Pondering the decline of Neanderthals

[Micael]

There are a number of theories as to why Neanderthals went extinct as a separate species (though in part live on in us.)

The proposal that modern humans effectively conquerered and eradicated them has often been brought up, but there are some problems with that. It’s clear to us now that the Neanderthals were physically much stronger built and more durable than modern man. Twice as strong bones, a skull and neck much stronger (and therefore able to withstand much more punishment), and strenghtwise I saw one estimate that said that an average Neanderthal male was 126% stronger than an average modern human male. More than twice as strong and less susceptible to blunt force injury. This is sometimes explained with things such as modern humans were smarter (doubtful, and hard to prove), that Neanderthal arms were ill suited to wielding ranged weapons such as javelins (possible), or that modern humans were much better adapted for endurance running whereas Neanderthals were more suited to explosive sprints (likely correct.)

However when you look at primitive warfare and apply it to how skirmishes and battles between Neanderthals and modern humans might have looked like, it seems dubious to me. Close quarters combat with a Neanderthal must have been terribly difficult, going head to head with someone more than twice your strenght and able to take much more abuse than you? Not a great recipe for success. Using ranged weapons and avoiding close combat seems unlikely to have a decisive effect. Just javelins and the like would seem relatively easy for (most of) the Neanderthals to dodge, and their explosive sprint capability should mean that they would be able to rapidly close the distance to their enemies and transform the battle into one of hand to hand combat.

If we add to the above that the mixing between Neanderthals and modern humans seems to have been quite substantial it also seems to support a history of not necessarily all confrontational behaviour. While current day humans outside of Africa now have about 1-2% Neanderthal genes, some studies have suggested that this is misleading as to how much mixture actually occurred since non-useful genes have been dropped due to evolutionary pressure since. Indeed estimates that around 10-20% of the ancestry of current day humans are Neanderthal. So one in ten or one in five of your ancestors are Neanderthal. That seems to be too much to result from chance encounters and the like.

I think we can get closer to the truth of the matter if we instead consider protein consumption and availability of megafauna prey animals. The Neanderthals, with their large brains and massive muscle package, would have required a protein intake comparable at a minimum to modern very large bodybuilders but likely even much higher than that. This would have necessitated consuming several pounds of meat every day. The availability of large prey would thus be paramount to their ability to survive. Modern humans would in contrast have required less, and are also known to have taken to more of a mixed diet with foraging supplanting their hunter lifestyle.

In essence I am thus of the belief that Neanderthals did not experience an outright eradication at the hands of modern man, but that their dietary requirements hampered population growth, and restricted their ability to adapt to a supposed era presenting a reduction in suitable prey animals. Whereas modern humans were able to expand their population under said conditions and eventually supplant their cousins. I find this explanation more logical than the alternative.

What do you all think?

[jemhouston]

My first question would be, when you say Modern Human, are you talking about some born in the last 75 years or born when Neanderthals were running around. That might be make some difference to food intake needs.

[MFOM]

There are a number of theories as to why Neanderthals went extinct as a separate species (though in part live on in us.)

The proposal that modern humans effectively conquerered and eradicated them has often been brought up, but there are some problems with that. It’s clear to us now that the Neanderthals were physically much stronger built and more durable than modern man. Twice as strong bones, a skull and neck much stronger (and therefore able to withstand much more punishment), and strenghtwise I saw one estimate that said that an average Neanderthal male was 126% stronger than an average modern human male. More than twice as strong and less susceptible to blunt force injury. This is sometimes explained with things such as modern humans were smarter (doubtful, and hard to prove), that Neanderthal arms were ill suited to wielding ranged weapons such as javelins (possible), or that modern humans were much better adapted for endurance running whereas Neanderthals were more suited to explosive sprints (likely correct.)

