Did Neandertals have language?

Fast-accumulating data seem to indicate that our close cousins, the Neandertals, were much more similar to us than imagined even a decade ago.

But did they have anything like modern speech and language? And if so, what are the implications for understanding present-day linguistic diversity? The MPI for Psycholinguistics researchers Dan Dediu and Stephen C. Levinson argue in their paper in Frontiers in Language Sciences that modern language and speech can be traced back to the last common ancestor we shared with the Neandertals roughly half a million years ago.

The Neandertals have fascinated both the academic world and the general public ever since their discovery almost 200 years ago. Initially thought to be subhuman brutes incapable of anything but the most primitive of grunts, they were a successful form of humanity inhabiting vast swathes of western Eurasia for several hundreds of thousands of years, during harsh ages and milder interglacial periods. We knew that they were our closest cousins, sharing a common ancestor with us around half a million years ago (probably Homo heidelbergensis), but it was unclear what their cognitive capacities were like, or why modern humans succeeded in replacing them after thousands of years of cohabitation. Recently, due to new palaeoanthropological and archaeological discoveries and the reassessment of older data, but especially to the availability of ancient DNA, we have started to realise that their fate was much more intertwined with ours and that, far from being slow brutes, their cognitive capacities and culture were comparable to ours.

Dediu and Levinson review all these strands of literature and argue that essentially modern language and speech are an ancient feature of our lineage dating back at least to the most recent ancestor we shared with the Neandertals and the Denisovans (another form of humanity known mostly from their genome). Their interpretation of the intrinsically ambiguous and scant evidence goes against the scenario usually assumed by most language scientists, namely that of a sudden and recent emergence of modernity, presumably due to a single – or very few – genetic mutations. This pushes back the origins of modern language by a factor of 10 from the often-cited 50 or so thousand years, to around a million years ago – somewhere between the origins of our genus, Homo, some 1.8 million years ago, and the emergence of Homo heidelbergensis. This reassessment of the evidence goes against a saltationist scenario where a single catastrophic mutation in a single individual would suddenly give rise to language, and suggests that a gradual accumulation of biological and cultural innovations is much more plausible.

Interestingly, given that we know from the archaeological record and recent genetic data that the modern humans spreading out of Africa interacted both genetically and culturally with the Neandertals and Denisovans, then just as our bodies carry around some of their genes, maybe our languages preserve traces of their languages too. This would mean that at least some of the observed linguistic diversity is due to these ancient encounters, an idea testable by comparing the structural properties of the African and non-African languages, and by detailed computer simulations of language spread.

Contributing Source : MPG

HeritageDaily : Archaeology News : Archaeology Press Releases


Previous post

Egyptian Leader Makes Surprise Appearance At Archaeological Dig In Israel

Next post

Earthworms could help scientists ‘dig’ into past climates



Heritage Daily is an independent online magazine for archaeological and associated disciplines, dedicated to the heritage and historical sector. We identified the need for a central resource offering the latest archaeological news, journals, articles and press releases.

  • Jerzy Kijewski

    were not human, were hominid-scavengers and had twice bigger skulls than ours. Professor
    Chris Stringer and other prominent anthropologists distorting human evolution,
    to support dubious “out of Africa” theory, of the emergence of Homo sapiens
    species about 200,000 years ago in Africa. Prominent anthropologists create
    myths that the neanderthals were intelligent humans who were able to fabricate
    composite tools, made and wore clothing, were skilled hunters of large animals,
    and throwing spears with stone tip glued (!) to the shaft. And playing flutes.
    They don’t say that Neanderthals had more than twice bigger skulls than ours,
    but say, that they were extremely similar to humans!
    Neanderthals were not human but wild animals, hominids living exclusively at
    the level of instinct. Looked extremely different to humans, had more tan twice
    bigger heads than ours, had enormous elongated“monkey” mid-faces, heavy brow ridges, receding foreheads. They didn’t
    hunt big game and were scavengers. Did’t fabricate composite tools, did not
    know the clothes and walked naked. And never play flutes. Although Neanderthals
    looked extremely different to humans, Professor Chris Stringer says untruth:
    “Neanderthals looked extremely similar to humans but did not have chins.
    If you shaved and dressed a Neanderthal and put them on the New York subway, no
    one would be able to tell the difference between us and them”,, head
    of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.

  • PaleoGuest

    Jerzy Kijewski
    How do you explain the pronounced or significanly enlarged vulva on the ivory figurine? Would that not signify an act of forethought or preoccupation  regarding the female anatomy similar to that of modern prepubescent and pubescent young men?