Human? Human like?

Here's how I interpreted it;
Naoh, Amoukar, and Gah's tribe: Cro-Magnon
Apemen at the beginning: Some sort of Australopithecine-like creature that has remained mostly unchanged, except that they have a thicker fur coat (likely to survive the harsh winter climate).
Red haired cannibals: Neanderthals
Ika and the Ash Tribe: Homo sapiens

the painted people are modern Humans. The protagonists are a more rural variety of modern Humans. The spear-throwing contest participants at the end are also modern Humans.
The Wagaboo and Cannibals might be Neanderthals but it is more realistic to think of them as a fictional predatory Human species (the same vein as Bigfoot, Troglodytes or the Orcs of Mordor)

The heroes and the cannibals are Neardenthalis.
The attacking tribe are homo erectus.
Ika and her tribe are Cro-Magnon (Homo Sapiens).
"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

Actualy thy were:
Naoh and his homies are Homo Neanderthalsis.
the paint people are Homo Sapiens.
the Monkey people are Homo Erectus.
and the guy who bit naohs B***s, they are also Homo Neanderthalsis

"The special features and commentary state that there are only two species of hominids in the movie, Homo-sapiens and Neanderthal. Naoh and Ika are Homo-sapiens; however, the director commentary states that Ika's people are "more evolved". The other species, the Ape-like creatures, are representing Neanderthal man. If using the shooting locations as a reference; Naoh is from Scotland, Ika is from Kenya, and of course the Neanderthals are from Germany."

Thanks, I remember Ron Perlman saying that Ika's people were more evolved and Jean-Jacques Annaud (in the director's commentary) mentioning that the Ulam were homo sapiens, but the Ulam did exhibit a lot of physical characteristics that are normally associated with Neanderthal, like heavy brow ridges and a protruding face with receding chin (an effect that they achieved with prosthetic upper teeth). The movie is based on an early 20th century book by French author Joseph Henri Honor Boex and it might reflect a common opinion among French anthropologists, at the time, that Neanderthals were ape-men (e.g. the portrayal of the Wagabu).
My only real point is that, if you throw out the names that were applied by Jean-Jacques Annaud in the film, QFF nicely overlays modern anthropological models even if the original author and producers were operating under a different style of classification. In a sense, they accidentally got things very close to the models of modern anthropologists, which I find truly amazing. Even if they were inaccurate in their depiction of the individual species according to the names that they applied to them, the overall portrait is stunningly accurate (at the moment anyway).

The special features and commentary state that there are only 2 species in the movie, Homo sapiens and Neanderthal.
Naoh and Ika are Homo sapiens (director commentary states that Ika's people are "more evolved"). The other species (Ape-like) are Neanderthal.
If using the shooting locations as a reference; Naoh is from Scotland, Ika is from Kenya, and of course the Neanderthals are from Germany.

"If I've never seen it before, it's a new release to me."

It's actually pretty amazing that the producers put so much detail into making the Ulam look and act like Neanderthals and then, in all of the commentaries, claimed that they were homo sapiens. Pretty weird. It's almost like they got the details accurate by mistake. For example, the actors playing the Ulam had to spend 5 hours in makeup getting on the brow ridges and protruding jaw prosthetics but then they are supposed to be the same (sub?)species as Ika's tribe, who require no prosthetics.

In my opinion:
Ulam: Homo neanderthalensis
Wagabu: australopithecene of some sort (like Paranthropus boisei, which is completely anachronistic)
Kzamm: Homo heidelbergensis?
Ivaka: Homo sapiens

The Wagambus (sp?) are homo erectus (the tribe that attacked the Ulams.
The Ulams (Naoh's tribe) along with the redheadss are neanderthals and Ika's tribe are a sort of Homo Sapiens.
They say it's hard being a woman in a man's world, but try being a man in
MY
world.

the apes are just that.the red headed maneaters could be neanderthal.the rest are modern human:the only differences being social,regional,and educational.

It was based on a book written in 1911. Of course the science is woefully out of date.
Per various commentaries, the two main groups are Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, with a possible Heidelbergensis group. No older species are present. The differences portrayed are cultural and not racial.
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

About the location of the movie, I saw the movie for the first time tonight and the whole time I was debating the location. Africa, Northern Europe and Asia are all going through my head. 80,000 years ago, Africa was much more temperate than it is now, but with the mountains and the boglike environment, I have to think that Africa isn't in the running anymore. I peronally think it could have been either Northern Europe or Asia. Remember, the world was much different 80,000 years ago. It's entirely possible that part of it was in Asia, and partly in Europe.
And about the missionary position comment, since Ika's tribe seemd to be much more evolved than Naoh, that was a connection. If you noticed, Ika was laughing when one of Naoh's tribsemen was hurt. The others had no idea what that concept of laughter was. Going with the idea that Ika and her tribe were homo sapiens, they obviously had a better idea of how to survive and continue their genes while Naoh's tribewell they obviously had no clue.
My opinion of the movieit wasn't that great. It was good if you simply looked at the movie side of it, ignoring facts. But I wouldn't recommend this movie to someone who wanted to learn about prehistory, unless it was a general curiosity.

There is evidence that Sapien and Erectus could have crossed paths in Asia, which i think we all agree is not the location of the movie. Still its not totally unthinkable that the three could have met in Europe, even if there is no proof of it. Im not saying this is what i believe happened but to me its an acceptable enough fantasy story. I thought the movie was great by the way, even though the missionary position focus was a bit out of the blue.
Martin

Think of Erectus as the Stanley Steamer, Neandertal as a DeSoto, and Sapiens as a Chevy and you've got the timeline.
"Admit to poisoning the monkeys, and we'll give you a cigarette."

Between 5 and 10% of human DNA is actually neanderthalian in origin, which not only goes to show that interbreeding produces viable and fertile offsprings, but also that said interbreeding was not uncommon among the different strains of hominids.
People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

To breed the two would simply have to be in the same genus, i believe is the point being made here. I always looked at it as Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens (Ika) and as for the attacking tribe, utter crap. I always thought they looked more like human like lizards than anything. The book pretty much says, however, that the attacking Wagabu are Neanderthals, Ulams are Cro-Magnon man and of course the Ivaka are just a more advanced early homo-sapien. And actually, that makes sense, aside from the time frame of coexistence being a bit off.

The fact that he impregnates her does not necessarily mean that they are the same species - the only way to know for certain is if the offspring were to prove viable in their own right. Look at the example of the mule - two species (Horse and Donkey) produce living, albeit sterile, offspring. However, that being said, the romantic in me does "press my thumbs" that they were both indeed Homo sapiens.
As for other species, common consensus says it was too late for Homo erectus to have made an appearance, and even Homo heidelbergensis is extremely unlikely (400,000 years ago is the latest known evidence); however, most anthropologists admit that the whole picture is way, way, WAY too incomplete to not be able to change radically with the next discovery.

They are neanderthal (those aggressors at the start) and the rest are sapien. Noah puts a bun into Ika's oven, they are the same species.

Why do you say erectus is out of the question?
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick

Sapiens and Neanderthals crossing paths were a possibility but Erectus is out of the question.

Don't worry about it. The movie was an utter nonsense even at the time of its production. It can be taken only as a prehistorical fantasy.

According to the documentary on the DVD, the Wagabu are Neanderthals while the Ulams are Homo sapiens. I personally consider the Ulam to be Neanderthal, the Wagabu as Homo Erectus, the Kzamm as Homo Heidelbergensis and the Ivaka as Homo Sapiens.