Professor Chris Stringer

Yes, certainly. Yes, these would have been in the landscape. Caves were important. They were important shelters, gathering points, points of safety, of course. And often these caves are very visible on the landscape because they're higher up. People can see them. Obviously, if people are building a fire in there, you'd have had a smoke signal showing that there's someone in the cave.

Yes, certainly. Yes, these would have been in the landscape. Caves were important. They were important shelters, gathering points, points of safety, of course. And often these caves are very visible on the landscape because they're higher up. People can see them. Obviously, if people are building a fire in there, you'd have had a smoke signal showing that there's someone in the cave.

Yes, certainly. Yes, these would have been in the landscape. Caves were important. They were important shelters, gathering points, points of safety, of course. And often these caves are very visible on the landscape because they're higher up. People can see them. Obviously, if people are building a fire in there, you'd have had a smoke signal showing that there's someone in the cave.

So, yes, these would have been focuses of attention for both of the groups.

So, yes, these would have been focuses of attention for both of the groups.

So, yes, these would have been focuses of attention for both of the groups.

Yes, so it's data from the last 15 years, mainly. So we had the first bits of Neanderthal DNA, mitochondrial DNA, recovered back in 1997, incredibly, from the skeleton from the Neander Valley in Germany, the one that gave its name to the group, which was amazing. But that was only mitochondrial DNA and that had showed no signs of any mixture because it was from the mitochondrial DNA.

Yes, so it's data from the last 15 years, mainly. So we had the first bits of Neanderthal DNA, mitochondrial DNA, recovered back in 1997, incredibly, from the skeleton from the Neander Valley in Germany, the one that gave its name to the group, which was amazing. But that was only mitochondrial DNA and that had showed no signs of any mixture because it was from the mitochondrial DNA.

Yes, so it's data from the last 15 years, mainly. So we had the first bits of Neanderthal DNA, mitochondrial DNA, recovered back in 1997, incredibly, from the skeleton from the Neander Valley in Germany, the one that gave its name to the group, which was amazing. But that was only mitochondrial DNA and that had showed no signs of any mixture because it was from the mitochondrial DNA.

The Neanderthals were distinct from anyone alive today. There was no sign of that Neanderthal kind of mitochondrial DNA in people today. So that reinforced the idea of a clear genetic separation between them. But as the data built up in the early 2000s, people started to reconstruct more of the whole Neanderthal genome.

The Neanderthals were distinct from anyone alive today. There was no sign of that Neanderthal kind of mitochondrial DNA in people today. So that reinforced the idea of a clear genetic separation between them. But as the data built up in the early 2000s, people started to reconstruct more of the whole Neanderthal genome.

The Neanderthals were distinct from anyone alive today. There was no sign of that Neanderthal kind of mitochondrial DNA in people today. So that reinforced the idea of a clear genetic separation between them. But as the data built up in the early 2000s, people started to reconstruct more of the whole Neanderthal genome.

And in some of those, there was evidence of a greater complexity because it was clear that there were some populations of Homo sapiens today, in fact, the ones outside of Africa, they seem closer to the Neanderthal in genomic structure than Africans did. And that's very strange to explain.

And in some of those, there was evidence of a greater complexity because it was clear that there were some populations of Homo sapiens today, in fact, the ones outside of Africa, they seem closer to the Neanderthal in genomic structure than Africans did. And that's very strange to explain.

And in some of those, there was evidence of a greater complexity because it was clear that there were some populations of Homo sapiens today, in fact, the ones outside of Africa, they seem closer to the Neanderthal in genomic structure than Africans did. And that's very strange to explain.

Well, if there was no interbreeding, why would people outside of Africa seem closer to the Neanderthals than people who came from Africa? And of course, that led to the suspicion that those people outside of Africa had some Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, leading to this greater similarity.

Well, if there was no interbreeding, why would people outside of Africa seem closer to the Neanderthals than people who came from Africa? And of course, that led to the suspicion that those people outside of Africa had some Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, leading to this greater similarity.

Well, if there was no interbreeding, why would people outside of Africa seem closer to the Neanderthals than people who came from Africa? And of course, that led to the suspicion that those people outside of Africa had some Neanderthal DNA in their genomes, leading to this greater similarity.

And in 2010, that was convincingly demonstrated because the first high quality Neanderthal genome was reconstructed, mainly based on material from Croatia, from Vindhya. And that showed that when we look at the genomes of people around the world today, People in Europe and Asia, Australia, the Americas, they have around 2% of Neanderthal DNA in their genomes.

And in 2010, that was convincingly demonstrated because the first high quality Neanderthal genome was reconstructed, mainly based on material from Croatia, from Vindhya. And that showed that when we look at the genomes of people around the world today, People in Europe and Asia, Australia, the Americas, they have around 2% of Neanderthal DNA in their genomes.