, Nat Geo Image Collection You might want to think twice before you reach for that last french fry at the bottom of the bag. A new study from a team of researchers at Harvard University found that eating too many fries was associated with significantly higher risk for developing Type 2 diabetes. In the study published in BMJ, researchers analyzed nearly four decades worth of self-reported dietary data from 205,000 nurses and health professionals, making it one of the most comprehensive studies regarding potato intake and diabetes to date. The results showed those who ate three servings of boiled, mashed or baked potatoes a week had a marginally increased Type 2 diabetes risk of 1 percent. However, respondents who ate three servings of french fries a week had 20 percent risk. (It's possible to reverse diabetes—and even faster than you think.) 'The big takeaway? Not all potatoes are created equally,' says Seyed Mohammad Mousavi, the lead researcher and a postdoctoral research fellow in Harvard University's department of nutrition. If the findings make you a bit salty, fear not: There are some caveats that might put your mind at ease. So do you need to be worried if you only eat fries occasionally—or if you prefer the sweet potato kind? And if you're going to keep eating french fries anyway, is there anything you can do to modify diabetes risk? National Geographic put these questions to the experts. Scientists have suspected for years that white potatoes could increase our risk of Type 2 diabetes. That's because when our bodies break down potato starch, it quickly converts into glucose that enters our bloodstream and can cause our insulin to spike. To learn more about this relationship, Mousavi's team built upon a 2015 study that had previously looked at this question using the same survey data. This time however, the BMJ study followed participants for a longer period and included 7,000 respondents with new cases of Type 2 diabetes. Mousavi's study also conducted an additional meta-analysis of similar research worldwide. 'That allowed us to cut through the noise and show that the increased risk of diabetes really centers on French fries, not all potatoes,' Mousavi says. (Scientists finally know where potatoes come from—and the answer is very weird.) Pratik Pokharel, a postdoctoral fellow at the Danish Cancer Institute, who was not part of the study, says the research tracks with his team's own potato findings. 'Higher consumption of potato fries was associated with poorer glucose tolerance and reduced insulin sensitivity. These effects, over time, could increase the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes.' A study published in The BMJ found that eating french fries three times a week increased a person's risk of Type 2 diabetes mellitus by up to 20 percent. The researchers noted that other forms of potato, such as boiled or baked potatoes did not show the same correlation. Photograph by Jimena Peck, The New York Times/Redux (Top) (Left) and Photograph by Matt Roth, The New York Times/Redux (Bottom) (Right) The study defined a serving of french fries as about 4 to 6 ounces, or roughly a medium to large McDonald's fries. Three servings a week is where scientists identified the 20 percent increase in diabetes risk. As we know, however, people don't always stick to recommended serving sizes—particularly in the United States. 'We supersize everything,' says Walter Willett, the study's co-author and a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. So if you're eating one heaping pile of fries once a week, you might still need to listen up. (Diet soda might be making you hungrier.) Portioning can help. Johanna Lampe, a registered dietician and experimental nutritionist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, argues potatoes may be easier than other foods to eyeball to make sure you have the right portion. 'French fries, typically eaten as a discrete component, may be even more accurately quantified,' she says. While no number is 'safe' Mousavi says, it's clear 'the more you eat, the steeper that risk gets.' Are sweet potato fries still safe? While the study didn't focus on sweet potatoes specifically, mixed research suggests they do likely have a lower glycemic index. When we break down low glycemic index foods, the glucose enters our bloodstream more gradually. Still, they're carbohydrates, and might increase diabetes risk if eaten in large quantities, Willett says. Oil, fat, and salt also play a role in risk. Overall, more research is needed. Knowing how much the potato is revered—it's the third-most consumed crop, according to the International Potato Center—researchers wanted to provide people with healthy alternatives. And it turns out, Willett says, 'the choices make a big difference.' They found that replacing baked, mashed, or boiled potatoes with whole grains could decrease diabetes risk by 4 percent, while replacing french fries with whole grains decreases risk by 19 percent. (Your body needs whole grains. Here's how to find the most effective ones.) One surprise in their findings? Swapping out boiled, baked or mashed potatoes for rice actually increased diabetes risk, likely due to the food's high glycemic index. If you're not drooling over whole grains, you can start slow, says Hilary Seligman, the director of the Food Policy, Health, and Hunger Research Program at University of California, San Francisco. 'Just substitute them for refined grains in the two or three products you find most palatable to start,' Seligman says. Whole grain crackers, cereal, or bread are all great options. One caveat is that during the time the study was conducted, french fries were mostly cooked using trans fat oils, 'many which are banned now,' Mousavi says. So, the topic should be revisited. When it comes to potatoes, 'the focus should be on healthier preparation,' Pokharel says. Think baked french fries with olive oil. What about air-frying? Mousavi says, 'While we didn't compare air-frying directly, it likely poses a lower risk than traditional deep-frying—but more studies are needed.' Or start with baby steps. Get a side salad with your burger next time. And opt for smaller portions, Mousavi advises. 'The big takeaway is that small everyday choices really do add up.'
Wall Street Journal
14 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Did UV Rays Doom Neanderthals?
What happened to the Neanderthals? Our ancestral cousins went mysteriously extinct around 40,000 years ago, while humans did not.
National Geographic
7 days ago
- National Geographic
Scientists found cut marks on a 850,000-year-old human neck bone. Was it ... cannibalism?
A toddler's neck bone discovered with clear cut-marks dating to about 850,000 years ago may be evidence that an ancient hominin species, Homo antecessor, cannibalized a child, according to archaeologists in Spain. The vertebra from a Homo antecessor child with cut marks indicating it was likely cannibalized. Photograph by Maria D. Guillén / IPHES-CERCA The researchers say the finding, announced July 24, is further indication of Paleolithic cannibalism at Gran Dolina cave in Spain's Sierra de Atapuerca, where signs of ancient humans butchering one another have been found for decades. "This is direct evidence that the child was processed like any other prey," says Palmira Saladié, an archaeologist with the Catalan Institute of Human Paleoecology and Social Evolution (IPHES-CERCA) and one of the leaders of the excavations where the neck bone was unearthed. Decapitation did not always mean meat from the dead individual was consumed, she says. But in the case of this child, who was between two and four years old, she believes it was almost certain the individual was also eaten. The toddler's vertebra was found along with bones from nine other individuals, in a layer of sediment within the cave dated to about 850,000 years ago. Many of the bones also had cut marks, as well as fractures the researchers say seem to have been made to reach the marrow inside. But not everyone agrees with the team's conclusions. Archaeological excavation work at the Gran Dolina cave site in Atapuerca. Photograph by Maria D. Guillén / IPHES-CERCA Gran Dolina and the Atapuerca site near the northern Spanish city of Burgos were uncovered in the 1890s, when a route for a new railway was cut through nearby mountains. Excavations since the 1960s have revealed broadly accepted evidence of cannibalism among the Homo antecessor group that lived there from about 900,000 years ago until their species went extinct, possibly a little more than 100,000 years later. Scientists disagree on whether Homo antecessor was a direct ancestor of anatomically modern humans—Homo sapiens—or if it was a related species that died out. Regardless, evidence from prehistoric archaeological sites—including the Mesolithic Gough's Cave in the west of England and the Neolithic Herxheim site in Germany—indicates that early Homo sapiens, too, were sometimes cannibals. Signs of cannibalism among earlier human species, such as Neanderthals, have been found at archaeological sites all over the world, including some of the earliest evidence from Kenya. In a few cases, what was once thought to be evidence of hominin cannibalism might actually be something else: stripping flesh from bones for a "reburial" perhaps, which has been suggested for Neolithic remains in France. An 850,000-year-old tooth belonging to an ancient human relative called Homo antecessor. Photograph by Maria D. Guillén / IPHES-CERCA Some experts disagree if the newfound cut-marks are evidence the child was cannibalized. "Cannibalism is very rare," says Michael Pante a paleoanthropologist from Colorado State University, who was not involved in the discovery. "It's just not a common thing that we see." He says that although scientists claim to have found evidence of cannibalism from remains at several archaeological sites, and especially at Atapuerca, direct evidence of it is uncommon. "This decapitation doesn't mean they consumed that individual," says Pante. "They were obviously cutting up a child for some reason, but there are a number of reasons they may have done that." A funeral ritual is one possibility. Pante also disagrees with a suggestion made by the researchers that early humans at Atapuerca hunted rival humans as a food resource. "There is not a lot of evidence of that," he says. Cannibalism among humans—even very early humans like these—was unusual for nutritional purposes and may have only occurred in rituals, he adds. Other researchers are more convinced, however. James Cole, an archaeologist and expert in early human cannibalism who was also not involved in the work, says the first evidence for cannibalism at Atapuerca was found almost 30 years ago. "The new find in this respect is perhaps unsurprising,' he says, 'but it is absolutely fascinating and hints at the rich story about our evolutionary past that the site still has to tell.' Limited Time: Bonus Issue Offer Subscribe now and gift up to 4 bonus issues—starting at $34/year.
