Vogelherd fossils are dated to Neolithic

[Daryl Habel]

All,

Some breaking news in the July 8, 2004 issue of Nature.  It seems the Vogelherd "key fossils" (formerly) associated with the Aurignacian tools and art  have been directly dated to between 3900 and 5000 rcyr bp.
 
*************************
Nature 430, 198 - 201 (08 July 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02690  
 
Unexpectedly recent dates for human remains from Vogelherd

NICHOLAS J. CONARD, PIETER M. GROOTES & FRED H. SMITH

[first paragraph]
The human skeletal remains from the Vogelherd cave in the Swabian Jura of southwestern Germany are at present seen as the best evidence that modern humans produced the artefacts of the early Aurignacian. Radiocarbon measurements from all the key fossils from Vogelherd show that these human remains actually date to the late Neolithic, between 3,900 and 5,000 radiocarbon years before present (BP). Although many questions remain unresolved, these results weaken the arguments for the Danube Corridor hypothesis—that there was an early migration of modern humans into the Upper Danube drainage—and strengthen the view that Neanderthals may have contributed significantly to the development of Upper Palaeolithic cultural traits independent of the arrival of modern humans.
-
© 2004 Nature Publishing Group
******************************

For those with online access to Nature, the article is located at:
CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE

And an additional story from News@nature.com, at:
CLICK HERE FOR NEWS STORY

Dar

[Daryl Habel]

I've now managed to read the article, and since it might not be readily available for some members, I can supply a little more information.

The specimens were directly dated by the Leibniz Laboratory, and  are: (1) Stetten 1 cranium, (2) Stetten 1 mandible, (3) Stetten 1 mandible (dated twice with independent preparation), (4) Stetten 2 cranium, (5) Stetten 4 vertebra, and (6) Stetten 3 humerus.

Indeed, these are _all_  the "key fossils" from Vogelherd which, in the past, have provided the strongest evidence for AMH association with the famous Vogelherd Aurignacian and its mobile artwork.

The six AMS radiocarbon dates on collagen range from 3980 +/- 35 (Stetten 2 cranium) to 4995 +/- 35 (Stetten 3 humerus) BP, and there doesn't seem much doubt about the reliability of these dates since they are supported by AMS results on the insoluble residue, which produced ages ranging from 3560-5175 BP, correlated well and within a few hundred years of the respective measurements on collagen for all samples.

Dar  

[Dale Hoogeveen]

Hi Dar,

That doesn't change the age of the cultural artifacts, does it?  Or is that up in the air now as well?

Dale

All,

Some breaking news in the July 8, 2004 issue of Nature.  It seems the Vogelherd "key fossils" (formerly) associated with the Aurignacian tools and art  have been directly dated to between 3900 and 5000 rcyr bp.
 
*************************
Nature 430, 198 - 201 (08 July 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02690  
 
Unexpectedly recent dates for human remains from Vogelherd

NICHOLAS J. CONARD, PIETER M. GROOTES & FRED H. SMITH

[first paragraph]
The human skeletal remains from the Vogelherd cave in the Swabian Jura of southwestern Germany are at present seen as the best evidence that modern humans produced the artefacts of the early Aurignacian. Radiocarbon measurements from all the key fossils from Vogelherd show that these human remains actually date to the late Neolithic, between 3,900 and 5,000 radiocarbon years before present (BP). Although many questions remain unresolved, these results weaken the arguments for the Danube Corridor hypothesis—that there was an early migration of modern humans into the Upper Danube drainage—and strengthen the view that Neanderthals may have contributed significantly to the development of Upper Palaeolithic cultural traits independent of the arrival of modern humans.
-
© 2004 Nature Publishing Group
******************************

For those with online access to Nature, the article is located at:
CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE

And an additional story from News@nature.com, at:
CLICK HERE FOR NEWS STORY

Dar

[Daryl Habel]

Hi Dar,

That doesn't change the age of the cultural artifacts, does it?  Or is that up in the air now as well?

Dale

Right.  It does not affect the age of the Aurignacian artifacts.  Only that the artifacts are no longer associated with any hominid fossil material.  Conard seems rather upset that his Danube Corridor model for AMH early colonization of Central Europe, "although still plausible" (p. 200)  has taken a bit of a hit with this finding.

Dar

[anthrostudies]

This is interesting because the Soanian in Asia, is a very primitive style of tool industry which persists into the Neolithic - I wonder what species of hominid made the Soanian.

