Evidence record

What happened to the Neanderthals?

Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.

Last checked 24 September 2026.

A judgement, not a fact: 7
Source checked: 27
Partly checked: 9
Presented as open: 2

If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.

What the question takes for granted

A question in archaeology and population genetics with two halves the page keeps apart: when Neanderthals disappeared and what survives of them, which radiocarbon dating and ancient genomes have largely answered, and why they disappeared, which they have not.

The Neanderthals disappeared as a population
Established
Their archaeological record and their fossils end around 40,000 years ago. What survives is part of their DNA inside modern human genomes, which is why the page is titled “Not entirely gone”.
Something about Neanderthals or modern humans has to explain why one disappeared
Contested
Most accounts look for a cause: climate, disease or an advantage of modern humans. Neutral and demographic models argue that no special cause is needed; critics reply that demography cannot be separated from competition and environment.

How the question is labelled

Claim: Not entirely gone

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s title. It follows from claims 4 and 33: the population disappeared, and part of its DNA survives in people alive today.

Claim 1 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Neanderthals

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

The question

Claim: They disappear from the record about forty thousand years ago,

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6372, introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: the role of inferred Neandertal inferiority in their demise, at about 40 ka
Supports
Earliest modern human genomes constrain timing of Neanderthal admixtureMain, first paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes
The source reads: Neanderthals lived in Europe and western Asia for hundreds of thousands of years before their disappearance around 40 thousand years ago

What this does not establish

A round figure. The redated range is given in claim 19, and one team argues for a later end in southern Iberia (claim 20).

Claim 3 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and everyone with ancestry from outside Africa carries a small amount of their DNA.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6372, introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Review of the field
The source reads: with all humans who trace their ancestry beyond sub-Saharan Africa carrying Neandertal DNA making up around 1–4% of their genome
Supports
The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountainssection on gene flow
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: we now estimate that the proportion of Neandertal-derived DNA in people outside Africa is 1.5–2.1%

What this does not establish

The sources speak of people whose ancestry traces beyond sub-Saharan Africa. The page does not say how much, if any, Neanderthal DNA people with only sub-Saharan African ancestry carry, and no source here measures it.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "Neanderthal ancestry proportion present-day humans": Iasi and others (2024) and Sümer and others (2024) confirm Neanderthal ancestry in all non-Africans; Sümer gives 2–3%. Nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and most people alive today carry a small amount of their DNA.” The sources state it of people with ancestry outside Africa, and say all of them carry it. “Most people alive today” rested on a share of the world’s population that no cited source gives.

Claim 4 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Redating of European sites places the disappearance between about 41,000 and 39,000 years ago, overlapping with modern humans for a few thousand years.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: We show that the Mousterian ended by 41,030–39,260 calibrated years bp (at 95.4% probability) across Europe. ... The results reveal a significant overlap of 2,600–5,400 years (at 95.4% probability).
Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6373, Neandertals in Time and Space
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: Neandertal extinction can now be dated to the period 41–39 ka

What this does not establish

The dated event is the end of a tool tradition taken to mark Neanderthals, not the death of the last individual. The 2014 paper’s body was not read, only its abstract.

Other readings

One team argues for Neanderthal persistence in southern Iberia to about 37,000 years ago (claim 20).

Later work looked for

Crossref and Europe PMC, 2015 on, "Neanderthal extinction timing radiocarbon": Zilhão and others (2017) argue for later persistence in southern Iberia; Djakovic and others (2022) estimate a shorter overlap in France and northern Spain. The page now reports both.

Claim 5 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The genome shows interbreeding.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genomeabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred
Supports
Earliest modern human genomes constrain timing of Neanderthal admixtureMain, first paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes
The source reads: Neanderthals met and interbred with modern humans who arrived from Africa, and, as a result, 2–3% of the ancestry of present-day non-Africans derives from Neanderthals

Later work looked for

Europe PMC, 2014 on, "Neanderthal admixture": ancient genomes (Sümer 2024, Iasi 2024) confirm and date the interbreeding. Nothing that changes it.

Claim 6 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Why one population persisted and the other did not is not established.

