The Painted Skull

Human society is a rampaging beast, an infinitely dense tapestry. Arising from this, the immensity of the existent unknown, it forges discrete ideologies and mythologies. Each human at once works to imprint them into the minds of children, through stories and symbols. The internal thoughts and feelings of people make them thus both participants and witnesses to their own beliefs. This forged construct stays coherent only by the ever vigilant discharging of ion channels within neural networks. The substance of a belief: its stories, myths, traditions, are thoughts in someone's mind. Once that thinker has passed a boundary, and will never recall those thoughts, the belief fades away and dissolves. This leaves us in a strange predicament – can we, thousands of years later, possibly determine a belief once dissipated? That task might be too great, but do not give up hope for we are not lost at sea! We have been left with heaps of material and context, and compelled by our curiosity to attempt to piece it all back together.

There is one specific belief which I have in mind, one which calls out to be reconstructed. No one wrote about this belief, in fact it died out thousands of years before the invention of writing. This thought structure has left modernity with a very strange and unique historical record, absolutely specific to its time and place. This curious tradition blossomed between 7,000 and 6,000 BCE in the Middle East, and while the belief itself is not known the results of its practice are. In fact, the evidence of this belief is inscribed directly onto the human skull.

A plastered and painted skull from Tell Aswan, PPNB period, 7,000-6,000 BCE

By this time in human history, people lived in mud brick houses, and within those houses people built platforms on which to place their ancestors' skulls. Skulls were dug up, the lower jaw removed, and gaps were filled in with plaster. Then it was covered with plaster, with the outermost layers molded to resemble the person's discrete facial structure. After that, it was painted in red ocher or black bitumen. Details were included: the person's hair was painted, and their facial features were painted on, even mustaches were added. Some had cowrie shells placed as their eyes.

The amount of detail suggests each plaster skull is a representation of a specific person, a connection intended by the artists. This would make these skulls some of the earliest intentional portraiture. These ancestral representations were prominently placed in peoples' houses, in areas where people went about their daily lives. The skulls were seen and were present in the family's life, not relegated to a separate cemetery with a dedication stele, as is a current popular tradition.

Two plastered and painted skulls from Tell Aswan, PPNB period, 7,000-6,000 BCE

These skulls are a morbidly delightful mystery within anthropology and archeology. This practice occurred thousands of years before the current western tradition, and in an oblique way is a proceeding practice. While many cultures handle the bodies and bones of the deceased, none go so far as to create a living model, it is in this regard fascinatingly alien. Yet it is also intuitively relatable. We today cherish images and depictions of passed loved ones. Turning their skull into a “picture” is an extrapolation of the desire to depict someone who can no longer depict themselves.

The real mystery becomes unraveling the story behind this tradition. It was only extant for a few thousand years on a tiny patch of earth. At first, there is a stark and glaring question: why. The assumed answer is that it was a form of ancestor worship. This answer is only likely, it is at its core unprovable. There is an obstruction hanging over the culture of these people. We can only parse out the context behind such a belief, sadly the belief itself has dispersed. Neolithic people have left us a record of their existence, and through these objects we have pieced together the history of farming and agriculture. The larger story of these people is immense, and our ability to decipher a lost present from the far future is beautiful. Yet this glorious painting is without color, the infinite complexity of human detail. Each house was lived in by a family, each tool used by an individual. Each life was a fully formed human as any today: with a name, parents, a town, and a unique culture and language. At the present it is impossible to ask them why, but we can reconstruct the story surrounding this tradition.

Three plastered and painted skulls from Tell Aswan, PPNB period, 7,000-6,000 BCE

This unusual practice seems to leap out of the stream of time. Yet the illusion of its seemingly instant invention is only from the sparsity of finds. Earlier sites in Palestine and Anatolia point toward the local development of this cultural artifact. The site in Anatolia is called Gobekli Tepe, and a carving there may depict a related practice. If the mural truly is related, the birth of this tradition stretches over thousands of years. Gobekli Tepe is in southeastern Anatolia, now the Sanliurfa region of Turkey and near the border with Syria. This site is unique in that it is not a village, it is in fact the first site on earth which is not domestic. It was built around 9,500 BCE and used til around 7,500 BCE by the Natufian culture. Later it was near Gobekli Tepe that the hunter gatherer Natufians first began to collect wild grains with flint sickles.

Gobekli Tepe, from National Geographic

"Gobekli Tepe" by John G. Swogger

While their social groups were small (maybe 100-150), they managed to come together to build multiple megalithic stone structures. Each megalithic building had two giant central columns, each carved as an abstracted human wearing a loincloth. The interior of the buildings include impressive reliefs. One such relief includes a headless human and a vulture, and such symbolism is highly prevalent in later sites where heads were found. While no plaster skulls were found at Gobekli Tepe, nearby Natufians at Hayonim Cave, Nahal Oren, and Ain Mallaha in Israel/Palestine were removing the skulls from bodies and had begun to decorate them. Through the symbols at Gobekli Tepe and the skulls in the Levant, a new tradition had been born. While these early skulls were not plastered, they were covered in elaborate bead ornaments. Between 8,000 BCE and 7,000 BCE the final megalithic structure at Gobekli Tepe was filled in, laying forgotten and buried until the 1990s. Yet the symbolism and ideology expressed at Gobekli Tepe had spread.

The panther or lion relief from Gobekli Tepe

The vulture and headless person carving at Gobekli Tepe (the headless person is at the bottom right)

"The Urfa Man" statue from Gobekli Tepe, standing 6 feet tall it was made by Natufians between 9,000-7,000 BCE

In the 8^th millennium BCE while Gobekli Tepe was declining, far west in the Konya region of Turkey neolithic peoples began to form the earliest large scale cities. Around mid millennium (7,500 BCE) Catalhoyuk was founded. It quickly flourished and was at its peak by around 7,000 BCE. It survived throughout the 7^th millennium finally declining and abandoned around 5,700 BCE. At its population maximum it held 10,000 people, but on average had only 5-7,000 people. At its flourishing, it was the largest city on earth, a direct descendent of the megaliths at Gobekli Tepe and the skull decorators in the Levant.

Color reconstruction of Catalhoyuk

Overview of the city design of Catalhoyuk

A reconstruction of the outside of houses at Catalhoyuk

The city was built like none-other. The houses were all connected exhibiting a unique honeycomb structure, in fact the entire city was only made of houses. There were no large public buildings. There were no footpaths nor streets between buildings, no one even had doors. Houses were accessed from a hole in the roof, with ladders or stone stairs leading to it. Usually underneath the roof door was the oven, which was for ventilation since there were no windows. The interior of the houses were plastered white and kept remarkably clean, some walls were painted with murals. The larger houses even had smaller anterooms jutting off the main room for storage.

