The Neanderthal Thread

Adam Khor

Wibbs, where are thou?!

They say these paintings found in a Spanish cave and depicting seals were made by Neanderthals over 40.000 years ago. What I find weird is that the paintings are in a stalactite... would it be possible for the paintings to be there after such a long time? I mean, aren´t stalactites constantly growing, falling, being replaced, etc?
I know jack about geology so I don´t know...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2097869/The-oldest-work-art-42-000-year-old-paintings-seals-Spanish-cave.html

Galvasean

I know what you mean about the stalactite. That seems odd to me that one could remain so static after all this time.

Rubecula

Stalactites are produced when mineral rich water drips off leaving a microscopic amount of calcium behind.

It takes a very long time for something like this to be produced, so it is entirely possible that the slow rate of growth here has not had time to take effect. Or very possibly, the stalactite my have dried up due to a variety of factors.

I would presume it may have been wet when the paintings were done simply because such paintings are thought to be to aid in a successful hunt, and seals being water creatures might in the minds of the painter be more attracted to a painting done in moisture???

Anyway I am surmising.

By the way, how do they know it was Neanderthal work?

dlofnep

According to Wiki, average growth rate is 0.13 mm a year for them. That's just over 5 metres over a 40,000 year period.

rich.d.berry

Rubecula wrote: »

By the way, how do they know it was Neanderthal work?

Neanderthals are in the frame for the paintings since they are thought to have remained in the south and west of the Iberian peninsula until approximately 37,000 years ago – 5000 years after they had been replaced or assimilated by modern humans elsewhere in their European heartland.

Above quote from this New Scientist article

Wibbs

*faints* If this does turn out to be Neandertal in origin, yet another major difference between us goes for a fall.

There was the Neandertal "house" found a few months ago where they described painted tusks of which we've heard nothing more about sadly.

Then there is the discovery in Italy IIRC where they've found large deposits of bird bones and feathers. Birds that were hunted it seems not for their meat, but for their flight feathers. They seemed to have a liking for shiny black and pure white feathers and were very specific about those species with said colours and ignored ones that didn't, so it sounds like decoration or some other cultural reason.

Then the Spanish pigments and pendants long before we show up on the scene.

I suspect more of this stuff will show up. I further suspect they used more fugitive materials that simply haven't survived. Wood, leather etc. When you look at a Neandertal tool assemblage there's an awful lot of scrapers and the like. Woodworking type stuff. Sapiens stuff has survived better because we used more stone, bone and painted in stable environments like caves and we did it more recently. On very very rare occasions we may catch a glimpse of what has been lost. EG the 400,000 year old beautifully fashioned and weighted wooden spears from Germany.

Wibbs

I'd add a caveat though. They look very fresh, particularly as has been well pointed out above on structures that are dynamic in nature. Well dynamic over 40 odd 1000 years anyway. Plus water flows over the surface of such structures. I'd believe them more is they were on a dry wall of a cave, unless they can prove that that part of the cave system has been dry for that period of time. Plus how did they miss them before now? I've been in those caves as a kid, they were a big organised tour type of thing.

clintondaly

They probably done it with a permanent marker....

Adam Khor

clintondaly wrote: »

They probably done it with a permanent marker....

Oh noes! :O Neanderthals invented permanent markers before we did!

Wibbs

Well they did invent sophisticated glue making techniques before us so you never know.

Capt'n Midnight

looks like ochre
had they used carbon then it would be easier to date

we've had a lot of climate changes in europe over the last 40,000 years so could very easily have dried up or at least diverted course

Adam Khor

If its legit, then its very interesting that it depicts seals- you know as there was talk some time ago about how Neanderthals seemingly hunted seals. Maybe they were as obsessed about them as Homo sapiens was with bison and horse XD

Rubecula

Interesting to note that seals make up a large part of the diet of northern people too even to this day. Seals may be one of the few foods available really now for these folks, so it may have been the same back then. And I assume that because of the blubber and richness of the meat, there is a lot of 'goodness' in a seal meal. (Sorry that that sounds a bit silly, but I am not sure how else to phrase it.)

