Could Neanderthals talk?

The image of Neanderthals needed a lot of rehabilitating

Victorian scientists originally thought our close cousins, the Neanderthals, were little more than dumb brutes; an image which has seeped into popular culture and still persists to this day. Subsequent discoveries have helped rehabilitate the Neanderthals’ image, revealing that had a brain bigger than our own! They were capable hunters, excellent tool makers and even buried their dead. However, whilst it’s clear Neanderthals were more advanced than the Victorians thought there were still many differences between us.

Is language one of them?

Figuring out when language evolved is really difficult given that most of the body parts responsible for speech decay. The palaeoanthropological record contains exactly zero tongues, brains and vocal cords, forcing us to look for other evidence of language. The clearest evidence of modern speech is the creation of symbolic artefacts, such as the famous cave paintings1. However, the earliest unambiguous evidence of symbolism was made by modern humans and dates to ~77,000 years ago2, around 300 – 500 thousand years after we split from Neanderthals3. Does this mean they lacked that symbolic capacity and so didn’t have language?

Many researchers believe they actually did, pointing to Neanderthals’ anatomy as evidence. Although most of the stuff connected to speech does decay, a few choice pieces remain. The Neanderthal hyoid bone (which anchors many tongue and mouth muscles used in speech) falls within the range of human variation1. Their spine also supports the case for language, revealing they had the muscles needed for fine breathing control, a must for any attempt to talk4.

A Neanderthal skull and hyoid bone (shown beneath the skull)

A Neanderthal skull and hyoid bone (shown beneath the skull)

But just because they could make noises like a human doesn’t mean they could talk like us. Language is a complex thing, requiring a whole host of cognitive abilities such as semantics, syntax and all sorts of other fancy words (no pun intended). None of these will be preserved in a fossil. Fortunately we have more than just bones to look at and many scientists are has turning to the Neanderthal genome; examining whether our extinct cousins have any of the genes linked to language.

It turns out that Neanderthals have the human version of FOXP2; a critical gene that helps us control the complex muscle movements in our lips and lungs (amongst other things) needed to talk. Humans born with a damaged version of the gene have difficulty speaking as a result5. The gene may also be linked to language comprehension and processing since many people who have the damaged variant also have difficult creating and organising long sentences, often mixing up word order.

The presence of FOXP2 in the Neanderthal genome has been widely touted as strong evidence they were capable of speech. For example, the National Geographic story on the discovery of FOXP2 in Neanderthals is “Neanderthals had same “language gene” as humans.” Although appropriately cautious, using words like “suggests” and “challenges”, the article does include the quote “From the point of this gene, there is no reason to think that Neandertals did not have language as we do

However, FOXP2 isn’t the only gene linked to language. CNTNAP2 is linked to language development in children, whilst ASPM and MHC1 are associated with being able to pick out different tones. And these 3 other genes are absent from Neanderthals6! On balance it would seem that the genetic evidence does not support the idea that Neanderthals had fully modern linguistic capability.

Nonetheless, the anatomical evidence is hard to ignore. Particularly given that some of it would actually hinder a Neanderthals’ chance of survival. The larynx is a valve in the throat that prevents food from getting into the lungs but in human and Neanderthals it has shifted position4, improving the range of sounds but increasing our risk of choking to death. Evolution would not select for these features unless Neanderthals were doing something beneficial with them.

Some researchers have attempted to reconcile this fact with the genetic evidence by suggesting Neanderthals had a sort of “proto-language.” This language would’ve it was more complex than anything modern primates are capable of. Their anatomy and FOXP2 suggests it would’ve involved a diverse range of sounds; perhaps on par with humans. However, it would likely not have possessed all the key characteristics of human language; such as a flexible syntax that allows us to create new sentences as we go. Like that one.

Neanderthals are so similar to us that our ancestors interbred with them, yet they’re still unlike anything we see today, most likely lacking our capacity for language. I guess that goes to show just how randy ancient Homo sapiens was.


  1. d’Errico, F., Henshilwood, C., Lawson, G., Vanhaeren, M., Tillier, A. M., Soressi, M., … & Julien, M. (2003). Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music–an alternative multidisciplinary perspective.Journal of World Prehistory17(1), 1-70.
  2. Henshilwood, C. S., d’Errico, F., & Watts, I. (2009). Engraved ochres from the middle stone Age levels at blombos cave, south Africa. Journal of Human Evolution57(1), 27-47.
  3. Boyd, R., & Silk, J. B. (2009). How Humans Evolved. WW Norton & Company, New York.
  4. Dediu, D., & Levinson, S. C. (2013). On the antiquity of language: the reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences.Frontiers in Psychology4, 397.
  5. Lai CSL, Fisher SE, Hurst JA, Vargha-Khadem F, Monaco AP (2001). “A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder”. Nature 413 (6855): 519–23.
  6. Berwick, R. C., Hauser, M. D., & Tattersall, I. (2013). Neanderthal language? Just-so stories take center stage. Frontiers in psychology4.

8 thoughts on “Could Neanderthals talk?

  1. Sound like they might do “Me catch fish” but not “Do you think the weather is more suitable for fishing or hunting today?”

    It is my belief is that humans have been extremely successful because we are able to create and remember complex emotional narratives, and then use them to make decisions rather than relying on visible cues. Example: planning for the change of seasons. I have noticed that – contrary to prevalent hubris – we are not actually that good at thinking things through.

    • Some think that the proto-language of Neanderthals would be more holistic, with only one (or maybe a couple) of noises corresponding to entire phrases. So it would be “ug” which means “me catch fish”.

      This would lack the flexibility for innovation and complex narratives. Flexibility is important, and I think you make a good point. Improved narratives and communication would help us respond to environment change.

      By contrast, Neanderthal behaviour was rather inflexible. If a particular food they liked became scarce they didn’t find another food, they just travelled further to find their original food.

  2. Your use of the word “randy” seems to imply that you think it was the activities of human males that resulted in that addition of some Neanderthal genes to our gene pool. However, it couldn’t have been just a one-night stand; the Neanderthal woman would have had to stay with the humans and her child be raised as a tribe member for the genes to be passed on to us.
    Alternatively, perhaps it was human women whose actions, either willing or unwilling, resulted in the addition of hybrid vigour to our genome.

  3. I am actually surprised by your last sentence “Neanderthals are so similar to us that our ancestors interbred with them”.

    I remember Michel Brunet saying that the genetic studies often used to back this claim does not and cannot distinguish interbreeding from portions of genetic material inherited from our common ancestor (H. Heidelbergensis ?). Thus he was concluding that it was not possible yet to decde if interbreeding did take place. Furthermore, the consensus nowadays is more that Neanderthals constituted a different species (H. Neanderthalensis) from us (H. sapiens) rather than them and us being two subspecies of the same species (H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens). I seem to remember that this conclusion is based anatomical evidence as well as genetic studies.

    At least one should not be as categorical as “our ancestors interbred with them” don’t you think ? I have nothing against my ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals but I found Brunet’s remark confounding.

    • Funky genetic inheritance (known as incomplete lineage sorting) could explain the presence of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome. However, the fact that the oldest human alleles from which all others are descended lack the Neanderthal DNA is pretty strong evidence against it. ILS is always weird, so remains a possibility, but so faint I didn’t feel like ruining an attempt at a joke for.

  4. Pingback: BBC News – Neanderthals could speak like modern humans, study suggests | SelfAwarePatterns

  5. Pingback: When did language evolve? | EvoAnth

You evolved too. Have a say.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s