View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 2 of 40 provided by Keele Research Repository Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 Homo neanderthalensis and the evolutionary origins of ritual in Homo sapiens 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,2,* 3 4 5,6 11 Mark Nielsen , Michelle C. Langley , Ceri Shipton & Rohan Kapitány 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Early Cognitive ForDevelopment Review Centre, School Only of Psychology, University of 22 23 24 25 Queensland, Australia 26 27 28 2. Faculty of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, South Africa 29 30 31 32 3. Australian Research Centre for Evolution, Environmental Futures 33 34 35 Research Institute, Griffith University, Australia 36 37 38 39 4. Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, College of Asia 40 41 42 and the Pacific, Australian National University, Australia 43 44 45 46 5. School of Psychology, Keele University, U.K. 47 48 49 6. School of and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, U.K. 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 *Author for correspondence: [email protected], +61 7 3365 6805 57 58 59 60

1 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 3 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 For Review Only 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

2 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 4 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 Abstract 5 6 7 There is a large, if disparate, body of archaeological literature discussing specific 8 9 10 11 instantiations of symbolic material culture and the possibility of ritual practices in 12 13 14 populations. Despite this attention, however, no single synthesis exists 15 16 17 18 which draws upon cognitive, psychological, and cultural evolutionary theories of 19 20 21 ritual. Here we reviewFor the evidence Review for ritual-practice Only among now extinct Homo 22 23 24 25 neanderthalensis, as well as the necessary cognitive pre-conditions for such 26 27 28 behaviour, in order to explore the evolution of ritual in Homo sapiens. We suggest 29 30 31 32 that the currently available archaeological evidence indicates that may 33 34 35 have utilised ‘ritualisation’ to increase the successful transmission of technical 36 37 38 39 knowledge across generations — providing an explanation for the technological 40 41 42 stability of the Middle Palaeolithic and attesting to a survival strategy differing from 43 44 45 46 near contemporary Homo sapiens. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Keywords: symbolism; Palaeolithic; Neanderthal; behaviour; cognition; over- 57 58 59 imitation. 60

3 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 5 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 Introduction 5 6 7 Modern human lives are filled with rituals, from the secular act of blowing out 8 9 10 11 candles on a birthday cake, to the overtly religious, such as performing Islamic salat. 12 13 14 Rituals, owing to their ubiquity and embeddedness, can be prominent or invisible, 15 16 17 18 and our engagement with them may be fleeting or profound. Today rituals serve a 19 20 21 variety of purposes: TheyFor bring Review people together Onlyto form coherent, co-operative 22 23 24 25 groups (1, 2), they may serve signalling and trust functions (3-5), they can reduce 26 27 28 individual or collective anxieties (6, 7), and they play a role in the recall and 29 30 31 32 transmission of important cultural knowledge (8, 9). While rituals in Homo sapiens 33 34 35 appear ubiquitous today, it’s not clear when they began to serve these roles in the 36 37 38 39 evolutionary past of the genus Homo. As a first step towards exploring the extents of 40 41 42 our common heritage of ritualised behaviours, here we review possible instances of 43 44 45 46 ritual-like behaviour in our evolutionary cousins: Homo neanderthalensis. 47 48 49 50 51 52 Who were our cousins? 53 54 55 56 The common ancestor of hominins and chimpanzees existed around 6 million 57 58 59 years ago; while Homo sapiens, and our relatives, the Neanderthals (Homo 60

4 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 6 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 neanderthalensis) share a common ancestor who lived in the early Middle 5 6 7 , 800-400 ka (10, 11). Though our chimpanzee relatives continue to exist 8 9 10 11 (somewhat precariously), Neanderthals disappeared approximately 40,000-years- 12 13 14 ago (12). Just as evaluation of chimpanzee cognition and behaviour can shed light 15 16 17 18 on human origins, so too can comparisons between the archaeological record of 19 20 21 near contemporary HomoFor sapiens Review and Neanderthals. Only What, then, do we know about 22 23 24 25 the potential for ritual behaviours in our cousins? Let us first provide a sketch of what 26 27 28 we know about their social and cognitive proclivities. 29 30 31 32 Having populated Europe and the Middle East between about 300,000 and 33 34 35 40,000 years BP, before being displaced by Homo sapiens, Neanderthals left an 36 37 38 39 extensive — if patchy — record of their lifeways. Neanderthal groups employed 40 41 42 various mobility strategies (13-15), and used a formal stone technology which 43 44 45 46 represents an increase in hierarchical complexity over that of their 47 48 49 forebears (16, 17). This stone technology was part of a wider techno-complex which 50 51 52 included bone, claws, wood, shell, and adhesive components, with tools appearing 53 54 55 56 to be more diverse and task-specific (in some cases) than those of the Acheulean 57 58 59 (18-20). 60

5 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 7 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 Neanderthal hunting strategies involved coordinated effort (21). For example, 5 6 7 at Mauran (dating to MIS 3) in the foothills of the French Pyrenees, there is evidence 8 9 10 11 that Neanderthal groups corralled migratory bison into natural geographic traps 12 13 14 where they were slaughtered en masse, butchered, and parts taken for consumption 15 16 17 18 (22). This site was used for several hundred years, suggesting the maintenance of 19 20 21 specialised, region specificFor techniques, Review through Onlythe transmission of adaptive cultural 22 23 24 25 knowledge, and an understanding of collective intentionality (see also 23, 24). 26 27 28 The presence of interregional variation in Neanderthal biface traditions 29 30 31 32 similarly indicates the transmission of cultural knowledge between generations (25), 33 34 35 with the technological continuity of the a feature of the Eurasian Middle 36 37 38 39 Palaeolithic (26). This technological stability, relative to near contemporary Homo 40 41 42 sapiens, is the subject of debate (27), with recent research suggesting that a 43 44 45 46 predominance of high fidelity imitation without much experimentation in Neanderthal 47 48 49 social learning may explain the technological stability (28, see also 29, 30, 31). 50 51 52 Neanderthals, then, were expert hunter-gatherers living in a variety of environments, 53 54 55 56 who transmitted cultural knowledge over tens of thousands of years. But did they 57 58 59 have the capacity for ritual, as we understand it in our own species? 60

