Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Lower-Middle Paleolithic island living?

There's a lengthy report describing some preliminary findings of Middle and perhaps even Lower Paleolithic artifacts on the Greek island of Crete that Thomas Strasser presented earlier this week. The report stresses especially that "ancient Homo species — perhaps Homo erectus — had used rafts or other seagoing vessels to cross from northern Africa to Europe via at least some of the larger islands in between."

If they're correct, Strasser's interpretations agree exactly with the results of work reported by Mortensen (2008) and which I already discussed a couple of years ago. Specifically, Mortensen argued that the implements he discovered "suggest that the first humans reached the island across the sea from Libya. That an early contact between northern Africa and southern Europe existed already during the Palaeolithic periods is a hypothesis now supported by most scholars."

Archaeoblog is skeptical about the findings, especially since no illustrations are provided that would help assess how 'Paleolithic' the implements look, while Hawks is also skeptical but suggests that fleeting human occupation may have occurred on Crete in the Middle Pleistocene as it may have on other large Mediterranean islands.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, apparently large numbers of artifacts appear to have been found, on at least four distinct terraces as well as some rockshelters. Given that the team comprises a bona fide Paleoltihic archaeologist (C. Runnels), I see no reason to challenge the human-made nature of these implements. And, by referring to the Mortensen report, the current report certainly suggests that there was some sizeable human population on Crete at least during the Late Pleistocene (i.e., after ca. 130kya). That said, based on the description in the report, the stone tools in question appear to be handaxe-like things made on quartz (I recently discussed handaxes here). Quartz can be an impractical material to work, mainly because of its coarse crystalline structure, though in some cases, it can be fine-grained enought to yield decent knapped products. In other words, the structure of quartz often limits the range of formas that can be made from it, usually restricting them to relatively 'coarse' ones similar to some Lower Paleolithic types, which may account for some of the similarities mentioned in the text. Without some good illustration and photographs of these artifacts and of the quality of the quartz used to manufacture them, it's hard to make any kind of definitive statement.

Moving to the issue of the colonization of Crete, the whole 'they came straight from Africa' model is unconvincing to me. For one thing, the Greek mainland is much closer to the island than North Africa, and lower sea levels during cold periods of the Pleistocene would have made Crete more visible and accessible from there than from, say, Lybia. For another, the amount of finds and their time-transgressive nature (that is, they were found on four terraces spanning at least 90,000 years) suggest that people permanently settled the island for long stretches of the Middle Paleolithic. Both of these observations argue for hominins arriving to the island purely by chance. The question is whether or not they reached through seafaring. If they came from Europe, complex seafaring is unlikely to have been critical, whereas if they came directly from Africa, it would have been essential.

In a recent post, I detailed how seafaring - as inferred from the colonization of islands - has been argued by some to represent evidence of 'modern human behavior' (Norton and Jin 2009). However, in that case, colonization through seafaring was demonstrated by the presence of foreign lithic raw materials at specific site. If I understand the report about the finds by Strasser's team, however, the raw material of the Cretan finds appears to be exclusively local. The report states that

... hand axes found on Crete were made from local quartz but display a style typical of ancient African artifacts.

“Hominids adapted to whatever material was available on the island for tool making,” Strasser proposes. “There could be tools made from different types of stone in other parts of Crete.”

Strasser has conducted excavations on Crete for the past 20 years. He had been searching for relatively small implements that would have been made from chunks of chert no more than 11,000 years ago. But a current team member, archaeologist Curtis Runnels of Boston University, pointed out that Stone Age folk would likely have favored quartz for their larger implements. “Once we started looking for quartz tools, everything changed,” Strasser says.


This local provisioning of raw material, in my view, argues against colonization by seafaring to a degree. Reference to the stylistic similarities of the Cretan handaxes and those from Africa is, again in my view, a non-argument, since handaxes are very similar in morphology and technology pretty much throughout the Old World (McPherron 2000).

References

McPherron, S.P. 2000. Handaxes as a Measure of the Mental Capabilities of Early Hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:655-663.

Mortensen, P. 2008. Lower to Middle Palaeolithic artefacts from Loutró on the south coast of Crete. Antiquity 82(317): http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/mortensen/index.html.

Norton, C.J., and J.J.H. Jin. 2009. The evolution of modern human behavior in East Asia: current perspectives. Evolutionary Anthropology 18:247-260.

43 comments:

Maju said...

Very nice review, Julien. Thanks.

My big question is were these hominins H. sapiens, H. neanderthalensis or H. erectus (i.e. some other species)? Of course, I don't expect you to answer it, much less at the current stage of information, but your observation that handaxes' typology doesn't say much is meaningful.

I'd agree that mainland Greece looks like a most likely source for these people but this still leaves open various possibilities, as Neanderthals were inhabiting Europe and H. sapiens are known to have lived in Palestine and North Africa (at least) not much later than the suggested dates. In fact the old stratigraphic datations for Skuhl/Qahfez were of that same date of c. 130,000 BP (though nowadays are downplayed in favor of more recent dates more in agreement with North African Aterian).

Anyhow, the most interesting piece seems to me the fact that they must have got some sort of boating abilities, because Crete was not accessible by mere walking at any moment.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

Maju -
establishing seafaring in the Middle or Late Pleistocene would certainly be somethings worthwhile and if some group of hominins did in fact cross to Crete in large enough numbers to establish a multigenerational breeding populations, this is very significant. There is circumstantial evidence from SE Asia that early hominins there were able to cross large stretches of open water in such numbers, so maybe it's not unlikely they would have done so in the Mediterranean as well.

CamArchGrad said...

Well, Hmmm.... Little did I know when I was tramping around that same area Years ago I was walking over Paleolithic Material.

Now for a bucket of cold water, I turn to Roebroeks and Van Kolfschoten (1995) who argued convincingly that to be legit artifacts had to be excavated from stratified, fine grained strata, and have convincing associated archaeological features ( hearths, mammalian fossils, hominid remains ). In many cases it seems as if these are out of context surface collections with no other support other than they look like tools. I am reminded over the debates around the early colonization of the New World. In fact outside of the Strasser paper it all seems to be surface collection.

