Definitive answers (?) about Palaeolithic hypothermia.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

Just a few quick and highly selective comments (in brackets and red in the text) on the following which has been making the discussion lists round.

Big chill killed off the Neanderthals

Douglas Palmer

19:00 21 January 04
 
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition.

It is possibly the longest-running murder mystery of them all [This hype and sensationalism, not exactly "de mise" for "new scientists"]. What, or even who, killed humankind's nearest relatives, the Neanderthals who once roamed Europe before dying out almost 30,000 years ago? [A better way to put it is that "they very, very slowly faded away"].

Suspects have ranged from the climate to humans themselves, and the mystery has deeply divided experts. Now 30 scientists have come together to publish the most definitive answer [The author should know that there is little that is "definitive" in science, and especially in natural sciences, and especially one that is as "soft" as palaeoanthropology is, with its frequent lack of resolution, its regional and continental sampling problems, its reliance on frequently conflicting interdisciplinary results, etc.]. yet to this enigma.

They say Neanderthals simply did not have the technological know-how to survive the increasingly harsh winters. [With all due respect to the person who said this, this is, at the very best a gross oversimplification or underestimation of Neanderthals' technological abilities. After all, they had a rather long tenure in various parts Eurasia, one that took them successfully through quite a few and lengthy glacial and stadial episodes. While there is no question that those times witnessed territorial shinkage, there is no question that many of the Neanderthal groups were living at the edge of the "cold" and that for millennia after millennia, the manages to bounce back quite well]. And intriguingly, rather than being Neanderthal killers, the original human settlers of Europe almost suffered the same fate.

The last ice age

Led by Tjeerd van Andel of the University of Cambridge, a team of archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists and climate modellers have compiled a vast new set of biological, environmental and social evidence on life between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago.

It includes data from sediment cores and 400 or so archaeological sites, and information gleaned from fossil bones and stone tools. To this they have added the most up-to-date climate models, and radiometric dates of human and Neanderthal sites and artefacts.

Seasonal migration

The result is a definitive series of maps [See above.] covering climate change over time, the appearance of animal and plant populations, and how human and Neanderthal communities migrated with the seasons. The resolution is so good that, for the first time, researchers can reliably trace the movements of both hominid species.

Ice cores recovered from Greenland in the 1970s show that Europe's climate varied hugely during the last ice age, especially in the period between 70,000 and 20,000 years ago. Cold glacial periods were punctuated by warmer times, and the average temperature could rise and fall several degrees within a decade or so.

Studies of permafrost patterns, the remains of small animals and pollen grains, as well as fossil bones, show that such changes had a dramatic effect on the flora and fauna of the time, including Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

The maps show that, facing temperatures that plummeted to -10°C in winter (see map), Neanderthals retreated south from northern Europe 30,000 years ago, a migration ["Migration", in this context, is just popular imagery and a poor choice of word. Ongoing, fluctuating,  and very complexterritorial shrinkages/contractions leading to extinctions and/or extirpations, and followed by re-expansions, are more likely to reflect the realities behind the record.] which coincided exactly with the southern march of the ice sheets

It is surprising "the extent to which Neanderthals seem to have been deterred by the cold, and retreated as the going got tough," says archaeologist William Davies, a co-editor of the report based at University of Southampton, UK. [If he is well quoted, William Davies is obviously not familiar with, for example, the Russian literature dealing with early human occupations in the Urals and Siberia.]

Last refuge

The maps also reveal that the earliest modern humans, the Aurignacian people, who appeared around 40,000 years ago, could not cope with the glacial cold either. They retreated south until 25,000 years ago when they were reduced to a few refuges, such as southwest France and the shores of the Black Sea. [This just plain gobbledegook. What is one supposed to make of the Vogelherd and Hohle Fels finds which sit in an alpine region where, between 30,000 and 35,000 years ago, winter temperatures were very  likely to have fallen frequently below –10°. Similarly, for example, what does one do with the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic manifestations of the Siberian Altai? Etc., etc., etc.]


The new maps show that even at the height of the last glacial period, 18,000 to around 22,000 years ago, continental Europe supported extensive grasslands which were fodder for huge numbers of migrant animals such as reindeer and bison. [First, to be picky, it is not the last glacial. The dates mentioned here correspond  to the last stadial (Upper Pleniglacial) of the last glacial. Second, it is becoming increasingly clear, from various regions of the world that the full impact of the Upper Pleniglacial was already being felt by 30,000 years ago.]

