- Saturday 18 May 2013
- My Account
- Logout
- Register
- Login
- News
-
Voices
-
Find by writer
- Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
- Rebecca Armstrong
- Memphis Barker
- Terence Blacker
- Chris Blackhurst
- David Blanchflower
- Archie Bland
- Ian Burrell
- Andrew Buncombe
- Ben Chu
- Patrick Cockburn
- Laura Davis
- Mary Dejevsky
- Grace Dent
- Robert Fisk
- Andrew Grice
- Philip Hensher
- Ian Herbert
- Howard Jacobson
- Ellen E Jones
- Alice Jones
- Owen Jones
- Emily Jupp
- Simon Kelner
- Dominic Lawson
- Donald Macintyre
- Lisa Markwell
- Comment
- Campaigns
- Debate
- Editorials
- Letters
- IV Drip
- Archive
- Our Voices
- Commentators
- Columnists
- Democracy 2015
- IV Drip Archive
-
Find by writer
- Sport
- Tech
- Life
- Property
- Arts & Ents
- Travel
- Money
- IndyBest
- Blogs
- Student
Iv drip The juice you can't live without
Neanderthals vs. Humans: Who would win in a fight?
25 October 2012 08:46 AM
We've had Alien vs. Predator, Monsters vs. Aliens and Dracula vs. Frankenstein, but what would happen if modern man and his prehistoric ancestor were to square off?
Thankfully, you won't have to sit through the movie version to find out, because a crack team of archaeologists, paleoanthropologists and paleoartists have got together to find out (No, apparently they don't have anything better to do).
A short, stocky Neanderthal would have a clear strength advantage, says Brian Palmer in Slate, "Neanderthals also developed strong trapezius, deltoid, and tricep muscles by dragging 50 pounds of meat 30 miles home to their families." But us Homo sapiens have other advantages, including a longer reach and more stamina. "Most importantly, we could deploy these advantages to maximum effect using our superior wits."
The price of pacifism
Jason Isaacs: Groupies, theatre bores and James Bond
Sealand: 'Micronation' or illegal fortress?
One man returns to Argentina's town that drowned
Gordon Ramsay's worst nightmare: A restaurant he cannot save
Why bitters are back on the bar
The 10 Best barbecues