What were Neanderthals Exactly?

[Big Orange]

What were the Neanderthals and how do they relate to the human race as we know it today? How were they not seen as not being fully human as such?

They existed as relatively recently as 50, 000 BC across much of Europe and western Asia. They had a larger brain capacity than present day humans, although that wouldn't necessarily make them smarter modern humans and they possibly had more birth complications. They also co-existed alonside humans and they also died out by 25, 000 BC.

Were the Neanderthals exterminated by modern humans, killed by enviromental changes or absorbed by the homo sapien sapiens? Do the Neanderthals still have living ancestors amongst the modern population? A slightly goofy theory I've heard is that red was inhereted from humans interbreeding with Neanderthals.

[Frank Hipper]

I beleive there are no satisfactory and conclusive answers to any of those questions, yet.

[King Kong]

Homo erectus was (probably) the first to spread out of Africa, into Asia and Europe. In Europe, erectus evolved into the Neanderthals to cope with the harsh climate, such as becoming stockier to conserve body heat. Meanwhile, the erectus populations that stayed behind in Africa eventually evolved into us. Neanderthal social development was likely restricted by the climate; they lived in small, self-sufficient bands widely separated from others, an ideal strategy for dealing with the climate, but it prevents ideas and technology from being spread, along with encouraging inbreeding. There was some technological development immediately before their extinction, but these advances may have been introduced by humans.

I doubt mere climate change would have killed off Neanderthals; they prospered in one of the most difficult climate zones during the Ice Age. We must of had some impact, though it doesn't have to be extermination. Life would have been very difficult for Neanderthals, and any serioius competition (which we were) would have been enough for their populations to slowly disintegrate.

Recent evidence indicates that humans have no Neanderthal ancestors, so there was likely little, if any, interbreeding between us and the Neanderthals.

[Imperial Overlord]

Recent evidence indicates that humans have no Neanderthal ancestors, so there was likely little, if any, interbreeding between us and the Neanderthals.

The genetic evidence currently tends to support the idea that Neanderthals are not our ancestors, but it is based on a few samples and contradicted by several finds of remains which suggest successful interbreeding. There is strong evidence that modern human and Neanderthals lived in close vacinity at the same time and it is likely that there was intermarriage. Whether or not such unions produced issue is under debate. It remains one of the "hot topics" in archeology/anthropology. Don't count it settled yet.

The idea that modern humans evolved exclusively in Africa is extremely controversial amoung the anthropological community. While the majority of the populations was African an alternate hypothesis is that the population while the population of modern man was most strongly concentrated in Africa it was spread over Eurasia as well.

[King Kong]

The genetic evidence currently tends to support the idea that Neanderthals are not our ancestors, but it is based on a few samples and contradicted by several finds of remains which suggest successful interbreeding.

I have only heard of genetic evidence which discounts this idea. Here is another link which describes more genetic research discounting Neanderthal ancestors, and mentions the remains which you may be referring to.

However, there is controversy over theories that Neanderthals made a contribution to the gene pool of people living today.

This has been fuelled by a skeleton uncovered in Portugal that appears to show both Neanderthal and human features.

Regardless of whether these finds are human-Neanderthal hybrids, the genetic evidence (again, which I have heard of) supports the idea that Neanderthals made little contribution to our genetic heritage, which was addressed in the OP. Inbreeding, as you said, may have taken place but had little impact.

The idea that modern humans evolved exclusively in Africa is extremely controversial amoung the anthropological community. While the majority of the populations was African an alternate hypothesis is that the population while the population of modern man was most strongly concentrated in Africa it was spread over Eurasia as well.

Genetic diversity is by far the greatest in Africa, supporting the idea that humans exclusively evolved there. I will admit that significant contributions may have been made from indigenous populations, as described in this paper, but modern humans evolved solely in Africa. Some more support for this idea.

My understanding was that the traditional multiregional hypothesis, which described ancestral homonid populations independently evolving into archaic humans, eventually homogenizing into humanity through interbreeding, had been discredited by this genetic evidence.

[Imperial Overlord]

The genetic evidence (which is only from a few samples) gives support the idea that we have no Neanderthal ancestors, but it doesn't conclusively prove it.

That the greatest amount of genetic diversity is found in Africa does not support the "Out of Africa" thesis over the "multiregional" because both the Out of Africa and multiregional hypothesis concur that the vast majority of the early human population was located in Africa and thus it would have the greatest genetic diversity and the greatest genetic impact.

