Skip to content

They Were a Lot Like Us: How to Think Like a Neandertal

33
Share

They Were a Lot Like Us: How to Think Like a Neandertal

Home / They Were a Lot Like Us: How to Think Like a Neandertal
Books reviews

They Were a Lot Like Us: How to Think Like a Neandertal

By

Published on August 10, 2012

33
Share

I have a thing for Neanderthals. The idea that there were these actual Others out there once, living side by side with Homo sapiens, people but not humans… it just floors me with how crazy that is. I guess it should come as no surprise that I am equally peeved by depictions of Neanderthals as brutish and stupid. They had bigger brains than Homo sapiens, by about 10%, after all. Now, while the size of your brain doesn’t correlate to intelligence when you compare individuals, it is a fast and loose rule you can use between species. That said, Neanderthals also had bigger bodies than humans, so that 10% might just be running the physical side of things. Fair enough. The point is, they had big, developed brains. So what were they like? How were they different than humans?

How To Think Like a Neandertal has at its heart an assumption that answers both issues: as they put it, “Neandertals were so similar to us anatomically and genetically that we believe the default position… should be that Neandertals were no different.” I appreciate that a lot; I’ve read a fair share of books that discounted Neanderthal speech on whatever scientific fad was popular at the moment, on the basis of hyoid bones or Broca’s area or FOXP2 or whatever; only to find that new evidence debunked the hyoid bone issues or showed that Neanderthals had a developed Broca’s area and FOXP2. How To Think Like a Neandertal tries not to let assumptions or dogma influence their conclusions. From this “null hypothesis,” Thomas Wynn and Frederick Coolidge use the actual evidence to speculate on how Neanderthals might be different—how they deviate from that default position. From us.

As I alluded to in my “Ecce Orcus” post, Neanderthals fill the role of a “fantasy race” in my roleplaying campaign. I actually think that is the best paradigm to approach the science of hominins like sapiens and neanderthalis. Don’t scoff! I think that the difference between a human and an elf really are comparable to the difference between a Neanderthal and a human. There are some minor morphological differences—elves have pointed ears, Neanderthals have heavy brow ridges—and some actual physical differences—like an elf having greater physical dexterity than a human and a Neanderthal having more muscle mass. All of that is secondary to the small tweaks in how they behave, because those small deviations from how humans tend to behave will compound on each other and result in psychological and cultural differences. Of course, those are the things that are hardest to nail down, hardest to discover, leaving modern archeologists in the position of guessing… but I think How To Think Like a Neandertal makes some good guesses.

If you are the sort who follows Neanderthal research, you’ll have heard many of the pieces of evidence that the book discusses before; what is novel here is that How To Think Like a Neandertal attempts to put those pieces into context. Neanderthals usually have evidence of repeated injuries in their skeletons; the bones stressed, cracked and re-healed, in a pattern most reminiscent of human rodeo cowboys. That, coupled with the chemical analysis of their bones and the remains of animals found associated with them, leads to a conclusion that Neanderthals used thrusting spears to hunt large animals—large as in reindeer, as well as large, as in mammoths and wooly rhinos—in mixed gender groups. Wynn and Coolidge look at the ramifications of that diet, and how those group structures might work. Then to that mix they add the lack of Neanderthal innovation; their spear technology got to “stone tips,” but stopped, even when they were confronting humans using superior weapons, like atlatls. With no social strata, with very few old people—hunting wooly mammoths being a high risk occupation, apparently—Wynn and Coolige posit that Neanderthals had a strong tribal unit but lacked the ability to spin out abstract social structures like humans can.

