Stuff regarding Neanderthals

[Big Orange]

Here's what the Neaderthal is supposed to look like according to Danny Vendramini, who's overactive imagination is leaping ahead of real facts:



He's dreadful looking isn't he? Purposely drawn out to look as scary and unnatural as possible. Almost just like this guy, bulging snake eyes and all ('Windmills don't work that way!'):



But now look at how appealing and cute contemporary great apes can look to us and they're less like us than the Neanderthals were:

[Temujin]

But now look at how appealing and cute contemporary great apes can look to us and they're less like us than the Neanderthals were:

Thank you, excellent point. One of the thing you often hear when people talk about the great apes is just how human their faces, eyes and expressions seem.

[Simon_Jester]

Here's what the Neaderthal is supposed to look like according to Danny Vendramini, who's overactive imagination is leaping ahead of real facts:

He's dreadful looking isn't he? Purposely drawn out to look as scary and unnatural as possible. Almost just like this guy, bulging snake eyes and all ('Windmills don't work that way!')

Yeah, and the slit-pupil snake eyes... you know why they look unnatural? People don't have them. Neither do our close evolutionary relatives. How the hell does that make sense?

I'm tempted to try and contact this guy just to ask him for an explanation; it could be pretty hilarious.

[Big Orange]

He thinks the freaky eyes are supposed to the protect a Neanderthal's retinas from sunlight reflected off the snow.

If so why the dark skin pigmentation and black hair? Why not a pinkish skin tone and light red or blonde body hair instead? A popular theory about Neanderthal's is that they had red hair.

[Temujin]

Maybe he was playing Star Frontiers. Check out the Yazirian, particularly the eyes.

[Junghalli]

OK, I have gone and read the actual paper that Alyrium Denryle linked to (thank you Alyrium), so as an interested nonscientist I can now talk about what it actually says instead of what's on what appears to be a rather sensationalistic promotional website.

First, a note on the seemingly ludicrous slit-eyes; that's actually based off the paper. The paper suggests that as near-carnivores it would have made sense for Neanderthals to hunt at night when most prey would be less active, and this fits with how their eye sockets are larger than modern humans. It actually doesn't sound that ludicrous, but I lack the knowledge to properly evaluate it. As for the other ape-like features, the paper basically suggests that Neanderthals would have been ape-like because it's parsimonious to assume the last common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals was more like other close relatives of humans, i.e. apes. It suggests that many of the features that make humans unlike other primates (like hairlessness) were adaptations to allow us to distinguish our own kind from Neanderthals more easily. The big weakness I see in the argument is the assumption that the last common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals was apelike. For instance I've heard speculation that our loss of body hair was an adaptation for the African grasslands, in which case it would probably have long pre-dated the human-Neanderthal split. The paper also argues it's unlikely Neanderthals had clothing because they didn't have needles - I don't see why they couldn't have just have made belts and used them to tie clothing around themselves. Also the lack of a nose in the reconstruction; the paper suggests that's probable because noses would have been vulnerable to frostbite.

Now as to the meat of the paper. Most of the evidence for their case seems to be circumstantial; the fossil and genetic record fits with their hypothesis if you look at it the right way. I don't see anything impossible in their claims. I don't even find their claims on human-Neanderthal antagonism implausible. IIRC it fits with lions and hyenas, and makes a fair amount of sense for what would happen if you have two intelligent species competing for the same ecological niche. The main stretch I see is the magnitude of the effect Vendramini suggests this had on the human population and the enormous importance he assigns it in human evolution. The evidence in the paper looks like it hangs together - but that's the thing about evolutionary paleobiology, at least at the interested amateur level I'm operating at you can come up with all sorts of wild hypothesis that are reasonably consistent with the evidence, because the evidence is so fragmentary.

If so why the dark skin pigmentation and black hair? Why not a pinkish skin tone and light red or blonde body hair instead? A popular theory about Neanderthal's is that they had red hair.

The paper itself says nothing about Neanderthal skin tone, only that they might have had wrinkly skin like an ape on the same parsimony argument that they use to argue for their other ape-like features. I'm guessing they went with dark leathery skin because gorillas have it and, rather obviously, to make them look as alien and intimidating as possible.

He's dreadful looking isn't he? Purposely drawn out to look as scary and unnatural as possible.
...
But now look at how appealing and cute contemporary great apes can look to us and they're less like us than the Neanderthals were:

Actually aside from the slit-eyes the reconstructions do quite closely resemble gorillas:





I think it's mostly the snarling ferocious expressions they give them that does it. Give that face a neutral expression like the gorilla, and take away the scars around the mouth that are pretty obviously designed to evoke an image of streaks of blood, and maybe lighten the picture a bit, and it would look alien but I think the horror movie effect would probably be much reduced.

