Neanderthals and “us”

Neanderthals, our most proximate other, serve as a mirror to reconsider the question who we are as human beings. Neanderthals are more like us than other early humans, but the guiding conviction was that they were different. Precisely this difference (genetic, behavioural and cultural) allegedly confirmed our exceptionality. The overall trend has been to frame humans as favoured evolutionary “winners”, whose alleged “superiority” led to the demise of Neanderthals. Research is rapidly questioning this. Meanwhile, in the face of the current global environmental crisis, the narrative of humanity as an evolutionary success story (outcompeting rivals) is challenged and problematised in other fields as well, e.g. in philosophy and post-colonial gender studies. These developments trigger us to reconsider the story of our evolutionary narrative from an interdisciplinary perspective. Our project not only provides interdisciplinary evidence for including Neanderthals in the human narrative, but also contributes to the urgent challenge of rethinking our “place” (Scheler) in nature in such a way that our self–image is no longer based on the logic of domination and dualism (human civilisation versus nature, where the latter includes early humans such as Neanderthals), but becomes grounded in a logic of inclusion, connectedness and embedding.

Our interdisciplinary project (involving expertise from philosophy, palaeolithic archaeology and post-colonial gender studies) is based at Erasmus School of Philosophy but includes intense collaboration with the Human Origin Group at Leiden University and the Neanderthal Museum Messman (where Neanderthal remains were discovered in 1856).

Neanderthals and “us”: how the golden age of Neanderthal research challenges human self-understanding
Funded by the Dutch research council (NWO)

Key publications

All PDF's are available below

1. When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Coexisted: How Philosophy, Archeology and Prehistory Novels Are Working Towards a More Inclusive Understanding of Deep Human History. Hub Zwart, Susan Peeters, Karel Kuipers, and Marie Soressi.

Abstract
Is there something exceptional about modern humans compared to early human ancestors? Until recently, Neanderthal research focused on human uniqueness: what made us decisively different? Although Neanderthals are increasingly recognized as similar to us, researchers tended to ask whether there was a decisive difference that enabled modern humans to move from “nature” to “culture” and develop complex technology, language, art, and social organization. This question shaped both scientific debates and Neanderthal novels, where encounters between “superior” humans and “inferior” Neanderthals often explained the latter’s demise. Today, however, a shift is visible both in paleo-archaeology and in Neanderthal novels. The binary opposition of “them” versus “us” is giving way to a more dynamic, interactive, and inclusive view of early human history, a change that affects how we see ourselves. We address the question whether and how a non-binary, non-hierarchical perspective on the Neanderthal–human encounter is taking shape in science, philosophy, and literature. We approach this question interdisciplinarily, combining philosophy, archaeology, and literary studies. In research on the Châtelperronian period, when Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted, focus is moving from competition to interaction and exchange. Likewise, Neanderthal novels show a transition from depictions of violence and superiority to narratives of connection and coexistence. For example, Jack London’s Before Adam contrasts with recent works that imagine shared contemporaneity in Pleistocene Europe. This reorientation matters today, as it fosters a more dynamic and inclusive conception of humanity—one that emphasizes interaction, embeddedness, and shared belonging over hierarchy and separation

2. Neanderthals and us: Towards a philosophy of deep history. In: Julien Kloeg and Hub Zwart (2024) Neanderthals and us: connecting human evolution and philosophical anthropology. International Yearbook for Philosophical Anthropology / Internationales Jahrbuch für philosophische Anthropologie Volume 12. Hub Zwart and Marie Soressi.

Abstract
How did Neanderthals experience their world, compared to their Sapiens contemporaries, who entered what is now Europe more than 40,000 years ago? Was their way of thinking, their “manner of being in the world”, comparable, or significantly different? And why would we want to reconstruct how Neanderthals experienced the world in the deep past? Is it to compare “us” with “them”, or is it to better understand our complex deep history? Is it to draw comparisons and contemplate on what sets “us” apart, adopting an essentialist approach? Or is it rather to document and enhance our understanding of the intricate narrative of our ancient origins, without the necessity of measuring ourselves against our forebears? Such questions seem difficult to answer, but against the backdrop of three decades of highly productive Neanderthal research they do emerge, both among philosophers and among paleo-archaeologists. One of our arguments will be that these questions can best be addressed in dialogue, so that paleo-archaeologists and philosophers join forces and work together.

