Neanderthals might have painted their faces

[Gopher Gary]

What about tattooing each other? Dying their hair perhaps.

The females may have painted their butts bright red to attract mates. 

[Al Swearegen]

Spankings could do the same thing

[Gopher Gary]

Spankings could do the same thing

They may have saved the spankings for the orcs, hobbits, elves, and trolls. 

[ZEGH8578]

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...

Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person

I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)

[Al Swearegen]

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...

Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person

I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)

Yes, they also invented electricity.

['andersom']

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...

Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person

I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)

Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.

[ZEGH8578]

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...

Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person

I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)

Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.

Philosophers   
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it

['andersom']

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...

Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person

I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)

Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.

Philosophers   
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it

The subjectivity would depend on the number of finds. And there it does get tricky of course. Behaviour, in the use of artefacts, or in the decoration of artefacts, does not need to be a subjective thing. But, it does require finds. And the older the finds are, the less there is likely to be found.

[ZEGH8578]

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...

Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person

I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)

Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.

Philosophers   
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it

The subjectivity would depend on the number of finds. And there it does get tricky of course. Behaviour, in the use of artefacts, or in the decoration of artefacts, does not need to be a subjective thing. But, it does require finds. And the older the finds are, the less there is likely to be found.

It is very rule-bound, but in essence

Genus-level naming - is entirely subjective, by rule - and this causes endless debates, precisely because of the subjectivity of it. A genus is the *first* name, in the string of latin names: Homo, Panthera, Tyrannosaurus, Canis
Examples of debate include - wether or not Australopithecus* warrants a separate genus, or wether it "fits better" with Homo or Paranthropus (I think, don't quote me on it) - a better example is the even longer Lynx debate, wether the animal "deserves" it's own genus: Lynx, or wether it should be a separate species of Felis - or even Panthera.

Species-level naming - is entirely objective, by rule - here genetics are the key. An old-fashioned "rule of thumb" is that a species is defined by the fertility of its offspring. Technically polar bear and brown bears are the same species, because their offspring are indeed fertile - Ursus arctos, but for now, polar bear remains separated as Ursus maritimus.
But generally speaking, a species-level name has to be thoroughly specified and proven.
With extinct animals, where we have no genetic evidence, defining species is much more challenging - and on top of that, genus-debates are much more rampant.

Sub-species level naming - is again very much subjective, because we have allready genetically defined the species - that's done, the organisms can successfully interbreed, so any further division will be "racial" if you will, many synonyms are used, such as "morphs" or simply: Sub-species.
A good example of sub-species are the two types of "common crow" in Europe, where the northern one is black-and-grey, and the southern one is entirely-black, but they are the same species, they have the same language - they communicate effortlessly with each others, and they have no prejudice towards each others, as they will mate and frequently produce half-gray-morphs in the mixing-zone between north and south.

But all of this comes down to physical traits. There is no significant evidence of physical differences in human anatomy from right before or right after the advent of figurative art - just as there's no significant change before or after the use of copper, or before or after taming of the horse. These are super-significant innovations of ours, but have more to do with... the rare new discoveries, observations, inventions, that have spread rapidly, than a very new feature in their anatomy.

To be boringly technical - what your teacher would be much more correct in doing - would be to name a period or a culture rather than the organism, and as it is - those cultures are allready named and defined
If you're curious, the oldest named culture is "Oldowan culture" and is pre-human, as in, Homo erectus and similar species, and concerns mostly very basic stone tools. It begins around 2 million years ago.
A more recognizeable culture is for example "Corded ware culture", and is much more recent (ca 3000 BC) and is defined by certain burial rituals.

*Type famously known as "Lucy"
**"Type" is the very first individual/fossil ever recieving the name - and thus the individual/fossil you must compare all else with.
***Genus species subspecies <---correct writing, always capital Genus, but lower-case species and subspecies, and always cursive (well, if you want to be correct! ) "T-Rex" is famously incorrect, T. rex is correct.

[Gopher Gary]

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC,

Lipstick dates back to 3,000 BC, and eyeliner dates back to 10,000 BC.  I'm sure anything that could potentially be pigmented, potentially and hypothetically might have pigmented by people who had pigments. 