Galvasean

Good point Rubecula, the blubber contained in seals would be just the food ticket needed for neandertals to make it through the cold of a harsh winter. For the most part when sharks and killer whales attack seals and whales in winter months they tend to focus on eating the blubber almost exclusively for this very reason.

rich.d.berry

And seal liver is a good source of vitamin C, only 10% less than in muktuk (freeze dried whale epidermis).

Galvasean

Didn't know that. Meant to say welcome to the forum Rich. Hope you're enjoying it!

rich.d.berry

Thanks Sean (I'm assuming that's your name). Yeah, I have had an amateur interest in genetics for some time and palaeaontology links into this interest. I have less fascination with the fossils themselves than what they help to tell us about the history of life.

It's thanks to Rubecula that I came here after following one of his posts.

Rubecula

rich.d.berry wrote: »

Thanks Sean (I'm assuming that's your name). Yeah, I have had an amateur interest in genetics for some time and palaeaontology links into this interest. I have less fascination with the fossils themselves than what they help to tell us about the history of life.

It's thanks to Rubecula that I came here after following one of his posts.

Geez I am always getting the blame. :pac:

But good to have you here Rich.

Wibbs

rich.d.berry wrote: »

And seal liver is a good source of vitamin C, only 10% less than in muktuk (freeze dried whale epidermis).

True, however they'd have to be very careful in how much they ate, because of the high dose of vitamin A, which can cause serious illness and often death. Most hunter gatherer cultures have taboos surrounding eating carnivore livers for this reason(they concentrate it more). Polar bears liver would be the most deadly, but seal liver particularly though not exclusively in more polar type regions is nearly as bad. If Neandertals were eating seal, I suspect they left the liver well alone, or maybe found a way to process it? Or less likely they had adapted to the high doses, like polar bears have.

As an aside one of the earliest pathologies we've observed in the Homo species was a case of hypervitaminosis in an Erectus female in Africa. She must have chowed down on a carnivores liver. The evidence of her suffering was in her bones(abnormal growth in the cells). What's more interesting is that she would have taken weeks to die. During which time she would have been almost immobile and in terrible pain poor thing. She would have been in no condition to forage/hunt. Someone was feeding her and looking after her, even though she would have been a big liability. A snapshot, a brief glimpse of attention and caring in the earliest of peoples we'd recognise as human.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

True, however they'd have to be very careful in how much they ate, because of the high dose of vitamin A, which can cause serious illness and often death. Most hunter gatherer cultures have taboos surrounding eating carnivore livers for this reason(they concentrate it more). Polar bears liver would be the most deadly, but seal liver particularly though not exclusively in more polar type regions is nearly as bad. If Neandertals were eating seal, I suspect they left the liver well alone, or maybe found a way to process it? Or less likely they had adapted to the high doses, like polar bears have.

As an aside one of the earliest pathologies we've observed in the Homo species was a case of hypervitaminosis in an Erectus female in Africa. She must have chowed down on a carnivores liver. The evidence of her suffering was in her bones(abnormal growth in the cells). What's more interesting is that she would have taken weeks to die. During which time she would have been almost immobile and in terrible pain poor thing. She would have been in no condition to forage/hunt. Someone was feeding her and looking after her, even though she would have been a big liability. A snapshot, a brief glimpse of attention and caring in the earliest of peoples we'd recognise as human.

But not really too surprising if we consider that there's evidence of non-human carnivores doing the same thing

I thought neanderthals were supossed to be much more carnivorous than H. sapiens. I suposse that if they were, they would have been much more resistant to hypervitaminosis? Just a thought...

Wibbs

Adam Khor wrote: »

But not really too surprising if we consider that there's evidence of non-human carnivores doing the same thing

Oh true AK though like all diffs with humans compared to animals I suppose it's matter of degree. She would have taken over a month to die from this(judging by the bone growth) and would have been near immobile. Other mobile social carnivores like wolves, lions etc would stick around for a few days, but a month would be a stretch.

