Neanderthals were not a different species

 

 

“… some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare

them with Neanderthals”.

 Günter Bechly

 

 

This comes as no surprise whatsoever to me (Damien Mackey).

See e.g. my articles:

 

Neanderthals need to be re-written

 

(5) Neanderthals need to be rewritten

 

Messing with the Neanderthals

 

(5) Messing with the Neanderthals

 

Neanderthals could speak

 

(5) Neanderthals could speak

 

See also Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s book (Buried Alive).

 

We read at:

New Evidence for Human Nature of Neanderthals | Science and Culture Today

 

Fossil Friday: New Evidence for the Human Nature of Neanderthals

_{Günter Bechly}

_{February 2, 2024}

 

The reconstruction of Neanderthal appearance and behavior has quite a checkered history. After an initial controversy over whether the fossils really represent ancient humans or just malformed modern humans, Neanderthals were described in 1864 as distinct hominin species, Homo neanderthalensis. For a long time they were considered as brutish cavemen with a club and almost gorilla-like appearance.

 

Then the scientific opinion shifted and Neanderthals were more and more recognized as human-like and even as geniuses of the ice age (Husemann 2005, Finlayson 2019), based on an avalanche of new evidence for complex human behavior (Nowell 2023, Vernimmen 2023). We now know that Neanderthals used fire (Angelucci et al. 2023), buried their dead (Balzeau et al. 2020, Dockdrill 2020), created stone circles (Jaubert et al. 2016, Callaway 2016) and bone tools (Soressi et al. 2013), made jewellery from eagle talons (Radovčić et al. 2015, Rodríguez-Hidalgo et al. 2019) and used feathers as body decoration (Peresani et al. 2011, Finlayson et al. 2012), made cave art with paintings and engravings (Rodríguez-Vidal et al. 2014, Hoffmann et al. 2018a, Marquet et al. 2023), played music with bone flutes (Turk et al. 2018), used ochre as pigment (Roebroeks et al. 2012, Hoffmann et al. 2018b) and sophisticated fibre technology (Hardy et al. 2020), produced flour from processed plants (Mariotti Lippi et al. 2023), dived for seafood (Villa et al. 2020), cooked food and self-medicated with herbal painkillers and antibiotics (Hardy et al. 2012, Weyrich et al. 2017), and even produced glue from birch bark with a complex chemical procedure (Blessing & Schmidt 2021, Schmidt et al. 2023).

 

New Anatomic Data

 

But it is not just new evidence for Neanderthal behavior that overturned our previous crude image of Neanderthals as dumb brutes, but also new anatomic data. Contrary to earlier beliefs, more recent studies have demonstrated a fully upright posture with typical human spinal curvature called lordosis (Haeusler et al. 2019). The latter authors concluded that “after more than a century of alternative views, it should be apparent that there is nothing in Neandertal pelvic or vertebral morphology that rejects their possession of spinal curvatures well within the ranges of variation of healthy recent humans.” 

 

There even exists compelling new evidence for hearing and speech capacities (Conde-Valverde et al. 2021), which “demonstrates that the Neanderthals possessed a communication system that was as complex and efficient as modern human speech” (Starr 2021).

 

Correlated with this fundamental rethinking of Neanderthals (Nowell 2023) in terms of their anatomy, culture, and mental capabilities, their classification has also changed over time. At first they were considered as a different species, Homo neanderthalensis, then they were just considered as a subspecies of modern humans, Homo sapiens, and since the late 1990s again as “an unambiguously demarcated morphospecies” (Tattersall & Schwartz 2006; also see Harvati et al. 2004, Márquez et al. 2014, and Wynn et al. 2016). The new field of paleogenomics brought insight into their DNA (Green et al. 2010), which was considered as sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a separate species status again (Clarke 2016), even though there was also evidence for hybridization and genetic admixture with modern humans (Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023). Paleogeneticist and Nobel laureate Svante Pääbo (2014) called the controversy of the species status of Neanderthals as unresolvable, because of the arbitrariness and fuzziness of species concepts (also see Meneganzin & Bernardi 2023, Nowell 2023, and Stringer 2023). The controversy still continues as is evident from a recent article titled “Are Neanderthals and Homo sapiens the same species?” (Heidt 2023), which discusses the fact that “scientists have been vollying the question back and forth for more than a century”. Nowell (2023) wrote: “From their initial discovery until today, Neandertals have shifted between “being recognized as human or being pushed to the constitutive outside of humanness,” what Drell (2000, p. 15) describes as “the oscillating dichotomy of Same and Other.”

