fossils that can be classified as H. erectus are found up to about 300,000 years ago to 200,000, depending on the classifiers' opinions
H. erectus
(or something similar) was apparently in Europe before 780,000 BP
evidence becomes more frequent after 500,000 BP
somewhere between 400,000 and 200,000 BP, variants began to appear with larger brains, rounder crania, and other features that suggest a trend towards modern humans
often called "archaic Homo sapiens"
highly variable from place to place in Africa, Europe, and Asia
1200 cc mean cranial capacity
but retain many erectus traits
some, like those from Atapuerca, Spain, have some traits that seem to be leading in the direction of the Neanderthals
this would mean that the Neanderthal features were already developing in at least one population by 200,000 BP
although not everyone agrees that these are really antecedents to Neanderthals
By about 130,000 BP, most or all of the people living in Europe were relatively similar, sharing the "Neanderthal" pattern
large brains, average about 1500 cc, range 1245 - 1740 cc
modern humans average 1400 cc, range 1000 - 2000 cc
rounded, "inflated" or barrel-shaped cranium
massive brow ridges (but with hollow sinuses, not solid like H. erectus)
large, puffy face, as if pulled forward from the cranium
huge, wide, beaky nose
small molars, but large incisors
often with heavy wear on incisors, sometimes with cutmarks on the front of the incisors
chunky proportions, large joints, heavy muscle attachments: built like tanks
much stronger bones
much stronger muscles
also less surface area / volume
receding (no) chin
there is debate about whether they were able to make all the sounds necessary for full, modern speech, and whether their brain anatomy indicates that they could speak or not
Although African and Asian populations were also grading into archaic H. sapiens, they did not have all the distinctive Neanderthal traits
Neanderthals seem to be a sub-category (sub-species?) that was limited to Europe
maybe graded into archaic H. sapiens towards the east
physically apparently adapted to extremely cold conditions
large face, nose, sinuses, breathing passages positioned further forward from the brain than in modern sapiens
all probably helped to warm air before introducing it to the trunk
and better insulated the brain
chunky body proportions reduce surface area relative to body volume, which reduces heat loss through radiation from the body's surface
there were Neanderthals in Europe up to about 35,000 years ago, maybe as recently as 28,000 years ago -- and therein lies a tale
modern Homo sapiens probably first arose from archaic H. sapiens in Africa around 100,000 BP
and were present in the Levant (Palestine/Israel/western Syria) almost that early, probably between 100,000 and 92,000 BP
but they did not appear in Europe until around 40,000
BP, although the evidence and dates for this period are thin and debatable (most of the evidence is from stone tool types, not human bones)
so what happened to the Neanderthals, especially those that were around tens of thousands of years after modern H. sapiens appeared?
were they the ancestors of modern Europeans?
were they replaced by more modern humans who moved in from the east?
which would make them an extinct side branch with no lasting impact on human evolution
interesting, but not relevent to the origins of our physical type, cognitive abilities, or culture
or was it something in between, in which more modern types arose elsewhere and interbred with the Neanderthals they encountered in Europe?
this would make modern Europeans, if not all humans, a mix of genes that were selected for in differing populations in Africa, Europe (and Asia)
and would mean that Neanderthal biology and culture are directly relevent to understanding ourselves
Before we look at their demise, let's look at Neanderthal culture
Mousterian tool industry
AKA "Middle Paleolithic" or "Middle Stone Age" ("MSA") industry
emphasized tools made from modified (retouched) flakes
vs. Acheulean and Oldowan that focussed more on the cores as tools
emphasized control of flake production
vs. Acheulean and Oldowan that just knocked off flakes and picked the suitable ones
Levallois technique of shaping core for a controlled flake
core is carefully shaped into a "turtle-back" or "hamburger bun" form
flake is struck off from the edge of the "bun", parallel to the flat side
flake comes off in a pre-planned shape
one side has the convex part of the "bun"
the other is the single flake surface where it popped off the core
the flake is then modified into the desired tool form
the core has to be re-shaped before striking off the next flake
Disk core technique for producing many flakes efficiently from a single core
core shaped like a thick hockey puck
flakes struck off perpendicular to the flat surface
flake length controlled by thickness of the "puck", width controlled by diameter of the "puck" and how far in from the edge the blow hits
the knapper (person flaking the stone) knocks off flakes all around the edge of the "puck", spiraling in as the diameter gets smaller and smaller
The result of these methods was to produce a lot more cutting edge per pound of material than did earlier techniques (Fagan p. 103)
Many tools were definitely meant to be hafted, as in spear and arrow points
microwear studies confirm that some flakes were hafted
Several (four?) distinct assemblages or "tool kits" found in different levels at Combe Grenal, analyzed by Francois Bordes
1- assemblage includes many small handaxes
2- assemblage includes lots of heavy side scrapers
3- assemblage includes a lot of denticulate tools (scalloped, notched, sawtoothed edges)
4- assemblage includes a fairly even mix of the above
Bordes thought these represented four distinct cultural groups that stayed separate and used sites at different times
Lewis and Sally Binford suggested that they were used for different activities, possibly by a single group at different times of the year
Rolland and Dibble suggested that they simply represent different stages of a "reduction continuum"
that is, when material is plentiful and/or not many tools are needed, they are discarded as soon as they get dull or break
leaving an assemblage with a lot of large core tools and large flake tools
if material is more scarce or lots of tools are needed, they keep reusing them, resharpening flakes and knocking off flakes from cores
leaving an assemblage with more flakes, retouched (sharpened) flakes, and smaller cores
they claim that the four variant assemblages are just different positions along a continuum of less to more intensive use of the material
and that the assemblages with the smallest tools indicate the most intensive tool use
and that the whole process would be heavily influenced by particular circumstances, activities, material availability, etc.
