Hiscock ARCA1000 Wk 5 is She My Sister the Neanderthals in Europe V2(1)

7/18/2019 Hiscock ARCA1000 Wk 5 is She My Sister the Neanderthals in Europe V2(1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hiscock-arca1000-wk-5-is-she-my-sister-the-neanderthals-in-europe-v21 1/101

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Regulations 1969

WARNING

This material has been reproduced and communicated to

you by or on behalf of the University of Sydney

pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act).

The material in this communication may be subject

to copyright under the Act. Any further reproduction or

communication of this material by you may be thesubject of copyright protection under the Act.

Do not remove this notice.



Tom Austen Brown Professorof Australian Archaeology

Peter Hiscock

School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry

ARCA1000

Week 5

Is she my sister?

The Neanderthals in Europe



The first Neanderthal was identified in 1856. Hundreds of

Neanderthal skeletons have been found in western and

central Europe and the Middle East.

Neanderthals had:

• Bigger faces than us, and a

bigger brain.

• Heavy brow ridges and

massive sinuses, very large

noses, and square orbits set far

apart.

• Massive jaws, with a receding

chins.

• Short stature (max 1.6m) but

were very muscular.



Thomas Berger and Erik

Trinkaus, notes that

Neanderthals had a high

number of injuries to their

heads and necks, about

the equivalent of among

modern rodeo riders.

This is thought to haveresulted from ambush

hunting, perhaps with

stabbing spears.



Early depictions of

Neanderthals made

them look very ape-like.

Some portrayals of

Neanderthals have

emphasized the

similarities with us.



Why is the Dordogne important?

The Dordogne contains a large number ofcave sites in which abundant prehistoric

archaeological material is preserved.

Bones, artefacts, hearths, ornaments and

skeletal remains are all preserved, giving

us a lot of detail about ancient lives.

Extraordinary painted and engraved rock

art is preserved in deep, tunnel-like

caves.



This region contains the mostdetailed record of Neanderthal life,

and the transition from

Neanderthals to modern humans.

Why is the Dordogne important?

Provides a unique record of

the emergence of modern

culture in Europe.



Ab ri de Cro-magnon

In 1863 Edouard Lartet

and Henri Christy

undertook the first

excavation in the region.

They showed that theartefacts were Palaeolithic

(Old Stone Age), but much

more sophisticated than

reported from many other

places.

They called this material:

Upper Palaeolithic .



Ab ri de Cro-magnon

The human skeletons indicated

that these Upper Palaeolithicpeople were modern Homo

sapiens, very much like

ourselves.

Cro-magnon people were tallwith long faces and are thought

to be the creators of rock art.



Le Moustier

Lartet and Christy were interested in

whether all sites contained the same

kind of material.

Later in 1863 Lartet and Christy

excavated beneath a cliff they found in anearby village, le Moustier, hidden

behind houses.



This cliff was too large to empty and so in this case they dug a neat

trench from the cliff to the front of the deposit (truncated by a road).



Lartet and Christy made two discoveries

at le Moustier.

First, the mammoth and cave bear bones

indicated an ancient period (more ancient

than the reindeer at Les Eyzies).

This was a cold period (the Ice age),

shown by the animals and by the

sediments in the deposit.



Lartet and Christy made two discoveries

at le Moustier.

Second, they discovered that different

sorts of artefacts were made at this

earlier time. They labelled these tools

Mousterian or Middle Palaeolithic.

The skeletons they found indicated that

these tools were made by Neanderthals.



Upper Palaeolithic – Solutrean point

Middle Palaeolithic - Denticulate Middle



These discoveries led to the major questions that have been

examined in the Dordogne ever since:

* How & when did Cro-magnon people replace Mousterian people?* What kind of creatures were the Neanderthals?



Homo ergaster (1.8 – 1.3 mya)Large hominid: 1.9 m

100kg. Brain 700- 900cm3.

Key example Turkana boy

Homo heidelbergensis (1.3/0.8 –

0.6 mya) Found in Europe and

Africa. Generated H.sapiens andH.neanderthalensis.