Interior of a house at Catalhoyuk

Another cross section of an interior at Catalhoyuk

The hearth and ladder entrance at a reconstructed house at the Catalhoyuk site

Most people would have done their daily activities on the rooftops, weather permitting. This was where people slept on hot summer nights. It was where people met and talked during the day. The connected rooftops of the houses formed a structure, as if each house was directly connected to their communal space. By the later stages of Catalhoyuk, all the rooftops were connected and at the center of their “rooftop plaza” people had built a large communal oven. It was this shared building which formed the first nucleus of the first city, and it would be the first step along the long road towards the glass and steel skyscraper.

A drawing of daily activities on the roof plaza

There are no royal buildings or graves in Catalhoyuk, if there were social classes they were not the ever-so-familiar landed aristocracy who flaunted their afterlife with the rich jewelry that they flaunted in life. The diets of men and women are also indicative of social class, yet the genders had the same general levels of nutrition, and were buried at the same rates. While some form of “the elite” may have existed, it was very different from what we know today. Catalhoyuk was a much more egalitarian society, even in comparison to some societies today. Such a large city required storing grain, and many grain storage areas have been found. Curiously, small female figurines are also found within grain storage bins. If these figures even represented an individual person (or deity) we do not know, but it is a strong indicator of the birth of the historical fertility goddess.

"The Seated Woman of Catalhoyuk", made around 6,000 BCE and found in a grain storage vat. It has strikingly similar iconography to the Greco-Roman Goddess of Cybele

A picture of modern houses built in a similar style to Catalhoyuk (although without the roof doorways)

The "map" of Catalhoyuk, painted around 6,000 BCE. It may also be a non-geographic geometric design

The artistic traditions of Gobekli Tepe were passed down from generation to generation. Handed such skill from their Natufian forebears, the artists of Catalhoyuk elaborated on all aspects of painted Natufian culture. Symbolically laden images such as a decorated skull, headless people, and vultures, were all continued and inscribed on into Catalhoyuk's culture. Skulls were no longer decorated with beads, but filled and covered with plaster and painted. Painted skulls were then put on a raised plaster platform in one area of the house, usually beneath a mural or a mounted bull's head (made of clay). Two painted skulls were found together beneath a mural showing vultures attacking headless people. The buildings continued their domestic function after becoming part-shrine. The portraits of the dead were infused into daily life, reminiscent of how we today fill our house with pictures of lost loved ones. Although in truth, our actions are reminiscent of theirs.

Early phase of the "Vulture Shrine" at Catalhoyuk

An "auroch head shrine" at Catalhoyuk, and a cup shaped like a head from Hacilar, Anatolia

A platform over an area of a house dedicated to burials, delineated with two bull heads, at Catalhoyuk

Flint dagger with decorated bone handle from Catalhoyuk

While the heads had become elaborately decorated, the bodies of these people were buried underneath the floors of their houses. Aggrandized with a complex assortment of grave goods such as shell beads, tools, and jewelry. Although only some were buried this way, at Ain Ghazal people were sometimes buried in the town's trash heap. Not everyone could afford such distinction in their afterlife.

Reconstruction of grave goods from burial 17457 at Catalhoyuk, by Kathryn Killackey

Burial of a woman with a plastered skull at Catalhoyuk, by Kathryn Killackey

Red plastered skull found with the burial of a woman at Catalhoyuk, by Kathryn Killackey

The murals found at Catalhoyuk are fantastical and deeply mysterious: one shows vultures with human legs and feet, another shows a person holding a head (possibly their own?), and another shows 24 headless people hunting animals. While the beauty, color, and abstraction of the murals leaps out at the modern viewer; the meanings of these murals are unknown. While there must be some connection between the juxtaposition of skulls with the murals, it is permanently obstructed by time.

Various auroch heads mounted on a wall in Catalhoyuk

A decorated "shrine" room in Catalhoyuk

Wall mural 6 at Catalhoyuk

Wall painting in building 80 at Catalhoyuk

The depiction of vultures associates this unique tradition with a modern practice: sky burial. During the flourishing of Catalhoyuk around 7,000 BCE the practice was popular. The bodies of the deceased were left outside the town. During this period they were eaten by wild animals, most notably vultures. Then the family would gather the bones and bury their ancestor underneath the floors of their house, especially beside hearths and even under beds. The bodies were wrapped tightly in baskets or reed mats. The skull would be buried in a shallow grave beside the body. Eventually the skull would be uncovered, then plastered, painted, and displayed.

A reconstructed room and bed, with a clay auroch head and the "map" mural, at Catalhoyuk

Catalhoyuk was the largest town in the region and many skulls have been found there, but the tradition is in no way isolated to Catalhoyuk. Skulls were only found in Anatolia more recently. The initial finds in the 1930s-1950s were in Syria, Jordan, and Palestine. The tradition was spread across the ancestral Natufian landscape, with Catalhoyuk playing the role of one local expression. The first skulls were actually found at Jericho, a town settled by the earliest Natufians around 10,000 BCE. After two thousand years of Natufian occupation and culture (by 8,000 BCE), the “village” now had 1,500 people and a 12 foot wall, dominated by a 28 foot stone tower. The wall and tower were massive, the wall was at its thickest, 6 feet wide. Yet by the glory of Catalhoyuk, the town was all but abandoned; and by 6,800 BCE new waves of people settled in the town bringing with them the plaster skull tradition.

A PPNB (7,000-6,000 BCE) plastered Natufian skull from Jericho

A stone mask from Jericho, made around 7,000 BCE and probably the oldest mask in the world

At Cayonu, a nearby site in Anatolia, the tradition had begun to deviate. This place was inhabited for about 500 years from around 7,200 BCE til 6,600 BCE. Within this comparatively short time frame, the complexity of human variability reared its infinite head. Here, they created a large “skull building” in the center of their town. It was rebuilt and redesigned several times throughout the city's lifespan. The skull building contained just what you would expect...burial crypts, but also eventually compartments of skulls and broken bones. The current estimates for the number of people buried within the crypt is around 400. That's close to one burial a year, where was the rest of the town being buried? The crypt may be associated with status, yet mysteries of usage abound. Deep within the structure there is a large stone slab. Analysis of this stone revealed that it had been covered in a mixture of human, cow, and goat blood. Plaster skulls had been replaced with blood rituals, and the ever-changing beliefs of humans marched onward.

The range of skull removal in Anatolia around 7,000 BCE

A map of Natufian sites and culture in the Middle East, generally between 10,000-8,000 BCE

A map of Natufian and later cultural sites in the Middle East between 10,000-5,000 BCE, by the author

Ain Ghazal near Amman, Jordan, was inhabited between 7,250-5,000 BCE, and peaked directly during the flourishing of Catalhoyuk. Ain Ghazal at its maximum used 25-37 hectares of land and was populated by 3,000 people. By 6,500 BCE the population had declined significantly and eventually the site was abandoned. During its flourishing, the people of Ain Ghazal created large statues of humans about half life-size. These were buried in pits near possible ritual buildings. These figures were constructed out of bundles of twigs which were then covered in plaster. These plaster figures were then painted, being given clothing, hair, even ornamental tattoos. Cowrie shells became their eyes and at the center, a black bitumen pupil. 32 figures have been found in total.

