Search Perform an advanced search query SOFTPEDIA
 
SOFTPEDIA
Updated one minute ago
HomeSubmit a program for being reviewedAdvertise on our websiteGet help on surfing our websitesSend us your feedbackGet information about our XML/RSS backend and how to use itBrowse the news archiveVisit our discussion forumVizitati forumul in limba romana



KLIP
  1. HOME
  2. SCIENCE
  3. TECHNOLOGY
  4. WEBMASTER
  5. SECURITY
  6. MICROSOFT
  7. LINUX
  8. APPLE
  9. GAMES
  10. TELECOMS
  11. REVIEWS
  12. LIFE & STYLE
  13. EDITORIALS
  14. INTERVIEWS
  15. RSS
Welcome!
Hello, Guest

Login if you have a Softpedia.com account.

Otherwise, register for one.

BEHAVIOR/HUMANS

Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive

- Intelligence is nothing when communication is lacking

By: Vlad Tarko, Senior Editor, Sci-Tech News

How can we account for the fact that Neanderthals had bigger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens but nonetheless they were eventually eliminated? Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities, thus we are led into believing the Neanderthals were, on the average, smarter than us. How it is than that our ancestors managed to gradually eliminate them?

Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens are two different species that both evolved from Homo Erectus. There was a long debate over the question whether Neanderthals were indeed a different species than Homo Sapiens. Some claimed that, in fact, Neanderthals could crossbreed with Homo Sapiens and that modern humans are the result of this interbreeding. However, tests comparing Neanderthal and modern human mitochondrial DNA show too great a dissimilarity for Neanderthals to have contributed to the human mitochondrial genome. Thus, it seems settled that Neanderthals were indeed wiped out by the arrival of Homo Sapiens in Europe.

But the story is more complicated. Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals appeared from different Homo Erectus populations and inherited different kinds of technological culture. As it happened, Neanderthals inherited the more advanced culture. By "technological culture" it is meant particular techniques
of stone toolmaking. Neanderthals had better stone tools.
Neanderthals spread mostly to Europe and in some parts of Asia. When Homo Sapiens first spread from Africa, around 100 000 years ago, they did not manage to enter Europe, presumably because of Neanderthals, and spread to Asia. However, around 45 000 years ago, when Homo Sapiens had developed the Cro-Magnon type of stone tools, they returned to Europe. This time Neanderthals apparently didn't stand a chance. What happened during that period of around 55 000 years?

Neanderthals were the first humans who buried their dead and they developed better stone tools. It was recently discovered that they also created art figures. However, during the same period of time Homo Sapiens developed much further and faster. Relative to Homo Sapiens' advances in stone tool making Neanderthals look like stagnating. In other words, although Neanderthals were definitely a great advance compared to Homo Erectus, their inventiveness was no match for the Homo Sapiens. But how do we resolve this with the fact that the Neanderthals were probably more intelligent than us?

We can restate the question more precisely: "How do we resolve this with the fact that the Neanderthal individual was probably more intelligent than a modern human individual?" The cranial capacity tells us something about the individuals' mental abilities, but it tells us almost nothing about the social aspects of life.
Studying the inventiveness of Homo Sapiens scientists have found that literally all the major innovations that have changed the way we live, from the use of fire, to agriculture, to writing etc., have developed only in a few places. For example agriculture appeared independently only in around seven places on the entire planet. All the rest of human populations that engaged in farming did it because they had learned it from somebody. Therefore, the most important aspect of inventiveness is not the ability to invent, but the ability to transmit and to preserve innovations.

This gives us an important clue to why Neanderthals failed in the competition with Homo Sapiens. One of the most important means by which innovations are preserved and transmitted is language. Neanderthals had language themselves. This was proven in 1983 when a Neanderthal hyoid bone was found at the Kebara Cave in Israel. The hyoid is a small bone that holds the root of the tongue in place, a requirement to human speech and, therefore, its presence seems to imply some ability to speak. Recent studies found that due to the physical characteristics of Neanderthals' hyoid and the fact that their larynx was stouter than that of modern man, the average note emitted by Neanderthals were high pitched and sharper than that of modern man. This contradicts the stereotype of Neanderthals having ape-like grunts. However, the base of the Neanderthal tongue was positioned higher in the throat, crowding the mouth somewhat. As a result, Neanderthal speech would most likely have been slow-paced and nasalized.

