Neanderthals

[dalongzazhong]

Anyone have some quick ideas about Neanderthals, whether or not they should be incorporated into a future mod, and how, and what their complements would be, e.g. Negroid migrants, other higher hominids, large mammals such as mammoths or saber tooths - ?

Maybe as a mod idea, just to throw around some quick and dirty ideas, we could play on the popular belief that Neanderthals were the "heavy duty" hunters of prehistory, and create units that wore little armor but could survive harsh conditions, were very mobile, and could hurl huge spears that did a great deal of damage.

There's also something to be said about other types of projectiles, and also space for exploring the mystical/spiritual side of Neanderthals as perhaps a civilization specific trait.

Anyway this line of inspiration was brought to you by a new study that confirms every person living outside of africa has neanderthal ancestors. I'm not BS-ing you check it out.

If its true that we all have a trace of neanderthal DNA than we can pretty much safely say there was no mass genocide or some organized conspiracy to kill off our neanderthal competitors. No, we just had some good sex with them.

Since Neanderthals were red-haired and pale-skinned, it makes you wonder about the redheads up in the british isles and scandinavia. When the celts first invaded ireland, were the then occupiers neanderthals or related to them? Also makes you wonder about the roman accounts of the british picts as almost wholly red or blonde haired. Not an accurate description of celts as we know them to be dark haired.

As the science is revealing, neanderthal was not a subspecies but fully human. We mated with them and produced fertile offspring. It is just this phase of neanderthal as the "new negro" that will hopefully come to pass as the anthropological pseudoscience is revealed for its heritage of 18th century anglo-saxon racism.

Anyway much to read on this stuff and I just thought I'd get y'all's reaction on the huge potential of prehistory as not only a mod but also to learn about, as the more we find out about them the more we find out about ourselves.

article from the times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/scie...icle7118573.ece

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abst...ourcetype=HWCIT

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/...enome/#comments

[oshron]

well ive been working on a cro-magnon faction for a mythology mod that i have ideas for

[Aldandil]

Unfortunately you have some of the facts incorrect. I am sorry that I am shooting down most of what you said. I just don't think they could possibly work as a mod faction, and I do feel the need to correct some misconceptions that you've accidentally picked up (possibly provided by the ever-helpful popular media). I think Neanderthals are a very interesting subject and the new genetic study is fascinating (hopefully only the first of many to come), but not one suited for 0 A.D.

Making Neanderthals into a mod faction would cause a lot of problems simply because their technology would never stack up against the technology of the factions in 0 A.D. I'm not certain that there is even evidence they had projectiles. I can look it up. Oshron is planning a mythological AoM-style mod in which the "Cro Magnons" would have very powerful myth units to make up for their weak mortal units, but in a regular mod of 0 A.D. that isn't an option. His "Cro Magnon" faction are also actually neolithic, so their technology is much more "advanced" than what Neanderthals used.

None of the peer-reviewed journal I have read (including the new study, your link #2) suggest that Neanderthals are the same subspecies as us. The debate about Neanderthal classification still concerns only two options: a separate species and a Homo sapiens subspecies. They're clearly at least a separate subspecies -- subspecies of the same species can and do interbreed in living mammals today. The new nuclear genetic evidence leans towards them being a subspecies instead of a separate species, but bear in mind that the species definition allows for behavioral prezygotic barriers (behaviors that strongly discourage interbreeding and make it extremely rare) and the new study states that it is entirely possible that A. very, very few matings took place between our ancestors and Neanderthals, magnified by later population growth from a tiny immigrant population; or B. the separate genes were present in Africa before the migrations and had nothing to do with crossbreeding. Other possibilities are that C. the hybrids could only back-cross with Homo sapiens [sapiens] but could never back-cross with Neanderthals; and/or D. only the female hybrids were fertile (like ligers). Bear in mind also that if there was cross-breeding (the simplest explanation at this point) it happened with early Neanderthals, not the later "classic" Neanderthals of later Ice Age Eurasia.

While anthropologists have been responsible for a lot of racist pseudoscience that separated members of the living human subspecies into separate "races" or even subspecies and helped legitimize the whole "race" concept that has no actual biological validity whatsoever, separating fossil humans into separate subspecies and species has nothing to do with this: it is a matter of significant physical differences and, as the new studies show, significant genetic differences as well. All of the phylogenetic tests of the genes found Neanderthals to cluster well outside all known Homo sapiens [sapiens]lines and the depth of the branching and systematic genome-wide differences confirm the physical bone evidence that they are at least a separate subspecies. This is in marked contrast to living humans, who (despite small differences like skin color and a few Neanderthal genes) are almost genetically identical to each other, have no valid genetic clades at all, and simply cannot be divided into biological "races," much less subspecies. Classification should also be separated from discussions of moral worth or superiority -- the motivation for separating "people of color" from white people was racism and perceived superiority, but the genetic differences between Neanderthals and us don't automatically mean they should be considered morally inferior to us. I hope that no scientists have suggested that.

