Neanderthal cultural complexity and evidence

Glimpse into Neanderthal Culture

When one thinks of the Humanoid genus Homo Sapiens neanderthalensis (HSN) they picture a very primitive creature, simplistic in nature with few social complexities. However, upon close examination of several Neanderthan archeological sites, one will find the Neanderthal man had all of the necessary elements for the beginning of the formation of modern society. It was once thought that these elements were only present after Neanderthan culture after contact with Home Sapiens (HSS). However, evidence now exists that suggests that Neanderthals were already well on their way to developing a formal, but rudimentary, culture well before contact with HSS. This research will examine these findings using evidence gathered from the Petralona, Larga Velhol, St. Cesaire, Shanidar, and Arago sites. This research will support the thesis that Neanderthals had the beginnings of an advanced society prior to contact with Home Sapiens and that the disappearance of the Neanderthan culture was a result of the intermixing of HSN species with HSS species.

Language Use

The use of language by Neanderthal man has been as issue of contention since the first discoveries of the culture. Some archeologists paint the picture of Neanderthal man as a highly advanced mammal with little or no language capability. However, this is inconsistent with other findings. One of the keys to deciphering these arguments is to be careful in the definition of language. There are many aspects to the term "language." One might consider language to consist of a series of non-verbal cues and sounds that to modern man would not seem like a language, as we know it today. The silver-backed gorilla and chimpanzee have been found to have an advanced language of this type and have even been able to learn out language by way of sign language in some cases. Neanderthal man was more advanced in other areas than these other primates in tool usage and manufacture, and other areas of advanced culture. It would stand to reason then, that they had a language, at least as advanced as that of the more advanced primates of today. Perhaps the language of today's advanced primates is more complex than we are aware and it is simply a case of us not being able to understand or to pick up on subtleties known only to native speakers. Let us now examine the evidence.

A necklace was found at Arcy-sur-Cure in France, by Jean-Jaques Hublin and colleagues (1996, p. 224). This necklace was obviously worn for the purpose of personal ornamentation and had no functional purpose. There are many differing argument as to whether Neanderthal man was the sole inventor, acquired it by trade, of imitated that design form another group of humanoids living nearby at the time. These arguments will be discussed later in this research.

As far as the necklace as an indication of language is concerned, the necklace indicates at least some form of language present that includes an abstract element. The argument as to whether the necklace was an original Neanderthan piece or acquired by some means, in this case, is irrelevant, as either way Neanderthal man would have to have had a means to communicate the meaning. It the piece is a Neanderthan original, then there had to be communication regarding abstract ideas within the group. This would mean that the symbolism would have to have been conveyed. This indicates a primitive form of religion. If the piece were imitated after contact with another group, then this is not as strong of an argument for language use because it may be that it was imitated without the meaning being conveyed. However, the piece serves no purpose necessary for living, so why would Neanderthal man imitate something that was of little use, unless it had some other meaning for them? The discovery of this necklace makes several compelling arguments that Neanderthal man had to have some form of language at he time of the manufacture of this necklace. We do not know whether this was a verbal language or one made of mainly non-verbal clues and postures, as that which are seen in wolf packs. However, we do know that this language had the ability to convey abstract ideas and that makes it different than the language of mammals of today, even that of advanced primates.

Arguments published by Lieberman and colleagues (1971) have been the primary basis for arguments that Neanderthals had no language capabilities. They argue that Neanderthals lacked the ability to pronounce certain vowels based on skull morphology. However, it has been proven that this is not a necessary part of language and that Neanderthal man may not have had the same language as modern man, but that a language did indeed exist (Heim, 1989). Wind (1992) states that is possible to produce speech without a larynx.

Again, we are now down to defining exactly what we mean as "language." Myers (1976) says that the vocalizations of chimpanzees and other higher order primates are involuntary and do not constitute language. However, there are many that would disagrees, especially the famous Primate expert, Jane Goodall, who found distinctive patterns in the vocalizations and actions of higher primates. The argument that Neanderthals showed signs of a system of symbols would lead us to believe that no matter what the mechanism for language, this requires language non -- the less. If one does no consider non-verbal forms of communication, then can it be said that persons that are totally deaf and use only sign language with little or no speech capability do not have language? The arguments of Lieberman and colleagues defined language as having vocal cords and the capabilities to produce a full range of modern human sounds. This has not been shown to be necessary for a formal language to be developed. There are many other complex forms of communication than verbal language and the scholarly debate seems to be one more of definition, than of fact.