The archaeological evidence strongly suggests that both hominids coexisted in southern Europe for thousands of years, but competed for ever diminishing resources. And that might have been the end for both Homo sapiens and Neanderthals but for the arrival of the technologically advanced Gravettians.

The Gravettians appeared in eastern Europe 29,000 to 30,000 years ago complete with flash new tools, such as javelin-like throwing spears and fishing nets, which allowed them to catch a greater range of prey. [This simplistic Aurignacian/Gravettian "technological contrast"/chronology" is rather confusing.]

They also had clothing [How about the Neanderthals and the so-called Aurignacians?] to keep the cold out, such as sewn furs and woven textiles, and possibly more specialised social structures. Their ability to tough out the colder climes dominating Europe 18,000 to 25,000 years ago revitalised the human population.

Adapt to survive

The Neanderthals, however, without either new blood or new technology [??] , found it impossible to survive and died out, probably around 28,000 years ago.

For Neanderthal expert Paul Pettitt of the University of Sheffield, UK, the evidence that climate adversely affected the Aurignacian people as much as the Neanderthals is fascinating. When the going got tough in northern Europe, says Pettitt, both adopted a "get out of the kitchen strategy".

In contrast, Gravettians used their technological prowess "to reorganise the way the kitchen was used". Pettitt says that step was just as revolutionary as becoming modern Homo sapiens in the first place. [I will have to think about that, but, in the meantime, I will just note, once again (from earlier posts), that a half decent understanding of the biogeographical and cultural events alluded to in this article will only be achieved by taking into serious consideration different types of evidence emerging from the whole of Eurasia.] .

All for now,

Jacques Cinq-Mars

For access to the actual article and additional information, CLICK HERE.

[thuur khan]

i liked your commentaries about the new scientist abstract. I didn't read the book of the Stage 3 Project but there are other abstract on http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0209_040209_neandertals.html and other ones on the web.
What does the Stage 3 team tell ?
There have analyzed archaeological sites data, pollens, ice cores, combined the dates and made maps. Their conclusions : neandertals and aurignacians couldn't adapt their hunting technologies when steppes took the place of the european forest about 30000 years ago (weather became colder). And the only European AMHs to survive were the Gravettians because of better technology (spears, nets, ...). What about this ? Something new ?
tk

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

Please, find below a brief note that was just received by the PALANTH Webmaster:

Comment by reporting user: Please could people read the Stage Three book before passing any more comment? The writer of the New Scientist article should also have done this, but didn't.  Kind regards, William Davies (co-editor of the Stage Three project book).

On principle, I completely agree with Professor Davies. One should go to the original source, that is, assuming that one can have access to it!

In the present case, all I had to go with consisted of an article written by one Douglas Palmer, and published by the New Scientist on January 21st – presumably following discussions the author must have had with some of the people involved in the Stage 3 project.

Given this information context which is rather common on the internet, my comments were directed at (some of) the content of the New Scientist article and certainly not at the book (and its contributors).

Finally, I'll add that the potential for "malentendus" of this sort would be greatly reduced if actual palaeoanthropological actors made their presence felt a bit more frequently on the PALANTH Forum.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Daryl Habel]

Let me add that I agree with Jacques on this issue of whether we are allowed to comment on the Stage 3 project without first reading "the book" which, as far as I know from past news on the publication date, is not yet available.  If Stage 3 scientists have been giving interviews to reporters, such as that posted by New Scientist, then they also should expect that comment will follow.  

Seems to me that asking us to not comment on reports such as that authored by Douglas Palmer in the New Scientist defeats the purpose of this forum.

Those who disagree can always sign on to PALANTH and post their thoughts to the forum.

Dar

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Let me add that I agree with Jacques on this issue of whether we are allowed to comment on the Stage 3 project without first reading "the book" which, as far as I know from past news on the publication date, is not yet available.  If Stage 3 scientists have been giving interviews to reporters, such as that posted by New Scientist, then they also should expect that comment will follow.  

Seems to me that asking us to not comment on reports such as that authored by Douglas Palmer in the New Scientist defeats the purpose of this forum.

Those who disagree can always sign on to PALANTH and post their thoughts to the forum.

Dar

Thanks, Dar.

