The Neanderthal Legacy by Paul Mellars

Another interesting item:

December 1, 1998 NY Times

Neanderthal Or Cretin? A Debate Over Iodine

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

In a study already drawing the fire of controversy, an American geographer has pointed out evidence suggesting, in his view, that little more than the amount of Iodine in their diets may have been responsible for the physical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans and that this might solve the mystery of what happened to the Neanderthals.

According to this interpretation, the skeletons of Neanderthals bear signs of physical deformities and possibly impaired mental health, which could be a result of iodine-deficient diets. This condition may explain why they were so rapidly and completely replaced by modern humans in Europe about 30,000 years ago. It may even mean that Neanderthals could actually have been anatomically modern humans who were pathologically altered by iodine-deficiency diseases, like cretinism.

Perhaps the Neanderthals did not so much disappear as change their diets some time before 30,000 years ago to include more iodine-rich foods. In that case, this could explain why certain Neanderthal physical traits -- heavy brows, thick bones and musculature and propensities for degenerative joint diseases, which are also associated with iodine-deficiency diseases -- did not persist even if their genes continued into later European populations.

These are the provocative ideas of Dr. Jerome E. Dobson, a geographer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Tennessee, who crossed into the territory of paleontology and the minefield of Neanderthal studies while examining geographic questions about differences between coastal and inland populations. His analysis is to appear this month in Geographical Review, the journal of the American Geographical Society.

''I compared Neanderthal and cretin morphology and ultimately concluded that Neanderthals were iodine-deficient,'' Dr. Dobson said last week.

Paleontologists who specialize in Neanderthal research have raised sharp objections. Dr. Dobson's conclusions, they contend, are a stretch based on highly circumstantial evidence and at odds with evolutionary biology. But some anthropologists and other geographers said that the data seemed impressive and that the interpretations should be taken seriously.

''We sometimes have to rock the boat,'' said Dr. Karl W. Butzer, a geographer at the University of Texas at Austin. ''Even if this just generates papers that argue against the idea, it will have served a purpose, making the fossil people think and rethink their positions.''

For want of the chemical element iodine, a modern human typically suffers from goiter, an enlargement of the thyroid gland that disfigures the neck, or from cretinism, an even worse condition of physical deformity and mental retardation. Cretinism is caused either by dietary iodine deficiency or by malfunction or absence of the thyroid gland, which processes iodine into the thyroid hormone.

Although the addition of iodine to table salt has all but eliminated goiter and cretinism in developed countries, the World Health Organization estimates that 750 million people suffer from goiter and that 5.7 million are cretins. About 30 percent of the world's population is at risk of iodine-deficiency diseases, especially people isolated from the principal sources of dietary iodine like saltwater fish, shellfish and seaweed.

It occurred to Dr. Dobson that Neanderthals mainly lived in such areas in interior Europe during the ice ages. So he set about examining some of the 300 Neanderthal skeletons in museum collections and comparing them with medical descriptions of cretinism and with 17 cretin skeletons at collections in Basel, Switzerland, and Philadelphia.

In both the skeletal examinations and the medical literature, Dr. Dobson was struck by the conspicuous similarities in the overall body proportions, skulls and individual bones of Neanderthals and cretins. Many of the cretins had bulging brow ridges much like those common to Neanderthals. They also seemed to suffer many of the degenerative joint diseases of the jaw, spinal column and hip that afflicted Neanderthals.

''Indeed, Neanderthal skeletons resemble cretins far more closely than they resemble healthy modern humans,'' Dr. Dobson wrote in the journal article. ''Conversely, cretin skeletons resemble Neanderthals more closely than they resemble healthy modern humans.''

The research revealed too many similarities to be coincidental, Dr. Dobson said, and the ''key factor in controlling Neanderthal morphology'' appears to be iodine. This suggested to him that perhaps the critical difference between Neanderthals and modern humans was a single genetic alteration that improved the ability of the modern human thyroid gland to extract and use iodine. This would have given the modern humans who arrived in Europe 40,000 years ago, and are known to Science as the Cro-Magnons, a clear advantage over Neanderthals in a low-iodine environment.

Dr. Dobson even sees hints of Neanderthal cretinism in Cro-Magnon art. He speculated that the ''Venus figurines,'' tiny statues of women with huge breats and bellies and conspicuously exposed genitalia, may not have been fertility symbols, as usually interpreted, but actually representations of the cretinous form the Cro-Magnons remembered from their final encounters with the Neanderthals they replaced.

