"Neanderthal vs Cromagnon skirmishes" Topic

Has anyone ever gamed skirmishes between these two groups? What 28mm figure manufacturers do you recommend? What rules?

I would imagine almost any ancient skirmish rules would do. Pig Wars might be a good start.

As far as figures go I would look at the stuff carried by RLBPS, they have a number of lines that will be worth chekcing out for this sort of thing.

As far as doing it myself, all the uniform research has really turned me off and the lace and piping can be quite a pain to paint. I mean really, do you want to paint interlocking pink, black and yellow piping on the tabbard guard of the 5th Ka-Ka Cromagnon Hussars regiment.

Not me.

I think someone did it a while back using Bhoys or however they spell that. He said it worked out pretty well.

I would be tempted to use Gorkamorka but then that probably has more to do with my love of Gorkamorka than with the actual suitability of the rules.

Copplestone Castings has a small range of cavemen & cavewomen. Take a look at : link
(Ref. C25, C26 & C29).
Love you idea. :)

If used with the right rules, I thought you could throw in a sabertooth, cavebear, wolves and other wildlife, for random encounters, and call it 40K-BC.

… Or even SOTF (Survival of the Fittest).

Just found the following sites:

link

link

link

Wonder how the compare to Copplestone's.

Wargames Illustrated just ran a set of rules for this.

Steve Barber has a good set of rules and figures for Cavemen.

Bob Murch (Pulp) also makes a pretty good range of "cavemen."

The Steve Barber cavemen are the bulk of my warbands. Pulp Figures' Neanderthals blend in pretty well although they're a bit taller; they do match up well with the Copplestone figures. I haven't been able to latch onto any of the Reaper figures yet but would really like to.

The Steve Barber figures are all one pose by weapon type. That is, all spearmen are the same, all club-men are the same, etc. The Neanderthals are all different poses, or at least different equipment within the same pose. For example, the figure holding the spear in both hands over his head comes in two flavors — one in a long skin garment, the other naked. Each of the Copplestones are unique.

I've also found that some of Shadowforge's Tribals do the trick nicely too, if you want female tribes.

You might also like Steve Barber's Prehistoric Settlement. It is about building a tribal village, hunting and gather, and whupping up on the other tribes. The boxed set has enough figures to play a two-sided game with all the buildings, plants, and prey animals that you need. Warfare is only incidental to building the tribe, though; that is, it is a component of tribal development just like hunting, fishing, gathering, and building are.

jizbrand: "Warfare is only incidental to building the tribe, though"

Not with the bunch of war-mongering people I play with :) To them war is all.

There's a photo comparison of 28mm-ish cavemen figures in Ragnarok 46 (it also covers 15mm and 6mm). Off the top of my head, in addition to the manufacturers mentioned above, 28mm cavemen are available from Honourable Lead Boiler Suit Company (men only), Eureka (men only), Reaper (mostly retired to the Boneyard), Ground Zero Games (women only) and Maidenhead (women only).

Steve Flanagan
Ragnarok editor

Go to

freewargamesrules.co.uk

On the Ancients page there is a set called Neolithic that might work for you!

The old microgame "Sticks and Stones" could also form the basis for Neanderthal vs. Cromagnon skirmishes, including wandering megafauna. It pops up on Ebay from time to time.

Thanks for all this wonderful input.

I think I will go for Copplestones for the Cromagnons, and Pulp Figures and Reaper for the Neanderthals.

Since both groups are very similarly equipped, what do you think should be the advantages in each:

Should the Cromags be faster, while the Neanderthals are stronger?
Should the Cromags have spears (and spear throwers?), with occasional bows and slings, while the Neanderthals are limited to spears and clubs only?

Cacique: Dr. Valerius Geist, a professor of environmental science, has theorized that Cromagnons hunted primarily from a distance, using thrown spears, while Neanderthals hunted "up close and personal," with thrusting spears and axes. In fact, he suggests that a typical Neanderthal tactic would be for one member of the hunting party to climb aboard the prey animal, like a modern-day bull-rider, distracting the animal while the rest of the party closed in and stabbed the beast to death.