Kind: Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review: Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

Supports
Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinctionIntroduction, first paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Model
The source reads: What is uncertain however, are the causes of Neanderthal extinction. It has been attributed to a wide variety of intensely debated factors

Claim 7 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: For a long time the story was replacement: a superior newcomer arrives and the incumbent vanishes, quickly and completely.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedpp. 6372–6373, introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: the view that modern humans were superior in a wide range of domains, including weaponry, subsistence strategies, and cooperation skills, and that this would have led to a fast demise of Neandertals and other archaic populations is still a prominent one

What this does not establish

The review says the view is still prominent, not that it has been abandoned. “For a long time” is the page’s summary of the field’s history.

Claim 8 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The genome complicated that in 2010, and better dating complicated it again in 2014.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s reading of claims 12 and 17: the 2010 draft genome showed interbreeding, and the 2014 dating showed an overlap of thousands of years rather than a quick replacement.

Claim 9 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What is established

Claim: What is established

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

They interbred with us

Claim: They interbred with us

Kind: What the field holds. The settled view of a field, as a review, a consensus statement or a reference work gives it. Not one study.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6372, introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Review of the field
The source reads: Such studies have established that Neandertals did contribute to the modern human gene pool

Later work looked for

Europe PMC, 2016 on, "Neanderthal admixture": Sümer and others (2024) and Iasi and others (2024) date the interbreeding from ancient genomes. Nothing that changes it.

Claim 11 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The draft Neanderthal genome, published in 2010 from bones in Croatia, showed that people outside Africa share more variants with Neanderthals than African populations do,

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genomeabstract; section on the Vindija bones
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: We first applied high-throughput sequencing to Neandertal specimens from Vindija Cave in Croatia ... We show that Neandertals shared more genetic variants with present-day humans in Eurasia than with present-day humans in sub-Saharan Africa

What this does not establish

The comparison was with five present-day genomes. Most of the sequence came from three bones at Vindija; smaller amounts came from specimens elsewhere.

Later work looked for

Europe PMC, 2010 on, "Neanderthal genome gene flow non-Africans": the Altai (Prüfer 2014) and later genomes confirm it. Nothing that changes it.

Claim 12 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which is what interbreeding after the migration out of Africa would produce.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genomeabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: suggesting that gene flow from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans occurred before the divergence of Eurasian groups from each other
Qualifies
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genomesection on alternative scenarios
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: we cannot currently rule out a scenario in which the ancestral population of present-day non-Africans was more closely related to Neandertals than the ancestral population of present-day Africans due to ancient substructure within Africa

What this does not establish

The 2010 paper itself could not rule out an older population structure inside Africa as the cause of the pattern.

Other readings

Ancient substructure within Africa, raised by the 2010 authors. The dated admixture segments in later ancient genomes (claims 24 and 25) are what the page relies on for interbreeding.

Claim 13 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The proportion is small. The draft genome put it at one to four per cent of non-African genomes and later work narrowed it to about two,

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genomesection on the extent of gene flow
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: The data suggest that between 1 and 4% of the genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from Neandertals.
Supports
The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountainssection on gene flow
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: we now estimate that the proportion of Neandertal-derived DNA in people outside Africa is 1.5–2.1%

What this does not establish

Estimates, with their own model assumptions. Later papers give slightly different figures, 2 to 3 per cent in Sümer and others (2024).

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "Neanderthal ancestry proportion": Sümer and others (2024) cite 2–3%. The page’s “about two” stands.

Claim 14 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and the segments differ from person to person, so the total surviving Neanderthal genome is much larger than any individual’s share: one study recovered about a fifth of it from 665 people.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Resurrecting Surviving Neandertal Lineages from Modern Human Genomesabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: non-African humans inherit ~1 to 3% of their genomes from Neandertal ancestors. ... in whole-genome sequences from 379 European and 286 East Asian individuals, recovering more than 15 gigabases of introgressed sequence that spans ~20% of the Neandertal genome

What this does not establish

Abstract only. Europeans and East Asians only, so the figure is a floor rather than the total across all living people.

Later work looked for

Europe PMC, 2014 on, "surviving Neandertal lineages modern human genomes": later catalogues, including Iasi and others (2024) with more than 300 genomes, extend the map. Nothing that reverses it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” The sentence had no source. Vernot and Akey (2014) carry it and give the figure, and are now cited.

Claim 15 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

The disappearance has been redated

Claim: The disappearance has been redated

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: Here we apply improved accelerator mass spectrometry ... techniques to construct robust chronologies from 40 key Mousterian and Neanderthal archaeological sites, ranging from Russia to Spain.