Crete has been active geologically for millions of years, and moreover has been intensively geomorphically altered since Early Minoan I. Same with Gavdos. I just don't think it's a strong case to ascribe ages to geomorphic features (terraces et al) based on the typology. I'm very curious to see the cave material excavated by Strasser et al, but the material from Mortensen and Kopaka & Matzanas seems to be a more dubious product. It looks old, therefore it is old, therefore it dates the surrounding geomorphologic features to a remote time period. Could it be horse clipped rock on a Venetian terrace? Just as likely.

However if we do accept that at least some of the lithics are made by humans (As seems likely with Kopaka & Matzanas) contextual dating becomes an issue. They are assumed to be older becuase of the lack of neolithic/bronze material, however that could be our own bias at work Bronze age/neolithic/early modern people never would have made anything so crude . Well they did. Humans have been using expedient lithics for most of recorded history. The associated with the terra rossa is more convincing but again falls into the same trap. Just because it's associated with the terra rossa om surface doesn't mean it's the same age. For that matter what age is the terra rossa (though an excavation and paleomagnetic sample should answer that question).

Finally Gavdos is a small Island, over the horizon from Ccrete. Communication even today is infrequent, and it is being slowly depopulated. Without agriculture any faunal resources would have been quickly exhausted by any paleolithic group, and it's hard to imagine what the attraction would have been for multiple generations of paleolithic people.

But, it could be that we are recognizing the inital wave of discovery of the Paleolithic mediterranian. I'd expect similar finds to start coming from the Balerics, Sardinia, Corsica, Cyprus and the island groups of the Aegean/Adriatic. Perhaps we've been blinded by the richness of the roman/classical/bronze age cultures and the immense geomorphological changes they have wrought on the landscape. It's worth noting that SW crete and Gavdos were and remain cultural backwaters and hence disturbance could be less than say the Messara plain on Crete where we'd expect much more intensive Paleolithic occupation (the Site of Phaistos/Agia Triahda springs to mind).

Perhaps the thiness of occupation is telling us about the nature of it. pulses of occupation as groups arrive, exploit the resources, then go extinct, and the system "resets" and waits for the next colonization event. That scenario seems especially likely for Gavdos.

All in all, I watching with fascination and eagerly await new developments.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

CamArchGrad-
thanks for the thoughtful comment. I fully concur with the idea that contextual and stratigraphic information is critical to establish the age and context, and hence the reliability, of archaeological assemblages, especially the further back in time you go. In that sense, your analogy to some of the debates in North America (Calico anyone?) is well-taken.

The tendency you mention to assign an old age to coarse lithics is an unfortunate holdover of typological and unilinear perspectives to cultural evolution. And it is certainly true that summarily worked lithics were part of the toolkits of all groups that depended on lithic technology to any extent. So, yes, more contextual information is definitely needed before the case can be established one way or another that there was a long-term Paleolithic colonization of Crete and other Mediterranean islands. Remember, though, that all the evidence that's been brought to bear in this and other blog discussions of these finds is based on conference reports and summary reports in Antiquity, as opposed to detailed peer-reviewed publications. In the absence of that kind of presentation, it is nearly impossible to critically assess the credibility of these assemblages, though, as I mentioned earlier, some of the people involved are very competent lithic analysts.

The question you raise of the 'thinness' of occupation perhaps reflecting fleeting and often ill-fated attempts at colonization is intriguing. My take on this is that, in order for Paleolithic occupations to leave traces that can reach the present, they must have been relatively stable and substantial in order to have survived the ravages of various taphonomic processes. Additionally, even fleeting colonization of these islands would imply that the colonizers had dependable seafaring technology and know-how.

CamArchGrad said...

Re: Seagoing technology I believe that too. I think we've all moved past the "Pregnant woman on a log" scenario that was common a few years back. If not the Polynesians of their day I think they would have been very competent seafarers.

However, what would really seal it for my would by the discovery of something brought in. A lithic from mainland Greece, maybe a tooth with an Anatolian isotopic signature. Maybe even an introduced rodent (from a nice secure context, please).

I too look forward to the detailed peer reviewed reports. From what I've seen it's more cobble-chopper-flake (unfortunately the Handaxes of Strasser are not available.) If they are like Mortensen's I'd have to withdraw my support for a Paleolithic age. Whether they are human or not they are certainly only "old" in the sense they are "crude" and do not show anything that screams Lower or Middle Paleolithic.

Yet the possibility of Archaic colonization certainly does exist, and the lack of UP from the Greek Islands (if lower Pthen definitely upper P)becomes very interesting.

It's also worth noting that in Mainland Greece there are quite a few sites dating back to the required time period (Petralona, Apadima) so no need to hypothesize an African connection.

Maju said...

It's also worth noting that in Mainland Greece there are quite a few sites dating back to the required time period (Petralona, Apadima) so no need to hypothesize an African connection.

The "African connection" is argued on the grounds of typology, it seems. The article does not mention it by name but would seem they think that the artifacts are Acheulean-like rather than Mousterian.

...

On a separate note: a reader at my blog commented that his atlas shows that Crete would be connected to the mainland with sea levels 100 m. lower than present. Can anyone confirm or challenge this? I've always seen maps of Paleolithic coastlines with Crete as a separate island but maybe there is some discrepancy on this matter.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

C.A.G. and Maju -
typological affinities, especially for 'Lower Paleolithic' looking artifacts is probably the single most unreliable most unreliable dating method. There's only a few ways to shape a chopper or handaxe, all of which are widely distributed the world over and - as CAG mentioned - imminently time-transgressive. And as I mentioned in the original post, I also think that, if colonization did take place, mainland Greece seems like a better candidate for a launching point.

As far as outgrowing the "pregnant woman on a log" approach, I agree that most archaeologists are past that stage of thinking. That said, if effective seafaring was part of the behavioral repertoire of Lower Paleolithic hominins, why don't we find conspicuous evidence of island colonization in the Mediterranean (more on this in another post soon)? And why do Neanderthals not appear to have retained it?