I thought neanderthals were supossed to be much more carnivorous than H. sapiens. I suposse that if they were, they would have been much more resistant to hypervitaminosis? Just a thought...

Possible alright. Inuit peoples have bigger livers than other populations as an adaptation to their almost exclusively carnivorous diet and it seems that adaptation didn't take that long. 15,000 years tops. They're shorter and stockier and also have a higher density of capillaries in the face and hands compared to other populations as an adaptation against the cold. That kind of environment would have stroooong selection pressures.

Set against that Neandertals may have been less carnivorous than was thought. Certainly compared to Inuit folks. They seem to have collected, cooked and eaten wild grains. Probably in the form of simple "biscuits" or even a porridge type meal, though lack of obvious bowls for the latter is a sticking point(then again crude wooden bowls would be v v rare survival wise). Recent discoveries of the remains of said cooked grains have been found between the teeth of a couple of specimens. I suppose it would also depend on where they lived too. More northern Neandertal folks may have been more like Inuit, where the middle eastern and southern guys would have had a different diet environment.

Either way, with every little glimpse into their lives we find, the more complex and adaptable and fascinating a people they become and a lot further away from the short* brutish cultural eskimo of previous images of them. Now if someone called me a neandertal I'd take it as more of a compliment Pity we'll never know what they called themselves, but in the DNA of a large chunk of non African people they left their legacy, so that's cool.




*they averaged shorter than modern humans today, but were closer in size to moderns living at the same time(and not far off your average medieval person). However a couple of these guys were close to 5'10-11" which is not that short at all.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

True, however they'd have to be very careful in how much they ate, because of the high dose of vitamin A, which can cause serious illness and often death. Most hunter gatherer cultures have taboos surrounding eating carnivore livers for this reason(they concentrate it more). Polar bears liver would be the most deadly, but seal liver particularly though not exclusively in more polar type regions is nearly as bad. If Neandertals were eating seal, I suspect they left the liver well alone, or maybe found a way to process it? Or less likely they had adapted to the high doses, like polar bears have.

As an aside one of the earliest pathologies we've observed in the Homo species was a case of hypervitaminosis in an Erectus female in Africa. She must have chowed down on a carnivores liver. The evidence of her suffering was in her bones(abnormal growth in the cells). What's more interesting is that she would have taken weeks to die. During which time she would have been almost immobile and in terrible pain poor thing. She would have been in no condition to forage/hunt. Someone was feeding her and looking after her, even though she would have been a big liability. A snapshot, a brief glimpse of attention and caring in the earliest of peoples we'd recognise as human.

Good points Wibbs did you know though some hunters after making a kill cook and eat the liver before returning to the rest of the tribe. It gives them the energy to return home they claim.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh true AK though like all diffs with humans compared to animals I suppose it's matter of degree. She would have taken over a month to die from this(judging by the bone growth) and would have been near immobile. Other mobile social carnivores like wolves, lions etc would stick around for a few days, but a month would be a stretch.

Possible alright. Inuit peoples have bigger livers than other populations as an adaptation to their almost exclusively carnivorous diet and it seems that adaptation didn't take that long. 15,000 years tops. They're shorter and stockier and also have a higher density of capillaries in the face and hands compared to other populations as an adaptation against the cold. That kind of environment would have stroooong selection pressures.

Set against that Neandertals may have been less carnivorous than was thought. Certainly compared to Inuit folks. They seem to have collected, cooked and eaten wild grains. Probably in the form of simple "biscuits" or even a porridge type meal, though lack of obvious bowls for the latter is a sticking point(then again crude wooden bowls would be v v rare survival wise). Recent discoveries of the remains of said cooked grains have been found between the teeth of a couple of specimens. I suppose it would also depend on where they lived too. More northern Neandertal folks may have been more like Inuit, where the middle eastern and southern guys would have had a different diet environment.

