• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Neanderthals

Peregrine

Troubadour
My low fantasy setting:

My fantasy setting is inspired by the ice age, while the Ice Age has long passed in this fantasy world, Ice age creatures haven't got extinct.
For example I have woolly rhinoceroses, dwarf hippopotamuses, cave lions and cave hyenas.
I also have fictional creatures such as unicorns (Looks like a ice age beast not narwhal-horned white unicorn), sea dragons (giant "serpents"), giant wolves and wildmen ("sasquatches").

My opinion on neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis):

Neanderthals have more physical differences than elves and can be distinguished from humans quite enough. But I am not inclined to include a race just because they are a little physically different.

First type of neanderthal:

I imagine neanderthals as a barbarian counterpart "race" to humans, humans view Neanderthals in the same way Romans viewed Gauls or Germans. Not all neanderthals are barbarian, but most are. Most humans are not barbarians, but few are.
The neanderthals ride moose instead of horses. Their war chariots are pulled by reindeer instead of horses.
They make towers on the backs of mammoths and archers shoot enemies from there.
They use moonhounds in warfare which are wolfdogs bred for war.
They are at war with humans, both seek to conquer each other's lands.
They prefer to make buildings and walls out of wood.
Some neanderthals wear horned helmets to intimidate their enemies, while others paint their faces with red ocher to look like mad with fury.
In battle, some Neanderthals berserk and use warcries.
The neanderthals are not uncivilized they are just less civilized by human standards, the Gauls for example were not uncivilized they just did not have the cultural and technological superiorty of the Romans.
There are a few neanderthal kingdoms with their own cities but most are tribes.
The neanderthals tend to live in northern lands while humans tend to live in southern lands
Most neanderthals do not have armies but have tribal levies that need to be called in times of war, something that was common in Early Middle Ages and that was a precursor to feudalism.

Second type of neanderthal:

A dying and vestigial "race". Once they inhabited half of the continent but now they are only found in a few forests. Like the Druedain of LOTR, they are mysterious and live in big forests like pandas were mysterious before they were discovered by biologists. There are only three tribe of neanderthals left in this world. They are the "shepherds of the forests" in the same way as ents, they do not tolerate killing of animals in their forests and even trees. That means that they are ready to kill those who break their "rules". Some people think they do not want competition and that they consider outsiders poachers and intruders, while others think that they are protectors of living things. One thing is certain, it is known that trees are sacred to them and there are beautiful trees with golden leaves and white bark which neanderthals consider highly sacred. Their religion is animist and they live in harmony with nature. But that doesn't mean that they would live in harmony with nature if they succeeded to civilize themselves. They befriended wild animals such as bears and wolves and treat them like pets, some Neanderthals can possess the mind and the body of an animal in the same way that Bran can warg into the mind of a direwolf.

Two questions:

Do you think neanderthals are worth being included as a "race"?
What type of neanderthal should I choose, first type or second type?
 

pmmg

Myth Weaver
Personally I like the second type better.

I would rather see them included than not as they have to potential to add more flavor to the world.

I might ask why not include both versions as two separate races, or two separate branches of the species.

The only question I might ask is, unless this world is our own world in some alternate way, I think I would call them something other than Neanderthal.

Anecdotally, I have a version of Neanderthals in my own story world, though I placed them as outsiders who did not mesh well with other races, and evolved into their own society separate from other. They would be hard to recognize though if you were looking for Neanderthals in the story.
 

Peregrine

Troubadour
Personally I like the second type better.

I would rather see them included than not as they have to potential to add more flavor to the world.

I might ask why not include both versions as two separate races, or two separate branches of the species.

The only question I might ask is, unless this world is our own world in some alternate way, I think I would call them something other than Neanderthal.

Anecdotally, I have a version of Neanderthals in my own story world, though I placed them as outsiders who did not mesh well with other races, and evolved into their own society separate from other. They would be hard to recognize though if you were looking for Neanderthals in the story.

I was thinking about the same thing, how should I name it? I am not fully satisfied with the name neanderthal, but I don't have a better name for an Archaic hominid.

Why do you dislike the name? I don't like the name because they are from Earth's history and my fantasy is not set on Earth and also because the name Neanderthal originates from Neander valley which is a Real Life location, this is the biggest reason the name bothers me because I don't like naming something after real life location when my world is not Earth, but a fictional world.