What this does not establish

Abstract only.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The disappearance has been dated properly” “Properly” presented the 2014 chronology as settled; one team disputes its southern end (claim 20).

Claim 16 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A 2014 study dated forty sites from Spain to Russia with improved radiocarbon methods.

Kind: Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: Here we apply improved accelerator mass spectrometry ... techniques to construct robust chronologies from 40 key Mousterian and Neanderthal archaeological sites, ranging from Russia to Spain.
Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceeditor’s summary
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: improve sample processing and accelerator-mass-spectrometry radiocarbon dating

What this does not establish

Abstract only; the site list and methods section were not read.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “A 2014 study redated forty European sites with improved methods for removing contamination from ancient bone, which had made earlier dates systematically too young.” The 2014 abstract describes improved radiocarbon techniques, not a contamination finding, and nothing read says earlier dates were “systematically” too young. The contamination point is now its own sentence, carried by the 2016 review and the 2013 Iberian study.

Claim 17 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Contamination that older treatments of bone had failed to remove made many earlier dates too young, and most claims of a late Neanderthal survival rested on them.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6373, Neandertals in Time and Space
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: With earlier claims for a late survival of Neandertals in Europe largely falsified– most proven to be based on radiocarbon samples suffering from incomplete removal of contamination
Context
Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberiaabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: a technique that is particularly sensitive to carbon contaminants of a younger age that can be difficult to remove using routine pretreatment protocols
An example: at two southern Iberian sites, purified collagen gave ages at least 10,000 radiocarbon years older than the earlier dates.

What this does not establish

The review also notes some late sites in Iberia that are not explained this way; claim 20 reports that dispute.

Claim 18 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The result places the end of the Mousterian, the stone-tool tradition taken as the mark of Neanderthals, between about 41,000 and 39,000 years ago, reached at different times in different regions.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceabstract; editor’s summary
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: We show that the Mousterian ended by 41,030–39,260 calibrated years bp (at 95.4% probability) across Europe. ... Our data indicate that the disappearance of Neanderthals occurred at different times in different regions.
Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceeditor’s summary
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: Mousterian tool culture – considered diagnostic for the presence of Neanderthals

What this does not establish

The date is for a tool tradition, not for bones, and the regional pattern is stated in the abstract without the site-by-site detail, which was not read.

Later work looked for

Crossref and Europe PMC, 2015 on, "Neanderthal disappearance Iberia dating": Zilhão and others (2017) contest the southern end; Djakovic and others (2022) put Neanderthal extinction in France and northern Spain inside the same window. Page updated.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The result places the end of the Neanderthal record between about 41,000 and 39,000 years ago, with no single last refuge: the disappearance happens across Europe over a few millennia rather than retreating to one corner.” The dated event is the end of the Mousterian, which the paper uses as the Neanderthal marker. “No single last refuge” was stated as settled; Zilhão and others (2017) argue for a southern Iberian holdout to about 37,000 years ago, and the page now reports the dispute.

Claim 19 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: One team still argues that Neanderthals held on south of the Ebro in Iberia until about 37,000 years ago; radiocarbon specialists, including members of the 2014 team, found the southern dates behind earlier claims of this kind unreliable.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

The 2013 study’s authors include Rachel Wood and Thomas Higham, both authors of the 2014 dating paper. The 2017 study dates Cueva Antón, the one site the 2013 study left open.

Supports
Precise dating of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Murcia (Spain) supports late Neandertal persistence in Iberiaabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: The late persistence in Southern Iberia of a Neandertal-associated Middle Paleolithic is supported by the archeological stratigraphy and the radiocarbon and luminescence dating of three newly excavated localities ... At Cueva Antón, Mousterian layer I-k can be no more than 37,100 years-old.
Supports
Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberiaabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: Unless rigorous pretreatment protocols have been used, radiocarbon dates should be assumed to be inaccurate until proven otherwise in this region. Evidence for the late survival of Neanderthals in southern Iberia is limited to one possible site, Cueva Antón
Supports
Precise dating of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Murcia (Spain) supports late Neandertal persistence in Iberiaabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: below the Ebro, the archeological record made prior to 37,000 years ago must be attributed, in all its aspects and components, to the Neandertals (or their ancestors)

What this does not establish

Both papers read in full, without their supplementary material. The page reports the disagreement and takes no side.