Large hominid: 1.75m

70kg. Brain 1,100 –

1,400cm3

. Key example Atapuerca

Homo neanderthalensis (0.6 – 0.03 mya) Found in Europe

Robust hominid: 1.65m

70kg. Brain 1,600cm3.

Originally described from

Mettmann in Germany.



Homo ergaster (1.8 – 1.3 mya)Oldowan technology and

perhaps development of

discoid reduction such as

hand-axes.






hand-axes.



Africa. Generated H.sapiens andH.neanderthalensis.

Using fire. Elaborate lithic

technologies producing

complex held artefactssuch as hand-axes.






hand-axes.



Africa . Generated H.sapiens andH.neanderthalensis.

Using fire. Elaborate lithic

technologies producing

complex held artefactssuch as hand-axes.

Homo neanderthalensis (0.6 – 0.03 mya) Found in Europe

Spears used at: i) Gesher

Benot Ya’aqov, Israel, ii)

Schoningen in Germany.

Evidence for hafting from

0.5 mya at Kathu Pan in

South AfricaSchoningen spears



Evidence for hafting from 0.5 mya at Kathu Pan in South Africa



Neanderthal mitochondrial (mtDNA) and nuclear

DNA have been extracted from fossils and

sequenced. Most of the ancient DNA is from late

Neanderthals (<40kya).

The Neanderthals from El Sidrón (Sp.) and

Monte Lessini (It.) show a mutation on

melanocortin 1 receptor (MRC1) which most

likely results in red hair and pale skin.

Neanderthal mtDNA genomes differ from each other by 20.4 bases and

are only 1/3 as diverse as modern humans (Briggs et al. 2009). The

low diversity might signal a small population size

Main human mutation for red hair is different.

Neanderthals share two changes in FOXP2 genewith H.sapiens. FOXP2 is implicated/involved in

speech and language

Neanderthal eyes were never blue, they were

typically brown/green.



It is now clear that Neanderthals were not

just a version of us, not a sub-species

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.

Neanderthals were a separate species:

Homo neanderthalensis, separated from

H.sapiens by about 4-600,000 years of

evolution.

There is a developmental sequence of

skulls in Europe leading to Neanderthals

and a separate sequence in Africa

showing the emergence of sapiens.

Neanderthals shared a number of

common traits with us, inherited from

H.heidelbergensis: language, reliance on

lithic artefacts, elaborate social learning.



The implication is that Neanderthals were on a

different evolutionary path to us, and yet at the same

time they seem familiar to us.

Can we understand the

Neanderthals?

How similar were theNeanderthals to us culturally?

Did Neanderthals have culture

at all?

Did they have language orart?

What kinds of lives did they

have?



Minimal

culture

Developed

culture



Archaeologists have tried to measure the level of

difference between H.sapiens and Neanderthals by

looking at traits in our own societies:

• Language

• Symbolism

• Ritual

• Style and planning



Language

Two models of language development have been

proposed:

* Gradual increase in the complexity and structure

of language during the course of human evolution.

* Catastrophic transition of language from a

minimal ‘proto-language’ to a fully developed

modern form of language.

Complex languages have

been widely discussed as akey feature of modern

humans: the are central to

information exchange.



The catastrophic model implies the sudden appearance at

one point in time, perhaps as a result of neurological changes

in the brain.

The question is ‘when’ did such a change happen?

One way archaeologists evaluated this question is through

biological evidence for speech: the shape of the vocal tract.

Initially the shape of the vocal tract, indicated by hyoid bone,

was thought to be different in modern Humans and

Neanderthals. Neanderthals might not make all our vowels.



But the discovery of a hyoid bone from the Neanderthal at

Kebara suggests little different between Neanderthals and

ourselves.

Given the shared changes to FOXP2 Neanderthals most

likely had elaborate languages.



Symbol ism

Since language doesn’t preserve directly

in the archaeological record an indirect

way of evaluating the presence of

complex language has been the presence

of symbolism.

This works for early scripts - even when

we cant translate them we know that they

are symbols used by people with

language.