[ZEGH8578]

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC,

Lipstick dates back to 3,000 BC, and eyeliner dates back to 10,000 BC.  I'm sure anything that could potentially be pigmented, potentially and hypothetically might have pigmented by people who had pigments. 

10 000 BC is very recent, again it's long after the disappearance of Neanderthals, also, lipstick and eyeliner is more specific. We don't know what exactly the Neanderthals painted and how - but we know that 10 000 BC at least - non-Neanderthal humans painted their eyes.

Again, consider how expected make-up is in Egyptian art, for example

You're right about "people have pretty much always done - " a lot of stuff, but I find excitement in finding out these "earliest known" dates. At some point humans would simply not have thought of ever putting red color on their lips. That point is what is intriguing to pinpoint as closely as possible

Some dates can probably never be pinpointed, and that is the discovery of gold, for example. Or, the first definite observations and identifications of stars and constellations, since these don't leave any traces beyond writing - and we know that humans knew stars and constellations allready by the time of the first writing.

[Al Swearegen]

The Flintstones was based on a true story.

['andersom']

Earlyest forms of tattooing known goes back 6000 BC, which is long after Neanderthals died out.
Of course, nothing is known for total sure, we might find older remains - but based on what we can currently know - it seems unlikely Neanderthals tattooed. Body paint IS a precursor to tattooing though, so...

Hair dyeing could be plausible enough, since it is in essence the same as body-painting, you apply a pigment directly to your person

I'm not sure if Neanderthals did figurative art, but chronologically, Homo sapiens did invent it while Neanderthals were still around. Neanderthals definitely did abstract art (patterns, arbitrary decorations, and such)

Had a teacher philosophy for a while who wanted to ad "Homo Ludens" somewhere in the evolution of the humanoids, just because of that.

Philosophers   
What could be "legal" (in terms of the ICZN, the organization moderating the naming of zoological entities) would be to add this as a "sub-species", since these have practically no real definition, are are very subjective. It would if so be Homo sapiens ludens, and we would of course count as H. s. ludens as well.
But there would be nothing "binding" about it, because of the subjectivity of it

The subjectivity would depend on the number of finds. And there it does get tricky of course. Behaviour, in the use of artefacts, or in the decoration of artefacts, does not need to be a subjective thing. But, it does require finds. And the older the finds are, the less there is likely to be found.

It is very rule-bound, but in essence

Genus-level naming - is entirely subjective, by rule - and this causes endless debates, precisely because of the subjectivity of it. A genus is the *first* name, in the string of latin names: Homo, Panthera, Tyrannosaurus, Canis
Examples of debate include - wether or not Australopithecus* warrants a separate genus, or wether it "fits better" with Homo or Paranthropus (I think, don't quote me on it) - a better example is the even longer Lynx debate, wether the animal "deserves" it's own genus: Lynx, or wether it should be a separate species of Felis - or even Panthera.

Species-level naming - is entirely objective, by rule - here genetics are the key. An old-fashioned "rule of thumb" is that a species is defined by the fertility of its offspring. Technically polar bear and brown bears are the same species, because their offspring are indeed fertile - Ursus arctos, but for now, polar bear remains separated as Ursus maritimus.
But generally speaking, a species-level name has to be thoroughly specified and proven.
With extinct animals, where we have no genetic evidence, defining species is much more challenging - and on top of that, genus-debates are much more rampant.

Sub-species level naming - is again very much subjective, because we have allready genetically defined the species - that's done, the organisms can successfully interbreed, so any further division will be "racial" if you will, many synonyms are used, such as "morphs" or simply: Sub-species.
A good example of sub-species are the two types of "common crow" in Europe, where the northern one is black-and-grey, and the southern one is entirely-black, but they are the same species, they have the same language - they communicate effortlessly with each others, and they have no prejudice towards each others, as they will mate and frequently produce half-gray-morphs in the mixing-zone between north and south.

