Neanderthal or Cretin? A Debate Over Iodine

New York Times ^ | December 1, 1998 | John Noble Wilford

[SunkenCiv]

In a study already drawing the fire of controversy, an American geographer has pointed out evidence suggesting, in his view, that little more than the amount of iodine in their diets may have been responsible for the physical differences between Neanderthals and modern humans and that this might solve the mystery of what happened to the Neanderthals. According to this interpretation, the skeletons of Neanderthals bear signs of physical deformities and possibly impaired mental health, which could be a result of iodine-deficient diets... It may even mean that Neanderthals could actually have been anatomically modern humans who were pathologically altered by iodine-deficiency diseases, like cretinism. Perhaps the Neanderthals did not so much disappear as change their diets some time before 30,000 years ago to include more iodine-rich foods. In that case, this could explain why certain Neanderthal physical traits -- heavy brows, thick bones and musculature and propensities for degenerative joint diseases, which are also associated with iodine-deficiency diseases -- did not persist even if their genes continued into later European populations. These are the provocative ideas of Dr. Jerome E. Dobson, a geographer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory... "I compared Neanderthal and cretin morphology and ultimately concluded that Neanderthals were iodine-deficient," Dr. Dobson said last week... An authority on Neanderthals, Dr. Fred H. Smith of Northern Illinois University, in De Kalb, said the iodine hypothesis reminded him of the arguments raised, and rejected, in the past to explain away Neanderthal anatomy as examples of rickets-caused deformities. Dr. Eric Trinkaus, a paleontologist at Washington University, in St. Louis, who has written several books on Neanderthals, also disputed Dr. Dobson's evidence for widespread iodine deficiency in Neanderthal skeletons as well as his interpretations.

[GoLightly]

I thought it was interesting too. I noticed the "marine resources" weren't fish. My hair isn't red, but it is reddish & I don't eat fish or clams (blech) by choice. :o)

Availability versus some kind of genetic predisposition to like or dislike certain food? While taste in foods certainly has to do with the foods we're given when young, that is not the the full picture. "Just try a little" doesn't always work. We simply do not like some foods right out of the gate.

If one has had a bad experience that gets associated with eating a certain food, an unintended bad association can be created. If a population got sick from eating tainted fish or if there was some other kind of bug that was unrelated to the fish, but somehow got associated with eating it, one would see fish taken off of the menu. Adults don't eat it, they don't feed it to their children & the children won't think of it as good food.

[SunkenCiv]

I think the fact that the debate was over iodine and not, say, merthialate, mercurochrome, or bactine, says volumes about their scientific priorities.

[SunkenCiv]

I think that Stringer article might make a good standalone FR topic. We'll have to have something about Neandertal in next week's Digest, just to avoid symptoms of withdrawal.

[GoLightly]

I found more with that search

http://donsmaps.com/index.html

which takes me here

http://donsmaps.com/mousterian.html

and then here

http://www.geocities.com/zafarraya/

Withdrawl? Whatever are you talking about? :D

[GoLightly]

I think the fact that the debate was over iodine and not, say, merthialate, mercurochrome, or bactine, says volumes about their scientific priorities.

LOL You're dating yourself.

[SunkenCiv]

I think the Mousterian period still has a large Question Mark hanging over it.

Speaking of dating myself...

[SunkenCiv]

Speaking of Neandertal forebears...

Tribal Americans?

[GoLightly]

I think the Mousterian period still has a large Question Mark hanging over it.

I agree.

[GoLightly]

Interesting. Was that a reconstructive type pic or just some artist's conceptual depiction?

[SunkenCiv]

I don't know, saw it at one of your links above.

[GoLightly]

I found it. Too bad the links on his "Morphology" page don't go anywhere.

[Grut]

350,000 years ago? Are you sure?

I was fudging a little, taking H. heidelbergensis as an early form of Neanderthal. But I know Neanderthal appeared long before Cro Magnon, so I think the main point's valid.

[GoLightly]

Of course your main point was valid, which is why there was no need to use a fudge factor on the timeline.

[Grut]

Mainly, I was too lazy to look it up and took a WAG.

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from 8/24/2006. The original article is from 1998. Shows how the perspectives have changed and how much the old, pretty stupid view about Neandertal, has mostly died off.