The best-known Middle Paleolithic tool industry is the Mousterian, which many anthropologists closely associate with the Neandertals. Nevertheless, Mousterian artifacts have occasionally been also found with the remains of early modern H. sapiens (although H. sapiens remains are more frequently found associated with Upper Paleolithic tool industries). It is because of this archaeological overlap that it wasn’t entirely clear until the DNA evidence came in whether the central Asian remains were actually Neandertal. Early in the last glacial episode, Mousterian culture extended across Europe and North Africa into the former Soviet Union, Israel, Iran, and as far east as central Asia and possibly even China. Also, in sub-Saharan Africa, the contemporaneous Middle Stone Age industry is broadly similar to the Mousterian.
Technology
One of the most significant Middle Paleolithic technological innovations was the composite tool, which was developed in Africa as early as the Lower-to-Middle Paleolithic transition, 300,000–200,000 ya. When a Lower Paleolithic hominin used a hand axe, cleaver, or flake tool, it was entirely handheld but when a Middle Paleolithic toolmaker picked up a tool, chances are the business end of that implement was embedded in a handle and held in place by glue, leather bindings, or friction. Some researchers hypothesize that composite tools marked a significant step forward in other ways, too; their existence clearly implies that hominins had begun to master and communicate complex behavioral sequences. Archaeologist Stanley Ambrose (2001) argues that these complex toolmaking abilities may have coevolved with grammatical language. Both require fine motor skills and the ability to solve problems and plan complex tasks, and both are controlled by adjacent areas of the human brain. Viewed from this perspective, it is no accident that subsequent to the invention of composite tools, the pace of cultural change began to accelerate. Most Middle Paleolithic stone tools were based on flakes that had been struck from cores and chipped into their final form. Common flake tools include several kinds of scrapers; points for making composite tools such as thrusting spears and knives; and denticulates, which are deeply notched flakes that have a serrated appearance. Middle Paleolithic stone toolmakers also developed the discoid technique, which enabled a more efficient use of raw material than the Levallois. They trimmed a flint nodule around the edges to form a disk-shaped core. Each time they struck the edge, they drove off a flake toward the center of the core. The flake struck by the discoid technique wasn’t preshaped like a Levallois flake, but this technique did make it easier for the toolmaker to get more usable flakes from a given core.
A hafted scraper. Composite tools consist of a haft or handle, the working part of the tool (here, a stone scraper), and binding or glue to hold it firmly in place.
While Middle Paleolithic peoples developed many specialized tools for skinning and preparing meat, hunting, woodworking, and hafting, they made little use of bone, antler, and ivory as raw materials. This resource use pattern is in striking contrast to that of the Upper Paleolithic, in which these and other materials were commonly used. Nevertheless, Middle Paleolithic technological advances undoubtedly contributed significantly to the remarkable cultural changes of the Upper Paleolithic
Subsistence
We know, from the abundant remains of animal bones at their sites, that Neandertals and other Middle Paleolithic premodern humans were successful hunters, but many archaeologists characterize them as “generalized” hunter-gatherers, which means that they ate many different kinds of animals and plant foods and didn’t specialize on just a few species as staple foods. Researchers question if they were hunter-gatherers in the same sense as some Upper Paleolithic groups, who focused much of their hunting on a few big game species. These are reasonable questions because it wasn’t until the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic that such long distance weaponry as the spear- thrower, or atlatl, came into use , followed later by the bow and arrow.
Middle Paleolithic hunting technology was mostly limited to thrusting spears. Consequently, hunters may have been more prone to serious injury—a hypothesis supported by paleoanthropologists Thomas Berger and Erik Trinkaus.
Berger and Trinkaus (1995) analyzed the pattern of trauma, particularly fractures, in Neandertals and compared it with that seen in modern human samples. Interestingly, the Neandertal pattern, which included a relatively high proportion of head and neck injuries, was most similar to that seen in contemporary rodeo performers. Berger and Trinkaus concluded that “the similarity to the rodeo distribution suggests frequent close encounters with large ungulates unkindly disposed to the humans involved” (Berger and Trinkaus, 1995, p. 841).
