E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Frank Franklin II / AP file
A reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton, right, is on display near a modern human's skeleton, left, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
By Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News
For ages, anthropologists have puzzled over Neanderthal and human brains, since they were the same size. If each species had comparable brain power, why did humans dominate?
A comparison of Neanderthal and human brains has revealed it was a matter of allocation: Neanderthal brains focused more on vision and movement, leaving less room for cognition related to social networking.
According to the study, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, bigger-eyed and larger-bodied Neanderthals required more brain space devoted to the visual system and basic body functions, leaving less area for what co-author Robin Dunbar called "the smart part."
He explained to Discovery News that this is "the part that is doing the creative thinking."
Eye sockets measured
Dunbar, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Oxford, and colleagues Eiluned Pearce and Chris Stringer compared the skulls of 32 anatomically modern humans and 13 Neanderthals. The skulls date to 27,000 to 75,000 years ago. The researchers noticed that Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets.
The researchers next used the known relationship between the height of the eye socket and the size of visual brain areas in living primates to estimate how much of each brain was dedicated to visual processing. Once differences in body and visual system size were taken into account, the researchers could then compare how much of the brain was left over for other types of cognition.
It's clear that environmental differences affected the evolution of each species. The common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens was Homo heidelbergensis. It had a bulkier body, as did the Neanderthals, but Homo heidelbergensis did not possess enlarged eyes.
"The large eyes (of Neanderthals) are purely an adaptation to low light levels, and long dark nights at higher latitudes outside the tropics," Dunbar said.
Flash interactive: Before and after humans
Neanderthals also tended to be shorter than humans, which again was an adaptation to colder climates. Shorter stature reduces heat loss through the extremities. Modern Eskimos exhibit some of this adaptation.
Neanderthals in Europe also "developed a very confrontational and dangerous style of hunting, and were very dependent on a heavy meat diet," Dunbar shared. "Modern humans (in Africa) developed the bow and arrow, as well as spear throwers, which allowed hunting at arms’ length and often focused on smaller prey."
As for what happened to the Neanderthals, some researchers believe that they were simply absorbed into the modern human population. There is evidence that, as numerous humans migrated north into Europe, they interbred with Neanderthals.
Social smarts
Another theory, supported by this new study, is that Neanderthals went extinct because they were less capable of forming larger social networks. Pearce theorized that "smaller social groups might have made Neanderthals less able to cope with the difficulties of their harsh Eurasian environments because they would have had fewer friends to help them out in times of need."
She continued, "Overall, differences in brain organization and social cognition may go a long way towards explaining why Neanderthals went extinct whereas modern humans survived."
Dunbar further thinks that new diseases brought in by humans could have hurt Neanderthals. He said, "It was clear that, by the end, they were struggling to maintain a foothold in Ice Age Europe, having been squeezed down into the southern appendages of Europe (in places like Spain and Italy)."
Clive Gamble, an expert on the archaeology of human origins and a professor at Southampton University, praised the new work. "This paper cracks a big problem in human evolution. Neanderthals had brains as big as ours, yet did not regularly produce the sorts of cultural stuff — art, ornamentation and complicated tools — that we take for granted ... Brains got bigger, but in different ways," Gamble said.
"I've long argued for social differences between Neanderthals and ourselves," Gamble concluded. "It doesn't make us better than them and it doesn’t confirm the age-old prejudices about stupid, brutish Neanderthals. What it does do, quite literally, is make us see them with different eyes."
More from Discovery News:
- Image gallery: Faces of our ancestors
- Humans vs. Neanderthals: How did we win?
- Mysterious new human co-existed with Neanderthals
Copyright 2013 Discovery Channel
Leave a Comment:
Good thing Junior High wasn't invented yet, they would have suffered terribly.
If they did interbreed with humans, that just might account for the behaviors we see from some folks who appear to have come from the shallow end of the gene pool. When some people act in ways that just defy all common sense, logic and do what is so foolish.That prompt others say that familar phrase,"You just can't fix stupid", and the Darwin awards are given out. Sad to see the choices some make, but maybe this is mother nature just throwing up a recessive trait from our kinfolk.Reminding us to appreciate how far we have come,or religious ones thinking God sure has an interesting creation book.
Modern humans interbred with Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago, and in such a small portion of the population that only very small traces can be found in our modern DNA. When people "act in ways that just defy all common sense", it has more to do with behavioral/cognitive disabilities, poor impulse control, poor education in the home and at school, and poor childhood nutrition. If your theory was true, only those with traces of Neanderthal DNA would have poor judgement/behavioral skills.
I have serious doubts there was much if any interbreeding at all. Just because neanderthals and sapiens have some genes in common does not mean they interbred. In my opinion, they'll have to go back further to determine the gene variants in the original H heidelbergensis and disprove that those genes just weren't carried over from them. That will be a tough job.
This explains Teapublicans... [/s]
Yep, Neanderthals live folks like Paul Ryan!
What I got from this article is that humans are short sighted, and social to a fault, so Facebook was inevitable. The Neanderthal are still keeping their distance from us and apparently other Neanderthal, which explains their small population. Big Foot, Sasquatch, Yeti etc., are actually Neanderthal, waiting for our extinction. The meek, Neanderthal, shall inherit the Earth.
lol, I like it.
Given the description of the limited range of social skills, clearly female neanderthals held value to homosaps intent to guard their women from access by other men. Women expressing inability to respond socially would have been uninteresting and forbidding. In addition, its likely these females also had an uninhibited sexual response. This combination made assimilation rapid and thorough.
Maybe so, but you seem to have read quite a bit from this article.
Yeah, but I like the way your mind works...