A human statue from Ain Ghazal near Amman, Jordan, made between 7,250-5,000 BCE

A double headed statue from Ain Ghazal near Amman Jordan, made around 6,500 BCE

A town west of Catalhoyuk, called Hacilar, is also fascinating. While Catalhoyuk had some of the region's earliest pottery, the craftsmanship blossomed at Hacilar. As artistic skills spread their complexity intensified. Hacilar was settled around the peak of Catalhoyuk at 7,000 BCE and survived past its predecessor's decline, finally being abandoned around 5,000 BCE. In addition to pottery, excavators have found many small figurines which when they were found were unusually headless. Eventually excavators found wooden heads at the site which were associated with the figurines. The heads and the bodies fit together, creating an early puppet. The wooden heads were also given emotive faces, and could have been easily switched out if the people who used them so desired. Their purpose is unknown, yet their construction is a sign of the ever advancing progress of technology during this period.

Figurines from Neolithic Hacilar

The Middle East's earliest pottery from Catalhoyuk, made between 7,500-5,700 BCE (pottery at Catalhoyuk is from the later periods of the city's existence)

A large jug from Hacilar, made between 7,000-5,000 BCE

Six cups from Hacilar, made between 7,000-5,000 BCE

By 6,000 BCE times had changed. Catalhoyuk was in decline and would be abandoned around 300 years later. The practice of house burial eventually was superseded by crypt and graveyard burial. The plaster painting of skulls also was transformed, into the painting of statues such as at Ain Ghazal. People were building houses with windows and doors, with streets for moving the ever larger amounts of people and animals. The unique honeycomb structure of Catalhoyuk was abandoned, oddities such as the lack of doors and the communal roof seem alien to modern sensibilities. Cities began to tend towards large central buildings, exemplified by Eridu in southern Iraq. By 5,000 BCE it had a small central shrine building, this was the birth pangs of a unique Mesopotamian society based around a temple hierarchy. It would bring a power and gender structure standing in radical contrast to their neolithic ancestors. As Catalhoyuk declined so did the plaster skull practice, and from 6,000-5,000 BCE the practice fell out of favor throughout the neolithic Middle East.

A stone vessel in the shape of a hedgehog, from Bouqras Syria around 6,000 BCE

Clay model of a house with windows, from Sesklo, Thessaly, Greece. Made around 5,000 BCE

Between 6,000-5,000 BCE other changes around the Mediterranean region sparked the development of local advanced neolithic cultures. By mid-millennium the complex Vinca culture had emerged around the southern Balkan region of Europe, and the increasing desertification of the Saharra led people to converge around the banks of the river Nile in Egypt. Pottery proliferates across the region, with highly decorated pieces being traded among the rich. Seals used to “sign” contracts are found, people were buying and selling at a profit. Wealth had begun circulating in an organized fashion. As larger settlements spread outwards from the homeland of the Natufians, the brilliant and unique tradition of plastering skulls was eventually stopped, and faded from memory, and with it died a unique heritage stretching back to the 10^th century BCE.

Left: A stamp seal with an animal and a bird, made between 5,300-4,000 BCE from the Ubaid period in southern Mesopotamia.
Right: A stamp seal made between 6,000-5,000 BCE from Tell Halaf in Syria

A red patterned clay cup from Sophades, Thessaly, Greece. Made bewteen 5,000-4,000 BCE

On the other hand, it never really went away. The cultural practice of reconstructing the face of the deceased using their skull re-appeared with a vengeance in the late 19^th century. This time the tradition was reborn as the science of forensic facial reconstruction. Through the 21^st century this novel tradition has become a solidified institution within schools and is well known in popular culture. It is a strange happenstance that so soon after its scientific rebirth in the 1880s, only about 50 years, the first plaster skulls were rediscovered by John Garstang at Jericho in the 1930s. The progress of reconstructive science and the lost tradition of neolithic ancestor worship unintentionally co-emerge into the light of present day knowledge.

Artist Oscar Nilsson with a reconstruction of a Neolithic man buried around 3,500 BCE in a long barrow near Stonehenge, England

John Garstang and a team excavating Dor in the 1920s

It is impossible to know for sure whether this was ancestor worship. Presumably the faces are painted to resemble the deceased individual, but we have no idea what such an image meant to the inhabitants of Catalhoyuk and Jericho. Thousands of years after the fact, modern humans have no parallel object in our culture. While the details of such a practice are lost on us, humans in all societies have strange relationships with skulls. It has been depicted in art for thousands of years, and has taken on many symbolic and ideological roles. Skulls can represent a memento mori (a reminder to enjoy what life we have), and at other times the great equalizer of Death Incarnate. A picture in a book becomes a boring anatomy lesson, yet on a black and white screen it becomes a bearer of medical information. When made of plastic it can become a spooky decoration, or a chassis at a robotics laboratory.

A skull balancing on top of Fortuna's (Fate's) wheel, and sitting below a plumb bob symbolizing divine justice and mortality, from a mosaic in Pompeii and made prior to the eruption in 79 CE

"A Landscape with the Grim Reaper", by Filippo Napoletano, made between 1600-1629 CE

There is a fundamental connection between ourselves and the creators of plaster skulls. Humans still cry out at loss, and deeply desire to bring back the irretrievable. The ideological rejection of non-existence wraps itself into many aspects of our culture. Yet we are the lucky ones, living with invented machines to capture the reflected light at a given time. At our desire we capture the image of a living human and keep it, removing the previous connection between someone's death and our inability to view them. While hundreds of years ago only the rich could afford realistic portraits of their family, nowadays anyone can buy a camera and store thousands of realistic images within other machines.

A mask representing the Aztec God Tezcatlipoca, made of turquoise and lignite on a human skull, made sometime during the 15th-16th centuries CE

The earliest full picture of a human, the self portrait of Robert Cornelius in 1839

The domed protective building over the current excavations at Catalhoyuk, led by Ian Hodder

This fundamental drive to fight the unending succession of time and aging has never ceased. If anything, humans today have developed many new ways of dealing with such events. 9,000 years ago people also had to deal with such loss, and invent a way to grieve. Their unique and artistic coping method shines a light onto the inner struggle of the artists themselves. The devout focus of a family member in making such an object testifies to their commitment to loved ones. Their skills in painting and plastering were re-purposed, and their living spaces were transformed. In some way, their ancestors never really stopped living at their house. They stayed for eternity watching over the younger generations with their cowrie shell eyes.