Maju - to my knowledge, there is no part of Crete that would have been linked to the mainland even with a 120m drop in sea levels. The amount of open sea separating Crete from the mainland would have been much smaller (and therefore less daunting to potential colonists?), but I don't recall any bathymetric information indicating potential land bridges.

Maju said...

Thanks for the last reply Julien, specially regarding the bathymetric data.

I share the doubts you have in general but, as I have often told to that reader of my blog who is obsessed with Paleolithic boating (or rather the alleged impossibility of it), you need boats or rafts to cross rivers too... and occasionally this simple technology could have been used for more daunting adventures across the sea. Why some people is so worried about crossing straits and don't even give a thought to crossing large rivers like the Nile, the Zambezi, the Danube, the Ganges, the Volga, etc.? Beats me.

terryt said...

"if effective seafaring was part of the behavioral repertoire of Lower Paleolithic hominins, why don't we find conspicuous evidence of island colonization in the Mediterranean (more on this in another post soon)?"

A very good question. I look forward to your post.

"the lack of UP from the Greek Islands (if lower Pthen definitely upper P)becomes very interesting".

And probably significant.

"The amount of open sea separating Crete from the mainland would have been much smaller (and therefore less daunting to potential colonists?)"

Certainly less daunting, and possibly not requiring boats of any realistic sort. And as someone wrote earlier, 'Crete has been active geologically for millions of years, and moreover has been intensively geomorphically altered since Early Minoan I'. So we don't know what possible connections existed at times in the past. I've explained to Maju that many animals have been able to cross to islands in the Mediterranean at times, and they presumably didn't arrive by boat.

"Perhaps the thiness of occupation is telling us about the nature of it. pulses of occupation as groups arrive, exploit the resources, then go extinct"

And probably arrived accidently in small numbers.

Andrew Oh-Willeke said...

A map of Mediterranean sea levels as of the last glacial maximum can be found here.

From Anatolia, this would involve three English channel sized hops, each with a new destination probably visible for the entire trip. There is much stronger evidence for seafaring for short distances while in sight of land at early dates, than for the kind of seafaring done by the Polynesians, mostly in the historic era. The fact that the sites don't seem to show evidence of trade from other islands also suggests that some of the hops may have been a product of accident or reckless desperation, perhaps aided by storms, which were not repeated. This is also supported by the lack of evidence that they brought animals with them (not that pre-Neolithic, pre-dog domestication hunter-gatherer people would do so anyway).

We have a historical example of a viable population being established on Pitcairn Island with 15 men and 12 women of reproductive age.

Theoretical models have suggested that populations starting from as few as five men and five women could be viable. It is also reasonable to argue that the founding population might be smaller than one that is "likely to survive" because the Crete find is almost unique, and because after a good run of thousands of years the population ultimately did not survive (apparently with no outside interference from other humans). The idea that six to ten, gender mixed people (maybe less if, not implausibly, one or more was pregnant from someone who didn't come along) could be carried a couple dozen miles in three hops on logs or coastal canoes/rafts, in a single case in history by some people who are lucky and able to survive with no competition on a large uninhabited island they are stranded on (a la Gillgan's island Pleistocene style) seems lie a pretty plausible theory.

Forced to guess, I'd lean towards a group of hunter-gatherer cro-magnons from the period near in time to when they arrived in the Levant at the edge of their range, rather than Neanderthals, because Neanderthals seem so culturally static and might have had trouble sustaining their meat heavy big game diet in Crete, and because there is little sign that Neanderthals did meaningful fishing that might have put them on logs or coastal canoes/rafts. The oldest finds date to 130,000 years ago, about 30,000 years after modern humans are believed to have emerged in Africa but 30,000 years before the earliest known finds in the Levant - in early voyage by a small (perhaps exiled) band of hunter-gatherers in this time range wouldn't be impossible (and a modest error in dating that makes the estimate a bit too old makes this even more plausible). Neanderthals would be my second guess -- they would have been well established in Anatolia and mainland Greece by then and their tools weren't that much more advanced that Homo Erectus.

Maju said...

Very nice that paper on ancient coast levels, not just for what attains to this discussion but also for when you want to consider Troy (not just for its classical value but also because it was a most influential city for Europe in general in the Bronze Age). Thanks.

For the rest:

... and because after a good run of thousands of years the population ultimately did not survive...

Almost 100,000 years is too many for this thought to be meaningful. Their extinction at the time of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption rather suggests that they were annihilated in a catastrophic manner, either by the direct effects of the super-volcano or by the indirect ones (like the very cold HE4 period that followed).

The oldest finds date to 130,000 years ago, about 30,000 years after modern humans are believed to have emerged in Africa but 30,000 years before the earliest known finds in the Levant...

Actually this is at least controversial:

1. The Omo remains look H. sapiens and are from c. 190,000 BP. That's another extra 30 Ky.

2. The presence of H. sapiens in North Africa is attested since c. 160,000 BP.

3. The presence of H. sapiens in Palestine has been pushed ahead in time in the last years in order to make it coincident with good modern C14 dates from North African Aterian culture, which include the same type of shell ornaments (also found in South Africa c. 75,000 BP, and in other places at later dates). However when they were dug, the stratigraphic methods suggested a date of c. 130,000 BP and no direct evidence from the area says otherwise.

The period of 120-90 Ky ago is that of the Abbassia Pluvial, which surely allowed our ancestors to migrate through the Sahara and West Asia more easily, conditions that would not reappear until c. 50 Ky ago (Mousterian Pluvial).

The very datations for this Cretan group don't seem too solid yet, so take or give 10-20 Ky they could perfectly have been part of the early H. sapiens migrations. I don't say they were but there is nothing really against such possibility. Notice that they would not even need to reach mainland Greece: they could also have "island-hopped" from Anatolia.

terryt said...

"From Anatolia, this would involve three English channel sized hops, each with a new destination probably visible for the entire trip".

