Author : Wahid Ahmad
The question of whether
Neanderthals had language is crucial in understanding the evolution of human
communication. While some argue that language is unique to anatomically modern
humans, others suggest the presence of a proto-language among earlier humans.
Neanderthals, being our closest relatives with humanlike capacities, are
central to this debate. This video focuses on recent findings on language
origins or Neanderthals in general.
The debate on whether
Neanderthals had language hinges on varying conceptions of language itself. To
make progress in this discussion, it's crucial to clarify what "having
language" means. The term "language" encompasses a complex set
of interrelated concepts, making it challenging to define precisely.
Modern human language
generally involves trilateral mappings between forms, meanings, and structures.
Syntax, in some form, is a central component, implying structured language
rather than a random arrangement of words.
Some researchers suggest
that the most basic language could be just one word, without complex sentence
structures. Imagine a simple language where each word represents a single idea,
similar to how toddlers first start talking. This minimal language would have
basic meaning but no complicated rules for putting words together.
While some animals, like
vervet monkeys, have communication systems with single meaningful sounds, this
isn't considered a language. The key difference is that a real language is
flexible and can easily adapt with new meanings. Each word in a language acts
like a symbol that can represent various things.
People often think of
speech as the same as language, but they're not identical. Speech is how we
express language through sound, like talking. However, language itself can
exist in various forms, not just through speaking. For instance, we can use
sign language or communicate through writing.
Human language isn't tied
to a specific way of expressing it. We can use spoken words, sign language, or
even written words. This means having language doesn't necessarily mean having
speech, and the absence of language doesn't mean the absence of speech.
Speech involves putting
together different sounds rapidly to create a wide range of expressions. This
requires a vocal system that can make distinct sounds quickly and precisely.
While this helps identify whether a species had speech, it's essential to note
that birdsong, which also involves complex vocal abilities, complicates the
analysis.
Some suggest that language
may have initially been an internal system without any external expression.
However, this idea faces challenges. While it's hard to prove whether
Neanderthals had speech, it's even more challenging to determine if they had an
internal language without any external signs, like sounds or gestures. Internal
language or private speech, which you employ when thinking alone.
In simpler terms, figuring
out how early humans communicated is tricky. Some think it started with
one-word ideas, while others question whether there was any sound involved at
all. Understanding Neanderthal communication is challenging because we don't
have clear evidence of their speech or internal language.
Neanderthals, our ancient
relatives, disappeared long ago, leaving no direct records of their language.
Figuring out how they communicated relies on indirect evidence and inferences,
like piecing together a puzzle.
In science, we like to
keep things simple. If two explanations work equally well, we prefer the
simpler one with fewer assumptions. Assuming Neanderthals had features shared
by humans and chimps makes sense, like having a tongue. If chimps and humans
share it, Neanderthals probably did too. This helps us infer general features
of Neanderthals even without direct evidence.
To understand Neanderthal
language, we need good proxies—fossils or artifacts that indicate language
presence.
Understanding Neanderthal
language involves putting together evidence from different areas like anatomy,
genetics, and archaeology. It's like solving a puzzle without having all the
pieces, but by carefully considering each piece, we can get a clearer picture
of how our ancient relatives might have communicated.
Understanding Neanderthal
Speech
Determining how
Neanderthals communicated is challenging, especially since soft tissue doesn't
preserve in fossils. However, clues from bones around the vocal tract and
hearing organs can offer insights. Neanderthal vocal tracts might have been
adapted for speech, but it's complex.
The shape of the vocal
tract influences speech. Human vocal tracts have a lowered larynx, allowing a
variety of sounds. Neanderthals likely had varied vocal tract shapes, but it's
uncertain how this affected their speech. Some bones, like the hyoid, which sits in front of the vocal
tract, are rarely found in fossils but could provide valuable clues.
Human ears are sensitive
to certain speech sounds. Fossilized middle ear bones from Neanderthals suggest
they had hearing adaptations similar to modern humans. This hints at the
possibility of Neanderthals producing speech-like sounds.
Nerves don't fossilize,
but holes in bones where nerves passed through can be observed. The size of
these nerve holes, like the hypoglossal canal controlling the tongue, isn't a
clear indicator of speech. However, the canal related to breathing control
shows interesting patterns. Neanderthals had wider canals, similar to modern
humans, hinting at potential speech-related breathing control.
Understanding Neanderthal
Brains and Speech
When it comes to figuring
out if Neanderthals had language, the key lies in their brains. Neanderthal
brains were slightly bigger than ours, but the general shape was a bit different—lower
and longer compared to our taller brains. Some think our more rounded brain
shape helps with better connections between different brain parts, possibly
linked to language. However, this idea is not proven, and brain shape
differences might just be due to variations in face and skull base shapes.
Certain brain areas, like
Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, linked to language, showed similar structures in
Neanderthals and modern humans. But here's the catch: these brain areas have
also been found in nonhuman primates. So, this doesn’t give a clear answer
about Neanderthals having language.
Some researchers think
mirror neurons (related to imitation) and von Economo neurons are crucial for
language. However, these exist in nonhuman primates too, making them less
helpful in telling us about Neanderthal language.
Lateralization and
Handedness: Humans show a certain dominance
in using one hand over the other (handedness). Neanderthals seemed to share
this pattern, suggesting they might have had a human-like way of processing
tasks. This includes evidence from their teeth, tools, and the way they made
stone tools.
Recent study comparing
Neanderthal and early Homo sapiens brains revealed that Neanderthals had
smaller cerebellar volumes, especially on the right side, impacting language
processing and cognitive functions. The Early Human-modern human lineage
exhibited larger cerebellums. Cerebellar asymmetry in Neanderthals might have
affected connections crucial for language processing.
