When Someone Calls You a Neanderthal. . .

. . .Take comfort in this article from Dienekes' Anthropology Blog:

In defense of Neandertals

Here is an article that could very well be included in John Hawks' impressive collection of Neandertal anti-defamation files.

I am personally rather disinclined to accept the theory of Neandertal inferiority (or its correlate, that modern humans must have had some genetic adaptation that made them superior and facilitated their success). The main reason for leaning in this direction is that history abounds in examples of vanquished and marginalized peoples and it's hard to argue that this was due to any superiority of the people that replaced them. In ancient times all it took was a bad commander in war or getting a vital piece of military tech too late and a whole nation might be destroyed. Or, more simply one might find themselves on the wrong side of the numbers game and big groups of people tend to replace smaller ones even if individual members of big and small groups are not particulary different in any measurable way.

Neandertal Demise: An Archaeological Analysis of the Modern Human Superiority Complex

Paola Villa, Wil Roebroeks

Neandertals are the best-studied of all extinct hominins, with a rich fossil record sampling hundreds of individuals, roughly dating from between 350,000 and 40,000 years ago. Their distinct fossil remains have been retrieved from Portugal in the west to the Altai area in central Asia in the east and from below the waters of the North Sea in the north to a series of caves in Israel in the south. Having thrived in Eurasia for more than 300,000 years, Neandertals vanished from the record around 40,000 years ago, when modern humans entered Europe. Modern humans are usually seen as superior in a wide range of domains, including weaponry and subsistence strategies, which would have led to the demise of Neandertals. This systematic review of the archaeological records of Neandertals and their modern human contemporaries finds no support for such interpretations, as the Neandertal archaeological record is not different enough to explain the demise in terms of inferiority in archaeologically visible domains. Instead, current genetic data suggest that complex processes of interbreeding and assimilation may have been responsible for the disappearance of the specific Neandertal morphology from the fossil record.

Guys I know would hit that. . .

That is the abstract of the article available at the link above. It's an interesting read, but only moderately convincing.  But then, as a piece calling for skepticism in the face of a largely accepted (and suspiciously flattering to both the scientist and reader) hypothesis, it really doesn't need to prove it's case, instead, like a good defense lawyer, simply lay out a case for reasonable doubt.

Evolution has only a single, and temporary criterion for superior: survival beyond the extinction of the competitor.  It would appear, that except for a fair sampling of Neandertal genes incorporated into our (mostly) modern human population, that by the only test that really matters, modern humans were the superior hominid.  Were "we" superior in any real intellectual or technological sense, or did we just have the good fortune to evolve in warm Africa into a hominid better at surviving in the current interglacial?

It's been said, that if a Neandertal man were to groom himself, and dress in modern clothes he would not look particularly out of place; a bit burly and heavy browed perhaps, but not really non-human.

The fact is that all of us not of immediate African ancestry carry a bit of the Neandertal genome means that Neandertal is not a complete loser in the game of hominid musical chairs.

Wombat-socho has The Other McCain's grand compendium "Rule 5 Sunday: Insert Appropriate Song Title Here" up on time and within budget.