However when you look at primitive warfare and apply it to how skirmishes and battles between Neanderthals and modern humans might have looked like, it seems dubious to me. Close quarters combat with a Neanderthal must have been terribly difficult, going head to head with someone more than twice your strenght and able to take much more abuse than you? Not a great recipe for success. Using ranged weapons and avoiding close combat seems unlikely to have a decisive effect. Just javelins and the like would seem relatively easy for (most of) the Neanderthals to dodge, and their explosive sprint capability should mean that they would be able to rapidly close the distance to their enemies and transform the battle into one of hand to hand combat.

If we add to the above that the mixing between Neanderthals and modern humans seems to have been quite substantial it also seems to support a history of not necessarily all confrontational behaviour. While current day humans outside of Africa now have about 1-2% Neanderthal genes, some studies have suggested that this is misleading as to how much mixture actually occurred since non-useful genes have been dropped due to evolutionary pressure since. Indeed estimates that around 10-20% of the ancestry of current day humans are Neanderthal. So one in ten or one in five of your ancestors are Neanderthal. That seems to be too much to result from chance encounters and the like.

I think we can get closer to the truth of the matter if we instead consider protein consumption and availability of megafauna prey animals. The Neanderthals, with their large brains and massive muscle package, would have required a protein intake comparable at a minimum to modern very large bodybuilders but likely even much higher than that. This would have necessitated consuming several pounds of meat every day. The availability of large prey would thus be paramount to their ability to survive. Modern humans would in contrast have required less, and are also known to have taken to more of a mixed diet with foraging supplanting their hunter lifestyle.

In essence I am thus of the belief that Neanderthals did not experience an outright eradication at the hands of modern man, but that their dietary requirements hampered population growth, and restricted their ability to adapt to a supposed era presenting a reduction in suitable prey animals. Whereas modern humans were able to expand their population under said conditions and eventually supplant their cousins. I find this explanation more logical than the alternative.

What do you all think?

Do you give any consideration to the theory that modern humans domestication of dog's might have given them a edge in clashing with Neanderthals?

[Nathan45]

It's plausible. Bigger stronger animals are more susceptible to environmental changes and a particularly dependent on healthy populations of prey animals. A popular theory on why dire wolves died out alludes to this. Dire wolves were a bit bigger then timber wolves, but were much more heavily built and robust. Slower but built to tackle larger, more dangerous prey. With the extinction of much of the mega fauna at the end of the ice age they were at a disadvantage to more flexible wolves.

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

Perhaps tangential about wolves (pack) vs dire wolves (solitary), but I'm reminded that previously singleton cheetahs have belatedly responded to eco-pressures by staying together for longer and longer after 'fledging'. 'Band of Brothers' stuff...

The 'pelvis' aspect of HSN vs HSS keeps coming up:
As I understand it, HSS females could birth a hybrid easier than HSN females could.
Thus biasing the 'genetic flow', significantly enhancing maternal epigenetic influences....

My beloved wife (RIP) who worked in local 'benefits' office, thus meeting many, many ill-fit members of society, oft-claimed that Neanderthals were yet amongst us. In her considered --Exasperated !!-- opinion, it was not a matter of 'intelligence' as usually measured / mis-measured, but their intellectual plasticity seemed to have 'frozen' much younger than the rest of us.

IIRC, Greek philosopher Aristotle claimed, “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
That, IMHO, is a very cruel over-simplification, as much can happen when our brains get 're-wired' by puberty.
( Which, sadly, is also prime-time for developing Bipolar, schizophrenia, political/religious fervour etc etc...)
Still...
My wife noted a scary correlation between child-hood religious education --Sunday School / Catechism etc-- and such premature plasticity loss. She also noted that this lent itself sorta-sideways to uncritical acceptance of 'absurd' conspiracy theories and 'irrational' political extremism, as such were the only ways these now-blinkered people could comprehend the world...

Her sad analogy was sea-turtles starved by eating plastic bags they thought were jelly-fish...

Yup, it's our old foe, the 'Out of Context' error...

