In 1857, German anatomist Hermann Schaaffhausen examined a human fossil with a unique shape that he had never encountered before. He noted that it was unlike anything seen in “existing European stocks” or “even in the most barbarous races.”
This intriguing cranium had been discovered the previous year, just east of Düsseldorf in Germany’s Neander Valley. These remains would later be identified as the world’s first Neanderthal, and from the outset, Schaaffhausen concluded that the skull was at a “low stage of development.”
For over a century, this perception has persisted. Even today, it is widely believed that humans outlasted Neanderthals due to superior intelligence. However, an international team of anthropologists has recently uncovered evidence that challenges this notion.
By comparing brain scans from populations in the US and China, the team demonstrated that regional volume differences in modern humans exceed those between Neanderthals and modern humans. The volume differences separating Neanderthal and modern human brains are remarkably small.
The study’s authors argue that if these Neanderthal differences are deemed cognitively and evolutionarily significant, then similar variations found within modern human populations should also be considered relevant. Yet, the researchers note that cognitive ability is not strongly linked to brain anatomy in modern humans, if at all, according to existing literature.
They assert that rejecting the idea of cognitive differences among modern human populations would undermine any argument for significant Neanderthal differences.
When Schaaffhausen first published his findings on the Neanderthal skull in the mid-1800s, there was limited evidence to suggest that humanity was older than about 6,000 years. Moreover, it was two years before Charles Darwin released his groundbreaking work, On the Origin of Species, which introduced the theory of evolution to the scientific community.
The initial assumptions by Schaaffhausen and his peers are now outdated. Recent research has shown that while modern humans prospered and Neanderthals became extinct, this was not necessarily due to cognitive differences. Archaeological findings reveal that Neanderthals were more intelligent than previously believed, even though their brain structure and size differed from ours.
Evidence indicates that Neanderthals engaged in activities like diving for ocean shells, using tools for fire-making, creating antibacterial substances, crafting water-repellent materials, designing their clothing, and even producing abstract art. In many instances, Neanderthals practiced these activities well before modern humans.
Some skull evidence even hints that Neanderthals might have been capable of human-like speech, although this is difficult to confirm from a few ancient bones near the ear.
The authors of the recent brain analysis note that speculation about Neanderthal cognition based on archaeological and paleoneurological research often concludes they were likely cognitively challenged. However, they argue that placing Neanderthal differences within the context of modern human variation does not support this view.
Moreover, Neanderthal skulls can only reveal so much about the complex organ they once enclosed, and even bones can be misinterpreted. Some scientists have recently contested the depiction of Neanderthals as stooped, brutish cavemen resembling apes more than humans.
Recent analyses of their rib cages and hips indicate that their posture was quite upright, with some cases showing similarly sized chests to modern humans.
Today, some scientists hypothesize that Neanderthals may not have gone extinct in the genetic sense. They could have been close enough to modern humans to be classified as the same species. Evidence suggests that humans and Neanderthals interbred for thousands of years, which might explain why many people today still carry Neanderthal genes.
Related: ‘Large Head People’: Mysterious New Form of Ancient Human Emerges
If we continue to perceive Neanderthals as unintelligent and incapable of speech or abstract thought, we may be undervaluing our own ancestry. In many respects, we share more similarities than differences.
The study was published in PNAS.