Do you have a idea how could I name it?

Also one thing already mentioned but not fully, the second type of neanderthals can have "druidic" magic and those who have these powers are called shamans.
 
Last edited:

pmmg

Myth Weaver
Here I would suggest letting your story world inform you of what it should be. What dominate culture got to go about naming things and what types of words would they have used? What might they have called themselves? If you have any conlangs in the story, perhaps it is a word from one of those.

I dislike the name for the same reasons you state. The place is not Earth, and so it is unlikely to have developed the same. I would expect the nations and peoples to have called things by different names.

I've no issue with calling druidic types shamans.
 
Hi,

Actually I'd consider using both types - the distinction between them could be excellent material for a story. The original neanderthals were a peaceful, shamanistic group who dominated the world at one point and lived close to nature. Then along came the cro mags (if you're going to call one lot neanderthals it seems the right name for the humans) and they started conquering the world. At that point the neanderthals split onto two paths. One group decided to retreat to the more wild and inhospitable parts of the world where they were safe and stay true to their being. The others adopted the cro mag ways in order to fight them, and so became their enemy. In fact they embraced the savagery of cro mags so far that they became worse than them.

Cheers, Greg.
 

Peregrine

Troubadour
Thanks for the answers.

I was thinking about naming the "Neanderthals" wildmen, but I already have sasquatch-like bipedal hairy hominids called wildmen.
There is another name for wildman which is called woodwose.

Should I use woodwose for the "sasquatches" and wildman for the "neanderthals"?

I am afraid if wildman and woodwose have the same meaning (wild-man = forest man?).

Wose could mean a supernatural being, therefore woodwose could be forest-being.

On Wikipedia, wildmen are also called woodwoses.
There are two versions, the original first version is that of a sasquatch, while from 1400s and into the future, there is the second version in which they are depicted as having clubs and looking like cavemen.

Wild man - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

TheKillerBs

Maester
Why does it matter if wildman and woodwose have the same meaning? I doubt most people would look into it, and even if they do, English is filled with countless examples of words that (should) mean the same but have different usages (e.g. engineer and machinist).
 

elemtilas

Inkling
Why does it matter if wildman and woodwose have the same meaning? I doubt most people would look into it, and even if they do, English is filled with countless examples of words that (should) mean the same but have different usages (e.g. engineer and machinist).

Thing is, a lot of people dó look into these things. I would hope that a careful writer would try to avoid a mistake like this. It's the kind of detail that ticks readers off!

One way to get around this is to use the analog from a different language. Many cultures have woodwose figures in their lore. Find on of those names and work that into English. This works nicely especially if there are contrasts between the subforms of "Neanderthal" in your setting and also contrasts between the English and other culture's woodwoses.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
You can define such terms as you like within the context of your fantasy world. The fact that wildman and woodwose have overlapping meanings in the real world and may sometimes be used synonymously does not mean that they share the same overlapping definition in your fantasy world. There are any number of historical and cultural reasons your fantasy world might have (if you create it that way) to draw a distinction between the two that doesn't necessarily exist in the real-world usage of the words.
 

elemtilas

Inkling
You can define such terms as you like within the context of your fantasy world. The fact that wildman and woodwose have overlapping meanings in the real world and may sometimes be used synonymously does not mean that they share the same overlapping definition in your fantasy world. There are any number of historical and cultural reasons your fantasy world might have (if you create it that way) to draw a distinction between the two that doesn't necessarily exist in the real-world usage of the words.

Sure. You can define anything any way you like! Some readers may not notice or care. Others might wonder how much worse the experience is going to get.

Just my opinion, but saying "I don't have to use usual / accepted definition & usage for words just because it's my fantasy world" strikes me as a tad weak as a writing strategy. I mean, really: an author can't come up with her own in-world name or for something? Can't come up with a more appropriate English word or phrase for her ideas and must force her readers to accept her own made-up meanings?

Myeh. You can probably get away with shoddy of this sort on a word like woodwose. But how far along does one go with this kind of writing?

Note that I don't have any issue whatsoever with fantasy world distinctions that do not exist in the primary world. That's part of the fun of worldbuilding in the first place. What I take issue with is abuse of language. I know it happens, because I've seen similar examples before. They always strike me as shoddy work. Like a writer can't be bothered to do her job well.
 
Top