Complex Numbers

Out of the Valley

Sometimes you just have to issue a correction. Well, not me, obviously. But other people.

Neandertals don't deserve their bad, dim-witted reputation  
Our hominin ancestor had bigger brains and probably went extinct with climate change. Who are we to judge?

Just kidding, of course. When I'm wrong about something, I'll admit it when I find out otherwise. But in this case, it's a matter of science doing what science does: being self-correcting.

Unfortunately, lots of people stick with what they first hear and then ignore any evidence to the contrary. Well, here's some contrary evidence.

On March 3, 2021, the governors of Texas and Mississippi announced that they were lifting their respective mask mandates, prompting criticism from President Biden, who called the move "Neanderthal thinking." Biden was implying that lifting the mandates was a primitive act — but this understanding of Neandertals is an outdated stereotype, unsupported by modern research.

That, by the way, is not an invitation to argue about politics or politicians.

Neandertals (Homo neanderthalensis) are an extinct species of hominin — the taxonomic name for a tribe that includes living and extinct humans and their ancestors. They lived throughout Eurasia up until about 40,000 years ago. One of the earliest Neandertal fossils was discovered in the Neander Valley in Germany, which is where the species gets its name. Interestingly, the contemporary word for “valley” in German is “tal,” so anthropologists tend to call the species “Neandertal,” not Neanderthal (dropping the 'h').

Completely irrelevant aside: Apparently, there were once very productive silver mines in another German-named valley, Joachimsthal (using the older "th" construction). Coins minted from there were called "Joachimsthalers" or "thalers." This got Anglicized as "dollars." Or, well, I may have some of the details wrong, but that's the gist of how "dollars" got their name.

This is one of the things I'll correct later if I'm wrong, but I can't be arsed to look it up again now. I'm planning on going to see Cruella on Thursday, and I'm busy delving into the source material (Dalmatians movies), so my time is somewhat limited. As far as I can tell, though, the "dal" in "dalmatian" has no linguistic connection to tal, thal, or dollars. Pounds, maybe, if you're Cruella.

If, as research suggests, Neandertals behaved similarly to humans, we either need to rethink our definition of human, or update our definition of Neandertal.

Given that they're all gone, except for traces of genetic material in most of us "sapiens," this may be a moot point.

Where did the brutish stereotype that plagues Neandertals originate? This association can be traced back to 1911, when French paleontologist Marcellin Boule described a newly discovered Neandertal fossil from the La Chapelle-aux-Saints site in France. Boule wrote that the fossil had primitive characteristics, including a hunched posture, big, divergent toes, and large brow ridges which, he argued, signaled a lack of intelligence.

I'm betting that was a conclusion born of phrenology. Science has had a few dead ends, and phrenology was one of them. Unfortunately, as with homeopathy, its effects linger.

Boule's original interpretation of Neandertals was based on an incorrect reconstruction of their skeletons.

But hey, you gotta start somewhere, right?

The wider build and shorter limbs common in Neandertal skeletons has also been seen as primitive compared to early humans, though researchers now argue these were adaptations to a colder climate.

"Primitive" is an unfortunate word. They were well-adapted to their environment, until they weren't. Calling them primitive is like calling a lion primitive compared to a tiger.

It's clear that incorrect early reports shaped assumptions about the behavioral and anatomical nature of Neandertals.

The brutish, sloped-forhead caveman stereotype, usually wearing skins and carrying a club, persists in cartoons to this day. Because it's a convenient shortcut for pre-agricultural humanity (or whatever), it's going to be hard to shake that image.

Dinosaurs once faced a similar issue: throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the general public believed dinosaurs were sluggish and cold-blooded. It wasn't until the 1960s that a small scientific revolution, sparked by new discoveries and led by paleontologist John Ostrom, suggested that dinosaurs were probably active, warm-blooded animals.

Like I said, science is self-correcting. Eventually.

Perhaps the Neandertals need their own revolution — a Neandertal rebirth, if you will — to help the general and scientific community understand that they were a sophisticated, cultured species who made art, had some similar anatomical features to humans, and who went extinct due to a changing climate, not inferiority.

Yeah, look, I get that the author is trying to make a point about climate change. Thing is, there weren't all that many Neandertals (comparatively speaking) in the first place, and obviously there was some interbreeding going on with Sapiens, who at this point number in the billions. Whatever your personal perception is of climate change, it's unlikely that we'll go extinct because of it. Which is not to say that things won't take a major turn for the worse.

In any case, I'm mostly presenting this in my long-standing crusade to counter outdated popular interpretations of science, not to argue about climate change or politics.