Other readings

The 2017 team reads the Ebro as a barrier that kept southern Iberia Neanderthal for several thousand years longer; the 2013 team holds that the southern late dates have mostly not survived rigorous pretreatment.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” A rival result existed and the page did not mention it. Added with both sides attributed.

Claim 20 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: It also puts modern humans in Europe alongside them for between about 2,600 and 5,400 years, though not necessarily in the same places:

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: The results reveal a significant overlap of 2,600–5,400 years (at 95.4% probability). ... A mosaic of populations in Europe during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition

What this does not establish

The overlap is computed against the earliest dated modern human sites, associated with the Uluzzian, at a continental scale. Abstract only.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "overlap Homo sapiens Neandertals": Djakovic and others (2022) give 1,400 to 2,900 years for France and northern Spain; Sümer and others (2024) write of an overlap of at least 5,000 years. Page updated with the regional figure.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “It also establishes an overlap of perhaps two to five thousand years with modern humans in the same regions.” The paper’s own figure is 2,600 to 5,400 years (“about 2,000 and 5,000” is the journal’s summary). It is a Europe-wide overlap, not one “in the same regions”, and a later regional estimate is shorter.

Claim 21 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: a 2022 estimate for France and northern Spain puts the overlap there at about 1,400 to 2,900 years.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Optimal linear estimation models predict 1400–2900 years of overlap between Homo sapiens and Neandertals prior to their disappearance from France and northern SpainDiscussion; Conclusion
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Model
The source reads: the Protoaurignacian potentially appeared around 1400–2900 years before Neandertals and the Châtelperronian industry disappeared from France and northern Spain ... suggesting a possible overlap of around 1400 to 2800 years between these human groups in the region.

What this does not establish

A statistical estimate from sixty-six radiocarbon dates for one region. The conclusion gives around 1,400 to 2,800 years, and against directly dated Neanderthal fossils the paper puts it upwards of 2,200.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2022 on, "Neandertal Homo sapiens overlap France": nothing later that revises it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “a 2022 estimate for France and northern Spain puts the overlap there at no more than about 1,400 to 2,900 years.” The paper, read in full, gives 1,400 to 2,900 years as an estimate of the overlap (around 1,400 to 2,800 in its conclusion, upwards of 2,200 against dated fossils); "no more than" read the abstract's "up to" as a ceiling the paper does not set.

Claim 22 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Genomes have since narrowed the other end of it.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Sequencing the earliest modern humans in Europe traced the Neanderthal ancestry shared by all non-Africans to a single admixture event, roughly 45,000 to 49,000 years ago;

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Earliest modern human genomes constrain timing of Neanderthal admixtureabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: Ranis genomes harbour Neanderthal segments that originate from a single admixture event shared with all non-Africans that we date to approximately 45,000–49,000 years ago.

What this does not establish

The paper defines a single event as one that may have continued over several generations.

Later work looked for

Crossref and Europe PMC, 2024 on, "timing Neanderthal admixture": Iasi and others (2024) date it to an extended period of 50,500 to 43,500 years ago. Added to the page beside this figure.

Claim 24 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: a study of more than 300 genomes spanning 50,000 years puts it in one extended period between about 50,500 and 43,500 years ago.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neanderthal ancestry through time: Insights from genomes of ancient and present-day humansabstract; results on the extended-period model
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: We generate a catalog of Neandertal ancestry segments in more than 300 genomes spanning the last 50,000 years. ... Our analysis reveals that the vast majority of Neandertal gene flow is attributable to a single, shared extended period of gene flow that occurred 50,500–43,500 years ago

What this does not establish

The authors caution that uncertainty in recombination rates and sample ages limits the precision of the duration, which they estimate at about 6,800 years with a range of about 2,000 to 10,000.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2024 on, "Neanderthal gene flow timing": nothing later found.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “put the interbreeding itself in a single window a few thousand years wide, roughly 45,000 to 49,000 years ago” A second 2024 study dates the same interbreeding to a longer period. Both are now reported.