He bases his theory on Neanderthal anatomy and brain capacity. It's an interesting theory, but I don't know how much weight it carries in paleoanthropological circles.

At any rate, I think you could make a case for arming the Cromagnons with throwing spears, axes, and the occasional bow or sling, and arming the Neanderthals with thrusting spears, axes, and clubs. Maybe give the Cromagnons better leadership or initiative (they always go first) to reflect their greater intelligence, and give the Neanderthals an extra wound to reflect their robustness.

While not necessarily "accurate" based on current theories, I think these changes might work well on the tabletop, in a Hollywood sort of way.

I should mention, one argument I've read *against* Dr. Geist's theory is that modern-day bull-riders have immediate access to the finest health care in history, and so are willing to perform this dangerous feat for our entertainment and their livelihood. Whereas Neanderthals, with no such health care, would probably try to minimize danger during the hunt as much as possible, and so might view mammoth-riding the way I personally view bull-riding – no way, man! A broken leg might be all in a day's work for a bull-rider, but it could well be fatal for a Neanderthal.

"In a Hollywood sort of way" (not sure when the dog was domesticated), should I give the Cromagnons dogs to assist in attacks? Or would that give the Neanderthals too much of a disadvantage?

I was thinking of making the Neanderthals more numerous, since they would already be on-site, while the Cromagnons would be the invaders.

Cromagnons (Copplestones): fewer in number, faster, armed with "throwing spears, axes, and the occasional bow or sling", accompanied by dogs (?) to raids/hunts

Neanderthals (Pulp Figures): more numerous, stronger, armed with "thrusting spears, axes, and clubs"

Looks like it is starting to take shape!

Domestication of dogs:

An article on the University of Alberta website notes that there's one study of mitochondral DNA that suggests that dogs diverged from wolves 135,000 years ago, but continues:

"The 135 000 year date … disagrees with a date recovered from a larger data set of dog and wolf mtDNA examined by Savolainen et al. (2002). This study suggested that dogs likely originated about 15 000 years before the present (B.P.).

"The date also contradicts archaeological evidence that suggests dogs were domesticated about 14 000 years ago. The oldest discovered fragment of dog bone is from Germany and dates back to about 14 000 years B.P. … However, early dogs most likely resembled wolves morphologically, so it is possible that very old dog fossils are often classified as wolf fossils.

"Overall, the early archaeological record of dogs is rather poor, since most Palaeolithic sites contain very few canid remains, and the ones that are found tend to consist of only small fragments of bone which are difficult to accurately identify.

"There is no doubt that dogs were associated with humans by the early Neolithic, as a great deal of rock art depicting dogs with humans and clay sculptures of dogs have been found in southwest Asia, Iraq, Turkey and to a lesser extent, Africa, England and Denmark."

Were there any Neanderthals still around in 14K BP?

Could Cromagnons, Neanderthals and domesticated dogs have been around at the same time, or would I be reaching?

Reaching. Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago. Even if you fudge the "dog date" a little, based on ambiguous wolf-like fossils, 30,000 years is probably pushing it.

As for numbers:

If Neanderthals lived from 230,000-29,000 BCE and Cromagnons (Sapiens) lived in Europe starting around 100,000 BCE, that leaves a long period of interaction (about 70,000 years).

This article indicates that the Neanderthals began their decline 45,000 BCE, until finally extinguished around 29,000 BCE.

link

So, I guess that, between 100K and 45K BCE, Neanderthals are numerically superior. Then the roles reverse until 29K BCE, when there is only one left.

Of course, if you accept that 135,000 BCE result, you're home free.

Steve,

Very true! If we are using the mtDNA to deduce when Modern Humans and Neanderthals diverged as species, why not use it to determine when domestic dogs came about?

I guess I can buy a few dogs and use them with players who do not pull the fossil record card.

