The Neanderthals - Article Example

Forum Paper: Neanderthals Introduction: Two articles, two perspectives. It is interesting to compare two very different interpretations of the evidence that modern science has gathered in relation to the Neanderthals: Felipe Fernandez-Armesto’s account in his book The World: A History, Vol 1, and Richard Klein’s chapter entitled “Neanderthals out on a limb.” The topic is fascinating because both authors use much the same information but they come to completely different conclusions. Fernandez Armesto: Neanderthal and modern man are both homo sapiens. Fernandez-Armesto emphasizes the fact that both Neanderthal man and modern man belong to the same species which we call homo sapiens and he lists the many similarities that they share. Both groups appear to have used stone tools, and various other materials like bone and shells, and there seems to be evidence also that they overlapped and communicated with each other, at least in some areas and at some times. They most probably also interbred, and there is a suggestion that both groups were successful hunter gathers who had quite well established social structures with kinship alliances for trading and feasting. They could hunt a wide range animals for food, and they inhabited caves and used fire. Pigments, plants, and vast piles of bones suggest that they adapted to the seasons and could use a wide variety of materials from the natural world to make their lives pleasant. In short, both groups were well adapted to their surroundings and had identifiable early forms of culture. Although both groups were able to adapt to quite widely differing climates, ranging from the heat of North Africa to the snow and ice of northern Europe during ice ages and temperate ages, Fernandez-Armesto argues that the Neanderthals finally disappeared from the fossil record, partly because they were a much smaller group in the first place, and were less resilient to natural disasters like famines and climate change, but also because they were less able to complete for resources than the smarter, more numerous modern man. Richard Klein: Neanderthal is not really homo sapiens The interpretation of Richard Klein starts out with the same early history of mankind, in Africa, and a very readable account of the way that humans evolution took place in “punctuated equilibrium” rather than smooth and gradual change. There is an explanation of the link between environment and habits, such as hunting certain animals inland and gathering molluscs at the coast, but also a clear link between technology and the ability of early human groups to migrate over short or longer distances. The invention of water carriers, for example, was a prerequisite for long marches over dry terrain, and the lack of such inventions confined groups to certain areas until either the climate changed, or technology developed the necessary tools and implements. The description of how beads were made with great skill and patience, and then traded with neighboring groups, implies that early humans had quite sophisticated cultures similar to modern barter societies. The last of the four main phases of sudden change in the evolution towards modern human beings coincides with the period when Neanderthals and modern humans shared the same territory in Southern and Central Europe. Klein agrees with Fernandez Arnesto that Neanderthals and modern man had contact with each other, and possible even interbred with each other. Klein takes the opposite view on the species allocation of Neanderthals and modern humans, however, and maintains that the two groups were actually not the same species. He concedes that productive interbreeding is the test of whether two animals are in the same species, and that this criterion is met, but maintains still that they are not really the same species, giving the example of dogs and wolves, which we regard as two species rather than one. The Neanderthals have a smaller range of tools, he argues, suggesting that this indicates lower intelligence, despite the larger brain size that their skull provides. He interprets a larger number of broken bones as lack of skill in hunting due to poorer quality tools, and having to approach the animals from closer quarters. Some of the arguments for Neanderthal culture are, in Klein’s view, far- fetched and he argues for consideration of other explanations which are more logical, even if they are less exciting. Even when there is evidence of multiple types of plant pollen in a grave, he suggests this is carried there by animals, and not intentionally placed there by the Neanderthals. Similarly the discovery of a bone with holes in it has been interpreted by some archaeologists as a Neanderthal flute, and therefore evidence of music, which shows very high cultural achievement, but Klein insists that the holes are made by animals, and not by Neanderthals. Klein explains that the disappearance of the Neanderthals could be due to natural factors and their own behaviors, and cites evidence of cannibalism in a few sites. A group under severe pressure would resort to cannibalism probably as a last resort, since it is not likely to enhance the group’s survival potential in the long run. One argument which Klein uses is some recent work done on the genes taken from Neanderthal bones. This is an intriguing new avenue for study and it seems to suggest that there is very little Neanderthal material in modern humans. The technology is not very exact, however, and again there is the issue of different population sizes which would result also in a predominance of modern human material over the smaller Neanderthal population’s material. Carbon dating, which has been used to establish overlap sites, proves also tantalizingly inaccurate. Conclusion: Key questions raised by the two approaches. One key question from these two approaches is: are we descended from one line, excluding the Neanderthals, or are we descended from a joint line, involving Neanderthal and early human heritage combined? The fact that two learned scholars disagree so totally raises a whole new raft of questions about science, and how we deduce facts from surviving evidence. Response to the two articles Although the two approaches outlined by Fernandez-Armesto and Klein articles are well written, with good argumentation, the former is more convincing. Klein makes a great argument about bone structure differences, as if to suggest that heavier bones and slightly different features can mean the difference between one species and another. In modern times one could compare a tall Scandinavian skeleton with a smaller South East Asian skeleton, and the differences would be no greater than those between Neanderthal and modern man. Thicker and larger bones, different skull sizes, and head shapes are indicators of local adaptation and mutation over generation, but they are not necessarily indicators of different species. Klein also seems to focus on the negative interpretation when evidence is ambiguous, for example he notes that there is a smaller range of tools present in the Neanderthal record, than in the Cro-Magnon record, but forgets that there is a significantly smaller population of Neanderthals, which would surely also result in smaller finds. One of the strongest arguments of all for the intermingling of the Neanderthal and modern human groups is the existence of sites which show evidence of tools and bones from both groups. The most obvious interpretation of this is Fernandez-Armesto’s one that they more than likely met, traded, intermarried, and probably also fought with each other, and that they were like two adjoining cultures meeting and reacting against each other. Klein cites the difficulties of carbon dating to suggest that there is no necessity to assume this interpretation, and prefers a less obvious conclusion that the Neanderthals and modern humans were quite separate and different, having little or no contact with each other or influence on each other. The argumentative style of Klein is also at times quite flippant, as for example when he suggests that a Neanderthal body would attract some attention in a modern fitness room, and this suggests that he is using emotional argumentation rather than sticking just to the facts. The definition of what is and what is not homo sapiens can be drawn in such a way as to include or exclude the Neanderthals, and this kind of example seems to sway the reader towards a narrow definition. In general, therefore, the more open minded and sober writing of Fernandez-Armesto is more convincing because it relates all the evidence and leaves the reader to choose the most obvious interpretation. Klein seems to start with a point he wants to argue (i.e. that the Neanderthals are “out on a limb”) and this colors all of the points that he presents after that. When counter-evidence appears, he mentions it, but always seeks a way to disprove it. Sometimes the answers are not clear cut, and if the record is not clear, then it is perhaps better not to come to any firm conclusion, but leave the matter open until more evidence appears and a final decision can be made. This seems to be a case where more research is needed and so Klein’s certainty is somewhat premature. Read More