Either way, with every little glimpse into their lives we find, the more complex and adaptable and fascinating a people they become and a lot further away from the short* brutish cultural eskimo of previous images of them. Now if someone called me a neandertal I'd take it as more of a compliment Pity we'll never know what they called themselves, but in the DNA of a large chunk of non African people they left their legacy, so that's cool.




*they averaged shorter than modern humans today, but were closer in size to moderns living at the same time(and not far off your average medieval person). However a couple of these guys were close to 5'10-11" which is not that short at all.

On the point of neanderthals Wibbs I have noticed several other hominids are given the nomen neanderthal. Is the term neanderthal in reference to a species much more diverse than homo sapians or around the same?

Wibbs

Other hominids? Really? Huh, I always thought of them as one sub species (spread over time of course). Personally I'd even put heidlebergensis under the same name, just call them early Neandertals. From the gene studies I've read on them they seem less diverse than us.

Good points Wibbs did you know though some hunters after making a kill cook and eat the liver before returning to the rest of the tribe. It gives them the energy to return home they claim.

Yea I've read about that, though it's prey/ruminant animal livers. The taboos concern carnivore livers. They concentrate the Vit A to a toxic level.

Adam Khor

Miguelón being the best preserved Homo heidelbergensis specimen known, nicknamed after a Spanish cyclist who was seemingly da bomb at the time of the fossil's discovery.
The Museum of Evolution in Burgos will be dedicating the summer to this specimen and its discoverer, Juan Luis Arsguaga, has opened a Twitter account to answer the public's questions about Homo heidelbergensis and related matters. https://twitter.com/JuanLuisArsuaga



http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20120709/veinte-anos-del-descubrimiento-miguelon-craneo-fosil-mejor-conservado-del-mundo/544342

Adam Khor

Doesn´t surprise me- chimpanzees know about this too- but still interesting:

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-neanderthals-knowledge-qualities.html

steddyeddy

Adam Khor wrote: »

Doesn´t surprise me- chimpanzees know about this too- but still interesting:

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-neanderthals-knowledge-qualities.html

Indeed Ill bet most if not all hominids know about medicinal plants. Parrots, chimps as you say, elephants and a range of other animals exhibit zoopharmacognosy (knowledge of pharmaceutical plants).

Within biology theres a tendency for people to underestimate nature yet biology by its nature is not conservative.

Adam Khor

Especially corvids and raptors, which they seemingly did not eat:

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-evidence-that-neanderthals-actively-captured-birds

Ziphius

And I thought feathered Dinosaurs were cool. The paper is open access in PLoS One too http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0045927

Wibbs

I read about this a while ago, didn't realise it's only gone "official". Cool stuff. I'm still wondering and waiting for more info to come out about the "neandertal dwelling" apparently discovered in the Ukraine that was "decorated elaborately with carvings and pigments". Just a couple of reports from some researchers and then nada. The feathers thing is way cool, but carvings and pigments would blow the whole neandertal/sapiens culture difference into orbit.

Ziphius

Wibbs wrote: »

The feathers thing is way cool, but carvings and pigments would blow the whole neandertal/sapiens culture difference into orbit.

Fascinating stuff. Reminds me of a short story published in Nature a few months back about a resurected Neanderthal girl. You can listen to the podcast here.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

I read about this a while ago, didn't realise it's only gone "official". Cool stuff. I'm still wondering and waiting for more info to come out about the "neandertal dwelling" apparently discovered in the Ukraine that was "decorated elaborately with carvings and pigments". Just a couple of reports from some researchers and then nada. The feathers thing is way cool, but carvings and pigments would blow the whole neandertal/sapiens culture difference into orbit.