I'd be very surprised if any ancient movement to Crete came from other than the European end. Interestingly the map in your link doesn't show any change around Crete with lowered sea level. The bathymetric line they use would almost connect Crete to Greece. They obviously didn't consider Crete important enough to include.

"We have a historical example of a viable population being established on Pitcairn Island with 15 men and 12 women of reproductive age".

Yes. But a very diverse population it was. And we don't know it's real chances of long-term survival.

"Actually this is at least controversial"

I agree with datings you then provide. I certainly don't find your assessment controversial. Except perhaps:

"they could also have 'island-hopped' from Anatolia".

More likely to be the other way as I've said. But a trivial point of difference.

Maju said...

Terry: it seems you don't get any strong sea level change. In this bathymetric image, land would only extend through the white/sky blue area (see the French continental platform for reference): Crete would not change practically (though the Cyclades would become a single island).

terryt said...

Thanks for the map. It deepens the mystery of early humans on Crete.

Maju said...

Look at this other chart of the Aegean (large image), please. Even with a decrease of sea levels of 200 m. Crete would remain an island.

This allows for two island-hopping routes: one from the Peloponessos, via Cythére and Anticythére (French names, as in the map), and the other from SW Anatolia, via Rhodes and Karpathos-Kassos (that would a single island in the Ice Age). Both would have about the same difficulty.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

Andrew, Maju & Terry:
It's worth emphasizing that there's no evidence of H. sapiens seafaring anywhere along the N. African coast or the Levant at any point between ca. 160-90 kya, even though they are clearly present along the Mediterranean coast. Also interesting is the apparent absence of sea resource harvesting in those contexts. It just seems as though the sea may not have been considered of major interest for these early populations, for some reason.

And again, I think that if there was colonization of Crete during the Middle Paleolithic, it is most likely to have come from the European mainland rather than from North Africa. Given that no early (i.e., > 90kya) H. sapiens have been found even in Anatolia, this suggests that if the island was colonized, it was colonized by European hominins, most likely Neanderthals.

The bathymetric map in the paper Andrew refers to and the links Maju provide are very interesting. If Crete was never connected to the mainland during the Upper Pleistocene, and if the discovery of MP tools is ascertained, it can imply some interesting things about cognition and behavioral flexibility in Neanderthal. Although, apparently, hominins were able to cross to Flores in reproductively viable groups some 800kya, so who knows what this all really means in terms of modern cognition and how it relates to seafaring...

terryt said...

"Both would have about the same difficulty".

No. That bathymetric map shows wider expanses of water along the Rhodes/Karpathos-Kassos route. And several islands seem to emerge along the Cythére/Anticythére route at the 100M bathymetry, so the latter remains more likely. Especially considering what Julien said.

"apparently, hominins were able to cross to Flores in reproductively viable groups some 800kya"

For many reasons I doubt very much that that crossing involved any sort of boating ability. Like Crete the island lies in a tectonically active region, so we don't know the configuration of land and sea at the time, and both places have animals that also must have crossed open water somehow at around the same time.

"there's no evidence of H. sapiens seafaring anywhere along the N. African coast or the Levant at any point between ca. 160-90 kya, even though they are clearly present along the Mediterranean coast".

And I believe that to be very significant. I'd actually go further and say any real evidence for seafaring in the region is far more recent than that.

Maju said...

Also interesting is the apparent absence of sea resource harvesting in those contexts.

What about the famous sea shells used as ornaments and considered by some the earliest sign of the so called "modern human behavior"?

Given that no early (i.e., > 90kya) H. sapiens have been found even in Anatolia...

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. I have the strong impression that West Asia in general is under-researched for this period. Israel may be an exception but that's about it.

I don't say it must be that way, just that it might be that way. Let's remember that the evidence of Neanderthals in Greece (a tooth) was only discovered a few years ago and that it belongs to a late period, more related probably to their expansion into West and Central Asia c. 70-60 Ky ago.

I think it's fair to remain open-minded on the matter until further evidence is found.

... it can imply some interesting things about cognition and behavioral flexibility in Neanderthal. Although, apparently, hominins were able to cross to Flores in reproductively viable groups some 800kya, so who knows what this all really means in terms of modern cognition and how it relates to seafaring...

Neanderthals and archaic H. sapiens had brains of our size or larger. Probably they had as good cognition as we do (of course not all is mere size but still). The example of Flores is good because to me it implies that earlier hominins were able to fathom the concept of a raft, that, IMO, is not harder than making fire, furnishing some nice tools or weapons, crafting effective traps for hunt or building a hut.

My two cents anyhow.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

Terry -
if not by boat, then realistically, how? I agree that the area has been tectonically active, but it may be a stretch to depend on that as an explanation for a discontinuous human presence on Crete, especially in light of the bathymetric evidence.

Maju -
well, they were picking up a few shells (in some cases beach washed) and punching holes through them, but there are no reports of early H. sapiens incorporating marine resources in their diet, which is what I meant by harvesting. No fish, no large shellfish, etc.

As for the situation in Turkey, sure absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but even though much work remains to be done in Anatolia, we still have a decent grasp of the Paleolithic record there, as synthesized by S. Kuhn almost a decade ago, and build upon by several projects by Turkish, Belgian, French and American teams since. And I would venture to say that Western Asia as a whole is actually pretty well known, Paleolithically speaking, even outside of Israel: Jordan and Syria, for instance, have yielded a wealth of evidence of Middle Paleolithic occupation (e.g., Shea 2003). So in that context, I think it's reasonable to assume that, if people crossed to Crete in the Middle Paleolithic, they are most likely to have been Neanderthals.

Maju said...

Julien: where you read that we have a decent grasp, I read that we know way too little. And Kuhn (nice review, thanks) certainly is all the time lamenting the slow and irregular pace of research in Turkey, even if he sounds hopeful for the future.

We know something but not enough to support or deny either possibility (or even the third option of yet another Homo species). Sadly enough that is the reality.

As for either species not found along with seafood remains other than ornamental shells (in the case of Homo sapiens only at that early date), I have to say that this is the case for both H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis.