In any event, Dr. Dobson's thesis has unsettling implications for many issues that have long puzzled scientists since the first Neanderthal skeleton was found in a German quarry in 1856. At first, the skeleton was dismissed as the remains of a Mongolian Cossack who had deserted the Russian Army pursuing Napoleon in 1814. A prominent German scientist examining the bones judged that this had been a modern man who had a bad case of rickets, a calcium deficiency condition.

After the skeleton's greater antiquity was recognized and similar bones were found through Europe, scientists debated the Neanderthals' relationship to modern Homo sapiens. Direct ancestor? Or only an archaic cousin? Tests of mitochondrial DNA, reported earlier this year, suggest that Neanderthals were a separate species that last shared a common ancestor with Homo sapiens no later than 550,000 years ago. But paleontologists specializing in human evolution are not yet sure that the DNA findings can be considered definitive.

As for the fate of the Neanderthals, Dr. Dobson said his analysis could support replacement or continuity.

The prevailing replacement theory holds that all Neanderthals died out and were replaced by modern Homo sapiens, though it has always been puzzling that these hunters who had survived across Europe and western Asia for some 200,000 years should lose out to modern humans, the Cro-Magnons, in the relatively brief time of 10,000 years. Dr. Dobson concluded that iodine deficiency may be the explanation.

The continuity theory posits that some interbreeding occurred between Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens, meaning that some Neanderthal genes survive in Europeans. Dr. Dobson argued that in genetic terms, Neanderthals may have been anatomically modern humans who were pathologically altered by the effects of iodine deficiency. Through growing trade and other contacts with coastal people, the Neanderthals could have added more iodine to their diets. Superficial differences with modern humans would then have largely disappeared over a few generations, leaving Neanderthals indistinguishable from modern humans in the fossil record.

Dr. Lewis Binford, an anthropologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas who has studied and written about Neanderthal society, said the new analysis was the first to consider the implications of iodine deficiency in early populations.

''The data seem impressive to me and the hypothesis doesn't seem unreasonable,'' Dr. Binford said. ''We stand to learn something if others investigate the geographic and dietary issues of Neanderthals.''

An authority on Neanderthals, Dr. Fred H. Smith of Northern Illinois University, in De Kalb, said the iodine hypothesis reminded him of the arguments raised, and rejected, in the past to explain away Neanderthal anatomy as examples of rickets-caused deformities.

Dr. Eric Trinkaus, a paleontologist at Washington University, in St. Louis, who has written several books on Neanderthals, also disputed Dr. Dobson's evidence for widespread iodine deficiency in Neanderthal skeletons as well as his interpretations.

''You cannot explain 100,000 to 400,000 years of human evolution based on a pathological condition,'' Dr. Trinkaus said.

Anticipating controversy, Dr. Dobson wrote: ''I might be less bold in offering a new and dramatically different explanation of Neanderthals if prominent experts were satisfied with the debates of the past century or so. But they are not.''
 
That series of novels was actually mentioned by Mellars as being highly fanciful and tending to give the wrong impression of Neanderthals.

I do realize this,it is a novel not a work of non fiction after all and I was reluctant to post....but I need to post and network more and not just lurk

interesting to know that Mellars does mention the book and yes it is highly fanciful by book 2 it turns into a teenage romance novel and gets even worse, I mean come on, one girl invents everything from spear throwers to animal domestication...singlehanded ,but if you can overlook the plot driven BS ,the info on flora and fauna from that time is pretty good

Actually, this last paragraph is not very accurate. Recent studies have shown horrible wear and tear on human skeletons after the introduction of agriculture. That's because agriculture brought wage slavery with it.
wage slavery???
introduction of agriculture means grains...lectins and so on

This last is important and deals a heavy blow to certain objections or other explanations, even Mellars' (see below). It suggests strongly that the men were eating the good meat and tossing bones and skulls to the women. Skulls and bones that have to be broken open are the parts of the animal you eat if you are not getting enough food and are very hungry.
again I beg to differ,skulls contain brain a very rich food,and the bigger the animal is that you just butchered the longer it has to hang and cure for the enzymes to work and it becomes digestible,so the first goodies you get to eat straight away are the brain and the liver and other intestines and the marrow
How do we know they didn't eat fish?
 
rrraven said:
Actually, this last paragraph is not very accurate. Recent studies have shown horrible wear and tear on human skeletons after the introduction of agriculture. That's because agriculture brought wage slavery with it.
wage slavery???
introduction of agriculture means grains...lectins and so on

And also means a big chief in charge and lots of peons farming the fields.

rrraven said:
This last is important and deals a heavy blow to certain objections or other explanations, even Mellars' (see below). It suggests strongly that the men were eating the good meat and tossing bones and skulls to the women. Skulls and bones that have to be broken open are the parts of the animal you eat if you are not getting enough food and are very hungry.
again I beg to differ,skulls contain brain a very rich food,and the bigger the animal is that you just butchered the longer it has to hang and cure for the enzymes to work and it becomes digestible,so the first goodies you get to eat straight away are the brain and the liver and other intestines and the marrow
How do we know they didn't eat fish?