You know, every time an article like this turns up, I remember our old thread about Neanderthal appearance and I remember how you said Neanderthals were hairy and with huge eyes- it makes the idea of them painting or adorning themselves with feathers so much freakier. :cool:

Wibbs

Yea the eyes thing fascinates me when it comes to reconstructions. Usually we get this kinda thing;

A squinty beady eyed chap. Yet Neandertals had the largest orbits of any humans ever(and the largest visual cortex). Huge fecking Japanese Anime stylee. The theory goes that it's a local adaptation to lower light levels in higher latitudes. I dunno, seems tenuous to me purely on the latittude level anyway. After all they lived in the middle east and still had big eyes. We lived alongside them in the same environment and had smaller eyes*. My own take would be the bigger eyes were maybe down to different hunting strategies. They were maybe more low light explosive ambush hunters, in forests and at dawn and dusk and we were more open grassland hunters mainly in full daylight. Might explain why they never bothered much with longer range weapons while we came up with throwing spears and bows and arrows. The latter would be not nearly as much use in undergrowth. More likely to hit a tree than the prey animal. Might also explain how we co existed in one environment and not another? IE in the Levant there might have been both niches with enough food for both so no real competition and we got jiggy with each other, but when we get to Europe the hunting niches had much more of a crossover and competition increased and we avoided each other?

*That said in modern peoples eye size does get larger the further away from the equator you get. Eskimos have bigger eyes than their more southerly cousins in Asia and America. Europeans have the biggest eyes of modern humans. Interestingly brain size also follows this general rule. The further from the equator the larger the brains. Of course these are very small diffs, but they are measurable. Different theories abound, but the main one is that low light levels require a bigger eye and more brain matter to process the info from the eyes. Neandertals really went with this it seems, having both the biggest eyes and the largest brains of any humans ever and the extra volume is mostly in the visual centres.

On topic, heres a reconstruction of the feathered Neandertals

Again looks fierce modern looking to me. Brow ridges within normal modern range etc.

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea the eyes thing fascinates me when it comes to reconstructions. Usually we get this kinda thing;

A squinty beady eyed chap. Yet Neandertals had the largest orbits of any humans ever(and the largest visual cortex). Huge fecking Japanese Anime stylee. The theory goes that it's a local adaptation to lower light levels in higher latitudes. I dunno, seems tenuous to me purely on the latittude level anyway. After all they lived in the middle east and still had big eyes. We lived alongside them in the same environment and had smaller eyes*. My own take would be the bigger eyes were maybe down to different hunting strategies. They were maybe more low light explosive ambush hunters, in forests and at dawn and dusk and we were more open grassland hunters mainly in full daylight. Might explain why they never bothered much with longer range weapons while we came up with throwing spears and bows and arrows. The latter would be not nearly as much use in undergrowth. More likely to hit a tree than the prey animal. Might also explain how we co existed in one environment and not another? IE in the Levant there might have been both niches with enough food for both so no real competition and we got jiggy with each other, but when we get to Europe the hunting niches had much more of a crossover and competition increased and we avoided each other?

*That said in modern peoples eye size does get larger the further away from the equator you get. Eskimos have bigger eyes than their more southerly cousins in Asia and America. Europeans have the biggest eyes of modern humans. Interestingly brain size also follows this general rule. The further from the equator the larger the brains. Of course these are very small diffs, but they are measurable. Different theories abound, but the main one is that low light levels require a bigger eye and more brain matter to process the info from the eyes. Neandertals really went with this it seems, having both the biggest eyes and the largest brains of any humans ever and the extra volume is mostly in the visual centres.

On topic, heres a reconstruction of the feathered Neandertals

Again looks fierce modern looking to me. Brow ridges within normal modern range etc.

Not to mention the super smooth skin.

steddyeddy

I would hazard a guess that neanderthals would have developed an epicanthic fold (the extra fold of skin above the eyes that some asian and african peoples have). The fold is thought to deflect sun glare from ice. I would also say that the term neanderthal is a very broad one. I would think of them as a species more diverse than humans imo.

Galvasean

I'm not liking most of the more modern "They're so much like us" recreations of neandertals. They fly in the face of pretty much everything we know about them. As you guys said, the eyes and brow ridges are too small. Even the nose sizes tend to be highly conservative. They're usually well within the realms of Homo sapiens. I'm sure if you met a neandertal for real it would be very obvious that you were confronted with a different species, not just a stocky sapiens.