Soft Replacement

What happened to the Neanderthal is an important question in answering some basic questions regarding Neanderthal culture. There are some theorists, that have been largely discredited by the academic profession, who theorized that the HSS variety of humans gained such a rapid and wide spread wave that the Neanderthals were wiped out by things such as food competition and war. However, there seems to be little archeological evidence to support these violent and drastic theories. There is another, softer version of this theory that states that the earth was undergoing rather rapid climatological change and that the Neanderthals were not adapted to the new climate and eventually died out. The HSS species was more closely adapted to the new environment and eventually replaced the Neanderthals.

Though these theories are intriguing, there is little physical evidence to support them. If the extinction of the Neanderthals happened rapidly, one would expect to see an abrupt stop in the tools and artifacts found along with the bodies. Then an abrupt beginning to the new style. In addition, one would not expect to find transitional species as well. However, there are many examples of how the tools used by Neanderthals gradually developed into that of early archaic humans. The Neanderthals were making advances in tools long before the appearance of HSS. However, after the appearance of the HSS species these changes began happening at a more rapid pace than before. This would indicate that the advances in tools were a result of contact between the two species.

There are many remains that are considered to be intermediates between the HSN and HSS species. However, we still find those who dispute that these two species ever intermixed. Flemming (1996) states that just because these two cultures had similar cognitive capacity and culture, and lived side by side, this does not necessarily mean that they mixed. Later in that same statement he also stated that the when the early Europeans first came to the Americas, they did not interbreed. This is almost laughable due to the existence of many documents of the early settlers in America that indicate otherwise. In addition, how would Flemming explain the existence of skulls at Shanidar, Arago, Petrolona, Largo Valhi and St. Cesaire that are a mix between HSN and HSS?

The existence of transitional tools and of transitional skulls would indicate that the disappearance of the Neanderthal is more likely to be the result of the mixing of HSN and HSS to form a new species, modern man. This type of transition would be slow and gradual and one would expect to see many subtle changes in both skull morphology, artifacts, and cultural elements along the way. This is exactly what we find. Shanidar, Arago, Petrolona, Largo Valhi and St. Cesaire are transitional sites and show a transition from HSN to HSS culture and morphology. There are elements of both cultures evident both physically and in the items that they made.

In dispute of Flemming's statement that the two cultures lived side by side and clearly shared tools and culture, but never interbred can be disputed by the existence of transitional skulls. The only better evidence that we could have would be to find a family, one parent HSN, one parent HSS, and a child that showed physical characteristics of both. However, to date, this type of find has not been discovered and this leaves Flemming's argument a little bit of hope.

The discovery of Tautavel man at Arago, France in 1971 has been classified as both H. Erectus and H. heidelbergensis. Petrolona is perhaps one of the most controversial archaeological sites in existence. It is the subject of many political and scientific debates. The primary reason for the controversy is the question of whether to open the caves to visitors (Henneberg, 1988). The caves in Petralona, Greece are classified as having a mixture of traits as well. They are both H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis. The brain size is 1220cc which is large for H. erectus, but small for H. neanderthalensis (Henneberg, 1988). These physical characteristics cannot be explained unless the species in question interbred at some time. If both never interbred and continued to evolve as separate species, then one would see a divergence of characteristics, not the clear combination that is seen in these examples, and many others.

At St. Cesaire Cro-Magnon remains were found in the same strata, and very close to the Neanderthal find.

This site is also important in the respect that it was a formal burial with tool huddled around the body (Froelich, 2001). This means that not only were Neanderthals and HSS interbreeding to form new species, there may also have been some mixing of the Cro-Magnon as well. Flemming's statements seem to be contradicted by the archeological evidence that exists. In addition, the finds are more consistent with the soft replacement for the extinction of the Neanderthal species. One simply does not find the evidence that would suggest the rapid and violent extermination of the Neanderthals. It is more likely, based on the existence of these transitional artifacts and skulls that the modern human species is the result of the intermixing of the species of the time.

