Definition: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: Neanderthals are commonly depicted as leading dangerous lives and permanently struggling for survival. This view largely relies on the high incidences of trauma that have been reported1,2 and have variously been attributed to violent social behaviour3,4, highly mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyles2 or attacks by carnivores5. The described Neanderthal pattern of predominantly cranial injuries is further thought to reflect violent encounters with large prey mammals, resulting from the use of close-range hunting weapons1. These interpretations directly shape our understanding of Neanderthal lifestyles, health and hunting abilities, yet mainly rest on descriptive, case-based evidence. Quantitative, population-level studies of traumatic injuries are rare. Here we reassess the hypothesis of higher cranial trauma prevalence among Neanderthals using a population-level approach—accounting for preservation bias and other contextual data—and an exhaustive fossil database. We show that Neanderthals and early Upper Palaeolithic anatomically modern humans exhibit similar overall incidences of cranial trauma, which are higher for males in both taxa, consistent with patterns shown by later populations of modern humans. Beyond these similarities, we observed species-specific, age-related variation in trauma prevalence, suggesting that there were differences in the timing of injuries during life or that there was a differential mortality risk of trauma survivors in the two groups. Finally, our results highlight the importance of preservation bias in studies of trauma prevalence. ||||| Injuries are part of everyday life, from a scratch on the skin to a broken bone to a fatal trauma. Although many injuries are accidental, others can arise as a consequence of an individual’s or a group’s behaviour, activity or social norms — characteristics that tell us about societies and the inherent tensions and risks within and between different groups. Writing in Nature, Beier et al.1 provide evidence that challenges the long-standing view2 that Neanderthal populations experienced a level of traumatic injuries that was significantly higher than that of humans. The result calls into question claims2,3 that the behaviour and technologies of Neanderthals exposed them to particularly high levels of risk and danger. 
  
 Read the paper: Similar cranial trauma prevalence among Neanderthals and Upper Palaeolithic modern humans 
  
 Reports of injuries and deaths are constantly in the news. As well as being drawn to read the stories of individuals, such information is of interest because of what it tells us about our societies. However, to fully understand what might determine the current degree of violence and injuries, we also need to look back at the past and identify the causal underpinnings. But how far back should we look? Arguably, right back to the evolutionary origins of processes that shape behavioural, social and cognitive tendencies and abilities. 
  
 Anthropologists study skeletal remains to reconstruct aspects of ancient lives, building an ‘osteobiography’ that casts light on part of the life history of an individual. Skeletons preserve — in the form of holes, misshapen surfaces, bone misalignments and secondary fractures radiating out from a point of impact — a signature of the traumas that resulted in fractured, cut or perforated bones, even if the injuries subsequently healed4,5. 
  
 Traumatic lesions have been frequently identified in Neanderthal fossils, particularly in the head (Fig. 1) and neck, leading to the view2 that higher levels of skeletal injury occurred in Neanderthal populations than in human populations. However, this is not so, say Beier and colleagues. The authors assessed published descriptions of Neanderthal and modern human fossil skulls found in Eurasia from approximately 80,000 to 20,000 years ago. Comparing the number of injured and non-injured Neanderthal and human skulls, the authors report similar levels of head trauma in both groups. 
  
 Figure 1 | A Neanderthal skull. The Neanderthal fossil called Saint-Césaire 1. This fossil9 shows signs of a healed bone injury10 in the region indicated by the arrowheads. Beier et al.1 assessed published analyses of ancient Neanderthal and human skulls, including that of Saint-Césaire 1. Contrary to the prevailing view2 that Neanderthal existence was more violent than that of humans, the authors report that similar levels of trauma are present in Neanderthal and human fossils. 
  
 The power of Beier and colleagues’ analyses lies in their study design. Instead of comparing Neanderthal data with those of more-recent or living human populations, as previous studies have done2,6, the authors based their comparisons on humans who not only shared aspects of their environment with Neanderthals, but whose fossil record also has a similar level of preservation. Beier et al. analysed data for 114 Neanderthal skulls and 90 human skulls. They gathered the data for 14 skull bones, and obtained information that ranged from 1 bone in poorly preserved fossils to data for all 14 bones per individual for well-preserved ones. In total, the authors recorded trauma incidence in 295 Neanderthal bones and 541 human bones. They also collected other information, such as the percentage of each of the 14 bones that was preserved for each individual, as well as details including sex, age at death and the fossil’s geographic location. 
  
 Beier et al. ran two sets of statistical analyses — one based on the presence or absence of trauma in each of the skull bones, the other on individual fossil skulls as a whole — to test whether there were any statistically significant differences between the prevalence of trauma in the Neanderthal and human fossils. The authors also assessed whether trauma prevalence was linked to sex or age, taking into account fossil preservation, geographic location and possible interaction effects between the different variables. The two analyses gave similar results. 
  
 The more complete the fossils are, the more likely they are to have preserved evidence of injuries. This might seem obvious, but is an issue often ignored in such studies. Beier et al. offer a way to deal with this type of bias in the available material. Once the authors take into account the extent of fossil preservation, the predicted prevalence of trauma in Neanderthals and humans is almost the same. 
  
 Both Neanderthal and human males had a much greater incidence of trauma than did the females of their respective species. This pattern remains the same for humans today7. One final intriguing result is that, although traumatic injuries were present across all of the age ranges studied, Neanderthals that had trauma to the head were more likely to have died under the age of 30 than the humans were. The authors interpret this result as evidence that, compared with humans, Neanderthals either had more injuries when they were young or were more likely to have died after being injured. 
  
