Neanderthal Great Leap Forward

[Hnau]

So, taking Robert J. Sawyer's POD, some 50,000 years ago the Neanderthals suddenly gain behavioral modernity during a brief period of time. Humans do not. We are blaming the Great Leap Forward on a physiological (quantum?) change in the brain, as postulated by some, instead of an environmental stimulus. The humans will make no progress at least until 30,000 years ago… so if they are still alive after that point, its likely they could reach behavioral modernity as well.

On one side, the humans stop their expansion into Australia and Northern Eurasia, and never take up fine tool-making, sophisticated weaponry, sculpture, cave painting, body ornaments or long-distance trade. Instead, those inventions appear amongst the Neanderthals. Fishing is taken up, also bartering, the use of pigment and jewelry for decoration, game playing, music, and ceremonial burials.

The Neanderthals-instead-of-Humans scenario has been brought up before, here, but I think its time again for another brainstorm session. What we need to analyze is exactly what was different between the Neanderthals and Humans and see how that would effect their development versus humanity.

 

[sarapen]

Are you asking for discussion of the book's TL or OTL? There's bunches of stuff Sawyer didn't get right, which I especially noticed because I was taking archaeology classes when I was reading the trilogy.

For example, you know how in the book the Neanderthal males and females were segregated? The evidence for that was basically pulled out of this one archaeologist dude's ass. I can't remember exactly, I think it was because at one site the tools at one spot were different from tools at another, then he said the tools must have been used only by men or women, then went on from there. I guess it makes the book more interesting, though.

Anyway, the biggest difference between the Neanderthals and us is that they're dead and we're not. Seriously, that's pretty much the only thing we can say with absolute certainty.

Let's see, what else. Oh yeah, apparently Neanderthals preferred to kill animals up close. Analyzing the pattern of bone injuries of fossils reveals that Neanderthals broke bones in similar ways as rodeo cowboys, which probably means they really got in there when hunting big animals. Contemporary H. sapiens fossils don't have the same injuries, meaning they probably killed animals from far away, with bows and atlatls maybe.

There's also no evidence Neanderthals ever domesticated anything, especially not dogs, which our ancestors definitely did. The timeline for dog domestication is unclear, anywhere from 100-30 kya. Still, there's a theory that we outcompeted Neanderthals with our dogs, if not hunted them down outright.

Also, it's quite possible Neanderthals were less curious than us, or at least did not have as much wanderlust. For example, they may have lived in Gibraltar for 10 000 years but never did they try to explore Africa.

Oh yes, and they probably had slightly larger brains on average than H. sapiens, but apparently the debate on that has been re-opened. Also, being squatter, they would have retained heat better in cold climates.

Anyway, that's as much as I can recall of obvious differences. I guess you wouldn't care about them having occipital buns and such.

 

[DuQuense]

On one side, the humans stop their expansion into Australia and Northern Eurasia,

Don't see why this would stop the expansion East into Indonesia/Australia.
The Neaderthal would expand into Northern Siberia, along the Ice line, which would stop the Cro-magan from expanding into the same.
However Cro Mag was more wide spread 50,000 years ago than Neanders, so It is more likely Cro Mag Survive in TTL, than Neanders did I ours.

 

[Hnau]

Don't see why this would stop the expansion East into Indonesia/Australia.

Well, because humans jumped to Indonesia and to Australia probably by using some kind of raft or boat, and because it happened so soon after "The Great Leap Forward", or the ascent of behavioral modernity, it leads some to think that humans expanded from southeast Asia into Australia because of behavioral modernity allowed them to realize there could be land to settle over the sea, and that they could build boats.

But you're right, they would probably continue expanding into Northern Asia where they did not have to compete with the neanderthals. And, Cro-Magnons are definitely more likely to survive than Neanderthals, as they are more widespread.

So, about differences:

- Neanderthals killed animals up close.
- No domestication of animals.
- Less curious/expansive.
- Better suited for colder climates

Now, as for the domestication of the dog... it seems like we should toss that in the category of GLF development. Let's say the dog was domesticated from 50 kya to 30 kya, when humans achieved behavioral modernity. In this world, the Neanderthals will have the dog. They'll probably expand slower than we would have, but I can see them filling all temperature zones they did in OTL only all the way to the Pacific at the very least. This probably includes Persia, Afghanistan, China and everything north of it straight to the Arctic Ocean or glacier line, whatever comes first. Taiwan and Japan are settled, and its probably likely that the Neanderthals make it over the Bering Strait sooner than we humans would have, as they are better in colder climates. However, they won't make it into Central America... too hot. No sharing of any of these territories with humans... they are hunted down with dogs and eaten.

That brings me to another question... is it true that there is evidence the Neanderthals were cannibals?