Changes in Mousterian Tool Usage

Mousterian tools were a more advanced method of manufacturing tools for a variety of purposes. Moustereian tools were an advance over previous forms as them were flaked from a piece of stone, as opposed o ground down from a single piece of stone. Towards the end of Neanderthan society these tools become quite advanced as compared to earlier forms of tools.

Prior to the advance and cultural mixture that resulted from the HSN coming into contact with the HSS species, Neanderthal tools were making advances and becoming more technologically advanced. There are several theories that explain this, but are much too lengthy to include in this research. One of these theories suggests that these changes were a result of climatological and ecological changes that were occurring in their world and they needed to make a new type of tool to adapt. Other theories suggest that these changes were caused by physical changes in the cerebral cortex resulting in the ability to reason to solve the new problems that arose. These theories seem to lack physical evidence in support of either and it is not known why these technological advances were occurring. However, there is no dispute that they were occurring and Neanderthal man was becoming more complex.

After contact with the HSS species there seems to be a jump in the progress of the Neanderthal tool making skill. We also begin to see more usage of tools that are not necessary to the basics of life and more decorative in nature. There are several theories to explain this phenomenon. The first is that the Neanderthals simply imitated the more advanced Homo Sapiens and picked up the culture by mirroring. Let us examine this argument.

This theory would suggest that the Neanderthal society had very little capability and reasoning ability necessary to develop the tools themselves. Why would the Neanderthals simply adopt the ways of strangers? Did the Neanderthals recognize the ways of HSS as superior to their own? If they did recognize them as superior, how did they figure this out? If HSN did simply imitate the HSS tools then this still shows a higher level of reasoning than has previously been afforded to the Neanderthal society. If Neanderthal reasoning were on a level where they were only concerned with basic survival and had no concept of abstract thought and higher reasoning, why would they copy an art object, one with abstract meaning? If the advance in Neanderthal technology was a result of simply imitating the superior race, it still required the ability to recognize these ways as superior to their own, otherwise, they would have continued making tools in the old way.

The theory that the Neanderthals were inferior to the Homo sapiens and imitated the tool making abilities also would stand by Flemming's argument and Lieberman's 1971 theory that the Neanderthals were quite animalistic in nature as compared to the more advanced HSS species. Why then would the HSS species remain in close contact with HSN? Would they not treat them as we treat chimpanzees? One cannot imagine that a far superior HSS species would interbreed with a far inferior HSN mate. Physical evidence suggests that they did intermix and that they did have close contact. Therefore, we must reconsider our idea of the inferiority of the Neanderthal reasoning ability and culture to that of the HSS species. In order for them to interbreed, the species would have to have seen themselves as compatible and with enough similarities to breed. There no evidence to date that indicates that the superior HSS species forced the HSN species to breed, therefore we must consider it to be mutual among both groups.

The second theory concerning the rapid advance of the Neanderthal tool making ability after contact with the HSS species is that this came as a result of adaptations and changes that were gradual, and as a result of the mixing of the species. As the two species intermixed, the cortex enlarged, leading to greater reasoning ability and the development of abstract and symbolic thought. This is the more likely theory concerning artifacts and the development of the skull shape. The existence of transitional sites are consistent with what one would find in if this theory held true. Neanderthal culture slowly melted into the age of modern man. However early HSS culture has also melted into non-existence as well and from that standpoint we must decide where to draw the line between these highly advanced intermediary species and modern man.

Use of Symbolism in Neanderthan Middle East and Europe

Many different opinions have been expressed as to whether Neanderthal should be classified as man or a simply highly advanced mammal. David Wilcox expresses an opinion held by many, sometimes for religious reasons, that even though Neanderthal man had some of the elements of a spiritual culture, they lacked certain elements that would define them as an advanced spiritual culture (Wilcox, p. 92). Wilcox states that Neanderthals had no evidence of art, no ornaments, symbolism, or permanent settlements or trade (Wilcox, p. 92). This is a widely held popular opinion. However, archeological evidence suggests that these elements were present in Neanderthan culture and that Neanderthals did shoe evidence of the rudimentary beginnings of an advanced culture (Morton, 1998).