[Micael]

My first question would be, when you say Modern Human, are you talking about some born in the last 75 years or born when Neanderthals were running around. That might be make some difference to food intake needs.

The comparison is made to the modern humans that were contemporary to the Neanderthals. They are estimated to be comparable to a fit athlete of today given their intense hunting lifestyle. The Neanderthal muscle mass and brain size was considerable greater than that of the humans at the time, and the muscles appears to have been different from ours, stronger per volume, in a similar way to how it is with chimpanzees and gorillas compared to humans. That will also add to the protein requirements.

[Micael]

There are a number of theories as to why Neanderthals went extinct as a separate species (though in part live on in us.)

The proposal that modern humans effectively conquerered and eradicated them has often been brought up, but there are some problems with that. It’s clear to us now that the Neanderthals were physically much stronger built and more durable than modern man. Twice as strong bones, a skull and neck much stronger (and therefore able to withstand much more punishment), and strenghtwise I saw one estimate that said that an average Neanderthal male was 126% stronger than an average modern human male. More than twice as strong and less susceptible to blunt force injury. This is sometimes explained with things such as modern humans were smarter (doubtful, and hard to prove), that Neanderthal arms were ill suited to wielding ranged weapons such as javelins (possible), or that modern humans were much better adapted for endurance running whereas Neanderthals were more suited to explosive sprints (likely correct.)

However when you look at primitive warfare and apply it to how skirmishes and battles between Neanderthals and modern humans might have looked like, it seems dubious to me. Close quarters combat with a Neanderthal must have been terribly difficult, going head to head with someone more than twice your strenght and able to take much more abuse than you? Not a great recipe for success. Using ranged weapons and avoiding close combat seems unlikely to have a decisive effect. Just javelins and the like would seem relatively easy for (most of) the Neanderthals to dodge, and their explosive sprint capability should mean that they would be able to rapidly close the distance to their enemies and transform the battle into one of hand to hand combat.

If we add to the above that the mixing between Neanderthals and modern humans seems to have been quite substantial it also seems to support a history of not necessarily all confrontational behaviour. While current day humans outside of Africa now have about 1-2% Neanderthal genes, some studies have suggested that this is misleading as to how much mixture actually occurred since non-useful genes have been dropped due to evolutionary pressure since. Indeed estimates that around 10-20% of the ancestry of current day humans are Neanderthal. So one in ten or one in five of your ancestors are Neanderthal. That seems to be too much to result from chance encounters and the like.

I think we can get closer to the truth of the matter if we instead consider protein consumption and availability of megafauna prey animals. The Neanderthals, with their large brains and massive muscle package, would have required a protein intake comparable at a minimum to modern very large bodybuilders but likely even much higher than that. This would have necessitated consuming several pounds of meat every day. The availability of large prey would thus be paramount to their ability to survive. Modern humans would in contrast have required less, and are also known to have taken to more of a mixed diet with foraging supplanting their hunter lifestyle.

In essence I am thus of the belief that Neanderthals did not experience an outright eradication at the hands of modern man, but that their dietary requirements hampered population growth, and restricted their ability to adapt to a supposed era presenting a reduction in suitable prey animals. Whereas modern humans were able to expand their population under said conditions and eventually supplant their cousins. I find this explanation more logical than the alternative.

What do you all think?

Do you give any consideration to the theory that modern humans domestication of dog's might have given them a edge in clashing with Neanderthals?

I don’t discount it, but I’m not sure of whether it can be considered a crucial factor.

If we view it from the point of using dogs to protect against predators, probably not. The larger Neanderthal strenght and durability should be enough to compensate for that, at most it might level the playing field between them and modern humans.

If we consider it from the point of dogs aiding with hunting, perhaps it can be considered to have had more of an impact. But that would probably be more useful for hunting somewhat smaller prey than the Neanderthals seems to have gone for, so it shouldn’t have had too great of an impact in denying Neanderthals their prey.

