Neanderthals were not stupid
Neanderthals probably weren't stupid
It has long been thought that one of the reason Homo sapiens eventually dominated the hominid line, colonizing Africa and Europe beginning at around 40,000 years ago and eradicating or out-competing the Neanderthals, was that they were technologically advantaged. The idea was that because H. sapiens had better stone tool technologies, they had the edge, so to speak, on their Neanderthal cousins who already occupied the lands H. sapiens were migrating into.
This sort of explanation, perhaps, is easily believed whether one wants to accept it or not since H. sapiens are us and we do, after all, have a not-so-proud history of simply taking the lands we need from those less advanced or capable.
The Dim-Witted Cave Man?
I ♥ My ♣
It’s also been a common preconception that Neanderthals = “cave men,” which carries the cultural connotation of being stupid or of diminished wit, bringing to mind the humorous television commercials produced by Geico and the thousands of magazine and newspaper cartoons over the years that depicted cave men in various antics, the most prevalent theme being, perhaps, clubbing a cave woman over the head and taking her home.
However, new information has come to light with a study published today in the Journal of Human Evolution in which researchers in experimental archaeology spent three years producing flakes, stone tools created through the process of flintknapping in which cores of stone are shaped through percussion and pressure to manufacture tools like blades, axes, scrapers, and points.
The production of three years worth of flakes and blades, the former used by Neanderthals and the latter by Homo sapiens, allowed the researchers to gather statistical data on the quantities of tools, amounts of produced cutting-edges, durability of cutting-edges, and efficiency of the tools. The empirical data allowed the researchers to conclude that the difference in stone tool technology used by the H. sapiens vs. the Neanderthals offered no technological advantage.
The lead author of the paper in the J. of Human Evolution, Metin Eren of the University of Exeter, remarked:
Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals. It is time for archaeologists to start searching for other reasons why Neanderthals became extinct while our ancestors survived. Technologically speaking, there is no clear advantage of one tool over the other. When we think of Neanderthals, we need to stop thinking in terms of ’stupid’ or ‘less advanced’ and more in terms of ‘different.’
The University of Exeter in the U.K. offers the only degree in Experimental Archaeology in the world. The other researchers on the project were from Southern Methodist University and Texas State University as well as the Think Computer Corporation.
I’ve been watching for the article, but it doesn’t seem to have made it to online publication just yet even though it’s slated for today. It’ll be interesting to see just what, specifically, the differences are between cutting edges of flakes versus blades.
Regardless, this sort of research is always great since it eliminates assumptions, which, when wrong, are bad since they lead archaologists down the wrong path. If blade technology wasn’t the clear advantage H. sapiens had over Neanderthals, then the question becomes, “what, then, caused the Neanderthals to go extinct and why were H. sapiens more adapted to deal it? Or could H. sapiens simply not have faced the same pressures at all?”
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
H. Sapiens also used flake-only techs in many places and probably Neanderthals also used blades at some point (Amoudian, later Chatelperronian too). It doesn’t seem this issue is truly central, except in the particular case of the colonization of Europe by people of Aurignacian culture.
While it’s possible that Aurignacian tech particularly offered some advantages to our ancestors over Neanderthal-made Chatelperronian (or whatever other techs they used elsewhere), there are other possible reasons why H. sapiens became eventually advantaged over Neanderthals. These range from greater flexibility to exploit marginal resources by AMHs to high-mortality epydemics affecting the natives. The most thought-provoking explanation I have read though is that of Clive Gamble, who studied the spatial use of both species and concluded that Neanderthals used much smaller portions, maybe because H. sapiens had developed greater gender-based division of labor, allowing male hunters to exploit much wider areas without having to care for kids.
It’s not that they were stupid, they surely were not, but it does seem that both species had different strategies, different behavioural patterns and possibly our ancestors showed greater versatility. Generalists, wide-range resource users normally win.
For what it’s worth, there’s also an interesting article in the most recent National Geographic on this exact subject (the cover story even!). I’m assuming it’s a little dumbed down for us non-archaeologist types, but it’s got pretty pictures and is an interesting read.
[...] It has long been thought that one of the reason Homo sapiens eventually dominated the hominid line, colonizing Africa and Europe beginning at around 40,000 years ago and eradicating or out-competing the Neanderthals, was that they were technologically advantaged. The idea was that because H. sapiens had better stone tool technologies, they had the edge, so to speak, on their Neanderthal cousins who already occupied the lands H. sapiens were migrating into. <Read More of this Post> [...]