Completed on May, 7th 2020, for an honor’s sophomore-level archeology course.
Article Reviewed:
Johansson, Sverker. “Language Abilities in Neanderthals.” Annual Review of Linguistics, vol. 1,
no. 1, 2015, pp. 311–332., DOI:10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124945.
The ability to communicate is complex. Throughout the animal kingdom, the use of verbal and nonverbal communication deepens group bonds by expressing and sharing thoughts and ideas. Nonverbal communication in humans spans from body postures and facial expressions to symbolism in art, while verbal communication is spoken and written. Speech in humans is a profound ability, involving complex connections in the brain, and vocal structures in oral and auditory organs. This intricate capability of speech and language raises questions about the evolution of speech and language in the human lineage. In his 2015 article, “Language Abilities in Neanderthals,” Sverker Johansson sufficiently explores and discusses the interdependent ways that Neanderthal language can be identified and studied using their anatomy, archeological remains, and DNA.
It is indicative from the abstract that this discussion and exploration of Neanderthal language abilities have no straightforward conclusion. Sverker Johansson shares that “having language,” does not have an agreed definition, as the criteria for language differs among researchers (312). Johansson also clarifies that language and speech, although terms commonly used interchangeably, are different. He states that speech is a vocal expression and a subset of language (314). To study the complex nature of language in Neanderthals, Johansson refers to Occam’s razor to simplify and narrow down the scope. Although this is more effective and useful in the context of expressing the links between humans and Neanderthals, it seems neglectful of the fact that this subject is layered and more complex.
Johansson begins his exploration into the language abilities of Neanderthals through speech and hearing organs, neural connections, and the brain as expressed in fossils. The main speech organ that Johansson discusses is the hyoid bone, suspended in the throat, not attached to the skeleton. He claims that the size of hyoid bones found as a part of Neanderthal skeletons not only falls within the range of those of modern humans but that they are compatible, indicating that the function of the hyoid bones in modern humans is similar to in Neanderthals (D’Anastasio et al. 2013) (317). The function and importance of the hyoid bone are disputed alongside whether Neanderthals were able to produce vowel sounds as their oral cavity was longer. Johansson argues that the length of the oral cavity does not conclude that Neanderthals weren’t able to produce vocal sounds outside vowel sounds made by modern humans. Hearing is an important element of language and speech, and Johansson briefly discusses the ear structure, sharing the similarity between the fossilized ossicles of Neanderthals and modern humans. This similarity indicates that Neanderthal hearing was within the human range. Johansson claims that this is evidence of Neanderthal language abilities because hearing plays a large role in speech and language comprehension. He analyzes further into the fossils to study the neural connections and brain size and shape. Johansson compares the brain shape and size to those of modern humans. Studying the brain shape and size is important because it is revealing of its capacity and function. Johansson observes that Neanderthal brains were larger than those of modern humans, but are in the same approximate range (318). He then shares an observation that the Broca’s area and the Wernicke’s area (both extremely important parts of the brain in understanding and forming speech) studied from a Neanderthal skull are similar to modern humans (318). Although this evidence can be an indicator of speech and language in Neanderthals, both Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas have also been found in other nonhuman primates. This observation complicates matters as these other nonhuman primates do not have the same speech and language abilities, although they are present and impressive.
Furthering his discussion, Johansson analyzes the genetic factors that promote language, paying close attention to gene FOXP2, known as “the language gene.” Although FOXP2 does play a role in language impairment, Johansson claims that its relationship to language is indirect as it is a regulatory gene (320). This gene has been found in Neanderthal DNA, but the lack of understanding of the gene regarding language deems this evidence fairly useless. The presence of FOXP2 in both humans and Neanderthals not only expresses a common ancestor, but human DNA expresses that humans and Neanderthals interbred. Evidence proving humans and Neanderthals interbred lead Johansson to interpret the Neanderthal language abilities may have been close to humans because interbreeding an interconnectedness (if the breeding was consensual) (321). Reliance on genetics to understand the language abilities of Neanderthals is feeble because the genes shared between human and Neanderthal DNA are not well understood in their function or importance, but a social standpoint may be more indicative of the language shared between humans and Neanderthals.
Archeology and the analysis of physical remains from Neanderthals are suggestive of the language abilities of Neanderthals. Johansson explores Neanderthal symbols, technology, and cultural dynamism to better understand their language abilities. One of the more profound symbolic expressions by Neanderthals is intentional burials. Although there is an array of theories for why Neanderthals buried their dead, Johansson hypothesizes that these burials are an indication of an “understanding of mortality, an awareness of self and others, and possibly spirituality–or simply housecleaning.” (322). As he brings together archeological evidence such as the increase in complexity of tools and cultures, Johansson concludes that in order for culture to change and deepen, there had to be a communicated understanding of the physical world (322-324). The use of archeological remains and evidence to understand the language abilities of Neanderthal is effective as it studies the output of work from Neanderthals which is traced with their comprehension abilities.
Overall, Sverker Johansson adequately discusses the complexity of understanding and exploring Neanderthal language abilities using fossils, archeology, and DNA. He reviews different sources and interpretations of research and shares his own as well. There are multiple contradictions in Johansson’s article as he presents different sides to the claims that he makes, but concludes his article stating that studying the language abilities in Neanderthals requires study from multiple fields because of how complex the topic is. The use of multiple sources and perspectives creates an unbiased discussion, and allows for Johansson to admit that there is a long way to go in discovering and understand the language abilities of Neanderthals.
brownofthehash 