While you may think in terms of hung meat and cuisine, remember that we are talking about beings that often ate their meat raw, right off the animal. They weren't hanging the meat, they weren't waiting for it to be tenderized by partial pre-digestion.

With a single exception, no fish bones or fish leavings have been found in any Neanderthal context. The exception is thought to be a much later intrusion.
 
Laura said:
Another interesting item:

December 1, 1998 NY Times

Neanderthal Or Cretin? A Debate Over Iodine

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Well... If this were true, and if the characterisation of neandertals as having psychopathic traits is true, then we could be looking at neandertals as characteropaths because of lack of iodine, and thus, we may have to continue to look elsewhere (back to essential psychopathy as a mutation caused by the radiations released by an impacting comet swarm, etc) for the source of essential psychopathy.

[mod: quote fixed]
 
With a single exception, no fish bones or fish leavings have been found in any Neanderthal context. The exception is thought to be a much later intrusion.

but absence of evidence doesn't have to mean evidence of absence...maybe they ate the fish on the riverbank and didn't bring them back to camp I just find it hard to believe,with all we know about the importance of fish oil,that they wouldn't avail themselves to a abundant food source like fish

and even dogs or the big cats will eat the intestines first and try to bury or get the carcass up into a tree....it is simply impossible to chew,even with neander jaws,freshly killed meat of an animal as big as a cow...have you ever tried? I have,terrible waste of a good steak :(

the comment to the mating being female driven reminded me of a book on cats I read...these people were studying british alley cats and found 2 different types of toms one type stayed with the female group of its mother and did not mate the other type would live solitary and ''make the rounds''among all the groups in his territory
 
Regarding the iodine deficiency theory:

It was said that

The prevailing replacement theory holds that all Neanderthals died out and were replaced by modern Homo sapiens, though it has always been puzzling that these hunters who had survived across Europe and western Asia for some 200,000 years should lose out to modern humans, the Cro-Magnons, in the relatively brief time of 10,000 years. Dr. Dobson concluded that iodine deficiency may be the explanation.

If they survived for 200,000 years then suddenly (within 10,000 years) died out how is iodine deficiency the cause? How is it that there seemed to be no problem until those last 10,000 years? Did they used to eat fish and then quit?
 
rrraven said:
With a single exception, no fish bones or fish leavings have been found in any Neanderthal context. The exception is thought to be a much later intrusion.

but absence of evidence doesn't have to mean evidence of absence...maybe they ate the fish on the riverbank and didn't bring them back to camp I just find it hard to believe,with all we know about the importance of fish oil,that they wouldn't avail themselves to a abundant food source like fish

I think you are still attributing to them human intelligence and perspectives.

I read an interesting paper today: "neanderthal Settlement patterns in Crimea: A landscape approach" which basically sets out some evidence that Neanderthals were so dumb they couldn't navigate in a landscape that didn't have clear, unusual features that could be seen from a distance, to help them to keep a marker in sight to find their way home when out foraging. It is suggested that this is why they never strayed far from their home area, never settled in areas that were not "legible", and why their society was so static.

The contrast between the Middle Paleolithic record of Crimea and the archaeologically much poorer record of the East European plain is striking. Archaeologists have blamed the paucity of the Middle Paleolithic record of the plains on the inhospitable nature of open environments and on the inability of Neanderthals to create large-scale social networks. In the light of the abundant evidence that Neanderthals were adept at solving problems related to subsistence scheduling and equally capable of curating technology when necessary, the reasons for this adaptive deficiency are not immediately apparent... The Upper Paleolithic record on the East European plain also suggests a pattern of rapid colonization by behaviorally modern humans at the onset of full glacial conditions. Why were behaviorally modern humans apparently better able to overcome the cognitive challenges posed by the East European plain? The East European plain represents a less legible environment than the Crimea: ease of travel is offset by a lack of coherent structure...

Humans use two main strategies when way-finding: use of a generalized, transferable system of knowledge, or use of a more region-specific cognitive map. Could modern humans have been more adept at using a generalized way-finding system, one that may have worked better in the vast, featureless expanse of the East European plain? As an additional benefit, a transferable system of knowledge would have given behaviorally modern humans the edge in a rapid colonization phase, prior to the acquisition of more region-specific information.