One of the key pieces of evidence I support of this is the necklace found at Arcy-sur-Cure in France, by Jean-Jaques Hublin and colleagues (1996, p. 224). The key argument surrounding this piece of jewelry was whether Neanderthals were the originators of the piece, whether they made it after contact with HSS and it is an imitation of the other culture, or whether they obtained it from trade with HSS. For some time after the find, the most popular opinion was that Neanderthal obtained it by imitation or trade. However, D'Errico (1998 p. 3, in Morton, 1998) disagrees with this opinion for several reasons. The first is that there is manufacturing evidence present at the level consistent with the find. D'Errico's most compelling argument is that this necklace is different than others found in other areas, on the same strata. If the necklace were an imitation, it would most than likely be at least similar to those found at HSS sites on the same strata. D'Errico points out the differences in manufacturing technique at this site, as compared to other sites of the same time and found them to be unique (D'Errico, 1998 p. 3, in Morton, 1998).

Another key find that indicates that Neanderthal man knew how to use symbols to represent a real object is the Tata plaque (Marshack 1976, p. 277). This is a four-inch mammoth tooth that was painted red using ochre. It dates from prior to the time when modern man entered Europe and is clearly of Neanderthal origin. The act of painting a mammoth tooth other than the natural color was symbolic in nature. First, it required that Neanderthal man was able to imagine something different than the actual tooth that was already there. Secondly, they had to devise a way to color it to match the picture in their head. This lead us to the next step, Neanderthal man had no conceivable use for a red mammoth tooth, other than as use as a symbol. The meaning of this symbol, however, may remain hidden from us forever. However, no matter what the meaning of the tooth actually was intended to be, it shows that Neanderthal man had made a leap into abstract, symbolic thought long before contact with HSS.

Some Scholars, such as Flemming (1992) discount these rare instances of Neanderthal "art" as simply an intrusion of upper layers of soil into that strata. His work is often used to support theories of a highly primitive Neanderthal society and present evidence that Neanderthals should not be considered to be true humans. However, D'Errico addressed this issue of a possible classification mistake in 1998 when he clearly indicated that the necklace found at Arcy-sur-Cure could not be an intrusion of different strata. He clarified the issue by stating that one strata was a purplish color and the other strata in question was a yellow color. He indicated that there was clearly no mixing of strata, as argued by Flemming and many others. This ends the argument that the necklace was incorrectly dated and that the necklace is not of Neanderthan origin.

The act of burial is an act of symbolism itself. Even in primitive burials, this is still more advanced than our most modern primates. Mousterian burial sites show some system of burial, particularly an east-west orientation, grave goods, and many strong recurring themes (Hayden, 1993, p. 121). It is not a necessity of life to bury the dead, animal carcasses and other primates leave their dead to decay in the elements. Yet, Neanderthal man chose to do something a little more and even has presented evidence of burial ceremonies. This would indicate a meaning beyond daily subsistence. It would indicate a symbolism that is beginning to explore what makes up human, and what happens to our thoughts and the part of us that does not consists of the body after we die. This concept represents a highly advanced form of symbolic thought and is a compelling argument that Neanderthals were more advanced than we had at first thought.

Whether these customs were acquired or of their own invention is irrelevant to the argument. If they acquired these skills after contact with HSS, then it is unlikely that unless they had some understanding of the symbolism, then they would not have adopted the practices. An act such as burying the dead, requires too much effort if it were simply an imitation that had no meaning for them. Their time would be better spent in food or shelter procurement. If the act was of their own invention, then it still shows a highly advanced though process. These acts that are not necessary to life, are the most compelling evidence for symbolic thought and the fundamentals of religious beliefs. The Neanderthals had engraving tools (Fagan, 1990, p. 148) which were found at Arcy-sur-Cure. These would serve no other purpose than to conduct some form of symbolic artwork.

There are some scholars that refuse to accept the idea the Neanderthal man could have the ability to think beyond the basic necessities of life. Yet we do find evidence that would suggest an attempt at art and symbolism. Some feel that these works are from exceptional examples that existed at that time and that these do not reflect the situation in Neanderthal society as a whole. They base this reasoning on the argument that the number of these items is relatively small, especially as compared to the number of common household items found (Chase and Dibble 1987). However, Bednarik (1992) pointed out that these items exist in numbers greater than once expected when one performs a complete survey of them. This would suggest that symbolism and art were a more common element of society than was once believed.