Claim 25 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Some early Europeans had a Neanderthal ancestor within the previous ten to twenty generations, so encounters went on after that,

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Earliest modern human genomes constrain timing of Neanderthal admixtureMain, second paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: the approximately 40-kyr-old Oase 1 individual from Peștera cu Oase, Romania, and four individuals dating to around 44 ka from Bacho Kiro, Bulgaria ... had Neanderthal ancestors probably within the last 10–20 generations before they lived

Later work looked for

Europe PMC, 2021 on, "Bacho Kiro Oase Neanderthal ancestry": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “which means the mixing was earlier than the disappearance and did not continue through it.” The cited paper itself reports later interbreeding in individuals from Romania and Bulgaria. What ended before the disappearance is the mixing that left ancestry in people alive today.

Claim 26 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: but the mixing people alive today carry came almost entirely before the disappearance rather than through it.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from claims 19, 24 and 25: both genomic datings end by about 43,500 to 45,000 years ago, before the 41,000 to 39,000 year window, and the 2024 study attributes “the vast majority” of the gene flow to that one period.

Claim 27 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Three things the record does not support

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: They were replaced quickly by a smarter species.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: The overlap lasted thousands of years,

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: The results reveal a significant overlap of 2,600–5,400 years (at 95.4% probability).
Qualifies
Optimal linear estimation models predict 1400–2900 years of overlap between Homo sapiens and Neandertals prior to their disappearance from France and northern Spainabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Model
The source reads: preceded the extinction of Neandertals and the Châtelperronian by up to 1400–2900 years
A shorter figure for one region, still more than a thousand years.

What this does not establish

The Europe-wide figure is from the 2014 paper’s abstract; its body was not read. The 2022 paper was read in full.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "overlap Homo sapiens Neandertals": the shortest later estimate found (Djakovic 2022) is still more than a thousand years.

Claim 30 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: and Neanderthals made tools, used pigments, and at least some buried their dead.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6375, symbolic behaviour and burials
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: transported and ochre-smeared marine shells ... Such uses have been documented repeatedly, at various sites, and hence seem to have been part of the Neandertal behavioral repertoire. ... suggests that some Neandertals covered dead conspecifics with sediments, i.e., that they buried their dead.
Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6375, mobility and site furniture
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: The mobile character of Neandertal lifestyles, as suggested by the spatial fragmentation of their stone tool production

What this does not establish

Burial here means covering a body with sediment. The review finds no evidence of funerals, and at least one burial, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, is disputed. The pigments’ use, functional or symbolic, is not known.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Neanderthal burial pigment": nothing found that withdraws these behaviours.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and Neanderthals made tools, used pigment and buried their dead.” The review supports burial by some Neanderthals, with individual cases disputed, not burial as a general practice.

Claim 31 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: They died out completely.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Their DNA is in everyone with ancestry from outside Africa, in small amounts and in different pieces.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6372, introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Review of the field
The source reads: with all humans who trace their ancestry beyond sub-Saharan Africa carrying Neandertal DNA making up around 1–4% of their genome
Supports
Resurrecting Surviving Neandertal Lineages from Modern Human Genomesabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: non-African humans inherit ~1 to 3% of their genomes from Neandertal ancestors. ... recovering more than 15 gigabases of introgressed sequence that spans ~20% of the Neandertal genome

What this does not establish

The claim about different pieces rests on the 2014 abstract.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2020 on, "Neanderthal ancestry present-day humans": nothing that changes it.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Their DNA is in most people alive outside Africa, in small and individually different amounts.” The sources say all people with ancestry beyond sub-Saharan Africa carry it, not most. What they show differs between people is which segments, not chiefly how much.

Claim 33 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: They vanished everywhere at once.

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “There was a last population in one refuge.” A last refuge in southern Iberia is argued by one team (claim 20), so it cannot be listed as a misconception. That the end was simultaneous across Europe is contradicted by the 2014 dating.

Claim: The redated sites show the record ending at different times in different regions.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Partly checked. Only part of the source could be read. What was not read is listed.

Supports
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: Our data indicate that the disappearance of Neanderthals occurred at different times in different regions.

What this does not establish

Abstract only.

Later work looked for

Crossref and Europe PMC, 2015 on, "Neanderthal disappearance Iberia": Zilhão and others (2017) contest the southern end. Page updated.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “The redated sites show the record ending across Europe over a few millennia, without a final holdout in the south.” “Without a final holdout in the south” is contested by Zilhão and others (2017); the page now says so.

Claim 35 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Whether some held on in southern Iberia until about 37,000 years ago is still argued.

Kind: Open question. Something the page says is not known.
Review: Presented as open. The page says this is unresolved, and the review found that it is.