 

Of course, the undeniable evidence for significant and common genetic admixture (Kuhlwilm et al. 2016, Villanea & Schraiber 2019, Callaway 2021), which makes up 1-4 percent of the modern human genome (Reilly et al. 2022), would suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans shared a common gene pool and belonged to the same biospecies. Even the skeptic and ID opponent Michael Shermer (2010) agreed in an article for Scientific American that the genomic evidence suggests that our Neanderthal brethren were not a separate species. Strong reproductive isolation barriers that limited the amount of introgression were proposed by Overmann & Coolidge (2013), but many experts remain unconvinced. Paleoanthropologist Bence Viola from the University of Toronto said (quoted in Vernimmen 2023): “Homo sapiens clearly recognized Neanderthals as mating partners, which suggests they thought of them as humans — maybe ‘the weird guys living behind the mountains,’ but still, fellow humans.”

 

But what do we make of the anatomical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans? Don’t they support a separate species status? Actually, this would not follow even if the differences lay outside the range of variability of modern humans, because that is also the case in many other subspecies of living animals. However, some human populations such as Australian aboriginals indeed share with archaic humans like Neanderthals a robust skull with pronounced brow ridges, which [led] Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley (in Lyell 1863), to compare them with Neanderthals.

 

Of course this also had some typical Darwinist racist connotations. Just like Neanderthals, native Australians were considered primitive and inferior. Nevertheless, the similarities are real and have been confirmed by modern anatomical studies (e.g., Wolpoff & Caspari 1996), which concluded that “the interpretation of Neanderthals as a different species is very unlikely.” ….

 

 

Richard Erickson has thrown textbook Elam into Bedlam

 

 

Fig. 2 – Application of Prof. Steinkeller’s route to an experimental Anatolian context

 

“However despite this work, no city on this route beyond Der has ever been found, excavated, correlated with modern towns or ruins, or otherwise precisely located

in western Iran where they are supposed to be. There are no accurate points of latitude and longitude or modern geographic coordinates”.

 Richard Erickson

 

Another brilliant geographical article by Richard Erickson on this subject (2023):

 

The Great Trans-Elam Highway: Travel, Trade and Warfare Between Elam and Ur III Sumeria (2119 BC -2004 BC

 

(6) The Great Trans-Elam Highway: Travel, Trade and Warfare Between Elam and Ur III Sumeria (2119 BC -2004 BC

 

Richard Erickson has written (pp. 2-6):

 

….

 

Overview of Professor Steinkeller’s Route.  Ancient Elam had a long common border with the area later called Babylonia, which included the Ur III lands of Sumeria and Akkad.  There were two ways to access Elam from Babylonia; by land or by a combination of land and water.  The water route was across the Persian Gulf to Elamite seaports, and thence by canal to the major inland port cities of the Susian flatlands, an area now called Khuzhistan. 

 

This paper will first address in detail an important land-only route, defined by Prof. Steinkeller in his works, which extended from Nippur in Sumeria, crossed the border region and the Zagros mountains onto the Iranian plateau, eventually reaching the furthest end of Elam. This was the city and region of Šimaški, said to reach all the way to the “Northern Sea,” which Steinkeller interprets as a reference to the Caspian Sea.[1]  He provides a list of the cities and geographic features that reads like an itinerary for military, trade and diplomatic travel.  It consists of the following points:

 

Nippur                                                          An important Sumerian city; An administrative and religious center

Urusagrig                                                    A major stopping place on the road from Nippur to Elam

Der                                                                A border town between Sumeria and Elam, between Nippur and Harsi                     

Harsi                                                             A starting point for the arduous journey across the Zagros Mts., located in the foothills between the Elamite lowlands of Susiana and the high ranges of the Zagros.