6 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 8 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ritual and ritual actions 8 9 10 11 For the purposes of our endeavour here, we distinguish ‘ritual’ and ‘ritualistic 12 13 14 action’ and acknowledge the challenges of applying contemporary standards and 15 16 17 18 definitions that often rely on behaviour and belief to archaic contexts in which access 19 20 21 to behaviour and beliefFor can only Review be inferred. In definingOnly ritual, we follow Hobson et 22 23 24 25 al. (2018) in taking it to be: ‘(a) predefined sequences characterized by rigidity, 26 27 28 formality, and repetition that are (b) embedded in a larger system of symbolism and 29 30 31 32 meaning, [and] (c) contain elements that lack direct instrumental purpose’ (p. 261). 33 34 35 Element b necessarily requires an associated degree of community, shared 36 37 38 39 knowledge and normativity. A ‘ritualistic action’ is, largely, the behavioural 40 41 42 components of elements (a) and (c): It is an action which is repetitive, redundant, 43 44 45 46 often rigidly or formally performed, and which is causally opaque and goal demoted 47 48 49 (32-37). A ritualistic action is often an element of a larger ritual, but unlike rituals, can 50 51 52 exist in symbolically impoverished contexts. 53 54 55 56 The above two terms, causal opacity and goal demotion, tie into element (c) 57 58 59 regarding instrumental purpose. A causally opaque action is one in which the causal 60

7 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 9 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 relationships between the action and the outcome are difficult for an observer to 5 6 7 discern. For example, heating water over fire is causally transparent (it is possible to 8 9 10 11 perceive how the transit of the property of heat from the fire serves to increase the 12 13 14 temperature of the water); in contrast the process of heating water in a microwave is 15 16 17 18 causally opaque (for most, how the temperature of water increases inside a box that 19 20 21 does not, itself, get hot,For is not intuitivelyReview comprehendible). Only Notably, according to 22 23 24 25 Whitehouse (38), ritual in is irretrievably causally opaque, meaning that 26 27 28 causality in human rituals is not just unknown, but actually unknowable. An 29 30 31 32 archetypical example of this happening is how the performative acts of intercessory 33 34 35 prayer can causally facilitate a channel of communication, and why those actions – 36 37 38 39 and not others – are superior. Not only is a causal answer not known, such an 40 41 42 answer is unknowable. Goal demotion refers to the degree to which a naive observer 43 44 45 46 is challenged in intuiting the motives and goals of the agent performing the action (6, 47 48 49 9, 32, 33). For example, lighting a candle in a dark room is goal apparent (a sensible 50 51 52 and discernible goal is to illuminate the room), whereas lighting a candle in a room 53 54 55 56 that is not dark is goal demoted (the purpose of this action is elusive without context 57 58 59 – for example it is a citronella candle that is being lit to ward off mosquitoes). 60

8 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 10 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 We further distinguish individualistic ritualistic actions from collective ritualistic 5 6 7 actions. The former involve (by degrees) actions that are emancipated from 8 9 10 11 otherwise instrumental purposes, which in the case of the latter, are extended to 12 13 14 become formal, prescriptive, and stylised. In individuals, idiosyncratic individualistic 15 16 17 18 ritualistic actions can arise through mistaken causal beliefs. Wearing underpants has 19 20 21 utility, while wearing a Forspecific Reviewpair for good luck Only is ritualistic (clearly removed by 22 23 24 25 some degree from the purpose underpants are intended to serve, and formalised in 26 27 28 the process). Such a belief need not be correct, shared, or symbolic: it merely 29 30 31 32 requires performance. Similarly, repetitive, formal, and obligatory behaviours that 33 34 35 can feature in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (such as turning a light-switch on and 36 37 38 39 off 13 times) qualify as individualistic ritualistic actions: They are ritualistic, but lack 40 41 42 ‘sharedness’ and symbolism. 43 44 45 46 It is also relevant to note that individual rituals need not be independent of, or 47 48 49 in conflict with, collective rituals. Consider, simpatias: repetitive, causally opaque 50 51 52 ‘formulas’ employed by Brazilians to resolve common problems (e.g., asthma, 53 54 55 56 infidelity, bad luck, etc). In one study (39), novel simpatias that included a religious 57 58 59 icon (e.g., an image of the Virgin Mary – a prominent feature of Brazilian Catholic 60

9 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 11 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 belief systems) were rated as significantly more effective than those which did not. In 5 6 7 this way, individualistic rituals that have unfolded to serve instrumental purposes can 8 9 10 11 be seen to coexist with collective rituals and symbolism. 12 13 14 How individual ritualistic actions can transcend into collective rituals remains 15 16 17 18 undetermined, but the distinction is useful in the context of archaic behaviour, where 19 20 21 individual ritualistic actionsFor (which Review are apparent Onlyacross species) can be viewed as a 22 23 24 25 necessary precursor for collective rituals. These definitions then allow for greater 26 27 28 precision in inferring cognitive capacities. Consider a Western wedding: the 29 30 31 32 predefined, rigid, formal, and repetitive elements typically involve walking down an 33 34 35 aisle (flanked by a segregated audience broadly divided by affiliation), the statement 36 37 38 39 and re-statement of specific vows, the exchange of rings, all done in the presence of 40 41 42 a specific authority. Some aspects of this process could be dropped with little 43 44 45 46 consequence (e.g., walking down the aisle), whereas omitting other aspects could 47 48 49 render the ritual symbolically moot (e.g., failing to exchange rings) or legally invalid 50 51 52 (e.g., the ceremony not being conducted by someone certified to do so). But what 53 54 55 56 motive would a naive observer attribute in observing an exchange of identical rings, 57 58 59 with the prescription they be worn on the fourth digit of the left hand? The condition 60

10 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 12 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 of ‘instrumental’ purpose is important, but is best considered in the context of 5 6 7 ritualistic behaviour where the system of symbolism and meaning are necessary 8 9 10 11 components which serve a similar (if substitute) role as that of causal explanation. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Evidence for Neanderthal ritual 19 20 21 If we seek evidenceFor for Reviewcollective ritualistic Only actions, death-related behaviours 22 23 24 25 are a good place to start. A recent review documented a range of death related 26 27 28 behaviours, across a diversity of primate species, that fall into three broad 29 30 31 32 categories: carrying/dragging of corpses, defending the corpse (individually or as a 33 34 35 group) and/or ‘holding vigil’ and apparent grieving (40). According to this review, 36 37 38 39 many non-human primates display this range of behaviours in response to death. 40 41 42 However, with regard to post-mortem treatment, grief, mourning, and consoling, and 43 44 45 46 other symbolic behaviours, they fall short of human standards (e.g., primates have 47 48 49 rarely been observed consoling grieving group members). In many if not all cases, 50 51 52 their behaviours are examples of individualistic ritual actions, rather than collective 53 54 55 56 ritualistic actions (even if such individualistic actions are performed by conspecifics 57 58 59 simultaneously – there is no documented or asserted evidence for shared 60