These arguements are far from settled, nor will they be settled in the near future (because no one is going to admit defeat). More genetic testing will probably be helpful in this regard, but these arguements have been on going for about a century complete with many rival papers, finds that seem to support one side or another, and questionable interpretations of evidence.

[King Kong]

The genetic evidence (which is only from a few samples) gives support the idea that we have no Neanderthal ancestors, but it doesn't conclusively prove it.

Agreed.

That the greatest amount of genetic diversity is found in Africa does not support the "Out of Africa" thesis over the "multiregional" because both the Out of Africa and multiregional hypothesis concur that the vast majority of the early human population was located in Africa and thus it would have the greatest genetic diversity and the greatest genetic impact.

Ah. As I mentioned in the previous post, I thought the multiregional hypothesis claimed that humans, in essence, independently evolved in various regions then homogenized into a single species through widespread interbreeding. This would create massively different heritages for people who originated in Asia, Africa, or Europe. I thought you were contesting the point that humans (primarily) evolved in Africa.

It seems that the two theories differ primarily in how much genetic material archaic human populations contributed to our gene pool. Both seem to agree that archaic human populations emerged in Africa and spread to Eurasia. They differ in how completely modern humans originated, whether from an entirely new population in Africa which supplanted the previous populations, or from inbreeding between the widespread archaic human groups.

These arguements are far from settled, nor will they be settled in the near future (because no one is going to admit defeat). More genetic testing will probably be helpful in this regard, but these arguements have been on going for about a century complete with many rival papers, finds that seem to support one side or another, and questionable interpretations of evidence.

Unfortunately true. Hopefully enough evidence will be amassed to favor one interpretation over the other, if by nothing else than Occam's Razor. One argument will simply become too complex and convoluted in its attempt to explain all the available evidence.

[Ariphaos]

It's important to remember that homo erectus did not just show up, wander out of Africa, then stop wandering out of africa. Neanderthals are, IIRC, believed to be an offshoot of Homo Sapiens from before the last human exctinction crisis (the toba eruption ~70,000 years ago). They are instead believed to have branched off of humanity ~200,000 years ago (this is a very vague date, for obvious reasons).

So you will sometimes see the distinction, homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanthadralis, since the latter still had fire and other distinctive marks of human development (IMNSHO, the discovery of fire is as good a marker between homo erectus and homo sapiens as any).

No evidence of their genetics reaching the modern day has been found. It's not that they couldn't have bred, but, they and their 7,000 calorie-a-day diet would have been placed under extreme pressures as the next ice age started, and doubly so when modern humans arrived. Their speech, if they had it, would be considered to be incredibly nasal and inarticulate, while their larger cranium may simply house a simpler - not necessarily better - brain.

This leaves even crossbreeds open to strong selection pressure, so it's not too surprising, anyway.

[Imperial Overlord]

No evidence of their genetics reaching the modern day has been found. It's not that they couldn't have bred, but, they and their 7,000 calorie-a-day diet would have been placed under extreme pressures as the next ice age started, and doubly so when modern humans arrived. Their speech, if they had it, would be considered to be incredibly nasal and inarticulate, while their larger cranium may simply house a simpler - not necessarily better - brain.

This leaves even crossbreeds open to strong selection pressure, so it's not too surprising, anyway.

They survived for considerable lengths of time in close proximity to modern humans so while they did go, they didn't go that quickly. Selection pressure didn't wipe them amount immediately and would not have prevented them from interbreeding. It does explain why we might carry only a small amount of their genetic material (if we carry any). Genetic testing on this on this issue is on its infancy and only a few samples have been tested.

[Elfdart]

What were the Neanderthals and how do they relate to the human race as we know it today? How were they not seen as not being fully human as such?

Most likely, neanderthals were members of our genus (Homo), but not our species (sapiens). For an analogy, just look at another genus of mammals: Panthera, the big cats. In that genus, you have:

Panthera tigris -Tigers
Panthera leo -Lions
Panthera onca -Jaguars
Pathera pardus -Leopards
Panthera uncia -Ounces
Panthera gombaszoegensis -extinct European cat

Now many scientists thought Neanderthals were a subspecies/ race of Homo sapiens, meaning they were no more different from Caucasians, Africans, Asians or Australian Aborigines than those races were from one another. DNA tests and common sense would rule that out. Neanderthal skeletons are VERY different from ours. They are much thicker, sturdier and the skulls are easy to tell apart. There's more difference between a human skeleton and a neanderthal's than there is between a tiger's and a lion's. It's actually quite difficult to tell lions and tigers apart from looking at their bones, which is why there is so much debate about whether the great cats found in North America are lions, tigers or possibly another species of great cat.