For small and thinly dispersed populations of Neanderthals, relying on cognitive maps as a way-finding strategy, the absence of legibility may have made regular contact between individuals impossible. ... The persistence of Neanderthal groups in more topographically complex regions such as the Crimea, southern Iberia and Croatia could be the result of the suitability for the environments for a Neanderthal way of life. ...

The connections we may eventually be able to draw between the skills used to negotiate the landscape and the advent of symbolic productions in the Upper Paleolithic as a means of maintaining social networks over greater distances will no doubt complete the picture presented here, hopefully providing useful insights into the disappearance of the Neanderthals.

The author demonstrates that Neanderthal camps were located next to striking landscape features which suggests that those locations were chosen because they could be easily found.

This suggests also that Neanderthals, after 200,000 years, still couldn't navigate by the sun, moon or stars.

I think one of the most useful books to read in order to really get a handle on how they may have used their minds is Mithen's "Prehistory of the Mind." It is a fascinating book. Far more worthwhile to read than any novel.
 
FireShadow said:
Regarding the iodine deficiency theory:

It was said that

The prevailing replacement theory holds that all Neanderthals died out and were replaced by modern Homo sapiens, though it has always been puzzling that these hunters who had survived across Europe and western Asia for some 200,000 years should lose out to modern humans, the Cro-Magnons, in the relatively brief time of 10,000 years. Dr. Dobson concluded that iodine deficiency may be the explanation.

If they survived for 200,000 years then suddenly (within 10,000 years) died out how is iodine deficiency the cause? How is it that there seemed to be no problem until those last 10,000 years? Did they used to eat fish and then quit?

I agree that it is kind of a dumb theory, but it is one being proposed by a more-or-less mainstream type person with some claim to scientific rigor.

I've spent some time today reading the Neanderthal DNA paper by Paabo et al. What it says basically shoots the iodine theory full of holes. Here is a quote from a sciencemag article that is a bit more precise than most of the stuff published in popular sources.

The team compared the Neandertal genome with the genomes of five diverse modern humans. They found 78 new nucleotide substitutions that change the protein-coding capacity of genes and that are present in most humans today; just five genes had more than one such substitution. ..."Only 78 substitutions in the last 300,000 years! .. The fact that so few changes have become fixed on the human lineage is amazing."

But the mutations they've found so far "are all very interesting, precisely because there are so few... The catalog includes changes in genes that encode proteins important for wound healing, the beating of sperm flagellum, and gene transcription. Several of these newly evolved modern human genes encode proteins expressed in the skin, sweat glands, and inner sheaths of hair roots, as well as skin pigmentation. "The fact that three of six genes carrying multiple substitutions are in skin is fascinating..." speculating that these changes "reflect that skin physiology has changed but how, of course, we don't know yet."

...the team also used the Neandertal data to find other evolutionary changes that were beneficial to modern humans and so rose to high frequencies in some populations. ...they have identified 15 regions containing between one and 12 genes. The widest region is located on chromosome 2 and contains the gene THADA, a region that varies in modern humans and that has been associated with type 2 diabetes. Changes in this gene may have affected energy metabolism in modern humans.

Other mutations appear to be in genes important in cognitive development and that, when mutated in living people, contribute to diseases such as Down syndrome, schizophrenia, and autism. One gene, RUNX2, is associated with a disease that leads a spectrum of developmental abnormalities, including misshapen clavicles and a bell-shaped rib cage. Suggestively, Neandertals had bell-shaped rib cages and possibly peculiar clavicles.

RPTN - Encodes the protein repetin, expressed in skin, sweat glands, hair roots, and tongue papilli.

TRPMI - Encodes melastatin, a protein that helps maintain skin pigmentation

THADA - Associated with type 2 diabetes in humans; evolutionary changes may have affected energy metabolism

DYRK1A - Found in an area critical for causing Down syndrome

NRG3 - Mutations associated with schizophrenia

CADPS2,AUTS2 - Mutations implicated in autism

RUNX2 (CBRA1) - Causes cleidocranial dysplasia, characterized by delayed closure of cranial sutures, malformed clavicles, bell-shaped rib cage, and dental abnormalities

SPAG17 - Protein important for the beating of the sperm flagellum

Now, notice this: they only had a sample of FIVE modern people: a San from Southern Africa, a Yoruba from West Africa, a Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese, and one French European.

Yup, that's it. The total lot selected for comparison.