Mt. Abullat, “The Gates”                      A high pass in the Zagros, the best and most used of the few available.  Suitable for armies, trade in bulk, and diplomats alike

Kimas                                                           A valuable mining town and region where copper and other precious metals and minerals were mined and exported, creating fabulous wealth by the standards of the day.  It was located on the far downslope of the Zagros or beyond on the Iranian/Elamite Plateau.  It was the object of several wars between Elam and the Ur III empire, and was a major control point for the entire route

Hurti                                                              An important city on the route very near Kimas

 

 

 

Huhunuri                                                     A major point on the route, considered to be the “doorway” to Anšan and a logical point on the road section for travel between Kimas/Hurti and Anšan

Anšan                                                           A major Elamite regional power and sometimes capital, known to be adjacent to, or between, Huhunuri and Šimaški

Šimaški                                                       Another regional Elamite power and sometimes capital, adjacent to Anšan on one side and the “Northern Sea” on the other

Zabšali                                                         A vassal state of Šimašk at the end of the road, also near the “Northern Sea”

 

This proposed route and itinerary is approximated by this author in Fig. 1 below, based on Steinkeller’s information and analysis, applied to a Western Iranian context as Steinkeller intended.  However it represents an interpretation of Steinkeller’s data by the author of this paper only.  For instance, Professor Steinkeller would most likely not agree with the author’s proposed location of Anšan and Huhunuri on the map.

 

Fig. 1 – The author’s interpretation of Prof. Steinkeller’s proposed land route from Nippur to the furthest point of Elam in a West Iranian geographic context

 

Comments Based on Prof. Steinkeller’s analysis and the accompanying map.

 

1.      This illustrates clearly  that a documented route of travel started in Nippur, proceeded via Urusagrig, and thence all the way to Zabšali across the length of Elam.

 

2.      Mt. Abullat was a mountain, a pass through the Zagros, and also the name of a particular mountain range within the Zagros.[2]

 

3.      Kimas and Hurti were very close together, documented as one place with no differentiation between them, other than Kimas was a source of copper.

 

4.      A close connection or geographic relationship between Kimas/Hurti and Huhunuri is not stated explicitly, but clearly implied by Steinkeller’s quote of Elamite King Puzur- Inshushinak, who states that he passed through Huhunuri with his army on the way from Anšan to conquer Kimas and Hurti, travelling of course in the opposite direction from that described from a Sumerian perspective.[3]

 

5.      The connection between Huhunuri and Anšan was quite certain, as Sumerian documents named Huhunuri as the “Lock of Anšan.” [4]

 

6.      From Steinkeller’s discussions of the physical and political relationships between Anšan, Šimaški and Zabšali, I conclude that during the period in question both Anšan and Zabšali were usually subordinates within a “Greater” Šimaški, and sometimes independent, but always adjacent to the core Šimaški territory.  Šimaški was generally, but not always, the dominant region in all of Elam. Anšan and Zabšali were political rivals. The geographic order of these city states at the far end of the route was Anšan – Šimaški – Zabšali.[5]

 

The existence of this route, and the order of the itinerary depicted, are very well supported by analysis provided three of Prof. Steinkeller’s papers, and are in the opinion of this author totally valid.  These papers are listed in the bibliography and referenced in the footnotes to this paper.  All of them draw heavily on original Ur III documents on military, trade, and diplomatic matters.  One additional document was authored by Puzur-Inshushinak, the great Elamite unifier and bane of the Akaddo-Sumerians.  Putting together all this data and synthesizing the route is an amazing accomplishment.  The historical knowledge that one city was on the way to another city, and so on, is of great value in itself.