[Junghalli]

Yeah, and the slit-pupil snake eyes... you know why they look unnatural? People don't have them. Neither do our close evolutionary relatives. How the hell does that make sense?

I'm tempted to try and contact this guy just to ask him for an explanation; it could be pretty hilarious.

No need: I can copy and paste the relevant section of the paper:

Nocturnality and its functional constraints

Carnivorous predation imposes dietary restrictions which require carnivores to
expend significant resources on hunting. Because terrestrial prey are easier to capture at
night when they are sleeping or resting, most mammalian terrestrial predators are nocturnal.
It is likely then, that in addition to diurnal hunting, Neanderthals also adapted to nocturnal
hunting during their European sojourn. This hypothesis is testable because it predicts that
15
like other nocturnal hunters, Neanderthals acquired specialist morphological and behavioural
adaptations to enhance prey capture in low-light conditions, including increased olfactory,
auditory and nocturnal visual acuity. Several lines of evidence supporting the hypothesis are
here reviewed.

Visual perspicacity

Just as the visual systems of primates evolved to meet the challenge of their arboreal
habitats (Elliot Smith, 1924; Le Gros Clark, 1959; Crompton, 1995;) so too, nocturnal
primates acquired specialist adaptations to increase retinal image brightness in low light
conditions (Cartmill, 1972; Heesey, 2003; Ravosa and Savakova, 2004). These adaptations
contributed to prey capture by facilitating improved identification of prey and stereoscopic
depth judgements (Cartmill, 1972; Allman, 1977). Based on a review of comparative data,
Callum and Kirk, (2007) report ‘that nocturnal visual predation had a putative selective
influence on the early evolution of the primate visual system.’ To maximize visual
sensitivity, nocturnal primates acquired allometrically larger pupils and corneas (relative to
the focal length of the eye) than diurnal species of similar size. To accommodate these larger
eyes, Kirk, (2006b) reported that nocturnal primate species have larger orbital apertures
relative to diurnal species.

If Neanderthals were nocturnal hunters, then larger corneas and optical orbits (eye
sockets) would be a feature of their cranial morphology. While eyes do not fossilise, orbits
do, and even a cursory comparison between Neanderthal and human orbit size reveals
Neanderthals orbits were substantially larger. (Figure 4) To date, no explanation has been
suggested for this novelty.

<snip image>

Another adaptation common to most nocturnal animals is the multifocus lens that
utilises concentric zones of different focal lengths to improve focus in low light. However, as
Malmström and Kröger, (2006) recently demonstrated, multifocus optical systems cannot
function with round pupils. They require slit pupils to facilitate the use of the full diameter of
the lens in low light. In considering whether Neanderthals evolved larger eyes with slit
pupils, it is noteworthy that the optical orbits of Neanderthals are larger (and rounder) than
humans, which is indicative of an adaptation to environmental conditions different from
humans. Moreover, if Neanderthals evolved acute nocturnal visual acuity in Europe, it would
additionally need to prevent retinal damage caused by sunlight reflected off snow, which was
a ubiquitous feature of the European landscape during their tenure. Significantly, one of the
added advantages of slit pupils is that the iris muscles can be closed tighter and exclude
considerably more light than round pupils. Nocturnal predators such as lions, tigers, owls,
cats, alligators, crocodiles acquired slit pupils to protect their retinas from strong sunlight.
As to whether the slit pupils were horizontally or vertically aligned, the fact that
nocturnal primates, Aotus trivirgatus, and Galago garnetti have vertically aligned slit pupils
is telling. Vertically aligned slit pupil work in conjunction with the animal’s eyelids to block
out even more sunlight. When the animal squints, its horizontal eyelids close at right angles
to the vertical slit pupil, blocking out considerably more light than if they were both aligned
horizontally. Given this, it is likely that Neanderthal pupils were also vertically aligned.
The theory that Neanderthal eyes were adapted to nocturnal predation additionally
implies the emergence of a larger visual cortex to process low-luminosity visual precepts. In
primates, the primary visual cortex is located in the occipital lobe. Significantly, the
pronounced posteriorly-directed projection of the occipital lobe is a ubiquitous feature of
Neanderthal cranial morphology. This ‘bunning’ is absent in the human skull, suggesting
that the Neanderthal bun may have evolved partially to accommodate an expanded visual
cortex. However, for alternative explanations for Neanderthal occipital bunning; see Geist,
(1978), Lieberman, et. al., (2000), and Smith and Green, (1991).

[Temujin]

If he wants his theory to be taken seriously by the scientific community, why bother with all the sensationalism. He purposely chose to go that route to hock his book and get a television show.

Oh, and color me not suprised, NHNZ is a fucking Fox station. So I guess this will be up there with Alien Autopsy.

