Presumed Symbolic Use of Diurnal Raptors by Neanderthals

Morin, Eugène; Laroulandie, Véronique

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032856

Cited by 164 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In view of the extensive evidence from the final Mousterian and the early EUP, it needs to be considered that the deposition and alterations of cave bear bones probably had cultural significance and exogrammatic meanings. Similarly, evidence of utilization of diurnal raptor parts in what seems to be symbolic behavior has recently been reported from the Middle Paleolithic of France and Italy (Morin and Laroulandie 2012) [131].…”

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 53%

Pleistocene Paleoart of Europe

Bednarik¹

2014

Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As in Australia, Pleistocene rock art is relatively abundant in Europe, but it has so far received much more attention than the combined Ice Age paleoart of the rest of the world. Since archaeology initially rejected its authenticity for several decades, the cave art of France and Spain and the portable paleoart from various regions of Europe have been the subjects of thousands of studies. It is shown, however, that much of the published information is unreliable and subjective, and that fundamental trends in the evidence have been misunderstood. In particular, the data implies that the paleoart of the Early Upper Paleolithic, the work of robust humans such as Neanderthals, is considerably more sophisticated and developed that that of more recent times. Thus, the European paleoart demonstrates that the teleological model of cultural "evolution" is false, which is to be expected because evolution is purely dysteleological. This is confirmed by the extensive record of pre-Upper Paleolithic European paleoart, which is comprehensively reviewed in this paper.

show abstract

Section: Figuresupporting

confidence: 53%

Pleistocene Paleoart of Europe

Bednarik¹

2014

Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over such large distances, the only "infl uence" that could have been exerted is that concerning the notion of "personal ornamentation" itself. However, in western Europe, Neandertal body painting and personal ornamentation have Middle Paleolithic beginnings and predate both the IUP/Emiran and the Châtelperronian by thousands of years (Soressi and d'Errico 2007 ;Zilhão et al 2010a ;Peresani et al 2011 ;Morin and Laroulandie 2012 ;Finlayson et al 2012 ).…”

Section: Grotte Du Rennementioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Recent African Origin views interpreted many innovations of the European Upper Paleolithic as a "Human Revolution" (Mellars and Stringer 1989 ) triggered by the immigration of modern humans, the new evidence credited many of those innovations to the Neandertals and showed that some had fi rst appeared in the preceding Middle Paleolithic. Among the latter is the use in body ornamentation of painted/perforated marine shells, large raptor feathers, and mineral pigments modifi ed as crayons or processed for the preparation of complex cosmetic recipes (Soressi and d'Errico 2007 ;Zilhão et al 2010a ;Peresani et al 2011 ;Morin and Laroulandie 2012 ;Finlayson et al 2012 ). It is also quite possible that Neandertals were the makers of the earliest known cave art, as suggested by the minimum age of 41.4 ± 0.6 ka (95.4 % probability interval) provided by U-series dating of calcite accretions covering geometric signs and hand stencils at the Spanish site of El Castillo (Cantabria; Pike et al 2012 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neandertal-Modern Human Contact in Western Eurasia: Issues of Dating, Taxonomy, and Cultural Associations

Zilhão

2013

Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans Volume 1

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supporting Assimilation views of Neandertal/modern human interaction, chronostratigraphic reasoning indicates that the "transitional" industries of Europe predate modern human immigration, in agreement with their association with Neandertals in the Châtelperronian at the Grotte du Renne and St.-Césaire. Supporting the Neandertals' species separateness and less developed cognition, those industries are alternatively claimed to relate to pioneer groups of modern humans; the latter would have been the true makers of the precocious instances of symbolic material culture that, under Assimilation, are assigned to the Neandertals. However, the taxonomy of the Kent's Cavern and Grotta del Cavallo dental remains is uncertain, and their poor stratigraphic context precludes dating by association. The opposite happens at the Grotte du Renne, whose stratigraphic integrity is corroborated by both taphonomy and dating. Not questioning that the Early Ahmarian is a cultural proxy for modern humans and a source for the Protoaurignacian of Europe, its claimed emergence ~46-49 ka ago at Kebara refl ects the dating of Middle Paleolithic charcoal-to be expected, because the Early Ahmarian units at the back of the cave are made up of reworked Middle Paleolithic sediments derived from the entrance. The dating of inherited material also explains the old results for the Aurignacian of Willendorf II and Geissenklösterle. At the latter, the dates on anthropically modifi ed samples of the hunted taxa (reindeer and horse) place its Aurignacian occupations in the same time range as elsewhere in Europe, after ~40 ka ago. The hypothesis that Neandertal/modern human contact in Europe resulted in a process of assimilation in connection with the spread of the Protoaurignacian ~41.5 ka ago remains unfalsifi ed.