Two plastered skulls from Jericho, made around 7,000 BCE

References

Heady Business, Skulls and Decapitation in Neolithic Anatolia

http://www.academia.edu/556095/Heady_Business_Skulls_Heads_and_Decaptitation_in_Neolithic_Anatolia_and_Greece

France Diplomatie, Tell Aswad slideshow http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/es/tobearchived/arqueologia/apuntes-de-arqueologia/antiguo-oriente/siria-tell-aswad/article/diapositivas-5161

British Museum, Plastered Skull http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/p/plastered_skull.aspx

Hacilar Pictures http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/hacilar.html

Ain Ghazal, BAS online archive http://www.basarchive.org/sample/bswbBrowse.asp?PubID=bsao&Volume=1&Issue=1&ArticleID=12

Jericho Skulls, MHHE http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/art/timelines/ancient_near_east/html/jericho.html

The Painted Skull - Preview

The neolithic peoples of the Middle East practiced a strange burial ritual between 7,000 and 6,000 BCE (9-8 kya). They took the skulls of their ancestors and added decorations, or covered it in plaster and paint. These otherworldly portraits of the death graced a prominent spot inside people's houses. Soon, I will be releasing a post on the subject, exploring its birth and significance within neolithic society. To peak your interest, here's a picture of some of these skulls...

Two skulls from Jericho, made around 9 kya. 2spooky

Also here's a fun map of the region and timeline, by myself. It's markers on a piece of paper, there's no silly copyright.

Cultural sites in the Middle East from 12-7 kya. Red: Natufian sites (Jericho ca. 12 kya, Gobekli Tepe ca. 11.5 kya). Purple: PPNB sites (Catalhoyuk ca. 9.5-7.7 kya, Umm Dabaghiya ca. 8.5-8 kya). Yellow: Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic sites (Eridu ca. 7 kya, Hassuna ca. 8-7.2 kya, Halaf ca. 7.5-6.8 kya, Faiyum ca. 8 kya). The dotted line in the Gulf is the modern shoreline.

So stay tuned, and Happy Halloween!

Exploring the Neanderthal Mind - Update!

While my focus and attention have moved on and the process of research continues...smatterings of Neanderthal information which had slid under my radar continue occasionally show themselves. I've added two more pictures to the Neanderthal post, one in The Birth of Technology, and another in The Evolution of Art.

This first picture is a hand axe found in Hoxne, Suffolk, England. It was made around 400 kya by either Homo Erectus or Homo Heidelbergensis. Either way, it is a wonderful example of many of the topics I raised in the piece. The hand axe is remarkably colorful and intriguing to the eye. The most recognizable feature is its brutally straight lines. Since this excessive amount of straightness was not practically necessary, this piece is good evidence that around 400 kya hominins were adding obvious symmetry and well-defined straightness to their hand axes. This was certainly not practical, and served some other purpose. Pieces like this allow the onlooker to vividly enter the mind of our ancestors - they were aiming to create straight lines, an object not found in nature but invented within our mind. Hundreds of thousands of years later, hominins can still look at this piece and immediately detect the latent geometry held within.

This second picture is much more controversial. It is called the Mask of la Roche-Cotard. It was found with Mousterian tools and was at that time dated to 35 kya (which now should be around 40 kya). This small flint object was carried around by these Neanderthals. Originally it was only another piece of rock, but at some point someone forced a piece of bone through a hole in the center. On the side of the "face" are marks indicative of intentional force. In addition to that manipulation, the top and the sides of this object were scraped and leveled, also done with hominin intent. 

This object was a manuport and was carried around for some reason, specifying which reason is where the controversy lies. Many people [citation needed] claim that it is because it looks like, well, a face! Although this argument may be correct, it is entirely anthropomorphic and suspiciously unverifiable. Besides that argument, there is no other hypothesis I am aware of which would explain why a Neanderthal would carry this object around. As of 2014, this object is entirely cloaked in mystery, explained only through questionable hypotheses and without consensus.

Enjoy! More updates, history posts, and old pictures to come.

Exploring the Neanderthal Mind, an Introduction

What do you see when you look at the object above? In one view, it is completely unremarkable. It is simply a stone cutting tool used be prehistoric people, a basic technology made by hitting rocks with other rocks. Stonework like this is our first, and our least complex technology. Switching to another view, it is completely unlike any other stone tool you've ever seen. Your eyes have already spotted the fossil in the center of the piece. This tool was designed to cut things, but it was also designed for you to see that fossil. The stone from which this was made was chipped away in such a manner as to bring that fossil to the surface. The fossil was not only intentionally revealed, but was intentionally centered so as to draw your focus. This simple hand axe raises a difficult question: Does this object look beautiful?

I'm curious as to what people today see in this object because I hope it can shed light on a related, yet much more difficult question. You see, there is a problem – this hand axe found in Norfolk England was not made by the English, I'm not asking whether we see this as beautiful, because we didn't make it. It was made around 200,000 years ago by a Neanderthal. Special rocks, such as this, were traded between far flung Neanderthal groups, sometimes 100-200 miles. It is revealing that regular old hand axes were not traded in this way, they did not have the same value. The question I really want to know is why. Why did Neanderthals incorporate fossils into their hand axes? What made these hand axes so different than all the others, what was their extra-ordinary value?

Those questions hinge on Neanderthal behavior, the question can be reformatted as: What is it about their behavior which motivated them to incorporate fossils into objects. This question relies on a simple premise, that their physical behavior is indicative of mental behavior. Neanderthals treated these rocks differently because they thought about them differently. This is the deeper question I'm trying to ask: What did a Neanderthal see when they looked at this hand axe? Did they, as we might now, see something aesthetically pleasing or beautiful?

This is partially an impossible question, as it asks for facts about the mental phenomena of long dead individuals in a long dead species. This question may at first glance seem unanswerable, but that premise is not my starting point. If such questions were outright unanswerable then the discussion would promptly cease. While I obviously cannot answer questions about the Neanderthal mind with scientific assurance, I will try to get as close to answering them as I can. To construct a lexicon of the Neanderthal mental capacity necessitates understanding their behavioral repertoire...all of which requires an extreme amount of context! To slow chip away at the obfuscated mountain of the Neanderthal mind, we must be cognizant of their behavior, physiology, culture, and genome. Hopefully, employing context can reveal which Neanderthal behaviors necessitate certain thoughts. So let us begin...