One difference aside from the skeletons is found in coprolites from Neanderthals, which show that they ate meat and little else.

Were the Neanderthals exterminated by modern humans, killed by enviromental changes or absorbed by the homo sapien sapiens? Do the Neanderthals still have living ancestors amongst the modern population? A slightly goofy theory I've heard is that red was inhereted from humans interbreeding with Neanderthals.

It's possible that a few humans carry Neanderthal genes, but it's not anything significant or Neanderthal features would show up and in fact, they don't.

It's not likely that humans made Neanderthals go extinct any more than coyotes made the wolf go extinct (or the wolf made the dire wolf go extinct). They simply filled in the empty places where their larger and more powerful kin were. Humans most certainly benefitted in the same way. Another example is the grey squirrel taking over areas from the red squirrel in Britain. The greys aren't killing off the reds, it's just that red squirrels live mainly in pine forests in cooler climates and grey ones prefer oaks and other deciduous trees in warmer climates. As the Oak Line moves farther north, the red squirrels are being squeezed.

Neanderthals were well adapted for cold and/ or dry climates and preying on the large animals that lived in those climates. Humans were used to smaller game, scavenging/ cooperating with dogs, and eating things other than meat. So when the glaciers moved back and the large animals became scarce, Neanderthals had to compete with their smaller and weaker (but better-adapted) kin and died out. This is almost identical to what happened with the dire wolf in North America when the megafauna disappeared. Since there was no longer anything it could do that the smaller species (which need less food) couldn't do, there was no need for them.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What were the Neanderthals and how do they relate to the human race as we know it today? How were they not seen as not being fully human as such?

They were a distinctly different species of hominids which apparently descended from Homo Erectus who were living in Europe and Asia Minor. Our branch descended from Erectus living in Africa through Homo heidelbergensis. Which is to say the last time we shared a common ancestor with them was something like half a million years ago.

They existed as relatively recently as 50, 000 BC across much of Europe and western Asia. They had a larger brain capacity than present day humans, although that wouldn't necessarily make them smarter modern humans and they possibly had more birth complications. They also co-existed alonside humans and they also died out by 25, 000 BC.

The largest Neanderthal cranial capacities exceeded those of modern humans, yes, but the average was only comparable to ours. IIRC However, as you correctly pointed out, cranial capacity is only one factor in comparative intelligence. Another factor was how the brain was laid out, and theirs and ours were laid out in somewhat different ways.

Were the Neanderthals exterminated by modern humans, killed by enviromental changes or absorbed by the homo sapien sapiens? Do the Neanderthals still have living ancestors amongst the modern population? A slightly goofy theory I've heard is that red was inhereted from humans interbreeding with Neanderthals.

A) Modern Homo Sapiens pushing into Neanderthal territories probably contributed to their extinction, yes. However, it was mostly due to Homo Sapiens being better competitors for the available resources than the Neanderthals. There were also climate changes taking place that allowed anatomically modern humans to spread out of Africa. Changes that the Neanderthals weren't well-equipped to handle. The changing climate probably played as much a role in their dying out as pressure from expanding Homo Sapiens populations in their habitats.

B) The bulk of genetic evidence indicates that Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis were completely incapable of interbreeding. Especially damning are recent studies of nuclear DNA. So, no, there are no Neanderthals currently living among us.

[Ariphaos]

They survived for considerable lengths of time in close proximity to modern humans so while they did go, they didn't go that quickly. Selection pressure didn't wipe them amount immediately and would not have prevented them from interbreeding. It does explain why we might carry only a small amount of their genetic material (if we carry any). Genetic testing on this on this issue is on its infancy and only a few samples have been tested.

It's still 30,000 years of selection pressure in extremely adverse conditions after the main 'species' died out. Since the first such genetic test involved a plethora of those with European, Asian and American descent (a few hundred, compared two two Africans), it will likely require an very intensive testing process to select them out.

[Anguirus]

Now many scientists thought Neanderthals were a subspecies/ race of Homo sapiens, meaning they were no more different from Caucasians, Africans, Asians or Australian Aborigines than those races were from one another.

A subspecies is different from a human "race." For one thing, there are certainly no Latin names for human races, which they would have were they subspecies.

Scientists used to overestimate the differences between human races, true, but this is 50+ years ago we're talking now. Scientists today who think the Neandertal is a subspecies of Homo sapiens would certainly not compare them to a modern ethnic group.

