Evolution And History

210 CHAPTER 9 | The Global Expansion of Homo sapiens and Their Technology

groups.^13 This would mean that the two forms are of a sin-

gle species, rather than separate ones. Others, of course,

argue that features interpreted as Neandertal-like might

instead be related to this child’s “chunky” build.^14

Scientists supporting the hypothesis that Neandertals

are members of the species Homo sapiens suggest that the

simplest explanation that accounts for all the evidence is

that all of these fossils belong to a single varied population,

with some individuals showing more typical Neander-

tal features than others. This accords with archaeological

evidence that the intellectual abilities of “late Neandertals”

were no different from those of “early moderns.”^15

The Cultural Evidence

Just as it is difficult to find evidence in the physical or

mental makeup of Neandertals that would have prevented

them from leading a typical Upper Paleolithic way of life,

so too are there problems with using technology to dis-

tinguish Neandertals from their contemporaries. The

Mousterian tool kits were used by Neandertals and ana-

tomically modern humans alike during the Middle Paleo-

lithic. At the time of the Upper Paleolithic transition, the

latest Neandertals of Europe developed their own Upper

Paleolithic technology (the Châtelperronian) comparable

to the industries used by anatomically modern H. sapiens.

No earlier than 36,500 years ago,^16 a new Upper Paleolithic

technology, known as the Aurignacian tradition—named

after Aurignac, France, where tools of this sort were first

discovered—appeared in Europe (Figure 9.3).

Though commonly considered to have spread from

southwestern Asia, a recent reanalysis failed to sustain this

idea, suggesting instead that the Aurignacian is a distinc-

tively European development.^17 Skeletal remains are rarely

associated with Aurignacian tools, although anatomically

modern humans are generally considered the makers of

these tools. A notable exception to this notion is the cen-

tral European site of Vindija, Croatia, where Neandertals

are associated with an Aurignacian split-bone point.^18

Some argue that the Upper Paleolithic technology of the

Neandertals was a crude imitation of the true technological

If we think in terms of varied populations, as seen in
living humans today,^12 we find that features reminiscent
of modern humans can be discerned in some of the lat-
est Neandertals. A specimen from Saint Césaire in France,
for example, has a higher forehead and the presence of a
chin. A number of other Neandertals, too, show incipient
chin development as well as reduced facial protrusion and
smaller brow ridges. Conversely, the earliest anatomically
modern human skulls from Europe often exhibit features
reminiscent of Neandertals (see Chapter 8). In addition,
some typical Neandertal features such as the occipital
bun are found in diverse living populations today such as
Bushmen from southern Africa, Finns and Saami from
Scandinavia, and Australian Aborigines. Accordingly, we
might view the population of this region between 30,000
and 40,000 years ago as a varied one, with some individu-
als retaining a stronger Neandertal heritage than others, in
whom modern characteristics are more prominent (Fig-
ure 9.2). If all these groups were members of the same spe-
cies, gene flow would be expected, and individuals would
express a mosaic of traits.
A mix of modern and Neandertal features is so strong
in a child’s skeleton recently found in Portugal as to lead
several specialists to regard it as clear evidence of hy-
bridization, or successful reproduction between the two

Neandertal Anatomically modern

ca. 40,000

to 70,000

yrs. ago

ca. 30,000

to 40,000

yrs. ago

After

30,000

years ago

XX

Average

characteristics

of Europeans

at: AB

Figure 9.2 Graphically portrayed here is a shift in average
characteristics of an otherwise varied population over time from
Neandertal to more modern features. Between 30,000 and
40,000 years ago, we would expect to find individuals with
characteristics such as those of the Saint Césaire Neandertal
(A) and the almost (but not quite) modern Cro-Magnon (B).

(^12) Gould, S. J. (1996). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to
Darwin (pp. 72–73). New York: Harmony.
(^13) Holden, C. (1999). Ancient child burial uncovered in Portugal. Science
283, 169.
(^14) Tattersall, I., & Schwartz, J. H. (1999). Hominids and hybrids: The place
of Neanderthals in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science 96 (13), 7117–7119.
(^15) d’Errico, F., et al. (1998). Neandertal acculturation in Western Europe?
Current Anthropology 39, 521.
(^16) Zilhão, J. (2000). Fate of the Neandertals. Archaeology 53 (4), 30.
(^17) Clark, G. A. (2002). Neandertal archaeology: Implications for our origins.
American Anthropologist 104 (1), 50–67.
(^18) Karavani, I., & Smith, F. H. (2000). More on the Neanderthal problem:
The Vindija case. Current Anthropology 41, 839.
Aurignacian tradition Tool-making tradition in Europe
and western Asia at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic.