My extremely interesting conversation with ChatGPT about ancient religion and mythology continues. There is a lot to chew on here!
Compare this with Neanderthal myth residues
Good — this comparison is actually cleaner than the Denisovan case, because Neanderthals interacted with Homo sapiens in regions where later myth traditions are well documented (Europe, West Asia). That lets us see both stronger continuities and stronger erasures.
I’ll structure this as a direct comparison.
1. First: key differences between Denisovans and Neanderthals (why the mythic residue differs)
Neanderthals
• Lived mainly in:
– Europe
– West Asia
• Interbred with:
– All non-Africans (~1–2%)
• Overlapped with sapiens:
– Later (c. 45–40 kya)
• Were replaced relatively quickly
Denisovans
• Lived mainly in:
– East & Southeast Asia
– Wallacea
– Possibly Sahul
• Interbred heavily with:
– Specific populations (up to 5%)
• Overlapped earlier and longer in some regions
• Coexisted with multiple Homo species
This difference alone predicts different mythic outcomes.
2. What Neanderthal “myth residues” would look like (in principle)
If Neanderthals left mythic traces, we would expect:
• Memories of:
– Strong, close, human-like beings
– Dangerous but familiar
• Less “spirit-like”, more “people-like”
• More conflict-oriented narratives
• Faster moralization (enemy, brute, giant)
And this is exactly what we see.
3. The clearest Neanderthal-associated myth pattern: giants
Across Europe and West Asia:
• Giants
• Ogres
• Trolls
• Jötnar
• Cyclopes
• Rephaim
Common features:
• Large-bodied
• Strong
• Dwell in mountains, caves, or old ruins
• Precede modern humans
• Often hostile or dim-witted
• Eventually destroyed by gods or heroes
This fits Neanderthals remarkably well at a structural level.
Important caveat:
This is not evidence of direct memory — but it is a compatible pattern.
4. Why Neanderthals become “monsters” rather than ancestors
Contrast with Denisovan-rich regions.
In Europe & West Asia:
• Rapid population replacement
• Agriculture
• Writing
• Patriarchal sky-god religions
• Strong boundary between “human” and “other”
Result:
• Older beings become:
– Demons
– Giants
– Chaos forces
– Enemies of order
Neanderthals are mythically dehumanized.
5. Contrast with Denisovan myth residues
| Feature | Denisovan regions | Neanderthal regions |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship | Coexistence | Replacement |
| Mythic role | Ancestors / spirits | Giants / monsters |
| Moral tone | Ambivalent | Antagonistic |
| Landscape tie | Strong | Moderate |
| Survival | Oral continuity | Overwritten by states |
This contrast is striking.
6. The “little people” myths complicate things
Globally we find:
• Dwarfs
• Elves
• Menehune
• Alux
• Patupaiarehe
• Pygmy spirits
These are not Neanderthal-sized.
Some scholars suggest:
• These myths may encode:
– Earlier sapiens populations
– Or very ancient small-bodied hominins (e.g. Flores, Luzon)
– Or symbolic liminality rather than biology
So:
• Giants ≠ little people
• Different mythic residues likely reflect different encounters
7. Why Neanderthal memory didn’t survive as “religion”
Neanderthal residues didn’t become religion because:
• Their regions developed:
– States
– Writing
– Canonical theology
• Older beings were:
– Systematically subordinated
– Moralized as chaos
Religion became:
• Vertical (sky gods)
• Legalistic
• Anthropocentric
This suppresses plural humanity.
8. Denisovans vs Neanderthals in mythic depth
Another key contrast:
• Denisovan regions preserve:
– Myths tied to landforms
– Cyclical time
– Dreaming / ancestral present
• Neanderthal regions preserve:
– Linear time
– Heroic conquest narratives
– Replacement myths
So Denisovans are absorbed into cosmology;
Neanderthals are absorbed into history-like myth.
9. A restrained comparative hypothesis
A careful formulation would be:
Where Homo sapiens coexisted longer and more symmetrically with other hominins, memories were mythologized as ancestors or spirits; where replacement was rapid and followed by state formation, memories were moralized as monsters or giants.
This fits the data without overreach.
10. Philosophical implication (this matters)
If this model is right, then:
• Religion did not emerge from:
– Abstract speculation
• But from:
Living in a world shared with other kinds of humans
Plural humanity may be the original religious problem.
11. One-sentence takeaway
Neanderthals may survive in myth as giants and chaos-beings because they were remembered as rivals overcome, while Denisovans may survive as spirits and ancestors because they were remembered as co-inhabitants of the land.
If you want next, we could:
• Compare this with “first people” myths in the Americas
• Examine whether gods themselves arise from archaic humans
• Tie this to totemism and kinship
• Or ask whether religion requires forgotten others to exist at all
Please, continue on my friend!
ReplyDelete