I'll just make them look like wolves!

You could also pull a Beastmaster: "This guy here has an *unusual rapport* with animals, which is why these wolves are part of the army…"

In fact, that reasoning would work with either the Cromagnons or the Neanderthals.

In regards to random dangerous wildlife, you might consider having wolves, etc. show up as combatants are wounded. Once blood is spilled and the sent is in the air your wandering packs of dire wolves will have an increasing chance of showing up for an easy meal! If you want your animals to act like real animals, you could have the carnivores make for the nearest wounded/dead guy and try and drag them off. Think of the scene at the beginning of "Quest for Fire" where the ape-men (Yaga-bo!) attack the Neaderthaler's cave. The wolves show up in the wake of the fight to take down the injured.

Even large herbivores can be quite dangerous. Rhinos and Mammoths would likely charge in defense of young or territory. It might be fun to have the off chance of an enraged wooly rhino show up and charge (he's displaying for the ladies and you're fighting on his paddock!)

hrothgar,

I like that idea. Sick, but terrifyingly appealling!

You might want to reads the Clan of the Cavebear series by Jean Aul. It was a sensation about 15-years ago. Forget that awful movie with Darryl Hannah.

I'm not sure there would be a very big distinction between the two peoples, at least in the way they might fight. Some believe the Neanderthals didn't actually become extinct but rather live among us today, albeit genetically assimilated.

My guess is that without a haircut or bath, you would probably have trouble differentiating between the average Cro-Magnon, and Neanderthal.

If you believe what the Geico commercials claim, Neanderthals haven't changed much at all. I like the one who plays the piano. He's pretty good. ;)

As an anthropology major in college, I can reveal one interesting thing about the semi current thinking about Homo Sapien vs. Homo Neanderthalensis debate. Yes neanderthals were more numerous as a population, but they were less numerous in hunting party and village size. One thing that paleoanthropologists consider the major effect of the frontal lobe development in sapiens is that it allowed for greater coordination, longer hunting trips, and better-more creative planning. So, to me, the game should be a skirmish level game with very few major engagements in which the much stronger neanderthals (4-5 in a hunting party) come into contact with individually weaker, but more numerous sapiens. But, it ought to work out similar in overall group strength. You would have to assume that they were very evenly matched since it took tens of thousands of years for the humans to wipe out the neanderthals.

One other interesting theory… Mitochondrial DNA reveals, as I recall, that there were never any breedings of human males to neanderthal females that resulted in breeding offspring. But, this does not, as I recall, rule out the transverse. Since mitochondrial dna is only transferrred from the mother to this child, then there COULD have been breeding the other way; neander-man + sapiens woman. Therefore, we can explain Mick Jaeger who bears several prominent neanderthal features…

Just trivia!

One other thing, the bone analysis of neanderthals reveals that their average male was roughly equal in bone and muscle mass to Arnold Schwartzenager. No kidding. They should be hulks. The humans of the time, Cromagnon or Homo Sapien (versus todays mildly different Homo Sapien Sapiens) were strong and lithe, but not hulks. The example that they gave us in class was a good olympic decathelete.

Interesting post, Norscaman. Thanks for that.

"My guess is that without a haircut or bath, you would probably have trouble differentiating between the average Cro-Magnon, and Neanderthal."

I would agree with this if you compared Cro-magnon and H. Sapiens but H. Neanderthalis is a seperate species. Dna extracted from bone remnants show significant gene differences between us and Neaderthals. Forget the analogy that a Neanderthal looks like Mr. Schwartzenegger. Arnold looks like a buffed up Homo Sapien. Neanderthals would still be more different. I've had the opportunity to handle a few Neanderthal skulls in school. The size of the muscle attachement for the massater muscle (the closing muscle at the angle of the jaw, and by weight the most powerful muscle in the body) indicates a bit far more powerful as ours. Anatomists estimate that a Neanderthal could bite a baseball bat in half!
The other interesting ideas are:

1) What is the actual difference between Cro-Magnon (an archaic term) and H. Sapiens Sapiens?