Chris Stringer's hypothesis of the family tree of the genus Homo, published 2012

Models of three hominin faces. Homo Erectus (left), Homo Heidelbergensis (center), and Homo Neanderthalensis (right). By Paleoartist John Gurche

The easiest way to comprehend such large scales of time is through the notation kya (thousand years ago). Compared to the present, I was born 0.025 kya. The first World War began 0.1 kya, and Columbus led Europeans to the New World 0.5 kya. 1 kya Byzantine Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split as the Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other, and 2 kya the Roman Emperor Tiberius was purging his Praetorian guard wholly unconcerned with the crucifixion of radical preachers in Judaea. Mentioned in my previous post, the first human megalith at Gobekli Tepe was constructed around 11.5 kya. Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis existed from around 250-28 kya. We split from a common ancestor around 400-350 kya, most likely from Homo Heidelbergensis. Oh, who could guess where Homo Heidelbergensis was first discovered? Heidelbergensis originated around 1,300-800 kya and lived til around 200 kya, ranging over eastern/southern Africa, Europe, and western Asia. As groups of Heidelbergensis became more and more spread out across their landscape, their lineage began to diverge. Around 400-350 kya African Heidelbergensis started to make physiological moves towards modern humans. It was around the same time when the Eurasian branch started to move towards Neanderthals. Heidelbergensis also spawned Denisovans in the modern day steppes of Russia, and a fourth unknown lineage presumably in south-east Asia.

The evolution and timeline of early Hominins

Giving such precise dates as 250-28 kya is completely impossible. Many people debate both of those numbers. The first emergence of Neanderthals is impossible to pin down – all we have are a collection of Neanderthal traits emerging around 300-200 kya, with Neanderthals becoming genetically distinct between 400-300 kya. The last Neanderthals are also impossible to pin down, generally they died out around 40-28 kya, completely depending on which carbon dating results you accept. The assumption that Homo Heidelbergensis is our common ancestor with Neanderthals is also up in the air: a recent study from 2013 which examined 1200 molars from 13 hominin species found results contradictory to anthropological orthodoxy. “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor.” -Aida Gomes-Robles. The species thrown out are all of the common suspects: Heidelbergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Antecessor. This would suggest that our common ancestor with Neanderthals existed more than 1 million years ago, instead of 300-400 kya. “The study tells us that there are still new hominin finds waiting to be made...fossil finds from about 1 million years ago in Africa deserve close scrutiny as the possible ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.” -David Polly. Now it would be unreasonable to radically alter our timeline from one study, but the gist is that it's complicated. For now, I will assume the general timeline and that Heidelbergensis is our common ancestor with Neanderthals.

The range of Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis (or is it Homo Neanderthalensis?)

Northwest Europe during the Paleolithic period, showing its radically different shoreline. The present shoreline of Europe did not become recognizable until about 9 kya

During their lifetime, Neanderthals ranged throughout central Asia and Europe. The Neanderthal population was spread out unevenly, with the greatest amount of contact between groups in central Asia. This is because this area shows the greatest diversity in Neanderthal DNA, giving evidence to idea that their homeland was in Asia with occasional branches entering Europe. How in the world can we say anything about Neanderthal DNA? Surprisingly enough we can say a lot, their genes tell a strange and previously unknown story which has only recently been deciphered. Svante Paabo (Svante Pääbo) started working with DNA in 1981, extracting samples from Egyptian mummies. No one thought it was possible to get a real workable sample, but he did. He moved on to extracting DNA from extinct cave bears and ground sloths, which again no one thought would be possible. He proved them wrong. Moving on from extinct bears to extinct hominins, most recently in 2010 Svante Paabo and colleagues (56 other researchers) at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology uncovered the Neanderthal genome. In 2013 they discovered all 3 billion base pairs, and since then research has been slowly piecing together the consequence of this discovery. This groundbreaking research from 2006-2010 catapulted him to fame. Now (in 2014) we can read the Neanderthal genome side by side to our own, an insane feat of modern science thought impossible merely 10 years ago. If Neanderthals became genetically distinct from our common ancestor between 400-300 kya, how has the intervening years changed their genome?

The Genome and Body

Our Neanderthal Inheritance

The family tree of the four groups of Hominins living in Eurasia around 50 kya, and the lingering genetic heritage due to interbreeding

Svante Paabo

The Neanderthal genome contains many secrets: their genealogy, muscle development, digestive system, diseases they carried, and their immunology. All of these aspects of Neanderthal lives were invisible from the study of their bones. As it turns out, 97% of our DNA is from Homo Sapiens, the other 3% is from Neanderthals. “Think about it in terms of numbers, today there are about 6 billion people living in the world outside of sub-Saharan Africa, 3% of their ancestry traces to Neanderthals, we're talking around about 200 million Neanderthals. Neanderthals today are more successful than they ever were when they actually existed.” -John Hawks. The 3% figure is actually an average, Neanderthal inheritance varies dramatically between human populations. Humans whose ancestors lived in paleolithic Europe and Asia are much more related to Neanderthals (up to 5%) than humans whose paleolithic ancestors lived in sub-Saharan Africa or the Americas (down to 1%). While this average may vary, all humans share some amount of Neanderthal genes. Specifically we share nuclear DNA but not mitochondrial (maternally transmitted) DNA. This prompts the hypothesis that female humans and male Neanderthals produced offspring, but male humans and female Neanderthals were either rare, absent, or sterile. The simple acknowledgment that our DNA is not wholly resultant from other Homo Sapiens shows that we, as a species, had no scruples interbreeding with other hominins. It is also solid evidence that we interbred with Neanderthals at all, which was heavily in dispute until these findings. While we obtained genes from Neanderthals, these studies also show us which genes are owned solely by ourselves, and no one else.

The most ridiculous picture of John Hawks I could find on the internet

The most important genes we inherited deal with the HLA (human leukocyte antigen) system. These HLA genes are fundamental to creating our immune system and vital to fighting off disease. Through inheritance, we adopted these genes which developed specifically within the Neanderthal immune system. Their immune system had evolved to fight off ice age diseases, which we (as recent transplants from Africa) had no immunity to. This environmental upgrade was first developed within the human population by Neanderthal and Human hybrids. These hybrids had quite the advantage of those without this enhanced immune system, enough of an advantage to slowly bring these genes back into the human population...and spread them across the world.

In a 2014 study by Liran Carmel and Eran Meshorer, which reconstructed the Neanderthal and Denisovan epigenome, researchers found human-unique genes involved with brain development (which makes sense), but also with our immune and cardiovascular systems. They discovered certain genes, like those related to our digestive system, which were shared in common with Neanderthals and humans. A 2010 study led by Liran Carmel found genes related to Alzheimer's, autism, and schizophrenia which had been (through epigenetic markers) “turned off” for Neanderthals and “turned on” for humans. This might mean that Neanderthals and humans did not share these mental illnesses, but that they are a human phenomenon. While this may be the case, epigenetic markers vary wildly between populations due to climate, diet, and a range of other factors. This individual Neanderthal did not suffer from these illnesses, it may not be emblematic of the population at large.