Speech and Symbolic Behavior
There are a variety of hypotheses concerning the speech capacities of Middle Paleolithic premodern humans, and many of these views are contradictory. Some researchers argue that Neandertals were incapable of human speech. But the prevailing consensus has been that they were capable of articulate speech and likely fully competent in producing the full range of sounds used by modern humans. However, recent genetic evidence may call for a reassessment of just when fully human language first emerged (Enard et al., 2002). In humans today, mutations in a particular gene (locus) are known to produce serious language impairments. From an evolutionary perspective, what’s perhaps most significant concerns the greater variability seen in the alleles at this locus in modern humans as compared to other primates. One explanation for this increased variation is intensified selection acting on human populations, and as you’ll see shortly, DNA evidence from Neandertal fossils shows that they had already made this transformation. But even if we conclude that Neandertals could speak, it doesn’t necessarily mean that their abilities were at the level of modern Homo sapiens
Today, paleoanthropologists are quite interested in the apparently sudden expansion of modern H. sapiens , and they’ve proposed various explanations for this group’s rapid success. Also, as we attempt to explain how and why modern H. sapiens expanded its geographical range, we’re left with the problem of explaining what happened to the Neandertals. In making these types of interpretations, a growing number of paleoanthropologists suggest that behavioral differences are the key.
Researchers have suggested that Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens had some significant behavioral advantages over Neandertals and other premodern humans. Was it some kind of new and expanded ability to symbolize, communicate, organize social activities, elaborate technology, obtain a wider range of food resources, or care for the sick or injured—or was it some other factor? Were the Neandertals limited by neurological differences that may have contributed to their demise? The direct anatomical evidence derived from Neandertal fossils isn’t much help in answering these questions. Ralph Holloway (1985) has maintained that Neandertal brains—at least as far as the fossil evidence suggests—aren’t significantly different from those of modern H. sapiens. What’s more, as we’ve seen, Neandertal vocal tracts (as well as other morphological features), compared with our own, don’t appear to have seriously limited them.
Burials
Anthropologists have known for some time that Neandertals deliberately buried their dead. Undeniably, the spectacular discoveries at La Chapelle, Shanidar, and elsewhere were the direct results of ancient burial, which permits preservation that’s much more complete. Such deliberate burial treatment goes back at least 90,000 years at Tabun. From a much older site, some form of consistent “disposal” of the dead—not necessarily belowground burial—is evidenced: At Atapuerca, Spain, more than 700 fossilized elements (representing at least 28 different individuals) were found in a cave at the end of a deep vertical shaft. From the nature of the site and the accumulation of hominin remains, Spanish researchers are convinced that the site demonstrates some form of human activity involving deliberate disposal of the dead (Arsuaga et al., 1997).
The recent redating of Atapuerca to more than 400,000 ya suggests that Neandertals—more precisely, their immediate precursors—were, by quite early in the Middle Pleistocene, handling their dead in special ways. Such behavior was previously thought to have emerged only much later, in the Late Pleistocene. As far as current data indicate, this practice is seen in western European contexts well before it appears in Africa or eastern Asia. For example, in the premodern sites at Kabwe and Florisbad , deliberate disposal of the dead is not documented. Nor is it seen in African early modern sites—for example, the Klasies River Mouth, dated at 120,000–100,000 ya . Lest too much be read into such acts, it’s important to remember that humans have lots of reasons to bury their dead. The act of burial and the meaning assigned to it are entirely cultural. Humans invented the concept of burying the dead (along with many other ways of getting rid of bodies), just as they invented all the different ways that we think about the dead. And as Paul Pettitt (2011, p. 5) describes it, “for most of the Palaeolithic what we define as ‘burials’ were probably very different to what we in the modern world think of as burials.” The act of burial, even in the Middle Paleolithic, may have sometimes reflected shared beliefs, symbolic behavior, compassion, or status; at other times, it was just a quick and easy way to dispose of a smelly corpse. Since these two extremes represent very different acts, the problem that nags archaeologists is to identify accurately when it’s one thing and not the other In later contexts (after 35,000 ya), where modern H. sapiens remains are found in clear burial contexts, their treatment is considerably more complex than in Neandertal burials. In these later (Upper Paleolithic) sites, grave goods, including bone and stone tools as well as animal bones, are found more consistently and in greater concentrations. Because many Neandertal sites were excavated in the nineteenth or early twentieth century, before more rigorous archaeological methods had been developed, many of these supposed Neandertal burials are now in question. Still, the evidence seems quite clear that deliberate burial was practiced at several localities. In many cases, the body’s position was deliberately modified and placed in the grave in a flexed posture (see p. 265).
