Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Who were the Neanderthals?

Our understanding of what Neanderthals might have looked like has changed so much. Early representations are based on a skull found in the Chapelle-aux-Saints, France. This particular individual was called "Old man": he was quite old when he died, and had severe arthritis.  

The "Old Man" 
http://sfwriter.com/2008/09/for-those-who-like-hominid-skulls-in-my.html

Unfortunately for Neanderthals, such early representations were far from flattering, presenting them as more ape than human. Marcellin Boule's reconstruction influenced ideas on prehistoric humanity into the 1920's. 

Early representation of Neanderthals by Boule
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/who-was-neanderthal-man-was-he-the-missing-link.html

 Of course, such morphological traits were crucial in determining Neanderthals' evolutionary relationship to AMH. This relationship was obscured by the likes of Wells, who grouped all archaic humans under the Neanderthal nomenclature. At first, Wells actually suspected that Neanderthals were more closely related to us, but lingering doubt eventually lead him to downgrade Neanderthals to creatures "not quite of the human species". He suspected that their brain was "simpler" and "lower". Yet later works clearly present Neanderthals as intelligent beings, with advanced hunting practices. Over time, as the archeological record became more complete, a more realistic understanding of Neanderthals began to emerge. Dart's discovery of the Taung child was especially pivotal.
The Taung child 

http://eol.org/collections/11002

Neanderthal remains from Teshik-Tash 1 burial site in Uzbekistan, dating back to 70 kya 




http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?txtkeys1=australopithecus


Taung child was an Australopithecus africanus specimen, not a Neanderthal. But here was an species with a large brain that was obviously older than Neanderthals. Other discoveries such as a Neanderthal child in Dragon Bone Hill near Peking moved Neanderthals ever closer to AMH. 

Evidence of burials and ritual attribute a religious sensibility to Neanderthals. Surely Neanderthals believed in an after-life. 



 In his Inheritors, Golding imagines the world from the point of view of Neanderthals. Here, Neanderthal are bengin creatures, while AMH are ruthless murderers. His Neanderthals are intelligent creatures, yet are incapable of thinking abstractly, which places them at a huge disadvantage vis-a-vis AMH. His descriptions are influenced by Craniometrists: they argued that Neanderthals' skull shape allowed for strong sensorimotor capacities, but disallowed for "higher"intelligence.

http://contatoalienigena.blogspot.com/2012/09/neandertais-sobreviveram-extincao.html

 But is brain size or shape directly correlated with intelligence? Montagu, in 1969, argued that cranial physiology couldn't tell us much about intelligence. On the other hand, Elliott (1969) maintained that brain size and shape was definitively indicative of intelligence. Yet the archeological record does provide significant evidence of Neanderthal intelligence.
The Divje Babe flute 

http://www.slovenia.info/?ogledi=222&lng=2

 The Divje Babe flute is a cave bear femur found near Cerkno in northwestern Slovenia. I should mention that there is a fair amount of controversy around this particular artifact. It was found in 1995 by Ivan Turk. Soon after its initial discovery, d'Errico et al, Philip Chase and April Nowell all argued that the artifact was not actually an intentionally made flute--rather, it was a "natural object fashioned by random bites from ancient carnivores". Hum. 

 And that was only the beginning of the debate. 

Mitja Brodar suggests that while it is indeed an intentionally made musical instrument, it was surely made by Cro-Magnon during the Aurignacian period. 

 But what if it really is a musical instrument made by Neanderthals? Turk, for one, would definitely present it as proof that Neanderthals were just as smart as AMH. 

 Neanderthals also used Mousterian tools, just like AMH. 




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825203924.htm

It's been suggested that Neanderthals' skills at making tools is further proof of their intelligence. Kambiz Kamrani says we must indeed stop thinking of "Neanderthals as clumbering cavemen". So perhaps these artifacts are a good proxy for Neanderthal intelligence. 




http://deskarati.com/2012/04/06/what-is-the-oldest-musical-instrument/

 We have no way of knowing for sure whether Neanderthals engaged in oral communication or had their own language. However, we can definitely say that they had the physiological capacity for speech: like humans, they had hyoid bones--crucial for their ability to form words.

 However, other organs play important roles in speech, which have an impact of the extent of their capacities for language. Reconstructions of soft tissues are not yet possible, yet some archeologists have suggested that while Neanderthals were able to speak, they spoke at a slower rate than AMH and were unable to combine certain vowels together.  In Origins Reconsidered, Leakey offers that Neanderthals' physiological characteristics are related to cold adaptations and would not have affected their speak in any way relative to AMH. In fact, their capacity for speech would have perfectly matched that of AMH.

 Recent genetic evidence has provided further evidence supporting their close relationship with AMH. But just how close were we?


Bibliography



Posted by at