The Neanderthals in focus

Kia ora,

For this post I've decided to focus on our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals, who have been mentioned a few times in recent posts.

Please note: this post contains a picture of a modern human skull. This has been included to visually illustrate the morphological differences from Neanderthals. 

The first hominin fossils recognised as something distinct from Homo sapiens (the scientific classification of all extant humans) were recovered in 1856 during quarrying of Feldhofer Cave in what was at the time the Kingdom of Prussia (now Germany). The location of the cave - the Neander 'thal' (valley) - would lend its name to a new scientific species classification, Homo neanderthalensis - referred to colloquially as Neanderthals or, alternatively, Neandertals. Why are there the two different spellings? In the early twentieth century German spelling was regularised to be more consistent with pronunciation and 'thal' became 'tal' (in German the word has always been pronounced with a hard 't' sound like in the (very) English word 'tea'. The German language doesn't have a 'th' sound like in the English word 'theory'!). Anyway, by the time this change was made the species name Homo neanderthalensis had been fixed under International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature guidelines. Here I'm going to stick with the colloquial spelling Neanderthal, for the sake of consistency with the species name, but it's certainly not a hill I'm prepared to die on!  

 

Cast of the Neanderthal 1 skullcap, the type specimen fossil of the species Homo neanderthalensis, recovered from Feldhofer Cave in 1856. Attribution: Gunnar Creutz, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Neanderthal 1, type specimen fossil of Homo neanderthalensis discovered in 1856 and a matching zygomatic (cheek) bone recovered during excavations in 2000 at the site of the original discovery. Attribution: PalaeoAnthropology+ (@Qafzeh) on Twitter.

    

However, while the fossils recovered from Feldhofer Cave were the first to be recognized as human, but distinct from extant humans, the earliest discovered fossils that are now recognized as Neanderthal had actually been found some twenty seven years earlier - in Belgium in 1829. These fossils, however, were parts of a Neanderthal child's skull and not quite as obviously different from the corresponding bones of an extant human child as the more heavy-looking fossils of the adult Feldhofer individual were from an extant human adult. As well as a skullcap (see photos above), matters were helped by the discovery of a number of post-cranial bones at Feldhofer Cave, including bones from the arms and legs, part of the hipbone, collarbone, a shoulder blade, and some ribs. A relatively complete adult Neanderthal skull discovered in the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar in 1848 was also destined to be overlooked until after the Feldhofer discovery.

As I have noted in a previous post to this blog, while the recent genetic evidence is forcing some rethinking of this idea, morphological differences have been the basis for the wide recognition of Homo neanderthalensis as a distinct species from Homo sapiens since the nineteenth century. For example, Neanderthals are recognised by their broader chests, wider waists and different limb proportions. As well as being generally more robust, Neanderthal skulls are notable for (when compared to examples of Homo sapiens) a much more prominent supraorbital torus (brow ridge), a shorter forehead, and a more elongated and less spherical cranial vault (braincase) when viewed side on. 

  

Skull of modern human (Homo sapiens; left) and Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis; right). Attribution: hairymuseummatt (original photo), DrMikeBaxter (derivative work), CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The Neanderthal lower face projects out more (the technical term for this is prognathism) than the face of Homo sapiens (which is flatter, or 'orthognathic'), and has a larger nasal opening and no bony chin (the latter a characteristic unique to Homo sapiens amongst all known hominins!). 

In addition to being recognised as a different species, Neanderthals have also long been considered vastly inferior to Homo sapiens. This reputation is so well ingrained in popular culture that calling someone a Neanderthal has derogatory connotations that are widely recognisable. 

Why is this? Can it be put down to a desire to continue to see ourselves (Homo sapiens - 'wise man') as holding some special, privileged place within the natural world? The discovery of another species so close to us would have undoubtedly challenged such notions like nothing else had beforehand. It is interesting (and also enlightening) to consider further how this challenge was generally received by those with a nineteenth century, and specifically western, worldview. 

 

The classic 'scape-goat' for popular misconceptions of Neanderthals is the reconstruction of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 Neanderthal skeleton by famed Parisian anatomist Pierre Marcellin Boule. Discovered in France in 1908, this skeleton was the most complete skeleton of a single Neanderthal individual that had been found up until that time. Boule's influential reconstruction of the skeleton was decidedly ape-like with a stooped and slouching posture.

Reconstruction of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal by the Czech artist Franti zek Kupka. Produced in 1909, this reconstruction was heavily influenced by Marcellin Boule's view of the skeleton. Attribution: Figure 4.1 in J. Zilhão (2012).

Additional discoveries of Neanderthal skeletons, however, cast increasing doubt on Boule's reconstruction. While a later re-examination of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton revealed signs of bad arthritis and premature bone degeneration it appears that Boule's own preconceptions may have led him to go beyond the physical evidence during his reconstruction. He may have considered the low cranial vault and large brow ridge, reminiscent of other extant great apes, indicative of a primitive early human and a lack of intelligence. In fact, Boule gave his reconstruction an opposable big toe like the great apes, but there was no bone deformity that should or could have led to this interpretation!


Let's take a closer look at these preconceptions I just mentioned. It is important to realise that scientific discoveries never occur in a social vacuum. It has been well demonstrated by others that the European intellectual establishment of the time saw the discovery of the Neanderthals as "scientific" proof of the prevalent and racist hierarchy that positioned white Europeans at the top of the pile and non-Europeans as less evolved, typically arranged according to darkness of skin colour. This hierarchy had profound political and cultural implications. Relegating groups of humans to lower rungs on the evolutionary ladder provided justification for attitudes regarding imperial expansion. From the start, the Neanderthals were investigated within the existing framework of the physical and cultural evolution of extant humans and comparisons were made with the "savage living races".