11 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 13 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 symbolism). The question, then, is to what extent did Neanderthals display primate 5 6 7 death-related behaviours, and to what extent did they ‘exceed’ them in a human-like 8 9 10 11 way (thus providing evidence for ritual)? 12 13 14 Rituals for disposing of the dead are a significant part of the modern human 15 16 17 18 experience, and intentional burials provide some of the clearest archaeological 19 20 21 evidence for the presenceFor of ritual. Review Chimpanzees Only have been known to place leafy 22 23 24 25 branches on top of bodies of the deceased, though this behaviour is also performed 26 27 28 for dead hetero-specifics, and might be a method for detecting movement (41). In 29 30 31 32 hominins, intentional burial of the dead may date back to 400,000 BP — as 33 34 35 suggested by the Iberian site of Sima de los Huesos (42) — although, currently, 36 37 38 39 evidence is only strong for the last 150,000 years (43). Indeed, the earliest 40 41 42 undisputed evidence for burial is attributed to Neanderthal contexts (43, 44). These 43 44 45 46 burials typically occur in inhabited cave or rockshelter sites, which have been 47 48 49 suggested to reflect an attachment to the dead and a desire to keep them physically 50 51 52 and metaphorically close and safe after they have died (45). For example, at La 53 54 55 56 Ferrassie (Dordogne, ) foetuses and young children were interred, possibly 57 58 59 with grave goods (lithics) (46, 47). 60

12 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 14 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 It is important to note that an apparent preference for burying the dead within 5 6 7 enclosed sites may simply reflect sampling bias — a phenomenon duly noted for 8 9 10 11 Pleistocene records of symbolic behaviour (see 48). Nevertheless, the recurrent 12 13 14 practice of multiple internments at Neanderthal sites, with over 20 individuals 15 16 17 18 represented at some, such as , , and l’Hortus (43), indicates 19 20 21 Neanderthal burial wasFor in certain Review cases at least Onlya repeated, normative, practice. In 22 23 24 25 some instances, rituals are linked to specific places which evoke a sense of 26 27 28 ‘specialness’. The afore-mentioned sites stand out from other caves in yielding 29 30 31 32 remains of unusually large numbers of individuals, suggesting that there might have 33 34 35 been fixed points in the Neanderthal landscape where bodies were processed in 36 37 38 39 mortuary ritual. At Krapina, unusual incisions on a cranium are argued to evoke ritual 40 41 42 treatment of the dead (49). Further, suggestions of Neanderthal grave goods or 43 44 45 46 markers are present (e.g., at , Amud, , Dederiyeh I, La 47 48 49 Chapelle-aux-Saint, La Quina), though unambiguous cases only appear in Homo 50 51 52 sapiens (such as Skhul and Qafzeh and later, in the European Gravettian 53 54 55 56 complexes; 50, 51, 52). Consequently, questions remain surrounding the intentions 57 58 59 of — and involvement of ritual associated with — Neanderthal burial. Nonetheless, 60

13 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 15 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 even if rituals were not a feature of Neanderthal burial, it appears that some of the 5 6 7 socio-cognitive underpinnings of it were, including causal opacity (why keep a dead 8 9 10 11 body close?) and normative action (repeated use of the same cave). 12 13 14 Other evidence which may shed light on Neanderthal propensity for ritual is 15 16 17 18 the extensive record of utilised mineral pigments. It has long been argued that 19 20 21 Neanderthals used redFor and black Review pigments for bodyOnly painting (53-56), and evidence 22 23 24 25 for Neanderthal ornamentation of the body is growing rapidly, with several clear 26 27 28 cases of the use of feathers and claws of raptors and corvids emerging, as well as 29 30 31 32 evidence for the wearing of shell beads with pigment (57-60). This decoration of the 33 34 35 body was arguably at least symbolic and may also have involved ritual behaviours — 36 37 38 39 though access to such an archaeologically invisible behaviour is thus far beyond us, 40 41 42 as is determining how sophisticated the symbolism may have been. Was it part of a 43 44 45 46 shared semi-doctrinal cosmological understanding of gods, or simply a way to 47 48 49 capture attention to attract or intimidate conspecifics? A rare potential instance of 50 51 52 Neanderthal rock art in Iberia lacks the formality of later Homo sapiens rock art in 53 54 55 56 this region: Homo sapiens hand stencils for example are widespread and usually 57 58 59 occur in multiples unlike the isolated Neanderthal example, while Homo sapiens 60

14 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 16 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 imagery is often formal and figurative rather than abstract (59, 61-63). Clear 5 6 7 documentation of collective ritualistic actions in Neanderthals is somewhat elusive; 8 9 10 11 particularly if we accept Whitehouse’s stipulation that collective rituals may be 12 13 14 irretrievably causally opaque. What then, of individualistic ritualistic actions? 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Ritualisation of cultureFor transmission? Review Only 22 23 24 25 While showing greater tool innovation than their Acheulean forebears (29, 64), 26 27 28 Neanderthal groups nonetheless maintained their material culture without significant 29 30 31 32 change in some key elements of lithic technology over tens and even hundreds of 33 34 35 thousands of years (65, 66). What features lead to this stability, and simultaneously, 36 37 38 39 this lack of innovation? We suggest one answer might be the use of ritualistic 40 41 42 actions, incorporated into the transmission of cultural knowledge as part of the 43 44 45 46 Neanderthal survival strategy. 47 48 49 When learning new skills or behaviours, one can embark on a protracted trial- 50 51 52 and-error expedition. Modern Homo sapiens tend not to do this. Rather, we observe 53 54 55 56 others and copy them. Infants can learn how to use novel objects in this way from 57 58 59 the middle of their first year (67, 68). By two years of age, learning by observing 60

15 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 17 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 others intensifies to the extent that children will copy obviously causally irrelevant 5 6 7 actions, in what has come to be known as over-imitation (69-71). 8 9 10 11 For some authors, the foundations of over-imitation can be found in lithic 12 13 14 constructions of the Acheulean (29-31). Critical is that many aspects of Acheulean 15 16 17 18 stone tool construction involve processes in which outcomes are hidden from and/or 19 20 21 are counter-intuitive withFor regard Review to intended outcomes Only (e.g., when manufacturing a 22 23 24 25 biface to remove mass from one surface one needs to strike on the opposite surface) 26 27 28 — which is likely to make the intentions of the action goal demoted (what purpose 29 30 31 32 did the act serve), and – at least to some extent – causally opaque (in what manner 33 34 35 did this action causally produce the overall outcome (72, 73). This requirement 36 37 38 39 renders unlikely that the propagation of this technological process was achieved via 40 41 42 individualistic, independent invention, or other processes of social learning (e.g., 43 44 45 46 emulation). 47 48 49 Over-imitation is increasingly considered the most compelling way in which 50 51 52 the mind (whether that of a modern Homo sapiens child or now-extinct hominins) 53 54 55 56 shows social and cognitive preparedness to engage in ritual (23, 28, 30, 74). In over- 57 58 59 imitation, the sequence of modelled actions includes those that are causally 60