Finally as a component in battles with Neanderthals. I’m not so sure it would be crucial there either. From what we can tell from healed injuries to Neanderthal specimens they seem to have frequently tussled with large predators such as wolves and sabretoothed tigers, and live to tell about it. Domesticated dogs doesn’t appear to have been monstrously big in size, possibly a requisite for the humans to be able to control them, and to a Neanderthal they might have represented little more than a nuisance prior to snapping their necks and getting back to dealing with the human enemy.

[Micael]

It's plausible. Bigger stronger animals are more susceptible to environmental changes and a particularly dependent on healthy populations of prey animals. A popular theory on why dire wolves died out alludes to this. Dire wolves were a bit bigger then timber wolves, but were much more heavily built and robust. Slower but built to tackle larger, more dangerous prey. With the extinction of much of the mega fauna at the end of the ice age they were at a disadvantage to more flexible wolves.

That’s a good comparison.

[David Newton]

My first question would be, when you say Modern Human, are you talking about some born in the last 75 years or born when Neanderthals were running around. That might be make some difference to food intake needs.

From a genetic perspective there's essentially zero difference. Contemporary humans can and do deal with hunter-gatherer lifestyles with no problem. 40 ka is nowhere near enough time for significant genetic differences to manifest.

[Micael]

My first question would be, when you say Modern Human, are you talking about some born in the last 75 years or born when Neanderthals were running around. That might be make some difference to food intake needs.

From a genetic perspective there's essentially zero difference. Contemporary humans can and do deal with hunter-gatherer lifestyles with no problem. 40 ka is nowhere near enough time for significant genetic differences to manifest.

Yes, there is however a difference in then hunter-gatherers and current day humans in terms of average fitness/muscle tone and hence difference in the average need for protein intake to sustain the body mass. The then hunter-gatherer would be in line with a current day individual of above average fitness, such as an athlete or atleast someone who spends a lot of hours at the gym.

[Nathan45]

Honestly I wonder if the sentry ability of domesticated wolves might have been the most important trait, at least at times. A consistent reliable warning of being attacked by enemies would be useful. Just speculating out loud

[MFOM]

Honestly I wonder if the sentry ability of domesticated wolves might have been the most important trait, at least at times. A consistent reliable warning of being attacked by enemies would be useful. Just speculating out loud

Right it would make surprise attacks and ambushing very difficult

[kdahm]

With the amount of information we actually know about the period, maybe the Mimmoths killed and ate all of the Neanderthals.

I mean, the megafauna extinction was not caused by hominids, but did seem to occur when the hominids moved into the area. We have no idea how much the two or three species of hominids fought or fu{had carnal relations}, except by genetic analysis that says the latter happened often enough and the compatibility was high. I'm sure I've seen a neanderthal in video of a football match or two, so they might not be all dead. The whole thing is a bit of a problem with absence of evidence.

[CJ07]

Do you give any consideration to the theory that modern humans domestication of dog's might have given them a edge in clashing with Neanderthals?

Considering more recent discoveries keep pushing dog domestication back further in time I think it is more than safe to say we have hit the point where dogs are likely on the scene when Neanderthal fades out. Dogs are at least going to give homo sapiens a massive competitive advantage in early warning, tracking, and hunting over Neanderthal. Imagine just the perk of having something more nimble than you are to flush and corner prey. I think a lot of the early success of homo sapiens is tied to dog domestication and the competitive advantage it gave us. Friendly wolves that came in by the fire ultimately led to us molding them into a species to aid us with just about every task. I've seen some theories that the white sclera mutation may even be tied to that partnership with dogs since dogs are one of the few domesticated animals that will track what our eyes are looking at. I would be curious if any new theories exist whether Neanderthals had the mutation or not.

[Sukhoiman]

There is the factor of at least 2 major waves of "modern human" into Europe....that which we call "cro magnon".

The first one seems to have largely failed and the second one succeeded (neanderthals intersected with both in Europe).

