discovery of a Neanderthal in a Chatelperronian level at the site ofSt. Césaire in 1978, it has widely been believed that Neandertals were the makers of this industry. This is important because up to that point, the Chatelperronian had been considered a true 'Upper Paleolithic' culture. Since the Upper Paleolithic had been thought to correspond to the arrival of modern Homo sapiens in Europe, the St. Cesaire discovery - and the association of Neanderthals with the Upper Paleolithic - meant that this association needed to be rethought. This has led to two main perspectives: those who see the Chatelperronian as an independent development by Neanderthals (d'Errico et al. 1998), and those who see the Chatelperronian as the result of the acculturation of Neanderthals by modern humans (Mellars 2005). The key thing here is that, in spite of much acrimonious debate between the two perspectives, both fundamentally attribute the Chatelperronian (and other coeval 'transitional' industries like the Uluzzian and Szeletian) to Neanderthals.
This may be about to change. In a short paper in press in the Journal of Human Evolution, Bar-Yosef and Bordes (2010) question this fundamental association in light of a revision of the two sites on the Neanderthal-Chatelperronian association is based: Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure, and St. Césaire at La Roche à Pierrot, both in France. At Grotte du Renne, the authors suggest that the Neanderthal remains were incorporated into Chatelperronian deposits as a result of that layer's occupants digging into the Mousterian layer when they first settled into the cave. Thus, the Neanderthal bits would come from the Mousterian levels below. To them, such mixing is indicated by 1) the position of the remains (near the cave mouth) where dug up dirt would have been dumped, 2) the presence of a dug hearth indicating digging did take place, 3) a decrease in the number of teeth from the bottom to the top of the Chatelperronian levels, and 4) dicrepancies between radiocarbon dates and the stratigraphy of the late Mousterian and Chatelperronian layers.I think this is a fair argument, especially considering that the site was excavated prior to the establishment of the complete excavation methods used today, as the authors also underline.
At St. Césaire, where the the secondary burial of a Neanderhal was found in the Chatelperronian, Bar-Yosef and Bordes argue that the presence of distinct 'Mousterian' and 'Chatelperronian' components of the lithic industry and the fact that not all artifacts show a similar state of preservation suggest caution is needed before we can accept that it was not a mix of Mousterian and Chatelperronian levels. Because the burial is found in the upper (of two) Chatelperronian level, they argue that it was probably not deposited by occupants of the site anyway, implying that Neanderthals who did not make Chatelperronian tools might have buried one of their deceased at St. Césaire, perhaps in an effort to mark the site as theirs following the arrival of whoever made the Chatelperronian.
In my view, Bar-Yosef and Bordes' case is much stronger for Grotte du Renne than it is for St. Césaire, especially since bone refitting at St. Césaire has recently demonstrated that mixing between the Mousterian and the Chatelperronain was a negligible occurrence at the site (Morin et al. 2005). The need to invoke an explanation that doens't depend strictly on stratigraphic of artifactual data also weakens their overall argument. I say this because if their argument is followed to its logical end, it would mean that, even if you found that unheard of goody that would be a site containing only Chatelperronian layers and thus could exclude stratigrpahic mixing as an explanation, the presence of Neanderthal remains (or at least of a secondary Neanderthal burial) could still be explained away as a result of self-affirming Neanderthals claiming a stake to a given bit of territory. That's not to say that it's impossible, of course, and I will concede that the St. Césaire burial is the only relatively undisputed case of a Neanderthal secondary burial, so the practice was never common and who knows what it really might have meant, as the authors concede. Given that this is the case, though, you wouldn't expect a very unusual behavior to be the preferred manner in which Neanderthals would have marked their territories in the context of encounters with new groups of hominins.
In any case, Bar-Yosef and Bordes raise the specter that Neanderthals may not have been the makers of the Chatelperronian. They're circumspect in their conclusions of what this might mean, suggesting that archaeologists "should therefore start afresh, testing hypotheses about the hominins responsible for the formation of Chatelperronian contexts" rather than assume anything about their makers based on the potential unfounded assumption that they were Neanderthals. This is a view that I have a lot of sympathy for, having myself argued for the need for a similar perspective when interpreting the Uluzzian 'transitional' industry of southern Italy (Riel-Salvatore 2009, 2010 - go ahead, treat yourself and click, you'll find free pdfs). Ultimately, though, the revision proposed by Bar-Yosef and Bordes needs to be taken cautiously, especially as it concerns the St. Cesaire remains. One thing it doesn't do is associate the Chatelperronian with modern humans, though that's certainly one of the possible correlates of their paper, especially when they rail against 'continuity models' of human evolution in their conclusion. That said, if this revision and others like it have the beneficial result of getting people to carefully excavate and document new sites bearing 'transitional' assembalge, I'm all for them!
