A new paper written by three economists suggests that trade among groups of Homo sapiens was an advantage that contributed to the displacement of Neanderthals 30,000 years ago …
The paper, entitled “How Trade Saved Humanity From Biological Exclusion: An Economic Theory of Neanderthal Extinction,” posits that division of labor and exchange of resource surpluses among Homo sapiens led to an increase in food consumption and hence an increase in fertility, which then led to more consumption. This snowball effect, in part, allowed humans to replace Neanderthals …
Shogren, a professor of Natural Resource Conservation and Management, explained that a review of archaeological literature revealed important distinctions between humans and Neanderthals: human technological innovation was very dynamic while that of the Neanderthals remained static, with evidence of long-distance exchange among humans. Also, human living spaces appear to be partitioned according to function while Neanderthal settlements are unorganized. This suggests humans had a division of labor and traded the products of their respective efforts with one another. It also suggests an absence of such behavior among Neanderthals …
Shogren stressed that they are not arguing that Neanderthals did not trade or cooperate among themselves; a number of Neanderthal skeletons, most notably a collection from Shanidar Cave in northern Iraq, show signs of advanced age or healed injuries, demonstrating that the individuals must have been cared for by others. What the authors are suggesting is that humans traded more than Neanderthals, giving them a relative advantage.
So why the disparity? Language might be one answer. Some recent research suggests that while Neanderthals and other hominids possessed the capability for language, the high placement of the larynx in the throat would not have permitted the range of sounds that we utilize. This may have hindered the development of complex language for Neanderthals.
Shogren said language is intrinsic to trade, an idea that has repercussions in an age of globalized exchange. “The interesting twist in all this is that language facilitated trade,” said Shogren. “But is trade making certain languages go extinct? What is the link between language helping trade and trade eroding some of these less-common languages?”