[Molyneux]

Actually aside from the slit-eyes the reconstructions do quite closely resemble gorillas:





I think it's mostly the snarling ferocious expressions they give them that does it. Give that face a neutral expression like the gorilla, and take away the scars around the mouth that are pretty obviously designed to evoke an image of streaks of blood, and maybe lighten the picture a bit, and it would look alien but I think the horror movie effect would probably be much reduced.

What are you talking about? The shape of the face is completely different.
The eyes of the fake-Neanderthal are much larger, the brow ridge is much, much more prominent, and the mouth and nose are much, much smaller than in the gorilla. The whole shape of the face is inverted.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, and the slit-pupil snake eyes... you know why they look unnatural? People don't have them. Neither do our close evolutionary relatives. How the hell does that make sense?
I'm tempted to try and contact this guy just to ask him for an explanation; it could be pretty hilarious.

No need: I can copy and paste the relevant section of the paper:

Shit. And here I was hoping he had some pride.

I mean, the whole thing is trash, but he's not even pretending to try, is he? He's just throwing together a list of hypothetical traits he'd like his "deadly nocturnal ape-man" concept to have, then pretending that Neanderthals had them.

[Big Orange]

I think it's mostly the snarling ferocious expressions they give them that does it. Give that face a neutral expression like the gorilla, and take away the scars around the mouth that are pretty obviously designed to evoke an image of streaks of blood, and maybe lighten the picture a bit, and it would look alien but I think the horror movie effect would probably be much reduced.

The faces look pretty different to me and the Neanderthal's eyes and brows look abnormal even for a great ape, let alone a humanoid one. The angry expression, facial scars, the odd and oversized eyes, and very dark, rough complextion appears to be an attempt to make the Neanderthal appear as overly horrible and non-human as possible while still being mostly human (like many alien villains in Star Trek). Although it's still fascinating to envisage early humans socially and (*shudder*) sexually interact with very feral, predatory Neanderthals, twaddle as it most likely is.

Contemporary great apes (and hunter gathering humans) are more acclimatised to going around in pitch blackness than us and they haven't developed evil staring feline eyes, plus the Neanderthal's large eye sockets do not necessarily mean giant eyes:

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

OK, I have gone and read the actual paper that Alyrium Denryle linked to (thank you Alyrium), so as an interested nonscientist I can now talk about what it actually says instead of what's on what appears to be a rather sensationalistic promotional website.

First, a note on the seemingly ludicrous slit-eyes; that's actually based off the paper.

The slit eyes are still ridiculous. As others have pointed out, none of our immediate evolutionary cousins have them. No primate has them, not even the 'primitive' nocturnal lemurs. They have the same round pupils every other primate has. Aye-ayes even have a tapetum lucidum.

The big weakness I see in the argument is the assumption that the last common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals was apelike. For instance I've heard speculation that our loss of body hair was an adaptation for the African grasslands, in which case it would probably have long pre-dated the human-Neanderthal split.

As the last common ancestor of neanderthals and modern humans was an African savannah hominid with thoroughly modern locomotion, it's far more likely that the patterns of their body hair would be adapted to long-distance running and walking (i.e. hair on the top of the head for better temperature regulation, and hair on the underarms and between the legs to prevent chafing.)

The paper also argues it's unlikely Neanderthals had clothing because they didn't have needles - I don't see why they couldn't have just have made belts and used them to tie clothing around themselves. Also the lack of a nose in the reconstruction; the paper suggests that's probable because noses would have been vulnerable to frostbite.

O RLY? Evidence exists to show that Neanderthals had the basics of hide-working down, and could've stitched clothes together with leather strips. Furthermore, they made jewelry, which tends to imply they had awls, at least.

Now as to the meat of the paper. Most of the evidence for their case seems to be circumstantial; the fossil and genetic record fits with their hypothesis if you look at it the right way. I don't see anything impossible in their claims. I don't even find their claims on human-Neanderthal antagonism implausible. IIRC it fits with lions and hyenas, and makes a fair amount of sense for what would happen if you have two intelligent species competing for the same ecological niche.

The paper seems to be the exact inverse of what the rest of archaeology suggests about anatomically-modern humans and neanderthals. Moderns had much better toolkits, didn't need to operate as high on the food chain as big-game specialist neanderthals did, and could get by on fewer calories. When climate shifts hammered the big game neanderthals hunted, and forced them hunt game on open grassland; they lost out to moderns . . . who hadn't lost the endurance running adaptations their ancestors had, because they didn't have the level of cold-weather specialization the neanderthals did.

[Zixinus]

On the topic of Neanderthals: does anybody know a good web-based resource about them and other pre-sapiens humans? Particularly their habbits as deducted by the use of tools.

