Living to fight another day: The ecological and evolutionary significance of Neanderthal healthcare (original) (raw)
Related papers
Significance of Neanderthal healthcare revisedversion
Evidence of care for the ill and injured amongst Neanderthals, inferred through skeletal evidence for survival from severe illness and injury, is widely accepted. However, healthcare practices have been viewed primarily as an example of complex cultural behaviour, often discussed alongside symbolism or mortuary practices. Here we argue that care for the ill and injured is likely to have a long evolutionary history and to have been highly effective in improving health and reducing mortality risks. Healthcare provisioning can thus be understood alongside other collaborative 'risk pooling' strategies such as collaborative hunting, food sharing and collaborative parenting. For Neanderthals in particular the selective advantages of healthcare provisioning would have been elevated by a variety of ecological conditions which increased the risk of injury as well their particular behavioural adaptations which affected the benefits of promoting survival from injury and illness. We argue that healthcare provisioning was not only a more significant evolutionary adaptation than has previously been acknowledged, but moreover may also have been essential to Neanderthal occupation at the limits of the North Temperate Zone.
Calculated or caring? Neanderthal healthcare in social context
2018
(Open access: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1433060) Explanations for patterns of healed trauma in Neanderthals have been a matter of debate for several decades. Despite widespread evidence for recovery from injuries or survival despite impairments, apparent evidence for healthcare is given limited attention. Moreover, interpretations of Neanderthals’ approach to injury and suffering sometimes assume a calculated or indifferent attitude to others. Here the authors review evidence for Neanderthal healthcare, drawing on a bioarchaeology of care approach and relating healthcare to other realms of Neanderthal social life. The authors argue that Neanderthal medical treatment and healthcare was widespread and part of a social context of strong pro-social bonds which was not distinctively different from healthcare seen in later contexts. They suggest that the time has come to accept Neanderthal healthcare as a compassionate and knowledgeable response to injury and illness, and to turn to other questions, such as cultural variation or the wider significance of healthcare in an evolutionary context.
To Meat or Not to Meat? New Perspectives on Neanderthal Ecology
Neanderthals have been commonly depicted as top predators who met their nutritional needs by focusing entirely on meat. This information mostly derives from faunal assemblage analyses and stable isotope studies: methods that tend to underestimate plant consumption and overestimate the intake of animal proteins. Several studies in fact demonstrate that there is a physiological limit to the amount of animal proteins that can be consumed: exceeding these values causes protein toxicity that can be particularly dangerous to pregnant women and newborns. Consequently, to avoid food poisoning from meat-based diets, Neander-thals must have incorporated alternative food sources in their daily diets, including plant materials as well. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 156:43–71, 2015. V C 2014 American Association of Physical Anthropologists In this manuscript, we review traditional as well as more recent approaches for reconstructing the diet in past human populations, and we show how new archaeological discoveries and innovative methods are changing our views of Neanderthal ecology and behavior. We further underline the importance of reconstructing Nean-derthal environments derived from palaeoecological data to better understand and interpret the dietary evidence obtained by these methods. Finally, since the intake of specific foods can be invisible to certain techniques and detect by others, we suggest using a more holistic approach by integrating the findings of more than one method. Such comprehensive analyses would enable the reconstruction of the whole dietary spectrum, which is particularly important for species like Neanderthal, who lived under severe and unstable climatic conditions. Neanderthals are undoubtedly the most studied and best-known group in the human fossil record. Despite that, for more than 100 years since their discovery, research on Neanderthal ecology, subsistence strategies, and diet have received remarkably little attention (Ready, 2010). It is only with the emergence of new archeological disciplines and development of innovative analytical approaches in the 1960s, that scholars began to look at Neanderthal behavior and adaptations to their environment. Methods such as faunal analysis, lithic technology, and taphonomic studies progressively led to a general portrait that defined Neanderthals as a homogenous group, with similar nutritional needs typified by a reliance on the consumption of terrestrial animals. This idea was reinforced by the study of stable isotopes and Neanderthal anatomy. The general robusticity of Nean-derthal skeletons, with relatively short limbs and heavy trunks, has been interpreted as adaptation to cold stress environments that follow the ecogeographic principles of Bergmann's and Allen's rules (e.
