I
A Case for Neandertal Culture by JGO Z ~ I ~ HaOd ,~ra&escod + ~ r r i ~ c
,
ver since the discwry nearly 150
years ago of the spedmen that
defined the Neandertals, researchers
have tended to deny Neandertals the
behavioral capabilities of modern humans, such as the use of symbols or of
complex techniques for tool manufactun?. Instead Neandertals were characterkd as subhuman,stuc k in primitiw
technical wadidons Impervious to Innovation.And when sophisticated cultural remains were linked to late Neandertals at sweral sites in western Eurowthe evl&nc+ was explainedaway.
The most spectacular of these sites, a
cave In north-central France named
Grotte du Renne(onein a string ofsites
collectively known as the Arcy-surCure ~ ~ 4 , y i e l d ea d
wealth of complex
bone and stone -Is, M y ornaments
and decoratedobjecbfoundinassodatIan wlth Neandertal remalnr Other
sites in Franceand along the Canmbrlan
and P y r m mwntain ranges b e
similar artifacts made in this tradibion,
calledt
kWtelpwronlan.
Because early modem Europeans
had a comparable industry known as
Aurignndar+whkh often appears at
the same sites that contain Chatelperronlan materials--me researchers
have s u w that the archaeological layers were rltsnrpted,mixlng Aurignacian artHacts into the Neandertala s d a t e d lewls. Other scholars have
interpretedthis to mean that h n d e r tals pidred up these Ideas from mod-
I
erns, eher colleaing or trading for
items manufaaurd by madernsor im
itatlng the nwvcwners' practices without reallygmspingdre undertyingsymbdk natureof some oftheo b j e .
Our reassessment of the evidence
from the G m du Renne shows that
the Neamlertalassodatedpersonalornamentsand t m l s found there did not
result from a mlxIngofthe archaedogical strata, as demonstrated by the
presence of finished objectr and the
by-products of thdr manufacture in
the same stratlgraphlc level. Moreowr,
the Wlperwnian arthcts recow
e d at the Grotte du Renne and other
sites, bueh as Quhyay, in the PolCharenws region d France, were c r e
ated using techniques difkmt from
those fawxed by Awignacians. Wlth
regard,for examplqto the pendants-modikd bear, wolf and deer &,
among others--Neandertalsc a d a
f u maround the towh rmt so that a
string of some swe could be tied
around It for suspension,whereas Aurignacian~
p i d their pendantsAs
archadogist Fraryols LevBqoe and a
colleague have describd,ewn when,
as they did on
Meandertab
put a hde thlrorrgh a tmth, they took
an unusual appmch, puncturing the
tooth. Modemqon hother had, p e
ferred to suape the twth thin and
then pierce it ,
Similarly, the new knappfng techn l q w a d aod types that appear
among late Neandemls a t other sites
in France, Italy and Spain fail to show
any influence from the Aurignacian.lnstead they maintain affinities with the
preceding local traditions, of which
they seem to represent an autom
mous development
If the Neandertals' Chgtelperronian
culturewas an outcomeof contact wlth
moderns,then the Aurignacian should
predate the ChBtelperronian.Yet our r e
analysisof the radiometric datesfor the
archaeolqical sequences reveals that
apart h r n a few debatable instances of
mbrhrre,w h m w r bothcultunrres are rep
reat the same sitethe Chatelper-
roniandwaysunderflesthe Aurlgnadan,
~
~
~
dderaaion of the hundreds of M n g s
waaable from thk p b d in E u w and
the Near East shows that w h e w the
context of the dated sampks is Hlldl
known, the earlkt occumces of the
Aurignadanare apparentlyfrom noear
ller than ammd 36500p r s -The
same radiometric data, howw,indicate
that by then Neademlswwe already
emetgd InEuropearound 40,000 ywrs
ago, long before any modepns estab
l k h d h s e k in tho+reas.