In a separate 2014 study by Sriram Sankararaman and David Reich, they found that we inherited Neanderthal genes related to the susceptibility for Crohn's Disease, Lupus, and Type 2 Diabetes. In addition to diseases, Neanderthals and ourselves share a susceptibility towards certain cancers. A study by David Frayer analyzed a rib bone from Krapina, Croatia and found fibrous dysplasia. This type of cancer is still found in the modern population 120 thousand years later. “They probably were sleeping in caves with burning fires...inhaling a lot of smoke...So the air was not completely free of pollutants.” -David Frayer. It is remarkable that we can come to find such similarities with Neanderthals, even if it is only to understand the pain of a disease shared in common.

Over the course of thousands of years, the internal structure of our bodies was slowly reformatted by our genetic interaction with Neanderthals. As our internal bodies changed, so did our epidermal layer. We inherited the BNC2 gene from Neanderthals, this gene specifically deals with skin pigmentation. This discovery implies we Homo Sapiens inherited our pale skin from Neanderthals! This genetic change took thousands of years to fully take hold, beginning its spread throughout European humans at most only 7 kya. In addition to inheriting genes for pale skin, we also inherited the gene for red hair from our Neanderthal cousins. The level of our shared genetic heritage has been fluctuating as well, slowly decreasing as time marches on. Otzi, the Ice-Man, who died around 5.3 kya in the Alps, shares more DNA with Neanderthals than modern Alpine humans. Thousands of years after the extinction of the Neanderthals, the last remnant of their time on earth, their genes, slowly recedes from the world.

A model of Otzi

Pandora's box has been opened, and 3 billion base pairs fell out. The small steps we've made in the last 4 years have shown great advances in both our technological limits and our understanding of Neanderthals. The provisional reconstruction of the Neanderthal and Denisovan epigenome this year (in 2014) is the first step towards an entirely new science. The researchers in that study have already planned to reconstruct the epigenome of Natufians to see how early agriculture effected our epigenome. Whatever they find, it will not be boring. If diseases such as autism and schizophrenia turn out to be a human-unique phenomenon, it would add interesting detail to the evolutionary history of our frontal lobe. All of this changes how we see ourselves – what makes us human is not only the usual suspects (such as brain size or language), but also our mental health and our epigenome. This field of research is incredibly new and fast paced...so watch out! It may all be completely different in 5 years.

Svante Paabo and the skull of a rival geneticist

Their Bones and Body

The Neanderthal genome is a beautiful example of what can be reconstructed from the fossil record, but our search for information does not end there, don't discount the bones! The majority of what we understand about Neanderthals comes from their fossils, and to understand the Neanderthal mind we must ask what is so special about their bones? Neanderthal bones are similar to human weight lifters, not bulky but wiry. Their bones were shorter, denser, thicker, stronger than ours – very well adapted to a life of strenuous activity. Their bones are also more effected by osteoarthritis than ours. Neanderthals lived a brutish life comparatively, 2/3rds are dead by age 30. The maximum age of Neanderthals is 45-50, and by that time their bodies were as run-down as an elderly human. Neanderthals also had larger brains than humans, which strangely enough has no bearing on intelligence. In fact, “more of the Neanderthal brain appears to have been dedicated to vision and body control, leaving less brain to deal with other functions like social networking.” -Eiluned Pearce. On the outside of the body, genetics has shown that Neanderthals would be pale skinned and some had red hair. A 2007 genetic study found that Neanderthals had a version of the MC1R gene, which helps us produce more vitamin D and absorb more calcium from food. While that trait is certainly beneficial, the gene also gives us red hair! In humans this varies between red and dark hair (blond hair is a different genetic change). Sadly we don't know all the genes which contribute to pigmentation, so any assertion is only a likelihood and far from certain.

A computer illustration of the facial geometry of a Neanderthal compared to modern Homo Sapiens

A reconstruction of Shanidar 1, by paleoartist John Gurche

A model of a Neanderthal presumably experiencing happiness. From the Neanderthal Museum in Mettmann, Germany

This pale red headed stocky fellow was also kind of short. 27 limb bones from Atapuerca (near Burgos) Spain were examined in a 2012 study by Carretero Diaz to estimate the height of Pleistocene hominins. Heidelbergensis were a little taller than Neanderthals, with the average Neanderthal height being 5'3”. Heidelbergensis and Neanderthals were a similar height to modern Mediterranean humans. In fact, most hominins stayed about the same size for around 2 million years (Habilis in Africa, Georgicus in Georgia, Floresiensis in Indonesia were short and the exceptions to the rule). While the average height stayed the same, “Amongst every population we have found a tall or very tall individual.” -Researchers with the study. Our Homo genus stayed the same height until about 200 kya when African Sapiens made their entrance to the scene. We were significantly taller on average than all of our predecessors, a hunting band of Homo Sapiens must have been quite a sight to a short Neanderthal. “The explanation is found in the overall morphological change in the body biotype that prevailed in our species compared to our ancestors. The Homo Sapiens had a slimmer body, lighter bones, longer legs, and were taller.” -Researchers with the study.

A height comparison of Heidelbergensis, Neanderthals, and Homo Sapiens, from Plataforma SINC

A model reconstruction of a Neanderthal (named Wilma) from the El Sidron Cave in Spain, next to a living Homo Sapiens (named Marina Allende)

The changes in our body morphology were extremely helpful...we had better thermoregulatory, obstetric, and nutritional systems. Overall we had definite increases in endurance and energy. “Larger legs, narrower hips, being taller and having lighter bones not only meant a reduction in body weight (less muscular fat) but a bigger stride, greater speed, and a lower energy cost when moving the body, walking, or running.” -Carretero Diaz. This extreme physical gap between us and them put Neanderthals at quite the disadvantage, which we will examine later. 

The Paleo-Diet

The Paleo-Diet

This stout muscular Neanderthal body required a lot of nutrition, exactly how many calories is debated, but we do know what they ate. They hunted rhinoceroses, bison, brown bear, red deer, and horses, eating the meat and bone marrow. Neanderthals would focus on prime-aged adult prey as opposed to juveniles or older adults, with this behavior starting around 250 kya from evidence at Hayonim cave in Israel. Neanderthals would sometimes focus on a single species, like at Mauran France, where a Neanderthal butchery site contained around 4,000 bison remains. Other places in France and Germany were specialized bovid kill sites. At Salzgitter-Lebenstedt Germany there is a Neanderthal hunting site dedicated to reindeer, and it was only used in early Autumn during their annual migrations. What Neanderthals hunted depended entirely on the local climate, in warm forests they hunted solitary game but in colder tundra they hunted herds.