show abstract

“…Neanderthal symbolic behaviors are attested by pigments associated with marine shells from ~45-50ka in Murcia, S.E. Spain (Zilhao et al 2010), as well as evidence for ornamental use of raptor feathers from similar or earlier dates (Morin and Laroulandie 2012;Peresani et al 2010). Because the FCC strategy is driven by female reproductive stress associated with encephalization, we expect both lineages, our own ancestors in Africa and those of the Neanderthals in Eurasia, to adopt it.…”

Section: What About the Neanderthals?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproductive synchrony or desynchrony of primate females influences number and fitness of males in mating systems. Langur monkey populations provide a natural experiment for observing alternative female strategies of confusing or concentrating paternity. Where females escape seasonal reproductive constraints, they desynchronize fertility and show visible cues (menstruation), enabling single males to monopolize matings. This increases female fitness by reducing food competition. Where langurs are seasonally constrained, females conceal fertility, confusing paternity and reducing infanticide. These case studies illuminate how hominin females could increase male numbers and investment. Fitness payoffs to male investors will be affected by degree of reproductive seasonal constraint, and by females either concealing or confusing menstrual cues of imminent fertility. Among ancestors of modern humans and Neanderthals these strategies diverged. Under pressure of encephalization, modern human female ancestors, less seasonally constrained, pursued a strategy of cosmeticization of menstrual signals. This Female Cosmetic Coalitions model accounts for the African Middle Stone Age record of pigment use. Among Neanderthals, strategies alternated. Severe seasonality during glacial cycles tied Neanderthal males into pair-bonds, suppressing cosmetic signaling. Only during interglacials when seasonality relaxed would Neanderthal females require blood-red cosmetics. Our Seasonality Thermostat model explains why European ochre use correlates with climate through the Middle to Late Pleistocene. INTRODUCTION There is a growing consensus that evolving Homo mothers relied on cooperative breeding to raise larger-bodied, larger-brained offspring (e.g., Aiello and Key 2002;Barrickman et al. 2008;Burkart et al. 2009;Robson and Wood 2008;Shultz et al. 2012;van Schaik et al. 2006 Models for cultural levels of human cooperation (Boyd and Richerson 1992, 2005Gintis et al. 2003;Henrich and Boyd 2001;Henrich et al. 2003Henrich et al. , 2006Nowak and Sigmund 2005;Richerson et al. 2003), invoke multilevel and group selection processes, but ignore what is most difficult to explain-how to secure cooperation between the sexes, given the trade-off between investing in current offspring versus future mating opportunities (cf. Bowles 2006). One game theory model (Key 1998(Key , 2000 incorporated the differences of reproductive energetic costs to specify conditions for the evolution of cooperation that can be practically applied to the fossil record. Yet even these conditions do not identify how females induced males to subsidize their reproduction (Kaplan et al. 2000;Marlowe 2001). Recent models (Gavrilets 2012) highlight the difficulty of shifting from systems of significant male mating competition into productive male investment, where males face a social dilemma of ceding fitness advantage to free-riding rivals.If we can define the mechanisms available to Homo females giving them leverage against male defection through the Early to Middle Plei...

show abstract

Presumed Symbolic Use of Diurnal Raptors by Neanderthals

Cited by 164 publications

References 21 publications

Pleistocene Paleoart of Europe

Pleistocene Paleoart of Europe

Neandertal-Modern Human Contact in Western Eurasia: Issues of Dating, Taxonomy, and Cultural Associations

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About