Half orcs are real

[TarionzCousin]

"Hmmmm... I've never seen one of those before... I think I'll have sex with it."

To be fair, the neanderthals didn't look so bad:

 

[Dice4Hire]

Maybe the light was bad for 20,000 years?

 

[Desdichado]

Ah, this. This has long been accepted as fact among a pretty large group of anthropologists. I know when I was an anth major, I firmly believed in it - the only other possibility being that Neanderthals were killed out by our ancestors.

It was a valid conjecture... nobody accepted it as fact, because there wasn't any evidence to support it. It just seemed possible.

That wasn't the only other scenario, by the way. Neanderthals could have died out without being killed by Homo sapiens sapiens.

And... previous mtDNA studies had put forth the opposite findings; that there wasn't Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.

So, I'd be careful of jumping too hard on this as "proof"---it's intriguing evidence, but exactly what it means will need to be sorted out for some time to come.

(Some anthropologists suggest naming Neanderthals Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, making our species Homo Sapiens Sapiens).

Not just some; that's the most generally accepted taxonomy.

And because I'm a nitpickity nitpicker about this, scientific names should be italicized, and only the generic name is capitalized; the species and subspecies names are never capitalized.

Finally, a fun little piece of anatomy. Neanderthals have something at the base of their skull, where the neck meets the skull - it's a small bony protrustion. Archaic homo sapiens skulls that have been found completely lack this protrustion. However, a fairly large minority of modern homo sapiens DO have this bun - further "proof" towards this theory.

Err... wrong. It was more common in archaic European populations; it's extremely rare today. It does, however, also occur relatively more frequently in populations of Bushmen in South African and Aborigines in Australia. Even according to this article linked here, Bushmen shouldn't have any Neanderthal descent.

Seriously, check it out. Feel the base of your skull, and see if there's a bony protuberance - a small "nub" or "bump". I know I have one, and many people of northern european origin do as well - which makes sense, since there was a huge concentration of Neanderthals in that portion of the world

No, that's not true either. During the time period that modern humans and Neanderthals supposedly interacted, glacial ice sheets came down hundreds of miles south of northern Europe. Nobody was living there; modern or Neanderthal.

 

[Fifth Element]

Finally, a fun little piece of anatomy.

Ooh, I love those!

 

[Wik]

Hey Hobo. I'm on break, so I'll be relatively brief with my responses!

It was a valid conjecture... nobody accepted it as fact, because there wasn't any evidence to support it. It just seemed possible.

That wasn't the only other scenario, by the way. Neanderthals could have died out without being killed by Homo sapiens sapiens.

Right. I figured it was an obvious point, and just didn't mention it. There's also the argument that the large head size of Neanderthal children helped the species "Die out" - it's already a pretty big problem among modern humans (cross-culturally speaking)

And... previous mtDNA studies had put forth the opposite findings; that there wasn't Neanderthal DNA in modern humans.

So, I'd be careful of jumping too hard on this as "proof"---it's intriguing evidence, but exactly what it means will need to be sorted out for some time to come.

Yyup. But there's a fair amount of skeletal evidence that suggests the contrary. I've always been a bit wary about fully trusting DNA evidence, personally.

Not just some; that's the most generally accepted taxonomy.

Possibly. Tell that to my anthropology instructors, though. At least among anthropologists, those who say "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" tend to be those who believe Neanderthals bred into the species, while those who do not tend to believe otherwise. I have no idea how it is outside of anthropology.

Err... wrong. It was more common in archaic European populations; it's extremely rare today. It does, however, also occur relatively more frequently in populations of Bushmen in South African and Aborigines in Australia. Even according to this article linked here, Bushmen shouldn't have any Neanderthal descent.

As someone who has actually held replicas of archaic homo sapiens and Neanderthal skulls, I can attest that the bun is not there in archaic sapiens. And it is not extremely rare - I believe the number is around 25% in some populations. It's possible we're talking about different things, though. I can say that everyone in my family has one (except for my dad, I believe). And I know in my anth classes, there were a fair number of students in the class that had one.

No, that's not true either. During the time period that modern humans and Neanderthals supposedly interacted, glacial ice sheets came down hundreds of miles south of northern Europe. Nobody was living there; modern or Neanderthal.

Remember that humans, due to their development of culture, were able to survive harsh elements (look at the Inuit, who are technically a "stone age" culture). So I think it can be difficult to say "no one was living there" - especially because the first neanderthal was found in, what, northern france? Germany? Something like that ("Neanderthal" being german for "New Man Dale", because it was found in a stone quarry owned by a guy whose name was Neuman and translated it into the local german).

A theory I've heard is that the neanderthals, due to a lower birth rate, were forced to hide from the more numerous humans, and were forced to the periphery of human lands - which would be why we'd see them in icy climates.

 

[Desdichado]

Yyup. But there's a fair amount of skeletal evidence that suggests the contrary. I've always been a bit wary about fully trusting DNA evidence, personally.

Oh, me too. That's why looking at a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry and making sure that they all tell the same story.

Which, in this case, they don't clearly.

Possibly. Tell that to my anthropology instructors, though. At least among anthropologists, those who say "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" tend to be those who believe Neanderthals bred into the species, while those who do not tend to believe otherwise. I have no idea how it is outside of anthropology.

Ironically, those who favor a separate species (instead of subspecies) did it based on prior mtDNA studies, which showed no evidence of genetic interaction. Papers by Pennisi (Science 323 (5916) 2009), Green and Briggs, et. al (EMBO Journal 28(17) 2009) find no such evidence in the Neanderthal genome project.

