The false dichotomy: a refutation of the Neandertal indistinguishability claim

Abstract

In the debate about the demise of the Neandertal, several scholars have claimed that humanity’s nearest relatives were indistinguishable archaeologically, and thus behaviorally and cognitively, from contemporaneous Homo sapiens. They suggest that to hold otherwise is to characterize Neandertals as inferior to H. sapiens, a false dichotomy that excludes the possibility that the two human types simply differed in ways visible to natural selection, including their cognition. Support of the Neandertal indistinguishability claim requires ignoring the cranial differences between the two human types, which have implications for cognition and behavior. Further, support of the claim requires minimizing asymmetries in the quantity and degree of behavioral differences as attested by the archaeological record. The present paper reviews the evidence for cognitive and archaeological differences between the two human types in support of the excluded middle position.

Cognitive archaeology, and the psychological assessment of extinct minds

“…It might be in fact lexically misleading using the same term (e.g., “tool”) for a wooden stick and a pen drive (Bruner & Gleeson, 2019). In the case of Neandertals (a common case study because of their large brain and complex technology), even if we admit the fragmented evidence on graphic marks, burials, or aesthetic cultural elements, we must recognize that the degree of expression (frequency and complexity) is not by far comparable with the analogous evidence for H. sapiens (Wynn et al., 2016). We often forget that most human species, despite the minor differences in average brain dimensions, had brain size ranges that widely overlapped.…”

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

“…Pure cultural evolutionary accounts, which assume no difference in intrinsic capacity, either within our species (Tattersall 2017a), or broadly (Sterelny 2016(Sterelny , 2019 have become more widely accepted. Focus has also shifted to explorations of species-level differences (Wynn et al 2016).…”

“…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.…”

“…It is seen in discussions surrounding Neanderthal extinction, which often attend to cognitive difference (Gilligan 2007;Horan et al 2005;Villa and Roebroeks 2014;Gilpin et al 2016). It is seen in the disproportionate attention and impact generated by finds which push 'complex' or representational expressions further into the past (Aubert et al 2019;Brumm et al 2021;Schmidt et al 2019;Hoffmann et al 2018;Barham et al 2023) and in the popular and scholarly discourses surrounding them (Sample 2018;Mithen 2014;Wynn et al 2016Wynn et al , 2021Schmidt et al 2019;White et al 2020;Hoffmann et al 2020;Metcalfe 2023). Indeed, in an interview for the Scientific American (Metcalfe 2023) concerning the recent discovery of wooden structures from 476 ka in Zambia (Barham et al 2023), the lead author sets out the primitive null clearly, stating 'I never would have thought that pre-Homo sapiens would have had the capacity to plan something like this'.…”

Cognitive Archeology and the Attentional System: An Evolutionary Mismatch for the Genus Homo

“…At the same time, we should avoid falling into the tendency to deny differences and their evidence, in order to circumvent alleged politically incorrect specisms. For example, Neanderthals and modern humans, despite having evolved for a similar amount of time and showing the same brain size, have displayed outstanding differences in their respective cultural and technological abilities, which suggests a noticeable increase in cognitive complexity in our own lineage ( Wynn et al 2016 ). We must admit that the archeological record is biased by a chronological factor: the older the age, the fewer remains we find.…”