Jacques

[trehinp]

Thanks Jacques and Dar,

I have looked through the web and found some original texts on the "Stage 3 project". Not having the book, this is the best we can do so far to learn about that project at the source.

I found the "Stage Three Project Home Page" quite informative.

http://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/oistage3/Details/Homepage.html

I am certainly not a specialist of Neanderthal people, but from the little I had been reading it made sense that they were adapted to the cold. Tjeerd H. van Andel, one of the members of "stage 3 project", says the contrary : "And indeed, human physiological studies indicate that the view that Neanderthals were especially cold-adapted is almost certainly untenable."
(T. H. van Andel, "The Stage 3 Project from Start to Stop in Ten Minutes", The newsletter of the GODWIN INSTITUTE FOR QUATERNARY RESEARCH, ISSUE 27, LENT TERM 2004)www.giqr.group.cam.ac.uk/camqua/27.pdf

Any expert advice on which is the best hypothesis would be closer to the reality ?... :-)

My main interest here is in trying to understand what might have been the cognitive differences betwenn Neahderthal people and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Since we are talking about human being, their intellectual capabilities to invent solutions to protect themselves from the weather conditions may hav counted as much as their physiological adaptation.

Thanks for any light shed on this subject...

Paul Trehin

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Thanks Jacques and Dar,

I have looked through the web and found some original texts on the "Stage 3 project". Not having the book, this is the best we can do so far to learn about that project at the source.

I found the "Stage Three Project Home Page" quite informative.

http://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/oistage3/Details/Homepage.html

I am certainly not a specialist of Neanderthal people, but from the little I had been reading it made sense that they were adapted to the cold. Tjeerd H. van Andel, one of the members of "stage 3 project", says the contrary : "And indeed, human physiological studies indicate that the view that Neanderthals were especially cold-adapted is almost certainly untenable."
(T. H. van Andel, "The Stage 3 Project from Start to Stop in Ten Minutes", The newsletter of the GODWIN INSTITUTE FOR QUATERNARY RESEARCH, ISSUE 27, LENT TERM 2004)www.giqr.group.cam.ac.uk/camqua/27.pdf

Any expert advice on which is the best hypothesis would be closer to the reality ?... :-)

My main interest here is in trying to understand what might have been the cognitive differences betwenn Neahderthal people and Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Since we are talking about human being, their intellectual capabilities to invent solutions to protect themselves from the weather conditions may hav counted as much as their physiological adaptation.

Thanks for any light shed on this subject...

Paul Trehin

 I have yet to read the book (!), but I did read the "The newsletter of the GODWIN INSTITUTE FOR QUATERNARY RESEARCH" (by the way, thanks for passing this on – I has missed it when I first looked at the Stage 3 site), and the following passage attracted my attention (my short comments in red and in brackets):

This book, edited by Tjeerd van Andel and William Davies and titled “Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape of the Last Glaciation - Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project”, saw the light as the year 2003 turned into 2004. Its emphasis on the use of environmental modelling and on interdisciplinary comparisons has raised a great many questions, some new and others formulated more precisely than previously. There is, for instance, the long-standing conflict between many palynologists who see the landscapes of mid-latitude Europe as a treeless and barren tundra and the mammalian record that speaks of the numerous herds of large herbivores that deny this very unproductive landscape. It seems that the second is winning. [Just a note, here, to mention that a similar paradox is present in Beringia where it has (and still is) extensively examined. ]Another example: we now feel able to propose with some confidence that the settlement patterns of Neanderthal and early modern (Aurignacian) humans[Who exactly were the earliest Aurignacians and how did they vary across their entire range? We don't really know] were influenced in similar ways by climate changes and that both species [From the earlier reference to "modern (Aurignacian) humans"  and from this reference to [two] "species, it it seems that the "compare and contrast" exercise takes for granted an actual biological/cognitive barrier between the Neanderthals and later H.s.s. Has that been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all, and this from data coming from beyond the "pale"?]were limited by the 50th degree parallel. [This is not correct. A growing body of evidence from Scandinavia, from the northern Urals, from Siberia, and from Beringia indicates that quite a number of human populations were perfectly capable of exploiting resources north of the 50th parallel, and this, long before the illustriousGravettian showed up with their palaeo-swiss-army knives.] And indeed, human physiological studies indicate that the view that Neanderthals were especially cold-adapted is almost certainly untenable. [From a strict evolutionary point-of-view, I find it very hard to believe that the Neanderthals, with their rather long tenure spanning glacials and interglacials, stadials and interstadials, would not have developed – at the very least along certain parts of their range – biological/physiological adaptations to the "cold"]Later modern humans (Gravettians), in contrast, preferred the conditions of the high Arctic, [This, and what follows, baffles me. Where does one find Gravettian in the High Arctic?] surely because technical and social advances enabled them to make the seasonal migrations [Seasonal migrations from where? Is there a suggestion or an implication, here, that Gravettians moved "en masse" , seasonally, from low latitudes to high latitudes? In addition, I believe that the term "migration", in the present context, should be declared palaeo-politically incorrect. "Seasonal rounds" of more or less large territories would be a better characterization of what was happening when these people where going about their business.] that exploitation of high latitudes requires.