The real crux of the book is the question of symbolic thinking. Neanderthals seem to have buried their dead—some dispute that, but I’m not convinced by their doubts—but the burials were shallow and don’t show evidence of grave goods or special ceremonies; perhaps Neanderthals experienced grief but lacked the symbolic understanding of ritual that leads humans to create rituals and afterlives for the dead. While we have evidence of human art in the archeological record, Neanderthal art is much more dubious; absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but Coolidge and Wynn are writing a book speculating about Neanderthals, so I can’t fault them for speculating. It looks like Neanderthals probably painted their bodies and there are collections of crystals found in Neanderthal sites, so they may have understood beauty, but—well, consider toys. A human child can pick up a wooden figure of a dog and play with it, pretending it is a dog. Neanderthals don’t have any toys at their sites. Similarly, the authors think Neanderthals could probably laugh at humor—slapstick, clowning—but wouldn’t understand jokes. The juxtaposition of absurdities just wouldn’t click.

In the end, the book comes up with the following personality traits for Neanderthals. Pragmatism, based primarily on the evidence for gastronomic cannibalism. Stoicism and Bravery, based on the danger of their lifestyle and the evidence of persistent injuries. Sympathy, based on the fact that there are Neanderthal skeletons that appear to have lived long after being seriously injured to the point of disability, implying that they were cared for by loved ones. Callousness, however, was in their nature as well; while there are upper body injuries in people who were looked after, there aren’t any lower body injuries that had healed, and the authors suggest that if you couldn’t move with the tribe then you weren’t cared for. Conservatism; as I mentioned in regards to their spears, they didn’t seem compelled to experiment with new tools or innovate new ways of doing things. A “Lack of Autonoetic Thought” is a mouthful for a trait, but this is part of their inability to use symbolic reasoning, to visualize counterfactual situations. Xenophobia ties to “conservatism,” with the smaller group sizes of Neanderthals leading to a hostility towards outsiders—it is worth mentioning that humans of European or Asian descent have 1-4% of their genes from Neanderthals from cross-species breeding, but Neanderthals don’t show any drift in reverse. None of these traits would be out of place in a modern human; in fact, How To Think Like a Neanderthal has a thought experiment about how a Neanderthal baby raised today would get along. They think they would make a good fisherman or soldier, or even a doctor, though negotiating college would be difficult, with the layers of bureaucracy. A Homo sapien in the reverse situation, raised among Neanderthals, would have a much rougher time.

For follow-up reading, I’ve got a few suggestions, many of which Wynn and Coolidge touch on or cite in How To Think Like a Neandertal. Lone Survivors by Chris Stringer is a good look at why Homo sapiens are the species to crawl out of the evolutionary dogpile, and why everyone else went extinct. Ian Tattersall’s Masters of the Planet has a similar premise but he is far more conservative than Wynn and Coolidge; his null hypothesis isn’t “like humans” but “like apes,” if you take my meaning. The Artificial Ape is a book about humanity’s use of symbolic culture and technology by Timothy Taylor, which might just be the thing that let humans thrive where Neanderthals died. Both Derek Bickerton’s Adam’s Tongue and Bastard Tongues are about language; the first about how language might have evolved, from an evolutionary perspective and the second about how language may have evolved, from a linguistic perspective. Catching Fire—no relation to the Hunger Games sequel—by Richard Wrangham is a study on fire, cooking, calories and more; a really great study of the biological realities of being a hominin, of being an ape with fire. Last but certainly not least, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has had a lot to say about the unexamined assumptions of gender relationships in primates; her book The Woman That Never Evolved deals with non-human primates, but Mother Nature and Mothers and Others deal with humans, and are important works, especially when considering the apparent lack of gender specialization in Neanderthals.


Mordicai Knode probably surprises no one by comparing roleplaying games to anthropology, since those two things are his biggest hobbies. His other hobbies include Twitter and Tumblr. He took the photos in this post at the American Natural History Museum.

About the Author

Mordicai Knode

Author

Mordicai Knode probably surprises no one by comparing roleplaying games to anthropology, since those two things are his biggest hobbies. His other hobbies include Twitter and Tumblr. He took the photos in this post at the American Natural History Museum.
Learn More About Mordicai

See All Posts About

Subscribe
Notify of
Avatar


33 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Avatar
12 years ago

Oo. This is going on my to-read list. And those Sarah Blaffer books all sound good; which would you recommend starting with?

wcarter
12 years ago

Do you know if those are available as ebooks?