We can employ the same principle with

any material symbolic code: it probably

reflects a complex vocal symbolic code.



This logic has been applied to Upper Palaeolithic

evidence.

The abundance of artistic material, often showing similarstylistic patterns, is taken to indicate complex language

and a shared cultural expressions.

This probably reveals that the earliest Homo sapiens in

western Europe had elaborate languages.

Middle Palaeolithic levels have

some scratched bones and

many artefacts but not a single

rock painting or engraving.

Some archaeologists have said

this means Neanderthals didn’t

have language.



BUT…

Perhaps it just means Neanderthals didn’t like art?

Or perhaps Neanderthals didn’t like art of that kind?

At Combe Grenal François Bordes recovered ochre

pallets, with multiple grinding surfaces, showing that

Neanderthals prepared ground minerals – presumably for their use as colouring agents.

Does the use of colouring materials perhaps indicate that

Neanderthals didn’t like permanent art, on rocks – perhapsthey coloured skins or painted on the ground.

Or did Neanderthals have some kind of colour symbolism -

but only a very simple form. What would that suggest about

language capacities?



Furthermore…

the comparison of Middle Palaeolithic sites and Upper

Palaeolithic sites in western Europe is not a straight-forward

contrast between Neanderthals and modern humans!

In western Europe the difference

between Middle and Upper

Palaeolithic is not only thespecies of hominid living in the

region but also the time period in

which they are living.

In France Neanderthals may have lived until nearly 30,000

BP, but very few individuals are known after c.40,000.

Modern humans are increasingly common in the region

during the last 30-35,000 years.



We might therefore say that in France the evidence for

symbolism is abundant in the last 40,000 years but rare or

absent before 40,000 BP.

Is this because modern humans replaced Neanderthals!

In the period before 40,000 both

Neanderthals and anatomically modern

humans lived in the Middle East.

This tells us that complex symbolic art is not linked simply to

moderns – it was developed only about 40,000 BP (+ 5000).

If French Neanderthals didn’t make art they would have been

the same as our ancestors at the same period.

Neither Neanderthals or modern

humans made art or discarded

sculptures during that early period.

“C



What has been discovered in the last few years is that the

archaeological debris discarded in the latest Neanderthal levels,

about 40-35,000 years ago.

This final phase is called the “Chatelperronian” and it containsart works such as ornaments.

Chatelperronian ornaments from Grotte du Renne.

These “Chatelperronian” ornaments show that after 40,000 BP

even Neanderthals had symbolic paraphernalia.

One suggestion is that Neanderthals learned symbolism from

the migrating Homo sapiens, but that reveals Neanderthalcapacity.



Ritual

A feature that is ubiquitous in human

societies of he historic period is the use

of ritual for a range of social purposes.

Archaeologically ritual is often seen in

dress, regalia and ritual objects.

For H.sapiens in western Europe of the

Upper Palaeolithic period we have

abundant evidence of what may beritually-related carved objects.

Such carved objects are not known

from the Middle Palaeolithic.

The question of Neanderthal



The question of Neanderthal

rituals has concentrated on

whether Neanderthals buried

their dead and had burial rituals.

Some archaeologists, such as

Robert Gargett, have argued that

many Neanderthal bodies are notburied but are a result of

taphonomic processes.

We have looked at this problemwith the claims for ritual use of

flowers in the burials at Shanidar.

While some Neanderthal



While some Neanderthal

bodies may not have been

buried it is not possible to

explain away all

Neanderthal bodies merely

as a result of taphonomy.

For example, at La

Chapelle-aux-Saints in theDordogne valley Marcelle

Boule excavated a

Neanderthal body in 1911.

He observed that this bodywas a complete flexed

burial in a well defined

grave.

This illustration of Boule’s section drawing of the La



This illustration of Boule s section drawing of the La

Chapelle-aux-Saints burial shows that the body had been

placed in a steep-sided, rectangular pit that had clearly

been excavated – this cannot be attributed to natural

processes – Neanderthals dug this pit!

