Question

Read the two passages regarding Neanderthal symbolic behavior. Match each analytical claim to its correct attribution based on the views explicitly expressed by the authors of Passage A and Passage B.

Passage A
Recent reevaluations of Middle Paleolithic archaeological sites across Europe and the Levant have fundamentally challenged the long-held paradigm that complex symbolic thought was the exclusive evolutionary purview of anatomically modern *Homo sapiens*. The meticulous excavation of Neanderthal settlements has yielded an unprecedented volume of perforated animal teeth, etched bone fragments, and the extensive, systematic use of red ochre. This robust archaeological record strongly indicates that Neanderthals independently originated complex symbolic behavior prior to their contact with modern humans. Traditionalists within the paleoanthropological community often attempt to dismiss these findings to preserve human exceptionalism. While it is true that the archaeological record is frequently subject to misinterpretation due to natural geological processes—which can sometimes shift strata and arrange items to mimic intentionality—this skepticism is unwarranted in the context of recent discoveries. The systematic, widespread patterning of grave goods and the sheer industrial scale of pigment processing across multiple isolated sites cannot be explained away as taphonomic accidents or geological coincidences. We must logically acknowledge that Neanderthals possessed an intrinsic, biologically rooted capacity for abstract representation and aesthetic appreciation. This does not, however, mean we can conclude that the presence of these artifacts necessarily implies complex linguistic capabilities; as contemporary cognitive science demonstrates, symbolic material culture can and does exist independently of syntactical speech. Nonetheless, recognizing Neanderthal symbolic capacity forces a necessary and overdue paradigm shift in our understanding of hominin cognitive evolution.

Passage B
The increasingly popular, somewhat romanticized notion that Neanderthals engaged in sophisticated symbolic behavior analogous to that of anatomically modern humans relies on a deeply flawed, overly optimistic interpretation of the archaeological record. Proponents of Neanderthal symbolism frequently point to the Châtelperronian industry—a material culture which conspicuously includes personal ornaments and modified pigments—as definitive evidence of their cognitive sophistication. However, high-precision radiocarbon dating has consistently demonstrated that these artifacts invariably appear in strata corresponding to the period after modern humans had already entered Europe. The most parsimonious and scientifically rigorous explanation is that symbolic artifacts found at Neanderthal sites were acquired through contact with anatomically modern humans; Neanderthals were likely mimicking the behavior of modern humans or passively scavenging their discarded artifacts, rather than generating novel symbolic structures themselves. Furthermore, the supposed "intentional burials" so often cited by proponents are highly susceptible to error, as the archaeological record is frequently subject to misinterpretation due to natural geological processes that can easily deposit soil and rocks in configurations that simulate purposeful burial mounds. Archaeologists must exercise extreme caution and not project modern cognitive frameworks onto hominins whose neurological architecture fundamentally differed from ours. We must decisively reject the claim that Neanderthals independently originated complex symbolic behavior. Furthermore, even if such independent generation had occurred, neither should we assume that the presence of artifacts necessarily implies complex linguistic capabilities, as true syntactical language requires distinct, specialized neurological adaptations far beyond simple physical ornamentation.