SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A new study of a Neanderthal child's skeleton has suggested that Neanderthal brains developed more slowly than previous studies had indicated:
A new study shows that Neanderthal brains developed more slowly than ours. An analysis of a Neanderthal child's skeleton suggests that its brain was still developing at a time when the brains of modern human children are fully formed. This is further evidence that this now extinct human was not more brutish and primitive than our species. The research has been published in the journal Science.
Until now it had been thought that we were the only species whose brains develop slowly. Unlike other apes and more primitive humans modern humans have an extended period of childhood lasting several years. This is because it takes time and energy to develop our large brain. Previous studies of Neanderthal remains indicated that they developed more quickly than modern humans - suggesting that their brains might be less sophisticated.
But a team led by Prof Antonio Rosas of the Museum of Natural Sciences in Madrid found that if anything, Neanderthal brains may develop more slowly than ours. "It was a surprise," he told BBC News. "When we started the study we were expecting something similar to the previous studies," he told BBC News.
Also at Science Magazine, NYT, and Discover Magazine.
The growth pattern of Neandertals, reconstructed from a juvenile skeleton from El Sidrón (Spain) (open, DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6463) (DX)
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday September 24 2017, @04:59PM
Well, possibly. But not likely.
Neanderthals had shoulders that weren't designed for throwing, so they needed to get in close to kill their prey. Or drive them off cliffs, but that's only possible in a few places and is very wasteful. Also the head of Neaderthal babies were thinner (and longer) so a cross between a Neanderthal woman and a CroMagnon man was quite likely to end in the woman's death. (Hence the lack of Neanderthal mitochondria.) Etc.
Neanderthals were also specialized to live in harsh climates with minimal technology (compared to modern Innuits), so they were adapted to live in small groups widely dispersed. This made cultural change slow.
None of the things I've mentioned even address the basic intelligence. They were probably smarter about some things and slower about others than CroMagnons were. But then I don't accept the concept of "general intelligence". I think capabilities are always developed to address needs, but can often be repurposed. (Were I to accept general intelligence, it would be for the capability used to repurpose other capabilities.)
Neanderthals didn't have a pronouncedly shorter lifespan, but they had a shorter expected lifespan because they couldn't use distance weapons, i.e. throwing spears. (There's no evidence that bow and arrow yet existed, and I doubt that the Neanderthal shoulder would allow the use of a spear thrower, though I've heard no analysis of that...just that they probably couldn't throw spears.)
As to why they died out...I think it was because of competition for resources against hominids that *could* throw spears, and therefore were more successful hunters. (They didn't need to be able to get as close to be successful.) There are places where both varieties existed for a long, and probably overlapping, time. Given the uncertainties of dating it's impossible to be sure that they occupied the same place at the same time, and they probably didn't, because all tribal groups tend to avoid strangers (except as occasional visitors, and many even then).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.