I know what you’re thinking, Kobayashi’s off his meds with a thread title like that. Forgive the tautology, and allow me to explain what I mean.
Evidence suggests that the last enclave of surviving Neanderthals was a cave in Gibraltar about 30,000 years ago. But suppose - another remote enclave survived in their range, outside of human knowledge - in the way ‘uncontacted peoples’ have.
In distant caves and forests, with only a few hundred individuals they have clung onto survival beyond the extinction of their brethren, into what we would know as history - into the Neolithic, into the rise of civilisation and society.
Here’s my question - when they get discovered, how screwed are they? I’d assume today they’d be all right, but when’s the earliest ‘date of discovery’ that would give them a chance for survival? For most of human history up to the present day we’ve been, for want of a better term, racist bastards happy to exterminate and enslave based on meaningless racial characteristic. A bloke who looks like this is in serious shit.
I know this doesn’t answer your question directly but there is strong (but not yet completely conclusive) evidence that not only did homo sapiens meet Neanderthals many times (their ranges overlapped in prehistory), they also interbred with them. The current theory with supporting DNA evidence is that modern humans that migrated out of sub-Saharan Africa interbred with Neanderthals and produced fertile offspring that went on to create offspring of their own. People of European descent today have about a 4% Neanderthal DNA contribution so Neanderthals never truly died out completely. They still live strong in a small way in some of us.
We still don’t know if homo sapiens killed off most of homo neanderthalensis intentionally or engaged in something like enslaving them. It could be that the homo sapien groups engaged them as equals and the gene pool for the former became much more dominant than the latter for whatever reason whether it was sheer population numbers or some other factor. They may have just died out as a distinct species or sub-species because of hybridization over time that didn’t favor their DNA rather than being killed off completely and systematically.
A finding of an isolated homo neanderthalensis today would make them instant scientific specimen superstars but I think every effort would be made to preserve their environment and culture as best as possible. There are still a few uncontacted tribes in the Amazon and New Guinea that are left undisturbed intentionally as much as possible The 15th - early 20th centuries is the time when I think they would be in the most danger of being wiped out intentionally simply because the same thing happened with other exotic cultures that explorers had no context to appreciate and I don’t think they would see Neanderthals any differently say a Caribbean Island tribe or an African Tribe in the Congo.
If the Neanderthals were as isolated as the OP suggests, when they were finally found they would be in danger of contracting communicable diseases. Rather anticlimactic if a tribe of Neanderthals had been found in Borneo only to die out within a few years from measles and typhoid.
I agree that disease might bump them off. But the evidence is pretty good they would be able to interbreed uneventfully, as well as have a successful advertising campaign and a brief series spinoff.
Late 19th to early 20th Century would probably be the earliest that discoverers would have both realized their significance, and also had seen any value in preserving them (alive, at any rate). Even Homo sapiens groups who were culturally “primitive” (for want of a better word) like the Tasmanians, Khoi-san, and pygmies were virtually regarded as animals by the more advanced cultures that came into contact with them, and were hunted like them. A small group of Neanderthals would be extinguished almost as soon as they were found, if it were earlier than the 1850s.
ETA: This is not my opinion. This is mocking the board’s ‘scientific racists’. MrDibble is my hero, since he’s willing to wade in and do the necessary. I’ve never mentioned this before, but this is as good a time as any. Thanks, MrDibble.
Indeed. An enclave or pocket of Neanderthals almost surely must have
survived in Eurasia during the Neolithic. If they were eradicated prior to the
era of written languages, then there would be no record of them.
The beast “Grendel” in BEOWULF may have been a Swede or Dane with a surfeit of
recessive Neandertal genes.
I guess it depends on your definition of “Neanderthal”. If you consider someone who derives 4% of his genome from Neanderthal ancestors to be a “Neanderthal”, then you could say they did survive. I would not, and so I’m sure they didn’t survive.
Not sure what you mean. Yeah, that was a bit of an exaggeration, but I can easily see some media savvy Neanderthal and his or her agent scoring a gig on a reality show, maybe even with one of the Ks. That was the point I was making, and I think it was a valid one.
If you don’t think anyone would try an exploit this commercially, then you are lot less cynical than I am.
If someone labels it “scientific racism” to present an ad hominen attack, I’m unconcerned. I only care if there is science there, or no science.
But you are right: defending that particular concept does seem to raise hackles. Which was my point about JM’s equating of Kardashian SOs w/ Neanderthals.
Try taking the claim public that the Kardashian girls would date Neanderthals if they could, and see how many of our more sensitive PC censors assume you have drawn a parallel between their real life SO choices and “Neanderthals.” You’d be back-pedaling for days…plus fired.