Neanderthals hunting a rhinoceros

Neanderthals also famously hunted mammoths, as evidenced by the site at La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey. In our popular imagination, this site has spawned the idea that Neanderthals herded mammoths off cliffs as if they were giant furry elephantine lemmings. This idea attempted to explain the severe damage seen in mammoth leg bones at the site, which would have been difficult for Neanderthals to accomplish with tools. While this is still unexplained, the area is most likely a mammoth processing site. Bone heaps are arranged in patterns, with some heaps containing mainly skulls and ribs, and others containing limbs and pelvic bones. “I can't imagine a way in which Neanderthals would have been able to force mammoths down this slope and then up again before they even got to the edge of the headland...and they're unlikely to have got up there in the first place.” -Beccy Scott. Since the bone piles were intentionally divided, it is most likely a result of butchering and organizing. Burnt bone charcoal has also been found, signaling that the bones were used for fuel. The site is amazingly well preserved, stemming from fine silt dust which blew over the site after its abandonment.

Neanderthals hunting mammoths off the cliffs at Jersey, which definitely still happened regardless of what Beccy Scott or any informed scientists say

After big game meat, Neanderthals ate any living creature they could get their hands on. Tortoises, shellfish, hares, rabbits, birds, molluscs, seals, dolphins were all eaten when Neanderthals had the opportunity. “Neanderthals harvested live molluscs on the rocks for eating, transported them to their living sites in wet algae bundles, and discarded their shells after eating the flesh...They did this with limpets, mussels, and topshells.” -Joao Zilhao. The Neanderthal diet is not only carnivorous, but opportunistic and omnivorous, very similar to our own.

More recently, we have greatly expanded our understanding of the Neanderthal diet. Not only did they eat meat, but they also ate plants! Evidence from fecal remains at El Salt in Spain show phytosterol (a compound similar to cholesterol found in plants). “It would take a significant plant intake to produce even a small amount of metabolized phytosterol.” -Ainara Sistiaga. While it is possible that they obtained phytosterol from eating the stomachs of herbivores, other evidence does not support this idea. Microscopic analysis of fossilized tartar on Neanderthal teeth has found starch granules, cattails, oats, and grains. Not only eaten raw, but cooked! The process of cooking changes the structure of these grains, which is still apparent after fossilization. Cooking grains would require a container, which (as seen in modern humans) would most likely be either a stuffed animal stomach or a bundle of large wrapped up leaves.

Ainara Sistiaga

Other evidence points to plant use outside of nutrition, “The evidence indicating this individual [Neanderthal] was eating bitter-tasting plants such as yarrow and chamomile with little nutritional value is surprising. We know that Neanderthals would find these plants bitter, so it is likely these plants must have been selected for reasons other than taste.” -Stephen Buckley. Selected for reasons other than taste leaves quite a large margin for theorizing. The simplest answer is that Neanderthals developed a taste for bitterness, not so far removed from the actions of people today. This points to Neanderthals collecting food based on criterion other than immediate practicality, an interesting mental shift related to culture. The other, more outlandish claim, would be that Neanderthals ate bitter plants as medicine. All indigenous human cultures have an understanding of the use of regional plants, and since Neanderthals discovered edible plants through experimentation it is not unreasonable to say that they too had this knowledge. Since neither explanation has much evidence, the simplest wins for now – they may have just enjoyed bitter food.

Hunting goes hand in hand with technology. Not only do animals provide meat, but the entirety of their bodies are used to complement all aspects of daily needs. Modern humans make needles, awls, and spear heads from animal bones. Sinews, gut, and tendons are used to bind tools or wooden hafts. Stomachs are used as bags for carrying water or blood. Fat is used to waterproof leather boots and clothing. Grease is smeared on exposed skin for insulation or to ward off insects. Hair is twisted to make thread. Skins are used to make bags, cloths, shoes, blankets, and shelters. While Neanderthals probably did not do exactly all these things, they must have used the animal to the best of their capabilities.

A group of Homo Erectus butchering an elephant

The Original Social Contract

The Original Social Contract

So far, the life of an individual Neanderthal is coming together. We know their genome, physiology, and diet. Yet the most important piece of the puzzle is missing: their social life. Neanderthals are just like humans in this regard, we are both extremely social. No individual is an island, and to look into the mind of a Neanderthal is to see one thinker within a thinking group. They lived in groups of 5-10, made up of their immediate family (humans lived in groups of 20-30 made up of relatives as well as close family). These familial clans occupied a small territory and rarely strayed from it except to trade. The population of Neanderthals in Europe peaked at around 70,000 individuals, with only around 7,000 reproductive females. Sometimes, multiple Neanderthal families would gather around a large kill site (like at La Cotte, Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, and Molodova), but this was temporary and as soon as the meat was gone, the group disbanded. At Molodova Ukraine there were multiple huts and wind breaks suiting maybe 20-40 Neanderthals at one area.

Living Together

In the same way that humans do, Neanderthals divided their living spaces in accordance to their needs. In open spaces like at Tor Faraj, there are multiple separate sections: butchery, primary stone processing, bone/antler work, final stone/plant processing, trash dump, a wind-break made of brush, straw bedding area, and a central activity area complete with a hearth. This is a clear sign of the social behavior of Neanderthals, they structured their area because they structured their behavior. Neanderthals did this not only in open spaces, but in caves as well. At Riparo Bombrini Italy, Neanderthals located butchering, tool-making, and fire use in different parts of their cave. Neanderthals were conservative in land use, with small clustered living sites even when outside. When living in a cave, Neanderthals occupied a small part at the entrance, and only slightly ventured deeper.

The Neanderthal living space at Lazaret Cave in southern France, by Libor Balak

When Neanderthal clans met it meant three things: communal butchery, trading, or warfare. Neanderthals traded precious stones, obsidian, and fossil shells over hundreds of kilometers. While not nearly as developed as early human trade, it is still remarkable that distant trading is not a uniquely human phenomenon. Large butchery sites and trading show interpersonal connection between clans, but just as with humans...spears are not only for hunting but for warfare. At Saint Cesaire France a Neanderthal burial circa 36 kya showed evidence of violence. This individual at some point had a serious head wound which had healed. The wound was made by a sharp object, and the location of the wound points toward violence as opposed to accident. Neanderthal clans competed over resources just as much as humans and chimpanzees do. The evolution of warfare is not unique to humans.

While contact between different clans led to violence, the social development within a clan is remarkable. The Neanderthal family group comprised multiple generations, with children and the elderly receiving special treatment. An elderly Neanderthal (around 40 years old) buried at the Shanidar Cave survived under extreme stress. This individual (who lived around 60-80 kya) was blind in the left eye from a severe wound, had a crippled right arm (which was withered and caused paralysis), and had a deformed lower right leg and foot. This individual could not hunt, but was cared for by its family for years. At La Chapelle-Aux-Saints a Neanderthal was found who only had two teeth. This individual could not chew food yet survived to be 40-50 years old. Most likely, this individual had food chewed for it by another family member multiple times every day for years. It is surprising to find love and affection in the fossil record, yet here it is. It is undeniable that these individuals were loved and cared for by their families.