16 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 18 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 irrelevant (e.g., wiping a stick across the top of an unopened box) and the inference 5 6 7 to an intention which is unknown or unavailable (e.g., it is unclear why a stick would 8 9 10 11 be used to prise open a box’s lid when one’s fingers would do). There are some 12 13 14 distinctions: Most commonly, in over-imitation the focus is an external object (in 15 16 17 18 experimental settings, typically a box of some kind) and involves only a demonstrator 19 20 21 and lone observer, whereasFor ritualistic Review actions do Only not always involve objects and are 22 23 24 25 frequently performed in the service of group identification and group bonding (2, 75) 26 27 28 (though such actions would, by definition, leave no material record). Nonetheless, as 29 30 31 32 Nielsen and colleagues have argued (34), in over-imitation, causal opacity and goal 33 34 35 demotion synergistically function to yield unique markers indicating that particular 36 37 38 39 actions are ritualistic, in turn leading them to be reproduced with a starkly increased 40 41 42 frequency from actions that do not share these features. 43 44 45 46 Indeed, ritualistic actions tend to beget an imitative response, in which human 47 48 49 children and adults are predisposed to copy the entire procedure even though they 50 51 52 may recognize some aspects of the action as entirely functionally redundant. The 53 54 55 56 Levallois technology employed by Neanderthals involves more hierarchically 57 58 59 removed steps and chains than most Acheulean knapping sequences (16), so the 60

17 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 19 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 need to surmount causal opacity becomes even more salient. The implication here is 5 6 7 that by the time Neanderthals appeared on the palaeolandscape, they were over- 8 9 10 11 imitators of some aspects of cultural transmission (most visible to us in lithic 12 13 14 technology) and thus, capable of engaging in ritual behaviour. Importantly, over- 15 16 17 18 imitative actions employed during knapping may be causally opaque and initially 19 20 21 unknown, but may ultimatelyFor be Review knowable. That Only is, through extensive engagement 22 23 24 25 and faithful repetition of the construction process, it is feasible that redundant actions 26 27 28 can be identified. In the case of lithic technology, modern experts can explicitly state 29 30 31 32 the purpose of actions several places removed from the ultimate goal in a 33 34 35 hierarchical structure (16). In this sense ritualistic actions (in contrast to 36 37 38 39 Whitehouse’s conception of ritual) are not irretrievably causally opaque, and may 40 41 42 potentially serve as a point of distinction for Neanderthal and Homo sapiens ritual 43 44 45 46 behaviour. Regardless, as engagement with individualistic ritualistic actions 47 48 49 increases, there is a platform for them to be converted into collective ritualistic 50 51 52 actions. In this, children become critical. 53 54 55 56 Hawcroft and Dennell (76) argue that, given Neanderthals spent less time as 57 58 59 juveniles, both relatively and absolutely compared to Homo sapiens, learning the 60

18 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 20 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 prerequisite technological and social skills for adult life would have required the 5 6 7 adoption of directed instructional learning where subadults acquire existing 8 9 10 11 knowledge by imitating their elders, rather than through exploratory, experience- 12 13 14 based learning. Just like Homo sapiens children, Neanderthal neonates were born 15 16 17

18 vulnerable and underwent significant brain growth as they matured (77, 78). Overall, 19 20 21 Palaeolithic Homo sapiensFor juveniles Review appear to haveOnly experienced less stress during 22 23 24 25 their childhood than their Neanderthal counterparts, who had greater juvenile 26 27 28 mortality (79). Debate remains around whether a significant difference in the rate of 29 30 31 32 maturation to adulthood was experienced by Neanderthals (80-83), though it does 33 34 35 appear that patterns of Neanderthal biological and cognitive growth are subtly 36 37 38 39 different from those of contemporary and later Homo sapiens. 40 41 42 The significance of a relatively brief childhood and a faster rate of growth, may 43 44 45 46 imply a lesser ‘volume' of cultural information to acquire. Homo sapiens have a 47 48 49 childhood lasting until aged 8, followed by 4 years of juvenility (84). By contrast (and 50 51 52 for reference), chimpanzees transition from their juvenile phase into adolescence 53 54 55 56 after seven years. During these seven years, chimpanzees, while capable of learning 57 58 59 cultural information, appear limited to acquiring techniques for nut-cracking, termite 60

19 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 21 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 fishing, and other comparatively simple, adaptively-utilitarian behaviours. It is beyond 5 6 7 the scope of the present paper to go into detail, but nonetheless it is worth noting 8 9 10 11 that there are suggestions that the delayed maturation rate of Homo sapiens in 12 13 14 comparison to Neanderthals reflects the need to acquire more, and more diverse 15 16 17 18 social information, as evinced by strategies such as engaging in experimental and 19 20 21 fantasy play in the formerFor (85). Review Indeed, such fantasy Only play may be a key building 22 23 24 25 block for appreciating the opaque causality of ritual in adulthood. 26 27 28 The idea of fantasy play highlights another key point. There are profound 29 30 31 32 neural connections between the cerebellum and the parietal and frontal lobes (86, 33 34 35 87), an interconnectivity that suggests the cerebellum may aid in the process of 36 37 38 39 creative thinking (83, 84); a cognitive prerequisite of fantasy play. The principal 40 41 42 morphological differences were that H. sapiens had relatively larger parietal lobes 43 44 45 46 and a particularly large cerebellum in comparison to Neanderthals (88). According to 47 48 49 Wynn, Overmann and Coolidge (89), this brain re-structuring meant Neanderthals 50 51 52 were very experienced in cognitively managing pragmatic situations through a strong 53 54 55 56 focus on objects and actions while Homo sapiens are less attentive to details but 57 58 59 more able to develop creative solutions and plastically modify their behaviour 60

20 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 22 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 according to needs (90, 91). A shift away from a more functional to a more creative 5 6 7 engagement with objects potentially paved the way for an expansion in symbolic 8 9 10 11 thinking and with it a key building block for appreciating the opaque causality of ritual 12 13 14 in adulthood. 15 16 17 18 Homo sapiens — as a species — also appears to have maintained a large 19 20 21 cultural corpus by sustainingFor large Review social networks, Only in which expertise is both widely 22 23 24 25 shared and occasionally diffuse (92). Neanderthal populations, on the other hand, 26 27 28 are argued to have been smaller and more widely dispersed than subsequent Upper 29 30 31 32 Palaeolithic Homo sapiens (92-95). One possible solution for maintaining a cultural 33 34 35 corpus might have been reinforcing the teaching of key life skills using ritualistic 36 37 38 39 actions (i.e., causally opaque and goal demoted actions) — which may have proven 40 41 42 itself more dependable in the Neanderthal social context. By embedding ritualistic 43 44 45 46 actions alongside corresponding information, individuals can be less likely to 47 48 49 question the authority with which it is given. Neanderthal children, under this 50 51 52 assumption, may have been recipients of knowledge which was a high fidelity copy 53 54 55 56 of that acquired by their parents and other community members. If modern evidence 57 58 59 is applicable, this interpretation would represent an efficient solution, as ritualistic 60