3. Neanderthals and the issue of masculinity. The role of gender in popular neanderthal discourse. In: Porr, M., Moro Abadía, O. (eds.) Alterity and Human Evolution: Deep-time Perspectives on Difference and Variation. Susan Peeters and Hub Zwart

Abstract
The image of Neanderthals is changing rapidly and drastically. Whereas in the recent past they were seen as sluggish brutes, significantly different from us (modern human beings), they are now increasingly regarded as basically human, as people like us. Nevertheless, the persistent quest for a minimal difference that separates them from us, and that defines us as favoured “winners,” is still noticeable in Neanderthal research. The obsession with minimal but, allegedly, decisive differences is symptomatic of the tendency to define clear demarcations when it comes to upholding our identity. Identity lies in difference, and difference is asserted, reinforced, and defended against what is closest and represents the greatest threat. Freud used the term “the narcissism of minor differences,” explaining that it is precisely the minor differences in people who are otherwise alike that form the basis of feelings of strangeness and hostility between them. From this perspective, Neanderthals are boundary creatures that threaten the stability of human identity by blurring and challenging some firmly established categories.

4. Symbolism Without Symbols? The Unsoundness of the Artifact to Symbol Inference in Palaeolithic Archaeology. Karel Kuipers, Marie Soressi, Hub Zwart.

Abstract
Behaviour mediated by symbols—commonly termed ‘symbolic behaviour’—is widely recognized as a defining feature of human cognition. In deep history, its emergence is frequently inferred from artifacts or features that appear to lack utilitarian function and are thus interpreted as ornamental or representational artifacts potentially carrying symbolic meaning. However, such interpretations have been contested and have become a topic of increasing scrutiny due to the inherent ambiguity of both the archaeological data and the conceptual frameworks used to analyse them. This paper reviews the ambiguities inherent in the conceptual framework used to define and identify ‘symbols’ in Palaeolithic contexts and explicitly outlines and interrogates its logic and applicability while attempting to suggest alternatives.

5. Close encounters of a human kind On the need for distinction versus the longing for connection in Neanderthal – Homo sapiens encounters in science fiction. Susan Peeters, Marie Soressi, Stine Jensen, Hub Zwart

Abstract
Encounters between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens have long served as a recurring theme in science fiction, offering a speculative space for exploring what differentiates—or connects—these two human groups. This paper examines how such encounters are staged in prehistoric fiction, tracing their evolution from early brutish depictions to more nuanced portrayals following major shifts in palaeoanthropological understanding. Although critics argue that fiction often reproduces outdated stereotypes, this paper contends that the boundary between scientific fact and fictional narrative is less clear-cut than commonly assumed, since both are shaped by imagination and the socio-cultural narratives of their time. Drawing on Jungian archetypal theory, the analysis focuses on the recurring figure of the Hero, whose journey of exploration and triumph over Neanderthal 'others' reinforces a narrative of human superiority and progress, while marginalizing alternative perspectives, particularly those of women and other excluded groups. The paper juxtaposes this heroic narrative with its counterpart, the Orphan archetype, which foregrounds vulnerability, dependency, and the longing for connection. By identifying this neglected orphan figure within the dominant hero narrative, the paper argues for a reconsideration of how human origins are told, advocating for narratives grounded in interconnection and mutual dependence rather than separation and domination. Such a shift, it is suggested, is not only relevant to literary analysis but carries broader implications for how paleoanthropological discourse constructs human identity and uniqueness.

6. What is ‘human’ in human evolution: Reconnecting philosophical anthropology and human evolution. K.J. Kuipers, J. Kloeg, M.A. Soressi.

Abstract
The concept of 'the human' remains a source of persistent conceptual confusion across the subdisciplines of human evolution research. Drawing on Helmuth Plessner's philosophical anthropology as a metatheoretical framework, this paper examines how biological anthropology, archaeology, and paleogenetics each operationalize divergent and often mutually incompatible definitions of 'human.' Physical anthropologists generally equate 'human' with membership in the genus Homo, yet the boundaries of that genus remain contested. Archaeologists define humanity through behavioral proxies — particularly the contested notion of 'Modern Behaviour' or symbolic capacity — decoupling morphology from cognition in ways that potentially extend 'humanness' to Neanderthals. Paleogeneticists, working with populations rather than species, distinguish 'modern' from 'archaic' humans in ways that conflict with both anatomical and behavioral definitions. We argue that these fragmented working definitions reflect unexamined essentialist and historically ontological assumptions rooted in Enlightenment philosophy and the colonial origins of the discipline. Rather than proposing a unified empirical definition, we advocate for active dialogue between human evolution research and philosophical anthropology, following Plessner's call to resist both scientistic reductionism and philosophical neglect of empirical science. Such engagement offers a path toward reflexive inquiry into what it means — conceptually and methodologically — to study human evolution as humans.