Body Painting

One very important issue that Mithlen is quick to dismiss in his book The Singing Neanderthals is that of body painting. Mithlen’s entire thesis seems to be based around his unique idea of the ‘hmmmmm’ and that the Neanderthals were incapable of symbolic thought, and the existence of body painting would be a threat to his theories.

Mithlen makes two arguments against the use of symbolic body painting. The first is that the paint was most likely used for camouflage. (230) This makes sense, as the Neanderthals were hunters and it would have been an advantage in the wilderness. However, the use of body paint of camouflage does not in anyway suggest that it was not used for symbolic painting. Mithen has not proved anything with this point

The second argument Mithlen makes is that “Had the Neanderthal pigment use been for symbolic purposes… [we] would expect to see a wider range of pigments at their sites, especially modules of ochre used to create red paint.” (230) I find this argument to be even weaker than the first. There is no rule that says symbols must be drawn in more than one color. Also, in regards to the lack of red pigment, is it not completely possible that the Neanderthals may have used their own blood? Their autopsies show that they experienced traumatic wounds. Maybe some of these wounds were self-inflicted. This might also explain why the injured were looked out for so well.

I do not think my ideas to be the truth. I am merely pointing out the flaws in Mithlen’s immediate dismissal of symbolic body painting. His arguments are illogical. If Neanderthal’s did practice symbolic body painting, our image of them changes drastically especially in the realm of religion. We concluded in class that symbolic thought is what differentiates humans from Neanderthals, but his conclusion was only based on the far from rigorous exploration and conclusions of Steven Mithlen.