Neandertal DNA tended to be more similar to European DNA than to African DNA.

For now, it seems Neandertals interbred with the ancestors of Europeans and Asians, but not with the ancestors of Africans. At first, "we were baffled that this affinity with Neandertals was not only in Europe and West Asia, but also in Papua New Guinea" where Neandertals never set foot", says Paabo.

The only place where there is evidence of Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans co-existing during the time frame when this must have happened, at least 80,000 years ago, is the Middle East. It could have been as late as 60,000 years ago, but definitely not as recent as 45,000 to 30,000 years ago. "Such late European mixing cannot explain the current findings, in which Asians and Europeans are equally similar to Neandertals."

In some ways, it is surprising that there isn't more evidence of interbreeding, now that researchers know it was biologically possible. "For some reason, they didn't interbreed a lot - something was preventing them," says evolutionary geneticist Sarah Tishkoff...

Now, notice that none of the above talks about the genes of Neanderthals may have contributed definitively to modern humans... the team says that they cannot rule out that what they are seeing as "Neandertal" motifs are really ancient genetic variants that Neandertals and some modern humans inherited from a common ancestor they shared before Neandertals split off."

That Papua match is definitely troubling. The whole paper is disturbing, particularly with all the media hoopla it received. One thing it may have done is destroy the "out of Africa" model.

But do notice the schizophrenia and autism gene mutation...
 
FireShadow said:
Regarding the iodine deficiency theory:

It was said that

The prevailing replacement theory holds that all Neanderthals died out and were replaced by modern Homo sapiens, though it has always been puzzling that these hunters who had survived across Europe and western Asia for some 200,000 years should lose out to modern humans, the Cro-Magnons, in the relatively brief time of 10,000 years. Dr. Dobson concluded that iodine deficiency may be the explanation.

If they survived for 200,000 years then suddenly (within 10,000 years) died out how is iodine deficiency the cause? How is it that there seemed to be no problem until those last 10,000 years? Did they used to eat fish and then quit?

I read the whole article related to the quote above before my previous post. Somehow I did not register this part:

Perhaps the Neanderthals did not so much disappear as change their diets some time before 30,000 years ago to include more iodine-rich foods. In that case, this could explain why certain Neanderthal physical traits -- heavy brows, thick bones and musculature and propensities for degenerative joint diseases, which are also associated with iodine-deficiency diseases -- did not persist even if their genes continued into later European populations.

I feel so stupid.
 
FireShadow said:
I feel so stupid.

Don't feel stupid. Notice the stuff I've just posted about the DNA paper where it is pointed out that there is a difference between modern humans and Neanderthals in a gene that specifically causes the characteristics that the other guy was attributing to iodine deficiency. That shoots his theory down.
 
Laura said:
FireShadow said:
I feel so stupid.

Don't feel stupid. Notice the stuff I've just posted about the DNA paper where it is pointed out that there is a difference between modern humans and Neanderthals in a gene that specifically causes the characteristics that the other guy was attributing to iodine deficiency. That shoots his theory down.

Thank you, Laura, you are very gracious.

And be that as it may, I still need to slow down and think more carefully before I try to make a point. Even though the theory is shot full of holes by the evidence you have since posted, it does not change the fact that I tried to make a point that was refuted within the very article I quoted from. Sloppy.

Just a reminder to myself to be more careful, and slow down. I get so excited by learning new things that I get carried away. An old habit I am trying to break. By admitting this out loud, I am hoping to accomplish a couple of things. I hope this admission will help me break some of my "fear of appearing stupid" and that the discomfort will remind me to slow down.

One of the things I value about this forum. There is much room for making mistakes and growing from them. Now, back to reading some more, I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further than I already have.
 
Jerry said:
Aren’t we looking at a possible origin for the sons of god / sons of man theme?

Yes, I've been thinking about that. Also in terms of legends of the "Watchers" of the Book of Enoch. Mainly, I'm just looking to see if anything falls into place on its own.
 
Laura said:
That Papua match is definitely troubling. The whole paper is disturbing, particularly with all the media hoopla it received. One thing it may have done is destroy the "out of Africa" model.

But do notice the schizophrenia and autism gene mutation...

yeah odd... And you said there was no mention about what all this might mean with respect to possible neanderthal genetic remnants in modern humans...

I wonder if schizophrenia and autism could be considered 2 very extreme manifestations of some of the traits that make modern humans different than animals.

schizophrenia - an extreme outwardly projected manifestation of internal symbolic systems

autism - an extreme exaggeration of the state of quiet, internal contemplation
 
Back
Top Bottom