Modern religions tend to get critical when one tried to call a mammoth tooth painted red a form of religious art. They compare it to the great religious worked of today. If the use of geometric form is an indication of the early use of symbolism, then one can say that this is still present in many elements of religious art today, especially the complex geometric shapes of Islamic art. However, no matter the level of complexity, the meaning and the symbolism still represent the connection to an entity and concept beyond our human existence and this is the essence of understanding Neanderthal culture and symbolism.

Discussion and Conclusion

The study of an ancient culture is the study of a culture very different from out own. The first problem that one encounters when undertaking the study of a different culture is how to define a culture. As it seems, each culture defines the definition of a culture by comparing that culture to its own standards. This is a serious mistake in the study of archeology and can lead to erroneous conclusions base on personal opinion and not on scientific fact. Several arguments will be present from earlier works that fall into this category. Several archeologists have classified Neanderthal man as little more than a very advanced mammal and even surmise that it is impossible for HSS to have intermixed with HSN. Some of these otherwise scholarly works have let their own opinions and biases effect their conclusions. In some cases, they even ignored existing evidence in order to support their own "pet" theory. I mention this because this is a serious mistake in the field of archeology and one that must be avoided at all costs. One must take in all of the available evidence from as many sites as possible and from there derive their conclusions.

This leaves us with another issue that was found during the research: how to define culture. Where do we draw the line between very advanced mammalian behavior and that which we choose to define as "Human?" This is another technical difficulty that has plagued this type of research. Do humans exclusively have the ability to make and use tools? If so, when a gorilla breaks a stick to clean out its teeth, does this count? Another largely debated areas is what defines "language?" Does language have to be a complex verbal form? If so, does a deaf person that uses exclusively sign qualify and not being a language user? Does body language count? If so, does the complex body language of a hunting wolf pack put it on the level of language?

This section has asked more questions than it has answered. This is because these are the questions that stand in the way of drawing definitive conclusions about how to classify Neanderthal culture. When one views another culture from their own cultural reference, it is easy to judge the other culture as inferior to one's own. However, this happens in modern times as well and we must be cautious that it does not cause us to draw erroneous conclusions about ancient ones either. This is called cultural bias and was found to be an issue of hot debate in the course of this research. Many of the research found was produced as an argument for or against the creation story. Whether one believes or disbelieves this theory is one of personal taste. However, what did become evident was that some research conclusions blatantly ignored any existing evidence that did not support their personal opinion. This hardly has any place in science and only serves to discredit the entire branch of Archeology. It is important for an archeologist to be objective in forming their conclusions and that they do not substitute personal opinion for scientific fact.

In conclusion, Neanderthal culture has been painted by some to represent an animalistic society, that barely resembles society at all. Homo Sapiens was seen as the new and improved prototype, soon making the old version obsolete. However, it seems that evidence would paint Neanderthal culture as highly advanced by many standards. There is evidence of altruism in that they cared for their sick and buried their dead. In later period, they even included objects that the person might need in the after-life. They began to paint artifacts and objects in a way that went beyond daily usefulness and make representations of the world around them. There is archeological evidence that Neanderthal culture was beginning to show signs of this long before contact with HSS. By many standards they had the fundamentals of religion. Although they did show more rapid advancement in these areas after contact with HSS.

The question of Neanderthal language has been one of the most controversial and there are still a lot of questions to be answered. Some early researchers felt that Neanderthals did not have all of the physical parts necessary to form language, as we know it today. However, this was later discredited by other finds. In addition, they may not have had the necessary traits for advanced vocal languages, but this does not preclude them from having a very complex form of non-verbal language.

Neanderthals engaged in many activities that would have made it necessary to have language beyond basic survival. They needed to convey symbolism of abstract art forms. They did engage in trade with other cultures and there was a degree of cultural mixing. Some have suggested that this would require one language and that Neanderthals did not have the ability to speak or learn the language of the HSS culture. One must wonder how we communicate today when we are in a foreign country with no translator and our dictionary blew out the train window. We manage to communicate in many ways without verbal language. We use gestures and facial expressions to get our meaning across. One might surmise that Neanderthals communicated with other groups, and even among themselves in the beginning, using many of the same methods of communication. We manage, and so did they.

