Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Anthropology

<OpenstaxH3><OpenstaxEm>Homo neanderthalensis</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The word “Neanderthal” might conjure up stereotypical images of a brutish caveman-like creature holding a club in one hand and dragging supper with the other. No one said entertainment had to be scientifically accurate, but media can create false perceptions and stereotypes about the past. This section takes a closer look at who the <OpenstaxTerm>Neanderthal</OpenstaxTerm> people were and the role they played in the human story.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00009" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/5a0b6dec4c8d13c4c276b197a181afb26f10aabb" alt="Site locations and territory appear in Europe, the Middle East, and an interior portion of Asia." mediaType="image/png" width="1817" height="823" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="1817">
	Figure 5.20 Distribution map of Neanderthal sites. The red squares mark locations of Neanderthal remains and the shaded area represents the supposed territory of Neanderthal people in Europe and Asia. (credit: modification of work Neanderthal distribution by Berria/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Neanderthals have been found only in regions of Europe and the Middle East and are dated to between about 400,000 and 40,000 years ago. The first fossils, which were found in the Neander Valley, were believed to be the remains of an extinct kind of human. The Germans called them the Neanderthals, the people of the Neander Valley.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00010" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/8e73ecab8a33b8f5b7db7d7d4ead1cbce8afe027" alt="(Left) A Neanderthal skull, displaying a short chin and rounded shape. (Right) A Homo Sapien skull, displaying a sharp, pronounced chin and an elongated shape." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="1127" height="500" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="1127">
	Figure 5.21 The Neanderthal skull on the left is noticeably different from the H. sapiens skull on the right. (credit: (left) Jose-Manuel Benito/Locutus Borg/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain; (right) “Image from page 27 of “Human physiology” (1907)” by Furneaux, William S/Internet Archive Book Images/flickr, Public Domain)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Neanderthals possess several distinctive anatomical characteristics: the skull and brain is larger than that of humans, with an average size in Neanderthals of 1,520 cc compared to modern humans’ 1200–1400 cc. Does the Neanderthal’s larger brain size mean that it was more intelligent than modern humans? As mentioned earlier in this chapter, while there does seem to be a correlation between brain size and complex cognitive skills, the brain in some hominins may have been organized differently than that of modern humans, with different anatomical areas of the brain emphasized. It is believed that in the Neanderthal brain, the frontal region, which is the center of speech and language, was less developed, while the back of the brain, which deals with the senses, was more developed. This greater development in the back area of the brain could be a survival adaptation found in Neanderthals who had to hunt in often harsh and difficult conditions.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Philip <OpenstaxTerm>Lieberman</OpenstaxTerm>, a cognitive scientist at Brown University, argues that Neanderthals lacked the anatomy necessary for humanlike speech. He drew this conclusion based on a reconstruction of a Neanderthal throat, which indicated that the neck could not accommodate the vocal apparatus of modern humans (Lieberman,P. 2007). While there is evidence of a hyoid bone, a small horseshoe-shaped bone in the front of the neck, that would have been able to anchor the tongue muscles, other anatomical evidence suggests that the larynx in Neanderthals was placed high in the throat. A highly placed larynx limits an animal’s ability to produce many sounds, such as vowels. In humans, the larynx is positioned further down into the throat. The Neanderthal has been determined to have possessed the gene <OpenstaxTerm>FOXP2</OpenstaxTerm>, which is linked to the ability to understand complex language, but the verdict is still out as to whether they were able to produce complex language. It is believed by some researchers that the ability to produce complex speech gave <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> a significant edge over the Neanderthal.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Other skull characteristics of the Neanderthal include an occipital bun at the back of the skull (as also seen in <OpenstaxEm>H. antecessor</OpenstaxEm> and <OpenstaxEm>H. erectus</OpenstaxEm>), large brow ridges (which are not solid bone and create an air cavity), a large nasal cavity, and incisors that show a rounded pattern of wear, especially in older individuals. Their large front teeth typically show excessive wear. Chipping and pitting on the incisors are believed to have been caused by chewing on leather. The postcranial bones show that they had a broad scapula, which indicates that their rotator cuff muscles were well developed. They possessed a robust humerus with a massive head and the ability to rotate their arms, which suggests they were capable of throwing projectiles and using spears.