Supports
Precise dating of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Murcia (Spain) supports late Neandertal persistence in Iberiaabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: The regional Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition process is thereby bounded to the first half of the 37th millennium Before Present
Supports
Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberiaabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Measurement
The source reads: Evidence for the late survival of Neanderthals in southern Iberia is limited to one possible site, Cueva Antón

Claim 36 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What is not

Claim: What is not

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: A population can end without anyone defeating it.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s line before the uncertain section. It states a possibility the models in claims 43 and 47 support, not a finding that this is what happened to the Neanderthals.

Claim 38 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Why they went and we stayed

Claim: Why they went and we stayed

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Candidate explanations include climate change, disease, competition in which modern humans held some advantage (a broader diet, a more efficient way of making a living, greater cognitive capacity), absorption through interbreeding, and demographic accident:

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A parsimonious neutral model suggests Neanderthal replacement was determined by migration and random species driftIntroduction, third paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field
The source reads: The first highlights environmental factors, such as climate change and epidemics, as the causative agents. The second attributes the Neanderthals’ replacement to direct or indirect competition with Moderns, in which Moderns had some selective advantage, possibly due to a wider dietary breadth, a more efficient mode of subsistence
Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6376, conclusions
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: including multiple factors such as low Neandertal population density, interbreeding with some cultural contact, possible male hybrid sterility, and contraction in geographic distribution, followed by genetic swamping and assimilation by modern human immigrants
Supports
Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinctionabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model
The source reads: Our results indicate that the disappearance of Neanderthals might have resided in the smallness of their population(s) alone
Supports
A parsimonious neutral model suggests Neanderthal replacement was determined by migration and random species driftIntroduction, third paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Texts · Review of the field
The source reads: a more efficient mode of subsistence, advantageous differences in life history, or ... a superior cognitive capacity

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Candidate explanations include competition for resources, differences in social network size, differences in diet breadth, disease, and demographic accident:” The list was cited to the dating paper, which does not discuss causes. Rebuilt from the sources that do: climate, which every one of them names, and absorption through interbreeding, which the 2016 review argues, were missing; social network size is named by none of the sources read and was dropped.

Claim 40 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: small, thinly spread populations are vulnerable to inbreeding and ordinary bad luck over long periods.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinctionabstract; Introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model
The source reads: the models implement three factors that conservation biology identifies as critical for a small population’s persistence, namely inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity

What this does not establish

The principle comes from conservation biology; that it applied to Neanderthals is what claim 43 reports as modelled, not observed.

Claim 41 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: The last of these needs no superiority on anyone’s part.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

Follows from the models in claims 43 and 47, both of which assume no difference in ability between the two populations.

Claim 42 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Two models of a population the size genetic estimates give Neanderthals find that inbreeding, the difficulty of finding mates at low density and chance might have been enough to end it, with no competitor at all.

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinctionabstract; Introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model
The source reads: even if they had been identical to modern humans in their cognitive, social and cultural traits, and even in the absence of inter-specific competition, Neanderthals faced a considerable risk of extinction. ... At lower densities, the case we are concerned with here, growth rates might drop due to problems in mate-finding
Supports
Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinctionabstract; Introduction
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model
The source reads: Here we present two independent models ... the models implement three factors that conservation biology identifies as critical for a small population’s persistence, namely inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity. ... Genetic studies, indeed, indicate that Neanderthal effective population size ... was already small by ~400 kya

What this does not establish

A model result: it shows such an end was possible for a population that small, not that it happened. The models leave out competition with modern humans by design.

Other readings

Critics argue that demography cannot be separated from competition and environment (claim 50).

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “and it has grown more prominent from both ends.” “Grown more prominent from both ends” had no source. The demographic account now rests on the paper that models it.

Claim 43 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A review of the decade of evidence to 2016 holds that the genetic and archaeological data “falsify inferences to the effect that” Neanderthals were behavioural outliers beside their African contemporaries,

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: These data, reviewed here, falsify inferences to the effect that, compared with their near-modern contemporaries in Africa, Neandertals were outliers in terms of behavioral complexity.

What this does not establish

One review’s conclusion, by two authors; the superiority view it argues against is, in its own words, still prominent.

