There is fairly intensive debate over just how similar humans and Neanderthals are. And whether that could explain why they went extinct.
They were our closest cousins, with big brains. But at the same time, those brains were differently shaped.
Do the big brains mean we had a similar level of intelligence? Or does the difference in shape mean they actually thought differently?
But perhaps the most important question is does this even matter? Do we need to invoke intellectual differences to explain why we lived but they did not?
Differences between brothers
For many years Neanderthals got a bit of a reputation as the divs of recent human species. But recent research has shown this is far from the case.
It turns out t hey ate a variety of different food. They had cooked their food. They could have thrown their spears. Their bodies were still very efficient. They were innovative and produced advanced technology. They even made various forms of art. All of these were thought to be ways in which us smarty pants were "better" than the Neanderthals. But it turns out that we just weren't.
However, there are still a few differences left between us and Neanderthals. As I discussed last week, so I won't bother going into them again too much. Long story short, there were some pretty big differences between our brains. In particular, we have larger parietal lobes that give our brains a more globular shape (globular being one of my favourite words to say. It's got so many different noises in).
This could mean we have enhanced connections between the different parts of the brain. Perhaps this gave us an edge over our Neanderthal brothers. Or maybe it didn't. After all, we can list weird ways in which humans and Neanderthals differed for days. They had a bigger nose, for example. But how significant are these differences?
And perhaps most importantly, are these differences significant enough to explain why the Neanderthals went extinct?
Does it matter?
However, it turns out that none of this really matters. A series of computer models have shown how even if humans and Neanderthals were equally smart, we still could have beaten them.
It all boils down to our technological advantage. Humans rolled up to the Neanderthal club with some very fancy tools. We would both have hunted the same prey; so whoever had the best tools for the job would outcompete the others. Crucially, this new study shows that this would happen even if the Neanderthals outnumbered the first humans (which they likely did, given it was their home turf). And if humans only had a small technological advantage. Even a slight edge would allow us to reproduce a little bit better, soon allowing us to outnumber the Neanderthals. We could really give them a good kick whilst they were down.
Now to be fair, the Neanderthals had those fancy tools too. However, they seemed to produce them a lot less frequently. In some cases they only seem to have adopted them a few thousand years after humans arrived in the joint (which has led some to speculate they stole them from humans). Thus, even if Neanderthals were as smart as us and making the same tools as us; we brought the better tools to more parties. This would have given us the advantage in hunting resources, allowing us to outcompete the Neanderthals.
Of course, this points rest on the idea that our tools were actually better for hunting than theirs'. Sure they were fancier, but how much does that translate into better hunting ability? Can we really quantify the technological level of the two groups? We can measure a lot of variables about these tools. Some were a more efficient use of raw materials. Others could be repaired quicker. Which of these variables, if any, is the one that gave us the edge? These simulations don't really tell the answer.
This makes it rather difficult to check the archaeological record and confirm they're right. So some salt is needed for these results until we come up with the universal tool metric. How hard can it be?
Ways to go extinct
These simulations also identified some other ways that a small group of humans could have gained an advantage over the Neanderthal.
The most significant of these was learning ability. If it turns out we were a bit smarter than Neanderthals (or at least, a bit better at learning) then we could drive them extinct in almost any scenario. No matter how many Neanderthals were living in the region initially, or how few humans turned up, if we could learn better they would all go extinct.
This ultimately works for the same reason that having better culture works. If we can learn we can adapt, innovate, and gain that same cultural edge that would have allowed us to outcompete the Neanderthals.
But just like the other scenario; this one is also hard to quantify. I haven't seen anyone try and teach something to a Neanderthal to see how good they would be at it.
tl;dr
Better technology or better learning skills could have allowed humans to drive Neanderthals extinct, even if we were equally as smart.
References
Gilpin, W., Feldman, M.W. and Aoki, K., 2016. An ecocultural model predicts Neanderthal extinction through competition with modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p.201524861.
Wynn, T., Overmann, K.A. and Coolidge, F.L., 2016. The false dichotomy: a refutation of the Neandertal indistinguishability claim. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 94, pp.1-22.