If that were true, modern humans would have a much, much higher portion of Neanderthal DNA - which they don't. We can look at our mtDNA for proof. Those of modern humans and Neanderthals vary significantly.
In truth, the study does not indicate at all that they didn't have social skills. That's purely the MSN author overstating the title to draw in the readers. Neanderthals were clearly social animals, therefore they would have had to have social skills. Most likely, different from those of Homo sapiens, but social skill nonetheless. Chimps have social skills, and they don't have half the brain a Neanderthal had. Yet they've been very successful as a species for a far longer time than Neanderthals.
I agree with Ferro completely - Handy is reading far too much into the study and the article. Nothing in either indicates anything about sexual behavior. In truth, if there was any interbreeding (and the jury is still out on that), I think it is far more likely the male sapiens were the promiscuous ones, jumping anything that even looked vaguely hominid.
Neanderthals lacking social skills, embrace austerity, southern strategy, big stick, conservative, unable to adapt and extinct. Hope at last.
Yep, No Social Conscious Whatsoever!
So how could they have social skills when there was no society and what they had was a direct result of inbreeding, this article scares me when the answer is simple.
You don't seem to understand the article. Neanderthals were absolutely social creatures. They just had less social skills compared to the modern humans that they came into contact and had to share space with. Also, interbreeding is not the same as inbreeding.
I'll beg to differ on one point - different social skills, not less.
Brisaber -
I concur. You are right.
How do you tell Neanderthals from modern humans around the after dinner social camp fire, the Neanderthals are the only ones who farted. Just like the tea-party after dinner meetings.
I think the Neanderthals interbred and merged with said modern humans. Just like the question: where did the cliff dwelling ancient Native Americans, called the Anasazi, go? They came down from their cliff houses and started building Pueblos on the flats, and became the Pueblo People we know today. No people have to disappear if they can help it, human beings are pretty wiley and tenacious, given half a chance, they will survive!!
I feel their pain. I went through a period where I was all eyes and no social skills, sure made it hard to get laid. Then I got married and now I'm back to looking at but not talking to women (wife says not to!) and still not getting laid. There must have been a time period in between, but I sure don't remember it. I hope that it was fun ;)
Then they must have had social skills because they would knock them over the head and drag them off. :)
With this type if information just shows the two are different spieces. No evolution between the two.
kinda like my mother-in-law....sorry, couldn't restrain myself.
Neanderthal Dinner Party: "Ugh, is it club on right, flint on left?" This cruel article implies they didn't care.
Hasn't this already been established? The more modern man had developed language skills, the making and use of tools, learned to live in groups, adapted to changes in climate, weather and living conditions - making a more civilized lifestyle. These modern men with their skills and knowledge competed with the Neanderthals and eventually came out ahead in the game of survival.
I can vouch for this study, I have seen it here on this and many other comment sections that allow Republicans..........I mean neanderthals to post. ROFL!
There are some things that just dont add up with this conclusion. Early humans left Africa, interbred with neanderthal and denisovan and went on to develop civilizations and advances in science and achieved incredible things. The humans who stayed behind and the only group of humans containing no genes of neanderthal or denisovan remained at tribal level with constant intertribal warfare and were/are incapable of getting beyond that level even after hundreds of years exposure to civilization or when handed a working civilization in modern condition it soon degrades back to tribal level. Something is lacking in flight of fancy, using the logic of the statement in the article the situation should be reversed. Empirical evidence would suggest that the introduction of neanderthal genetic traits is what allowed humans to grow beyond the size of family tribal units and be innovative. It would explain why every civilization in recorded history eventually devolves and collapses from repeating the suicidal path of the socialist/lefts ideology which can only work at the small family/tribal unit level but other than that none of the theory fits the evidence.
You're assuming the trace Neanderthal gene in current humans is from interbreeding. It may, instead, be from a common ancestor, before the split on the genetic tree, not after. The humans with no Neanderthal gene, that didn't migrate, had an established life style. Less stress, more breeding/generations in the same time span, and opposing mortality rates. The gene has been bred out of them, and will eventually disappear from the rest of the population. Neanderthal evolved in colder climates and the women, like most cold weather mammals, gave birth only in spring, when food was available/plentiful. They were fertile for only a short time, which also limits population, and interbreeding possibilities.
This story is typical poorly-researched NBC news reporting BS!
I've seen the Geico caveman on the commercials on TV. He looks like a pretty with-it guy to me, except for a mild hair problem.
I see prejudice immediately when one group is described as "Neanderthals" and the other as '"humans." We're all "humans"! Years ago, I remember those ancestors of ours who coexisted with Neanderthals being called Cro-Magnons. But since that term seems to have fallen out of favor, we have to go with "anatomically modern humans."
And there's no need to look for elaborate reasons why anatomically modern humans supposedly "won out" over Neanderthal. As I understand it, Neanderthals simply never were very numerous; their dying out is understandable. I've read that in one era (about 70,000 years ago), the ancestors of modern humans also dwindled to such a small number that they could easily have died out. Their survival was pure luck.
Are you saying my relatives donk thunk berry goot.
So East asians are more evolved than the rest then...
One thing Homo sapiens are good at is finding reasons why they are better/smarter than everything else. I'd say that a lot of guess work was involved. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a bigger body than me so he is less social than me? I don't think so. Some birds for example have much better vision than humans so their visual cortex is larger? Go figure. Like body size I see a very poor correlation between eye size and relative brain volume devoted to that metric. Dogs and ants seem to socialise quite well despite their relatively tiny/microscopic brain sizes. It is a wonder too considering how much of a dogs brain must be devoted to hearing and the sense of smell, both being more acute than our own senses.