21 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 23 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 actions tend to arouse over-imitation responses, which themselves may also be 5 6 7 more memorable (9), and which may suppress innovation and change. Prevailing 8 9 10 11 views are that modern Homo sapiens children over-imitate primarily to satisfy social 12 13 14 motivations, whether they be for reasons of affiliation or to satisfy a pull towards 15 16 17 18 normativity (23). Our speculation here is that Neanderthals may have over-imitated 19 20 21 solely to satisfy skill acquisitionFor Review motivations. By Onlythis line of reasoning, ritualistic 22 23 24 25 actions may have been present among the Neanderthals, as the cognitive faculties 26 27 28 and corresponding behaviours evolved to serve functional purposes. Only in Homo 29 30 31 32 sapiens were these same faculties and behaviours co-opted to serve social 33 34 35 purposes. This shift between ritualistic action and collective ritual is likely to mark a 36 37 38 39 shift from apparently causally opaque to irretrievably causally opaque (38). Indeed, 40 41 42 it may have been that the larger group sizes of Homo sapiens necessitated the 43 44 45 46 development of stronger social motivations to strengthen in-group cohesion. 47 48 49 There is another aspect to group size that is relevant here, particularly if ritual 50 51 52 behaviour is to not only develop, but sustain in such a way that it leaves detectable 53 54 55 56 traces. We already noted that Neanderthal group sizes may have been small and 57 58 59 widely spread across the Neanderthal territory. This low density population could be 60

22 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 24 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 a likely explanation for the thin evidence for Neanderthal ritual. To be detectable in 5 6 7 the archaeological record, rituals – whether ritualistic, individual, or collective - (like 8 9 10 11 any other topic subject to archaeological scrutiny) require a sufficiently large 12 13 14 population size of individuals engaging in a particular category of behaviour, or a 15 16 17 18 sufficiently large number of cases practiced across time, to increase the likelihood of 19 20 21 discovery. Though speculativeFor Reviewin the historic context, Only it may be the case that the 22 23 24 25 more individuals who engage in a specific behaviour, the more likely it is for that 26 27 28 behaviour to propagate. Not only would this provide a greater number of cases that 29 30 31 32 may leave a record; it also is self-sustaining, as such a tendency acts as a 33 34 35 prophylactic against loss – the greater the number of members of a community who 36 37 38 39 practice something, the less likely it is for that behaviour to be lost in the face of a 40 41 42 catastrophic event (96-98). Our argument is thus that Neanderthals were a ritual 43 44 45 46 animal – capable of individual ritual actions, though not collective in the sense that 47 48 49 they shared symbolism of cosmology - but that there weren’t enough of them in each 50 51 52 individual community for reliable traces of such behaviour to remain in the 53 54 55 56 archaeological record. 57 58 59 60

23 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 25 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 Conclusion 5 6 7 Neanderthals were a co-operative, social, intelligent, tool-using species, which 8 9 10 11 shared recent common heritage with our own lineage and likely displayed a 12 13 14 propensity for over-imitation, and by implication, a capacity for cognition associated 15 16 17 18 with ritualistic action. Yet the evidence that rituals (larger, shared, complexes of 19 20 21 symbolic action and beliefs)For featured Review in their lives Only is neither widespread nor 22 23 24 25 compelling. By the line of reasoning set out here, the lack of evidence for ritual 26 27 28 surrounding symbolic material culture in the Neanderthal record but long-standing 29 30 31 32 continuity within their complex lithic technology may indicate that ritual behaviour 33 34 35 was utilised in a alternative way than by near contemporary and modern Homo 36 37 38 39 sapiens. Neanderthals’ use of ritual and ritualised actions was likely focused on 40 41 42 reinforcing the faithful transmission of technical knowledge across generations under 43 44 45 46 conditions of a relatively short childhood and relatively small social groups. In Homo 47 48 49 sapiens ritual may have initially functioned in a similar way but, underpinned by an 50 51 52 enhanced role for the cerebellum in cognition, was later exapted for reinforcing 53 54 55 56 expansive and diffuse social networks. Such an interpretation would indicate that 57 58 59 ritual in Homo is not a ‘one size fits all’ behaviour — but a social technique which can 60

24 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 26 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 be moulded or applied differently across species. Thus, claims for collective rituals 5 6 7 (corresponding with the psychological and anthropological understanding of cultural 8 9 10 11 rituals) in Neanderthal may be too rich, while a more precise characterization of 12 13 14 ritualized action (also corresponding to psychological and anthropological definitions) 15 16 17 18 might be more useful and more easily defended. 19 20 21 For Review Only 22 23 24 25 References 26 27 28 1. Wilson M. Rituals of Kinship among the Nyakyusa. London: Oxford University 29 30 31 32 Press; 1957. 33 34 35 2. Whitehouse H. Modes of religiosity: a cognitive theory of religious 36 37 38 39 transmission. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira; 2004. 40 41 42 3. Irons W. Religion as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment. In: Nesse RM, editor. 43 44 45 46 Russell Sage Foundation series on trust Evolution and the capacity for commitment. 47 48 49 3. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 2001. p. 290-309. 50 51 52 4. Watanabe JM, Smuts BB. Explaining religion without explaining it away: Trust, 53 54 55 56 truth, and the evolution of cooperation in Roy A. Rappaport's “The Obvious Aspects 57 58 59 of Ritual”. American Anthropologist. 1999;101:98-112. 60

25 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 27 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 5. Henrich J. The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: 5 6 7 Credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evolution 8 9 10 11 and Human Behavior. 2009;30:244-60. 12 13 14 6. Boyer P, Liénard P. Ritual behavior in obsessive and normal individuals: 15 16 17 18 Moderating anxiety and reorganizing the flow of action. Current Directions in 19 20 21 Psychological Science.For 2008;17:291-4. Review Only 22 23 24 25 7. Lang M, Krátký J, Shaver JH, Jerotijević D, Xygalatas D. Effects of anxiety on 26 27 28 spontaneous ritualized behavior. Current Biology. 2015;25:1892-7. 29 30 31 32 8. De Simini F. Of gods and books: Ritual and knowledge transmission in the 33 34 35 manuscript cultures of premodern India. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter; 2016. 36 37 38 39 9. Kapitány R, Kavanagh C, Whitehouse H, Nielsen M. Examining memory for 40 41 42 ritualized gesture in complex causal sequences. Cognition. 2018;181:46-57. 43 44 45 46 10. Endicott P, Ho SY, Stringer C. Using genetic evidence to evaluate four 47 48 49 palaeoanthropological hypotheses for the timing of Neanderthal and modern human 50 51 52 origins. Journal of . 2010;59:87-95. 53 54 55 56 11. Scally A, Durbin R. Revising the human mutation rate: implications for 57 58 59 understanding human evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2012;13:745. 60