 

However despite this work, no city on this route beyond Der has ever been found, excavated, correlated with modern towns or ruins, or otherwise precisely located in western Iran where they are supposed to be.  There are no accurate points of latitude and longitude or modern geographic coordinates. 

 

They have been roughly guessed at based on intelligent analysis, but the actual location of this route and the points along it are totally unknown, except that they are expected to lie somewhere within the overall geography of Elam in southwest Iran.  The same holds true for all but a very few named Elamite cities, among the dozens whose locations are totally unknown. 

 

Applying the route to Anatolia.  The intent for the current paper is to demonstrate how the previously described route developed by Prof. Steinkeller’s analyses fits in very well with an Anatolian location for Elam, and to suggest precise locations for modern cities correlating with the named stations along the route.  To put it more bluntly, the reason that this route, and the cities and features on it, cannot be precisely located in western Iran is that the entire land of Elam itself was not located in Western Iran, but actually in an entirely different part of the Near East: southwestern and southcentral Anatolia.

 

As stated in the Forward to this paper, this thesis is a follow-on to a paper the author posted on Academia.edu over two years ago, entitled “A Problem in Chaldaean and Elamite Geography.” 

 

That paper proposed that both ancient Chaldaea and Elamite place names, identified by Neo-Assyrian kings during extensive and frequent military campaigns in both these nations, were almost entirely unlocated by modern specialists in the areas they were supposed to be, i.e. at the northern end of the Persian Gulf and a large area of southwest Iran.  

 

However these names, or very close approximations to them, turned up by the dozens in a search of northern Syria and southwestern Anatolia, correlating very well with modern Turkish or Syrian place names or their classical, Armenian, or Kurdish equivalents.  For details on the locations of these named cities and their correlated modern equivalents, please see “A Problem in Chaldaean and Elamite Geography” at Academia.edu.

 ….

 

 

 

 

A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

 

(7) A PROBLEM IN CHALDAEAN AND ELAMITE GEOGRAPHY

---

[1] Steinkeller, “New Light on Sˇimasˇki and Its Rulers,” 217

[2] Steinkeller, “Puzur-Insusinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered,” 308-310

[3] Steinkeller, “Puzur-Insusinak at Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite History Reconsidered,” 294

[4] Steinkeller, “New Light on Sˇimasˇki and Its Rulers,” 223

[5] Steinkeller, “New Light on Sˇimasˇki and Its Rulers,” 217-223

Pope Leo recalls the Tower of Babel, and Nehemiah, for his first encyclical

 

“The highly anticipated text, signed by the pope on May 15 and released May 25,

invokes the wisdom of the Church’s social teaching as a framework for shaping AI

amid rapid technological advances, a fractured global landscape and

accelerating threats to human life and dignity”.

 

Gina Christian

 

 

 

https://www.osvnews.com/babel-nehemiah-and-algorithms-a-guide-to-key-terms-in-pope-leos-new-encyclical-on-ai/

 

Babel, Nehemiah and algorithms: A guide to key terms in Pope Leo’s new encyclical on AI

 

written by Gina Christian 5:31 AM May 25, 2026

 

(OSV News) — What do the Tower of Babel, the biblical figure Nehemiah, algorithms and realpolitik have in common?

 

They’re all discussed — along with integral human development, the technocratic paradigm and Catholic social teaching — in Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.”

 

This is Pieter Bruegel’s 1563 painting of the "Tower of Babel." In "Magnifica Humanitas," Pope Leo XIV writes that humanity "is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct

a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together."

(OSV News photo/courtesy Kunsthistorisches Museum)

 

The highly anticipated text, signed by the pope on May 15 and released May 25, invokes the wisdom of the Church’s social teaching as a framework for shaping AI amid rapid technological advances, a fractured global landscape and accelerating threats to human life and dignity.

 

Here’s a guide to some of the terms discussed in the document.