2)Was the decline of Neanderthals directly due to us, eg. warfare, or indirectly, through better competion, expoloitation of resources etc.?

Ralph

If so, anatomically speaking . . .

What would Copplestone's cavemen be?

What would Pulp Figures' be?

Well, Copplestones are from the High Adventures, together with Victorian exploreres and dinosaurs.
I can't see Murch's figures from the Pulp site.
Basically, they'll work for anything you want to play.

Cacique, based on features I'd use Copplestone's as Cromagnons (H. sapiens) and Pulp's as Neanderthals.

Was there alot of fighting going on? Territory was not a problem due to the microscopic numbers of both groups. What would drive them to conflict?

Still it would be cool to game.

Scurvy:

Space was not the only resource worth fighting for.

I think I would probably start with two parties fighting over a carcass, or a cave (right before winter), or a water hole (during drought), or even a raid for fire (like in the movie Quest for Fire).

Or, if the Neanderthal-human hybrid bones are actually that, I could do a Neanderthal party without mates raiding a Cromagnon group for females.

A shaman (on either group) might indicate that recent bad fortune is the result of allowing the other group nearby.

There can always be the chance encounter of two hunting tribes, with the odd predator taking advantage of the bloody conflict and adding to the chaos.

Can you think of anything else?

Other reasons to fight:
Fighting over gathering sites(These berry bushes belong to us!)
Fighting is entertaining. Brings honor, etc.
Cannibalism (easier to knockdown a fellow hominid than to prey upon the mega-fauna)

Cacique Caribe,
This morning, while I was supposed to be working, I stumbled upon a website that presented evidence of social behavior among saber-toothed cats. This evidence consists of smilodon fossils that have severe injuries which later showed signs of healing. The fossils suggest that the injured cats were being allowed to feed by other smilodon, so may have belonged to a pride-type group! Think of the prehistoric gaming possibilities! Instead of a solitary big cat stalking the cavemen, you can have have several using their rudimentary kitty organization, tactics, etc. Watch a few lion documentaries for inspiration. Sadly I did not remeber to copy the address, but I found it with a simple google. This thread has inspired me to read up on Ice Age mammals.

More on stone age fighting, I once read an account of Jesuits trying to convert a Great Lakes tribe to Christianity in the 17th century. When one of the Jesuits suggested the possibility of giving up war, some of the Indians asked something like "why should we give up warring against our enemies? It is our greatest pleasure in life."
I don't quite remember the exact source, but I think it was the "Ethnography of the Huron Indians" or something like that.
The point being that the Hurons, etc lived in a resource-rich enviroment with plenty of fish, venison, waterfowl, etc. These guys don't seem to have fought over territory until the beaver pelt craze was introduced from Europe. They had been fighting for centuries prior to colonization because it was fun, exciting, etc. And that's not to say that the Huron were the same as much earlier homo sapien with a less sophisticated society. I was just thinking of the possibility that pre-historic Europe could have had its share of conflict for reasons unrelated to lack of resources or territory.

Hrothgar,

I love your cannibalism idea. Particularly if each group considered the other as animals.

I just thought of something. Perhaps the reason there were such "microscopic numbers of both groups", as Scurvy says, is that each group made sure that the other group stayed that way.

As with the Hurons and even some headhunter societies in New Guinea, killing a man may have been a rite of passage.

This is getting better and better!

Norscaman: "Yes neanderthals were more numerous as a population, but they were less numerous in hunting party and village size. One thing that paleoanthropologists consider the major effect of the frontal lobe development in sapiens is that it allowed for greater coordination, longer hunting trips, and better-more creative planning."

Boy, I'd love to know how this could possibly be known. Can you expand on this amigo?

crhkrebs: "I would agree with this if you compared Cro-magnon and H. Sapiens but H. Neanderthalis is a seperate species."