On topic: That's quite cool about the feathers. Reminds me of native American culture somewhat.

Adam Khor

http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-mariners-did-neanderthals-sail-mediterranean-192112855.html

Jumblon

Well, why not?

Wibbs

Exactly. More and more it looks like they were more like us than not on so many levels. Plus given Hobbits/Homo Erectus got to Flores across one of the most dodgy ocean straits in the world a million years ago, Neandertals getting t islands doesn't sound so far fetched. That said it shows all sorts of planning and organisation and communication, never mind huge cojones(that don't fossilise:D).

The Cretan colony took some planning and would have required more than two or three washed up after a storm. Given their bulk I doubt swimming too far was much of an option. They must have made either rafts or actual dugouts. They were skilled woodworkers if the 400,000 year old German spears are anything to go by, but sadly like cojones wood objects rarely survive.

I'll put money down that if a scarily rare layer is ever found where their woodworking and boneworking is found it'll rewrite the books in a big way. They've discovered they ate processed grains, so wooden bowls and implements are a real possibility. Looking at some of the stone scrapers I have, many of them show wear in precise areas, not all along one edge as one might expect from just leather preparation. Christ knows what these guys and gals were knocking up in wood and possibly bone. Impressive stuff for people whose name among most still conjures up primitive caveman and dull headed moron. The last time somebody called me a "bit of a Neandertal", I smiled back and replied "Yea, thanks, about 4%"

Adam Khor

Wibbs wrote: »

The last time somebody called me a "bit of a Neandertal", I smiled back and replied "Yea, thanks, about 4%"

Epic XD

And that makes all the physical differences between Neanderthals/erectus and us all the more fascinating.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

That said it shows all sorts of planning and organisation and communication, never mind huge cojones(that don't fossilise:D).

The Cretan colony took some planning and would have required more than two or three washed up after a storm. Given their bulk I doubt swimming too far was much of an option. They must have made either rafts or actual dugouts. They were skilled woodworkers if the 400,000 year old German spears are anything to go by, but sadly like cojones wood objects rarely survive.

they also had time on their side

given enough time...

being bulky means you can survive longer in water, swimming while hanging on to a log ? (but only for short distances)

family group rafting on a full tree ?
water is the main problem - would be far easier in winter

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22780717

A Neanderthal living 120,000 years ago had a cancer that is common today, according to a fossil study.

...
"It shows that living in a relatively unpolluted environment doesn't necessarily protect you against cancer, even if you were a Neanderthal living 120,000 years ago."

Adam Khor

Since dinosaurs have been found to have suffered from cancer as well, this is not really surprising...

Adam Khor

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130819090128.htm

Wibbs

That's not really new thinking AK. Or at least it's been well noted before going back to the early days of antiquarians collecting handaxes/bifaces(often ignoring other tools as your handaxe is sexier to display in one's 19th century cabinet of curiosities. Even Romans were known to have collected them). Never mind the east west overall tool design, looking across northern Europe you get this kinda variation in bifaces themselves:

It seems to vary across time as well as space as one would expect of any cultural item. In my personal Mousterian collection I've only a few bifaces, most from the same area(within 40 miles in old money) and they show quite clear variation in overall design (and size).

What I find interesting personally is possible symbolism/aesthetics in biface design. They're rare, but they do show up. EG this one found in the UK IIRC:

If that fossil in the flint isn't selected for I'm a monkeys uncle*. The guy was taking care with his strikes to stop them before they hit the shell. And they defo had that kinda skill and accuracy. I've a couple of Levallois cores(the leftover bit after reduction to make blades, scrapers and points) and in one of them there is an inclusion, a bad bit that intrudes on the material. The very last strike the guy made to release what looks like a scraper, was hit with such skill and knowledge of the material it misses the fault by a couple of millimeters. For me the "waste" stuff is more interesting. I've one where I'd put money the guy went "you %$£$**&^% bastid!!!. Right feck this, I'm gonna invent brewing cos I really need a beer after this. Actually Paddy has this root he smokes so..." That level of skill is very hard to build. While modern human lithics are regularly reconstructed by experimental archaeologists, hard hammer percussion stuff of a Mousterian/Neandertal nature is rarer to see and even rarer where folks attain the skill of the original guys(I've only ever seen one French dude who was up to it).

