REDEFINING NEANDERTHALS AND ART: AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE MULTIPLE SPECIES MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF BEHAVIOURAL MODERNITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1990s, a number of specialists have proposed a ‘multiple species model’ to explain the origins of behavioural modernity. This model establishes that most of the traits defining modern behaviour, including ornaments and art, are not exclusive to modern humans, but arose among anatomically ‘non-modern’ populations, like the late Neanderthals of Europe. This paper proposes that the emergence of this multiple species model is related to conceptual changes in the definitions of ‘Neanderthals’ and ‘art’. In the first place, Neanderthals, once characterized as apish creatures lacking intelligence, are now considered by many as complex cognitive people capable of modern behaviour, including the ability to create symbolic and artistic representations. In the second place, personal ornaments, once trivialized as ‘trinkets’, are recognized today as artistic representations and as symbolically valued as other prehistoric artworks. These redefinitions of Neanderthals and personal ornaments reflect not only the multiple species model but also some of the recent debates concerning the origins of symbolic behaviour.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".