Not in the mainline of our work but interesting nonetheless was the recognition, nearly simultaneously achieved by Stage 3 members and our Norwegian and Russian colleagues that between 60,000 and about 27,000 years ago northern Europe above the Arctic Circle was almost free of ice. If we are right, and in northern Russia human settlement in a mixed landscape of boreal woodland and tundra suggests that we are, a large region hitherto ignored is open for exploration. [As I briefly alluded to earlier, the "large region" (actually, a much larger one, extending all across Eurasia, and well into Beringia) has already been under exploration for a few years and with, I might add, some rather interesting results.]

When the Stage 3 Project began, our inevitable use of existing data for experimental applications implied that we might hope for many and better questions, but that hard answers would certainly be few. And so it has come to be.

Tjeerd H. van Andel
(Stage 3 Coordinator)

[lagarvelho]

Paul, Jacques, and all:

acques  Cinq-Mars link=board=13;threadid=411;start=0#msg1352 date=1078078584]
 I have yet to read the book (!), but I did read the "The newsletter of the GODWIN INSTITUTE FOR QUATERNARY RESEARCH" (by the way, thanks for passing this on – I has missed it when I first looked at the Stage 3 site), and the following passage attracted my attention (my short comments in red and in brackets):

Much of Jacques' critique of this piece is good, and I have no particular quarrel with it.  However, in this context, I'm not exactly sure what *anyone* means here by "cold adapted".  Some "modern" humans(e.g. Inuit, for example) are *somewhat* "cold adapted, having somewhat short arms and legs relative to broad trunks(which is what you would expect in cold regions.  Neandertals had these adaptations, as well as (apparently) some others, such as big noses and forward-thrust faces.  But although Neandertals had cold-adapted *bodies* it doesn't seem to me, judging from what I've been able to gather from reading various papers, that their *braiins* functioned in much the same way as ours do.  We can't be sure of that, naturally, since none of us were there to observe them. And it's quite possible N's exploited "tundra-like" areas in search of game(at least at times), just as later "moderns" did.  But again, it's hard to say.
Anne G

[Daryl Habel]

Paul, Jacques, and all:
<snip>
Much of Jacques' critique of this piece is good, and I have no particular quarrel with it.  However, in this context, I'm not exactly sure what *anyone* means here by "cold adapted".  Some "modern" humans(e.g. Inuit, for example) are *somewhat* "cold adapted, having somewhat short arms and legs relative to broad trunks(which is what you would expect in cold regions.  Neandertals had these adaptations, as well as (apparently) some others, such as big noses and forward-thrust faces.  But although Neandertals had cold-adapted *bodies* it doesn't seem to me, judging from what I've been able to gather from reading various papers, that their *braiins* functioned in much the same way as ours do.  We can't be sure of that, naturally, since none of us were there to observe them. And it's quite possible N's exploited "tundra-like" areas in search of game(at least at times), just as later "moderns" did.  But again, it's hard to say.
Anne G

Well, I'll just say that while I also have no particular quarrel with Jacques' critique of Van Andel's contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter, I look forward with great anticipation to taking Professor Davies' advice and actually reading "the book" to see what the Stage 3 Project authors have accomplished insofar as correlating the climatic and archaeological records, as well as what was concluded and how the conclusions were determined.  Until then, it would seem unwise to comment on what the currently published results of the Stage 3 Project show.  

That said, the Van Andel contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter should be read only as Van Andel's personal opinions on a number of controversial issues and, as such, it is fodder for comment here.  But we should be careful not to conflate personal opinions with the empirical data which is  published in the Stage 3 book edited by Van Andel and Davies.

We all know the subjective value of opinion.  