I've two similar enough examples myself, where it very much looks like they selected for an aesthetic in the raw material. Beyond that you have the innate symmetry that seems to be strongly selected, even going way back to Erectus. To a degree that's doesn't seem, to me at least, a result of lithic reduction. You see that too, but with a few choice pieces it seems the maker took more care beyond the mundane effectiveness of a tool. There are more than a few that have been excavated that show no wear on the tool surfaces at all. Almost as if they're a talisman, or maybe a teaching aid, a "perfect" example others should follow. There are even examples of bifaces that are perfect in every way, but are quite simply too big to wield.






*well... as Darwin might say, nah you're a monkey's nephew.

Adam Khor

Now I only post those hominid-related news to see what you can teach us about it XD

Wibbs

I dunno about that AK!

Funny enough I have an example that could be the near twin of the biface on the left from the article.

Even down to the detail that one side is a straighter edge.

Thinking about the research I'm not so sure about some of the conclusions. While I agree 100% that they're often not just a tool, what cultural notions we can take from them is a little up in the air.

Dr Ruebens says: "Distinct ways of making a handaxe were passed on from generation to generation and for long enough to become visible in the archaeological record. This indicates a strong mechanism of social learning within these two groups and says something about the stability and connectivity of the Neanderthal populations.

The word in bold would be my grey area. The stability of design over long periods and in locale would suggest to me that while some exchange occurred, the "not invented here/this is how we've always done things" mentality might just as easily be in play. When you look at us later African interlopers the sheer speed of idea transmission is what stands out.

As for vectors of transmission in Neandertal society? I'd put money it was the women. One theory has it that we became who we are because there was much more of a gender division in work and resource acquisition. In Neandertal groups the women and men were more "equal" in this. They hunted with the men. I'd bet the farm they also made tools.

Now looking at what appears to be their MO in the landscape and how their social structures may have been IE small related family bands with a territory. Like all such animals they need to breed "out" or you'd get a load of cross eyed Neandertal banjo players. So the main point of contact in an otherwise quite territorial xenophobic mindset would likely have been for reproductive purposes. In modern humans women are far more reproductively "mobile", more acceptable in a new group than men* and often a social/political tool to cement allegiances or just to avoid intergroup aggression and I suspect that held even more true with Neandertals. So rather than an overt exchanging of cultural ideas, the ideas transmitted(or kept the stasis) when the ladies moved into a new group.

I suspect when we bumped into them similar occurred. This might explain a couple of things too. IIRC I read that the genes we got from them were transmitted male Neandertal to female Sapiens which might be down to this practice. Now this exchange seems to have only happened early in the game in the middle east when we first met, but doesn't seem to have happened much if at all later on in Europe. Why? Maybe it's because in the middle east we were on an equal footing in population size and living cheek by jowl. We'd have needed more mechanisms to keep strife to a minimum. However, later on there was simply more of us coming in, so we didn't need to breed out nearly as much and certainly not with people who were "different" and rarer in the landscape.






*you can even see that in historical times. When Europeans went into new colonies, quite a number of the men would take native women as wives, but if a woman took a native man as a husband, you'd have a mass outbreak of the vapours, questions in parliament and smelling salts all around.

Adam Khor

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/9748/20131220/neanderthals-great-potential-speak-mysterious-fossil-throat-bone-reveals.htm

#notsureifWibbssaidsomethingaboutthisbutchancesarehedidandwasright

Rubecula

Thanks Adam I saw this on the tv today.

Galvasean

Was their ability to speak ever disputed?

Rubecula

Not sure it was ever discussed all that widely to be honest