Yes domestication of the wolf (exclusively by cro magnon compared to neanderthal) may have started during or been more established/comprehensive by the 2nd wave giving a huge leg up in security and hunting sensoring....along with every other incremental advantage that adds up over 10k+years of intersection.

The rest probably is of same contours if you study the much later (recorded account) of invader/settler vs resident within the homo sapiens species in commensurately large enough expanses of land like China and India.....that dynamic can be assumed to be same before bronze age writing and with non-homo sapien hominids as "resident".

i.e resource competition, organisation and some conflict but basically most of it driven by populations taking and retaining control of the most productive spots be it for hunting, fishing, resource gathering or neolithic and bronze age farming along major rivers and so on.

That dictates your networking, army building and the movement of original residents to less prime areas. Its not always zero sum conflict basically, but a long process of primacy of one over other (and consequence on your areas vs their areas as to population capacity of each over time) and then final assimilation to the degree thats done and "fixed" by the time you progress more into bronze and iron age.

Reading into vedic account analysis for India and China early dynasty expansion (and maybe Wu Di era Han vs the Nan et al. is most illustrative w.r.t the written accounts at hand) are most telling as to what we can maybe broadly assume always happened with our even earlier progenitors.

[Micael]

With the amount of information we actually know about the period, maybe the Mimmoths killed and ate all of the Neanderthals.

I mean, the megafauna extinction was not caused by hominids, but did seem to occur when the hominids moved into the area. We have no idea how much the two or three species of hominids fought or fu{had carnal relations}, except by genetic analysis that says the latter happened often enough and the compatibility was high. I'm sure I've seen a neanderthal in video of a football match or two, so they might not be all dead. The whole thing is a bit of a problem with absence of evidence.

There is of course a lot of speculation involved here, by necessity. But that’s the case for everything that has been theorized on the subject of human pre-history and such. We’re trying to figure out how to lay a 1000 piece puzzle with only a handful of pieces at hand. But still, I think we have to try as it gradually helps us give an understanding of human nature.

As for seeming Neanderthal traits, as well as Denisovan ones, seemingly popping up in current day humans, I actually believe that this is the case. We do carry part of the genome with us, some more than others, and on occasion I believe that that some outward physical traits inherited from them happen to become more apparent in some individuals. There has been some occasional speculation that some Denisovan traits have manifested themselves in the case of Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev for instance:


The Denisovans themselves are rather interesting, although it may be that they should be more accurately split into multiple groups as there appear to be some significant differences depending on the region they’ve been found in. The fossil record is rather slim as well so much of our assumptions about them come from DNA analysis. But there are some pretty strong indications that they were taller, bigger, and noticeably stronger than even the Neanderthals. Plus likely had sky high testosterone levels. So they perhaps compared to the Neanderthals in a similar way a very roided up bodybuilder compares to the average person on the street.

[Micael]

Do you give any consideration to the theory that modern humans domestication of dog's might have given them a edge in clashing with Neanderthals?

Considering more recent discoveries keep pushing dog domestication back further in time I think it is more than safe to say we have hit the point where dogs are likely on the scene when Neanderthal fades out. Dogs are at least going to give homo sapiens a massive competitive advantage in early warning, tracking, and hunting over Neanderthal. Imagine just the perk of having something more nimble than you are to flush and corner prey. I think a lot of the early success of homo sapiens is tied to dog domestication and the competitive advantage it gave us. Friendly wolves that came in by the fire ultimately led to us molding them into a species to aid us with just about every task. I've seen some theories that the white sclera mutation may even be tied to that partnership with dogs since dogs are one of the few domesticated animals that will track what our eyes are looking at. I would be curious if any new theories exist whether Neanderthals had the mutation or not.

