Scientist reveal what extinct cavemen would have looked like today
For the last 40,000 years, Homo sapiens have been the only human species walking the Earth but what would cavemen like Neanderthals and Denisovans look like today if they had survived.
DailyMail.com has asked the experts to find out what the world might be like if they had survived.
Surprisingly, they say that our distant evolutionary cousins might not be all that different to modern humans today.
However, they might have had a hard time fitting in with our fast-paced, highly social societies.
Dr April Noel, a Paleolithic archaeologist from the University of Victoria, told DailyMail.com: 'The idea that Neanderthals were hunched over, dim-witted individuals with no thought beyond their next meal is no longer tenable.
'At the same time, the idea that you could just slap a hat on a Neanderthal and you would not think twice about sitting next to him on the tube is also out the window.'
What would they look like?
Neanderthals and Denisovans are our closest ancient human relatives.
The Neanderthals emerged around 400,000 years ago when they branched off from our common ancestors.
Denisovans, meanwhile, are a far more elusive species of ancient humans who split from the Neanderthal evolutionary line around 430,000 years ago.
If they had remained as separate species rather than going extinct, Neanderthals and Denisovans might look much the same as they did in the distant past.
From the abundant fossil records, we know that Neanderthals were a little shorter than us on average, with shorter legs and wider hips.
Neanderthals were very muscular and rugged, with large bodies and even larger heads.
Their skulls show that they have room for a bigger brain than modern humans and would have been distinguished by a massive brow ridge and small foreheads.
However, experts say they still would be clearly recognizable as fellow humans.
Professor John Hawks, an anthropologist from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told DailyMail.com: 'We don't know of any physiological traits that make Neanderthals distinct, that is, traits that don't overlap.
'Almost every physical trait in Neanderthals overlaps in its variation with ours today, at least to some extent.'
That means they wouldn't look like lumbering cavemen or women, but rather like a slightly different variation of humans.
Denisovans, meanwhile, are a little more of a mystery.
It was only this month that scientists identified the first Denisovan skull, and besides this, there are only small fragments of bone to go on.
Based on the newly identified skull, experts believe that Denisovans would have had a wide face with heavy, flat cheeks, a wide mouth, and a large nose.
These bones also show that Denisovans would have been exceptionally large and muscular people, much stronger than more slender Homo sapiens.
Not all that different
However, experts say that Homo sapiens, Denisovans, and Neanderthals might not have remained that distinct for long.
These human species interbred widely during the periods they overlapped, and many modern humans carry at least some Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.
If these species hadn't vanished, they might have continued to interbreed and further intermix our genes.
Dr Hugo Zeberg, an expert on gene flow from Neanderthals and Denisovans into modern humans from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, told DailyMail.com: 'In a way they never went extinct. We merged!
'Probably the relatively low amount of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in present humans reflects the fact that modern humans [Homo sapiens] were more numerous.
'But with more chances of encounters, we might have more archaic DNA present in the gene pool of modern humans.'
We're still learning about how ancient genes influence modern humans, so it's hard to say what effects this mixing might produce.
But Dr Zeberg points out that Denisovan genes are responsible for 'high altitude adaptation for Tibetans and some influence on lip shape in Latin American populations.'
Similarly, Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens hybrids would likely have a mixture of the traits of both species such as larger heads, longer limbs, and narrower hips.
Over time, some scientists believe Denisovans, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens might have merged into a single human species with a mixture of all the traits.
Dr Bence Viola, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Toronto, told DailyMail.com: 'I think it would have been impossible for Denisovans and Neanderthals to retain sufficient genetic isolation to remain a separate population.
'We know that they interbred with modern humans whenever they came into contact, and so the more contact there is, the more mixing happens – so they would have become a part of us.'
Would they fit in?
We don't currently know very much about how Denisovans lived, but research now shows Neanderthals might have struggled to fit in with modern society.
One of the leading theories for why Homo sapiens survived while other species dropped off is that modern humans essentially 'tamed' ourselves.