But all of this comes down to physical traits. There is no significant evidence of physical differences in human anatomy from right before or right after the advent of figurative art - just as there's no significant change before or after the use of copper, or before or after taming of the horse. These are super-significant innovations of ours, but have more to do with... the rare new discoveries, observations, inventions, that have spread rapidly, than a very new feature in their anatomy.

To be boringly technical - what your teacher would be much more correct in doing - would be to name a period or a culture rather than the organism, and as it is - those cultures are allready named and defined
If you're curious, the oldest named culture is "Oldowan culture" and is pre-human, as in, Homo erectus and similar species, and concerns mostly very basic stone tools. It begins around 2 million years ago.
A more recognizeable culture is for example "Corded ware culture", and is much more recent (ca 3000 BC) and is defined by certain burial rituals.

*Type famously known as "Lucy"
**"Type" is the very first individual/fossil ever recieving the name - and thus the individual/fossil you must compare all else with.
***Genus species subspecies <---correct writing, always capital Genus, but lower-case species and subspecies, and always cursive (well, if you want to be correct! ) "T-Rex" is famously incorrect, T. rex is correct.

I know that, somewhere in the back of my mind.  Not that I would have been able to word it like you did from the top of my head. A friend from thirty years ago got his name attached to a dung fly a few years back. Was funny.

The philosopher could probably not give a shit about this, if he was still alive. He wanted that name, arbitrary or not, because he saw play as an important human condition. And could not agree with models of humanity where there was no place for things like play (play leading too all kinds of things, from music to science)

[Al Swearegen]

There is a lot of politics involved in these things. How many populations did Aboriginals in Australia come from?
Where did these populations originate from? Was it from one migration ore several? If several, were they from different racial types or cultures? If so were one displacing another?
Why would any of these things matter?
Well...not to be too blunt but IF there is a narrative that Aboriginals were living peacefully in isolation and as one big large tribal existent and were oppressed by the invading white people, how would this be altered if it came to light that they migrated in three or four migrations and the weaker or earlier inhabitants were driven off, killed, oppressed, amalgamated into the newer migratory tribes?
It is thought by some that the Tasmanian Aboriginals and some Pygmy sized Aboriginals in the Daintree area of Queensland were a different racial mix and culture and were remnants of an early migration that were killed or driven off by later migrations.

Politics, sociology and philosophy matter in these things.

[ZEGH8578]

There is a lot of politics involved in these things. How many populations did Aboriginals in Australia come from?
Where did these populations originate from? Was it from one migration ore several? If several, were they from different racial types or cultures? If so were one displacing another?
Why would any of these things matter?
Well...not to be too blunt but IF there is a narrative that Aboriginals were living peacefully in isolation and as one big large tribal existent and were oppressed by the invading white people, how would this be altered if it came to light that they migrated in three or four migrations and the weaker or earlier inhabitants were driven off, killed, oppressed, amalgamated into the newer migratory tribes?
It is thought by some that the Tasmanian Aboriginals and some Pygmy sized Aboriginals in the Daintree area of Queensland were a different racial mix and culture and were remnants of an early migration that were killed or driven off by later migrations.

Politics, sociology and philosophy matter in these things.

What things?

You just skimmed everything in this thread, didn't you!?
Admit it, or just keep chatting about whatever nobody else is chatting about, such as Australian politics and the migration of aborigins.

I'm talking about neanderthals and nomenclature in paleontology.

But, eh, whatever, if I have to humor you, then, who claims Aborigins in Australia were "living peacefully"?
Nobody but hippies, I assume, racist hippies at that, if they are to claim that somehow Aborigins have some "peaceful gene" or something, but I don't listen to hippies.

Aborigins are people, and yes
1. They very probably arrived in several waves.
2. They very probably waged tribal warfare back and forth and across each others, non stop, they're people, that's what people do
3. They probably didn't even care much about nature, another "noble savage"-myth. They exterminated many endemic species.

In the end, politics only matters in terms of the media representation of this. There are no serious biologists who try to portray any tribal community as overly pure, kind or perfect in their behavior. This is misrepresentation by the media - OR unprofessionalism in the field.

I have sneaking suspicion none of this will be read, instead skimmed, and some kind of absurdly arbitrary debate about Australian politics will ensue.