Neanderthals and the earliest ‘plastic’ handles

February 2024 was a notable month for discoveries about ancient technology: first that of an ancient tool probably used in rope making and now signs of the use of a composite ‘plastic’ material in stone-tool hafts. Both are from Neanderthal sites in France, the first dated around 52 to 41 ka and the second in the Le Moustier rock shelters of the Dordogne – the type locality for the Mousterian culture associated with Neanderthals (Schmidt, P. et al. 2024. Ochre-based compound adhesives at the Mousterian type-site document complex cognition and high investment. Science Advances, v. 10, article ead10822; DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adl0822), dated at around 56 to 40 ka. The second discovery resulted from the first detailed analysis of unstudied artifacts unearthed from Le Moustier in 1907 by Swiss archaeologist Otto Hauser that had been tucked away in a Berlin Museum.

Patrick Schmidt of the University of Tubingen in Germany and colleagues  from Germany, the US and Kazakhstan identified stone artifacts that show traces of red and yellow colorants. At first sight it could be suggested that they are decorations of some kind. However, they coat only parts of the stone flakes and are sharply distinct from the fresh rock surface and the sharpest edges. Another feature discovered during chemical analysis is that the colour is due to iron hydroxides (goethite) but this ochre is mixed with natural bitumen: the coating is a composite of an adhesive and filler not far different from what can be purchased in any hardware store.

LEFT: Stone flake from the Le Moustier site in France, partly coated with a reddish iron-rich colorant. RIGHT: Experimental stone flakes with 55:44 mix of goethite and bitumen (top) and pure bitumen (bottom) being handled. (Credit: Schmidt et al. Figs 1A, 3).

The authors tested the properties of the mixtures against those of bitumen alone – an adhesive known to have been used along with various tree resins to haft blades to spears in earlier times. In particular they examined the results of ‘cooking’ the substances. Whether unheated or ‘cooked’ a mixture of ochre and bitumen is up to three times stronger than pure bitumen. A further advantage is that the mixed ingredients are not sticky when cooked and cooled, whereas bitumen remains sticky, as the illustration clearly shows. Anyone who has handled a stone blade realises how sharp they are, and not just around the cutting edges. So Schmidt and colleagues tried to use the composite material as a protective handle when stone flake tools were gripped for cutting or carving. The composite handles worked well on scrapers and blades, even in the softer, ‘uncooked’ form

Similar composite adhesives are known from older sites in Africa associated with anatomically modern humans, but not for this particular, very practical use. It is perhaps possible that the use of bitumen mixed with ochre was brought into Europe by AMH migrants and adopted by Neanderthals who came into contact with them. Yet the limestones of the Dordogne valley yield both bitumen in liquid and solid forms, and ochers are easily found because of their striking colours. Long exposure of petroleum seeps drives off lighter petroleum compounds to leave solid residues that can be melted easily to tarry consistency. So there is every reason to believe that Neanderthals developed this technology unaided. As Schmidt has commented, “Compound adhesives are considered to be among the first expressions of the modern cognitive processes that are still active today”.

Seven thousand years of cultural sharing in Europe between Neanderthals and modern humans

Two years ago material excavated from the Bacho Kiro cave in Bulgaria revealed that anatomically modern humans (AMH) had lived there between 44 and 47 ka ago: the earliest known migrants into Europe. Bacho Kiro contains evidence of occupancy by both Neanderthals and AMH. This discovery expanded the time over which Europe was co-occupied by ourselves and Neanderthals. The latter probably faded from the scene as an anatomically distinct group around 41 to 39 ka, although some evidence suggests that they lingered in Spain until ~37 ka and perhaps as late as 34 to 31 ka in the northern Ural mountains at the modern boundary of Europe and Asia. For most of Europe both groups were therefore capable of meeting over a period of seven to eight thousand years.

Aside from interbreeding, which they certainly did, palaeoanthropologists have long pondered on a range of tools that define an early Upper Palaeolithic culture known as the Châtelperronian, which also spans the same lengthy episode. But there have been sharp disagreements about whether it was a shared culture and, if so, which group inspired it. Evidence from the Grotte du Renne in eastern France suggests that the Neanderthals did abandon their earlier Mousterian culture to use the Châtelperronian approach early in the period of dual occupancy of Europe.

Dated appearances in France and NE Spain of Neanderthal fossils (black skulls), Châtelperronian artefacts (grey circles) and proto-Aurignacian artefacts (white squares) in different time ‘slots’ between 43.4 and 39.4 ka. (Credit: Djakovic et al., Fig. 3)

Igor Djakovic of Leiden University in the Netherlands , Alastair Key of Cambridge University, UK, and Marie Soressi, also of Leiden University have undertaken a statistical analysis of the geochronological and stratigraphic context of artefacts at Neanderthal and AMH sites in France and NW Spain during the co-occupancy period (Djakovic, I., Key, A. & Soressi, M. 2022. Optimal linear estimation models predict 1400–2900 years of overlap between Homo sapiens and Neandertals prior to their disappearance from France and northern Spain. Scientific Reports, v. 12, article  15000; DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-19162-z). Their study is partly an attempt to shed light on the ‘authorship’ of the novel technology. The results suggest that the Châtelperronian (Ch) started around 45 ka and had disappeared by ~40.5 ka, along with the Neanderthals themselves. Early AMH artefacts are known as proto-Aurignacian (PA) and bear some resemblance to those of Châtelperronian provenance. The issue revolves around 3 conceivable scenarios: 1. the earliest AMH migrants brought the PA culture with them that Neanderthals attempted to copy, leading to their Ch tools; 2. Neanderthals independently invented the Ch methodology, which AMH adopted to produce PA artefacts; 3. both cultures arose independently.

Djakovic and colleagues have found that the data suggest that the proto-Aurignacian first appeared in the area at around 42.5 ka. Maps of dated human remains and artefacts for six 400-year time ranges from 43.4 to 39.4 ka show only Neanderthal remains and Châtelperronian artefacts from the earliest range (a in the figure). Two sites with proto-Aurignacian artefacts appears in NW Spain during the next ‘slot’ (b) then grow in numbers (c to e) relative to those of Châtelperronian provenance, which are not present after 40 ka (f) and neither are Neanderthal remains. These data suggest that local Neanderthals may have made the technological breakthrough before the appearance of the AMH proto-Aurignacian culture, which supports scenario 2 but not 1. They also suggest that the sudden appearance of Ch in France and Spain and the abandonment of earlier Neanderthal artefacts known as Mousterian could indicate that the Ch culture may have been introduced by Neanderthals migrating into the area, perhaps from further east where they may have been influenced by the earliest known European AMH in Bulgaria: i.e. tentative support for 1 or 2.

However, well documented as Djakovic et al.’s study is, it considers only 17 sites across only a fraction of Europe and a mere 28 individual artefacts each from Neanderthal and AMH associations (56 altogether). More sites and data are bound to emerge. But the study definitely opens exciting new possibilities for cultural ‘cross fertilisation’ as well as the proven physical exchange of genetic material: the two seem very likely to go hand-in-hand. Seven thousand years (~350 generations) of mutual dependence on the resources of southern Europe surely signifies too that the initially distinct groups did not engage in perpetual conflict or ecological competition, as with small numbers of both one or the other would have been extinguished within a few generations.

 See also: Devlin, H. 2022. Neanderthals and modern humans may have copied each other’s tools. The Guardian, 13 October 2022; Davis, N. 2020. Humans and Neanderthals ‘co-existed in Europe for far longer than thought’. The Guardian, 11 May 2020.