Modern humans developed genes that allowed us to become more sociable, develop larger social networks, and work with our fellow humans.
Dr Noel says: 'Unlike their modern human contemporaries, Neanderthals lived in small, fairly isolated groups.
'If there was an accident that killed a number of their hunters or some other crisis occurred, they did not always have others to reach out to. As a result, their numbers would drop below what you need to be sustainable.'
Dr Noel points out that research into Neanderthal genes suggests they were less cognitively flexible, had greater difficulties processing language, and lacked genes related to self-awareness, creativity, and behaviors intended to benefit others.
'In the highly connected world we all live in, I think Neanderthals would have been left behind, or at least, left out,' says Dr Noel.
In a world where Neanderthals lived alongside other human species, this could really change the way society was structured.
Professor Spikins says that while modern humans became 'tamer, more playful and more friendly to each other,' those changes came alongside 'being a bit easily led'.
She adds: 'If Neanderthals were better at not "following the herd" and more of those tendencies were present, I bet much of our world would be different; they might not be easily swayed by social media!'
How would the world be different?
If Neanderthals and Denisovans hadn't gone extinct thousands of years ago, the world might be a very different place.
From the evidence we have of these ancient species, we know that they lived in much smaller communities and had a far more limited impact on the land.
In fact, Dr Zeberg points out that modern humans appear to be unique in the way that we modify the world around us through agriculture and large cities.
One strange consequence of this is that a world where Homo sapiens are not dominant might mean a world without pets.
There is no evidence that Neanderthals and Denisovans attempted to nurture relationships with animals through domestication - that means no horses, cats, dogs or even modern agricultural species like cattle and sheep.
But with more of our relative anti-social genes, humanity may also have avoided some of its more destructive tendencies.
Professor Spikins says: 'If Neanderthals had been the ones to survive, we might not have the problem we have with climate change, as their tendency to be more isolated within their separate groups might have limited how technology spread and got used, and how much the environment got exploited.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
Everything Evolves by Mark Vellend review – can Darwin explain JD Vance?
Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, but then again no one could have predicted the giraffe, the iPhone or JD Vance. The laws of physics don't demand them; they all just evolved, expressions of how (for better or worse) things happened to turn out. Ecologist Mark Vellend's thesis is that to understand the world, 'physics and evolution are the only two things you need'. Evolution, here, refers in the most general sense to outcomes that depend on what has gone before. Thus the world can be divided into things that are inescapable and things that are contingent, depending on circumstances. In the terminology he borrows from evolutionary biologist Graham Bell, the study of physical necessity is the 'first science'; that of historical contingency the second. So, the periodic table of 90 or so natural elements, which are inescapable given the laws of physics, would fall under the first science. Dung beetles and vice presidents, which aren't, fall under the second. This 'second science', Vellend argues, unites disciplines from evolutionary biology to anthropology, history, economics and political science. If we fail to teach children about evolutionary processes, we 'deprive them of understanding the fundamental set of processes that underlie not only life, but also the cultures and economies (and education systems) in which they live and work'. In developing this thesis, Everything Evolves draws on examples from technology and product design, microbiology, ecology, linguistics, and more. When biologists talk of evolution, they tend to mean the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, which incorporates three phenomena – variation, selection and inheritance. Life generates diversity: some animals, for example, can run faster than others. (Darwin didn't know how such variation arose; it is now attributed to genetic mutation.) Some of those variants help an animal survive because they're better adapted to its environment and circumstances. These are the ones that are selected for inheritance – they're passed on to the next generation, rather than dying out. But Vellend advises against a too Darwin-centric view of evolution. For one thing the theory is much more complex than this bullet-point summary. Some organisms survive by sheer luck, not adaptive advantage, creating random drift in traits. And, as Vellend explains, the nuances seem endless. For instance, the 'fitness' of some variants may depend on how rare or common they are, as he illustrates