Other Neanderthal burials also show clear evidence of grave



Other Neanderthal burials also show clear evidence of grave

goods; for example, the Skhul Neanderthal was buried with a

pig jaw.



It seems unlikely

that all this was

simply a response

to disposing ofrotting.

Neanderthal burials are deliberate and indicate the existence

of social bonds, a kinship system and a view that bodies of kinshould be protected.

This suggests that Neanderthals had culture of some kind,

with social obligations and perhaps a system of informationstorage and transmission (language).

But how different was this Neanderthal culture?



Style and Plann ing

Another trait that archaeologists have examined is

whether Neanderthal manufacturing activities indicatethe kinds of styles and planning that we see in the

technologies of modern humans.



Style and Plann ing

The transportation of rocks around the landscape clearly

shows that Neanderthals were planning ahead, procuringresources for use in the future, and that their economy

was well organized …but did they have styles of tools?



Style and Plann ing

The most abundant archaeological

materials left by Neanderthals are

stone artefacts. Some sites have

many hundreds of thousands of

stone artefacts.

Archaeologists have asked

whether these artefacts reveal the

same pattern of style and planning

that we can observe amongst

artefacts of the Upper Palaeolithic.



Style and Plann ing

The Upper Palaeolithic has often

been characterized as having

many distinct and standardized tool

forms.

Did the Middle Palaeolithic tools of

the Neanderthals have the same

distinctive styles of tools?



Style and Plann ing

In the 1950's François Bordes

developed a classification systemthat divided what he thought were

Neanderthal tools into 63 types.

He and other archaeologists

initially thought that each type was

specifically designed for a

particular function , and that this

revealed Neanderthals had styles

of tools equivalent to the styles wehave.



These depictions of the artefact

assemblages were initially used to

indicate Neanderthals had both

planning depth and a modern systemof style.

If this was correct it would mean thatthere was little difference between the

structure and operation of technologies

of modern sapiens and of

Neanderthals.



This interpretation of

Neanderthal artefacts

stood for a long time but

became replaced with an

interpretation based on

new understandings of

the technology gained

from experimentalarchaeology.

Archaeologists have

developed the skills tomake stone artefacts, and

in the process obtained a

new perspective on the

Mousterian assemblages.

Stone artefacts may not be



Stone artefacts may not be

separate designs but part

of a continuum of tool

shapes that exist becausethese tools needed to be

resharpened frequently,

and as they were

resharpening each piece

they made it sharper byknocking flakes of it.

* Single Scraper light retouch.

* Transverse Scraper.

* Single Scraper heavy retouch.



Another example of these new understandings isMcPherron’s model of notching being related to the size of

the specimen.



Many of the different types that

Bordes classified may merely be

different stages in the retouching

of tools.

An implication of this finding is

that although Neanderthals

display great planning in theirtechnology there may be little or

no pre-determined styles being

employed.

This is unexpected, we don’t operate like this and so

Neanderthals are perhaps more different than we thought.



Many of the different types that

Bordes classified may merely be

different stages in the retouching

of tools.

Some researchers have

suggested this may indicate a

primitiveness in Neanderthalculture – they hadn’t yet

developed standardized tool

concepts.

Alternatively it has been suggested that while Upper

Palaeolithic peoples 'imposed' forms on the artefacts the

Neanderthals may have created a 'negotiated' form in

consultation with their companions.

H d f d i f fl k i L 21 f



However a recent study of reduction of flakes in Layer 21 of

Combe Grenal shows that specimens within each Bordes

implement type often retain their features during reduction.