 

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

This is a really interesting time line, primarily because we don’t know what happened to the Neanderthals. How did they die out? Was it the advent of HS? Or was it because the world got warmer? In some species, temperature is an essential part of the reproductive cycle – indeed in some species, particularly reptilian, temperature determines sex. Did the warmer climate kill em’ off? I have even heard that to wear underwear wot is too tight, leads to infertility in men, because the testes are too warm to produce sperm. So that’s the reason then – Designer kecks for Neanderthals killed em off! The Neanderthal equivalent of Versace designed the “must have” knickers and the alpha males became infertile. Seriously though, temperature could have played a part, I doubt paisley knickers did!

 

[Valdemar II]

That brings me to another question... is it true that there is evidence the Neanderthals were cannibals?

Almost all hunter-gathner societies is cannibalistic, it only a question of degree.

 

[The Professor]

paisley knickers

Paisley? What are you wearing CT?

 

[Sam]

Anyway, that's as much as I can recall of obvious differences. I guess you wouldn't care about them having occipital buns and such.

I thought a few more differences than that had been established? IIRC, Neanderthals had a more robust, stronger build, and were carnivorous to a greater extent.

 

[sarapen]

I thought a few more differences than that had been established? IIRC, Neanderthals had a more robust, stronger build, and were carnivorous to a greater extent.

Hey, I was going off the top of my head. Yes, they were probably stronger. The carnivorous thing I'm not sure of, I haven't kept up with hominid stuff, I remember going to a museum last year and finding out there were two new species added to the family tree since the last time I'd looked. Cursory googling agrees with you. I also vaguely recall now that bigger Neanderthal noses were said to be better for cold climates since they warmed and humidified cold dry air better than our noses.

 

[sarapen]

That brings me to another question... is it true that there is evidence the Neanderthals were cannibals?

Yes, but it's not clear under what circumstances it happened. It might have been a regular thing or it might have been survival cannibalism, a Donner Party situation where they were suddenly short of food, maybe a bunch of bad hunts in the middle of winter.

 

[Scott_B]

Don't see why this would stop the expansion East into Indonesia/Australia.
The Neaderthal would expand into Northern Siberia, along the Ice line, which would stop the Cro-magan from expanding into the same.
However Cro Mag was more wide spread 50,000 years ago than Neanders, so It is more likely Cro Mag Survive in TTL, than Neanders did I ours.

Actually it might drastically effect homo sapiens spread, a recent series on humanity's spread from Africa on the BBC suggested that what would eventually become the mongoloid stock of our species evolved from a group who spread from the middle east, up into siberia and then retreated back down into Asia, with the Neanders dominating Siberia you might block this and in doing so preventing a whole race of humans from evolving, and of course it was the mongoloids who spread into the Americas and Pacific Islands etc.

 

[Hnau]

Actually it might drastically effect homo sapiens spread, a recent series on humanity's spread from Africa on the BBC suggested that what would eventually become the mongoloid stock of our species evolved from a group who spread from the middle east, up into siberia and then retreated back down into Asia, with the Neanders dominating Siberia you might block this and in doing so preventing a whole race of humans from evolving, and of course it was the mongoloids who spread into the Americas and Pacific Islands etc.

Ooh, that's interesting. No Asian race, then, just Africans? I mean, I guess a lot could change over tens of thousands of years, but... that'd be interesting. Seems like the Neanderthals were white, so that provides an interesting different between the two species.

Also, about the carnivorousness... Here's a quote from another thread by Tocomocho.

By carbone testing in neander teeth and bones. Don't ask me how, but apparently it can be determined how much carbone came from vegetables or from animal matter. The studies show that +95% of neanderthal carbone or something like that was of animal origin, making them as carnivorous as wolves. The same studies were done in sapiens teeth of the same age and the obtained percentage was way lower.

Hmmm... maybe we see domestication and animal breeding before agriculture?

Note: It looks like the Neanderthals were also in the Altai Mountains during their hey-day. So, let's say by 45 kya they've spread through Siberia, and by 40 kya they migrate across Beringia into the Americas. That should be interesting... considering Homo Sapiens probably didn't start colonizing the Americas until, oh 15 kya though that's disputable. Also, I've discovered that Neanderthal children grew much faster than that of Homo Sapiens, less of a growth spurt in adolescence, more of just a continual growth from birth onto adulthood.

 

[Scott_B]

Ooh, that's interesting. No Asian race, then, just Africans? I mean, I guess a lot could change over tens of thousands of years, but... that'd be interesting. Seems like the Neanderthals were white, so that provides an interesting different between the two species.

Also, about the carnivorousness... Here's a quote from another thread by Tocomocho.



Hmmm... maybe we see domestication and animal breeding before agriculture?

Well assuming Homo Sapiens still get to Europe and survive, they will still turn white.