by analogy with baby names: a name might be more fit when it's unusual than when it's familiar. Fitness is also multi factorial: does a mobile phone perform better in the marketplace by virtue of being smaller, faster, nicer to look at, cheaper? How is one advantage weighed against another? As these examples show, ideas from evolutionary theory can be applied to social systems and artefacts, from corporations to computers. But this doesn't mean they too evolve in strictly Darwinian fashion. Other types of evolution are possible: ones that involve an element of planning, rather than random variation, say. What they all have in common is repeated trial and error, with some way of assessing the products and retaining what works. Vellend attempts to paint this larger picture through the metaphor of an 'evolutionary soundboard' on which a series of dials controlling factors such as variation, inheritance and differential success can be twiddled. It's a noble effort at unification – but as any engineer knows, once you have a complex system governed by many independent factors, the possibility space is vast and the task of predicting (or understanding) outcomes overwhelming. In the end, the message is simply that evolving systems are widespread and massively complicated. Vellend recognises that he is not the first to suggest a distinction between physical determinism and evolutionary contingency. In A World Beyond Physics (2019), for example, complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman argued that 'physics will not tell us whence we come, how arrived, why the human heart exists, nor why I can buy nectarines in Eastsound [an island in the Pacific north-west]'. But can a description of the physical and social worlds really be split so neatly in two? On the one hand, if nature really is lawlike at the fundamental level, doesn't that mean everything that has happened since the big bang, including the evolution of dung beetles, has an inevitability about it? Certainly there seems to be some lawlike predictability to both biological and social evolution. Fluid dynamics makes it likely that many flying things would be winged and swimming things streamlined. Physical principles prevent humans growing 20 ft tall or trees topping about 300 ft. There is a physics that describes traffic jams and networks like the internet or Amazonian ecosystems. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is probabilistic: we can't say what will happen at the microscopic scale, only what might. It's widely thought that the large-scale structure of the universe carries the imprint of quantum fluctuations – of chance – laid down when the cosmos was still around the size of an atom. So in a sense there is a contingency to absolutely everything that exists. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Vellend's proposal for a restructuring of the academic curriculum into the first and second sciences is, then, open to debate. Yet he does a valuable job of reminding us how little fundamental physics explains, or ever will. 'Everything,' the zoologist D'Arcy Thompson is said to have once opined, 'is the way it is because it got that way.' Vellend's title might be truer than even he recognises. Everything Evolves: Why Evolution Explains More Than We Think, From Proteins to Politics by Mark Vellend is published by Princeton (£25). To support the Guardian order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Neanderthals bred with humans 100,000 YEARS earlier than first thought, scientists say - as they discover skeleton of five-year-old crossbreed
Neanderthals bred with our human ancestors 100,000 years earlier than previously thought, according to a new study. Experts have discovered that a five–year–old child who lived 140,000 years ago had parents from both species. Their fossil – likely a female – was first unearthed 90 years ago in the Skhul Cave on Mount Carmel in what is now northern Israel. A team from Tel Aviv University and the French Centre for Scientific Research conducted a series of advanced tests on the remaining bones, including a CT scan of the skull. 'Genetic studies over the past decade have shown that these two groups exchanged genes,' said lead author Professor Israel Hershkovitz. 'Even today, 40,000 years after the last Neanderthals disappeared, part of our genome—two to six per cent—is of Neanderthal origin. 'But these gene exchanges took place much later, between 60,000 to 40,000 years ago. Here, we are dealing with a human fossil that is 140,000 years old. 'In our study, we show that the child's skull, which in its overall shape resembles that of Homo sapiens—especially in the curvature of the skull vault—has an intracranial blood supply system, a lower jaw, and an inner ear structure typical of Neanderthals' The finding makes the remains the earliest human fossil in the world to display features of both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, the team say. A recent study, also carried out by Professor Hershkovitz, showed that Neanderthals lived in what is modern–day Israel as far back as 400,000 years ago. The new findings suggest they encountered early humans that began leaving Africa around 200,000 years ago. This human–Neanderthal type, which researchers have called 'Nesher Ramla Homo' after the archaeological site where it was found – was the result of interbreeding between the two populations. The child is, so far, the earliest evidence of the social and biological ties between these two populations over thousands of years. The local Neanderthals eventually disappeared when they were absorbed into the Homo sapiens population, much like the later European Neanderthals. 