So, like I said, I think the linked article here is interesting and intriguing, but it's not a slam-dunk. It's just one piece of the puzzle.

As someone who has actually held replicas of archaic homo sapiens and Neanderthal skulls, I can attest that the bun is not there in archaic sapiens. And it is not extremely rare - I believe the number is around 25% in some populations. It's possible we're talking about different things, though. I can say that everyone in my family has one (except for my dad, I believe). And I know in my anth classes, there were a fair number of students in the class that had one.

Lieberman, Pearson and Mowbray, "Basicranial Influence on overall crianial shape," Human Evolution 38 (2) 291-315, 1999.

Plus, I'm talking about relative frequency. And the occipital buns of Homo sampiens sapiens are only superficially similar to that of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. And the presence of them is relatively high on populations that couldn't ever have had any contact with Neanderthals, even according to this article, like South African bushmen.

I think it's (at best) a hard sell to say that because you can feel a knot at the back of your head, you inherited that from a Neanderthal ancestor. That's just not a compelling story. It being an unrelated convergent feature related to space allocation of the brain, especially in dolicocephalic individuals, seems much more likely.

And just because you've held a few specimens doesn't mean that it wasn't more common in archaic AMH (anatomically modern humans.) You've gotta do a census of hundreds of finds (at least) to do that. And those censuses have been done. And they were more common in archaic AMH than in later AMH.

Remember that humans, due to their development of culture, were able to survive harsh elements (look at the Inuit, who are technically a "stone age" culture). So I think it can be difficult to say "no one was living there" - especially because the first neanderthal was found in, what, northern france? Germany? Something like that ("Neanderthal" being german for "New Man Dale", because it was found in a stone quarry owned by a guy whose name was Neuman and translated it into the local german).

Yeah, but we're talking about on the ice sheet. Hundreds of miles from any source of food whatsoever.

They didn't live in Denmark or Finland or any place like that when it was miles under the ice.

A theory I've heard is that the neanderthals, due to a lower birth rate, were forced to hide from the more numerous humans, and were forced to the periphery of human lands - which would be why we'd see them in icy climates.

The latest surviving Neanderthal fossils are found Gibraltar and Portugal from about 24,000 years ago, not icy climates. Although that's not quite as solid as we'd like and the interpretation is a bit controversial, and the next youngest are from Croatia about 32,000 years ago.

 

[Desdichado]

Doug McCrae: scholarly

Actually, most of those references can be found on Wikipedia.

Although I have, as it turns out, read some of them. Just because I'm interested in the subject.

 

[Wik]

Hey Hobo.

I'll have to check through your links - you seem to have done your reading. For what it's worth, my info regarding Occipital buns is from books like A Short History of Progress and some intro level physical anth books, so I'll concede the point to you.

As I've mentioned, though, I have held Neanderthal skulls in my hands doing comparitive skull comparisons (the pre-"human" skulls being replicas, but the human skulls were all real, which is kind of humbling) and I can tell you flat out that the Neanderthal skull is, for the most part, exactly the same as our own - definitely moreso than archaic homo sapiens. That, alone, is "proof" enough for me.

I could also cite the findings of mixed graves containing both neanderthals and homo sapiens, or the neanderthal burials with tools and burial rites (indicating the presence of culture). This, to me, is enough to classify them as "human", regardless of whether someone wants to say they're a seperate species.

To put it bluntly, to say that Neanderthal is a seperate species due to a few skeletal differences is pretty much analagous in my opinion to saying Woody Allen and Shaquille O'Neal are seperate species - after all, there are considerable skeletal differences!

Anyways, yeah. I fully agree that this information isn't a "smoking gun" (and I never said it was). My main point is that this is just another piece of information in an ongoing series of discoveries regarding the origin of modern homo sapiens. And, yes, I fully believe Neanderthals fully bred into our species.

While we can say they did die out, it would be due to the presence of homo sapiens - and the idea that our ancestors perpetrated the genoicide of an entirely different species of human is one that kind of bugs me.

 

[Jack7]

In the future, this approach will work for Captain James T. Kirk.

And Captain Jim West. One of the many virtues of a field command.

Hey, if you can't beat em, breed em. Heck, even if you can beat em, breeding em might still be the overall best option. Personally, I'm open to anything that looks like it might work.

 

[Desdichado]

As I've mentioned, though, I have held Neanderthal skulls in my hands doing comparitive skull comparisons (the pre-"human" skulls being replicas, but the human skulls were all real, which is kind of humbling) and I can tell you flat out that the Neanderthal skull is, for the most part, exactly the same as our own - definitely moreso than archaic homo sapiens. That, alone, is "proof" enough for me.

Well, as you say, there's a fair amount of individual variation. How many did you survey?

I could also cite the findings of mixed graves containing both neanderthals and homo sapiens, or the neanderthal burials with tools and burial rites (indicating the presence of culture). This, to me, is enough to classify them as "human", regardless of whether someone wants to say they're a seperate species.

I'm not familiar with any such burial sites. At least not any that aren't highly controversial in their interpretation.

To put it bluntly, to say that Neanderthal is a seperate species due to a few skeletal differences is pretty much analagous in my opinion to saying Woody Allen and Shaquille O'Neal are seperate species - after all, there are considerable skeletal differences!

More like the differences between tigers and lions. In the fossil record, it's extremely difficult to tell them apart as well. But they clearly are separate species; they can't interbreed and create fertile offspring, and hybrids never occurred in the wild, even when their ranges overlapped in Central Asia and India in historical times.