This research has asked more questions than it has answered. However, in many ways we now have a clearer understanding of Neanderthal culture and its complexity. When one steps out of our own society and views it as an outsider, one would see that technology is much more advanced than in the days of the Neanderthal, but only by way of complexity. However, many of the elements are much the same. We argue over which religious symbolism to use to represent our concepts about the afterlife. We have developed a very complex system of languages, yet when we go to a foreign country, we are faced with the same problem of how to communicate this technology. We have the same basic needs for food and shelter. Neanderthal man had gone beyond basic necessities and started to explore the basic religious issues of what happens when we die? When one compares Neanderthal culture to our own, in essence, we find that we are not so different after all.

Works Cited Bednarik, R.G. (1992). Palaeoart and archaeological myths. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1): 27-43. Chase, P. And Dibble, H (1987). Middle Paleolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:263-296. A d'Errico, F. et al. (1998) "Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? Current Anthropology, Supplement, 39:1-44, p. 3 in Morton, G. (1998) Neanderthan Culture. Internet Discussion. September 7, 1998. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0121.html Accessed July, 2003. Fagan, B. (1990) The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson) in Morton, G. (1998) Neanderthan Culture. Internet Discussion. September 7, 1998. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0121.html Accessed July, 2003. Flemming, P. (1996). An Early Upper Pleistocene and African Origin for the Neanderthals. Neanderthals News. June 1, 1996. http://www.versiontech.com/origins/news/news_article.asp?news_id=32 Accessed July, 2003. Flemming, P. (1992). Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Revised version of the paper presented at the Eight Annual Meeting of the Language Origin Society, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, UK, 7-10 September 1992. Froelich, A. (2001) Saint Cesaire. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/sites/europe/saintcesaire3.html Accessed July, 2003. Hayden B. (1993) "The Cultural Capacities of Neanderthals," Journal of Human Evolution, 24:113-146 in Morton, G. (1998) Neanderthan Culture. Internet Discussion. September 7, 1998. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0121.html Accessed July, 2003. Heim, J-L., (1989). La nouvelle reconstitution de crane de La Chapelle-aux-Saints methode et results. Bulletin et Memoires de la Societe d'Anthropologies de Paris, 1 (I-Z): 95-118 in Flemming, P. (1992). Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Revised version of the paper presented at the Eight Annual Meeting of the Language Origin Society, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, UK, 7-10 September 1992. Henneberg, M. (1988). Our Readers Write. Current Anthropology. December 1988 (29)5:178. Hublin, J., Spoor, F., Braun, M., Zonnenveld and Silvana, C. (1996), "A Late Neanderthal Associated with Upper Palaeolithic Artefacts," Nature, 381:224-226 in Morton, G. (1998) Neanderthan Culture. Internet Discussion. September 7, 1998. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0121.html Accessed July, 2003. Lieberman, P., Crelin, E.(1971). On the speech of Neanderthal man. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 203-22 in Flemming, P. (1992). Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Revised version of the paper presented at the Eight Annual Meeting of the Language Origin Society, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, UK, 7-10 September 1992. Marshack, A. (1990) "Early Hominid Symbol and Evolution of the Human Capacity," in Paul Mellars, editor, The Emergence of Modern Humans, Ithica: Cornell Univ. Press, 1990), pp 457-498 in Morton, G. (1998) Neanderthan Culture. Internet Discussion. September 7, 1998. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0121.html Accessed July, 2003. Morton, G. (1998) Neanderthan Culture. Internet Discussion. September 7, 1998. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0121.html Accessed July, 2003. Wilcox, David L.(1996) "Adam, Where Are You? Changing Paradigms in Paleoanthropology," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2(June 1996), pp. 88-96 in Morton, G. (1998) Neanderthan Culture. Internet Discussion. September 7, 1998. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0121.html Accessed July, 2003. Wind, J. (1992). Speech origin: a review. In J. Wind, B. Chiarelli, B. Bichakjian, A. Nocentini and A. Jonker, Eds. Language origin: a multidisciplinary approach, 21-38. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers in Flemming, P. (1992). Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Revised version of the paper presented at the Eight Annual Meeting of the Language Origin Society, Selwyn College, University of Cambridge, UK, 7-10 September 1992.