Avatar
Kingtycoon
12 years ago

I’ll speak up for Hrdy and I believe I reviewed the Artificial Ape for you – and really thought highly of it as well – but it did not speak to a thing that I like, and think about. If you recall he talked about the three states – the last one being technical -the revision of mineral and vegeteble for human use?

For my money there’s at least a fourth human element that’s language and I don’t like the equation of language with tools or technology – that comes up and I just cringe. Language- I suppose, determines your access to symbolic thinking – there’s not that without language, says me – and so these ideas about the Neanderthal – with their language – I have some curiosity.

I won’t say that you can’t have language without symbolic thinking – only the other way around, but I wonder what kind of language you have that doesn’t have symbolic thinking? Here I go back to some of what you talked about regarding Orcs – physiology. Maybe the Neanderthals couldn’t talk? Or maybe they used much more than just words/voice to speak? Hand signs and eyebrow raises are good at communicating moods, desires and observations but not so much the concept of concepts.

So I wonder if there’s any talk about Neanderthal language. What do you say?

Avatar
12 years ago

Ooh, this looks excellent. I’ll have to pick up a copy. Thanks for the very thorough breakdown!

My human evolution professor in college (a brilliant, remarkable, funny-in-a-terrible-pun-way man who was a master of covering a lot of material in both a general and specific way, and who had personally worked on almost everything he taught – I took every class he offered) was absolutely convinced of Neandertal speech, though he thought they would sound rather flat: Neandertal palates were a lot lower than ours, so they didn’t have a good echo chamber for projection. His attitude towards Neandertals really shaped my view, and it sounds like this is the perfect book to develop it further.

Avatar
SF
12 years ago

Has that mixed gender hunting theory been proven? I just tried looking for articles on it, and there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on whether or not it’s actually true. (It would be cool if it was true.)

But most of what I’m finding (that is actual science articles, or commentary by actual scientists, and not popular press articles about science) is from 2006-2007. Is it the Kuhn and Stiner hypothesis Wynn and Coolidge are referring to? Or something later than that, with verifiable evidence?

Avatar
John R. Ellis
12 years ago

Tolkien never described his elves as having pointed ears or any of that nonsense.

To him, the main difference between elves and humans was the way we perceive time.

Humans are constantly aware of our mortality, thus try to forget about it. We have so many stories about escaping from or defeating death.

In contrast, Tolkien saw elves (which he admits is an inaccurate word, but he adopted because in his day “faerie” had been more or less demoted to those cutsey li’l winged beings) were beings trapped by their own immortality, constantly dreaming about and trying to escape the ennui of endless, pressing, horrifyingly eternal life.

This is why he speculated that accounts of human and fae interaction tend to be rare and to have a lot of misundertstanding on either side. We see a fundamental aspect of reality in such a different way.

Avatar
Tehanu
12 years ago

I know very little about this but I did read a terrific novel by Bjorn Kurten, who was a paleontologist at the Univ. of Helsinki, called Dance of the Tiger, about the encounter between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. His idea, if I remember it right, was that the N’s weren’t all that different from the C’s. It was published in 1980, and I wonder if any of the ideas in the novel are still considered worth considering today, or if he’s been debunked?

Avatar
12 years ago

Hrdy! Somehow I missed the last name in that sentence. It’s a pity that Mother Nature isn’t available on Kindle, but as my library has several copies, I think I’ll cope.

Another book that gave some really interesting insight on gender roles–in human cultures and in primates–was Sex At Dawn, which is an excellent book on a number of levels. But it’s not really the focus of that one, either.

wcarter
12 years ago

I highly doubt Neanderthals were without language. I just wonder how much was spoken and how much was body language ( According to James Bord, to this day modern man still relies far more heavily on body language than spoken even if he doesn’t realise it).

If for instance we 80-90 percent of our communication is through body language, was theirs more like 95 or even 99 precent?

