After you read the press release from Harvard, you call Professor Deacon and interview him. He gives you a few additional details and quotes. He tells you that since a Neanderthal's larynx was higher in his throat than ours, he couldn't utter some vowel sounds, such as "oooh," for example.

Deacon also tells you that if Neanderthals and early humans talked, there may be some traces of Neanderthal speech left in modern languages. "It's an open question, but it's not impossible that our language was affected," he says.

Deacon says that since Neanderthals were hunters and gatherers much like the bushmen of the Kalahari Desert in Africa, so they probably talked about the animals they hunted and the berries they gathered for food.

But he adds, "They didn't just talk about their jobs. I think they could have told jokes. And there were issues of family, shelter, disease and aging that they might have discussed. And of course, there was the play of children. It's a disservice to the complexity of their society to think of Neanderthals as dumb brutes."

To get another view of Deacon's theory, you call Philip Lieberman, professor of cognitive and linguistic sciences at Brown University. He says he agrees with some of Deacon's argument.

But he adds that while he would "be astonished if they didn't talk..... whether they spoke anything like humans is an unsettled issue. The difference in the vocal tract means the Neanderthal couldn't close his nose off." That would make Neanderthal speech very nasal, Lieberman says, and that would add errors to their language.

Lieberman also says that Neanderthal speech would be hampered by not being able to say "e" or "i," the most common sounds found in modern languages.

You call Deacon back to get his reaction to Lieberman's arguments. He says much of what an anthropologist believes about Neanderthal man's capacities depend upon what is considered crucial to speech.

"It all comes down to what you think is more important for speech - the brain or the larynx. I believe it is the brain."
 
 

You're a reporter for a local newspaper. Write a story about Deacon's findings, keeping in mind that you're writing for a large general audience, not for a scientific journal.