# I can has Neanderthal genes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 6, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552 "2010-05-06T21:00:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/61 "2010-05-08T21:05:58Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > The main thing I have with the dirty, tangle haired image is the evidence of _jewelry_ in the grave goods. This seems to me to indicate they actually had some form of aesthetics. If you are bothering to put on jewelry, you probably do something about neatening your hair, and probably washing and using minerals and plant substances to decorate your body [look at the guys in the amazon, no clothing worth mentioning other than a gourd or whatever on their nads, but elaborate face painting and hair decorations.] But isn’t that evidence pretty scarce, and only after possible contact with Modern Humans? I could be wrong, but I didn’t think we had evidence for widespread use of jewelry before possible contact with Moderns. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/62 "2010-05-08T21:10:57Z")
Thinking about the 1-4% DNA from Neanderthals, I think what that means is that non-Africans trace 1-4% of their ancestry to Neanderthals. And given that those Neanderthals shared 99.5% of their DNA with us, that’s only a tiny contribution of DNA that actually differed from ours. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/63 "2010-05-08T21:22:05Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I picked up on that as well. I have been reading a lot of Spencer Wells work recently including the book Deep Ancestry. He is the foremost or at least the most famous and influential scholar in this area and he goes out of his way not to be racist but, if you read the DNA evidence even in layman’s terms, it turns out that we aren’t just all one big happy homo sapien family differentiated only by skin tone. There were a number of events during the time of the last Ice Age that made human differentiation fast and furious whether it involved people moving to Northern Europe, the Asian mainland or isolated them as the Australian Aborigines. > > Both the blatantly racist and scientific arguments have always been phrased in a backward way it seems to me. Africa has more human diversity than any other place on earth so you can’t just lump even black Africans together as a group. That is true. However, maybe the small groups that moved out of Africa 40,000 - 10,000 years ago were rather small and underwent a Founder effect coupled pushed through a genetic funnel because of harsh circumstances and then got another shift through interbreeding with Neanderthals. That would mean that everything isn’t only skin deep just like most people think intuitively anyway and that there are somewhat distinct human populations no matter how large even though there is always a gradient because of further inbreeding. The proponents of the ‘only skin deep’ hypothesis haven’t stood up well to scientific scrutiny in my opinion but it is career suicide for researchers to state that outright nor should they. The facts speak for themselves so far assuming the research is correct. Two points: First, the “lumping of (sub-saharan) Africans” is a ridiculously broad lumping of diverse populations into a “race.” The thing that is sensitive, and makes them lumpable at all biologically is the category of “those who do not share a Neanderthal heritage.” Historically, in my view, modern anthropologists have discouraged biologic race categorizations on the general notion that we are all subset diverse populations branching off the same monogenetic trunk. Since Neanderthals are different in some more profound way, and since (broadly speaking) there are such disparities in outcomes between the (putative) categories of some-Neanderthal and no-Neanderthal in the modern world, I expect fairly rigorous examination of Paabo’s paper, and should it turn out to hold up, fairly rigorous debate on the function and significance of any Neanderthal genes. The implication of the paper is that there are two trunks–some-Neanderthal and no-Neanderthal–and the authors use the term “cognition” regarding some of the genes studied, both in the abstract and the summary. I was surprised they called that out. Second point is a nitpick. I may be reading the paper incorrectly, but I think one of the suggestions in it is that the mixing may have occurred in a first out-of-Africa group, perhaps on the order of 100,000 or more years ago. I am not sure about this point, and I may have misconstrued it as I have not really digested the contents yet. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/64 "2010-05-08T21:24:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think that is a misread of the paper by whichever journalist is reporting this. All extant humans share about 99.9% of our DNA. We share 99.5% of our DNA with Neanderthals and about 98.5% with chimps. These are the numbers I’ve seen most commonly reported. I can’t see that we are suddenly saying that some extant human populations differ by as much as 4% in their DNA. You are correct. Current research is not suggesting that modern humans who may have some Neandertal genetic heritage are more different from other modern humans than from chimpanzees. As the _Science_ article notes, humans and Neandertals had common ancestors within the past 500,000 years, whereas humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor over 4 million years ago. So our human ancestors already shared much more DNA with Neandertals than with chimpanzees even before some northern subgroup(s) of them allegedly started getting it on with their Neandertal cousins in those dimly lit caves. Saying that we share 98.5% (or 96%, depending on how you count) of our DNA with chimps is a way of saying that the human genome and the chimp genome are very similar. Saying that we get 1%-4% of our genes from Neandertals, or that you share 100% of your DNA with your identical twin brother but only 50% with your father, is a way of describing individual differences **within** the human genome. Clearly, you are not more closely related to a chimpanzee than to your father. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/65 "2010-05-08T21:29:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Two points: > > First, the “lumping of (sub-saharan) Africans” is a ridiculously broad lumping of diverse populations into a “race.” The thing that is sensitive, and makes them lumpable at all biologically is the category of “those who do not share a Neanderthal heritage.” Historically, in my view, modern anthropologists have discouraged biologic race categorizations on the general notion that we are all subset diverse populations branching off the same monogenetic trunk. Since Neanderthals are different in some more profound way, and since (broadly speaking) there are such disparities in outcomes between the (putative) categories of some-Neanderthal and no-Neanderthal in the modern world, I expect fairly rigorous examination of Paabo’s paper, and should it turn out to hold up, fairly rigorous debate on the function and significance of any Neanderthal genes. The implication of the paper is that there are two trunks–some-Neanderthal and no-Neanderthal–and the authors use the term “cognition” regarding some of the genes studied, both in the abstract and the summary. I was surprised they called that out. We don’t really know how “profound” the difference was between Neanderthals and Modern Humans. > [@](#): > > Second point is a nitpick. I may be reading the paper incorrectly, but I think one of the suggestions in it is that the mixing may have occurred in a first out-of-Africa group, perhaps on the order of 100,000 or more years ago. I am not sure about this point, and I may have misconstrued it as I have not really digested the contents yet. The data suggest two periods of mixing-- one at about 60k years ago and one at about 45k years ago. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/66 "2010-05-08T21:30:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > (Septimus: “inter-species breeding, however rare, does occur”) One thing to keep in mind is that the modern BSC definition of “species” pretty much rules out significant inter-species breeding in the wild. I’m not sure how you got from “however rare” to “significant”, but significant the breeding between Neanderthal and Modern Man was _not_. I’m not sure if you’re driving towards an overly-literal definition of species, but be aware that horses (64 chromosomes) have produced fertile offspring with both donkeys (62) and 66-chromosome equids. Whatever the genetic similarity between hominids, social differences may have meant that some cross-mating arose only in ravage-and-ravish scenarios. Another post suggests you believe the recency of mtDNA-Eve and Y-dna Adam in Africa is incompatible with a multi-region hypothesis. This is not the case. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/67 "2010-05-08T21:38:39Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > Second point is a nitpick. I may be reading the paper incorrectly, but I think one of the suggestions in it is that the mixing may have occurred in a first out-of-Africa group, perhaps on the order of 100,000 or more years ago. I am not sure about this point, and I may have misconstrued it as I have not really digested the contents yet. They are proposing several scenarios for human-Neandertal genetic relationship, which are not mutually exclusive. What they call the most “parsimonious” explanation is the hypothesis that, as you say, Neandertals interbred with ancestors of **all** non-African humans shortly after the departure from Africa, which is why Neandertals seem to be equally similar to non-Africans from New Guinea, France, and China. Other scenarios involve (1) hypothesized late Neandertal interbreeding with humans in Europe and/or western Asia alone (which wouldn’t explain the Neandertal resemblance in, say, Chinese humans), and (2) the hypothesis that the ancestors of modern non-Africans were simply more closely related to Neandertals than other humans were (the “ancient substructure” idea), way back before they left Africa. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/68 "2010-05-08T22:00:28Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > The implication of the paper is that there are two trunks–some-Neanderthal and no-Neanderthal–and the authors use the term “cognition” regarding some of the genes studied, both in the abstract and the summary. I was surprised they called that out. I think you may be slightly misunderstanding what they’re saying. They aren’t claiming that the hypothesized “some-Neandertal” modern humans have genetically different cognitive abilities from the “no-Neandertal” modern humans. Rather, they’re offering evidence that modern humans as a whole have genetically different cognitive abilities from Neandertals. > [@](#): > > Neandertals fall within the variation of present-day humans for many regions of the genome; that is, Neandertals often share derived single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) alleles with present-day humans. We devised an approach to detect positive selection in early modern humans that takes advantage of this fact by looking for genomic regions where present-day humans share a common ancestor subsequent to their divergence from Neandertals, and Neandertals therefore lack derived alleles found in present-day humans (except in rare cases of parallel substitutions). […] > > Our results also point to a number of genomic regions and genes as candidates for positive selection early in modern human history, for example, those involved in cognitive abilities and cranial morphology. In other words, they were using these human/Neandertal genetic comparisons to screen for genetic **differences between Neandertals and ALL humans** , as well as to detect genetic similarities between Neandertals and **certain** humans due to hypothesized post-divergence interbreeding. What they found is that early modern humans since their divergence from Neandertals evolved certain human-specific characteristics due to positive selection that made them different from Neandertals. Some of those characteristics included changes in skull shape and cognitive abilities. What this is saying is simply that early humans evolved by positive selection to have some differences in cognitive abilities from their Neandertal cousins, an idea that we’re already familiar with in a crude form as the classic “smart _Homo sapiens_ versus dumb caveman” stereotype. There is nothing un-PC or socially controversial about that idea, so there’s nothing surprising about the study’s authors “calling it out”. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/69 "2010-05-08T23:49:49Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Whatever the genetic similarity between hominids, social differences may have meant that some cross-mating arose only in ravage-and-ravish scenarios. So? Who said that the mating had to be voluntary? It just had to have been … and produce progeny. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/70 "2010-05-09T00:19:12Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’m not sure how you got from “however rare” to “significant”, but significant the breeding between Neanderthal and Modern Man was _not_. No, I’m just pointing out that the way we define the term “species” makes inter-species breeding rare, not the other way around. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure if you’re driving towards an overly-literal definition of species, but be aware that horses (64 chromosomes) have produced fertile offspring with both donkeys (62) and 66-chromosome equids. I’m referring to the Biological Species Concept, which is a precise, scientific term. Whatever happens between horses and donkeys in captivity is irrelevant to that definition as it describes populations in the wild only. > [@](#): > > Whatever the genetic similarity between hominids, social differences may have meant that some cross-mating arose only in ravage-and-ravish scenarios. Possibly, but that is pure speculation. > [@](#): > > Another post suggests you believe the recency of mtDNA-Eve and Y-dna Adam in Africa is incompatible with a multi-region hypothesis. This is not the case. I have no idea what you’re talking about here. I never posted about Adam or Eve in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/71 "2010-05-09T01:10:22Z")
Where did Neanderthal evolve? I thought all humans came out of Africa. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/72 "2010-05-09T01:30:13Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Where did Neanderthal evolve? I thought all humans came out of Africa. All humans did come out of Africa. Neandertals were hominids of the genus _Homo_, but not humans in the sense of belonging to the species _Homo sapiens_. [Neandertals](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal), like all _Homo_ species, are descended from an African hominid ancestor, but their remains have been found only in Europe and West Asia, AFAIK. They seem to have evolved into the separate Neandertal species outside of Africa, unlike our modern human ancestors who had become _Homo sapiens_ before migrating out of Africa. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/73 "2010-05-09T01:34:39Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Where did Neanderthal evolve? I thought all humans came out of Africa. Good question, and highlights the necessity of defining what “human” is. Note that many of us, me included, are careful to say "modern humans’ when we’re talking about _H. sapiens_. “Human” can mean anything from _H. sapiens_, to any human ancestor since our split with the chimp line. Or, it might mean any member of the genus _Homo_. Our line split from the chimp line, in Africa, about 6M years ago. Since then, there were several migrations out of Africa starting about 2M years ago. Neanderthals appear to have evolved in Europe from a population that left maybe 500k years ago. Meanwhile, of those populations that remained in Africa, one evolved into us-- Modern Humans or _H. sapiens_. We didn’t leave Africa until about 60k years ago, but it appears that when we met our Neanderthal cousins in the Middle East and/or Europe, we hooked up and produced some fertile hybrids. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/74 "2010-05-09T01:46:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Neanderthals appear to have evolved in Europe from a population that left maybe 500k years ago. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/75 "2010-05-09T02:10:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We’ve bounced back and forth between thinking early Modern Humans and Neanderthals either did or did not interbreed (and produce fertile offspring). > > So [the latest study](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100506/ap_on_sc/us_sci_neanderthal_genes) says we did. > > Question, and I’m hoping to get input from our posters who are really knowledgeable in the subject: \*\*Just how significant is this latest data? \*\* Is it likely to stick, or is it just the latest volley in the ping-pong match? The geneticists seem to indicate that this study was extremely thorough, but one has to wonder what alternate explanations there might be. > > For the record, I’m quite happy to be part Neanderthal. I had a hard time believing that the two populations were unable and unwilling to interbreed successfully. I’d recommend reading some of the discussion on GNXP where some of the relevant academics discuss the findings. Also, see John Hawks post on it. [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/no-scientists-had-to-die-for-this-paradigm-shift/#more-4061](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/no-scientists-had-to-die-for-this-paradigm-shift/#more-4061) > [@](#): > > These scientists have given an immense gift to humanity. > > I’ve been comparing it to the pictures of Earth that came back from Apollo 8. The Neandertal genome gives us a picture of ourselves, from the outside looking in. We can see, and now learn about, the essential genetic changes that make us human – the things that made our emergence as a global species possible. > > And in doing so, they’ve taken a forgotten group of people – whom even most anthropologists had given up on – and they’ve restored them to their rightful place in our heritage. [http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal\_dna/neandertals-live-genome-sequencing-2010.html](http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/neandertals-live-genome-sequencing-2010.html) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/76 "2010-05-09T02:25:08Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > I’d recommend reading some of the discussion on GNXP where some of the relevant academics discuss the findings. Also, see John Hawks post on it. > > [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/no-scientists-had-to-die-for-this-paradigm-shift/#more-4061](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/no-scientists-had-to-die-for-this-paradigm-shift/#more-4061) Interestingly, that blog quotes Wolpoff: > [@](#): > > “It is important evidence for multiregional evolution,” comments Milford H. Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, the leading proponent of the [multiregional] theory. Hah! His hypothesis (not a theory) was that Neanderthals evolved into Europeans, not that they added some tiny amount of DNA to an African population that evolved into Europeans. The Out of Africa hypothesis wasn’t absolutist about there being no admixture-- just that if there was any, it was small and difficult to detect. Not to mention that he argued for evolution of _H. erectus_ populations into modern humans in Asia. Wolpoff argued for small amounts of gene flow between relatively geographically stable populations, which is not what this new data is saying happened. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/77 "2010-05-09T05:26:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you may be slightly misunderstanding what they’re saying. They aren’t claiming that the hypothesized “some-Neandertal” modern humans have genetically different cognitive abilities from the “no-Neandertal” modern humans. Rather, they’re offering evidence that modern humans as a whole have genetically different cognitive abilities from Neandertals. > > In other words, they were using these human/Neandertal genetic comparisons to screen for genetic **differences between Neandertals and ALL humans** , as well as to detect genetic similarities between Neandertals and **certain** humans due to hypothesized post-divergence interbreeding. > > What they found is that early modern humans since their divergence from Neandertals evolved certain human-specific characteristics due to positive selection that made them different from Neandertals. Some of those characteristics included changes in skull shape and cognitive abilities. > > What this is saying is simply that early humans evolved by positive selection to have some differences in cognitive abilities from their Neandertal cousins, an idea that we’re already familiar with in a crude form as the classic “smart _Homo sapiens_ versus dumb caveman” stereotype. > > There is nothing un-PC or socially controversial about that idea, so there’s nothing surprising about the study’s authors “calling it out”. I’ll be interested to see if this gets clarified. The article is not about cognitive abilities of Neandertal versus modern humans, so I assumed the discussion on page 717 is referring to positive selection of genes made available by mixing with Neandertals. However I’ve read through it a couple times and admit I’m still not confident this is correct. In general, the distribution of other genes putatively involved in cognition (microcephalin, e.g.) showing disproportionate distribution between Africans and non-Africans for haplogroup D fits into a similar scenario set to Figure 6 on p 721 of the current Science article. The “most parsimonious” scenario #3 creates two trunks at the point of Neandertal mixing. Although the diagram does not show them as two trunks, essentially you have one trunk for non-Africans and the other for Africans at the right point of the arrow for scenario 3. I think what’s socially controversial–or potentially so–is the general notion that only modern non-Africans had access to Neandertal gene pools. If mixing did occur, any advantageous genes would appear only in the non-African trunk. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/78 "2010-05-09T06:26:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*aruvqan \*\*: The main thing I have with the dirty, tangle haired image is the evidence of _jewelry_ in the grave goods. This seems to me to indicate they actually had some form of aesthetics. If you are bothering to put on jewelry, you probably do something about neatening your hair, and probably washing and using minerals and plant substances to decorate your body. I’m not sure if you are talking about homo sapiens or Neanderthals. Neanderthals were making beads out of shells 50,000 years ago. And the wild thing is that they have some sort of glitter on them. There is speculation that they may have used glitter makeup too! They sometimes used pigments on their faces and bodies, but they were not elaborate at all. These shell-beads were found in Southern Spain. Neat hair? Hair styles come and go. Combs might not have been a high priority on the tool list. I really stunned at how far they _had_ developed! There is evidence that homo sapiens had shell beads in more than one location (South Africa, Israel, Algeria) about 100,000 years ago. This passion for jewelry is in our genes, guys. It’s primitive. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/79 "2010-05-09T12:25:48Z")
nm. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552/80 "2010-05-09T14:01:55Z")
Like **aruvqa** n, it is really starting to bug me that in all of these Neanderthal reconstructions, the hair is so unkempt. All apes love to groom one another. It is a highly social thing, with the added advantage of parasites being picked out and the fact that well groomed fur insulates better. Besides these people had lots of time to groom each other and themselves. They had no Tv, after all. And when you don’t have much stuff and even a necklace takes so much trouble to make, grooming your appearance is a very natural way of improving your status and expressing your ties to a certain social group (your family, your tribe, your totem animal, or whatever). Modern “primitive” tribes often have very elaborate hairstyles, and they do so with nothing more then a twig or maybe a primitive comb, a flint knife to shave parts of the head, a little piece of rope bark to tie a pony tail or a braid, and maybe some mud, fat, ashes for hair gel. Add flowers, fur, pieces of bone or feathers for embellishment, and things can get quite [elaborate](http://www.fotobank.ru/img/JW01-1730.jpg?size=l). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-has-neanderthal-genes/538552.md?page=5)