Dar  

[Dale Hoogeveen]

Hi Dar,

You might find some things interesting in the databases they have available for down load, including a very extensive spreadsheet on excavated sites, right at the bottom of the homepage.

Unless the book departs from the published databases, they should be somewhat informative.

Dutch

Well, I'll just say that while I also have no particular quarrel with Jacques' critique of Van Andel's contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter, I look forward with great anticipation to taking Professor Davies' advice and actually reading "the book" to see what the Stage 3 Project authors have accomplished insofar as correlating the climatic and archaeological records, as well as what was concluded and how the conclusions were determined.  Until then, it would seem unwise to comment on what the currently published results of the Stage 3 Project show.  

That said, the Van Andel contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter should be read only as Van Andel's personal opinions on a number of controversial issues and, as such, it is fodder for comment here.  But we should be careful not to conflate personal opinions with the empirical data which is  published in the Stage 3 book edited by Van Andel and Davies.

We all know the subjective value of opinion.  

Dar  

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Well, I'll just say that while I also have no particular quarrel with Jacques' critique of Van Andel's contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter, I look forward with great anticipation to taking Professor Davies' advice and actually reading "the book" to see what the Stage 3 Project authors have accomplished insofar as correlating the climatic and archaeological records, as well as what was concluded and how the conclusions were determined.  Until then, it would seem unwise to comment on what the currently published results of the Stage 3 Project show.  

That said, the Van Andel contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter should be read only as Van Andel's personal opinions on a number of controversial issues and, as such, it is fodder for comment here.  But we should be careful not to conflate personal opinions with the empirical data which is  published in the Stage 3 book edited by Van Andel and Davies.

We all know the subjective value of opinion.  

Dar  

Thanks Dar, I fully agree with you on all points, and I am particularly looking forward to reading the Stage 3 Project book. If the archaeological database is any indication, the whole reporting part of the project should provide palaeoanthropologists of various ilks with a wealth of useful information on the western European dataset. But I am also, especially,  looking forward to reading the more synthetic, explanatory statements that will be extracted  from all this!

Jacques

 

[lagarvelho]

Dar:

I actually *did* pay attention to this, believe it or not.  And I'll just chime in here and say I agree with you that we should all read the book and *then* weigh in with whatever comments, opinions, etc., we have. Unfortunately, since the book isn't available at the moment, there's not much to be done about it at the present time.  Which leaves subjective opinion and (perhaps) media hype.  So, for the moment, at least until the book becomes available, I guess I'll just leave things at that and go back to "listen" mode for the time being.
Anne G

Well, I'll just say that while I also have no particular quarrel with Jacques' critique of Van Andel's contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter, I look forward with great anticipation to taking Professor Davies' advice and actually reading "the book" to see what the Stage 3 Project authors have accomplished insofar as correlating the climatic and archaeological records, as well as what was concluded and how the conclusions were determined.  Until then, it would seem unwise to comment on what the currently published results of the Stage 3 Project show.  

That said, the Van Andel contribution to the Godwin Institute newsletter should be read only as Van Andel's personal opinions on a number of controversial issues and, as such, it is fodder for comment here.  But we should be careful not to conflate personal opinions with the empirical data which is  published in the Stage 3 book edited by Van Andel and Davies.

We all know the subjective value of opinion.  

Dar  

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

Here is another note from Dr. William Davies, pertaining to our ongoing discussion.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

From: <webmaster@palanth.com>
Message-Id: <20040304194813.559E926EC8C@srvweb1.netstation.qc.ca>
Date: Thu,  4 Mar 2004 14:48:13 -0500 (EST)

Comment by reporting user: Many thanks for publicising my brief reply of 28 Feb.  People might like to know that the book has been available for about 6 weeks in the UK (via Oxbow books).  Douglas Palmer had not read the book when he wrote his piece, contrary to what he said in his report.  Please feel free to disagree with our conclusions, but preferably after having read the book!  Kind regards, William Davies (just plain "Dr"!)

[Daryl Habel]

All,

Here is another note from Dr. William Davies, pertaining to our ongoing discussion.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

Well, a quick check of the Oxbow Books webpages (both - those for ordering from differing hemispheres) and both show a listing that says the book is not yet published, but that they are accepting advance orders.  Assuming the book has reached final publication, since Dr. Davies has a copy, we probably wouldn't have a long wait.

Dar