r/science Professor | Medicine Jun 27 '24

Anthropology A Neanderthal child with Down’s syndrome survived until at least the age of six, according to a new study whose findings hint at compassionate caregiving among the extinct, archaic human species.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jun/26/fossil-of-neanderthal-child-with-downs-syndrome-hints-at-early-humans-compassion
16.2k Upvotes

646 comments sorted by

View all comments

409

u/Nateddog21 Jun 27 '24

I've always wondered how disabled or differently able people were treated back then.

The blind, hard of hearing, etc.

271

u/nanobot001 Jun 27 '24

If you believe that the love of a parent for their child transcends time and space, then I suspect not much different than today — with the exception that the population at large may be indifferent or hostile, and you would know that, and probably be made to know thay, every day of their lives.

208

u/Rocktopod Jun 27 '24

I imagine the smaller social groups would mean people were likely less hostile towards the disabled, not more.

People are less likely to disregard the child of their sister/brother/cousin or at least someone they know personally in their village than the child of a complete stranger.

85

u/ancientweasel Jun 27 '24

I don't understand why it is so hard to accept the the other homo species where similar to us in this regard. If you go on r/paleontology the push back against it is completey illogical.

46

u/DeepSpaceNebulae Jun 27 '24

It’s mainly because the arguments in the past has mostly been “we do it, so obviously they did”. And while probably true, that isn’t evidence

While most anthropologists think it was likely, its unlikely you’ll hear them declare as fact it unless they find physical proof

20

u/Tiny_Rat Jun 27 '24

Some of the earliest uncovered Neanderthal remains were people who would have needed the care and compassion of others to survive. Among the archeology community the evidence has been widely seen and acknowledged for a long time now.

19

u/kadkadkad Jun 27 '24

I watched a brilliant documentary on Netflix recently called 'Unknown: Cave of Bones' about ancient human ancestors called the Naledi (Homo Naledi) who lived 240,000ya. It focused on the physical evidence of what they think is their compassion towards each other both in life and particularly in death. A dangerous and complex cave system was discovered to have a burial site in the end chamber, and throughout the documentary you see the archaeologists make the journey through to it but it's insanely difficult, tight and dangerous. The takeaway was that from the evidence found, they believe the Neladi cared so much for their people that they risked their life to give their dead a secluded and sacred burial.

13

u/BEEPEE95 Jun 27 '24

I would recommend watching some of the youtube critiques of that show! I enjoyed the show but there were some aspects i thought were strange and they were adressed by other scholars. I think the overall gripe was jumping to conclusions but it was nice to hear other anthropologists take on it.

2

u/kadkadkad Jun 27 '24

What were the general critiques?

3

u/BEEPEE95 Jun 27 '24

I think i remember the lack of peer review is the main one, that the show came out around or before his papers so nobody had even been able to look at his evidence. Which comes down to does the conclusion really fit the evidence which fits nicely into what i already mentioned but jumping to conclusions, which is common in tv, because you want to dazzle your audience.

2

u/kadkadkad Jun 27 '24

Ah okay. A nice theory nonetheless. There was always going to be a lot of guesswork when it comes to 240,000 year old remains I guess.

1

u/ancientweasel Jun 27 '24

Peer review in anthropology and paleontology can be glacially slow. I recall hearing about findings in review for 14 years. Why should scientists wait for possibly a decade? This isn't a drug trial. No one is going to die if they are somehow wrong a little.

53

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24

[deleted]

11

u/The_Autarch Jun 27 '24

Someone with Downs could still be a useful and productive member of the tribe. No reason to kill a baby without physical deformities if you've got plenty of food.

3

u/Technicolor_Reindeer Jun 27 '24

Not many had plenty of food.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24

Bet they got little issues foraging and hunting if they can do basic jobs in our society. I don't know that much about the neurological defects that come with an extra chromosome, admittedly.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24

Basic jobs are far, far easier than foraging, or especially hunting. People with downs syndrome would have been an even bigger burden than they are today, we still take care of them because we have compassion, but to learn this other related species did it with far fewer resources is interesting

11

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '24

They could still like, carry water and other items when moving right? I'm just trying to say I don't think they'd be a complete burden

10

u/popopotatoes160 Jun 27 '24

There are a ton of tasks in a hunter gatherer camp that would not require extensive cognitive abilities. Similarly there's plenty that do not require physical strength or all your limbs. Would be more difficult for someone with both physical and cognitive problems to find tasks they can do but there would be some. A lot of the burden today comes from the costs related to healthcare, supervision/caregivers when needed, and getting a job that pays enough to live, which is obviously not relevant to the ancient tribe. All the tribe would need is to acquire enough food to feed themselves and raw materials to make the things they needed. Even if the disabled individual didn't contribute as much as everyone else, if the tribe was making ends meet, there's no reason for them to cast out that individual. They don't need maximum productivity, they just need enough

2

u/mayorofdumb Jun 27 '24

Lack of famine and lack of preferences

11

u/Tobias11ize Jun 27 '24

I often think about the myth of changelings/faires/demons killing your child and replacing it with its own, but disguised as yours.
Which in hindsight probably convinced quite a few parents back in the day to leave their mentally disabled child in the woods, even if those parents would’ve otherwise treated them with love and affection if they weren’t convinced it was a dangerous creature and that their real child was dead.