The Origins of Language: in Search for the Specificity of Large-Brained Hominin Languages

doi 10.4436/JASS.91018 JASs forum Journal of Anthropological Sciences Vol. 91 (2013), pp. 273-275

The origins of language: in search for the specificity of large-brained hominin languages

Antonio Rosas

Group of Paleoanthropology, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Calle Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected]

Since the publication of the “Neandertal Spindle-like, Microcephaly-associated) may have Genome” hominin interbreeding has become a positively affected the cognition capabilities of renewed paradigm for the explanation of recent modern humans. More in particular, because lan- human evolution. In all fairness, a moderate guage is so closely related to cognitive develop- genetic flow among archaic and anatomically ment, it has been even discussed whether archaic modern humans (from now on AMH) –the so gene variants could have forced the capacity of called “assimilation model”- had been largely modern humans to communicate by means of defended by Erik Trinkaus and Fred H. Smith a complex articulated language. Benítez-Burraco among others, on the basis of certain morphologi- and Barceló-Coblijn (this volume) review this cal similarities. Nevertheless, the new technologi- topic for JASs “paleogenomic, intebreending and cally powerful paleogenomic methods and results language” forum, finely exploring most of the are placing the interbreeding model in the head- sides of this polyedric and complex matter. lines of human evolution. The complete sequenc- In their assessment, Benítez-Burraco & ing of the Neandertal and Denisova genomes has Barceló-Coblijn (this volume) differentiate two detected a moderate but significant coincidence major points. On the one hand, the core of the of their DNA sequences with those of H. sapiens subject: to what extend the available data sup- populations. In front of this new evidence, gene port the hypothesis of introgression as the fuel for flow from Neandertal to modern humans is pres- AMH language capabilities. And, on the other ently becoming largely accepted, although alter- hand, they give a statement on the hypothetical native interpretations for the genetic similarities basic makeup of the Neandertal language. are also possible. For instance, the presence of a Regarding the possibility that DNA introgres- deep African H. sapiens population structure at sion may confer the genotypic background for a the end of the Middle-early Late Pleistocene, and complex modern language, these authors discard it assuming that a subpopulation genetically closer as very unlikely. After a careful revision of the evi- to the common root with Neandertals was the one dence, they call for caution. I fully agree with them. who went involved in the Out-of-Africa process. I find very little foundation, if any, for supporting Accepting interbreeding as the most likely the introgression hypothesis. Personally, I feel this hypothesis, it has been discussed whether archaic proposition just as an appealing intellectual enter- gene variants could have affected the evolu- tainment, but without actual empirical foundation. tion of AMH. Specifically, among the poten- By contrast, it seems to me that exploring the speci- tial effects that the archaic DNA introgressed ficity of the languages that archaic human species into AMH chromosomes are those related to could have developed (e.g. Neandertals) is a much neuronal-brain development. In sort, it has more interesting enterprise for the time being. been proposed that variants of genes such as Indeed, for archaic humans (e.g Neandertals) MCPH1 (Microcephalin) or ASPM (Abnormal transferring the language genotype to AMH

the JASs is published by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia www.isita-org.com 274 JASs forum: Paleogenomics, Hominins and language

it would imply that, in some way, Neandertals define the way they did it. I agree with those who had already a well developed complex language. think Neandertals had developed a complex social Nonetheless, Benítez-Burraco & Barceló-Coblijn and cognitive system. Evidences for a Neandertal conclude that “the languages they plausibly language come from several disciplines and a spoke would have lacked some defining proper- hunter-gatherer social organization demands a ties of human languages, particularly, complex certain level of communication, personal orna- syntax…”. Fine! This is an important statement, ment interpreted as proof of symbolic thinking. but I consider of prime interest to go further and Following d’Errico et al. (2003), “it is difficult clarifying what sort of language may have had to imagine that a human group could excavate archaic humans. Defining specific language capa- a grave, position the corpse in the pit, and offer bilities in humans other than AMH is vital for funerary goods with no form of verbal exchange”. understanding what we call “human”. Language However, to identify the possibly subtle, but fun- is at the core of our notion of humanity. Thus, damental differences between different human exploring this (and other characteristics) on the species, will represent a step further in the under- Neandertals goes beyond the nostalgic interest standing of us. After decades of exploring gross for a “primitive” human species. similarities and differences we now face the chal- At first sight, there is a sort of contradiction lenge of characterizing those mechanisms which when conceptualizing Neandertals as a human make a human to be a Sapiens, a Neandertal or a species. On the one side, Neandertal anatomy is Denisovan. Our way of thinking the meaning of well different from that of us. In fact, the more “humanity” remains certainly still in a “black and we analyze its morphology, the more we find dif- white” mode. At the most, we can distinguish a ferences in size and shape (e.g. divergence in brain gamut of grays between two extremes: to be or not growth and evolutionary trajectory could involve to be human. Indisputably, we need a step forward radical consequences). For many of us, phenotypes to appreciate a more colored world, and to per- are sufficiently distinct as to consider them deriv- ceive the diversity of human forms which have ing from two different human “species”. However, emerged possibly throughout the combination a series of analyses of behavioral and cultural of a wealth of cognitive basic mechanisms. The attributes tend to united both human groups. pending challenge is to decipher the differences The discovery of personal ornaments at chatelp- in internal organization between the same-sized erronian sites, the non-functional use of feathers brains of these taxa. I share Trinkaus (2003)’s per- inferred from the analyses of bird bones (Peresani spective the emergence of modern human behav- et al., 2011), or the well documented employ of ior (including language) must be understood pigments impinge on the Neandertals a human within a complex interwoven matrix, with a vari- nature difficult to distinguish from our own sort of ety of biological and behavioral components. humanity. From this perspective, Neandertals had To this end, there are several potential independently developed their own sophisticated research lines to be followed. Here I will briefly symbolic world. Even plastic arts, perhaps one refer to two of them. The first is a comparative of the boundaries never crossed by Neandertals, anatomy study of brain components with impli- are recently under discussion. Some authors have cations on social complexity. The other, a more speculated that the earliest cave painting at the technologically based paleogenetic study detect- Iberian Cantabrian range could have been made ing fine genetic regulation differences with pos- by Homo neanderthalensis individuals. sible consequences on articulation of language. Within this tension, language plays, in a Recently, Pearce et al. (2013) defended the idea way, a kind of hinge between these two extreme that Neandertals had significantly larger visual sys- sources of evidence. To my view, the more inter- tems as compared to AMH. This, together with their esting point lays here. The challenge is not just to high lean body mass, led to conclude that they were a discuss whether Neandertals spoke or not, but to human variant with significantly smaller adjusted JASs forum: Paleogenomics, Hominins and language 275

