Did Neanderthals care for child with Down's syndrome?

A new study has found that fossilised fragments from a Neanderthal child’s skull bear structural changes compellingly consistent with that individual having Downs Syndrome. It is believed the child lived beyond the age of six, which suggests communal caregiving within the palaeolithic community. This has been seen before in anatomically modern human ancestors, but not before in Neanderthals. Emma Pomeroy - who is an archaeologist and Neanderthal specialist at the University of Cambridge - has been taking a look at the study for us...

Emma - The paper is about a fragment from the skull that they found at a site called Cova Negra in Spain. And one of the questions to start out with was, what species did this skull fragment come from? It was in a mixed collection of bones and they weren't sure whether it might be neanderthal or modern human. And then also there were some changes in the bone itself. So it's a fragment from near the ear and it contains a sort of semicircular canals, the various bits of the ear canals involved in hearing and balance. And they also found that there were some, a lot of differences there from the typical anatomy. So they were able to establish that it was a fragment indeed from a Neanderthal individual. And by taking lots of measurements and assessing the ear canals, essentially they were able to show that there was a wide range of anomalies in the way it had grown and linked those to, most likely, down syndrome.

Chris - They haven't got DNA at this stage then?

Emma - No, they haven't. And I think a diagnosis such as down syndrome might be actually quite complicated from the ancient DNA because it's to do with multiple numbers of chromosomes or extra bits of chromosomes. And that's kind of tricky to do with very fragmented DNA.

Chris - So why is this a breakthrough, or a landmark discovery?

Emma - Well, it's very interesting because I don't think we've actually got any identified cases of Down's syndrome in the archaeological or the paleo anthropological record. We know that other great apes can have Down's syndrome. We've got examples of chimpanzees, but this is perhaps the first example that we have from human ancestors. It's also really interesting because they've suggested that it's from an individual who was still a child, perhaps older than 6-year-old, but still pretty young. And that has various implications because the nature of these changes in the bone meant that the child probably would've had quite severe symptoms in terms of real trouble with their balance, problems with vertigo, things like that. So really they wouldn't have been able to do normal everyday activities very well. And the implication of that is that they would've needed substantial care from the mother. But probably, the authors argue, that the care they would've needed would've gone beyond what the mother alone could have offered. So in that sense, there must have been care from a wider group or assistance for the mother enabling this child to actually survive to a fairly good age. For someone with this syndrome at a time when there wasn't really any treatment and medical support.

Chris - Does that surprise you? Based on what we know about the likely community structure, the social structure of these individuals and also anatomically modern humans who overlapped with them, we've learned quite a lot from them. Does that surprise you that they should be looking out for one another?

Emma - Me personally, no. But this has been a really controversial question in terms of human evolution and when we started to care for one another. So if we look across modern human societies, including living hunter gatherer societies, we do see a great deal of care not only for the young, which obviously children need care for, they can't fend for themselves for a long time in our species, but also for individuals who are unwell or elderly. We know that other human ancestors, like Neanderthals, were living in social groups. We've got evidence that they were collaborating with each other, so for hunting, for example. And we do know that Neanderthals took a long time to grow up just like modern humans do. So they would've needed, as children and as infants, quite substantial care for a number of years based on the elderly Neanderthals as well. And in fact, other earlier human ancestors, we do find evidence of individuals who also must have required substantial care. So with major injuries, major health problems, infections, bone fractures, even perhaps amputations and paralysis. So given we have those findings, I think perhaps it's probably not entirely surprising. The context in which the authors are putting this particular finding is in trying to understand why this kind of social care and when this social care might have evolved. Is it to do with expected reciprocity? So the idea that, if I get an injury now and you help me out, in the future you might get an injury and I can help you out. And so it benefits us both long term. Or is it more to do with sort of evolution of true compassion for fellow members of our group and they are arguing because this particular child would never really have been able to reciprocate, that perhaps helps us to understand how this caring behaviour might have come about in our evolution.