Extended research has shown that the environmental stimuli triggered biomechanical and biochemical alterations in human species since the early Palaeolithic times (Laoupi, 2011; Laoupi, 2016). One unique example is the fact that our remote ancestors chose repeatedly the volcanic environments, where they survived, lived, reproduced and evolved. Other biogenetic alterations helped also Neanderthals to survive in harsh conditions. Even more caves with their ionized internal atmosphere, acoustics, biochemical composition and soothing impact were healing places for humans, places of initiation, education and mystic allegories (Laoupi, 2007). The volcanic landscapes and their positive impact on human health
Tilley 2015 Theory and Practice in the Bioarchaeology of Care - Overview and chapter abstracts.pdf
Characteristics of the care given to those experiencing disability provide a window into important aspects of community and culture. In bioarchaeology, health-related care provision is inferred from physical evidence in human remains indicating survival with, or recovery from, a disabling pathology, in circumstances where, without such support, the individual may not have been able to function independently and/or may not have survived to actual age at death. Yet despite its potential to provide a valuable perspective on past behaviour, caregiving is a topic that has been consistently overlooked by archaeologists. This book presents the ‘bioarchaeology of care’ - a case study-based approach for identifying and interpreting disability and health-related care practices within the corresponding lifeways context that has the capacity to reveal elements of past social relations, socioeconomic organisation, and group and individual identity which might otherwise remain inaccessible. The bioarchaeology of care methodology (supported by the Index of Care, a freely-available web-based instrument found at www.indexofcare.com) contains four stages of analysis, each building on the content of preceding one(s); these consist of (i) description and diagnosis, (ii) assessment of disability impact and the corresponding case for care, (iii) derivation of a model of the care provided, and (iv) interpretation of the broader implications of the provision and receipt in relation to the subject receiving care and the social environment in which caregiving occurs. Theory and Practice in the Bioarchaeology of Care is the primary source of information on this new approach, and serves as a manual for its implementation. It looks first at the way in which health-related caregiving has been treated in archaeological research, considering where, and why, this treatment has fallen short. Succeeding chapters establish the context and the conceptual foundations for undertaking bioarchaeological research into care provision, including defining and operationalising terminology surrounding ‘disability’ and ‘care’; examining debate around social and biological origins of healthcare, and considering the implications of this debate for addressing caregiving motivations and practice; and presenting a theoretical framework for exploring collective and individual decision-making processes involved in care provision. Two chapters then detail the four stages of the bioarchaeology of care methodology and application of the Index of Care. These are followed by three chapters demonstrating application of the bioarchaeology of care methodology in case studies exploring, respectively, health-related care given to Man Bac Burial 9 (Neolithic Vietnam), the Neandertals La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 and La Ferrassie 1 (European Upper Middle Palaeolithic), and Lanhill Burial 7 (early British Neolithic), and illustrating the variety, richness and immediacy of insights attainable from a bioarchaeology of care analysis. Most importantly, these case studies confirm that a bioarchaeology of care focus on caregiving as an expression of both group and personal agency allows an engagement with the past that brings us closer to those who inhabited it. The final chapter discusses some future directions for bioarchaeology of care research, and considers how bioarchaeology of care research findings might inform modern values and practices.
The Index of Care is a web-based application designed to support the recently proposed four-stage ‘bioarchaeology of care’ methodology for identifying and interpreting health-related care provision in prehistory. The Index offers a framework for guiding researchers in ‘thinking through’ the steps of a bioarchaeology of care analysis; it continuously prompts consideration of biological and archaeological evidence relevant to care provision; it operationalises key concepts such as ‘disability’ and ‘care’; and it encourages transparency in the reasoning underlying conclusions, facilitating review. This paper describes the aims, structure and content of the Index, and provides an example of its use. The Index of Care is freely available on-line; it is currently in active development, and feedback is sought to improve its utility and usability. This is the first time in bioarchaeology that an instrument for examining behaviour as complex as caregiving has been proposed.