While subsequent research began to challenge images of stupid and brutish Neanderthals (Papagianni & Morse 2015; Wragg Sykes 2020), those early ideas have cast a long shadow over the study of Neanderthals, as they have over the lives of people today.

 

A key driver of the very gradual change in attitude towards Neanderthals has been the archaeology associated with the bones. Archaeology has helped subsequent researchers to look past the morphological traits that Boule and others considered indicative of a primitive early human and a lack of intelligence and to understand how Neanderthals lived - to recognise a Neanderthal culture, and quite an adaptable culture at that.

The first Neanderthal fossil discoveries were not accompanied by artefacts (although as it turns out there were actually knapped (flaked) stone tools, or lithics, at Feldhofer Cave. These were not recognised in 1856, but discovered in quarrying waste at the site in the 1990s). It was not until excavations began at Spy Cave in Belgium in the 1880s that a clear association was first made between Neanderthals and Middle Palaeolithic stone tools, and not until much later that the highly sophisticated ways that Neanderthals manipulated stone were truly comprehended. By the Middle Palaeolithic (beginning ca. 300,000 years ago) things had advanced well beyond simply whacking two stones together!       

 

One example of the sophistication of Neanderthal stone tools can be seen in their use of Levallois core technology.

 

Note: This hyperlink takes you to a 10 minute long YouTube video that gives (imho) a good introduction to the Levallois flaking technique, including historical background and classification terminology. Casual readers (and some archaeologists, to be fair) may find the latter in particular a bit dry. For a demonstration of Levallois flaking, skip to about seven and a half minutes into the video.


As a result of the skilled preparation of an appropriate 'nucleus' piece of stone (the core) the knapper was able to reliably detach pieces of stone (flakes) of a particular size and shape. Essentially, the removal of preparatory flakes in different patterns created outlines that directed the kinetic energy of subsequent removals. Therefore Levallois core technology allowed the reliable production of particular products, such as triangular points that could be attached (hafted) to a wooden handle to produce spears.

 

Production of a Levallois point. Attribution: José-Manuel Benito Álvarez, CC BY-SA 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons.

 

Insights into the true sophistication of Neanderthal lithic technology and their way of life only really came about with advances in archaeological methods that began in earnest in the mid-to-late twentieth century. In the case of lithic technology, the replication of stone tool forms and lithic refit analysis have given archaeologists the next best thing to actually watching an individual knapper in action in the past. Lithic refit analysis - essentially the piecing together of a 3D jigsaw of stone flakes - has become possible as a result of the shift towards the more methodical approaches that define modern archaeological excavation. Nowadays, even small 'waste' flakes of stone are routinely collected during archaeological excavations.

 

This is also true of zooarchaeological analysis - the study of non-human animal (faunal) remains from archaeological sites. The more methodical collection and analysis of ALL faunal remains - not just the large and unusual - has changed our understanding of Neanderthal diet, helping us to move past the long-held idea of Neanderthals as a species stuck in a 'big-game' rut and recognise them as adaptable hunter and gatherers able to target a much more diverse range of prey - including rabbits, birds, and a range of seafood. Furthermore, microscopic analysis of residues stuck to stone flake tools that would have been used as knives and other implements has shown us that the Neanderthal diet could also include fish and plant foods. The consumption of plant foods doesn't leave obvious traces in the archaeological record like bones and shells, while relatively small and fragile fish bones tend not to preserve as well in the record as the bones of larger fauna. This evidence of plant food consumption has been corroborated by the contents of Neanderthal tooth plaque and fossilised poo! The acquisition of fast-moving small prey items such as rabbits, fish and birds have often been seen as exclusively the domain of Homo sapiens and their capture a reflection of the presumed intellectual superiority of Homo sapiens (for further discussion see Wragg Sykes 2020).

Finally (for now), another relevant aspect of Neanderthal archaeology is the growing evidence, albeit a lot of it contested, for the Neanderthal capacity for abstract thought, as demonstrated by non-utilitarian symbolic behaviours, such as the making and wearing of jewelry.  Another such behaviour is the burial of the dead. Did Neanderthals also contemplate abstract ideas such as the existence of an afterlife? A conclusive answer in the affirmative would make the Neanderthals more of a mirror to ourselves than ever before.

 

 

 

A mirror to ourselves? Some twenty-first century Neanderthal reconstructions by Finnish artist Tom Björklund. (Compare these reconstructions to Kupka's 1909 reconstruction of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal above).

 

 

Thanks for reading,

Nick

P.S. This post has only just scratched the surface of this fascinating subject. For those wanting to read more, I can happily recommend the two references provided below.

 

This post was edited at 14:30 (NZST) 21/04/2022. Edits consisted of the addition of a hyperlink to a research article and revision and expansion of the associated discussion of the analysis of residues on stone tools to include explicit mention of evidence for the consumption of fish by Neanderthals.

 

References

 

Papagianni, D. & Morse, M. A. 2015. The Neanderthals Rediscovered: How modern science is rewriting their story. Revised and updated edition.  Thames & Hudson, London.

Wragg Sykes, R. 2020. Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art. Bloomsbury Sigma, London.