 

• Artificial intelligence: An umbrella term for technology that emulates human intelligence. The ability to learn from data, recognize patterns, solve problems, make decisions and generate original content from human prompts are all features of AI. 

In “Magnifica Humanitas,” Pope Leo writes that “it is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI.”

“What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of ‘intelligence’ with that of human beings,” he continued.

 

“These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing.”  

AI is programmed in several computer languages, among them Python, C++, Java and R. Everyday examples of AI in action include various types of chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude, online product recommendations and virtual personal assistants like Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri. AI has a range of business applications across almost all market sectors, including healthcare, education, energy and security.

• Algorithm: In essence, a routine, step-by-step process for accomplishing a task. AI algorithms, which are more complex, are designed to cover multiple “what ifs?” in a given situation, and to learn from data on which they are trained. Pope Leo cautions in his encyclical that AI algorithms can be used to exert dominance over the vulnerable and over humanity itself, while eroding responsibility and empathy.
  
  “From this follows a simple but compelling consequence: we cannot consider AI to be morally neutral,” he writes. “In reality, every technical tool embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations.”
  
  

• Alignment: In AI development, the process of ensuring the technology squares with human values, so that AI models safely serve human interests. “Emergent misalignment,” where AI deviates from such norms and behaves detrimentally, is a growing concern among AI ethicists and theologians. Pope Leo insists that alignment come with a further condition: “the possibility of openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved and subjecting them to shared standards of social justice.

Otherwise, those who control AI will impose their own moral vision, which will become the invisible infrastructure of these systems.”

• Babel, Tower of Babel: Described in Genesis 11:1-9, the city and tower built by the nations of the earth in the valley of Shinar, after Noah and his family survived the flood. Because the nations, which spoke the same language, undertook the project in human pride, the Lord confused their speech, leading to division and dispersion across the earth. In section seven of his encyclical, Pope Leo uses this example to show “the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency, and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing.”
  
  

• Catholic social teaching (social doctrine): The Church’s teaching — which draws on papal, conciliar and Church documents — on the means of building a just society and living out holiness in modern life. As Pope Leo explains in his encyclical, the term was coined by Pope Pius XII in 1950, but owes its development to “a long tradition of ecclesial reflection on life in society, rooted in Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers and the theological and legal developments of the Middle Ages and modern era.”  Pope Leo also notes that his “beloved predecessor” Pope Leo XIII propelled that tradition toward modern applications in his 1891 encyclical “Rerum Novarum.”
  
  Key principles of Catholic social teaching are the common good; the universal destination of goods, which holds that the goods of creation are meant for all (even when private property is justly acquired); subsidiarity, which stresses that society’s larger institutions, including the state, should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller ones (including families and Church communities); solidarity, which holds that humanity, even with its differences, is a family; and justice, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church says “consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor.”
  
  In his encyclical, Pope Leo stresses that AI and its attendant power must be assessed against the principals of Catholic social teaching.
  
  

• City of God, city of man: Symbols, respectively, of faith in God and unbelief. The two are contrasted by St. Augustine in his work best known as “The City of God.”

 

In his encyclical, Pope Leo (a member of the Order of St. Augustine who regularly invokes the saint’s thought) cites the image and quotes St. Augustine’s observation that “two loves have built two cities: the earthly city, the love of self even to the contempt of God; the heavenly city, the love of God even to the contempt of self.” Pope Leo then reflects, “As throughout history, these two loves continue to contend for dominance in our hearts today. The age of AI is no exception: the construction of Babel or the rebuilding of Jerusalem begins within each one of us.”

§   Ecology of communication: A model for understanding the dynamic between communications and the social order. The concept, sometimes called “media ecology,” traces its roots to communications scholarship from the 1960s. In his encyclical, Pope Leo uses the term in calling for, among other things, transparency in Church communications, personal data protection and content selection; digital and media literacy; serious journalism; information verification; and the enhancement of critical thinking skills. Pope Leo notes that such actions reflect “the fundamental principle” that “truth is a common good and not the property of those with power and influence.”