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Some of the best-known Neanderthal specimens come from a place called <OpenstaxTerm>Shanidar Cave</OpenstaxTerm> in Iraq. Within this cave, various skeletal remains of eight individual Neanderthals were found. These remains are identified as <OpenstaxTerm>Shanidar 1–9</OpenstaxTerm>, which were discovered between 1957 and 1961, and <OpenstaxTerm>Shanidar 10</OpenstaxTerm>, which was discovered in 2006. Nearly all the skeletal remains show some evidence of trauma, suggesting that hunting was risky business. At various Neanderthal sites it has been observed that men and women exhibit similar cranial injuries, suggesting that women might have also engaged in hunting activities. However, the number of injuries in women were significantly fewer than those found in men (Beier et al. 2008). In a comparative study, it was established that during the Upper Paleolithic, modern <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> sustained similar injuries as the Neanderthal, but interestingly, these injuries were less likely to result in death (Beier et al. 2008).
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Shanidar 3 features a 40-to-50-year-old Neanderthal man who suffered a rib injury, potentially as the result of an encounter with an animal, and suggests healing as a result of care from others. Shanidar 1, called the “Old Man” (30–45 years old was old in Neanderthal terms), had multiple traumas to his body, one of which resulted in blindness in one eye. He was also missing the lower part of his right arm and hand, which suggests the earliest amputation on record. Although he did heal from this amputation, it may have left him paralyzed on the right side of his body. He also had no teeth. It is believed he was kept alive by taking food that had been chewed by others for him. There is evidence of many of these individuals healing from their injuries, which suggests that compassion and a sense of social responsibility for disabled members of the community existed.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00011" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/409b8aea4472cba2d38511065a5dd9dbfc2a0e1f" alt="View of a hillside with a large cave opening." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="533" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	Figure 5.22 This cave is the site of the Shanidar 4 Neanderthal flower burial site. Evidence found here and at other sites indicates that the Neanderthal practiced intentional burials of their dead. (credit: “Shanidar Cave, Iraqi Kurdistan” by Sammy Six/flickr, CC BY 2.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>The Flower Burial Hypothesis</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The remains found at <OpenstaxTerm>Shanidar 4</OpenstaxTerm> in Iraq suggest that the Neanderthal practiced <OpenstaxTerm>intentional burials</OpenstaxTerm>, or deliberate placing of the dead in a ritualistic manner. At Shanidar 4, the individual is placed on his left side with his legs drawn up in a flexed position. Pollen analysis of the soil surrounding the corpse suggests that spring flowers had been placed in the grave, possibly indicating that the Neanderthal had a belief in an afterlife and established mortuary practices. However, there has been a lot of debate as to whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that that the pollen found at some of the Neanderthal sites was a result of ritualistic placement of flowers. Opposing hypotheses propose that the pollen was brought into the cave and deposited by burrowing rodents (Sommer 1999). In spite of these counterclaims, the consensus supports the theory that the Neanderthal did practice intentional burials. This is largely based on evidence such as the careful placement of bodies in specially dug shallow pits. Recent research at both Shanidar Cave and other sites now support the claim that the Neanderthal did practice ritual and intentional burial.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00012" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/f65526ed66759125939b38577a69c1a93799c8b4" alt="Reconstruction of bones embedded in dirt." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="533" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	Figure 5.23 This reconstruction of a Neanderthal grave is housed in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. (credit: “Neanderthal Burial, Cast” by Gary Todd/flickr, Public Domain)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>Neanderthal Creativity and Material Culture</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Neanderthals have been labeled, perhaps unjustly, as a species with a limited ability to communicate in symbolic or abstract forms. Until recently, the Neanderthal had been assumed to lack the cognitive skills associated with the practice of ritual and art. However, <OpenstaxTerm>cave paintings</OpenstaxTerm> discovered in Spain in 2012 by Alistair Pike, an archaeologist at the University of Southampton, UK, challenge that assumption. These paintings, which have been dated to around 65,000 years ago, before the arrival of <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> in the region, have been determined to be the creative works of the Neanderthal and are currently considered the oldest cave art ever found. This discovery may change what people have previously thought about Neanderthal cognition and their ability to express symbolic thought. It should be acknowledged that the ability to depict the world evident in these paintings does not compare with that in the artwork from <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> sites like Chauvet and Lascaux in France (to be discussed later in this chapter).
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Neanderthals created more technologically advanced tools than those produced by <OpenstaxEm>H. erectus</OpenstaxEm> and seen in the Acheulian tool industry. The tool industry associated with the Neanderthal hominins is called the <OpenstaxTerm>Mousterian tool industry</OpenstaxTerm> or the Middle Paleolithic tool industry. Archeological sites that date to the Neanderthal period are dominated by <OpenstaxTerm>flake tools</OpenstaxTerm>. This means that the Neanderthal struck flakes from cores and then used the flakes as their tools instead of the core. This resulted in smaller and sharper tools with increased utility.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>What Happened to the Neanderthal? What Gave Modern Humans the Edge?</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The Neanderthal went extinct around 35,000 to 50,000 years ago. There have been various hypotheses as to what caused this, many connected to the fact that Neanderthal coexisted with <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> in regions of Europe and Asia for an estimated 2,600–5,400 years. These hypotheses include an inability to adapt to a changing climate and colder temperatures, the spread of disease, competition for food with <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm>, and even aggressive takeover by the <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm>, who may have been better able to adapt to environmental changes due to more complex technology and language skills. Another theory points to evidence that the Neanderthal tended to live in small, scattered groups with limited genetic diversity and low birth rates, which potentially impacted the ability of the Neanderthal to be competitive. A low gene pool can result from reduced birth rates and low survival rates of young children. New genetic evidence shows that the Neanderthal were genetically less diverse and more isolated than <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens.</OpenstaxEm> And then some argue that the Neanderthal didn’t go extinct at all because some people still have Neanderthal genes in them.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Are You a Neanderthal?</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Recent genetic evidence indicates that <a href="https://openstax.org/r/the-scientist">human-Neanderthal interbreeding</a> was happening as far back as 125,000 years ago. From one Neanderthal toe bone found in the Denisova cave in Siberia Russia, the Max Planck institute has been able to produce a whole genome which revealed evidence of inbreeding amongst the Neanderthal, along with interbreeding with their cousins the Denisovans (discussed further in next section), as well as a mystery yet to be identified species, as well as <OpenstaxEm>Homo sapiens</OpenstaxEm> (Pennisi, E., 2013). The genetic evidence is most prominent in people of East Asian descent, accounting for between 2.3 percent and 2.6 percent of their DNA. Various mutations and diseases are linked to this <OpenstaxTerm>Neanderthal DNA</OpenstaxTerm>, including diabetes, addictions, depression, allergies, and Crohn’s disease. One study suggests that Neanderthal genes gave people some level of protection from getting a severe case of COVID-19 (Huber, J., 2018), although a later study (Zeberg and Pääbo 2020) proposes that Neanderthal genes may have increased the risk of respiratory failure as a result of the COVID-19 virus. Such differences may have to do with different genetic clusters in Neanderthal populations in different geographical regions (Mortazavi et al. 2021). Neanderthal genes are believed to have provided immunity to some viruses that <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens,</OpenstaxEm> arriving from Africa, would not have had time to build up an immunity against. On the reverse side, <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> may have brought diseases from Africa that the Neanderthal did not have resistance to, possibly playing a role in their extinction. As Janet <OpenstaxTerm>Kelso</OpenstaxTerm>, a computational biologist at the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, states, “Viral challenges, bacterial challenges are among the strongest selective forces out there” (Akst, 2019).
</OpenstaxParagraph>

