Talk:Neanderthals in Gibraltar

Fixed redlink

I've changed a redlink from Forbes' Barrier to Forbes' Batteries since they seem to refer to the same place. Clicking on several links in this article I see that several of the same redlinks in this article are shared in several others. Before I go on a massive "fix" spree on multiple pages only to find I'm wrong on this can someone verify that this change is correct? I'm going to also try to clean up the other redlinks unless someone beats me to it. Also, I may make a slight change to the lede to break up a sentence that at a quick glance has five commas and a semicolon when I have a few minutes. Thanks. Wolfhound668 (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi WH668, I'm sure that these are the right words but Forbe's Barrier was a wet area in front on Forbes Battery that was intended to slow down invading soldiers so you could shoot them more easily. I saw this on a map but can't remember where..... oh jut found it. Page 27 of "The Fortifications of Gibraltar" by fa and finlayson. It was to the east of the "inundation" (wet bit) and in front of the King's Lines. A good online soure for gibraltar stuff is "discovergibraltar.com" which is cc by sa - try the index as its not searchable by machine. Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen this. I reverted your edit since the barrier is a different fortification than the batteries. The batteries are on the Rock of Gibraltar whereas the barrier was one of two on the narrow causeway at sea level between the Bay of Gibraltar (west) and the Inundation (east). Hope this clarifies. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place for me to comment this, but I don't understand how they can say all trace of Neanderthal is extinct when I just found out that I have Neanderthal in my blood, also European. Just curious. Neananleah (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See Also

how about a See Also section? Wikirictor (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Neanderthals of Gibraltar → Neanderthals in Gibraltar – I'm currently writing an article on Levantine Neanderthals. I thought it wise not to call the article "Neanderthals of the Levant" but "Neanderthals in the Levant", because the former title makes the implicit assumption that the Neanderthals found in the Levant were born there. Given the slow speed at which people apparently moved in the Palaeolithic, it is probable that they were born there, but I believe this assumption not necessary. Gibraltar being particularly small, that the Neanderthals found there were "of" Gibraltar is not obvious at all.

On Google Scholar the prevalence of each phrase as of today is as follows:

• "Neanderthals in the Levant", 189 results
• "Neanderthals of the Levant", 7 results
• "Neanderthals in Gibraltar", 74 results
• "Neanderthals of Gibraltar", 15 results

Similarly, both Google News and Google Books give more results for the "in" form.

I would hence kindly like to suggest this paged be moved to "Neanderthals in Gibraltar".

Nicolas Perrault (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This sounds sensible. I've had a look to see if there is any precedent that could provide useful guidance (e.g. other articles named as Neanderthals in <foo>"), but there doesn't seem to be. So we might as well proceed along the lines that you suggest. Prioryman (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Time of extinction

The article Neanderthal states the Neanderthal people, according to recent research, ceased to exist by around 39,000 BP. Which means that the time given in this article is quite inconsistant with the one given in the aforementioned article. I think this needs to be looked into. --Maxl (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Prioryman: Pinging main editor of the article to inform him and ask for his opinion. --Maxl (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Neanderthal extinction is just one of the many issues widely and wildly debated among the experts. Most agree, though that the N's of southern Spain were among the last to disappear, quite likely several thousands of years after the populations of other regions had already gone extinct. Wikirictor ^{• talk • ediits} 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

So you don't trust the sources cited in Neanderthal? Yes of course it is debated. That's why we must be careful here. There's a big difference between 39,000 years ago and 23,000 years ago. --Maxl (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Calm down mate. I know that. Still, the vast number of different sources and the frequency of incoming data provides lots of stuff to better reflect on for some time. There is a community of researchers, that study and excavate in Gibraltar, another in the Dordogne, another in the Levant. They all tend to have their own extinction date. Whether they are inaccurate or this simply confirms area-related extinction...Do you know it? All the best Wikirictor 16:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how they can be considered totally extinct when they have descendants. Me for instance. Neananleah (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes.

Recent DNA evidence shows existing groups with 100% Neanderthal, 100% Denisovan, and mixed populations across S.America and mixed populations across the islands between Asia and Australia.

Their "extinction" was called prematurely just as it was for the Patagonians. Wizodd0 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)