 

§   Integral human development: A term found in St. Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical “Populorum Progressio” that views the flourishing of individuals and peoples holistically — taking into account spiritual, cultural, moral and relational concerns, with an eye not only to present but future generations.

 

The concept is central to Catholic social teaching (see above), with Pope Francis establishing the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development in 2016. In his encyclical, Pope Leo describes integral human development as “the framework through which we can interpret the changes of our time, including those brought about by the digital revolution.”

• Large language model: A type of AI model capable of being trained to understand and generate language in a human-like way, with context and nuance.
  
  

• Multilateralism: In international relations, the concept of cooperation among diverse nations. Originally a geometry term for “many-sided,” multilateralism is central to entities such as the United Nations, and to international agreements on a rules-based order that safeguards human life and dignity. In his encyclical, Pope Leo points to a crisis in the current multilateral system, not only due to “structural limitations” but to “a frequent lack of shared will to support and reform them, or to recognize their moral authority.” 
  He observes that the economic globalization following the collapse of Europe’s communist regimes in 1989 is far from “genuine multilateralism.” Instead, he writes globalization’s “almost blind faith in markets” has “provoked fundamentalist, identity-based and nationalistic reactions” and devolved into “a disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism with a prevailing sense of mistrust.” Shared efforts for a common good are further imperiled by reemerging attempts to “forge a collective identity in opposition to an enemy,” with each side claiming itself to be “a victim entitled to retribution” and replacing international law with the claim that “might makes right.” As a result, warns Pope Leo, power politics are sidelining peacebuilding initiatives and compromising “the achievements of humanitarian law,” with protections for civilians and “especially children” amid conflict “regarded as naïve relics of the past.”

 

• Nehemiah: Both the name of the governor of Judah and the book found in the Bible. In about 444 B.C., Nehemiah was granted permission from Persian King Artaxerxes I to return to Jerusalem — where some Jews, following the sixth-century B.C. Babylonian exile, had begun to resettle — in order to rally and direct the people in a shared restoration of their ancient city. Unlike Babel, said Pope Leo in his encyclical, this effort under Nehemiah (and later under Ezra) placed “God at the center” and prioritized “communion” and “rebuilding relationships” over “uniformity.”
  
  

• Political realism, realpolitik: Political realism is a political theory that prioritizes power over morals and ethics, effectively holding that “might makes right.” In international relations, realpolitik (a term first popularized in the 19th century) also privileges power, as well as national interest, over other principles and considerations, framing it as pragmatic politics. In his encyclical, Pope Leo warns that both philosophies — the latter of which he condemns as “truly irresponsible” — work to present war as inevitable, thereby precluding genuine peace based on justice and charity.
  
  

• Technocratic paradigm: A term also used by Pope Francis in his 2015 encyclical “Laudato Si'” to describe a worldview in which humanity employs technology with the guiding aim of “possession, mastery and transformation,” rather than the humble, grateful stewardship of God’s abundant gifts.

 

Pope Leo writes that this “pervasive technocratic paradigm … amplified by the digital revolution and AI, threatens to normalize an anti-human vision. In that vision, the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control.

 

When efficiency becomes the ultimate measure of value, human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion.”

• Transhumanist, posthumanist: Transhumanism holds that humans can transcend their limitations particularly through scientific advances such as computer technology, cryonic preservation, biomedicine and other technological interventions. Posthumanism counters the view that humans are central, with some posthumanists advocating a hybridization of humans, machines and the environment.
  
  “Even when such ideas remain largely speculative, they gain relevance by altering the collective imagination and thereby influence social, economic and political choices,” Pope Leo writes in his encyclical.
  
  

He contrasts these views with the Christian understanding of humanity as created by God, noting that human limitations are vital opportunities to “recognize the inviolable dignity of every person,” live with compassion and “encounter the presence of the Lord.”

 

Gina Christian is a multimedia reporter for OSV News.