Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Burner Press Conference | "Fucking ballsy vandals..." »

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Today in Neandertals

posted by on November 14 at 13:42 PM

Neandertals weren’t homo sapiens. They were hominids, like chimps and gorillas and orangutans. And if Neandertals weren’t technically human—if they were, in fact, animals—then this new research at the University of Chicago means that we’re descended from a little bestial dalliance.

Which, at first, sounds unpalatable. But should speciesism stand in the way of Middle Paleolithic love? And what early man could pass up the roguish charms of this young woma—er, I mean, thing?

180px-Neanderthaler-Woman.jpg

Also: Looks like the Neandertals helped us grow big brains, created the elegantly-named Châtelperronian tool technique, and might have carved the world’s first flute out of a bear femur (that, or somebody did some fortuitous chewing).

I don’t care if you weren’t all the way human, Neandertals. You’re all right by me. And, should any of your robust proto-women return from extinction, I will seriously consider any requests to uphold the family tradition and go on a date. (Australopithecines need not apply.)

RSS icon Comments

1

Those teeth look suspiciously straight and white. Check the teeth of modern humans without access to dentistry for comparison, such as in Tibet or England.

Posted by Fnarf | November 14, 2006 2:05 PM
2

Ever the party-pooper, Fnarf. Just let go a little and learn to love the ladies of the 'lithic.

Posted by Brendan Kiley | November 14, 2006 2:08 PM
3

I think you've found the subject for Mudede's next film!

Posted by gfish | November 14, 2006 2:15 PM
4

It's still debatable whether they were humans or not.

Posted by Gitai | November 14, 2006 2:22 PM
5

And it always will be debatable.

Posted by Tone | November 14, 2006 2:25 PM
6

They were not modern humans ie homo sapien, for sure, but they were homo neanderthal, and thus in the same Genus as us. Considering that which means they were a hell of a fucking lot closer to us than orangutans which are only in our Family, not our tribe or our sub family but just our family.

Posted by Andrew | November 14, 2006 2:34 PM
7

I seriously doubt the neandertals were were aware (even subliminally) of the harmonics that produce the diatonic scale. It's pure serendipity, divine intervention or modern tweaking if these notes line up that way. Seems best just to accept the dischordant microtones.

Posted by Experience music | November 14, 2006 2:38 PM
8

Given their almost complete lack of artistic expression and creativity/inventiveness in tool design, I'm quite willing to say they weren't human. Close, certainly, but lacking the only things that makes us worthwhile as a species.

Posted by gfish | November 14, 2006 2:45 PM
9

Um, humans are animals, too.

Posted by B.D. | November 14, 2006 2:48 PM
10

Post-Humans.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | November 14, 2006 3:03 PM
11

One would probably run into the fact that, due to the significant genetic differences between the two, any offspring would be most likely sterile - a sort of human mule, if you will.

Posted by Jeff | November 14, 2006 3:15 PM
12

Physical anthro - a fave!

You bet Neanderthals were hominids - but of the genus homo. Unlike the pan, gorilla, and pongo of your example. The Great Debate is/was whether they were their own species, or a sub-set of homo (I was taught the later). We're all animals in one sense or another; Neanderthals no more or less so - but certainly more, not less, human than our aforementioned hominidae cousins.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 14, 2006 3:17 PM
13

Dear Andrew & LB:

The family/genus/species labels are not based on anything. Birds of the same genus often share far fewer genes than we do with chimpanzees; they probably split off many millennia before we got all picky about our sex partners. You're being all a priori with your ex post facto.

Posted by annie | November 14, 2006 3:48 PM
14

They were genetically close enough to breed with us. That's good enough for me.

Posted by keshmeshi | November 14, 2006 3:53 PM
15

But were they truly smart enough to save a lot of money on their car insurance by switching to Geico?

Posted by Papson L. Jones | November 14, 2006 4:11 PM
16

#13 -
The family/genus/species labels are not based on anything.

Hmm. Not sure of what you mean - The ICZN may be an artificial construct like any listing or hierarchy, but it certainly does mean something. Besides, what a difference a gene or two here and there can make.

Also - a priori assumptions are SOP with respect to anthropological studies and theory. Especially when it involves investigating extinct species.

Say - are you a student of cladistics, by any chance?

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 14, 2006 4:59 PM
17

Yeah, but have you seen how hot our island-dwelling hobbit ancestors WERE?

Ooh la la!

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 14, 2006 5:42 PM
18

No cladistics, fancy pants, just a few books read mostly in high school. The fact is, the ICZN likes its precedents. Linneaean taxonomy predates Darwin; it doesn't always bow to evolutionary discoveries. While an argument could be made that species are a pretty solid category (because interbreeding capacity is an observable trait in the present), family and genus are always inferred, and always fallible. So drawing conclusions about how closely related we are to neandertals based on genus is more or less hopeless.

Posted by annie | November 14, 2006 6:22 PM
19

No flashy trousers here, ma'am - just striving for clarity. I would agree: The ICZN category of 'species' is quite solid as these things go. These are exciting, dynamic times in evolutionary science, the reassigning of taxa no exception as data accumulates and ideas change. But we're talking conclusion making, and the main point here is to promote the idea of just how close Neandertals were to Homo sapiens sapiens.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 14, 2006 8:07 PM
20

The question of H. sapien/H. neandertalensis interbreeding has been a going concern for some time. First it was just a hypothesis, then someone found some convincingly mixed-looking skeletons, now we've got suggestive genetics. Clearly the only way to settle this once and for all is to clone a few and sleep with them. Where can I get a grant for Meddling In Things Man Was Not Meant To Know? NIH is being stingy these days.

Posted by Teratomarty | November 15, 2006 6:51 AM
21

Does this mean we're only a few million years away from Centaurs in Enumclaw? Oh Joy!

Posted by The_Pope_Of_Chili_Town | November 15, 2006 9:20 AM
22

" ...(U)phold the family tradition and go on a date." Those of us who blame almost everything on Bill Clinton (and everything else on Carter) are immediately reminded of Blue Dress Bill coming on and coming and coming to the frozen Andes mummy from the frozen Andes.

Posted by cold juanita the inca and raped juanita the broaddrick | November 15, 2006 9:28 AM
23

In school, I learned that neanderthals were scavenger apes but since Cro Magnon was too fine for our ancestor, the teacher taught that the two interbred..to explain our deficiencies...
Then the multipoint origin theory became popular.. and eveyone had their own ape/ancestor. The blacks had gorillas, the Asians had the Java Man and we had the Neandethal..so we gave him a shave and a haircut..disguised his thieving ways as "tool use" and Frankly I think if we need an "ancestor" we would be better off with Egyptian Cats...because..neanderthals may have buried their dead..but the Egyptian Cats mummified theirs! ..But then the Macedonians can claim Alexanders Horse as their ancestor..a golden tomb..It must have been his wife...and her relatives all attended the funeral..
Don't you love science?

Posted by Just Us | November 20, 2006 10:13 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).