As for the "mystical/spiritual" side of Neanderthals, there's no evidence of what their religions were like or if they even had anything we could call religion. Fictional stories that speculate about it are just that -- speculation, which while plausible and interesting are not based on archaeological evidence. There's not even any certainty yet that they could speak, though deciphering their nuclear genome may change that -- at present, we can only say that their FOXP2 gene shared the same mutations ours does, so speech cannot be ruled out yet. Yes, even if they had no spoken language they could still have had sign language as depicted by Jean Aule, but again that is speculation, not based on evidence and IMO, our genetic knowledge is not yet good enough to find evidence for that sort of thing.

Regarding genocide, historical genocides have often been incomplete, with a few people surviving after being raped and/or taken captive and/or escaping to hide, plus we're probably talking about a few thousand years of contact, so genocide and interbreeding are not mutually exclusive. Mass rape is actually a frequent tool used in genocide and while I don't think that fits the evidence that I saw, taking people captive and keeping them as trophy wives probably does. Still, the actual reason Neanderthals disappeared is not known and deliberate genocide is only one possibility.

The Celts entered the British Isles when earlier members of our subspecies, the Beaker Folk IIRC, were living there. Neanderthals in Europe were way way earlier, so there's no overlap there. By the time Proto-Indo-European was spoken somewhere in Asia, Neanderthals had been globally extinct for tens of thousands of years.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Aldandil

[Jeru]

Hats off to Alandil. You seem to know an awful lot about this topic. I learned a lot from your post.

[dalongzazhong]

Thanks alandil, a lot of good information there. Few questions though:

I've been a bit confused about what exactly is a subspecies. EDIT: so at what time does a subspecies break off from the species? And can it be said that neanderthals before they became isolated in europe and developed subspecies specific traits, were technically fully homo sapiens? Or did both humans and neanderthals diverge from a common ancestor, that ancestors being neither fully sapien or neanderthal?

When I suggested a mod idea I was just throwing out a crazy idea that might be picked up sometime in the future, when the game has already seen its final release, and would incorporate a total conversion sort of thing. In fact, it might have to be a different game entirely. But until that time the science might reveal a lot more about neanderthals and their hominid contemporaries that would provide the tools to make a semi-accurate and interesting game mod.

And as with the mythology mod, there's a lot of potential in the stuff that we don't know about neanderthals. Developers could let their imaginations fly from what little we know about neanderthal culture.

In regards to the theories about neanderthal gene assimilation, A and B seem to be the simplest and thus the most likely. I suppose either would explain how "every" non-african possesses neanderthal genes. Some of the scientists have said only "some" non-africans will possess the gene whereas others say "all." So how are we going to test this to determine whether every non african has the gene?

But what's also mind-boggling is that neanderthals were living in Europe for 100,000 years before humans entered the picture. Assuming that our african migrants possessed "black african" traits, then how is the span of time that they were in europe enough for them to evolve the physical traits that are characteristic of modern europeans? Unless, they had assimilated some neanderthal traits who were already well adapted to that environment.

I'm no scientist, but again, taking into consideration some basic assumptions about the characteristics of our "out of africa" ancestors, the conjecture that humans could have not mated frequently with neanderthals just doesn't seem to add up.

But there is also a huge lack of evidence here. As more begins to turn up we'll get to see just what kind of technology they used, and from their art, figure out what they believed in. While I don't know if they had any religion, they were definitely spiritual, because they made graves for their dead and prepared grave goods for them in the afterlife. As soon as Paabo completes the genome sequence we'll finally have the first clear picture of how close or far humans were in relation to them.

But where did the beaker folk IIRC come from, and how long and since when does the record indicate they stayed there? And what sorts of physical and cultural traits did they possess, reflected in the region of Europe they presumably originated from? But isn't it possible that pre-celts had already accommodated some neanderthal genes from a hundred thousand years ago, that they were not "pure human"?

Edited May 17, 2010 by dalongzazhong

[Aldandil]

You're welcome. It feels good to be discussing something I actually know something about.