Model of a Neanderthal at a American Museum of Natural History, D.C.

Neanderthals are not the only species to care for the injured, an elderly Homo Erectus in Dmanisi Georgia (around 1 million 750 kya) did not have teeth and probably had food chewed for it as well. At Atapuerca Spain a Homo Heidelbergensis was found with a severely deformed skull. This was a child, who lived with this deformity for 8-12 years. This child could not hunt, yet was fed and cared for by its family til its death, around 530 kya. Also at Atapuerca Spain another Heidelbergensis was found with a hobbled spine, this individual could not hunt either yet was cared for for years until its death around 500 kya. The care for the elderly goes hand in hand with what makes us human, yet it is not a uniquely human trait. This complex use of the emotion of sympathy began not even with Neanderthals, but with Homo Erectus about one million years ago. In this way, the mind of the Neanderthal creeps out, if only because this part of its mind is shared by both its evolutionary predecessor and us today.

Childhood

Children and infants were also treated differently, they were given much more elaborate graves than most Neanderthals. “There is evidence that Neanderthals cared for their sick and injured children for months and often years.” -Penny Spikins. In the small and relatively isolated groups in which Neanderthals lived, children were much more important and valuable to the group's survival. Selection pressure focused on creating close emotional connections within such a small group. Humans have an extremely slow maturation rate compared to other hominins, “The slow development in children is directly related to the emergence of human social and cultural complexity.” -Jean-Jacques Hublin. While the average reproductive age of chimpanzees is 13, and humans 19, Neanderthals were somewhere in between. The rate of mental growth and generally the experience of a Neanderthal childhood would also have been somewhere in between those extremes. “We moved from a primitive 'live fast and die young' strategy to a 'live slow and grow old' strategy and that has helped make humans one of the most successful organisms on the planet.” -Tanya Smith.

A model of a Neanderthal child at the Neanderthal Museum in Krapina, Croatia

Model of a Neanderthal child by Elizabeth Daynes, at the National Museum of Prehistory at Les Eyzies

While Neanderthals cared deeply for their children, 39% of Neanderthals suffered significant periods of poor nutrition as infants, making hunger and famine somewhat common. While this may look like a rough upbringing, “There is a critical distinction to be made between a harsh childhood and a childhood lived in a harsh environment.” -Penny Spikins. Historically, 38% of prehistoric northern Canadian Inuit children had the same rates of famine. Neanderthals weren't bad providers, they provided the same amount of food as early modern humans. Gathering in such cold and harsh environments as Ice Age Europe was risky in and of itself. “Neanderthals were not as technologically sophisticated as the Inuit; that they were able to achieve comparable levels of nutrition with simpler tools is a testament to the success of their more physical, dangerous approach to daily life.” -Thomas Wynn, Frederick Collidge.

Illustration of a Neanderthal child (Ferrassie 8), by Emmanuel Roudier

Communication

We speak on average 16,000 words a day, language either spoken or in thought constitutes the majority of our inner lives. Is this the same for Neanderthals? Neanderthals could make the same range of phonemes as humans, we both have a peculiarly placed hyoid bone. Most animals have their hyoid bone located deep in their throat, allowing for only barking and bursts of uncontrollable force. Humans and Neanderthals are different, our hyoid bones are located in the upper part of our throat. This does two things: it gives us expert control over our vocal muscles which creates the panoply of phonemes we hear today, and it allows us to choke easily on food. The evolutionary benefit of complex language far outweighs the cost of an increase in choking deaths. At least when we're choking, we can use language to call for help!

There were some phonemes Neanderthals could not make. They lacked a mental protuberance, which is the point at the tip of the chin. The mentalis muscle helps move the lower lip and allows for bilabial phonemes in humans, as well as the bilabial click. While some Neanderthals do have a mental protuberance, it's not in the same shape as modern humans. With this information, we can scientifically prove the Neanderthal name Brokk was never used.

While Neanderthals could make complex sounds, how do we know they used them for communication? Their ancestors Homo Heidelbergensis had complex and well developed auditory tracts, with similar complexity as modern humans. This is evidence that Heidelbergensis had adapted to listening for complexity, which certainly is evidence of complex language. These features were passed down to Neanderthals and ourselves, evidence that the invention of language was far far in the past. Neanderthals also had the FOXP2 gene, alleles of which are associated with comprehending grammar and controlling mouth movements when producing words. Neanderthals also had well developed Broca's areas and Wernicke's areas in their brains, both of which play a role in complex language. All of this evidence points towards complex language use.

The location of Broca's Area, Wernicke's Area, and the hyoid bone in Homo Sapiens

If Neanderthals had complex language, what exactly did it sound like? The only academic trying to answer this question with something other than we don't know is Steven Mithen. In his 2006 book he contends that Neanderthal language would have been a proto-linguistic system of communication developed before the splitting of music and language into two separate forms of cognition. This is summed up as Hmmmmm: Holistic (non-compositional), Manipulative (utterances are commands or suggestions not descriptive statements), Multi-Modal (acoustic as well as gestural and mimetic), Musical, and Mimetic. While this is extremely theoretical and requires a lot of philosophizing, it is an interesting first step.

Steven Mithen

The context of language use is also vitally important to early humans. Humans built huge bonfires, and keep them going throughout the day and night. Thomas Wynn and Frederick Collidge in their book How to Think Like a Neanderthal explain that this novel use of fire is related to the invention of ritual and the birth of storytelling. For early humans, large fires were the central locus of their camps, and at night became the locus of group bonding and conversation. Neanderthals did not build large fires like this, and thus did not treat them as opportunities for storytelling and ritual. Fires were used only in a practical sense, as hearths for cooking, and nothing else. Neanderthals could still have ritual or stories but the context would be very different to how we perceive those uses of language. Neanderthals had few interactions with outsiders, and probably did not have different linguistic modes conveying politeness. “Neanderthal language was direct and task-relevant. It was capable of referring to events in the past, or future, or at distant places, but only in ways connected to a context shared with the listener.” -Thomas Wynn, Frederick Collidge.

Human language fractures and divides itself naturally as humans spread and lose contact with one another. Neanderthal language evolved in the same manner, yet with even smaller groups and even less outside communication. For humans the next valley over would have a different dialect, for Neanderthals the next family would have a different dialect. Neanderthals did not venture far outside of their clan territory – why was this the case? Was it caused by the inability to communicate over long distances? Or did the isolation of small family groups create the lack of long distance language? It is impossible to know, and certainly impossible to assign any causality. The more reasonable answer is that the Neanderthal personality and their language habits were one and the same. Two sides of the same coin, inseparable and feeding off one another, creating a feedback loop of xenophobia and familial dialects.