'The fossil we studied is the earliest known physical evidence of mating between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens,' Professor Hershkovitz said. 'In 1998, a skeleton of a child was discovered in Portugal that showed traits of both of these human groups. But that skeleton, nicknamed the 'Lapedo Valley Child,' dates back 28,000 years ago—more than 100,000 years after the Skhul child.' Until now, anthropologists have attributed the fossils discovered in the Skhul Cave to an early group of Homo sapiens. 'The current study reveals that at least some of the fossils from the Skhul Cave are the result of continuous genetic infiltration from the local—and older—Neanderthal population into the Homo sapiens population,' Professor Hershkovitz added. The Daily Mail has previously spoken to scientists who explained that hybrid children would likely inherit traits from both of their parents. That means hybrids might have a Neanderthal's long arms and short legs with the smaller skull of a Homo sapiens. Likewise, some of the hybrid children may have had strong Neanderthal facial features but the upright posture and long legs of a modern human. In some cases, this hybridisation process could even lead to the formation of unusual, new traits, not found in either parent. Anne Dambricourt–Malassé, a paleoanthropologist at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and co–author of the study, said that this girl's skeleton tells us what hybrids might have looked like. She explained that the girl had 'a powerful neck, a little higher than Homo sapiens, her forehead was less bulging.' Scientists say that hybrids, such as a girl who lived in what is now Israel 140,000 years ago, would have had a combination of Neanderthal and Homo sapiens traits (AI Impression). To generate these images, ChatGPT was provided with analysis from experts and descriptions of hybrids from the latest research and asked to visualise the results The girl also showed a 'slight subnasal prognathism', meaning that her jaw would have jutted out much like the famous 'Habsburg chin'. Her spine shows that she would have had a more upright position than a Neanderthal, who typically walked with a curved back. However, the girl's jaw, spine, and pelvis all bear features that appear to be more Neanderthal in their origin. The new discovery was published in the journal l'Anthropologie. A close relative of modern humans, Neanderthals went extinct 40,000 years ago The Neanderthals were a close human ancestor that mysteriously died out around 40,000 years ago. The species lived in Africa with early humans for millennia before moving across to Europe around 300,000 years ago. They were later joined by humans, who entered Eurasia around 48,000 years ago. These were the original 'cavemen', historically thought to be dim-witted and brutish compared to modern humans. In recent years though, and especially over the last decade, it has become increasingly apparent we've been selling Neanderthals short. A growing body of evidence points to a more sophisticated and multi-talented kind of 'caveman' than anyone thought possible. It now seems likely that Neanderthals had told, buried their dead, painted and even interbred with humans. They used body art such as pigments and beads, and they were the very first artists, with Neanderthal cave art (and symbolism) in Spain apparently predating the earliest modern human art by some 20,000 years. They are thought to have hunted on land and done some fishing. However, they went extinct around 40,000 years ago following the success of Homo sapiens in Europe.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
Scholar makes bombshell claim about inscriptions found in desert
An American - Israeli epigraphist, Michael S. Bar-Ron, claims two 3,800-year-old inscriptions found at a turquoise mine in the Egyptian desert could be the earliest written references to Moses. The Proto-Sinaitic etchings, discovered at the Serabit el-Khadim mining site in the Sinai Desert, date from 1800 to 1600 BC, predating the earliest biblical texts. Bar-Ron interprets the texts as 'Zot M'Moshe' and 'Ne'um Moshe', potentially translating to 'This is from Moses' and 'Declaration of Moses', which would be the oldest non-biblical mentions of Moses. He also suggests the inscriptions, which refer to the deity El, contain warnings and rebukes against the ancient goddess Ba'alat cult, whose temple was at the site. Academic reception to Mr Bar-Ron's interpretation is mixed, with some Egyptologists like Thomas Schneider calling it 'completely unproven and misleading', though Mr Bar-Ron stresses his work is peer-reviewed.