[Big Orange]

What annoys me about political correctness is it applies to Neanderthals and they should not be depicted as sub-human, when in reality they essentially were sub-human (and it applies to other early hominids as well). It may not sound PC, but there is enough evidence to suggest that they were not quite human (as we understand it now) and they belonged to a separate branch to our direct ancestors (or so the archaeological evidence points to).

I think the term "sub-human" is a very loaded phrase since it's been horribly abused by European people in the last 500 years with black slavers treating Africans as cattle or the Nazis killing inmates in concentration camps. The oppressors labelled their victims as "sub-human" so that they could disassociate themselves and make the job slightly easier.

However the Neanderthals fill the criteria of literarily being sub-human and they must've acted in a much different manner and looked much different to us, even though they were thinking beings that could possibly mate with humans and have offspring (who may have been sterile). They could handle tools, make fire and may even had some form of culture, but they were not human (it seems that way judging from evidence).

What would happen if Neanderthals were found today? They would most likely be put into protective custody in a nature reserve under human minders (like with gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutans). The human carers would most likely emotionally bond with the Neanderthals, but would they fully socialise with other in a human like manner?

[Lord Woodlouse]

I don't honestly say I've ever seen or heard anyone try and use PC terminology with regard Neanderthals.

They're a level above any present day animals, and they'd probably be given most rights that apply to humans in the long run. They might even be given land more like an Indian reservation than a wildlife reserve, depending on just how intelligent the chaps proved to be.

*shrug* "Sub-human" is an unnecisary term. It basically means "less than human", and for such a term to have any significance you need to define what makes one better than others. I mean we're sub-bacteria, from certain points of view. A better and more descriptive term is "not human".

[skotos]

What would happen if Neanderthals were found today? They would most likely be put into protective custody in a nature reserve under human minders (like with gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutans). The human carers would most likely emotionally bond with the Neanderthals, but would they fully socialise with other in a human like manner?

I suspect evidence on this is rather sketchy (I doubt many research dollars go to making contingency plans for discovering a lost tribe of Neanderthals), but is there any evidence that if modern Neanderthals were found, they couldn't be fully integrated into modern society? It would take a great deal of work to learn their language (assuming they had one) and a great deal of culture shock invovled, but I wonder if after a few generations of integration Neanderthals couldn't operate exactly [iHome Sapiens[/i].

Of course, the legal questions are fascinating as well. Would countries grant them citizenship? Would the 14th Amendment apply?

[General Zod]

What would happen if Neanderthals were found today? They would most likely be put into protective custody in a nature reserve under human minders (like with gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutans). The human carers would most likely emotionally bond with the Neanderthals, but would they fully socialise with other in a human like manner?

I suspect evidence on this is rather sketchy (I doubt many research dollars go to making contingency plans for discovering a lost tribe of Neanderthals), but is there any evidence that if modern Neanderthals were found, they couldn't be fully integrated into modern society? It would take a great deal of work to learn their language (assuming they had one) and a great deal of culture shock invovled, but I wonder if after a few generations of integration Neanderthals couldn't operate exactly [iHome Sapiens[/i].

Of course, the legal questions are fascinating as well. Would countries grant them citizenship? Would the 14th Amendment apply?

Click me. Apparently not only did humans and neanderthals used to coexist, they've mated and produced offspring, so the chances are fairly good that several modern humans have at least some trace of neanderthal DNA.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

What would happen if Neanderthals were found today? They would most likely be put into protective custody in a nature reserve under human minders (like with gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutans). The human carers would most likely emotionally bond with the Neanderthals, but would they fully socialise with other in a human like manner?

I suspect evidence on this is rather sketchy (I doubt many research dollars go to making contingency plans for discovering a lost tribe of Neanderthals), but is there any evidence that if modern Neanderthals were found, they couldn't be fully integrated into modern society? It would take a great deal of work to learn their language (assuming they had one) and a great deal of culture shock invovled, but I wonder if after a few generations of integration Neanderthals couldn't operate exactly [iHome Sapiens[/i].

Of course, the legal questions are fascinating as well. Would countries grant them citizenship? Would the 14th Amendment apply?

Click me. Apparently not only did humans and neanderthals used to coexist, they've mated and produced offspring, so the chances are fairly good that several modern humans have at least some trace of neanderthal DNA.

That's seven year old news. Recent findings with Neanderthal nuclear DNA, no less, suggest that humans and Neanderthal interbred very little, if at all.

Divergent code

So far, Paabo and colleagues have managed to sequence around a million base-pairs, which comprises 0.03% of the Neanderthal's entire DNA "catalogue", or genome. Base-pairs are the simplest bonded chemical units which hold together the DNA double helix.

