Neanderthal Extinction Was "Genocide" Committed By Humans, Argues Researcher

[Judi Lynn]

We are the bad guys.

BEN TAUB
Freelance Writer

Published
July 13, 2023

It’s been 40,000 years since the last Neanderthals walked the Earth, yet scientists are still trying to figure out who or what finished off the ancient hominid species. One of the more obvious possibilities is that modern humans massacred their Eurasian relatives, and the author of a new book suggests that our uniquely genocidal nature made such an outcome inevitable.

Criminology expert Dr Yarin Eski from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam argues that “genocidal violence and mass exploitation are perhaps the defining characteristics of being human,” and explains how our talent for murder not only put paid to the Neanderthals, but has colored all of human history.

Regarding our role in the destruction of our extinct cousins, Eski notes that there are several possible mechanisms by which we may have helped wipe out the Neanderthals. One such hypothesis holds that when modern humans arrived in Eurasia from Africa, they brought with them diseases to which the local hominid populations had no immunity.

Another theory states that our superior weapons and hunting strategies allowed us to monopolize food sources, causing our less capable relatives to die of starvation. More recently, it has been suggested that the Neanderthals didn’t die out, but were simply bred out of existence as they mated with modern humans.

More:
https://www.iflscience.com/neanderthal-extinction-was-genocide-committed-by-humans-argues-researcher-69804

[hlthe2b]

1. Maybe, but not complete--given how many humans today carry along some Neanderthal DNA

Still, given the human propensity for violence and dominance...not to mention our history in more recent times of killing of species via disease....

[wnylib]

3. I agree about the intermating and genes

in modern humans. All modern humans, except sub Saharan Africans, have Neanderthal genes. Doesn't sound like genocide to me.

Regarding disease, why couldn't it also be the other way around, that Neanderthals had diseases that Sapiens had not known before? There are Neanderthal genes in modern humans that help us fight against some viral diseases. One unfortunate side effect is that it makes some of us today more likely to develop allergies.

Some studies early in the covid pandemic, done by the Max Planck Institute, indicated that people who did not get sick when tested positive for covid had inherited a particular combination of Neanderthal gene mutations. But some Neanderthal mutations in modern humans made people more vulnerable.

I don't think that it was diseases or deliberate genocide. I suspect that it was a combination of factors. There likely were some fights over territory and resources, between Sapiens and Neanderthal, but also between groups within each of those 2 subspecies that we descend from.

The claim that only Sapiens is genocidally inclined is false. We share a very ancient common ancestor with chimps. Neanderthal, as a hominin, must have that ancient shared ancester, too. Jane Goodall reported on chimp wars of extinction in Africa. One group totally wiped out the other. She also reported cannibalism among chimps. So that level of brutality is not exclusive to Sapiens.

I think that a combination of scarce resources in some places, climate changes affecting resources, intermating, and a continued influx of Sapiens groups from Africa into Europe and Asia all contributed to Neanderthal extinction.

The author's statement that Neanderthal went extinct 40,000 years ago is also not correct. There were still some few Neanderthals in small pockets 15,000 years ago.

This hypothesis about Neanderthal extinction expresses the perspective of the guy who came up with it, but does not fit well with the objective data available at this time.

[hlthe2b]

4. We can't know if Homo sapiens were more or less susceptible to fatal infectious disease than

Neanderthals. We have, however, a history of spreading deadly infectious diseases to remote "virgin" populations, whether intentionally or not. Native Americans for one; Amazon native tribes as another. Who is to say Neanderthals could not have conversely spread things to Homo sapiens... Quite possible and probable.

As to other primates, including chimps prone to violent or even homicidal/genocidal tendencies. I never claimed otherwise. I simply point out that Homo sapiens clearly have that capacity and have had the opportunity to express it far more and to a much more intense magnitude than other species in recorded history. To say as you did that Homo sapiens as a species when facing survival is NOT inclined toward homicide is simply not true. As with all traits in species, it does not imply that all individuals are so inclined. Nor, as with chimpanzees, does it mean that the same behaviors are not found in other species. Homo sapiens are just better at it.

