Rethinking Neanderthals
Research suggests the so-called brutes fashioned tools, buried their dead, maybe cared for the sick and even conversed. But why, if they were so smart, did they disappear?
- By Joe Alper
- Smithsonian magazine, June 2003, Subscribe
(Page 4 of 8)
The arrangement of fossilized Neanderthal skeletons in the ground demonstrates to many archaeologists that Neanderthals buried their dead. “They might not have done so with elaborate ritual, since there has never been solid evidence that they included symbolic objects in graves, but it is clear that they did not just dump their dead with the rest of the trash to be picked over by hyenas and other scavengers,” says archaeologist Francesco d’Errico of the University of Bordeaux.
Paleoanthropologists generally agree that Neanderthals lived in groups of 10 to 15, counting children. That assessment is based on a few lines of evidence, including the limited remains at burial sites and the modest size of rock shelters. Also, Neanderthals were top predators, and some top predators, such as lions and wolves, live in small groups.
Steven Kuhn, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona, says experts “can infer quite a bit about who Neanderthal was by studying tools in conjunction with the other artifacts they left behind.” For instance, recovered stone tools are typically fashioned from nearby sources of flint or quartz, indicating to some researchers that a Neanderthal group did not necessarily range far.
The typical Neanderthal tool kit contained a variety of implements, including large spear points and knives that would have been hafted, or set in wooden handles. Other tools were suitable for cutting meat, cracking open bones (to get at fatrich marrow) or scraping hides (useful for clothing, blankets or shelter). Yet other stone tools were used for woodworking; among the very few wooden artifacts associated with Neanderthal sites are objects that resemble spears, plates and pegs.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (5)
Reading up on Neanderthals is very interesting and I find it intriguing that present day academics are revisiting with an eye toward reinterpretation what has been handed down from previous generations on the subject. That's all well and good but as an average Joe I quickly tire of those who bring too heavy an approach to interpreting archaeological evidence. Chillax, dudes.
The Neanderthals had their time in the sun, they hung out and they moved on and faded away. IMHO there really isn't all that much more to be gleaned from the ash pits and caves that would be all that relevant to modern man. Will the next stunning revelation about some ancient peoples prevent the next war? I doubt it.
Posted by Daniel O'Hare on November 25,2011 | 03:18 PM
Neanderthal flint tools are often fashioned for left handed use. More interesting is how many of the tools fit the hand very closely, even cortexes tools still have other refinements for a more comfortable fit during use. The tools are very durable and often have course and fine cutting areas. It is clear to me after close study of these tools that a different mentality fashioned them other than a fully modern man. They saw a rock and fashioned it to be a tool but rarely did they fashion it 100%. It still looks like a rock but is in fact is a very easy to use tool. In modern man we see a piece of flint changed completely to a new form like an American Arrow head, the arrow head no longer resembles the original shape of the raw material it was fashioned from. The modern arrow head is not very durable, so for all the work put into an arrow head it is clear a more deliberate use of ART can be seen. Neanderthal man did not lack art but it is clear they did not see a completely different object from a raw material starting shape. As long as the tool was comfortable and workable Neanderthal man did not add any value in abstract art. These tools can be dated simply by seeing Neanderthal style along with strata and sandstone impregnation on previously worked areas. Please see the tools I collected.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61060647@N04/page2/
Posted by Steve Brackmann on March 27,2011 | 09:19 PM
Good article about Neanderthals.
Posted by Kara on March 19,2011 | 02:30 AM
It's been known for 30 years or more that HS Neanderthalensis had a greater brain capacity than HS Sapiens, and were capable of toolmaking and artwork demanding a jeweller's loupe, as well as making and using bone and flaked stone tools. Why the sudden flurry of revisionism? Perhaps it's about time that the old ideas about HS Neanderthalensis were completely rewritten, with the boffins publicly eating their words. Even if you revise them as being 100% human, the die-hards will stick to their 'subhuman' theory, just as hundreds of Aboriginals were killed in 19thC Australia and many graves robbed to 'prove' Darwin's missing link: after all, if they're subhuman, killing and genocide isn't murder, is it?
Posted by Graham Stitz on December 5,2008 | 07:55 AM
This is interesting. Since my first Anthropology Class all of the "missing links" have been either done away with or modernized to sapian speciae. This means that Pilt Down, Java, Peking, et al. were personifications and imaginations. Poor science at best. Now I am reading that Neanderthal were actually sapien. This makes perfect sense if early gene pools diverged rapidly (Australoids, Negriods, Mongoloids, etc.) I am glad that Evolutionary and Anthropoligical Scientists are finally coming clean. ( I will miss brontosaurus though....)
Posted by Spencer on December 4,2008 | 07:49 PM