Neanderthals did not make jewelry after all

Oct 19, 2010
Neanderthals may have made jewelry after all
Tools previously thought to have been fashioned by later Neanderthals

(PhysOrg.com) -- The theory that later Neanderthals might have been sufficiently advanced to fashion jewellery and tools similar to those of incoming modern humans has suffered a setback. A new radiocarbon dating study, led by Oxford University, has found that an archaeological site that uniquely links Neanderthal remains to sophisticated tools and jewellery may be partially mixed.

The study, published in the early online version of the journal PNAS, suggests that the position of key finds in the archaeological layers of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure in France may not be trustworthy. The research team, from the UK and France, dated material from the site and discovered their radiocarbon ages were extremely variable and did not correspond with the expected sequence indicated by the excavated archaeological layers. The Grotte du Renne has 15 archaeological layers, covering a depth of about four metres spanning periods from the Mousterian to the Gravettian periods.

For decades scholars have debated the extent of cognitive and behavioral development in Neanderthals before they disappeared from Europe about 30,000 years ago. Neanderthals are the most recent, extinct modern human relative. We have a from around 700,000-800,000 years ago and recent work in decoding the Neanderthal shows we share between one to four per cent of their DNA.

One pivotal period is around 35,000-40,000 years ago when the earliest dispersed into Western Europe. Finds made in the 1950s and 1960s at the Grotte du Renne site have provided persuasive evidence to suggest either that Neanderthals developed a more modern type of behaviour before modern human dispersal, developing their own complex ornaments and tools, or that they mimicked the behavior of the modern humans that they encountered after their arrival. Over the years the site has yielded 29 Neanderthal teeth and a piece of ear bone from a Neanderthal skull in the same archaeological levels as rings made of ivory, awls, bone points, pierced animal teeth, shell and ivory pendants. The finds were recovered from three archaeological levels (VII, IX, X) associated with the Châtelperronian industry, a tool culture thought to have evolved from the earlier Neanderthal, Mousterian industry.

For this study, researchers from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit analysed 59 remains of cut-marked bones, horse teeth smashed by humans, awls, ornaments fashioned from animal teeth and mammoth ivory tusks from six key archaeological levels of the site. They included the three Châtelperronian levels (VIII, IX and X) and the Aurignacian level with material derived from modern humans in level VII. Thirty-one new radiocarbon dates were obtained: the oldest material in the Aurignacian level was dated at around 35,000 years ago, but when the researchers dated materials from the lower Châtelperronian levels they discovered many of the ages were hugely variable, with some much younger and several at about the same age as dates from the Aurignacian level. The most serious chronological problems were in the oldest part of the Châtelperronian layer (X) where more than a third of the radiocarbon ages were outside the ranges expected.

Lead author Dr Thomas Higham, Deputy Director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said: ‘Our results confirm that material has moved up and down and is out of sequence in the Châtelperronian levels. We think that there has probably been some physical disturbance which has disrupted the proper sequence of the layers. This means that any chronological interpretation from this site should be viewed with extreme caution.

‘Our study raises questions about the link between Neanderthals and the tools and jewellery found in the Châtelperronian levels. This site is one of only two in the French Palaeolithic that seems to show a link between ornaments and Neanderthal remains. This has previously been interpreted as indicating that were not intellectually inferior to modern people but possessed advanced cognition and behaviour. Our work says there is a big question mark over whether this link exists.’

Explore further: Radar search to find lost Aboriginal burial site

Related Stories

Scientists redate Neanderthal fossils

Jan 05, 2006

Scientists say two Neanderthal fossils excavated from Vindija Cave in Croatia in 1998 may be 3,000-4,000 years older than originally thought.

New research suggests Neanderthals weren't stupid

Jan 11, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Neanderthals used makeup and jewellery challenging the idea that they were cognitively inferior to early modern humans, according to research published in the Proceedings in the National Ac ...

How modern were European Neandertals?

Aug 25, 2006

Neandertals were much more like modern humans than had been previously thought, according to a re-examination of finds from one of the most famous palaeolithic sites in Europe by Bristol University archaeologist, ...

Neanderthals more advanced than previously thought

Sep 21, 2010

For decades scientists believed Neanderthals developed `modern' tools and ornaments solely through contact with Homo sapiens, but new research from the University of Colorado Denver now shows these sturdy ...

Recommended for you

Radar search to find lost Aboriginal burial site

Jul 22, 2014

Scientists said Tuesday they hope that radar technology will help them find a century-old Aboriginal burial ground on an Australian island, bringing some closure to the local indigenous population.

Archaeologists excavate NY Colonial battleground

Jul 19, 2014

Archaeologists are excavating an 18th-century battleground in upstate New York that was the site of a desperate stand by Colonial American troops, the flashpoint of an infamous massacre and the location of the era's largest ...

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DavidMcC
5 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
"... we share between one to four per cent of their DNA."
Eh? I thought we shared more than that with a banana!
Also, I thought our split with Neanderthals occurred at only about 450KY ago, but maybe that's been updated.
furlong64
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
Yeah, that DNA figure means we're more closely related to asparagus than Neanderthals. Someone mistyped.
gopher65
5 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2010
I think they meant that humans have about 1-4% of Neanderthal specific gene sequences encoded in our DNA, not that our DNA is 1-4% similar. That wouldn't make sense. because our DNA is nearly identical to Neanderthal DNA if you're comparing that percent measurement (which is silly, because it doesn't tell you very much).
jjoensuu
2.3 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2010
if Neanderthals really share like one-to-four percent of their DNA with us, could that be just coincidental code similarities? I mean that maybe they are actually not related to us at all.

Perhaps Neanderthals share more code with some other species? Like pumpkins.
NameIsNotNick
5 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2010
Our DNA contains 1-4% of sequences unique to Neanderthals indicating that they may have interbred with humans. Our DNA, however, is 99.7% identical to theirs.
http://news.natio...na-gene/
__o
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2010
couldn't it be that they were too smart to wear jewelry? i mean really? is that a sign of advanced thinking or some sort of disorder? hanging bits of rock and bone from body parts maybe didn't occur to them..
xznofile
4 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2010
jewelry & clothing is a cultural badge among H sapiens. Interesting that it's not among Neanderthals, just conjecture of course but consider they may have had had no tribal concept & were totally egalitarian. likewise, humans have unwittingly appended sexual hierarchy to group affiliation that makes us fight in groups.