There is very vocal and growing support among the paleo community that H. Neanderthalis is not different enough from H. S. S. to be copnsidered a different species. Remember, the primary way to determine if two types are seperate species is that they cannot produce viable offspring. Most paleontologists agree that Neanderthal blood runs in the veins of us all. So I'm not so sure we can say that they "declined."

But the Arnold analogy is actually useful here. I'm sure we all have seen the movie "Twins." If the only two skeletal examples of H.S.S. we had were of Armold and Danny Devito, I guarrantee you that paleoanthropologists of the future would want to consider them to be different species, as they might a great dane and a chihuahua. The range of variation in these two examples is far greater than that seen between an average Cro-Magnon and average Neanderthal skeleton.

Now, if you want to consider the brain size and structure the primary indicator then I can shed some light on that too. In a physical anthropology class, we had to measure each other's brain case. The largest brain case in class was 50% larger than the smallest. Both were men, and both were about the same size. The larger head had a very well defined forehead, while the guy with the smaller head had a much lower forehead. To be honest, I hadn't really noticed either characteristic until after the measurements had been taken. Then it looked pretty obvious. I imagine their skulls would look profoundly different without the soft tissue. As far as brain-power was concerned, the guy with the big ol' head was a fairly typical "C" student, while the guy with the smaller head was getting straight "A's."

Oh, one other thing. Niether one of these guys was me. I fell into the "average" range for noggin size. ;)

Possible confict scenarios so far:

*Fighting over food: a carcass, gathering site
*Fighting due to climate: for a cave shelter or water during drought
*For fire
*For mates
*Instigated by shaman
*For honor, or as a rite of passage
*Cannibalism: other groups viewed as alien or mere animals (easier to prey on), or because of severe famine, or simply because of preference for human flesh.

Did I miss anything?

jpattern2 – Valerius Geist's theory is partly based on the fact that the types of broken bones you find in neanderthal skeletons (healed breaks and fatal breaks) most closely resemble those found in rodeo riders.

For work reasons I've chatted to Dr Erik Trinkaus who works on ice age Homo sapiens from Eastern Europe. He said that virtually 100% of neanderthals have had a broken bone by the time they are 30. But he guesstimated that only 10 to 20% of ice age Homo sapiens ever got a broken bone – their hunting techniques were far less risky.

And not to put a damper on everyone's plans for caveman conflict – Dr Trinkaus also told me that none of the bone breaks in European ice age Homo sapiens are the sort associated with personal violence. E.g. no parry fractures in the arms, or crushing blows to the head.

That's not to say that people didn't throw a tantrum and punch each other now and then. But it looks like warfare wasn't on the agenda in the Palaeolithic.

Now the Mesolithic (after the ice has gone) is another matter – lots of European rock carvings of people firing arrows into each other!

Fantasy cavemen scrapping with sabretooths and ogre-like neanderthals is still a cool idea though…

There was a good docu on Neaderthals on UK TV awhile back , assembling a complete hypothetical skeleton and deducing things from it. They got 2 Loughborough students and put them in an ice-bath, one a lanky chap like me and another a stocky broad shouldered shorter chap, with a typical Neader physique. Tall guy was going into hypothermia while Neader guy was obviously perfectly comfortable. This showed they could cope with arctic conditions that would floor Cro-mag. It was also argued from physiology that Neaders had loud but very shrill voices- so maybe thats why they died out, they must have been very annoying. They explained physiologically that the Neaders were sneaking up on beasts in dense undergrowth and stabbing them, they could not run fast and were not agile. So when the forests thinned, Cro mag was running and leaping around and lobbing missiles, whereas the poor old Neaderthals ran out of dense forest. No suggestion fertile breeding was possible.

I have HLBS Homo Erectus set, just to complicate the discussion further, to eventually fight my mate's Copplestones.

mandt2 says:

"Remember, the primary way to determine if two types are seperate species is that they cannot produce viable offspring."

