The document discusses the emergence and characteristics of Neanderthals. Some key points: - Neanderthals first emerged in Europe and the Middle East between 150,000-200,000 years ago as a distinct species from Homo heidelbergensis. - They were restricted to Europe and Western Asia, with no evidence found in Africa or East Asia. - Anatomically, Neanderthals had stockier builds than modern humans and more robust skeletons, especially in the cranium. - Genetic evidence shows Neanderthals diverged from the modern human line well before 300,000 years ago, with a substantial genetic distance between the two groups. -

1. The Neanderthals
Emergence of a Distinct Hominim Species in Europe
and the Middle East

2. The Earliest Neanderthals
● Much less study has been accorded to the
emergence of Neanderthals than to their
extinction
● We are therefore uncertain about the earliest
dating of their differentiation from Homo
heidelbergensis, although it is commonly
believed that this was a protracted process
● The earliest specimens representing
Neanderthal have been dated to roughly
150,000 - 200,000 BP, but there are some
authorities that place their emergence as a
separate species as late as 120,000 BP
● Much of the uncertainty regarding the
emergence of the species is attributable to
the criteria selected to determine whether a
specimen represents Homo heidelbergensis
remains or Neanderthal remains
● This controversy is ultimately an expression
of the difficulty is discriminating the subtle
differences between the terminal specimens
of the former species and the incipient
specimens from the latter

3. Spatial Distribution
● At the outset, it must be recalled that
Neanderthal were restricted in their
distribution to Europe and the Middle
East
● The easternmost extent of the species
reached into Uzbekistan, whereas there
is no evidence for Neanderthal beyond
the Sinai Desert—thus, Africa affords
no remains of this species
● This is significant for two reasons: the
first is that it suggests that perhaps
there was a climatic cause for the
adaptations which ultimately led to the
appearance of Neanderthal as a
separate species, one that was not
operative in Africa and the Far East
The Neanderthal were restricted in their
● The second reason is that it perhaps
occurrence to Europe and the western
reflects the existence of an endogenous
margins of Eurasia. No evidence for the
breeding network, where there was
presence of this species has been
rarely contact with hominims outwith
found in Africa nor in the Far East
Eurasia

5. Anatomical Characteristics
● Neanderthal were between 164 – 168
cm in height for male adults, and 152
– 156 cm for adult females
● Little sexual dimorphism is therefore
evident in this species; they are
moreover only between 12 – 14 cm
shorter than the average anatomically
modern human in North America and
Europe
● A clearly distinguishing characteristic
is the robustness of the skeleton as
compared to anatomically modern
humans
● This is especially evident in the
cranium, but is also manifest in the
density of the bones
● The species was therefore much more
powerful than anatomically modern
humans

8. The Genetic Studies
Establishing Genetic Distance Between Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens

9. Contribution of Genetic Studies
● The discussion of the relationship
between Neanderthals and anatomically
modern humans has been
revolutionised by the application of
genetic studies, in particular the study
of mtDNA sequences and their
comparison amongst species
● This work has not only repudiated the
possibility of Neanderthals contributing
directly to the genetic material of
anatomically modern humans, but it has
furthermore provided a broad
chronological framework for species
differentiation through a study of the
mutations occurring in the sequences
● Nevertheless, we are faced with some
problems of interpretation that are
inherent in the study of ancient genetic
material—namely, dating the mutations
and making inferences concerning
phylogenetic relationships

10. Genetic Distance
● The phylogenetic analysis shows that
the line leading to the Neanderthal
mtDNA diverged before the most
recent common ancestor of the
modern human mtDNA gene pool
existed
● The results of the genetic studies
indicate that the mtDNA gene pools of
these two hominid forms had diverged
for a substantial time before they
came into contact
● To put the extent of genetic
differentiation that had resulted into a
comparative frame of reference, an
example might be the differentiation
found today among chimpanzees and
bonobos and contrasting them with
the genetic evidence for Neanderthals
vis-à-vis anatomically modern humans
that has emerged from the recent
studies