The genetic material comes from a 45,000-year-old male Neanderthal specimen found in Vindija Cave outside Zagreb, the News@Nature website reports.

Preliminary analysis shows the bundle of DNA responsible for maleness in the Neanderthal - its Y chromosome - is very different from modern human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes; more so than for the other chromosomes in the genome.

This might suggest that little interbreeding occurred between our own species and the Neanderthals.

[Elfdart]

What annoys me about political correctness is it applies to Neanderthals and they should not be depicted as sub-human, when in reality they essentially were sub-human (and it applies to other early hominids as well). It may not sound PC, but there is enough evidence to suggest that they were not quite human (as we understand it now) and they belonged to a separate branch to our direct ancestors (or so the archaeological evidence points to).

I think the consensus of opinion is that they were a different species from our own. This doesn't mean thet were actually inferior (which a term like sub-human implies), except that in order to grow those extra-thick bones, those giant sinuses and that larger brain required more food than the average human did. That was fine when there a large section of Eurasia was a cold, dry plain with huge mammals to hunt. It's not so fine when much of that same habitat turns to forests with smaller game and less of it, or deserts with less than that.

I think the term "sub-human" is a very loaded phrase since it's been horribly abused by European people in the last 500 years with black slavers treating Africans as cattle or the Nazis killing inmates in concentration camps. The oppressors labelled their victims as "sub-human" so that they could disassociate themselves and make the job slightly easier.

I'm not so much concerned with "racism" against an extinct species as the fact that the term doesn't really fit. "Non-human" or "humanoid" is more like it.

[Ypoknons]

Another theory splits Homo erectus into erectus (outside of Africa) and egraster (AKA africa bound erectus). Egraster would then become Homo heidelbergensis (Goliath), which also migrated would in term spawn neanderthalensis in Europe and sapiens in Africa, where sapiens would migrate out of Africa again, making erectus a dead-end.

[Big Orange]

I think the consensus of opinion is that they were a different species from our own. This doesn't mean thet were actually inferior (which a term like sub-human implies), except that in order to grow those extra-thick bones, those giant sinuses and that larger brain required more food than the average human did.

They must've had a similar intelligence level to humans, but their brain may have been arranged differently and they may have had totally different thought parameters, being non-human and all. One of the stranger theories about Neanderthals I've read is that they could've had similar thought patterns to modern autistic people.

That was fine when there a large section of Eurasia was a cold, dry plain with huge mammals to hunt. It's not so fine when much of that same habitat turns to forests with smaller game and less of it, or deserts with less than that.

The relatively sudden environmental changes wouldn't have helped, but if Neanderthals were primate humanoids with human like intelligence they could've coped with sudden changes like humans will when the icecaps melt and we colonise space. Also what with homo sapien sapiens being the genocidal fucks that they still are, I wouldn't be surprised that humans were actively exterminating the Neanderthals and if there were Neandethal half-breeds in human communities they would most likely be social outcasts. And I wonder if all the myths and legends about evil ogres or stupid giants could be in some way be based on very ancient tales about the Neanderthals, when humans came into contact with them.

I'm not so much concerned with "racism" against an extinct species as the fact that the term doesn't really fit. "Non-human" or "humanoid" is more like it.

If Australians Aborigines who are homo sapien sapiens coped very badly with the arrival of Europeans and then drifted off into alcoholism, poverty and petty crime, I doubt the Neanderthals would cope either if they were discovered by modern humans. And speciesm (not racism) would be a issue and more unscrupolous humans would abuse or exploit them, if there was no humanitarian intervention.

[ArmorPierce]

And I wonder if all the myths and legends about evil ogres or stupid giants could be in some way be based on very ancient tales about the Neanderthals, when humans came into contact with them.

I heard a hypothesis that those story's may actually come from ancient stories about an enormous ape that co-existed with homo-erectus I believe. Neanderthals weren't tall neither, but I can see stories about ogres living under the bridge being an outcast and shit.

[Ender]

A slightly goofy theory I've heard is that red was inhereted from humans interbreeding with Neanderthals.

I don't understand this sentance. Did you typo and"red" is supposed to be another word? is it an acronym? Becuase otherwise that's just a bizarre statement.

[Big Orange]

A slightly goofy theory I've heard is that red was inhereted from humans interbreeding with Neanderthals.

I don't understand this sentance. Did you typo and"red" is supposed to be another word? is it an acronym? Becuase otherwise that's just a bizarre statement.

I was meant to say "red hair", Ender - that's what you get if you have no "edit" function, I'm afraid.