References:
Bar-Yosef, O., & Bordes, J.G. (2010). Who were the makers of the Châtelperronian culture? Journal of Human Evolution DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.06.009
d'Errico, F., Zilhao, J., Julien, M., Baffier, D., & Pelegrin, J. (1998). Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Critical Review of the Evidence and Its Interpretation Current Anthropology, 39 (S1) DOI: 10.1086/204689
Mellars, P. (2005). The impossible coincidence. A single-species model for the origins of modern human behavior in Europe Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 14 (1), 12-27 DOI: 10.1002/evan.20037
Morin, E., Tsanova, T., Sirakov, N., Rendu, W., Mallye, J., & Lévêque, F. (2005). Bone refits in stratified deposits: testing the chronological grain at Saint-Césaire Journal of Archaeological Science, 32 (7), 1083-1098 DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2005.02.009
Riel-Salvatore, J. (2010). A Niche Construction Perspective on the Middle–Upper Paleolithic Transition in Italy Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory DOI: 10.1007/s10816-010-9093-9
13 comments:
Interesting considerations. However, if correct, that only leaves us with a wider blank gap on which we do not know much (or anything) on who made the transitional industries and the Aurignacian itself. Because there are also no AMH (H. sapiens) remains directly associated to any technology before c. 30,000 BP (Gravettian, late Kostenki) in Europe. Only Pestera cu Oase but this one has no associated industries.
We can look at related contemporary industries of Asia (all made by H. sapiens apparently) but that is only a very indirect approach.
Thanks for the links to your papers on the Italian MP-UP transition. I just had a quick read now but they are most interesting, not the least because Italy has not been in general the center of attention when analyzing the transition in Europe an yet it does seem to hold some meaningful clues, in particular that North-South early UP duality with a Mousterian buffer zone at the center that you mention.
I understand that you are getting to suspect, without bluntly stating it (for lack of clear evidence), that Uluzzian was the work of a new arrival to South Italy, very possibly H. sapiens. And that you are also pointing in that direction in this post. It would indeed simplify the understanding of the MP-UP transition a lot and, admittedly, I also have some sympathy for this scenario. However we have little choice but to remain cautious until clear evidence arises, maybe never.
I also find interesting that the Uluzzian seems to have survived very healthily the HE4 (the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption) (fig. 2 of your 2010 paper). Until now I had the mistaken impression that it had gone extinct around that time.
Maju -
thanks for the comments. My take on who made the Uluzzian really is to remain agnostic about who made it. After all, we have very little solid evidence on which to base a judgment (three teeth, one of which was originally classified as modern human). And, in that sense, I think it's much more productive to try to interpret these people first and foremost as hominin foragers rather than assume anything about their behavioral capacities based on what group we think made them. So, in that sense, I agree with Bar-Yosef and Bordes. What I'm saying, though, is that for the Uluzzian, you need to think hard about what it means if it wasn't Neanderthals that made it - does it fundamentally change the way we think about it? Is 'acculturation' still the best explanation if we're talking about modern humans? If not, is acculturation the best explanation for its origins if it was manufactured by Neanderthals?
As for the CI eruption, this is still a very hotly debated issue - all Fig. 2 shows is the available radiometric dates we have. The CI proponents have argued that 14C dates can't be trusted for the transition interval in Italy. Even if that's the case, though, we have to consider the results of ESR and other dating methods that indicate a late lasting Mousterian in Central Italy - these methods wouldn't have been affected by most of the problems that could have affected radiocarbon around the H4 event. Also, if 14C dates aren't to be trusted during the transition interval, we have to address why they pattern relatively neatly and appear to agree with non-14C dates.
"What I'm saying, though, is that for the Uluzzian, you need to think hard about what it means if it wasn't Neanderthals that made it - does it fundamentally change the way we think about it?"
I understand that what the recent research on Neanderthal DNA has clarified is that, while some Neanderthal genes have "intruded" into the genome of H. sapiens in Eurasia, it has done in such a homogeneous way that it can only mean a small and unique founder effect at the out-of-Africa migration. This means also that there was no further effective admixture between both species at the time of the colonization of West Eurasia (Europe included). And this means that there was a real demographic replacement happening in that multimillenial MP-UP "transition". Otherwise we should see greater Neanderthal admixture in West Eurasians and we do not.
[Note: of course there might have been further total demic replacements after this period, which would render the above reasoning invalid, but the mere huge size of the area affected (all West Eurasia) hardly allows for such a thought. So, Occam Razor in hand, the previous claim stands with all likelihood].
So we have a quite clear case of total population (species) replacement in a large continental-sized area, spanning from Altai to Iberia, process that is with all likelihood the same as the MP-UP transition.