I've been a bit confused about what exactly is a subspecies. EDIT: so at what time does a subspecies break off from the species? And can it be said that neanderthals before they became isolated in europe and developed subspecies specific traits, were technically fully homo sapiens? Or did both humans and neanderthals diverge from a common ancestor, that ancestors being neither fully sapien or neanderthal?

I don't know if there is a hard-and-fast rule for how old a split must be to count as separate sub-species. Homo sapiens and Neanderthals share a common ancestor in Homo heidelbergensis, which seems to have originated in Africa. They spread in both Africa and Europe, where their populations were largely isolated by geography and then adapted to rather different climates. Those in Europe evolved into Neanderthals, while those in Africa evolved into us. The genetic divergence was roughly estimated at 825,000 years ago and the physically distinct bone features of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens emerged gradually over the years from roughly 400,000 to 125,000 years ago. The classification of those transitional fossils is to some extent a matter of taste, where subspecies of Homo heidelbergensis end and separate species (or subspecies of Homo sapiens) begin.

In regards to the theories about neanderthal gene assimilation, A and B seem to be the simplest and thus the most likely. I suppose either would explain how "every" non-african possesses neanderthal genes. Some of the scientists have said only "some" non-africans will possess the gene whereas others say "all." So how are we going to test this to determine whether every non african has the gene?

In my opinion A seems to be the simplest explanation, but A would not rule out either C or D. However, C and D aren't the only possible explanations for why the gene-flow was seemingly one-way. Hopefully more Neanderthal individuals will be sequenced in the future, and compared with a larger number of modern humans, to widen the comparison.

But what's also mind-boggling is that neanderthals were living in Europe for 100,000 years before humans entered the picture. Assuming that our african migrants possessed "black african" traits, then how is the span of time that they were in europe enough for them to evolve the physical traits that are characteristic of modern europeans? Unless, they had assimilated some neanderthal traits who were already well adapted to that environment.

The genes aren't that hugely different. There's only a six allele difference between the darkest skin tone and the lightest, for example. I know less about the genes for respiration efficiency, body fat thickness, nose shape, stature, and so on, but the general picture seems to be that, in minor traits, humans have and continue to evolve pretty fast. Lactose tolerance and alcohol tolerance apparently evolved after the start of agriculture and cities respectively. All species with large ranges exhibit variation -- just look at the tiger, which like humans used to range from the tropics to the cold subarctic, from lowlands to mountains. They varied in size, color, stripe patterns, and no doubt internal traits that adapted them for different environments. It also appears that the wide differences in human appearances (which are the majority of the differences between "races") are due to sexual selection. Each culture seems to have their own beauty standards, which select for a somewhat different appearance from their immediate neighbors, forming clines.

I can't find a catalog of which genes were closer to Neanderthals, but it's possible that they include genes for lighter skin and hair, and adaptations to cold climates.

The reason it's possible for the matings to have been few is that the number of Homo sapiens who initially entered Neanderthal territory could have been few, and later increased population size after the hybridization had already taken place.

About the Beaker Folk, I do not know much more than their name. It's another name for the Bell-Beaker tool culture, which is a material culture that may or may not have corresponded to any ethnicity(ies). They're one of the material culture sets that existed in Great Britain and western Europe at various times in prehistory. I was premature to suggest that they definitely preceded the first Celtic language in the Isles. It seems there's not agreement on when Celtic languages came to Great Britain, and in any case a language cannot be correlated with a material culture group or even a group of people.

What I do know is that there were Homo sapiens that occupied Europe after Neanderthals died out 30000-25000 years ago, which is at least 15,000 years before Proto-Indo-European could have come into existence. I don't know if the post-Neanderthal Gravettian tool culture is known from Great Britain, but after the Gravettian time-period Great Britain was apparently abandoned due to weather, to be re-colonized later by a tool culture called Creswellian. After the Ice Age the British Isles were inhabited by Homo sapiens with Mesolithic tool cultures, who apparently adopted farming around 4000 B.C. instead of being invaded by Neolithic farmers from the mainland. The Bell-Beaker tool culture belongs to later years, contemporary with Stonehenge and the early Bronze Age in the British Isles. So whoever the first Celt-language-speakers or Proto-Indo-European-speakers in the Isles encountered were Homo sapiens. When the first Celtic-family language came to Britain, and whether it was accompanied by new tools, migrating humans, new crops and livestock, new cultural or religious practices, or none of the above, is controversial and unknown.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Aldandil