26 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 28 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 12. Higham T, Douka K, Wood R, Ramsey CB, Brock F, Basell L, et al. The timing 5 6 7 and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearance. Nature. 2014;512:306. 8 9 10 11 13. Conard NJ. Settlement Dynamics of the Middle and Middle Stone 12 13 14 Age. Tübingen.: Kerns Verlag; 2001. 15 16 17 18 14. Hovers E. Territorial behaviour in the Middle Paleolithic of the Southern 19 20 21 Levant. In: Conard NJ,For editor. SettlementReview dynamics Only of the Middle Paleolithic and 22 23 24 25 Middle . Tübingen: Kerns Verlag; 2001. p. 123-52. 26 27 28 15. Richter J. Social memory among late Neanderthals. In: Orschiedt J, Weniger 29 30 31 32 G-C, editors. Neanderthals and Modern Humans-Discussing the Transition: Central 33 34 35 and Eastern Europefrom 50,000-30,000 BP Mettman: Neanderthal Museum; 2000. 36 37 38 39 p. 123-32. 40 41 42 16. Muller A, Clarkson C, Shipton C. Measuring behavioural and cognitive 43 44 45 46 complexity in lithic technology throughout human evolution. Journal of 47 48 49 Anthropological Archaeology. 2017;48:166-80. 50 51 52 17. Wynn T, Coolidge FL. The expert mind. Journal of Human 53 54 55 56 Evolution. 2004;46:467-87. 57 58 59 60

27 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 29 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 18. Boëda E, Bonilauri S, Connan J, Jarvie D, Mercier N, Tobey M, et al. Middle 5 6 7 Palaeolithic bitumen use at Umm el Tlel around 70 000 BP. Antiquity. 2008;82:853- 8 9 10 11 61. 12 13 14 19. Shimelmitz R, Bisson M, Weinstein-Evron M, Kuhn SL. Handaxe manufacture 15 16 17 18 and re-sharpening throughout the Lower Paleolithic sequence of . 19 20 21 Quaternary International.For 2017;428:118-31. Review Only 22 23 24 25 20. Zaidner Y. Adaptive flexibility of Oldowan Hominins: Secondary use of flakes 26 27 28 at Bizat Ruhama, Israel. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e66851. 29 30 31 32 21. Costamagno S, Meignen L, Beauval C, Bernard V, Bruno M. Les Pradelles 33 34 35 (Marillac-le-Franc, France): a Mousterian reindeer hunting camp? . Journal of 36 37 38 39 Anthropological Archaeology. 2006;25:466–84. 40 41 42 22. Farizy C, David F, Jaubert J. Hommes et bisons du Paleolithique moyen a 43 44 45 46 Mauran. Paris: CNRS; 1994. 47 48 49 23. Nielsen M. The human social mind and the inextricability of science and 50 51 52 religion. . In: Henley TB, Rossano MJ, Kardas EP, editors. Handbook of Cognitive 53 54 55 56 Archeology: Psychology in Prehistory New York and London: Routledge; 2019. p. 57 58 59 296-310. 60

28 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 30 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 24. Shipton C. Three stages in the evolution of human cognition normativity, 5 6 7 recursion, and abstraction. In: Henley TB, Rossano MJ, Kardas EP, editors. 8 9 10 11 Handbook of Cognitive Archeology: Psychology in Prehistory New York and London: 12 13 14 Routledge; 2019. p. 153-74. 15 16 17 18 25. Ruebens K. Regional behaviour among late Neanderthal groups in Western 19 20 21 Europe: a comparativeFor assessment Review of late Middle Only Palaeolithic bifacial tool variability. 22 23 24 25 Journal of Human Evolution. 2013;65:341-62. 26 27 28 26. de la Torre I, Martínez-Moreno J, Mora R. Change and stasis in the Iberian 29 30 31 32 Middle Paleolithic: considerations on the significance of Mousterian technological 33 34 35 variability. Current Anthropology. 2013;54:320-36. 36 37 38 39 27. Akazawa T, Nishiaki Y, Aoki K. Dynamics of Learning in Neanderthals and 40 41 42 Modern Humans, Volume 1, Cultural Perspectives. Tokyo: Springer Japan; 2013. 43 44 45 46 28. Langley MC, Benítez-Burraco A, Kempe V. Playing with language, creating 47 48 49 complexity: Has play contributed to the evolution of complex language? submitted. 50 51 52 29. Nielsen M. Imitation, pretend play and childhood: Essential elements in the 53 54 55 56 evolution of human culture? Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2012;126:170-81. 57 58 59 60

29 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 31 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 30. Rossano MJ. Cognitive fluidity and Acheulean over-imitation. Cambridge 5 6 7 Archaeological Journal. 2017;27:495-509. 8 9 10 11 31. Shipton C, Nielsen M. Before cumulative culture: The evolutionary origins of 12 13 14 overimitation and shared intentionality. Human Nature. 2015;26:331-45. 15 16 17 18 32. Kapitány R, Nielsen M. Adopting the ritual stance: The role of opacity and 19 20 21 context in ritual and everydayFor actions.Review Cognition. Only 2015;145:13-29. 22 23 24 25 33. Kapitány R, Nielsen M. The ritual stance and the precaution system: The role 26 27 28 of goal-demotion and opacity in ritual and everyday actions. Religion, Brain & 29 30 31 32 Behavior. 2017;7:27-42. 33 34 35 34. Nielsen M, Tomaselli K, Kapitány R. The influence of goal demotion on 36 37 38 39 children's reproduction of ritual behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior. 40 41 42 2018;39:343-8. 43 44 45 46 35. Liénard P, Boyer P. Whence collective rituals? A cultural selection model of 47 48 49 ritualized behavior. American Anthropologist. 2006;108:814-27. 50 51 52 36. Legare CH, Wen NJ, Herrmann PA, Whitehouse H. Imitative flexibility and the 53 54 55 56 development of cultural learning. Cognition. 2015;142:351-61. 57 58 59 60

