I think that the Neanderthals’ relationship to modern humans is a very interesting and complex one. Firstly, the fact that they inter-bred with homo sapiens means that there was some sort of ability to socialize between groups. They may not have been as socially complex as Homo Sapiens were, but there was enough of an overlap that the two groups had children with each other, although there probably weren’t the types of relationships we have with each other today and some people speculate violence between the groups eventually led to the end of Neanderthals.
Their ability to communicate between groups could have been aided by the Neanderthals ability to speak. The discovery of the FOXP2 gene, for me, was one of the most interesting things that we learned this week. Just how complex was Neanderthals’ speaking ability? And our own? The ability to speak could indicated a full blown language, but even if Neanderthals could speak a linguistically defined language with sophisticated syntax, we unfortunately will never be able to hear what it sounded like.
On the other hand, we learned that Neanderthals were a creatively lacking society compared to other groups. They don’t have much art, if any, although there might have been shell jewelry or adornments. It’s interesting to think about what lack of artistic expression could mean for Neanderthal cognition. We know that they had larger brains, but that they developed faster during childhood. But besides the physical make-up of the brain, could the lack of artistic expression point to a less complex internal thought process?
We also know that even if they were not artistically creative, they seemed to be capable of empathy. There is evidence that they took care of the (albeit few and far between) elderly members when they could no longer care for themselves. If they didn’t possess the same cognitive or creative intelligence of their cousins, they certainly seemed to possess a developed social intelligence.
It’s also interesting to think about how even though it seems like Neanderthals had some form of social relationship with homo sapiens they went extinct sooner than the more isolated floresiensis. Some scientists believe it was because of violent conflict with homo sapiens that Neanderthals went extinct, so perhaps despite their social intelligence, the isolated floresiensis had the advantage by living away from other groups. Although looking at it a different way, people still share DNA with Neanderthals today so perhaps they came out on top in the end.
Hi Courtney! I’m so happy you brought up the fact that Neanderthals were not artistic. It’s crazy to think about the fact that their cranial capacity was larger than the modern human with 1520cc. The artistic creativity, I’m guessing, just wasn’t in their brain chemistry. I wonder how though considering modern humans are very smart. We see a lot of similarities between us and the Neanderthals though because we too express sympathy in huge ways. We also take thought into burials when our people pass away and how to express those who have passed in a remembering way. It is really interesting to think that Neanderthals were extinct before homo floresiensis, even though we are believed to share DNA with Neanderthals through lab work performed by scientists. Empathy is such an important trait that I think Neanderthals contained in their DNA, and something we definitely share with them that makes us think they are similar to us in many ways.
Hello, I found your post to be a great read as you were able to bring great insight in how the neanderthals had a lack of artistic creative. This topic is very interesting because we would now wonder why us as humans may not see more of these creatures as art. I fell the same way learning about these human like creatures and not being able to see more of their history in museums or even in history art. I do not know if it was not for this course we will not know much about the hominin creation and or neanderthals . I think it is very much amazing how their are extinct creature that are similar to humans today. Lastly, I like the statement of how the neanderthals may not have artistic creative but they are cable of empathy because how they had to take care of one another. I believe that is a great logic to understand from ones research or writing to understand such a culture.
I was also intrigued by the FOXP2 gene that was found present in the Neanderthals giving them the ability to speak. On top of them having a larger brain than previously found I was curious as to how they would have communicated. Carrying the FOXP2 gene showed biological signs of vocal speaking with the larynx, pharynx and trachea, all indicating that a full language could have been present. Anthropologists also found that they also showed signs of compassion by looking at remains, showing injuries present in the elderly Neanderthals meaning that they would have had to been taken care of by the group. This too was something new that was not found in previously studied groups. I am curious to know if compassion is in some what relation to the ability to speak.
Hi Courtney! I also chose Neanderthals for my blog post and found many of the same (or similar) things interesting. The discovery of the FOXP2 gene and mutations in both humans and Neanderthals was particularly fascinating because of its importance to history, biology, and naturally, anthropology. Oftentimes on television or in film, “cavemen” are portrayed as dumb creatures that do nothing and speak in grunts. Although, like you said, we don’t know what Neanderthals sounded like and they very well could have spoken in grunts. However, given the bones around their larynx and the FOXP2 gene (as well as the fact mice have this gene and they squeak, learned from the movie we watched), it seems it would be likely, with their big brains too, that they could maybe speak more. It is also interesting to think about their massive brains (bigger than our own) and their inability to make art. Not that we learned about any non-humans that could make art, but it makes me wonder what in our brains and what specific parts that manage creativity, developed or developed differently than in Neanderthals. Lastly, I also agree that it is super intriguing the relationship between Neanderthals and humans that sometimes must have been intimate, but, as we learned in the lecture 7 video, they were different enough from each other that it occurred not often.