The overall conclusion would be that, although Neanderthals did have the ability to speak, they were capable of articulating only a smaller number of phonemes. Jared Diamond described this limitation using the following example: imagine how many words you could say if the only sounds you were able to make were a, u, c, p. Imagine trying to say "Trinity College is a fine place to work." All you could say were something like "Capupa Cappap up a cap capupap."

This means that in order to transmit certain information much longer propositions are required.
(Apes like the chimpanzee also have the same type of problem. They are able to understand language and they can even be taught how to use the sign language, but they cannot actually speak due to their improper larynx. It is also interesting to remark that the shape of our larynx, a feature that enables us to speak, also has disadvantages: we can choke with food.)

Thus, it seems that the ultimate reason behind Neanderthals extinction was not due to their mental capacities but to the shape of their larynx.
 
Comments | Link here | Subscribe
Print | Send to friend
Today's News | Yesterday's News

Search:

21st December 2005, 09:41 GMT | Copyright (c) 2005 Softpedia | Contact:
Read by 8,374 user(s) | Rating: | 22 vote(s) so far | Cast your vote:
Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive - USER OPINIONS

Comment #1 by Bernie on 2008-03-27, 14:05 GMT reply to this comment 
This article is ridiculous for many reasons, but the most striking reason is the assertion that Neanderthal could have possibly been smarter than Homo sapien sapiens. There is no evidence of this anywhere in the fossil record. Neanderthal may have had a bigger brain, but their brains were smaller relative to their body proportions (Ruff et al, 1997). Moreover, brainsize has little to do with overall intelligence; brain structure is the key factor, here. Evidence shows that Neanderthals frontal brain was not as advanced as modern humans.

While selective pressure in favor of smaller brain volume might seem counterintuitive, it should be noted that the fossil records suggest that brain size in humans, particularly ‘Europeans,’ has decreased over the past 35,000 years | note: Neanderthals are believed to have died out 35, 000 years ago (Mellars and Ramsey, 2005) | and on through the Neolithic period (Frayer, 1984; Ruff et al, 1997; Woods, et al, 2006). These archaeological changes in brain size are paralleled by changes in body size (Ruff et al, 1997; Ruff, 2002), and it is possible that decreases in brain size may have exerted selective pressure for corresponding decreases in body size, particularly in Europeans (Ruff et al, 1997; Frayer, 1984; see also, Woods et al., 2006).

Referenced:

Evan P., Mekel-Bobrov N., Vallender E., Hudson R., Lahn B., (2006). Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. 18178–18183, PNAS November 28, 2006, vol. 103, no. 48

Frayer, D.W. (1984). In The Origins of Modern Humans: A world survey of the Fossil Evidence (eds Smith, F.H. & Spencer, f.) 211-250 (Liss, New York, 1984)

Ruff C.B., Trinkaus E., and Holliday T.W. (1997). Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature Vol. 387, 8 May 1997

Woods R., Freimer N., Young J., Fears S, Sicotte N., Service S., Valentino D., Toga A., Mazziotta J. (2006). Normal Variants of Microcephalin and ASPM Do Not Account for Brain Size Variability. Human Molecular Genetics, Volume 15, Number 12, 15 June 2006, pp. 2025-2029(5)



Reply #1.1 by nicolas chausseau on 2008-06-08, 20:02 GMT
Hello Bernie,

I think your scepticism and criticism is in a large part justified, because this article is a bit sensationalist indeed. The title, especially, is a bit ‘too much’ and misleading in my view. It is inexact to say that The Neanderthals were ‘too smart to survive’.

However, I think that the principle outlined in this article remains very true, and very striking; that is, the main advantage we had over Neanderthals was not ‘intelligence’ or a bigger brain, nor even a particular brain structure, but rather language.