But, I do agree--a combination of factors.

[wnylib]

5. First, I was not criticizing you about

genocidal tendencies in Sapiens. I was criticizing the guy who came up with that as the only, or main cause of Neanderthal extinction.

Second, I do not believe that Sapiens is not capable of genocidal behavior. Not sure why you got the impression that I do think that. Maybe I was not clear enough in saying that I think that both Sapiens and Neanderthal share a common ancestor with chimps. In other words, chimps have an ancestor that we and Neanderthal also have. So, if chimps are capable of genocide, perhaps we Sapiens and now extinct Neanderthals also inherited that capability. Therefore, both Sapiens and Neanderthal might have fought each other brutally. But where is the evidence? Where are the marks of it in Neanderthal remains?

Nobody with even a smidgeon of knowledge about history would think that modern humans do not commit genocide. It is happening today in Russian attacks in Ukraine. It is happening in Sudan. It happened in the Holocaust. It happened in the Americas when Europeans arrived.

Regarding virgin populations being exposed to new diseases and dying from them, there is a significant factor in the European spread of diseases to the Americas and elsewhere that probably did not exist among Neanderthal and Sapiens several thousands of years ago.

Sapiens and Neanderthal did not have tamed herds of animals. Europeans who came to America did. Close daily proximity to animals who can carry diseases, or to the parasites that live on those animals (like fleas) made a difference in how Native populations were affected by those diseases.

It was known even before inoculation against smallpox that milkmaids and dairy farmers were least likely to get smallpox or to have a serious case of it if they did. That's because of their exposure to the milder, related cowpox. They developed an immunity. Other animals carry other types of diseases that Europeans had been exposed to due to having domesticated animals that Native Americans did not have. Goats, for example, can carry a virus that is capable of making humans very sick if not previously exposed to goats. (It happened to me about 7 years ago.)

My father, who had mixed Native ancestry from both sides of his family, grew up on a dairy farm. Among his chores were cleaning the cow barn, leading the cows out to pasture, and then leading them back to the barn later. Even before he was old enough to do that, he followed his older siblings when they did it. When he had to get vaccinated for smallpox before going to school, the vaccine did not take. He was immune.

It was the proximity to disease carrying animals that allowed some diseases to spread to humans, but it was also regular exposure on a nearly daily basis that made some people able to tolerate the diseases, or even to acquire immunity to them.

The ancient Sapiens who encountered Neanderthal when Sapiens left Africa were not herders. It's possible, perhaps, that the first generation of Sapiens carried other diseases that existed in Africa, like malaria, but could the mosquito that carries the parasites that cause malaria have survived in ice age Europe?

Neanderthal had been in Europe and parts of Asia for many millennia before Sapiens arrived. They were accustomed to the diseases of their environment. But Sapiens wasn't.

[hlthe2b]

6. Smallpox a bad example because it is well documented that white men (military) did

use it as a bioweapon on blankets given to the Native Americans. That cowpox confers some immunity to smallpox is not relevant as these were plains Indians--not those who would have had much or perhaps any exposure to domestic cattle, much less milk cows.

And I have more than three decades of both clinical and research experience in infectious disease epidemiology so you should realize that. That includes several years specializing in arboviral and other zoonotic infections. I certainly am not conflating the natural spread of mosquito, tick, flea, lice or other arthropod or vector-borne diseases with direct human transmission.

[wnylib]

7. Whether Plains tribes were exposed to smallpox through blankets or

direct contact with cattle is immaterial to the points that I am making.

1. Native Americans did not have exposure to the diseases that Europeans brought to America because Native Americans did not have domesticated animals other than dogs.

2. Europeans brought some diseases to the Americas with them because of having 3 or 4 millennia of experience with domesticated animals who were vectors for diseases to humans. Exposure to the diseases from those animals had given Europeans (and some Africans) stronger ability to cope with those diseases, or even to acquire immunity to them.

3. It was the animals who made the difference between exposed and unexposed populations to diseases that hit Native Americans (and Hawaiians and other virgin populations) so hard.