What I hold is that, regardless of coastal exploitation, people of the various species must have used some sort of rafts or boats to cross rivers and swamps, hence almost necessarily having the technological fundamentals for eventual sea adventures like the one we are discussing here.

CamArchGrad said...

Very interesting discussion, especially the Scholze paper(which is a very nice piece of work).

But on further meditation two things stand out. Sicily should be the the analogue here. From Ceprano onwards there is a rich, rich archaeological record on mainland Italy yet is silent for Sicily until the Aurignacian and only in the Epigravettian that there is strong evidence of viable colonization.

http://adhominin.com/files/upper_palaeolithic_italy.html

It is mildly boggling to think there is a 500k record in the Venosa basin, while there is not a single handaxe, or levallois core in Sicily. This is striking as you can pretty much throw one from Messina across the straits. If ever there was a Flores situation you would expect it there.

The second is that would suggest a real block in cognitive capabilities, of Early European Homonids, and if the Cretan material does turn out to be legitimate, that it was from an intrusive group.

terryt said...

"it may be a stretch to depend on that as an explanation for a discontinuous human presence on Crete, especially in light of the bathymetric evidence".

But, as in the case of Flores, we have evidence of other animals having made the crossing, almost certainly without the aid of boats. So it's quite likely there is another explanation for human crossings also.

"people of the various species must have used some sort of rafts or boats to cross rivers and swamps"

But I'd be wary of attributing such crossings to possession of boats or rafts without further evidence than jus being able to cross stretches water that many other species have been able to cross also. The situation is different where we find humans in regions other species have been unable to reach.

terryt said...

"and if the Cretan material does turn out to be legitimate, that it was from an intrusive group".

That's an important observation. I understand the dating is far from secure for a start. And sicily is very interesting. If europeans of 100,000 years ago had any signifant boating ability sure they would have been able to reach that island very easily.

My assessment of Y-hap T and boating is here if you're interested:

http://anthropology.net/2010/01/29/the-great-southern-migration-theory-some-thoughts-on-y-hap-t-and-boating-technology-by-terry-toohill/

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

Maju -
actually, there's a decent amount of evdience for Neanderthals along the Mediterranean coast exploiting sea resources for food - sites like Gorham's Cave, Vanguard Cave, Grotta Breuil, Grotta dei Moscerini, to name just some of the best known among them (and there are other, including some that have yet to be published). In contrast, H. sapiens occupations along the Mediterranean during the same time (ca. 110-30kya) are not associated with any such evidence.

As for the taxonomic status of hominins living in Anatolia during that time, even if the record could benefit from being considerably more substantial (as is the case pretty much everywhere, really), it bears emphasizing that almost all scenarios that attempt to explain the presence of modern humans in the Levant emphasize that this presence was 1) discontinuous and 2) correlated largely with the extension of more 'African-like' conditions in rather limited and more lush parts of the Levant. Anatolia, on the other hand, seems to have never been characterized by such conditions and, by extension, not generally thought to have been especially hospitable to H. sapiens, at least from a rather narrow biogeographic standpoint. So, while we can't know for certain (in fact a defining feature of discovery-driven fields like paleoanthropology), the burden of the evidence accepted by the vast majority of researchers suggests that Anatolia would likely have been occupied by Neanderthals at that time. This is in additio to the fact that it's also more likely anyway that a colonization of Crete would have started from mainland southern Greece (where the Neanderthal fossils from Lakonis date to ca. 40kya).

As for evidence for rafts and whatnot, we can only hope that, eventually, a coastal site of the relevant age will yield something like the Romani impressions to definitely resolve the issue. In the meantime, we can only base our scenarios on the basis of indirect evidence like the remains from Crete.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

CamArchGrad -
I agree that Italy provides a very interesting analogue to the situation we're talking about here. That said, while Sicily and Sardinia have both yielded some scattered 'coarse' industries tentatively attributed by some reserachers to the Lower Paleolithic (on typological grounds, mostly - sound familiar?) but regarded as unconvincing by most, neither island has any evidence of Middle Paleolithic occupations, nor of Upper Paleolithic occupations until the late Epigravettian. In the absence of absolute dates, the assemblage from Fontana Nuova cannot be considered a serious instance of an Aurignacian assemblage, especially considering the mostly undiagnostic typological character of its lithic technology and the site's problematic excavation history. This Epigravettian attribution has been argued by several knowledgeable Italian archaeologists including notably A. Palma di Cesnola, L. Bonfiglio and M. Piperno, as well as in one of my recent papers (Riel-Salvatore & Negrino 2009 - I can PM the paper to anyone who wants it as I haven't uploaded it to the web yet). This interpretation is also bolstered by the fact that the Fontana Nuova assemblage is made on all Sicilian raw materials (unlike most Italian Aurignacian assemblages that usually comprise at least a small fraction of very exotic raw materials), and the fact that there is no Gravettian occupation on the island, which would seem to be an prerequisite if we're talking about a somewhat continuous modern human presence on Sicily (and the same goes for Sardinia).

So while I agree that it is certainly odd that in spite of the long history of human presence on the Italian peninsula there is no occupation of Sicily, especially given how narrow the Messina Straits are, if it reflects cognitive capacities in any way, it seems that the cognitive block you refer to would also apply to H. Sapiens until ca. 15kya. If that's the case, the case for an extra-European population having had to settle Crete is considerably weakened, IMO.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

terryt-
your point about other animals is well taken, but I'd like to point out that humans deal with water crossings and swimming in very different ways than most other mammals.

As for the Flores analogy, in that case, an interesting observation is that human presence has been claimed to be continuous from ca. 800kya to ca. 18-12kya. As I understand it, the Cretan record, if validated, appears more shallow (ca. 100,000 years), and discontinuous b/w about 40kya and the beginning of the Holocene. Why would that be the case, especially given the size of the island and its ecology that would have likely been able to sustain relatively low denisties of hunter-gatherers?

Maju said...

... there's a decent amount of evdience for Neanderthals along the Mediterranean coast exploiting sea resources for food - sites like Gorham's Cave, Vanguard Cave, Grotta Breuil, Grotta dei Moscerini...