The problem is that we also have, it seems, a gap of almost 20 Ka in which the skeletal record is poor, barely allowing us to discern which species made which industry (the only exception seems to be the Levant, where all early UP-type industries seem associated with H. sapiens).
This is obviously important for the clear understanding of a critical period of the Prehistory of West Eurasia.
So, yes, it does change how we think about the Uluzzian, because it affects our perception of the overall MP-UP transition in Europe (and West Eurasia in general), of which Uluzzian (and Chatelperronian, etc.) are key pieces.
"... we have to consider the results of ESR and other dating methods that indicate a late lasting Mousterian in Central Italy"...
Do we have non-C14 dates for Uluzzian? I ask because it's harder to consider population survival in South Italy after the CI eruption than in the somewhat protected, and slightly more distant, Central Italian area.
Maju -
we do not have non-14C dates for the Uluzzian, sadly.
As for the other point, I agree with you that it does change the way most people think about the Uluzzian if it turned out to have been manufactured by modern humans. The problem is one having to do with the preconceptions about what the authorship of various industries 'means' for the M/UP transition. My point however, is that, if we claim to approach the issue scientifically, we really need to look at these industries on their own as opposed to trying to see them as a symptom of failure (if made by Neanderthals) or success (if made by modern humans). This is clearly shown, for instance, by your take on Uluzzian authorship which is conditioned by your view that a complete population replacement is the only explanation for the M/UP.
"This is clearly shown, for instance, by your take on Uluzzian authorship which is conditioned by your view that a complete population replacement is the only explanation for the M/UP".
Is that "my view" or, as I understand it, the only reasonable view on light of what genetics (in particular Neanderthal genetics) is saying?
"My point however, is that, if we claim to approach the issue scientifically, we really need to look at these industries on their own as opposed to trying to see them as a symptom of failure (if made by Neanderthals) or success (if made by modern humans)".
Absolutely. They must be analyzed by what they are objectively, regardless of authorship. But that is a highly technical matter that I'll best leave to the specialists like yourself.
Anyhow, even if made by H. sapiens, Uluzzian people may have "failed". We can't know if they survived the possible Aurignacian or Gravettian "invaders" even if they survived the CI event. I don't think I see industries in terms of success or failure, specially because all has to fail at some point (nothing is perfect nor eternal).
I see the issue therefore as two related yet different matters:
1. The technical aspect of digging, finding, documenting, comparing... in which I am totally reliant on archaeologists.
2. The overall historical reconstruction, in which is clear that, whatever happened in the particular mystery episodes like Uluzzian, there was an overall process of species replacement.
The foundation of (2) Prehistory is (1) Archaelogy but also other disciplines, specially genetics nowadays, which is not contradicting archaeology (in which case I'd surely doubt its findings) but adding precious additional information that informs us of which one of the possible solutions of archaeology is the correct one (or at least most-likely-correct one) for the Mousterian-Gravettian gap or "transition".
Is it a preconception? No, it's further information available to us, the same as the industries or the skeletal remains. Maybe you want to question it but I find impossible to ignore it.
In my view, there's no point for the claim. There's no new evidences, neither they present a real way to tests the hypothesis about this VERY topic "stratigraphical troubles" argument (sorry but in my view is its a VERY topic/irrelevant issue).
Again, in my opinion, even if you think that the association of human types and industries/cultures is so-so relevant (wich i dont think it is, in fact) simply there's no real alternative for neandertals, but in the most developed imagination. If we use real evidence, that is the pic: european Late pleistocene human remains actually known, and datations, doesnt even suggest a "modern human" authory. As a matter of fact, it would be much more possible, with the "actual-nowadays-known-real" evidence, that the Proto-Aurignacian and even the Aurignacien "Ancien" (fr.) is related to "neardertal type" populations. Basically, the association of "modern human" and those "typically modern" archaeological "constructs" are based in... no more than thin air - in my opinion.
Maju -
you do say "as I understand it", so it is your view, no? The key thing about reconstructing processes in prehistory is to develop scenarios that make sense of all the available lines of evidence without giving one (e.g., genetics) undue primacy. Genetic studies are fraught with their own internal tensions and problems and are not inherently more reliable or credible than archaeological ones. This realization goes a long way to explain some of the contradictory results they have yielded over the years (which is to be expected, if only as a result of the refinement of sampling and analytical methods). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find very many specialists who still argue for a complete population replacement to explain the M/UP transition, though that's another topic for another time. Again, you have to be mindful of all the evidence. When you put genetics in the front seat, you are in effect not considering it on the same footing as archaeological and skeletal evidence. Which is why I think it's worthwhile to look at the archaeological evidence on its own before trying to articulate it with the rest of the relevant data, as opposed to having these other data condition how you look at the archaeological record (and my use of 'failure' and 'success' in my earlier reply was meant as shorthand to emphasize a point, not as a reflection of how things actually happened).