Single

Scrapers

Double

Scrapers

Transverse

Scrapers

Convergent

Scrapers

Transverse

Scrapers

Single

Scrapers

Minimal ExtensiveReduction

Transverse

Scrapers



1 MAT22 QUINA23 QUINA

43 TYPICAL44 TYPICAL



2 MAT

3 MAT

4 MAT

5 MAT

6 MAT

7 TYPICAL

8 TYPICAL

9 TYPICAL

10 TYPICAL

11 DENTICULATE

12 DENTICULATE

13 DENTICULATE

14 DENTICULATE

15 DENTICULATE

16 DENTICULATE

17 QUINA

19 QUINA

20 DENTICULATE

21 QUINA

22 QUINA23 QUINA

24 QUINA

25 QUINA

26 QUINA

27 FERRASSIE

28 TYPICAL

29 TYPICAL

30 TYPICAL

31 TYPICAL

32 FERRASSIE

33 FERRASSIE

34 FERRASSIE

35 FERRASSIE

36 TYPICAL

37 TYPICAL

38 DENTICULATE

39 TYPICAL

40 TYPICAL

41 DENTICULATE

42 TYPICAL

43 TYPICAL44 TYPICAL

45 TYPICAL

46 TYPICAL

47 TYPICAL

48 TYPICAL

49 TYPICAL

50 TYPICAL

51 TYPICAL

52 TYPICAL

53 TYPICAL

54 TYPICAL

55 TYPICAL

56 ACHEULEAN

57 ACHEULEAN

58 ACHEULEAN

59 ACHEULEAN

60 ACHEULEAN



LEVALLOIS REDUCTION

Bifacial flaking around the entireperimeter of a cobble, with the two

surfaces being treated differently

so that the flatter one contains a

radial pattern of scars that creates

a ridge for the removal of a large

flake.

Flakes usually have pronounced

thick bulbs, no cortex and are

covered with centripetal scars.

They have faceted platforms.



DISCOID REDUCTION

Radial flaking of cores, on one orboth faces. This strategy

resembles Levallois but platforms

are maintained near the centre of

the piece and cycles of surface

preparation and Levallois flake

removal are absent.



QUINA REDUCTION

A strategy of flaking in which large,thick, asymmetrical flakes were

systematically struck from cobbles

in a way that allowed cortex to be

retained on the dorsal surfaces of

many flakes, a process that has

sometimes been described as

‘clactonian’.

Basic strategy of

Quina core reduction



The nd



Tom Austen Brown Professor

of Australian Archaeology

Peter Hiscock

School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry

ARCA1000

Week 2Is she my sister?

The Neanderthals in the East

What can we say about Neanderthals?



Change over time

Last common ancestor of Neanderthal and H.sapiens is estimated to

have lived c. 400-700kya. Different estimates from different labs.



Pech de l’Aze IV



This site had been

excavated in the 1950s byFrançois Bordes.

He had dug out each layer

separately but had not

recorded individualfeatures within the layer.

Dibble’s excavations at

Pech de l’Aze IV



In layer 8 Dibble and

McPherron identified anumber of very distinct

hearth lenses. Perhaps

these hearths represent

many repeated short-termvisits to Pech IV –

indicating that Neandertals

were highly mobile in their

settlement pattern.




y

Neanderthals probably had language, a complex social

organization, a sophisticated economic system, andelaborate planning for tool production.




y

Neanderthals worked hides

and may have had some kindsof clothing.




Neanderthals made fire and

cooked their food – we find

many hearths.




Neanderthals built shelters –

indicated by post-holes.




Neanderthals did not make permanent art,

although they did use colouring materials ontheir tools.

Neanderthals may not have made art but

they buried their dead occasionally, and

therefore had rituals of some kind.

Neanderthals had elaborate technologies

and they had patterns that might indicate

design of tools according to recognizablestyles.

Neanderthals may have had artistic and

symbolic capacities but they rarely used

them.

CONCLUSION



Archaeological evidence has produced an

image of Neanderthals as very differenthumans, without some of the social activities

we take for granted, and perhaps with some

we find surprising.

What characterizes these scientific, archaeological

investigations is the process by which the conclusions are

reached and can be re-evaluated by others.

These interpretations emerge from examiningmultiple lines of evidence.

Interpretations of Neanderthals are constantly changing as

archaeologists seek to improve the quality and reliability of their

data and inferences.



The End

Hiscock ARCA1000 Wk 5 is She My Sister the Neanderthals in Europe V2(1)

Documents

Transcript of Hiscock ARCA1000 Wk 5 is She My Sister the Neanderthals in Europe V2(1)