Without first heading North I would assume Asian Homo Sapiens would evolve as others did in similar climates, so whether that means they turn white, or look Arabian or Mediterranean I don't know.

It would presumably be the Neanders who cross into North America, how capable they are of colonising warmer climates I don't know. Unless they can themselves evolve into different races, say a warm adapted version.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Ooh, that's interesting. No Asian race, then, just Africans? I mean, I guess a lot could change over tens of thousands of years, but... that'd be interesting. Seems like the Neanderthals were white, so that provides an interesting different between the two species.

Err... Not quite. You'd still have all the Caucasian (based) peoples of south and South West Asia; and the Australoids of Australia. Australia and India could look similar to today. It is China etc. that would be totally unrecognizable. (Also the Americas)

 

[eschaton]

Also, about the carnivorousness... Here's a quote from another thread by Tocomocho.

That means relatively little. Traditional Inuit diets are less than 10% vegetable matter, and purely carnivorous during the winter season. The environment most Neanderthals lived in was nearly as harsh as the Inuit, so their carnivorous diet may have been simply due to climate.

 

[Hnau]

That's a good insight eschaton.

Australia and India could look similar to today. It is China etc. that would be totally unrecognizable. (Also the Americas)

Probably won't get Australia settled by humans until, oh, 25,000 kya. Wonder if some megafauna could survive.

 

[stevep]

Actually it might drastically effect homo sapiens spread, a recent series on humanity's spread from Africa on the BBC suggested that what would eventually become the mongoloid stock of our species evolved from a group who spread from the middle east, up into siberia and then retreated back down into Asia, with the Neanders dominating Siberia you might block this and in doing so preventing a whole race of humans from evolving, and of course it was the mongoloids who spread into the Americas and Pacific Islands etc.

Scott_B

Are you thinking of that 4 parter a month or so back called the Human Journey or something like that? In the episode mentioning the colonising of Asia it mentioned that there was a theory, being supported by at least some in the Chinese government that the modern day Chinese descended from an hominid that came out of Africa before Cro-Magnons. However is also mentioned in the programme about some genetic tests that seemed to kill the idea. Sounded more like political support for an 'we are unique' stance than anything actually scientific.

Steve

 

[Scott_B]

Scott_B

Are you thinking of that 4 parter a month or so back called the Human Journey or something like that? In the episode mentioning the colonising of Asia it mentioned that there was a theory, being supported by at least some in the Chinese government that the modern day Chinese descended from an hominid that came out of Africa before Cro-Magnons. However is also mentioned in the programme about some genetic tests that seemed to kill the idea. Sounded more like political support for an 'we are unique' stance than anything actually scientific.

Steve

Indeed, I found that part rather funny, claiming the Chinese where presumably a descendant of Homo Erectus or something. I did enjoy the chicks face which was essentially 'shut up you morons' and then went on to point out that their just the same as the rest of us

 

[Michael B]

Err... Not quite. You'd still have all the Caucasian (based) peoples of south and South West Asia; and the Australoids of Australia. Australia and India could look similar to today. It is China etc. that would be totally unrecognizable. (Also the Americas)

Would the Cro-Magnons control South West Asia or not? If they don't then the first area to develop agriculture is in Neanderthal hands. The next three areas to develop in order are China (Neanderthal), the Sahel (Cro-Magnon) and Mexico (probably Cro-Magnon via boats along the coasts of Asia and North America).

If the Neanderthals do so and don't develop agriculture then technological development at a world level will be delayed by about 3500 years. In addition the Sahel agricultural belt is small than the SW Asia belt (which stretchs from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

If they do develop agrciulture when they would be able to gain a technological edge over the Cro-Magnons. The only advantage the latter would have then is that they would be better adapted for hot climates per se than the warm region Neanderthal races.

 

[Hnau]

I'm imagining something like this (map below). I've been thinking... and without a Human Great Leap Forward, and presuming that was tied into the necessary boating/rafting skills needed to make the jump to Australia, maybe the sea levels will rise enough by 30 kya to keep them from making it. It'll be settled by peoples with more advanced shipmaking skills later on. Also, seeing as Madagascar was settled only recently by people, and those people probably from Indonesia using outrigger rafts, hey, it might be empty too.

Not sure about the Arctic islands. Neanderthals were built for colder climates... but could primitive peoples settle those rocks sometime during the neolithic, or will that have to wait?

The purplish-pink color... that's what might be settled for more warm-climate adapted Neanderthals, if they adapt. Otherwise, I don't see them crossing that tropical region in any great numbers... might be much emptier in this timeline when advanced civilizations start snooping around.

Now, as the climate warms over thousands of years, if the Neanderthals haven't killed the humans fast enough, they might have to give up North Africa and the Middle East, also more of Mexico and the Southwest. Just too hot there.