I don't know about the last ones but the two first are in Gibraltar and, the dates for Neanderthal coastal food exploitation there seem to be of a much later date: c. 40 Ky ago or so. Do you know of any Neanderthal coastal foraging by the dates we are discussing here, i.e. c. 100 Ky ago?

Because otherwise the evidence for Neanderthal and Sapiens coastal activity would be similarly recent (if we make exception of the Nassarius ornaments, of course, which are in themselves at least evidence of beach-combing and only apply at such early dates to our species).

As for the taxonomic status of hominins living in Anatolia during that time, even if the record could benefit from being considerably more substantial (as is the case pretty much everywhere, really), it bears emphasizing that almost all scenarios that attempt to explain the presence of modern humans in the Levant emphasize that this presence was 1) discontinuous and 2) correlated largely with the extension of more 'African-like' conditions in rather limited and more lush parts of the Levant.

Yes, that's the impression we have (though the occupation of North Africa seems more consistent with dates, possibly intermittent, spanning from 160 Kya to 90 Kya). But in any case the climatic "jump" between Palestine and southern Turkey or Crete would not be so radical. And if Homo erectus (sensu lato) could live in cold Georgia, I see no clear obstacle for some H. sapiens wandering along the southern Anatolia coast and eventually reaching Crete.

We are not talking of really cold places anyhow and the timeframe is one of a warm period most probably.

Anatolia, on the other hand, seems to have never been characterized by such conditions...

Probably the plateau or the mountains was not attractive to our ancestors but the southern strip is not too different from the Levant.

... the burden of the evidence accepted by the vast majority of researchers suggests that Anatolia would likely have been occupied by Neanderthals at that time.

Kuhn mentions unpublished findings (old research?) that describe the only known remains as "neanderthaloid". However in the past (and even today) discerning between the two species is not easy and I recall that the Palestinian and even North African specimens were claimed to be Neanderthal or ambiguous not so long ago.

So I remain unconvinced. It could be the way you say but it could be also the other way.

This is in additio to the fact that it's also more likely anyway that a colonization of Crete would have started from mainland southern Greece (where the Neanderthal fossils from Lakonis date to ca. 40kya).

The Lakonis tooth is dated to c. 40 Kya! AFAIK, there is nothing clearly Neanderthal in all that region of the Eastern Mediterranean before c. 60 Kya.

So if Neanderthals were at that time in Croatia(?) and Sapiens were in Palestine... who was farther from Crete at the time of this migration?

The issue of Sicily mentioned by CamArchGrad rather seems to show that Neanderthals were not really seagoing if they never crossed the Messina strait. Adding to the indirect (and admittedly inconclusive) evidence against this migration being done by Neanderthals.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

Maju -
Moscerini, in central Italy, dates to just over 100kya.

As for the ‘jump’ you mention, early H. erectus/ergaster-like hominins migrated into Eurasia when there were no other groups of hominins occupying them already. During the Late Pleistocene, however, there were Neanderthals all across Eurasia. The prevailing view to account for H. sapiens in the Levant 110-90kya has been to invoke this ‘Africanization’ of that region during the early/middle part of OIS5. Neanderthal, being less well-suited to those conditions are argued to have moved their range northwards into more temperate conditions. With a return to cooler conditions, both groups of hominins shifted their range southwards again, with modern human being constrained to N. Africa and Neanderthals reoccupying the Levant. This is an issue of competition, not one of tolerance to cold conditions, and – to the extent that they are a different species – modern humans appear to not have been able to outcompete Neanderthals until sometime around 45kya.

Regarding who was in the Levant 60-70kya, take a look at the diagnostically Neanderthal remains from Amud, Israel (ca. 50-70kya), Kebara, Israel (48-60kya) and Dederiyeh, Syria (47-55kya). There are no similarly dated modern human remains Levant, which provides an answer which clade of hominin was present in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time.

And turning to the Sicily issue, as I argued in my response to CamArchGrad above, by this logic, it implies that even modern humans were not able to colonize these islands until 15kya. So that strand of indirect evidence for them being the most likely colonists of Crete pretty much falls by the wayside at this point.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

terryt -
thanks for the link. Very interesting post.

Maju said...

Moscerini, in central Italy, dates to just over 100kya.

Alright, thanks. That's the part I did not know about.

During the Late Pleistocene, however, there were Neanderthals all across Eurasia.

Not really. Only in the period after 70 Ky ago and only in West and Central Asia. There were probably other Homo species in other parts of Asia but the matter is murky, with very few findings, much less clear ones.

I understand that since that date of c. 70 Kya, Neanderthals underwent an expansion into parts of Asia, maybe displacing H. sapiens (if they still were over there at all). But not before. Later, since c. 50-45 Kya they were displaced by our species again.

Neanderthal, being less well-suited to those conditions are argued to have moved their range northwards into more temperate conditions.

Any evidence of Neanderthal in Asia prior to the dates I mention? I am totally unaware of anything of the like. In fact I'm quite sure of the opposite.

This is an issue of competition...

I can see it that way, indeed, but if there were no Neanderthals in Asia (or even in the Southern Balcans), there were no competitors.

Regarding who was in the Levant 60-70kya, take a look at the diagnostically Neanderthal remains...

Sure. I have no doubt for the 70 Ky date on. My problem is for the timeframe we are considering here of 130-90 Kya. Or even before. As far as I can tell (but you are the expert) there were no (known) Neanderthals in Asia (particularly in West Asia, but neither the southern Balcans) in that period. Instead we have at least one instance (Palestine) where we know of Homo sapiens.

And turning to the Sicily issue (...) by this logic, it implies that even modern humans were not able to colonize these islands until 15kya.

Actually there are Aurignacian remains of dates similar to those of Italy. That means that H. sapiens did colonize the island, though I can't say if the occupation was discontinued (or we just have not found the remains of later periods) and, if so, why.

... of indirect evidence for them being the most likely colonists of Crete...

I'm not saying "the most likely". I'm just saying similarly possible. I have since the beginning of this discussion said that all possibilities apply: Neanderthals, Sapiens or even a third Homo species; from Lycia or from the Peloponnese.