Claim 44 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which weakens accounts built on modern human superiority.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6376, conclusions
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: these findings are at odds with the view that extinction and replacement of Neandertals should be explained mainly in terms of substantial cognitive and technological differences with their African contemporaries

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “which removes the thing a competition account needs.” The review argues against superiority, not against competition: its authors conclude that some form of competition did end the Neanderthals (claim 46). The page had set the review against the view it holds.

Claim 45 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Its authors still see some form of competition at the end: modern humans outbreeding and absorbing a sparse population.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Neandertals revisedp. 6376, conclusions
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Artefacts and sites · Review of the field
The source reads: There is no doubt that the Neandertal phenotype ultimately disappeared through (some form of) competition with modern humans who outbred the Neandertals ... low Neandertal population density ... followed by genetic swamping and assimilation by modern human immigrants

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added so the review’s own conclusion is reported rather than only the half of it that suited the paragraph.

Claim 46 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: A model with no selective advantage in it anywhere, only repeated migration out of Africa and neutral drift, predicts the replacement on its own and cannot be rejected over a wide range of parameters.

Kind: What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A parsimonious neutral model suggests Neanderthal replacement was determined by migration and random species driftabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model
The source reads: Here we show that a scenario of migration and selectively neutral species drift predicts the Neanderthals’ replacement. ... For a wide range of parameters, this hypothesis cannot be rejected.

What this does not establish

A model, not an observation. For simplicity it treats the two populations as not interbreeding, which the genomes show they did.

Other readings

Accounts that give modern humans an advantage, or give climate a role, remain on the table; the model only shows they are not required. Critics argue demography cannot stand alone (claim 50).

Claim 47 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Its authors offer it as a null hypothesis rather than as an answer,

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
A parsimonious neutral model suggests Neanderthal replacement was determined by migration and random species driftIntroduction, last paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · A simulation · Model
The source reads: First, it acts as a null model, a parsimonious alternative to models of replacement that invoke selective advantage or environmental factors to explain the replacement.

Claim 48 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which is the right way to hold it.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement. The critics in claim 50 question whether demography can serve even as that.

Claim 49 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Critics answer that demography cannot stand alone, because a population’s size is tangled up with its competitors and its environment.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
Not by demography alone: Neanderthal extinction and null hypotheses in paleoanthropological explanationabstract; section 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Argument
The source reads: We argue that demography cannot be a ‘stand-alone’ or ‘alternative’ explanation of token extinctions as demographic features are entangled with competitive and environmental factors

What this does not establish

A philosophy-of-science argument by two authors; it argues against demography as a stand-alone explanation, not against demographic factors mattering.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “” A published reply to the demographic accounts existed and the page did not mention it.

Claim 50 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What the surviving DNA does

Claim: What the surviving DNA does

Kind: Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.

Claim: Some inherited variants are associated with traits of skin and hair, and others with the risk of diseases including lupus, Crohn’s disease and type 2 diabetes.

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humansresults, second paragraph
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Observational study: associations, not causes
The source reads: Thus, Neandertal alleles that affect skin and hair may have been used by modern humans to adapt to non-African environments. ... We identify alleles of Neandertal origin that affect lupus, biliary cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, optic disk size, smoking behavior, IL-18 levels and type 2 diabetes

What this does not establish

Associations from genome-wide association studies, overlapped with inferred Neanderthal alleles. An association is not a demonstrated effect, and the skin and hair link is an enrichment of keratin genes.

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Neanderthal introgressed variants phenotype": later work (for example on gene expression, Cell 2017) adds associations; nothing that withdraws these.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Some inherited variants affect immune response, skin and hair, and metabolism, and a few are associated with disease risk.” The cited paper reports associations, not effects, and names skin and hair and a list of diseases; it does not report effects on immune response or metabolism as such.

Claim 52 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Mapping the ancestry across the genome found stretches of millions of base pairs carrying almost none of it, and much less than elsewhere on the X chromosome and in genes expressed in the testes,

Kind: Observation. Something measured or seen, as the named source reports it.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humansabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: We also identify regions of millions of base pairs that are nearly devoid of Neandertal ancestry and enriched in genes ... Neandertal ancestry is significantly reduced in genes specifically expressed in testis, and there is an approximately 5-fold reduction of Neandertal ancestry on chromosome X

Later work looked for

Crossref, 2016 on, "Neanderthal ancestry deserts X chromosome": later maps confirm the deserts; nothing that reverses them.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “Mapping the ancestry across the genome found large regions, including much of the X chromosome and genes expressed in the testes, carrying almost none of it,” The paper finds deserts of almost no ancestry, and separately a roughly fivefold reduction on the X chromosome and a significant reduction in testis genes. The X and the testis genes are reduced, not empty.