4. Without prior exposure to cattle, like Europeans had had, Native people on the Plains were vulnerable to severe infection and death. The people who distributed those blankets knew of the Native vulnerability which is why they did it.

5. At the time of the encounter of Sapiens with Neanderthal, domesticated animals were not a factor like they were in the encounter of Native Americans and Europeans. So if Sapiens carried diseases from Africa to Neanderthal groups in Europe and Asia, there had to be a means of carrying the diseases other than by introducing African animals to Europe, like what happened when Europeans introduced their animals to the Americas.

6. With your expertise in epidemiology, perhaps you have some good knowledge of, or insights into how Sapiens would have carried African diseases into Europe and Asia. Wouldn't Sapiens have been exposed to new diseases, too, in their new environmental exposure to conditions and species outside of Africa?

7. Some speculation on genetic inheritance from our mixed ancestry. Since today's Sapiens carry Neanderthal genes and mutations that benefit us in some disease exposures, it looks to me like we benefited from intermating with Neanderthals. Perhaps they did not benefit as much from intermating with us. The hybrid offspring of the intermating who inherited the best combination of genes and mutations for coping with diseases outside of Africa survived. Perhaps Sapiens and Neanderthal hybrid descendants of those matings were able to survive better and produce enough offspring to outnumber the "pure" Neanderthals, who then disappeared except for the genes they left behind in us. At the same time, "pure" Sapiens outside of Africa also disappeared due to intermating with Neanderthals.

[hlthe2b]

8. You seem to be attributing arguments/debate points to me I've not made.

I've said repeatedly I believe the Neanderthal's failure to survive as a species is multi-factorial and not due to a single cause from Homo sapien's presence or any other focus--particularly given the evidence that while they may have had violent encounters back and forth they obviously mated as well. And, of course, in terms of Darwinian explanations for survival of the fittest that you reviewed, all would apply.

A quick answer to your question, however with regard to disease transmission which is never unidirectional among two susceptible species, fully exposed. There can, however, be differences in susceptibility and thus infection rates and severity from genetically-conferred inherent advantages or obviously from prior exposure and thus immunity--whether full or partial--to the same or a closely related organism. Only infectious disease that quickly kills its host in nearly every instance would be unlikely to be spread to other populations, other geographical regions, or indeed to other susceptible species.

The original article tries to determine the cause of the disappearance of Neanderthals as a distinct species, but, in fact, Neanderthal DNA persisted. A better question, IMO, would be why, if the species was (in the mind of the author) inferior to Homo sapiens, then why did so much of its DNA persist within us? And, what benefits might that confer to the individual or be adapted in other areas of medicine in the future?

[wnylib]

9. Agree with your last paragraph about Neanderthal DNA

In us so that Neanderthal did not entirely disappear.

I also would echo your question that, if Neanderthal was so inferior, why does its DNA survive in us?

Regarding benefits of DNA to the individual and how it might be adapted to other areas of medicine, I'd like to see a study of some DNA comparisons, if the proposed people would be willing to go along with it, of DNA from sub Saharan Africans who lack Neadnderthal DNA with people who have Neanderthal DNA. Genetic samples from around the world, with disease histories of each region might help to determine the benefits and vulnerabilities of DNA variations. Both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA are higher in Asia than in Europe. Denisovans DNA is highest in Southeast Asia. It is absent in some other regions of the world.

Maybe comparisons of specific diseases and their presence, recovery times, and severity in different populations with and without Neanderthal DNA from specific DNA segments might give insights into possible uses of gene therapy for treatments. Is there a notable difference between people with no Neanderthal DNA and those who have it in varying degrees? Are there segments of Neanderthal DNA that are more harmful to us today than helpful?

[GreenWave]

2. Further there would have to be signs that early humans knew how to "war" effectively.

Results would be lots of death blows visible on Neanderthal skeletons.

I heard a super-volcano in Italy did in tons of Neanderthals basking in the sun.

I studied many moons ago that larger newborn skulls made birthing difficult and at times fatal.

So the jury may still be out.