11. Humans, Neanderthals and Chimpanzees
● The number of differences between the
Neanderthal and modern humans is 35.5
6 2.3, about half that between
chimpanzees and bonobos (75.7 6 4.6)
● Unfortunately, HVRII sequences are not
available for different subspecies of
chimpanzees
● However, if the analysis is confined to
312 bp of HVRI, the average difference
between modern humans and the
Neanderthal is 25.6 6 2.2, whereas that
among 19 bonobos is 17.7 6 8.5, among
10 central chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes
troglodytes) is 14.6 6 8.1, among 25
western chimpanzee and eastern
chimpanzees, respectively
● Thus, the average observed difference
between the Neanderthal mtDNA and the
mtDNA of modern humans exceeds that
occurring within chimpanzee subspecies
and within bonobos

13. Timing the Differentiation
● The genetic evidence has also provided
a range of dates for the differentiation
of Homo erectus (or Homo
heidelbergensis) into a line leading to
Neanderthal and one leading to
anatomically modern humans
● It has been suggested that the
divergence occurred sometime around
311,000 BP (182,000 BP to 466,000
BP at a 95% expression of confidence)
or 435,000 BP (308,000 BP to 598,000
BP at a 95% expression of confidence)
depending on which assumptions are
made concerning which elements of the
generic sequence
● These ranges conform well with the
palaeoanthropological studies which
suggest that 'Neanderthal-like features'
began to emerge between 500,000 BP
to 250,000 BP in Europe and the
Middle East

14. The Early Sites

15. Krapina, Croatia
● One of the earliest Neanderthal sites
upon which all scholars can agree on the
fossil specimens representing this
species is Krapina in Croatia
● Its value for elucidating the cultural
traditions of the inhabitants is
unfortunately diminished by the site being
investigated in 1899 when excavation
techniques were poorly developed
● The main importance of the site, apart
from its age, was the copious quantity of
fragmented and splintered fossil remains
which suggested that the inhabitants
practised cannibalism
● It is also significant for the quantity of
material in itself: 884 bones were
recovered, which represent 75 individuals
● Most died between the ages of sixteen
and twenty-four years old

16. Cannibalism
● The site at Krapina has been dated to
130,000 BP, although some argue that
the later horizons could be as recent as
70,000 BP
● Both are perfectly consistent, inasmuch
that they reflect a stratigraphic
succession—the quantity of remains
would certainly suggest that the cave
was used for a very long time
● The remains at Krapina are interesting
insofar that the long bones were split
along their long axes, which is typical for
the extraction of marrow
● This has suggested that cannibalism
was undertaken here, more than any
other feature of the site
● Some have, however, disputed this:
they claim that the fractures might have
occurred because of mortuary rites or
that animals foraged on the bones in the
caves

17. Saccopastore, Lazio, Italy
● Two crania were recovered at this
site, from a gravel pit merely 2.5 km
from the River Tiber; the first in 1929
and the second in 1935
● Some authorities regard these as
the earliest true Neanderthal
specimens in Europe and the Middle
East
● Although in possession of clearly
'Neanderthal' features, such as the
larger cranium, wide nose and
robust build, it also displays more
archaic characteristics
● The specimens have been dated to
between 130,000 BP and 100,000
BP on the basis of their association
with discrete stratigraphic layers in
the gravel quarry
● It is unfortunate that no implements
were found at the site

19. Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar
● One of first Neanderthal find was actually
made in Gibraltar at Forbes' Quarry in
1848, rather than in Germany at the
Neander Valley near Düsseldorf in 1856
● If the find had been recognised as the
fossil of an extinct hominim, the species
would probably have bore the name of
Gibraltar, but the earliest finds were made
at Englis in Belgium in 1826
● A series of Neanderthal remains have
been recovered from the caves around
Gibraltar: Devil’s Tower, Ibex, Gorham’s
Cave and Vanguard Cave
● The Forbes' Quarry specimen is
estimated to be roughly 70,000 years and
is therefore the oldest of the Neanderthal
finds that have been made at Gibraltar
● It is unfortunate that there was no cultural
material recovered from the find as a
detailed excavation was not undertaken