I would not dare to say based on what I've read on the case that they could not be Neanderthals. But I do not dare to say that they must be Neanderthals either.

CamArchGrad said...

Terry T, it's a very interesting point that in most cases, megafauna were able to cross large bodies of water, while Eurasian hominids did not even attempt to, even accidentally until the Younger Dryas,or slightly before.

Now compare this to Southeast- East Asia, with Flores by 800k, Japan around 80k, Australia ~50-60k, Borneo (Niah Cave) ~ 40k and the far end of the Solomon islands(Buka) at 25k (!!), going back to the cognitive block idea the difference between SE- Asia and the Med is striking in terms of quality of evidence and the timing of it.

It really seems now, as this discussion has progressed that Eura-african hominids had a real aversion to the ocean and it's resources. Limited marine exploitation, no colonization and only late stage acknowledgment of these rich, yet isolated landmasses.

As an aside, if the Soloutrean couldn't make it to Sicily who believes they could have made it to North America?

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

Maju –
I meant western Eurasia, my bad.

RE: the Balkans, the Petralona skull has repeatedly been argued to show Neanderthal affinities and dates to somewhere b/w 160-700kya. Yes, there is a gap between that time and the age of the Lakonis fossils, but importantly, there are also no modern human fossils in Greece that could fall within that interval. Parsimony thus suggests that Neanderthals were occupying all of the Balkans during the Late Pleistocene. If one adopts the position that any moment in the fossil record in which we don’t have securely dated Neanderthal fossils might correspond to a modern human incursion north, it really gets us nowhere. There are, quite simply, no fossils to support this view. If you want to argue that this means that the Old World was therefore peopled by modern humans, it’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t square with the facts and it’s not a particularly parsimonious position. The presence of H. sapiens in the Levant 110-90kya is widely seen as a failed and short-lived northern expansion of modern humans. Keep in mind the Tabun remains (Tabun C1), too, that indicate that Neanderthals likely were present in the Levant prior to this short-lived incursion. At this point, if you’re unwilling to accept the current interpretations of the evidence on the basis that we don’t have enough of it, there’s not much use arguing about this further.

As for Sicily, no, the ‘remains’ you mention are highly unlikely to be of Aurignacian age. In addition to the archaeological perspectives I mentioned earlier, a very recent study of Paleolithic Sicilian human fossils concludes that “there is only limited and questionable archaeological evidence that might suggest human presence in Sicily before the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) or even before 14,000 years B.P.” and specifically about the Fontana Nuova remains, they indicate, as have others, that they additionally might be reworked from younger layers, which should be enough to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the single alleged example of an Aurignacian occupation of the island.

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

CAG -
interesting observation about the contrast between hominin affinities with marine contexts at the western and eastern edges of the Old World, and their timing. Also, very good point about what this implies about the any alleged Solutrean-Clovis linkages.

Maju said...

@CAG

As an aside, if the Soloutrean couldn't make it to Sicily who believes they could have made it to North America?

I don't believe they made it to America (not at all!) but in any case, Solutrean is geographically restricted to SW Europe*: it never crossed the Alps into Italy, which remained (epi-)Gravettian until Neolithic times (they were unaffected by Magdalenian too).

*Note: and arguably North Africa - if you happen to think that Oranian is derived from the southern Iberian Gravetto-Solutrean hybrid culture, as I do). I also read long ago on some late and poorly defined "Solutrean" in Hungary, not sure if it stands nowadays).

It really seems now, as this discussion has progressed that Eura-african hominids had a real aversion to the ocean and it's resources. Limited marine exploitation, no colonization and only late stage acknowledgment of these rich, yet isolated landmasses.

I remain unconvinced that they did not exploit the tidal zone. There is some evidence they used it (both Neanderthals and Sapiens), even if in limited form maybe, which has already been mentioned.

This new discovery of colonization of Crete adds to that evidence in a very qualitative manner: some Western hominins (we do not know who yet) were able to reach this island and have do navigate somewhat to do it. Only Flores has an older date (though I have argued before that there are some indications suggesting that the strait of Gibraltar could have been crossed at about that same time).

However getting into the sea is a much more challenging matter. Ask any sailor, they will tell you how "treacherous" (unpredictable, dangerous) it can be. Even if they had rafts or canoes, crossing sea branches would probably be considered quite perilous. Even tribals used to riverine boating, such as in the Amazon, get quite scared not even in the sea yet but when the river itself becomes too wide and sea-like.

But more than technical, I'd say it's a psycho-cultural challenge. My opinion anyhow.

...

@Julien:

RE: the Balkans, the Petralona skull (...) Parsimony thus suggests that Neanderthals were occupying all of the Balkans during the Late Pleistocene.

I would gladly concede to this logic but checking around I see that Wikipedia claims it is an Homo erectus or Homo Rhodesiensis, while Modern Human Origins describes it as H. heidelbergensis.

Certainly to my eye, Petralona 1 looks more low vaulted and generally more archaic-looking than the roughly contemporary Steinheim specimen that would be transitional between H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis.

If you want to argue that this means that the Old World was therefore peopled by modern humans...

That's not my point at all. My point is to keep the mind open to the various possibilities. Just that.

Keep in mind the Tabun remains (Tabun C1), too, that indicate that Neanderthals likely were present in the Levant prior to this short-lived incursion.

True, Tabun is a very good clue. I did not realize this. Tabun really seems to support an old presence of Neanderthals in the Eastern Mediterranean.

...

As for Sicily, I'll remain silent because I've seen scattered mentions of UP presence and portable art remains in Sicily but I don't know enough to discuss the matter. The site linked above by CAG, managed by a young archaeologist, states it's Aurignacian in any case.

terryt said...

"As I understand it, the Cretan record, if validated"

I understand that the dating is far from secure.

"appears more shallow (ca. 100,000 years), and discontinuous b/w about 40kya and the beginning of the Holocene. Why would that be the case, especially given the size of the island and its ecology that would have likely been able to sustain relatively low denisties of hunter-gatherers?"