Avatar
12 years ago

When we think about language or communication in this case, it seems to me to break down into a discussion on abstract versus concrete processes.
I wonder if the major issue, as has been mentioned already, is that divide.
Language use or not, if you don’t have the ability to commucicate using abstract terms, you would find yourself quickly left in a “What’s happening now” mode rather than “what could happen next”
Thinking outside the box is a cliche’ that seems to be relevent here.
It also meshes with the tribal aspect also mentioned. Family and tribe is, other is not. The concept of other as part of “us” doesn’t quite make the jump.
JeffS.
I am only an egg

Avatar
SF
12 years ago

@13 mordecai: Thanks for the additional info. The book sounds interesting.

You might find this paleoanthropology blog interesting:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog

Avatar
12 years ago

That was weird, my reply went up in smoke.
Anyway,
I’ll check that out.
“The jump from abstract to symbolic…” That is a subtle but very applicable difference.
Thanks again,
JeffS.
I am only an egg

Avatar
Eugene R.
12 years ago

The biggest stumbling block to getting me to think like a Neandertal is the sheer stability of their culture as evidenced by their Mousterian technology, lasting roughly 250-275,000 years without much change. Conservatism? I’ll say! They make the Old Kingdom Egyptians look like a bunch of teenage fashionistas and fad-niks. (“That is soooo Vth Dy-nas-teeee!”)

If it helps, I also used to chop the game timeline by a factor of 10 whenever I ran campaigns in Prof. M.A.R. Barker’s world of Tekumel.

By the way, is that ‘Neandertal’ with or without an ‘h’? [Ducks tossed replica of Neander skull cap]

Avatar
12 years ago

By the way, is that ‘Neandertal’ with or without an ‘h’?

Thal is an old spelling of Tal. At the time the skeleton was discovered it was still spelled Neanderthal.

Avatar
12 years ago

21 mordicai
I can see the point and I’d have to agree in absense of a better answer.
I would strongly lean toward “a lightbulb moment” as well as anything else.
Somewhat related, I taught electronics in the Navy for a while and marveled when that moment occured when talking about electron flow theory with each new class. Sadly, that leap to understanding that electronics requires did not always occur. The concepts did not work for everyone. This was not a dig at the students basic intelligence, you didn’t get into the program unless you were bright, but an inability to grasp some of the more conceptual portions was the problem.

I like the symbology addition to the discussion as it touches on many things we take somewhat for granted. For instance, Why do we have the “order of operations” agreement in math? Because we have to agree on how we use our symbols or we all get different answers.
Oh, I’ll be happy to shove my gut to the door even without a better reason. It seems to have decided on a room expansion the past few years…
New books to read, what a wonderful thing
JeffS.
I am only an egg

Avatar
Bolg
12 years ago

Actually, now we’ve mentioned Tolkien, I may as well mention that I’ve always taken his Druedain as his take on the Neandertals.

YMMV FWLIW

wcarter
12 years ago

Resources and need also factor into the progress of technology.

Remember before Europeans came to the Americas, there was little metalurgy and no wheels. The various tribes didn’t use an invention we litterally credit to some of our oldest ancestors.

Why did they not use wheels in the Americas? Because there were no large beasts of burdern on this side of the pond before cows and horses were imported (well technically there was the Alpaca, but it’s too small to pull a large cart).

There were advanced farming techniques, and the Inca, Maya and Aztecs had cities every bit as advanced as anything you would likely find in Greece or Rome. Different resources led to different developments in technology even among homo sapiens so it’s not impossible that the lack of visible innovation was in part due to a lack of readily available resources for our Neanderthal cousins.

Avatar
Plinny
11 years ago

They could of domesticated animals – dogs because their good hunters, hard to believe a forward thinking human, would put a wolf near their new born. With cows, they could take an immeadiate drink of blood as the Massi tribe do today and obviously milk. They might have later realised the calves make a good dog, test if the dog goes for the calf they can put it down.