54 Scientific American, February 2022Luka Mjedaeroded, which we think may be the result
of the talons having been tied together
with a binding such as sinew. Other
marks, including notches cut into some
of the talons, support the hypothesis that
these talons were strung into some kind of ornamental object—
probably a necklace or bracelet or perhaps a rattle.
We know from the duplication of right second talons in this
assemblage that the eight talons and foot bone came from at least
three different white-tailed eagles. In the Paleolithic, as in mod-
ern times, eagles were the largest aerial predators around. Their
rarity in the landscape would have made them difficult prey to
catch. It therefore seems unlikely this was a random collection
of eagle feet.
Instead these remains signal that the Krapina Neandertals had
some kind of specialized hunting strategy. Although single talons
have turned up at other Neandertal sites and probably served as
pendants, no other Neandertal site has yielded eight talons from
the same archaeological level.
The eagle talons are not the only sign of symbolic behavior
among the Krapina Neandertals. The site has also yielded a unique
rock with starburstlike inclusions that went undescribed until
Radovˇcic noticed it while inventorying the collection. Formed of ́
mudstone dating to the Middle Triassic epoch, the rock could not
have originated in the Krapina rockshelter, which is composed of
sandstone. Rather it seems that a Neandertal collected it from
nearby outcrops of rock to the north of the site. Measuring 92 by
66 millimeters, with a maximum thickness of 17 millimeters, it eas-
ily fits in the hand. Because it shows no signs of surface modifica-
tion or use wear, we can be fairly certain it was not used as a tool.
The rock is remarkable for its numerous dendritic structures,
which are exposed in cross section and longitudinally. The struc-
tures have a three-dimensional appear-
ance and are especially brilliant when
the piece is wet, which increases the con-
trast between the striking black branch-
ing structures and the brown cortex. At
the bottom of the rock a long, curved black feature traverses the
entire lower face with a concentration of dendritic forms in the
midpoint. It is apparently the impression of some kind of fossil-
ized plant stem.
Any modern-day rockhound would collect a rock like this one.
Did a Krapina Neandertal experience that same feeling of wonder
about this uniquely patterned stone when she or he picked it up?
In any case, the object generated enough interest that its discov-
erer brought it home. The collection and curation of this stone
show that Neandertals had an eye for aesthetically pleasing ob-
jects and assigned significance to them.
A partial Neandertal cranium from the site, known as Krapina 3,
provides a different kind of evidence for symbolic behavior. As-
sessed as a female based on its size and comparatively delicate
build, the specimen bears 35 mostly parallel striations that run up
the forehead. The marks show no signs of healing, so we know
they were made after death. Other Neandertal bones from Krapina
exhibit cut marks associated with defleshing related to cannibal-
ism. But the cut marks on Krapina 3 are evenly spaced and differ
from the closely packed criss-crossing butchering marks on these
other specimens from the site. Nor do the cut marks appear to be
the result of trampling of the bones by animals, which would have
left more randomly scattered, overlapping marks.
Sometimes when anthropologists measure bones with calipers,
the instrument can leave marks on the bone. But none of the stan-
dard measurements anthropologists take on skulls involve this part
of the forehead. What is more, we know the cut marks are old be-MUDSTONE ROCK found at Krapina
appears to have been collected by
a Neandertal for its aesthetic appeal.