30 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 32 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 37. Watson-Jones RE, Legare CH, Whitehouse H, Clegg JM. Task-specific 5 6 7 effects of ostracism on imitative fidelity in early childhood. Evolution and Human 8 9 10 11 Behavior. 2014;35:204-10. 12 13 14 38. Whitehouse H. The coexistence problem in psychology, anthropology, and 15 16 17 18 evolutionary theory. Human Development. 2011;54:191–9. 19 20 21 39. Legare CH, SouzaFor A. Evaluating Review ritual efficacy: Only Evidence from the 22 23 24 25 supernatural. Cognition. 2012;124:1-15. 26 27 28 40. Gonçalves A, Carvalho S. Death among primates: a critical review of 29 30 31 32 non‐human primate interactions towards their dead and dying. Biological Reviews. 33 34 35 2019;94:1502-29. 36 37 38 39 41. Boesch C. Wild cultures: A comparison between chimpanzee and human 40 41 42 cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012. 43 44 45 46 42. Carbonell E, Mosquera M. The emergence of a symbolic behaviour: The 47 48 49 Sepulchral pit of Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuera, Burgos, Spain. Comptes 50 51 52 Rendus Palevol. 2006; 5:155-60. 53 54 55 56 43. Pettitt P. The Palaeolithic origins of burial. London. : Routledge; 2011. 57 58 59 60

31 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 33 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 44. Langley MC, Clarkson C, Ulm S. Behavioural complexity in Eurasian 5 6 7 Neanderthal populations: A chronological examination of the archaeological 8 9 10 11 evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2008;18:289-307. 12 13 14 45. Stiner MC. Love and death in the Stone Age: What constitutes first evidence 15 16 17 18 of mortuary treatment of the human body? Biological Theory. 2017;4:248–61. 19 20 21 46. Capitan L, PeyronyFor D. DeuxReview squelettes humaines Only au milieu des foyers de 22 23 24 25 l’époque Moustérienne. Revue de l’École d’Anthropologie. 1909;19:402-9. 26 27 28 47. Capitan L, Peyrony D. Station préhistorique de la Ferrassie. Revue 29 30 31 32 Anthropologique. 1912;22:29-50. 33 34 35 48. Langley MC, Clarkson C, Ulm S. Symbolic expression in Sahul, Sunda, and 36 37 38 39 Wallacea. Quaternary Science Reviews. 2019;221:105883. 40 41 42 49. Frayer DW, Orschiedt J, Cook J, Russell MD, Radov J. Krapina 3: Cut marks 43 44 45 46 and ritual the behavior? Periodicum Biologorum. 2006;108:519–24. 47 48 49 50. Bar-Yosef Mayer DE, Vandermeersch B, Bar-Yosef O. Modern Behavior of 50 51 52 Anatomically Modern Humans: Shells and ochre from Qafzeh Cave, Israel. Journal 53 54 55 56 of Human Evolution. 2009;56:307–14. 57 58 59 60

32 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 34 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 51. Garrod DAE, Bate DMA. The stone age of Mount Carmel. Oxford: Clarendon 5 6 7 Press; 1937. 8 9 10 11 52. Formicola V, Buzhilova A. Double child burial from Sunghir (Russia): 12 13 14 Pathology and inferences for Upper Paleolithic funerary practices. American Journal 15 16 17 18 of Physical Anthropology. 2004;124:189-98. 19 20 21 53. Bordes F. StratigraphieFor Reviewdu Loess et évolution Only des industries Paléolithiques 22 23 24 25 dans l’Ouest du Bassin de Paris. L’Anthropologie. 1952;56:405-52. 26 27 28 54. Kuhn SL, Stiner MC. Body ornamentation as information technology: towards 29 30 31 32 an understanding of the significance of early beads. In: Mellars P, Boyle K, Bar- 33 34 35 Yosef O, Stringer C, editors. Rethinking the human revolution. Cambridge: 36 37 38 39 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research; 2007. p. 45–54. 40 41 42 55. Kuhn SL, Stiner MC. Paleolithic ornaments: Implications for cognition, 43 44 45 46 demography, and identity. Diogenes. 2007;214:40–8. 47 48 49 56. Zilhão J, Angelucci DE, Badal-García E, d’Errico F, Daniel F, Dayet L, et al. 50 51 52 Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. 53 54 55 56 Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2010;107:1023-8. 57 58 59 60

33 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 35 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 57. Finlayson C, Brown K, Blasco R, Rosell J, Negro JJ, Bortolotti GR, et al. Birds 5 6 7 of a feather: Neanderthal exploitation of raptors and corvids. PLoS ONE. 8 9 10 11 2012;7:e45927. 12 13 14 58. Morin E, Laroulandie V. Presumed symbolic use of diurnal raptors by 15 16 17 18 Neanderthals. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:1–5. 19 20 21 59. Hoffmann DL, StandishFor ReviewCD, Garcia-Diez OnlyM, Pettitt PB, Milton JA, Zilhão J, et 22 23 24 25 al. U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art. 26 27 28 Science 2018;359:912-5. 29 30 31 32 60. Peresani M, Fiore I, Gala M, Romandini M, Tagliacozzo A. Late Neandertals 33 34 35 and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone taphonomy at 36 37 38 39 Fumane Cave 44 ky B.P., Italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 40 41 42 2011;108:3888–93. 43 44 45 46 61. García-Diez M, Garrido D, Hoffmann DL, Pettitt P, Pike A, Zilhão J. The 47 48 49 chronology of hand stencils in European Palaeolithic rock art: implications of new U- 50 51 52 series results from El Castillo Cave (Cantabria, Spain). Journal of Anthropological 53 54 55 56 Sciences. 2015;93:135-52. 57 58 59 60

34 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 36 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 62. Rodriguez-Vidal J, d’Errico F, Pacheco FG, Blasco R, Rosell J, Jennings RP, 5 6 7 et al. A rock engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. Proceedings of the 8 9 10 11 National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111:13301–6. 12 13 14 63. Lewis-Williams D. Mind in the cave. London: Thames and Hudson; 2002. 15 16 17 18 64. Shipton C. A million years of hominin sociality and cognition: Acheulean 19 20 21 bifaces in the Hunsgi-BaichbalFor ReviewValley, India. Oxford: Only Archaeopress (British 22 23 24 25 Archaeological Reports); 2013. 26 27 28 65. Kuhn SL. Cultural transmission, institutional continuity and the persistence of 29 30 31 32 the Mousterian. In: Akazawa T, Nishiaki Y, Aoki K, editors. Dynamics of learning in 33 34 35 Neanderthals and modern humans. 1. Tokyo: Springer; 2013. p. 105-13. 36 37 38 39 66. Bocquet-Appel JP, Tuffreau A. Technological responses of Neanderthals to 40 41 42 macroclimatic variations (240,000–40,000 BP). Human Biology. 2009;81:287-308. 43 44 45 46 67. Barr R, Dowden A, Hayne H. Developmental changes in deferred imitation by 47 48 49 6- to 24-month-old infants. Infant Behaviour and Development. 1996;19:159-71. 50 51 52 68. Meltzoff AN. Infant imitation and memory: Nine-month-olds in immediate and 53 54 55 56 deferred tests. Child Development. 1988;59:217-25. 57 58 59 60

