Controversies abound in the homo-fossil record. There are those that argue Homo floresiensis was a microcephalic Homo sapien, and there are those that argue that Homo rudolfensis does not even belong to the genus. We haven’t even agreed upon the chronology of our emigration from Africa, upon how it occurred, and why it occurred. But as the genetic record becomes clearer (thanks to new technologies), these questions have taken a back-seat, and arguably, much more interesting ones are being raised; for example, did Neanderthals have a religion?

I use Neanderthal here as a general term to refer to many of our uncles and aunts. The mystery is the evolution of culture. When did it evolve? Was it a sudden large mutation that brought about the change as many argue, or was it a slow and predictable process caused by multiple factors?
I’m going to try and convince you that it was a little of both. But first, for those who are not familiar, a very brief history of our descent is in order.

I’ll begin the story at Homo hablis (2.2 mya – 1.6 mya), the first non-Australopithecine relatives of ours. Some of these guys are believed to have left Africa about 2 million years ago to spread into Asia and Europe. Their encephalization is known to be about 53% of modern humans. Until recently it was believed that they were human ancestors, but a study published in 2007 presents a strong case to the contrary. It is now believed that they and Homo ergaster are descended from a common ancestor. Homo Ergaster (1.9 mya – 1.4 mya ) is the the first creature that looks similar to us. It stands almost completely upright, has a much more flat-jaw, and has an encephalization of about 70 – 72% that of humans. The very famous Turkana Boy is a specimen of this species. Nicknamed “working man”, H. Ergaster were skilled tool makers. H. Habilis had previously been using some basic flints, but Ergasters developed the very popular hand-axes and cleavers. In the latter part of their existence, those populations that emigrated early from Africa are referred to as Homo erectus. Again, as in every other step of the way, great controversy surrounded the classification of these beings. It is today generally agreed that Homo Erectus are not our ancestors. This idea is completely compliant with the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. So the Ergasters were eventually replaced by Homo heidelbergensis (0.6 mya – 0.4 mya). These creatures with an encephalization of 82% – 104% stood on average taller than modern humans. Three lines descend from the Ergasters – Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floreneisis, and Homo sapiens. H. floreneises, or the hobbits are not universally accepted to belong to this lineage. In fact and oddly enough, a Smithsonian Institute graphic completely excludes them from the Homo Family (perhaps it is simply outdated.)

Neanderthals were the accomplished creatures about whom we produce theories after theories. Like the latter Heidelbergensis, their cranial capacity was larger than ours, and they were physically bigger. They lived on this planet for about three times our current measure and showed a panoply of abilities we consider modern. Earlier Neanderthanls lived pretty slow and steady, but those that lived with us are thought to have borrowed our advanced tools, and used them by mimicking us. Whether or not they developed these tools themselves, (or perhaps we learned some things from them) the fact that they could use them as skillfully proves the presence of some key mental faculties. Homo Sapiens, making an appearance about 200,000 years ago, emigrated from Africa in two waves. There was the ancient lineage that left the motherland more than a 100,000 years ago, and there was the tribe from which all living men and women are descended that emigrated about 40,000 – 50,000 years ago (some believe that some of the aboriginal populations alive today are a mix of the new lineage and the old – I find this somewhat fanciful.) But then about 30,000 years ago, we find a burst of what we call culture: wall paintings in French Caves, religious buildings in Gobleke Tepe, sculptures and symbolic objects traveling through bands of tribes.

So what led to this sudden burst? There are theories in the air proposing the complete evolution of the modern mind as being very recent, about 10,000 – 15,000 yrs. But can that be right? Can it be that only in the last ~250 generations have we been selected for what allegedly differs us from Cro-Magnons? Perhaps these theories are a little short-sighted. We can plainly see that technological advancement is not linear, but exponential, so maybe our ancestors just had a slow start. The glaciation periods that shadowed most of the 190,000 years of their existence must have made long-distance traveling, communication, and general survival very difficult. So maybe their everyday problems did not involve developing faster virtual networks, and discovering the secrets of higgs fields, but instead finding fresh food, and maintaining social structure. And in all honesty, these are not the concerns of modern tribal societies either. If people that are genetically the same as us can live in such a radically “primitive” world, then what more proof do we need?

But we can’t just proceed on such a simple basis, we must have a look at other creatures alive today who are also of the same family. Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, and other primates are all part of the much larger family that connects us. Ourselves and chimps had a common ancestor 6 million years ago. And chimps don’t have any culture, do they? Several researchers are studying just this. We have found that many of the “lesser apes” live in harsh hierarchical societies. And we have also seen that the “greater apes” can cognate many parts of our world. They might not be able to speak or pantomime effectively (also a matter of debate as discussed in an older post) but they have certainly convinced us not to overlook their abilities.

But before we address the question of culture/religion in their societies, we have to first agree that religion cannot exist without language. So let’s try to connect linguistic abilities in humans to their counterparts in the living natural world. Now there are waaaaay to many papers and studies that can be covered in this subject, so I’m going to try and stay modest, and mention only those two or three that I find the most striking.

But first it should be noted that vocalizing animals are not evidence of “speaking” animals. Lots of creatures (mammals/birds) are known to have multiple noises in their vocabulary, each meaning something different, and often further constructable. For example, the calls made by male putty-nosed monkeys in case of an aerial attack are different from those made in case of a ground attack. This is very important, but it has been found that creatures like this make these sounds universally. They make them in the absence of other members of their species; they learn these sounds not from their parents and surroundings (like we learn our words) but from genetically coded information. Their so called “words” are more like our audio expressions – laughing, screaming – and other things we do universally, things that do not differ culture by culture.

… this article continues here.