Abstract
We analyze a radius bone fragment of a raven (Corvus corax) from Zaskalnaya VI rock shelter, Crimea. The object bears seven notches and comes from an archaeological level attributed to a Micoquian industry dated to between 38 and 43 cal kyr BP. Our study aims to examine the degree of regularity and intentionality of this set of notches through their technological and morphometric analysis, complemented by comparative experimental work. Microscopic analysis of the notches indicate that they were produced by the to-and-fro movement of a lithic cutting edge and that two notches were added to fill in the gap left between previously cut notches, probably to increase the visual consistency of the pattern. Multivariate analysis of morphometric data recorded on the archaeological notches and sets of notches cut by nine modern experimenters on radii of domestic turkeys shows that the variations recorded on the Zaskalnaya set are comparable to experimental sets made with the aim of producing similar, parallel, equidistant notches. Identification of the Weber Fraction, the constant that accounts for error in human perception, for equidistant notches cut on bone rods and its application to the Zaskalnaya set of notches and thirty-six sets of notches incised on seventeen Upper Palaeolithic bone objects from seven sites indicate that the Zaskalnaya set falls within the range of variation of regularly spaced experimental and Upper Palaeolithic sets of notches. This suggests that even if the production of the notches may have had a utilitarian reason the notches were made with the goal of producing a visually consistent pattern. This object represents the first instance of a bird bone from a Neanderthal site bearing modifications that cannot be explained as the result of butchery activities and for which a symbolic argument can be built on direct rather than circumstantial evidence.
Highlights
Neanderthals’ cognitive abilities are a hotly debated topic
Paleogenetic data demonstrating a significant interbreeding between Neanderthals, Modern Humans, and Denisovans [43,44,45,46,47] show that differences in cognition, if any, did not prevent members of these populations from recognizing each other as desirable mates, and securing successful social integration and reproduction of hybrids
Layer III differs from the other layers of Zaskalnaya VI for the relatively high number of bird remains
Summary
Neanderthals’ cognitive abilities are a hotly debated topic. Opinions differ radically between those who think that Neanderthal cognition was comparable in many, if not all respects, to that of contemporaneous and present day Modern Humans [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16], and those who believe that differences in cranial morphology [17,18,19,20], ontogenesis [21,22,23,24], physiology [25,26,27], and behaviour [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42] support a different cognition. Paleogenetic data demonstrating a significant interbreeding between Neanderthals, Modern Humans, and Denisovans [43,44,45,46,47] show that differences in cognition, if any, did not prevent members of these populations from recognizing each other as desirable mates, and securing successful social integration and reproduction of hybrids. Such an outcome would arguably be unlikely in the face of major cognitive differences and if, for example, language was absent [13,48]. Complex and changing lithic technologies, hafting techniques, varied hunting strategies enabling Neanderthals to kill dangerous game and exploit a variety of marine [49,50] and plants resources [51,52,53,54,55], established ability to ignite and control fire [56], and organisation of living space, are among the innovations that are recognized as inherent to Neanderthal cultures in various regions of Europe, before any contact with Modern Humans [4,8,9,14,57,58]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