35 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 37 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 69. Horner V, Whiten A. Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in 5 6 7 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition. 8 9 10 11 2005;8:164-81. 12 13 14 70. Lyons DE, Young AG, Keil FC. The hidden structure of overimitation. 15 16 17 18 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 2007;104:19751-6. 19 20 21 71. Nielsen M. CopyingFor actions Review and copying Onlyoutcomes: Social learning through 22 23 24 25 the second year. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42:555-65. 26 27 28 72. Shipton C. The evolution of social transmission in the Acheulean. In: 29 30 31 32 Overmann K, Coolidge F, editors. Squeezing minds from stones: Cognitive 33 34 35 archaeology and the evolution of the human mind. New York: Oxford University 36 37 38 39 Press; 2019. p. 332-54. 40 41 42 73. Lycett SJ, Eren MI. Built-in misdirection: On the difficulties of learning to knap. 43 44 45 46 Lithic Technology. 2019;44:8-21. 47 48 49 74. Nielsen M. The social glue of cumulative culture and ritual behavior. Child 50 51 52 Development Perspectives. 2018;12:264-8. 53 54 55 56 75. Wen NJ, Herrmann PA, Legare CH. Ritual increases children's affiliation with 57 58 59 in-group members. Evolution & Human Behaviour. 2016;37:54-60. 60

36 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 38 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 76. Hawcroft J, Denell R. Neandertal cognitive life history and its implications for 5 6 7 material culture. In: Derevenski JS, editor. Children and material culture. New York: 8 9 10 11 Thames and Hudson; 2000. p. 89-99. 12 13 14 77. Neubauer S, Hublin J-J, Gunz P. The evolution of modern human brain 15 16 17 18 shape. Science Advances. 2018;24:eaao5961. 19 20 21 78. Ponce de León ForM, Golovanova Review L, Doronichev Only V, Romanova G, Akazawa T, 22 23 24 25 Kondo O, et al. Neanderthal brain size at birth provides insights into the evolution of 26 27 28 human life history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 29 30 31 32 2008;105:13764–8. 33 34 35 79. Soffer O. Ancestral lifeways in Eurasia — The Middle and Upper Paleolithic 36 37 38 39 Records. In: Nitecki MH, Nitecki DV, editors. Origins of anatomically modern 40 41 42 humans. Boston: Springer; 1994. p. 101-19. 43 44 45 46 80. Guatelli-Steinberg D, Reid DJ, Bishop TA, Larsen CS. Anterior tooth growth 47 48 49 periods in Neandertals were comparable to those of modern humans. Proceedings 50 51 52 of the National Academy of Sciences 2005;102:14197–202. 53 54 55 56 81. Macchiarelli R, Bondioli L, Debenath A, Mazurier A, Tournepiche J-F, Birch 57 58 59 W, et al. How Neanderthal molar teeth grew. Nature. 2006;444:748–51. 60

37 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 39 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 82. Ramiez-Rossi FV, Bermudez de Castro JM. Surprisingly rapid growth in 5 6 7 Neanderthals. Nature. 2004;428:936–9. 8 9 10 11 83. Smith TM, Tafforeau P, Reid DJ, Pouech J, Lazzari V, Zermeno JP, et al. 12 13 14 Dental evidence for ontogenic differences between modern humans and 15 16 17 18 Neanderthals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 2010;107:20923–8. 19 20 21 84. Locke JL, BoginFor B. Language Review and life history: Only A new perspective on the 22 23 24 25 development and evolution of human language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 26 27 28 2006;29:259-325. 29 30 31 32 85. Nowell A. Childhood, play and the evolution of cultural capacity in 33 34 35 Neanderthals and modern humans. In: M. H, N. C, M. B, editors. The nature of 36 37 38 39 culture Vertebrate paleobiology and paleoanthropology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2016. 40 41 42 p. 87-97. 43 44 45 46 86. Whiting BA, Barton RA. The evolution of the cortico-cerebellar complex in 47 48 49 primates: anatomical connections predict patterns of correlated evolution. Journal of 50 51 52 Human Evolution. 2003;44:3-10. 53 54 55 56 87. Buckner RL. The cerebellum and cognitive function: 25 years of insight from 57 58 59 anatomy and neuroimaging. Neuron. 2013;80:807-15. 60

38 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue Page 40 of 40

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 88. Bruner E. Human paleoneurology and the evolution of the parietal cortex. 5 6 7 Brain, Behavior and Evolution. 2018;91:136-47. 8 9 10 11 89. Wynn T, Overmann KA, Coolidge FL. The false dichotomy: a refutation of the 12 13 14 Neandertal indistinguishability claim Journal of Anthropological Sciences 15 16 17 18 2016;94:201-21 19 20 21 90. Wynn T, CoolidgeFor FL. The Review role of expert Onlytechnical cognition in human 22 23 24 25 evolution. In: Henley TB, Rossano MJ, Kardas EP, editors. Handbook of cognitive 26 27 28 archaeology: Psychology in pre-history. London: Routledge Press; 2019. p. 261-84. 29 30 31 32 91. Di Paolo LD, Di Vincenzo F. Emulation, (over)imitation and social creation of 33 34 35 cultural information. In: Di Paolo LD, Di Vincenzo F, De Petrillo F, editors. The 36 37 38 39 evolution of primate social cognition Springer; 2018. p. 267-82. 40 41 42 92. Gamble C. The Palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge 43 44 45 46 University Press; 1999. 47 48 49 93. Conard NJ. The demise of the Neanderthal cultural niche and the beginning of 50 51 52 the Upper Paleolithic in Southwestern . In: Conard NJ, Richter J, editors. 53 54 55 56 Neanderthal lifeways, subsistence and technology: One hundred fifty years of 57 58 59 Neanderthal study. London: Springer; 2011. p. 223–40. 60

39 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb Page 41 of 40 Submitted to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B - Issue

Neanderthalensis, H. sapiens & ritual 1 2 3 4 94. Féblot-Augustins J. La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique. 5 6 7 Liège: ERAUL; 1997. 8 9 10 11 95. Bocquet-Appel JP, Degioanni A. Neanderthal demographic estimates. Current 12 13 14 Anthropology. 2013;54:S202-S13. 15 16 17 18 96. Derex M, Beugin MP, Godelle B, Raymond M. Experimental evidence for the 19 20 21 influence of group sizeFor on cultural Review complexity. Nature. Only 2013;503:389. 22 23 24 25 97. Henrich J. Demography and cultural evolution: how adaptive cultural 26 27 28 processes can produce maladaptive losses—the Tasmanian case. American 29 30 31 32 Antiquity. 2004;69:197-214. 33 34 35 98. Powell A, Shennan S, Thomas MG. Late Pleistocene demography and the 36 37 38 39 appearance of modern human behavior. Science. 2009;324:1298-301. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

40 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/issue-ptrsb