I know its not relevent, since the tools haven't been redated. But, if an Acheulian-like (Mode 2/3) industry can survive for so long elsewhere, an Upper Paleolithic industry could persist into the Neolithic in Europe.

If theres a link between certain archaic and modern races, then, ghost lineages into more recent times are suggested by the late appearence of certain modern types.

[lagarvelho]

Dar:


Right.  It does not affect the age of the Aurignacian artifacts.  Only that the artifacts are no longer associated with any hominid fossil material.  Conard seems rather upset that his Danube Corridor model for AMH early colonization of Central Europe, "although still plausible" (p. 200)  has taken a bit of a hit with this finding.

He was upset?  I didn't exactly get that impression upon reading the article.  Disappointed, perhaps.  I'm less familiar with Conard than with some others in "the business", so I wonder:  did he have a lot "invested" in this Danube Corridor idea?
Anne G

[lagarvelho]

anthrostudies:

You say you wonder what species of hominid made the Soanian?  I don't know.  I don't know anything about the Soanian.  OTOH, it seems like what evidence there is suggests that you can't really link a tool type to a type or species of hominid any more.  Both AMH and Neandertals utilized "Mousterian" tools in what is now Israel. and Neandertals used the more "advanced" Chatelperronian later on. The suggestion that comes out of this Vogelherd study is that, absent any fossils, we don't know *who* used the earliest Aurignacian.  Maybe *both* Neandertals *and* AMH.  Until we have some fossils, there will be no way of knowing.
Anne G

[anthrostudies]

anthrostudies:

You say you wonder what species of hominid made the Soanian?  I don't know.  I don't know anything about the Soanian.  OTOH, it seems like what evidence there is suggests that you can't really link a tool type to a type or species of hominid any more.  Both AMH and Neandertals utilized "Mousterian" tools in what is now Israel. and Neandertals used the more "advanced" Chatelperronian later on. The suggestion that comes out of this Vogelherd study is that, absent any fossils, we don't know *who* used the earliest Aurignacian.  Maybe *both* Neandertals *and* AMH.  Until we have some fossils, there will be no way of knowing.
Anne G

Yes, you're right, its a mystery. With the Soanian being a transitional Acheulian to Mousterian industry though, its a impessive survival of a tool type until the Neolithic?

[trehinp]

Older lithic industries sem to survive long after new ones have appeared. It is actually the case for most tools : even though electric powered planes used in wood work have been invented more that 40 years ago, hand held planes are still in use...

A few years ago I saw a great TV reportage on a small contemporary tribe in Papouasia which was still using acheulean tools. The grand father was teaching his grand children where to find appropriate flint nodules, how to chose the right ones and how to do flint knapping. It was extremely interesting, unfortunately, I haven't been able to retrieve the producer of the reportage.

This shows that stone industries can survive for very long periods...

Back to the article, it would be important to know if the Aurignacian artefacts such as the Vogelherd ivory horse, were found in the same layers as the fossils dated between 3900 and 5000 bp described in the article. This would mean that human beings had either preserved through time or discovered Aurignacian artefacts and attributed to it an important value.

The other interesting question would be to know how the ivory statuette of the horse came into the possessions of the mid Neolithic populations...

Paul.
Eager to know more about this story.

[lagarvelho]

Paul:

The articles I have in my possession didn't say which layers the horse was in, nor did it say which layer the fossils came from.  It just mentioned that because they were found together, they were long *assumed* to be the work of Aurignacian "moderns".  Then the bones themselves were apparently redated to the Neolithic.  You raise some very interesting questions, which I don't think anybody has really answered.  However, the problem is that excavation techniques may not have been very careful at that time(I don't know that this was the case, I must hastily add, but in the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century, archaeology was basically in its infancy). So it's hard to say whether or not, at this point, you have a "case".  But it certainly shouldn't be ruled out as a possibility.
Anne G

[trehinp]

However, the problem is that excavation techniques may not have been very careful at that time(I don't know that this was the case, I must hastily add, but in the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century, archaeology was basically in its infancy).

Indeed Anne, a lot of information was lost during the first archeological researches. Jean Clottes (he may not be the only one) even proposed that current researches should let parts of the archeological exploration sites intacts, in order to make sure that future explorations, which may have even better methodologies and techniques than we have today, would be in a position to find at least partially untouched fields.

I just thought of another possibility for the Vogelherd ivory horse being dated from the Aurignatian. Could it be that the ivory itself was from that period but that the sculpture was made much later on ?

From a style point of view this would be rather unlikely... Neolithic art was much less realistic than the ivory horse is.