20. Neanderthal Symbolic Capacity
The Controversy Regarding Neanderthal Burial, Art
and Cognitive Sophistication

21. Purposive Burials
● A particularly strident controversy has
developed over the symbolic capacity of
Neanderthal
● This has focused on whether this
species buried their dead, created art,
showed any planning ability, and so
forth
● The most sanguinary debate has
concerned the burial of the dead, with
some authorities denying that any of the
finds represent deliberate inhumations
● Allied with this debate is the debate
regarding cannibalism and other
potentially religious practices
● In short, those that deny that
Neanderthal had any abstract thought
capacity see the burials merely as the
abandonment of the body in caves and
rockshelters, which were buried by
natural collapses of the roof

22. Shanidar, Iraq
● One of the cardinal sites in this controversy
is at Shanidar in western Iraq, where a
fascinating burial was encountered during
excavations between 1957-1961
● The site is located in a large cave and
afforded the remains of ten individuals, one
commingled amongst the faunal material
and not identified until the processing of
this material in the laboratory
● It is Shanidar IV that has elicited the most
interest, but it should be noted that less
obvious yet more compelling evidence for
ritual behaviour was associated with
Shanidar II
● The body here may have been accorded a
ceremonial deposition, for there was a
small pile of stones with some worked
stone points (made out of chert) lying atop
the grave and an hearth was situated
immediately adjacent to it, perhaps as part
of a memorial feast

23. The 'Flower' Burial
● The most controversial burial was
Shandiar IV which represents a male,
between the age of thirty-five and forty
years, buried in a foetal position
● Routine soil samples which were
gathered for pollen analysis in an
attempt to reconstruct the palaeoclimate
and vegetational history of the site from
around the body were analysed eight
years after its discovery
● In two of the soil samples in particular,
whole clumps of pollen were discovered
in addition to the usual pollen found
throughout the site and suggested that
entire flowering plants (or at least heads
of plants) had entered the grave deposit
● Furthermore, a study of the particular
flower types suggested that the flowers
may have been chosen for their specific
medicinal properties

24. Problems of Interpretation
● Although the suggestion that the
Shanidar IV burial was accompanied by
flowers was widely accepted, modern
studies have postulated that the pollen
was intrusive and therefore does not
represent a deliberate inclusion
● Moreover, the burial has been regarded
by some as a body abandoned in the
cave and thus the pollen was introduced
by natural processes such as wind
circulation and trapped particles in the
cave environment
● It is possible, too, that the body was
abandoned and the plants began to
grow around the skeleton before it was
covered
● It is therefore not possible to find any
agreement on the possible ritual
activities associated with this burial, if it
indeed is even accepted by scholars as
a purposive

25. The Controversy
● The main controversy concerns
the depositional circumstances in
which the Neanderthal remains
have been found, namely, in caves
and rockshelters which are subject
to routine collapse
● A study of the burials containing
Neanderthal remains shows that
most of them have been subject to
damage, possibly from falling
rocks, therefore indicating that
they were left exposed
● This, of course, does not mean
that the bodies were not accorded
with symbolic value and left—there
are numerous ethnographic
examples of houses and other
structures being abandoned after
death because of fear of the spirit
or as part of a ritual to purify the
site of habitation

26. Caves and Rockshelters
● The argument concerning the criteria
that we employ to determine a
purposive burial is nevertheless sound
and should be critically studied
● Because a body is found in a grave
does not necessarily imply that it is
burial which is accompanied by
religious or spiritual conceptions
● Even when grave goods are present,
the intention may merely have been to
discard the personal belongings of the
deceased
● This is nevertheless a profoundly
critical view of burials—the practice is
usually attended by notions of survival
after death
● We know, for instance, that other
mammals mourn their dead and it is
possible that some continuation of life
is entertained

28. Cannibalism and Grotta Guattari
● In this connexion, it is relevant to
consider the evidence for cannibalism
● This tradition does not necessarily
imply ritual and religious thought—the
consumption of the dead may have
had prosaic purposes, namely, to eat
an easily accessible meat resource
● At the Italian site of Grotta Guattari,
however, it has been suggested that
the brain was extracted from the
foranum magnum as part of a ritual to
consume this organ
● The consumption of the brain after
death is commonplace in many
cultures, usually undertaken to
incorporate the vital essence of the
deceased in ancestral cults
● However, recent studies have
gainsaid the original interpretation

30. Bear Skull Cults