Looking at Neanderthal
anatomy doesn’t scream "language" or rule it out. There are signs
pointing towards speech adaptations, but no single piece of evidence is enough.
By considering all these signs together, we can say that Neanderthals probably
had some form of speech.
Scientists have been
studying Neanderthal DNA to uncover clues about their language abilities.
Thanks to advancements, we can now extract ancient DNA from well-preserved
Neanderthal fossils.
Modern humans have many
genes that influence language skills. One well-known gene is FOXP2, often
linked to language. However, it's not a straightforward "language
gene." FOXP2 is found in most mammals, but humans have unique changes.
Neanderthals and Denisovans also had these changes, suggesting they might have
had language too. Other genes related to brain development show differences
between modern humans and Neanderthals/Denisovans, but we're not sure how significant
these differences are for language.
The Neanderthal and
Denisovan versions of FOXP2 indicate that these genetic changes predate the
split between modern humans and Neanderthals, supporting the idea that
Neanderthals may have had language.
Beyond FOXP2, other
genetic differences related to brain development exist between modern humans
and Neanderthals/Denisovans. Some scientists suggest that extended synaptic
development in humans, influenced by genes like MEF2A, might be important for
cognitive abilities. However, whether these genes specifically relate to
language remains uncertain.
Initially, studies on
Neanderthal DNA suggested no interbreeding with modern humans. However, more
recent and comprehensive genome studies have shown that there was indeed
interbreeding between Neanderthals and non-African modern humans. In fact, many
of us today carry a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.
While interbreeding
doesn't automatically mean Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species,
it does have implications for the question of Neanderthal language. The gene
flow from Neanderthals to modern humans implies successful reproduction between
the two groups. This suggests that hybrid offspring, carrying both Neanderthal
and modern human DNA, likely had fully functioning language abilities.
For hybrids to thrive in a
community of modern humans, having language would be crucial. It's unlikely
that individuals without language could achieve reproductive success in a
community where communication and social bonds are essential. The hybrid
offspring probably inherited the "right" genetic factors for language
from both Neanderthal and modern human sides.
Whether the Neanderthal
parent needed language depends on the mating system among early modern humans,
which is not well understood. In a society with long-term pair bonds requiring
social acceptance, Neanderthal language abilities would have been necessary.
However, if hybrids resulted from chance encounters in the forest, the need for
language might be less clear. The interbreeding story adds complexity to our
understanding of Neanderthal language but suggests that successful hybrids
likely had language skills.
Initially, differences in
the archaeological records of Neanderthals and modern humans were seen as proof
of major cognitive distinctions, including the absence of Neanderthal language.
However, a closer look at the Neanderthal record reveals a less straightforward
picture. Neanderthals exhibit many traits associated with behavioral modernity.
Symbol use, often
considered a key feature of modern humans, is challenging to identify
archaeologically. Pigments, assumed to be used for non-utilitarian decoration,
were found in Neanderthal sites. These pigments, used for body painting, hint
at symbolic behavior. Evidence of intentional Neanderthal burials suggests an
understanding of mortality, awareness of self and others, or possibly
spirituality. Neanderthals may have treated their dead differently from
animals.
While no cave paintings
can be conclusively attributed to Neanderthals, some Spanish paintings and the
Chauvet paintings in France have been suggested as possible Neanderthal work.
Neanderthals also left behind artifacts like painted shells, beads, perforated
teeth, and feathers from raptors, similar to items associated with symbolism in
modern human contexts.
Despite lower frequency
and some contested findings, the evidence for Neanderthal symbolism challenges
a clear divide between symbolic modern humans and symbol-less Neanderthals.
Neanderthals exhibited
complex behaviors, including the use of fire, tool hafting, and seafaring,
challenging assumptions about their cognitive capabilities which have been
considered as proxies for behavioral modernity and language.
Knot making, proposed as a
proxy for core syntax, is debatable, but Neanderthals demonstrated the ability
to make strings and use various technologies involving knots. Living space
organization among Neanderthals mirrors patterns observed in contemporary
modern humans, suggesting similarities in cognitive aspects. Exploitation
patterns of fauna, often considered markers of cognitive modernity, show that
Neanderthals had a diverse diet, including meat, plants, seafood, and small
game.
The rate of change in
artifacts and cultural elements, termed cultural dynamism, is proposed as an proxy
for language. While some argue that language enables nonstatic cultures, the
evidence does not clearly differentiate between static Neanderthal cultures and
nonstatic modern human cultures.
In summary, Neanderthals
likely possessed some form of spoken language, supported by their anatomical,
genetic, and archaeological characteristics. However, the specifics of
Neanderthal language abilities, especially syntactic aspects, remain uncertain.
The evidence challenges binary conclusions and emphasizes the complexity of
Neanderthal cognition.
Future directions in
understanding the Neanderthal language involve embracing new fossil and
archaeological discoveries that reveal a complex human evolutionary history.
The increasing impact of genetic data offers promise, demanding collaboration
between geneticists and linguists to bridge the gap between genetics and
linguistic structures. Ongoing research into vocal tract anatomy, exploration
of linguistic theory, and reflections on the subtle differences in Neanderthal
languages compared to modern humans contribute to a comprehensive
understanding. The intriguing question of whether Neanderthals are considered
"us," given their coexistence and interbreeding, remains, emphasizing
the exciting possibilities of exploring unique language faculties, even though
accessing Neanderthal languages is forever lost with their extinction.