Exactly right. However we will never know this directly. We have many long bone fragments of Neanderthals with viable DNA. Preliminary DNA extraction and hybridization with human mitochondrial DNA seems to suggest sufficient differences in the genome to indicate seperate species. There was a short article in Scientific American (in the last 2 years)about the fellow who is doing this.

"Most paleontologists agree that Neanderthal blood runs in the veins of us all. So I'm not so sure we can say that they "declined."

I don't believe that that is an accurate assessemnet of current thought. I'm puzzled as to how anyone could show this. How could anyone tell if we have 0% Neanderthal blood, 10% Neanderthal blood, 50% etc.? What would be the basis for determining this? I also don't know if paleontologists really would be the experts in this case.

This is from Hoss, Nature 404, 2000

"Can we learn anything from this new Neanderthal DNA sequence about the relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals? The new sequence shares with the Feldhofer one the same surprising feature: it is no more closely related to DNA from modern European populations than to sequences from any other modern human population. This argues against the idea that modern Europeans are at least partly of Neanderthal origin. Although the two sequences were taken from specimens at geographically distant locations, the number of differences between the sequences indicates that these two individuals were from a single gene pool. Furthermore, the variation between the two Neanderthal sequences is similar to that among modern humans.

Details of the Mezmaiskaya sequence also support the suggestion2 that there was no contribution of the Neanderthals to the pool of mitochondrial genes in modern human populations. However, this does not exclude the possibility of a contribution of nuclear Neanderthal genes. Approximate quantification of the number of mitochondrial DNA molecules found in the Feldhofer Neanderthal ruled out any hope of recovering nuclear DNA from this specimen2, but the apparently excellently preserved Mezmaiskaya specimen might yield values compatible with retrieval of nuclear DNA."

Very off topic but interesting none the less.
Ralph

There was a pop science genetics book I read not long ago (can't remember the title but it might have been by Spencer Wells or Steven Olson) that said only 1 to 2% of modern European DNA can be attributed to ice age HOmo sapiens European DNA. Most of it comes from people that migrated into Europe from elsewhere over the 10,000 years since the ice age ended.

As to experts… the problem with this area of human history is that it falls into the purview of palaeontologists (i.e. geologists), evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists and geneticists – many of whom don't understand each other's fields of expertise and don't talk to each other.

Stronty Girl wrote: "Valerius Geist's theory is partly based on the fact that the types of broken bones you find in neanderthal skeletons (healed breaks and fatal breaks) most closely resemble those found in rodeo riders."

Interesting, Stronty, thanks for posting that. Maybe one day they'll find a big ol' "Champeen Bull Rider" belt buckle among some Neanderthal remains, and the controversy will be laid to rest. Hah!

For those interested in a *seriously* different take on this subject, Alan Moore (IIRC) wrote a Swamp Thing story line years ago that depicted the last of the peaceful, tree-hugging "hippie" Neanderthals being wiped out by dastardly, war-like Cromagnons.

link

50,000 BC: The time-lost Swamp Thing befriends the last of the Neanderthal race. They create the original Holy Grail on the advice of the Great Tree, Sarga. When they are slaughtered by the Cro-Magnons, the Neanderthal's souls come to rest in the Grail. The Cro-Magnons…claim the Holy Grail and send Alec on his journey. The sole surviving Neanderthal flees to the frozen north and becomes the Yeti, who creates a second Grail.

How's that for a wild scenario?

Here's a link to an article by Valerius Geist if anyone is interested:

link

Back on topic here…

Gary Leitzel did a pre-historical game a few year back called "Mammoth Hunt" He used several tribes from Fondry Ancient Germans (one step up from Neanderthal) and other Darkest African Range if I remember correctly.

A great late night game as the players were out to hunt animals, women, other tribes etc. Players could not speak to each other and each tribe could only communicate by pointing and grunts. A real hoot at midnight with about six or so beers.

VR
James Mattes

"Players could not speak to each other and each tribe could only communicate by pointing and grunts. A real hoot at midnight with about six or so beers."

Sounds like a wild friday night in Shepshed…