[Junghalli]

What are you talking about? The shape of the face is completely different.
The eyes of the fake-Neanderthal are much larger, the brow ridge is much, much more prominent, and the mouth and nose are much, much smaller than in the gorilla. The whole shape of the face is inverted.

Eh, yeah, taking a second look at it you're right, it's less gorilla-like than my first impression was.

The slit eyes are still ridiculous. As others have pointed out, none of our immediate evolutionary cousins have them. No primate has them, not even the 'primitive' nocturnal lemurs. They have the same round pupils every other primate has. Aye-ayes even have a tapetum lucidum.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

Well, I don't have the knowledge to respond intelligently to all the points being made here but it's been interesting reading them.

Edit: side-note, some people noted that this interpretation sounded a lot like Bigfoot, I've actually found a website once that put forward a theory that Bigfoot was actually a Neanderthal. Pretty implausible but it would be incredibly cool if that turned out to be true.

[Executor32]

Edit: side-note, some people noted that this interpretation sounded a lot like Bigfoot, I've actually found a website once that put forward a theory that Bigfoot was actually a Neanderthal. Pretty implausible but it would be incredibly cool if that turned out to be true.

Wasn't that an episode of Jonny Quest?

[Big Orange]

While also perhaps going into crank territory has anybody heard about the story of Zana in Russia? This wild hairy woman, who was supposedly mistreated like a circus freak and also bore children, comes across as a plausible Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon throwback. We have very ancient peoples found on islands in the Indian Ocean who have features which have been absorbed or died out on the Africa/Asian mainlands, why not a few Neanderthals or other early modern humans roaming about in recent centuries? One of the creatures the Neanderthal hunted, the mammoth, only started to become extinct a mere four millennia ago (with nicely preserved mammoth corpses sometimes found) and a minority of mammoths could've even been about in the isolated parts of Eurasia and North America as late as the time of the Roman Empire and Han Dynasty.

[ArmorPierce]

As awesome as that theory would be, I find it unlikely. Too far fetched with those eyes

There are a at least a couple of kernals of fact in it.

There is no archeological evidence pointing to whether neanderthals were hairless or not

Reconstruction of soft tissue of a extinct species takes some artistic liberty.

When modern humans first entered the middle east, they were pushed back out by neanderthal before re-entering and pushing out thousands of years later with better tools. Whether humans competed directly (fought each other) or in directly (sought the same resources and food) is a question mark but I wouldn't be surprised if they did kill each other. Human groups tended to be a lot larger though neanderthal groups maxing out at about 30 individuals and humans at 100 (according to that discovery channel documentary) in Europe.

I find it interesting that the beserk chimp reconstructions depict them as having extremely dark skin, despite the fact that the article itself talks about how they were adapted to the conditions in Ice Age Europe, so logically you would expect light skin. That kind of goes double for the hairy reconstruction as fur would prevent sunlight from reaching the skin - chimps, which live in Africa, have light skin, as you can see from this picture.

FYI that's a young chimp. As a chimp ages its skin darkens

[RowanE]

Seeing those images late at night, and thinking about the probably-BS anthropological explanation for why those morlocks look so f-ing scary...
What's the real explanation for why i won't be sleeping tonight?

[Junghalli]

Seeing those images late at night, and thinking about the probably-BS anthropological explanation for why those morlocks look so f-ing scary...
What's the real explanation for why i won't be sleeping tonight?

Probably because like any good monster they have features that push buttons in your brain that says "dangerous". Their explanation is probably half-right, it's just that it's probably not that we're specifically wired to fear that particular creature as that it has attributes that make us instinctively percieve it as threatening (slit eyes like a big cat - which our ancestors probably really were a prey species of - aggressive snarling expressions etc.).

[Korvan]

I found it interesting that he stated the neanderthal skull fit perfectly into a chimp's profile when the two skulls are really quite different in shape. Still, intrigued by his science, I took it upon myself to take the next logical step.





I was unable to come up with any artist's renditions on what the neanderpug might look like.

[Korvan]

After some more searching, I ran across the following depiction of what a neanderpug could look like...

[Spoonist]

@Korvan

[Executor32]

Roast Beef, is that you?

[Dooey Jo]

Does he try to give any justification for why they would be walking around like angry snarling monsters? Real forensic reconstructions don't try to give extreme facial expressions to their models, funny as it would be. I find it pretty hilarious that they make a picture of an angry snarling monster, get freaked out by their own picture (surely there was no expectation bias in that reaction), then conclude that humans must have been hunted by such things in the past and their out freaking is genetically hardwired into their brains.

That's... quite a leap there (though unfortunately not an unpopular one if you look up various bullshit explanations for certain phobias). I'm sure lots of people are freaked out by the facehuggers from Alien. Oh shi

[Shroom Man 777]

I wonder if Neanderthal teeth are anything like a carnivore's.