Millan -
thanks for the comment. As I state in the original post, Bar-Yosef and Bordes are offering a reinterpretation of those two sequences based on a critical reading of published sources. I agree with you that this makes their case only circumstancial, but they do raise legitimate concerns about at least one of those sequences (Grotte du Renne).
My take on this is not that modern humans must have made the so-called transitional industries. Rather, since assumptions about authorship can influence interpretation of the archaeological record, my point is that we need to look at the archaeology on its own, without preconceived notions about how they fit within narratives that are based on very fragmentary evidence. We have vastly more archaeological than fossil evidence for that time period. That being the case, a 'tyranny of the fossils' on how stone tools and faunal remains are interpreted needs to be reconsidered seriously, especially since much of that fossil evidence comes from comparatively old excavations.
You raise the issue of the proto-Aurignacian and Aurignacien ancien having perhaps been manufactured by Neanderthals. This is exactly my point, and I wouldn't be surprised either if this turned out to be the case in some instances. But how do you think these assemblages would be reintepreted if shown to be the handiwork of a population of hominins that disappeared from the fossil record following the appearance of modern humans on the scene? What are crucially need are approaches that allow us to look at the archaeological record consistently and objectively to reach conclusions about the behavior of its makers, irrespective of who made it. Then, it makes sense to bring in the biological data (skeletal and genetic), not the other way around.
I strongly agree with your ideas about human fossil -vs.- archaeological evidence, their relationships and relative weight (real vs. perceived weight).
As a matter of fact, I usually work around that questions while writing my own posts about archaeology.
The (initial) Aurignacian example was just that and nothing more: just an example or "counter-example". I wrote it following the same terms and type of argumentation i noticed while reading the articule that you reviewed.
"Note: of course there might have been further total demic replacements after this period, which would render the above reasoning invalid, but the mere huge size of the area affected (all West Eurasia) hardly allows for such a thought".
I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was actually the case. We know that most haplogroups have arrived in Europe from somewhere further east. For example Y-hap R1b is especially common along the western margin of Europe, but it obviously came from the east somewhere. It has subsequently been replaced through much of Europe (or pushed west) with further movement into the continent. It may be the oldest surviving Y-hap in Europe but R1b itself can hardly be older than Gravettian (if indeed that ancient).
Consequently apparently transitional technologies may in fact represent transitional species.
"As for the CI eruption, this is still a very hotly debated issue"
The eruption is unlikely to have had the effect of human extinction, even local. We periodically have claims by some Doomsayer that some eruption or other led to a bottleneck in human expansion. Some humans just love disasters. But evidence soon mounts up that it is not so. I strongly suspect we have another example of the phenomenon here.
"When you put genetics in the front seat, you are in effect not considering it on the same footing as archaeological and skeletal evidence".
I don't do that. In fact I have been always adamant that archaeology's factual data has primacy over genetics (and specially over the highly speculative but way too popular molecular clock hypothesis) and I have often argued this point hotly. However archaeology alone cannot clarify everything (too many blank pages remain) and genetics does provide an alternative source of information. When they converge into an interpretation, then we probably have a more solid model than those that disregard part of the evidence.
For example, genetics says that Europeans come from West Asia and Archaeology says the same thing. So here we do have a convergence and a most likely truthful conclusion. My only point on genetics is not to ignore that evidence, because it is also of "archaeological" relevance, just that, instead of being buried in the ground, it is buried in our cells.
Anyhow, I was going to drop this discussion. But what brought me back is that a reader just pointed me to this Science Daily article.
Of course I am very glad that you are getting into the limelight with all this most interesting research on Uluzzian, but you seem very persuaded that Uluzzian was made by Neanderthals, something that others have questioned.
Of course, no conclusion seems easy to reach but you do say in your research that Uluzzian seems to be an immigrant (or intrusive) culture rather than a local development, certainly not a development from the local Mousterian.
So how do you manage to make this evaluation of Uluzzian as intrusive converge with the conviction of Uluzzian being made by Neanderthals, specially when in nearby Croatia (which would be in the land route to Italy) Neanderthals kept using Mousterian tech until the very end?
I think it is a very legitimate question.
Cheers.
Thanks for the link Maju.
"you do say in your research that Uluzzian seems to be an immigrant (or intrusive) culture rather than a local development"
I didn't notice that. If it's not intrusive it could easily be explained as a local development. From the link:
"It is likely that Neanderthals were absorbed by modern humans,"
That's what I think too.
Post a Comment