I’m more of the opinion, as partially stated above as well, that the domestication of dogs would more have presented an equalizing factor vis-a-vis Neanderthals than a particularly pronounced edge. Yes, watchkeeping at night is an important aspect as such. However if there were a sufficient perceived threat from predators I do believe that Neanderthals would organize watchkeeping amongst themselves, which would likely be enough to provide an alert in cases where it was necessary. As far as thwarthing Neanderthal attacks on modern human settlements I’m not so sure that the Neanderthals were all that interested in that to begin with, I think that they were able to co-exist with modern humans more often than not, making warring between the two more of the exception than the rule. In part because it seems that Neanderthal groupings appeared to be smaller on average, and in part because of the Neanderthals’ physical capability which I believe would quickly make modern humans want to avoid open conflict with them.

[Micael]

There is the factor of at least 2 major waves of "modern human" into Europe....that which we call "cro magnon".

The first one seems to have largely failed and the second one succeeded (neanderthals intersected with both in Europe).

Yes domestication of the wolf (exclusively by cro magnon compared to neanderthal) may have started during or been more established/comprehensive by the 2nd wave giving a huge leg up in security and hunting sensoring....along with every other incremental advantage that adds up over 10k+years of intersection.

The rest probably is of same contours if you study the much later (recorded account) of invader/settler vs resident within the homo sapiens species in commensurately large enough expanses of land like China and India.....that dynamic can be assumed to be same before bronze age writing and with non-homo sapien hominids as "resident".

i.e resource competition, organisation and some conflict but basically most of it driven by populations taking and retaining control of the most productive spots be it for hunting, fishing, resource gathering or neolithic and bronze age farming along major rivers and so on.

That dictates your networking, army building and the movement of original residents to less prime areas. Its not always zero sum conflict basically, but a long process of primacy of one over other (and consequence on your areas vs their areas as to population capacity of each over time) and then final assimilation to the degree thats done and "fixed" by the time you progress more into bronze and iron age.

Reading into vedic account analysis for India and China early dynasty expansion (and maybe Wu Di era Han vs the Nan et al. is most illustrative w.r.t the written accounts at hand) are most telling as to what we can maybe broadly assume always happened with our even earlier progenitors.

One problem with our understanding of the human migration waves is that we seem to regularly find pieces of information that contradict earlier conclusions, and generate new theories. An interesting example is that there’s some recent pieces of evidence that possibly support a rather substantial revision to the ”Out of Africa” theory, pointing instead to the Balkans as being a key location in the evolution of archaic hominids from apes, rather than this step taking place in Africa itself. So I’m a bit hesitant as to settle down on one explanation concerning the dynamics and nature of these. The general points you present are valid, but I’m not sure we can apply all of our understanding of later events, with other factors such as a more developed societal structure, directly on events much further back in time.

[Belushi TD]

It is my understanding that Neandertals would have needed significantly more resources to survive than cro magnon man, as someone else stated earlier. Is there a climate changes back around the time of their extinction? Another question - Could there have been some kind of a virus or bacteria that Neandertal was susceptible to that Cro Magnon was not?

While the discussion about the domestication of the wolf is very interesting, and also the conversation about fighting between the two groups, we shouldn't let ourselves be blinded to other possibilities.

Question - Is the biological definition if two individuals are of different species is if they can't breed with each other? If so, and assuming that the so called "Neandertal" genes in modern humans are due to interbreeding, wouldn't that mean that Cro Magnon and Neandertal were just VERY differently expressed variations of human, akin to how asian and african and european people all are visually very different looking?

Belushi TD

[kdahm]

Question - Is the biological definition if two individuals are of different species is if they can't breed with each other? If so, and assuming that the so called "Neandertal" genes in modern humans are due to interbreeding, wouldn't that mean that Cro Magnon and Neandertal were just VERY differently expressed variations of human, akin to how asian and african and european people all are visually very different looking?

Belushi TD

That is a very good question. Tell you what - give me $50 million, eight years to get a doctorate in anthropology and genomics, another 20 years to research the question, and I promise I'll get back to you with either the answer or a reason why I need another $50 million to narrow the research field further.