Great post. I actually found the part about them inter breeding super interesting to. You brought up the fact that this suggest some type of social complexity and I think that super cool and says a lot about how much they were evolving as well. I wonder if the any of the violence leading to the end of the Neanderthals could have been rape, seeing that forced intercourse can be used as a power tool. Could the interbreeding be due to rape offspring? The gene finding was interesting, i also wonder how well developed they were in communicating, i wonder if they just made sounds and had a mutual understanding of them or if they did have their own language. Also i wonder if the language barrier could have led to violence with other groups due to lots of miscommunication
Hey! I wrote my post on Neanderthals as well since I thought the relationship between them and us was so interesting. You are exactly right at how complex it is as well. I really do wonder if Neanderthals were intellectually developed enough to have their own language. And if they did have some sort of language I wonder how complex it was. As we learned their brain size was much larger than ours but that does not mean they were particularly intellectually smarter than humans today. All it means is they developed a lot faster than modern humans. We have evidence of this as there is not much art of any sort from their species.
Hey! it was very hearing you describe a distinction between social and creative intelligence. What distinguishes the two? what is necessary of either? My understanding of empathy, and it could be very wrong, is that it is made possible by our ability to conceptualize ourself and others. I always understood it as a sort of metaphor where we relate ourselves to another, simulating their position. But this seems like it would support creative intelligence as well? I had also heard that there is a sort of what that we can read the emotions of others in their facial expression, regardless of what culture they are from. if we call this knowing of another emotions empathy, then it seems to be occurring before any cultural process?
Hello Courtney,
When learning about the mixing of Neanderthals and homo sapiens, I had not realized that this means they had some type of socialization. Would this mean that they had some shared language.. or maybe just communication with like hand symbols? A comment above me said that they probably could perceive empathy. I wish this species was around today for us to observe, I would love to see the emotional side of things rather than just studying the DNA. I wonder what they would be like today, and how they would be treated. Like animals, or like people? I find it interesting that Neanderthals were not artistically inclined since there are a lot of ancient cave paintings. I am not sure why i just kind of related these two things before this class.
Thank you for your post
Hi Courtney, I enjoyed reading your discussion about the socialization between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. It seems very interesting that there is evidence of them interbreeding and I would love to know what the interactions were like between the two species. Both shared many common characteristics and I wonder what life would have been like when both species co existed. I think a lot can also be learned by the fact that there is little evidence that Neanderthals created artwork. I believe artwork indicates abstract thinking and even though their brain size was larger it may not have been able to think abstractly and this could have been a reason that lead to their extinction. However, like you mentioned the Neanderthals made significant interactions with the Homo sapiens and there is even evidence of their DNA in humans today.
Hi Courtney! I did not pay much attention to the fact that Neanderthals mated with Homo Sapiens. This piece of information makes the findings make more sense. For instance, Neanderthals used tools and modern humans use tools too. Neanderthals also had huge brain sizes. Modern humans have big brain sizes, which are a little bit less than that of Neanderthals. Neanderthals were also suited to their environment. We saw earlier that the early humans were pretty adapted to their environment. This is evident from the short tibia of the Neanderthals. Organisms living in cold climates have short tibia. This can also be seen in Eskimos in modern humans. While organisms living in warmer climates have long legs. This shows us how Neanderthals, early humans and modern humans were adapted to their climate.
Hey!
I enjoyed reading your post and I agree to a lot of points of your post as well. I learned many things about the Neanderthals and the relationship between Neanderthals and modern human. The most interesting idea I had in common with you was the possible ability to communicate related to the discovery of Fox P2 gene. It was surprising idea that there were another hominin that could speak a linguistically defined language with sophisticated syntax. However, I wonder why they were not very social as much as other hominin even with the potential possibility of speaking ability. Also, I was really interested to the idea that there was a social relationship between homo sapiens and Neanderthals, and it might lead the extinction of Neanderthals. I believe that there were some sort of violent conflict between Neanderthals and Homosapiens, and homo sapiens probably had dominance over the other because they had certain ability to socialize and form a group.
Thanks for thoughtful post!
Your post is very interesting, as you attempted to explore the societal behavior and tendencies of Neanderthals and compare it with modern humans. This is a very difficult comparison but I think it is important because it clearly contrasts the two. I like your speculation that Neanderthals had to be somewhat social because they were able to mate with homo sapiens. I think this makes a lot of sense and while Neanderthals probably did not interact like we do today, they had to have been able to communicate a little bit. I also think that Neanderthals showing signs of empathy is a very crucial characteristic since it is the first time we have seen empathy in a species. This means that somehow Neanderthals developed empathy in a way no other species had done before, which means a lot.
“Reflection Blog Comments (due on Sunday by 11:30PM): (125 words each) Read 2 other students’ postings from this week’s reflection posts and leave a comment.”1
The comment you made on the Neanderthal having compassion is something I found to be intriguing.2 I understand that our evolutionary ancestor the Neanderthal was sentient. That in and of itself is amazing to me: “Now they are a little bit advanced they probably did bury their dead. We have examples of where the dead have been carefully arranged in pits in the ground.”3
If that is really something of note as I think it is. Than it shows an higher quantity of cognition then one may have initially inferred.
Table of Authorities
1 anthropology.msu.edu/anp206-us19/schedule/week-6/
2 anthropology.msu.edu/anp206-us19/2019/08/09/week-6-5/
3 file:///C:/Users/Patrick/OneDrive/anp206_wk6_lecture2_transcript.pdf