That this aukmotnous dewlopment
induded the manufacture and use of
symbdk obJects created for visual dip
play on the hdy,as are often o b d
PENDANTS, BONE TOOLS AND M
S from the Gmtte du Rentle site
seem to be the handiwork of Nandcds. That the dvmced items underlie
carfy modern human cultural r e 6 from the same site and are mmufacdmxording to med~odsdifkmlt from chose f a d by the m
h wgg&$ that some Nmdmda i n W e n d y dpvcloped a mDdernh.
fn tmdidonal societies, reflects various
social
~ roles within -Neandertal cultures.
~
Thusamadem*behavior seems to have
emerged Ind i t h m regionsand amwsg
difkrerrt groups of humans, as would
happen later In history with the invention of agriculture, wrIdng and state
society.
An alternative wanation, taking
into account the broadlysimultaneous
appearance of personal ornaments In
many parts of the Old World, b that
contacts between modem and archak
humans challeaged each group's personal, soclal and biological identltles,
ignitingan explosion of produalon of
symbolic objects by all those Involved.
On the strength of the availaMe data,
however,we favor the hypthesis of Independent Inwntiwr.
Regardless of whkh is eventually
provd athe behavloral barrier
that seemed to separate modems
from Neandertalsand gave us the Impression of being a unique and particularly glfted human -the
ability
to produce syrnhlic cultures--has
-
definltlvelycollapsed
a
M O ZilHAO is d i w of the Portuguese institute of A r t h e o ~ Min,
imy of Culture,in Lisbon.
F R A N C E X 0 FERRIC0 is a ChrRS reseurcher at the Institute of Prehistoryand
Ouatemdry G
~ Univefiiiy
K of Bor-
deaw in France.
I
mmrchm npomd a k a d d
moving toward modernity on their
own. In ~other words, the
p Chdtelpermian a d ottrer late Neandertal
cultures, such as the U l d a n of Italy,
todokdinpafaerd~mdmhumans
had arrived in
or at .tm
nmbera
he aseerts (Udomnady, bust s i e d a s
dmmbgy, who aqgw that h Mdpertwian
at the ~ b e e n u n a b k t o d a t e d x s e s i t e s ~ ~ p r e c i s i a n , r t G K l a t c d u R a m e a n d ~ ~ & ~ rsearchearcaninterpret&daia-)
~ t u
~ f r o m t b e ~ c i a n , ~ a n o I d q d i f f a ; e nFtm~m h i s o w n w o r k 0 n t h e G r o a t d u R e a n t b o d y ~ of manukure [m*A hfor N e a n M
above].
Nkw Yo& Wven& archaeologist Randall White arUostrtsmrcBersarcmrwaonvincadthat~manu- gaes &at
&cis
reflect manufam&&
f X h d d E ~ ~ d a a d ~ ~ % b u kt n~d bh e ai t at
t lower fxeq-b
Aurignacian omapromptedthischangeafterhunbedsof~ofyearsh ments. Given the mmplicatd stra*phy
of the Gram du
u n r l t 8 t ~ i n t h i s ~ ~ w i t % m w c ~ d t o ~ t h Rmme
a t a ssh,
a the modan-looking item mghhave cwne fmm
d o f ~ t i 0 ~ 1 o r ~ h m o d e m h ~ dowdying
l a nAurignacian levels. But more impwtan~
t o a a a u m e d m t N c a a d e r c a l s ~ i t f n r t~ o~ w h i b e , d l c ~ ~ d o c s n o t & ~ d F i a m t ,
G u n I d g e ~ P a u l k M d l a r s%would
.
bcancx- B e f B r a m , ~ a n d ~ S p a i d O n c e y o u l m k ~ t h e U p p e r
m a & w y ~ i f d q i n v a d a U b ~ & o d F'aleolithic
y
from a pan-European perspx~ve,he mys, "the
b e 6 o r e d ~ m D d e r n U d ~ t h e ~ @ a r t i v e d . ~Chidpxmnh kmmcs po&-Aurignadanby a long sham
Hpcbamorc,Mdbfsdqpxswi&d'~aud~obpm %
post-Aurignacian
I
,
does not m c w d y mean after mWbo W m tbe N m d d ? ?
~ C A M E U T C AAvril
N ZOO0
105