A symbolic Neanderthal accumulation of large herbivore crania

Abstract

This work examines the possible behaviour of Neanderthal groups at the Cueva Des-Cubierta (central Spain) via the analysis of the latter’s archaeological assemblage. Alongside evidence of Mousterian lithic industry, Level 3 of the cave infill was found to contain an assemblage of mammalian bone remains dominated by the crania of large ungulates, some associated with small hearths. The scarcity of post-cranial elements, teeth, mandibles and maxillae, along with evidence of anthropogenic modification of the crania (cut and percussion marks), indicates that the carcasses of the corresponding animals were initially processed outside the cave, and the crania were later brought inside. A second round of processing then took place, possibly related to the removal of the brain. The continued presence of crania throughout Level 3 indicates that this behaviour was recurrent during this level’s formation. This behaviour seems to have no subsistence-related purpose but to be more symbolic in its intent.

Reconsidering the link between past material culture and cognition in light of contemporary hunter-gatherer material use.

“…Both cord-making and birch pitch tar production have been pivotal to debates about Neanderthal cognition and planning depth (see Kozowyk et al 2017;Schmidt et al 2019;Hardy et al 2020). Neanderthal personal adornment (Finlayson et al 2012), burial (Pomeroy et al 2020), art (Hoffmann et al 2018;White et al 2020), non-subsistence-related faunal assemblages (Baquedano et al 2023) and musical instruments (Turk et al 2018) are frequently used as evidence both for (Hardy et al 2020;Breyl 2021) and against (Schmidt et al 2019;Wynn et al 2016) Neanderthals possessing, e.g., 'symbolic thought' or 'modern human' cognitive capacity. These recent debates have fruitfully challenged assumptions (Breyl 2021;Baquedano et al 2023) that Neanderthals had less advanced (e.g., see Mithen 2014;Speth 2004) or substantively different (e.g., see Wynn et al 2016) cognitive capacities to modern Homo sapiens; but they yet risk perpetuating the assumption that material evidence of complexity is necessary for past populations to be considered cognitively modern.…”

“…While researchers have employed numerous lines of evidence to trace the emergence of complex cognition in the archaeological record (Table 1), including material transport (Wilkins et al 2021), composite tool-production (Barham 2013;Coolidge et al 2016) and other types of technological complexity (Sykes 2015;Wadley et al 2020;Murray et al 2020), evidence of prehistoric symbolism is frequently the most prominent (Sehasseh et al 2021;Leder et al 2021;Wilkins et al 2021), and is often at the forefront of both academic discourse (McBrearty 2013;Mithen 2014;Klein 2017;Tattersall 2017a;Hoffmann et al 2018;White et al 2020;Pomeroy et al 2020;Baquedano et al 2023;Kelly et al 2023;Wadley 2021) and popular accounts (Harari et al 2020;Harari 2014). For ease of coding, analysis and discussion, therefore, the present investigation focusses primarily on 'symbolic evidence', broadly defined (Section 8).…”

The dual role of culture for reconstructing early sapiens cognition.

“…In the past few decades, it has become clear that many sophisticated technologies and cultural practices that were once considered exclusive to the human populations of the European Upper Palaeolithic were actually present among both early Homo sapiens (Mcbrearty & Brooks, 2000; Scerri & Will, 2023) and Homo neanderthalensis (Hoffecker, 2018; Nielsen et al, 2020; Wynn & Coolidge, 2004). The record for the Neanderthals includes, for example, fire-making (Henry, 2017), woodworking (Vaquero et al, 2001), the production of glue for composite tools (Niekus et al, 2019), fiber processing (Hardy et al, 2020), the use of spaces in potentially ritual contexts (Baquedano et al, 2023; Jaubert et al, 2016), ochre processing (Pitarch Martí et al, 2021), and, possibly, mark-making for symbolic purposes (Hoffmann et al, 2018; Rodríguez-Vidal et al, 2014). In early Homo sapiens contexts, these technologies appear and reappear in a mosaic-like pattern throughout the African continent prior to 100,000 years ago (Colagè & d’Errico, 2020; Scerri & Will, 2023) but are occasionally found as a “package” in a few early key sites such as Blombos Cave in South Africa by 70,000 years ago (Henshilwood & Marean, 2003).…”

Burials and engravings in a small-brained hominin, Homo naledi, from the late Pleistocene: contexts and evolutionary implications

“…Regardless of what one terms the underlying cognitive processes associated with the burial activities of H. naledi, they indicate a level of conscious emotional awareness that enables and is associated with extensive shared intentionality, forward planning, and repeated cultural behavior involving bodily risk. Equally complex symbolic use of caves by Neanderthals (Jaubert et al 2016;Baquedano et al 2023) demonstrate a similar emotional self-awareness, and production of highly symmetrical stone tools is also potentially indicative of emotional awareness and regulation in early member of the genus Homo (Green and Spikins 2020). However, the fact that a small-brained hominin displays these sorts of behavior suggests that the neurological capacity enabled by a larger than 1000cc brain cannot be the only factor, or necessarily the main factor, enabling the kind of emotional cognition that is considered a central factor in human evolutionary success.…”