Claim 53 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: which suggests selection removed much of it.

Kind: What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
Review: Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.

Supports
The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humansabstract; results on ancestry deserts
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Research in people · Measurement
The source reads: implying selection to remove genetic material derived from Neandertals ... Part of the explanation for the ancestry deserts is likely to be small population sizes shortly after interbreeding

What this does not establish

The authors attribute part of the pattern to small population sizes soon after interbreeding, not to selection alone.

Corrected

24 September 2026. Previously: “which suggests selection removed it.” The paper gives selection part of the explanation, not all of it.

Claim 54 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

Claim: Interpreting individual associations is difficult and the popular versions run far ahead of the evidence.

Kind: This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
Review: A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.

The page’s judgement, following from claim 52: the evidence is statistical association in genome-wide studies, not demonstrated effects.

Claim 55 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit

What was read

The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humansSankararaman and others, Nature · Author manuscript, Europe PMC PMC4072735Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; author manuscript; quoted brieflyThe manuscript carries the title “The landscape of Neandertal ancestry in present-day humans”; the published title, per Crossref and Nature, is “The genomic landscape of Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans”. The supplementary information was not read.
The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai MountainsPrufer and others, Nature · Author manuscript, NCBI PMC4031459 via E-utilitiesRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; author manuscript; quoted brieflyThe supplementary information was not read.
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal GenomeGreen and others, Science · Author manuscript, NCBI PMC5100745 via E-utilitiesRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; author manuscript; quoted brieflyThe supplementary text (SOM) was not read.
The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearanceHigham and others, Nature · nature.com article page: editor summary and abstractAbstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyThe body is paywalled. Repository copies at the universities of Oviedo, Trento and Siena were tried: Oviedo holds a record with no file, and Trento and Siena require a login.
Neandertals revisedRoebroeks and Soressi, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 · Publisher PDF, Wayback Machine capture of 13 July 2021 of pnas.org/content/pnas/113/23/6372.full.pdf; PNAS itself refuses this environmentRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
A parsimonious neutral model suggests Neanderthal replacement was determined by migration and random species driftKolodny and Feldman, Nature Communications 8 · Europe PMC full text, PMC5717005Read in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0The supplementary notes were not read.
Earliest modern human genomes constrain timing of Neanderthal admixtureSümer and others, Nature · Europe PMC full text, PMC11839475Read in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0The supplementary information was not read.
Resurrecting Surviving Neandertal Lineages from Modern Human GenomesVernot and Akey, Science 343 · Europe PMC record, PMID 24476670Abstract only, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyPaywalled and not in Europe PMC as full text. Abstract only.
Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern IberiaWood and others, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 · Full text on NCBI PMC (PMC3581959), read in the integrity pass; the Europe PMC record (PMID 23382220) was read firstRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyThe publisher does not allow the full text in XML, so the PMC web page was read. The supporting information was not read.
Precise dating of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Murcia (Spain) supports late Neandertal persistence in IberiaZilhão and others, Heliyon 3 · Europe PMC full text, PMC5696381, read in the integrity passRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0The supplementary material was not read.
Optimal linear estimation models predict 1400–2900 years of overlap between Homo sapiens and Neandertals prior to their disappearance from France and northern SpainDjakovic, Key and Soressi, Scientific Reports 12 · Europe PMC full text, PMC9561710, read in the integrity passRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0The supplementary tables and dataset were not read.
Neanderthal ancestry through time: Insights from genomes of ancient and present-day humansIasi and others, Science 386 · Author manuscript, NCBI PMC12184710 via E-utilitiesRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; author manuscript; quoted brieflyThe supplementary materials were not read.
Inbreeding, Allee effects and stochasticity might be sufficient to account for Neanderthal extinctionVaesen and others, PLOS ONE 14 · Europe PMC full text, PMC6880983Read in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0
Not by demography alone: Neanderthal extinction and null hypotheses in paleoanthropological explanationCurrie and Meneganzin, Biology and Philosophy 37 · Publisher PDF from link.springer.com, read in the integrity pass; the Crossref record was read firstRead in full, 24 September 2026 · CC BY 4.0