Finally, as further evidence of Neandertal symbolic behavior, researchers point to the placement of supposed grave goods in burials, including stone tools, animal bones (such as cave bear), and even arrangements of flowers, together with stone slabs on top of the burials. Unfortunately, in many instances, again due to poorly documented excavation, these finds are questionable. Placement of stone tools, for example, is occasionally seen, but it apparently wasn’t done consistently. In those 33 Neandertal burials for which we have adequate data, only 14 show definite association of stone tools and/or animal bones with the deceased (Klein, 1989). It’s not until the Upper Paleolithic that we see a major behavioral shift, as demonstrated by more elaborate burials and the development of art.
Summery of Neanderthal Culture
The culture of Neandertals is designated as Mousterian culture of middle Paleolithic. Mousterian is named after a cave, Le Mousteir in France. The culture is characterized by following features:
(1) Mousterian Tool Making: The flake industry of the Mousterian tool technology always accompanied Neandertal skeletal remains. This flake industry contains various types of shapes, notened or denticulate flakes and few forms that might have seemed as boring or engraving tools. Further, a variety of tools for maintenance activity in keeping weapons and shelters in repair, tool kits involved in the killing and butchering of animals and for food processing have also been discovered.
(2) Cave dwelling: As the ice sheet from Scandinavian highlands advanced into the plains of Northern Europe in the late Pleistocene epoch, people now took to living systematically in caves. The caves were made more comfortable for winter dwelling by covering it with stretched hides. Fire was regularly lit both for warming and for cooking. Several caves reveal distinct hearth places with remains of charcoal.
(3) Winter Clothing: In certain areas (Combe Grenal), bone needles have been recovered, which prove beyond doubt that Neandertals made tailored for clothing. Clothing became very essential due to the severe glacial climate.
(4) Bear – Cult: The Neandertals seem to have developed a cult of bears,judging from the manner in which the remains of these animals have been handled. In a number of excavated caves (Regourdon in France), the skulls of bears in large numbers have been placed in a rectangular-lined pit, covered with an enormous stone slab. The big brown bear thus became an object of great reverence to the Neandertals.
(5) Human – Burials: Evidence for international human burials have been unearthed. Sometimes, the burials are single, at other times they are multiple suggesting a family cemetery. In most cases, the bodies are accompanied by burial offerings. A flint tool kit is often placed with the dead man. Food offerings, such as cooked joints of animals may also have been made. Shanidar cave in Iraq shows the skeletal remains of handicapped man in a bed of flowers.
(6) Language: Language development in Neandertal is doubtful. Poor development of pharynx show their inability to pronounce vowels.
(7) Society and Religion: Group activities such as hunting, migration may have led to the formation of nomadic society with inter personal relationship. This may have paved the way for leadership and political system. To keep society in harmony some sort of religion must have been appeared. Ritualistic burials are a testimony to this fact.
(8) Neandertal’s Philosophy: Neandertals perhaps had awareness of dignity of individuals and inter dependence of individual and society. La-Chappelle-aux-Saints man had severe arthritis and Shanidar I had undergone surgical operation of right hand. But, both survived to maturity. Shanidar IV was laid to rest with eight varieties of flowers. These instances indicate Cannersion of man as an animal species into man as a human being. After going through the different aspects of Neandertal’s physical and cultural traits, we can say that he represents a mixture of primitive and modern traits which makes him a very complex human group, similar and different from us at the same time