Were there neolithic style artefacts besides the ivory horse and the recently found Acheulean tools ?

Well, what a fantastic new subject of research...

Paul

[Daryl Habel]

Older lithic industries sem to survive long after new ones have appeared.
[SNIP]
This shows that stone industries can survive for very long periods...

Back to the article, it would be important to know if the Aurignacian artefacts such as the Vogelherd ivory horse, were found in the same layers as the fossils dated between 3900 and 5000 bp described in the article. This would mean that human beings had either preserved through time or discovered Aurignacian artefacts and attributed to it an important value.

The other interesting question would be to know how the ivory statuette of the horse came into the possessions of the mid Neolithic populations...

Hi Paul,

You are right about old tools surviving long after new tools are invented, but I think you are confused about the Vogelherd archaeological context.

The redating of the Vogelherd fossils involved taking a sample of human bone from the fossil itself.  This was run through the lab procedures and resulted in a dating of ca. 4,000-5,000 BP.

The geological stratum in which the Neolithic human fossil  was found has been dated from samples of bone and charcoal NOT from this human fossil.   These dates, and there have been many samples taken and dated, average about 32,000 BP.   The stratum also contained the Aurignacian-style artworks (the carved horse, etc.).  The dating of the stratum has not changed.  The carved horse and other mobile art objects were not found in a "grave" with the human.  The carved horse and other objects (including the extinct animals of the Paleolithic age) are still considered to be about 32,000 years old.

Only the date for the human fossils at Vogelherd has been revised.  It appears that these humans were buried during Neolithic time into a grave dug into the older stratum.  Normally, an archaeologist will look for clues to this sort of intrusion, but the excavator [corrected later to Gustav Riek] who dug up the Vogelherd human fossils did not note any sign of an intrusive burial.

This does not mean that since the human fossils were dated to 4-5,000 years ago, that everything in the stratum _must be_ Neolithic.  The extinct animals which were used for samples to date the stratum previously are certainly about 30,000 years old.  The Aurignacian stone tools and artwork also probably are 30,000 years old, but the carved artwork has never been directly dated like the human fossils were this year.  No one wants to destroy the art by taking a sample from it for direct dating, but it would be the only way to be 100% positive of its Aurignacian age.

Still, the artworks, although found in the same stratum as the human fossils, were not found in necessarily close association with the human fossils, so there is nothing that says they might have been included as a grave offering - (yet reported).

Dar

[Daryl Habel]

I just thought of another possibility for the Vogelherd ivory horse being dated from the Aurignatian. Could it be that the ivory itself was from that period but that the sculpture was made much later on ?

From a style point of view this would be rather unlikely... Neolithic art was much less realistic than the ivory horse is.

Were there neolithic style artefacts besides the ivory horse and the recently found Acheulean tools ?

Well, what a fantastic new subject of research...

Paul

The ivory horse has not been dated directly.  No one wants to cut a piece of the Vogelherd horse out of the carving to use for a sample to date.  Understandably. 

However, this is the ONLY way to be absolutely 100% positive of the date for the ivory.  You are correct that old ivory  _could_ have been used by Neolithic carvers.  But there is absolutely no indication of Neolithic occupation of the Vogelherd stratum in which the artwork was found _except_ the human fossils which have been directly dated to 4-5,000 BP.  The tools are all Aurignacian-style.  No Neolithic artifacts were found in this stratum.  The best explanation is that  5000 years ago, humans were buried intrusively into older 30,000 BP layers at Vogelherd.

Dar

[Daryl Habel]

Were there neolithic style artefacts besides the ivory horse and the recently found Acheulean tools ?

No neolithic artifacts were ever reported from the Vogelherd stratum containg the carved horse and human fossils.  Only Aurignacian-style artifacts and 32,000-year-old animal bones (which were used for dating samples before they dated the humans directly from the human fossil material).

And no "recently found Acheulean tools" at Vogelherd either.  You seem to be confusing anthrostudies' change of subject (to Acheulean-Soan, which is a Pakistani-Indian Himalayan industry) with Vogelherd.

Lay off that good French wine for a while.

Cheers,
Dar

[lagarvelho]

Paul and Dar:

I guess that means that if the ivory horse from Vogelherd is (apparently) around 32,000 years old, but the human fossils are later, then the only reasonable explanation is an intrusive burial. And I don't have the impression that Neolithic art styles were, quite that "naturalistic".  Of course, I could be wrong. . . .
Anne G