5.3.4 Rethinking the Neanderthal

1 What Is Anthropology?

1.1 The Study of Humanity, or "Anthropology Is Vast"

1.1.1 The Heart of Anthropology: Central Narrative and Commitments

1.1.2 Central Commitment #1: Exploring Sociocultural Diversity

1.1.3 Central Commitment #2: Understanding How Societies Hold Together

1.1.4 Central Commitment #3: Examining the Interdependence of Humans and Nature

1.2 The Four-Field Approach: Four Approaches within the Guiding Narrative

1.2.1 Biological Anthropology

1.2.2 Archaeology

1.2.3 Cultural Anthropology

1.2.4 Linguistic Anthropology

1.2.5 How the Four Fields Work Together: The Example of Race

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

1.3.1 Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

1.3.2 Primitivism and Orientalism

1.4 Western Bias in Our Assumptions about Humanity

1.4.1 Primitivism and Orientalism in Popular Culture

1.4.2 The Bias of Backwardness

1.5 Holism, Anthropology’s Distinctive Approach

1.5.1 Society as an Integrated Whole

1.5.2 Sources of Contradiction, Conflict, and Change

1.6 Cross-Cultural Comparison and Cultural Relativism

1.6.1 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

1.6.2 Morality, Activism, and Cultural Relativism

1.7 Reaching for an Insider’s Point of View

1.7.1 The Challenge of Representing Others

1.7.2 Collaborative Methods of Representation

1.7.3 Working across Cultures toward Common Goals

1.7.4 Suggested Readings

2 Methods: Cultural and Archaeological

2.1 Archaeological Research Methods

2.1.1 Archaeological Techniques

2.1.2 Archaeological Dating Methods

2.2 Conservation and Naturalism

2.2.1 Early Efforts

2.2.2 Salvage Anthropology

2.2.3 Museum Collections

2.2.4 Interpretation and Voice

2.3 Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.1 The Development of Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.2 Perspective and Interpretation in Ethnography

2.4 Participant Observation and Interviewing

2.4.1 Participant Observation

2.4.2 Interviewing Informants

2.4.3 Ethical Considerations

2.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

2.5.1 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Information

2.5.2 Modeling

2.5.3 The Science of Anthropology

2.6 Collections

2.6.1 Archives

2.6.2 Three-Dimensional Collections

2.6.3 Ownership

2.6.4 Suggested Readings

3 Culture Concept Theory: Theories of Cultural Change

3.1 The Homeyness of Culture

3.2 The Winkiness of Culture

3.3 The Elements of Culture

3.3.1 Culture Is What We Make

3.3.2 Culture Is What We Do

3.3.3 Culture Is What We Think

3.4 The Aggregates of Culture

3.4.1 Symbols

3.4.2 Ritual

3.4.3 Social Structure

3.5 Modes of Cultural Analysis

3.5.1 Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism

3.5.2 Functionalism

3.5.3 Structuralism

3.5.4 Ontology

3.6 The Paradoxes of Culture

3.6.1 Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes

3.6.2 Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile

3.6.3 Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested

3.6.4 Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies

3.6.5 Suggested Readings

4 Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

4.1 What Is Biological Anthropology?

4.1.1 Looking to the Deep Past

4.1.2 Exploring What It Means to Be Human

4.2 What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy

4.2.1 Defining the Science of Taxonomy

4.2.2 Defining a Species

4.3 It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution

4.3.1 The Units of Life

4.3.2 Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity

4.3.3 Mendelian Inheritance in Humans

4.4 Evolution in Action: Past and Present

4.4.1 Early Evolutionists and the Fixity of Species

4.4.2 Charles Darwin’s Role in Changing Views of the Natural World

4.4.3 Understanding Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

4.5 What Is a Primate?

4.5.1 What Is a Primate?

4.5.2 Primate Behavioral Variation

4.5.3 Explaining Primate Success

4.5.4 Primate Classification and Taxonomy

4.6 Origin of and Classification of Primates

4.6.1 Understanding Concepts of Time

4.6.2 Fossils and Dating Methods

Question	Answer
evidence of placing the dead in a specific manner, suggesting ritualistic practice.	intentional burials
a complex stone tool technology largely associated with the Neanderthal.	Mousterian tool industry