This has some striking implications; the ‘big revolution’ of the modern man and the explosion in the development of elaborate tools and strategies was not triggered by the size nor a particular mutation in the structure of the brain alone. Rather what triggered that increased ‘intelligence’, that ‘smartness’ which mainly distinguished us from other prototypes of humans, was the capacity to communicate, and therefore to share and accumulate more information and solutions. This article is striking because it shows how much we should rethink our definition of intelligence, and rethink the link between intelligence and civilisation. Maybe that cultural evolution, allowed mainly after the apparition of language, is the key, the major cause of what we would instinctively identify as ‘intelligent accomplishments of humans’, like technology, laws, and civilisation.

Jared Diamond, who studied extensively cultural evolution and the making of societies since prehistory, brings a really striking point to this principle:

“…Jared Diamond described this limitation using the following example: imagine how many words you could say if the only sounds you were able to make were a, u, c, p. Imagine trying to say "Trinity College is a fine place to work." All you could say were something like "Capupa Cappap up a cap capupap."

In other words, we were not much more ‘intelligent’ than the Neanderthals (if we were), but our capacity to speak and exchange complex information permitted a cultural evolution that gave ‘us’ an advantage over ‘them’. That cultural evolution later resulted in the modern world and civilisation. That principle is very well highlighted in the theory of memes, proposed by Richard Dawkins: imitation and language allow the apparition of a new form of replicator, the meme (culture), which lives in symbiosis with us humans. The mechanisms of macro cultural evolution (or memetic evolution) throughout prehistory and history are very well showed in Jared Diamond’s Guns Germ and Steel. The mechanisms of technologic evolution, like the combination of technologies to make bigger more complex ones, are also very well showed by James Burke’s documentary Connections.

Susan Blackmore also brings fundamental elements to this discussion and to the questions of ‘intelligence’ and cultural evolution among primates. She rethinked and redefined the meme-gene co evolution (or culture-gene co evolution) that took place through prehistory, at the light of theory of memes, in her amazing book The Meme Machine. She showed that the processes of humanization (like the bigger brain and its mutation to allow and facilitate langugage) were in a large part driven by the replicating memes, by culture. Primatologist Caren Van Schaik also studied imitation and culture among primates and discussed the conditions for the evolution of material culture.

It is also interesting to think that elephants for example are very close to our level of intelligence (they have a big brain and they can manipulate objects very well with their trump), and that all they are missing to start a massive cultural evolution like our own may be language.

Nicolas Chausseau


References:

Blackmore, Susan; The Meme Machine, Oxford University Press, reprint edition 2000, ISBN 0-19-286212-X

Burke, James; Connections: Alternative History of Technology (Time Warner International/Macmillan 1978) ISBN 978-0316116725

Diamond, Jared; Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. 1997 W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-06131-0

Dawkins, Richard The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-19-286092-5 James

Van Schaik, C. P., Deaner, R. O. and Merrill, M. Y. (1999). The conditions for tool use in primates: implications for the evolution of material culture. Journal of Human Evolution, 36(6), 719-741.


Comment #2 by Alastair Archibald on 2008-06-10, 13:14 GMT reply to this comment 
I find it incredible that Neanderthals could have this delicate hyoid bone if they were so linguistically handicapped.

The delicate hyoid we have is a major disadvantage: it's all too easily broken - a result that is fatal to us. However, it allows the tongue to form delicate sounds, so this disadvantage is offset by the exceptional utility of human language.

Did Neanderthals (especially with their rough, big-game-hunting lifestyle) really have this major drawback for so long in the absence of a viable offsetting advantage?

This seems to go against the principles of natural selection to me.


go to top


SHARE YOUR OPINION ABOUT Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive

Since you are not logged on, your comments will have to be approved before being displayed.
Click here to login, or register.
Your Name:
Your Email:
Type in the result:
Your Opinion:
 


DO YOU WANT TO CONTACT US?  

If you have some comments or you want to send us some information you can send us an email directly to .
You can use the form below for the same purpose.
Your full name: (at least 3 characters)
Your email address: (at least 5 characters)
Message subject: (at least 5 characters)
Message text:
(at least 10 characters)
Type in the result:
 
 



© 2001 - 2008 Softpedia. All rights reserved.
Softpedia™ and Softpedia™ logo are registered trademarks of SoftNews NET SRL.
Copyright Information | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Softpedia | Update your software | Archive