hunting
although debated, the evidence is good that Neanderthals were accomplished hunters
many sites have great quantities of bone from just one or two prey species
not what you expect if they were scavenging
animals were often adults in their prime
scavengers tend to get mostly the very young and very old
in some sites, the bones from the meaty limbs are overrepresented
what you expect if hunters have first pick and take the best parts home
but in other sites, the poorer foot bones and other second-choice parts predominate, so the pattern here is unclear
lots of Neanderthals have injuries today associated with rodeo performers
and they tended to die young, none living past 40 or 45
Evidence of care for sick, old, injured individuals
Neanderthal burials include some individuals with incapacitating injuries, who nevertheless lived a long time after them
thus presumably cared for by others
La Chapelle-aux-Saints
old male (45) with incapacitating arthritis of jaw, back, hip, and almost no teeth
Shanidar
Shanidar I suffered a blow to the left temple, crushing the orbit
possibly blind in that eye
probably partially paralyzed on that side, leading to atrophy of right arm and ankle
yet lived long enough for healing and atrophy to occur
but Katherine Dettwyler argues that injured or partially disabled primates often survive without help...
Ritual, art, etc.
almost none
no cave art, no figurines, no carvings
none of that until modern H. sapiens appears
although much of this early expressiveness is found without any bones associated, so it is often just assumed that modern sapiens was responsible
many complete skeletons suggest that they probably buried their dead
maybe just to get rid of the dead, avoid unpleasantness of decay, avoid attracting scavengers
or maybe indicating some emotional or ritual behavior
presentation on Shanidar burials by Christine Love
Fate of the Neanderthals
by 30,000 to 28,000 BP, there were no more Neanderthals or even Neanderthal-like people in Europe
all the people were modern H. sapiens
So what happened to the Neanderthals
did they suddenly die out?
were they replaced by somehow superior modern H. sapiens immigrants?
did they rapidly evolve into modern H. sapiens?
did they interbreed, mix with immigrant H. sapiens, to the point where their unique traits got diluted and dispersed in a resulting modern-looking population?
we actually have few fossils from this period, but the pattern seems to be confirmed by the disappearance of the Mousterian lithic industry from sites around this time
this style of tools was clearly associated with Neanderthals in earlier periods
the Mousterian industry was replaced by the Aurignacian industry
which is associated later with H. sapiens
and, just as there is little time for biological evolution and few transition fossils, there is no sign of a transition from Mousterian to Aurignacian tools, just an abrupt change.
Qafzeh and Mt. Carmel (Israel)
from at least 92,000 to 40,000 BP, both Neanderthal-like and modern sapiens are found
a heterogeneous, blending, evolving population?
or two separate ones in the same area?
or two separate ones in different areas, with the boundary shifting back and forth over time?
Europe
Neanderthals up to about 35,000, maybe 28,000 BP
first modern sapiens around 40,000
based on a few bones, mostly on tool types
"Aurignacian" tool industry associated with modern sapiens
quite different from Mousterian
no gradual transition between the two
but due to lack of fossils, only the latest Aurignacian tools have actually been found with H. sapiens bones
so maybe Neanderthals made the the earlier types...
maybe the early Aurignacian was made by evolving Neanderthals, not early immigrant moderns
problem: even if the overlap isn't real, there just isn't much time for a big evolutionary change to occur
i.e. not enough time for Neanderthals to evolve into modern H. sapiens
but there might be time for a lot of interbreeding with an immigrant modern population
whether there are any Neanderthal genes (technically, "derived Neanderthal characteristics", ones that evolved after Neanderthals diverged from other populations) is still a hotly debated question