And that's another problem.

"Now compare this to Southeast- East Asia, with Flores by 800k, Japan around 80k, Australia ~50-60k, Borneo (Niah Cave) ~ 40k and the far end of the Solomon islands(Buka) at 25k (!!), going back to the cognitive block idea the difference between SE- Asia and the Med is striking in terms of quality of evidence and the timing of it".

Couple of minor corrections. Borneo was probably first occupied when it was connected to mainland SE Asia, so no need to cross open water. And I'd argue against boats for Flores on the megafauna evidence (well, minifauna actually). Is 80K for Japan secure? I strongly suspect that efficient boating was invented in the east and gradually spread west through the rest of Eurasia.

"It really seems now, as this discussion has progressed that Eura-african hominids had a real aversion to the ocean and it's resources".

Thankfully we don't hear so much about the 'great southern coastal route' these days, although I see wiki is still claiming it as valid.

"The presence of H. sapiens in the Levant 110-90kya is widely seen as a failed and short-lived northern expansion of modern humans".

But H. saiens could have moved far to the east at that time. India has some interesting material indicating 'modern' human presence that seems too early to be as recent as 60K.

CamArchGrad said...

Hi Maju,

The reference to the Solutrean in North America is bit of a parochial dig(!) at Bradley & Stanford who have argued that the Clovis culture was a descendant of the Solutrean.

Hi Terry,

I was referencing the Sozudai Site(Another bunch of debatable lithics)(Bleed 1977) but that seems to have been dropped in favour of a 30k colonization date.

However, I found this:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/2069/

Note the dates
Tentative results of radio-metric reading in the valley have yielded at tektite date of approximately .92 - 1.7 m.y

Anyone for an Early Pleistocene colonization of the Philippines?

However, you could add the Philippines to the list at 50 k (Tabon).
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1860/

Julien Riel-Salvatore said...

"I see that Wikipedia claims it is an Homo erectus or Homo Rhodesiensis, while Modern Human Origins describes it as H. heidelbergensis."

Well, there's a reason most profs don't let students use Wikipedia as a reference for papers ;) All kidding aside, most paleoanthropologists readily accept a relatively direct link between the Petralona specimen and later Neanderthals (see, for instance, Richard Klein's The Human Career, now in its third edition). This is really not an issue that is much debated at all by specialists. Fundamentally, our disagreement stems in part from the question of the reference material we're using here. Same goes for Sicily, for which I've provided references to two peer-reviewed papers that came out in 2009. That said, one should certainly keep an open mind about alternative possibilities; like I said, though, we have to remain as parsimonious as the current evidence allows.

terryt said...

"Anyone for an Early Pleistocene colonization of the Philippines?"

A particularly fascinating region, and the key to understanding much else. I'm still waiting for Spencer Wells to publish his promised work on the pre-Austronesian haplogroups. Thanks for the links.

"I see that Wikipedia claims it is an Homo erectus or Homo Rhodesiensis, while Modern Human Origins describes it as H. heidelbergensis."

Oh dear. I was sure that each species in the human line was so distinct that there has never been any chance of interbreeding between the separate species. Each species is so completely distinct, well-defined and easily identified that there can be no argument. Ha ha.

terryt said...

"However, you could add the Philippines to the list at 50 k (Tabon)".

I forgot to mention that Tabon is on Palawan, which has been connected to Borneo at times of low sea level. So it's really part of Borneo rather than the Philippines and no sea crossing required to reach it. But I'm reasonably sure that the first Australians came through there somewhere.

Maju said...

@Julien:

Well, there's a reason most profs don't let students use Wikipedia as a reference for papers ;).

Of course, it's just a quick reference for an informal discussion like this one. :D

I checked also the other link I could find because it did not look too persuading.

I was vaguely familiar with the idea of Petralona being somewhat related with Neanderthal but I wanted to double check. What really stroke me was comparing the photo with the Steinheim skull (and in general true Neanderthal skulls): Petralona looks much in the (admittedly diffuse) "advanced H. erectus" range and I can see why would anyone argue for either species within that range. But I'm not any paleoanthropologist, of course, just an aficionado.

That said, one should certainly keep an open mind about alternative possibilities; like I said, though, we have to remain as parsimonious as the current evidence allows.

Agreed. Totally agreed.

I was missing some important clues (Neanderthals are not my top passion, really) so you may have got the wrong impression. Would I have been aware of the antiquity of the Tabun remains earlier I would have conceded many points earlier.

Anyhow, it's always good to keep an open mind because... "sorpresas te da la vida" (phrase from a Spanish song meaning "life gives surprises"). Who would have thought just a few weeks ago that we'd be discussing a hominin occupation of Crete in the early MP as we are doing now?

Maju said...

CAG said: Anyone for an Early Pleistocene colonization of the Philippines?.

Well, if they were able to reach Flores and Crete, it's not impossible. However the dates suggested seem the oldest ones worldwide for any strait crossing, real or suggested. Whatever the case I'd argue for H. erectus (senso lato) being much smarter than most people seem to think.

I have a graph over here (quoted from Rightmire 1990) that illustrates the growing tendency of the cranial capacity of H. erectus (senso lato again) and there are specimens with 1000 cubic centimeters since c. 1.2 million years ago (though the median seems to be c. 900 c.c.), which is only about 25% less than today's average. Maybe not too bright for modern standards but smart enough, I'd dare say.

terryt said...

"Whatever the case I'd argue for H. erectus (senso lato) being much smarter than most people seem to think".

I'm quite sure they were very smart. But technology is not just a matter of the smarts. Someone has to have an idea before it can be developed. And such ideas very seldom give rise to a fully developed technology. Homo erectus may have been quite capable of driving a motor car, but none of them came up with the idea or had the technology to make one.

Maju said...

Logs and branches float: getting the idea from daily life is not that hard, you just have to look around. In this sense I think that fire-making is much more challenging in fact... because it does not appear so obviously in nature: you have to really concieve it by some sort of intelligent creative thought, true applied science. However they did.