Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’ [J. Hum. Evol. (2020) 102640]

Hoffmann, Dirk L.; Standish, Christopher D.; García-Diez, Marcos; Pettitt, Paul; Milton, James A.; Zilhão, João; Alcolea-González, Javier; Cantalejo-Duarte, Pedro; Collado, Hipólito; Balbín, Rodrigo de; Lorblanchet, Michel; Ramos-Muñóz, José; Weniger, Gerd Christian; Pike, Alistair

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2020.102810

Cited by 31 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hand-stencil art from Borneo and a naturalistic painting from Sulawesi have yielded minimum ages of 39.9 ka and 43.9 ka (15)(16), convincingly demonstrating broad contemporaneity with the earliest European manifestations of this practice, as predicted (22). The Iberian evidence has been challenged (23)(24)(25)(26)(27), but all the criticisms have been exhaustively responded to (28)(29)(30)(31).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

San Elders Speak

BACKWELL¹,

D’ERRICO²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cueva de Ardales (Málaga, Spain) is one of the richest and best-preserved Paleolithic painted caves of southwestern Europe, containing over a thousand graphic representations. Here, we study the red pigment in panel II.A.3 of "Sala de las Estrellas", dated by U-Th to the Middle Paleolithic, to determine its composition, verify its anthropogenic nature, infer the associated behaviors and discuss their implications. Using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, micro-Raman spectroscopy, and X-ray diffraction we analyzed a set of samples from the panel and compared them to natural coloring materials collected from the floor and walls of the cave. The conspicuously different texture and composition of the geological samples indicatethat the pigments used in the paintings do not come from the outcrops sampled in the cave. We confirm that the paintings are not the result of natural processes and show that the composition of the paint is consistent with the artistic activity being recurrent. Our results strengthen the hypothesis that Neanderthals symbolically used these paintings and the large stalagmitic dome harboring them over an extended time span. Significance StatementThe emergence of symbolic behavior in our genus is a controversial issue. The dating of paintings in three caves from the Iberian Peninsula supports the view that Neanderthals developed a form of cave art more than 20,000 years before the emergence of anatomical modernity in Europe. In this study, we confirm that the paintings on a large speleothem from one of these sites, Cueva de Ardales, were human made, and we show that the pigments were not collected at the outcrops sampled inside the cave. Variations in the composition of the paint correspond to differences in the age of the paintings, supporting the hypothesis that Neanderthals used the speleothems symbolically over an extended time span.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

San Elders Speak

BACKWELL¹,

D’ERRICO²

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, Neanderthals perforated and colored seashells, apparently to string them, and behaved in similar ways with beads, geodes as well as prepared feathers and talons, sometimes carving geometric patterns on the materials and featuring some of this behavior by at least 130,000 years ago (Cârciumaru, Niţu, & Cîrstina, 2015; Caron, d'Errico, Del Moral, Santos, & Zilhão, 2011; Finlayson et al, 2012; Hoffmann, Angelucci, et al, 2018; Majkić, d'Errico, & Stepanchuk, 2018; Majkić, Evans, Stepanchuk, Tscelykh, & d'Errico, 2017; Morin & Laroulandie, 2012; Peresani, Fiore, Gala, Romandini, & Tagliacozzo, 2011; Peresani, Vanhaeren, Quaggiogiotto, Queffelec, & d'Errico, 2013; Radovičić, Sršen, Radovičić, & Frayer, 2015; Welker et al, 2016; Zilhão et al, 2010). Jaubert et al (2016) describe extended constructions more than 300 m deep into a cave system which possibly were used with a ritualistic purpose by Neanderthals at around 176,000 years ago and Hoffmann, Standish, et al (2018a), Hoffmann, Standish, et al (2018b), and Hoffmann et al (2020) document some of the currently oldest known cave paintings to be of Neanderthal origin. Rodriguez‐Vidal et al (2014) argue that rock engravings in Gibraltar made by Neanderthals have a symbolic component to them and according to d'Errico et al (2018), carvings on bones suggest that they were used to count, indicating an explicit, symbolic number sense beyond the innate number sense that most animals feature (Petrazzini, Agrillo, Izard, & Bisazza, 2016; Scarf, Hayne, & Colombo, 2011; Woodruff & Premack, 1982).…”

Section: The Evidence Surrounding Neanderthal Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Triangulating Neanderthal cognition: A tale of not seeing the forest for the trees

Breyl¹

2020

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inference of Neanderthal cognition, including their cultural and linguistic capabilities, has persisted as a fiercely debated research topic for decades. This lack of consensus is substantially based on inherent uncertainties in reconstructing prehistory out of indirect evidence as well as other methodological limitations. Further factors include systemic difficulties within interdisciplinary discourse, data artifacts, historic research biases, and the sheer scope of the relevant research. Given the degrees of freedom in interpretation ensuing from these complications, any attempt to find approximate answers to the yet unsettled pertinent discourse may not rest on single studies, but instead a careful and comprehensive interdisciplinary synthesis of findings. Triangulating Neanderthals' cognition by considering the plethora of data, diverse perspectives and aforementioned complexities present within the literature constitutes the currently most reliable pathway to tentative conclusions. While some uncertainties remain, such an approach paints the picture of an extensive shared humanity between anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals. This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Evolutionary Roots of Cognition Linguistics > Evolution of Language

show abstract

“…The most spectacular discovery is the dating to ~176 ka of annular constructions of broken stalagmites which were made 336 metres deep into the Bruniquel Cave (Southwest France) [26]. Similarly, the debated [27][28] dating of cave art in the Iberian Peninsula to ~64 ka [29] points to Neandertal authorship. This new chronology establishes that before the arrival of H. sapiens in Europe, hominins had already developed advanced symbolic behaviour.…”

Section: A Long Chronology For the Development Of Modern Language Facmentioning

confidence: 99%

Palaeoneurology and the Emergence of Language

Mounier

Noûs

Balzeau

2020

BMSAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The origin of language has been much debated over the years. Recent research has centred the controversies on two main ideas. Language, as defined by the Basic Property formulated by Chomsky, is a characteristic unique to Homo sapiens that developed in our species in the past 300,000 years. Other scientists argue that the Basic Property is a derived characteristic shared with other hominin species, such as H. neanderthalensis and the last common ancestor of both modern humans and Neandertals, which evolved over a long period of time, perhaps as long as two million years. Palaeoneurology, which studies the phenotype of the brain in past populations, may have left this complex topic aside because of the difficulty of deducing brain morphology from endocasts (imprints of the neurocranium) and inferring function from brain morphology. In this article, we review the various hypotheses on the evolution of language, highlighting the potential of palaeoneurology to help understand this complex aspect of human evolution, and provide an updated interpretation of previously published endocranial phenotypic data from fossil populations. This brings additional support to a long chronology framework for the origin of language in the hominin lineage: the basic property for modern language may have been in place from the last common ancestor of H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.

show abstract

Response to White et al.’s reply: ‘Still no archaeological evidence that Neanderthals created Iberian cave art’ [J. Hum. Evol. (2020) 102640]

Cited by 31 publications

References 16 publications

San Elders Speak

San Elders Speak

Triangulating Neanderthal cognition: A tale of not seeing the forest for the trees

Palaeoneurology and the Emergence of Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About