 Beier and colleagues’ study does not invalidate previous estimates of trauma among Neanderthals. Instead, it provides a new framework for interpreting these data by showing that the level of Neanderthal trauma was not uniquely high relative to that of early humans in Eurasia. This implies that Neanderthal trauma does not require its own special explanations, and that risk and danger were as much a part of the life of Neanderthals as they were of our own evolutionary past. The result adds to growing evidence that Neanderthals had much in common with early human groups. However, the finding that Neanderthals might have experienced trauma at a younger age than humans, or that they had a greater risk of death after injury, is fascinating, and might be a key insight into why our species had such a demographic advantage over Neanderthals. 
  
 Is this the final word on the subject of Neanderthal trauma? The answer is no. Beier and colleagues assessed only skull trauma. What if Neanderthals accumulated more injuries to their bodies than did humans? There are data suggesting that this might be the case8. Furthermore, although the authors’ analyses demonstrate the power of a well-designed study based on large samples, the data they used were recorded by many researchers and at varying levels of detail, raising the possibility of methodological biases. 
  
 Lastly, the causes of the injuries could provide some elusive insights into behaviour, activities or social norms in the past. From the shape, location and extent of traumatic injuries in skeletons, and characteristics such as the sharpness of fracture edges or the degree to which injuries had healed, it is sometimes possible to establish the most likely cause of a trauma — for example, whether the injury probably arose as a consequence of a hunting accident3, interpersonal violence10 or inter-group conflict11. Moreover, surviving severe trauma might indicate that the injured person was cared for by members of their society12. Establishing the likelihood of each of these scenarios among Neanderthals and early modern humans will no doubt continue to challenge scientists for many years to come. ||||| Maybe Neanderthals Weren't Quite So Nasty And Brutish 
  
 Enlarge this image toggle caption Gleiver Prieto & Katerina Harvati Gleiver Prieto & Katerina Harvati 
  
 Neanderthals might bring to mind images of cartoonish brutes whacking each other with clubs. 
  
 But even though a number of Neanderthal skeletons have been unearthed showing grave head and neck injuries, new research suggests their lives weren't as violent as the stereotype implies. 
  
 In fact, the levels of cranial injuries for Neanderthals are very similar to those of early modern humans, according to scientists whose work was published today in the journal Nature. 
  
 "There is no statistical difference between the two, which means that they cannot be differentiated," says study co-author Katerina Harvati, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Tübingen in Germany. 
  
 "I definitely think that it's evidence these guys were not beating each other up," at least not any more than early modern humans, says Fred Smith, an Illinois State University professor specializing in Neanderthals who was not involved in the research. 
  
 Smith says he's not surprised by the results, and that for many years, "there was a lot of focus on emphasizing the differences between Neanderthals and us." 
  
 That changed in 2010, when scientists found that Neanderthals contributed genetic material to modern humans, making them an early relative. Since then, a flurry of research has challenged the image of Neanderthals as savage troglodytes. Researchers have suggested they may have made art, enjoyed long childhoods, sometimes ate vegetarian diets and even wore jewelry and makeup. 
  
 The researchers put together a database from published articles that described the bones of 204 individual Neanderthals and early Upper Paleolithic modern humans, including cranial injuries. The specimens came from what is now Europe and Asia, and date back approximately 20,000 to 80,000 years ago. 
  
 In both groups, males were more likely to have cranial injuries than females — which, according to the University of Tübingen, is "explained by division of labor between men and women or by culturally determined sex-specific behaviors and activities." 
  
 And though the level of head trauma between Neanderthals and early modern humans was statistically the same, Neanderthals who sustained head trauma before they were 30 were more likely to also die younger. 
  
 "This finding does not necessarily mean the modern humans survived longer, but instead could result from Neanderthals sustaining cranial injuries earlier in life than Upper Paleolithic modern humans," she says. "[Or] it could also indicate that Neanderthals had a higher risk of mortality after surviving cranial injuries as compared to Upper Paleolithic modern humans." 
  
 It could also mean that early modern humans were better at taking care of their injured. 
  
 Harvati says there were probably many causes of these head injuries. Besides hunting and inter-personal violence, cranial injuries in both groups were likely caused by "accidents from a highly mobile hunter-gatherer lifestyle in glacial environments as well as carnivore attacks." 
  
 It's worth noting that the researchers are comparing Neanderthals to early modern humans because they are most likely to have had a similar lifestyle. Comparing Neanderthals to humans today, says Harvati, would be like comparing "apples to oranges." 
  
 She adds that modern-day humans, of course, face "a completely different range of dangers which can result in extremely severe traumatic injuries, which simply did not exist among Neanderthals or Paleolithic modern humans." 
  
 Dangers such as car accidents — or ballistic trauma from firearms. |||||
Output:
The perception of Neanderthals as big, stupid oafs has been mostly debunked. Now, a new study is helping buck another stereotype depicting the human relatives as especially prone to violence. The idea stems from trauma, particularly to the head and neck, visible among Neanderthal remains. When researchers compiled reports on the skull bones of 114 Neanderthals and 90 early modern humans who inhabited Europe and Asia some 20,000 to 80,000 years ago, however, they found similar levels of head injuries in both groups, per NPR and Nature. "There is no statistical difference between the two, which means that they cannot be differentiated," says Katerina Harvati of Germany's University of Tuebingen, whose study was published Wednesday in Nature. The study not only suggests danger from interpersonal violence, accidents, and predator attacks was as real for Neanderthals as for our own ancestors, it shows other similarities among the two groups. For example, males had a higher rate of trauma than females, as is true of humans today. Neanderthals who suffered trauma were more likely to die before the age of 30, though, with researchers speculating that they might've had a greater risk of death after injury or weren't as adept at caring for their injured as early modern humans. This "might be a key insight into why our species had such a demographic advantage over Neanderthals," per the Nature report, which raises the possibility that Neanderthals might've still had more non-cranial injuries than early modern humans. (Good thing they had a version of aspirin.)