endocranial capacities than contemporary AMH. In conclusion, I fully agree with Benítez- The difference in the partitioning of brain tis- Burraco & Barceló-Coblijn as I find very little sue might have substantial implications for cog- support, if any, for arguing that DNA introgres- nitive processing in Neandertals. In particular, sion had influenced the evolution of AMH lan- Pearce et al. (2013) propose that Neandertal and guage. I claim, at the same time, for a linguistic modern human lineages followed different evolu- expert endeavor in the elucidation of the evolutionary strategies related to, among many other tionary structural disparity of hominin languages. aspects, social complexity and bonded size group. Although not entangled at the moment, it seems obvious that language structure might have been References involved in this divergent evolutionary process. At a different biological scale, the discovery d’Errico F., Henshilwood Ch., Lawson G., that two Neandertals shared the derived human Vanhaeren M., Tillier A-M., Soressi M., Bresson alleles of the language-related FOXP2 gene was F., Maureille B., Nowell A., Lakarra J., Backwell perceived as solid confirmation of the, for many L. & Julien M. 2013. Archaeological evidence presumed, Neandertals language (Trinkaus, for the emergence of language, symbolism, and 2003). However, in a new twist, Maricic et al., music - an alternative multidisciplinary per- (2012) proposed that AMH-specific changes in spective. J. World Prehist., 17: 1-69. the FOXP2 regulation, via the transcription fac- Maricic T., Günther V., Georgiev O., Gehre tor POU3F2, occurred after the divergence of S., Curlin M., Schreiweis C., Naumann R., Neandertals and modern humans. Even though Burbano H.A., Meyer M., Lalueza-Fox C., de it is presently unknown the exact effect of that la Rasilla M., Rosas A., Gajovic S., Kelso J., mutation, a potentially direct influence of the Enard W., Schaffner W. & Pääbo S. 2013. A language performance is implied. recent evolutionary change affects a regulatory These two examples may illustrate the asser- element in the human FOXP2 gene. Mol. Biol. tion that Neandertal may have been a subtle but Evol., 30:844-852. different kind of human being. As such, having Pearce E., Stringer Ch. & Dunbar R.I. 2013. New a different –simpler- language system as com- insights into differences in brain organization pared to modern humans is something within between Neandertals and anatomically modern the expectations. Any complex system does not humans. Proc. R. Soc. B., 280: 20130168. emerge overnight. Even thought evolution of Peresani, M., Fiore, I., Gala, M., Romandini, M. complex systems (e.g. language) is not necessar- and Tagliacozzo, A. 2011. Late Neandertals ily gradual, they go through phases of increasing and the intentional removal of feathers as evi- complexity. Presently, we only know the wide but denced from bird bone taphonomy at Fumane limited range of modern human languages, which Cave 44 ky B.P., Italy . “Proceedings of the apparently share all of them a universal template. National Academy of Sciences of the United Therefore, it should be expected that hominins States of America.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U.S.A., other than present H. sapiens would have essayed 108:3888-3893. distinct ways of developing a verbal communica- Trinkaus E. 2007. Human Evolution: Neandertal tion. The point would be to untangled their struc- gene speaks out. Curr. Biol., 17: R917-R918. tures and specificities. Not just classifying them in the one single dimension of “more or less” simple than the ones from present humans. Associate Editor, Rita Vargiu