Lincombian chronology and Kent's Cavern

[Daryl Habel]

[snipped for sake of brevity]

But then, here is some additional, possibly useful, complementary information that I just found in my copy of the new encyclopedia (“Dictionnaire”) I mentioned ELSEWHERE

Summarized by Denis Vialou (from Dowie and Ogivie 1927, and Jacobi 1990), the Kent’s Cave reconstituted stratigraphy/cultural sequence reads more or less as follows (apologies for the quick translation):

As for  the human fossil under consideration, here is what Vialou has to say:

This last part is quite revealing in that the Lincombian (from Lincombe Hill where is located Kent’s Cavern) has been clearly identified as the westernmost member of a “family” of techno-complexes labelled Jerzmanovician. Mostly known from Central and Eastern Europe these lithic assemblages have provided dates in the 40 - 38 kya range and are viewed by many as expressions of a technological “transition” between a number of preceding MP industries and later, full-fledged EUP manifestations. Since this particular aspect of the Kent’s Cavern evidence would best be discussed in the Prehistory Board, I’ll leave it at that at this time. [Note, also, that this particular topic was somewhat extensively covered in the later days of the late PALANTH-L].

At any rate, this contextual information -- not mentioned in the press releases and barely alluded to in what Churchill and Smith (2000) had to say about the Kent’s Cavern early human remain -- puts in a clearer context the importance of this new date.

In addition to the references provided by Churchill and Smith (2000), others that would be worth checking in order to get a better, interdisciplinary understanding of the identity and significance of the Kent’s Cavern person, are the at the very least, Campbell (1977, 1980), Dowie and Ogilvie (1927), and Jacobi (1980 and 1990).
......

[snip very good references]

Jacques, et al.,

I've decided to (try to) follow Jacques' suggestion and move my response (here) to the Prehistory Board.  Previous discussion of the Kent's Cavern 4 maxilla can be found HERE.  Thank you for the translated informative entries from your "Dictionnaire" edited by Vialou (2004).  

Yes, in the last days of Palanth-L, this issue of the "Lincombian" industry came up with the report of a leaf-point assemblage at Glaston Hyena Den (Rutland), and I  recorded the 'highlights' of that discussion in my printed notes, with your comment that "according to many workers," the Lincombian leaf-point assemblages of Britain, dated roughly between 38 and 28 kya (by Campbell), show clear affinities with the Altmuhl group, the Szeletian, and Jerzmanovician of Central Europe.  But I did not know the Lincombian was named for Lincombe Hill ("where is located Kent's Cavern").    

Paul Pettitt (1999. Disappearing from the world: an archaeological perspective on Neanderthal extinction. Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 18 (3): 217-240) says: terminus post quem for Neanderthal extinction [or, more accurately, the latest-dated Middle Paleolithic MTA  assemblage] in Britain was ca. 38 kya and, "...The gap of some 8,000 years or more between the latest Neanderthals and earliest dated anatomically modern humans [at Kent's Cavern and other Aurignacian assemblages dated ca. 30 kya], is filled to some extent by the enigmatic leaf-point industries.  These, however, have an overall chronological range of some 10,000 years, i.e., from 38 to 28 ka BP, although with over 50% of the determinations in the range of 30,000-28,000  BP.  As earlier appearances are sporadic, assuming all leaf-point assemblages were made by Neanderthals is perhaps not justified..." (Pettitt 1999:232-3, my comments added in brackets,[],).  All in all, still a pretty accurate assessment.

Should it be verified that the Kent's Cavern 4 maxilla is dated to between 37-40 kya, it falls easily within the chronological range of the Lincombian industries and, therefore, unless the taxonomy of KC4 is revised to Neanderthal (and this appears doubtful, as a guess), as Pettitt says, assuming all leaf-point assemblages were made by Neanderthals is perhaps not justified.  And this might not pertain only to Britain, but also to the Central European manifestations.

It's interesting that the Vialou (2004) reference associates the KC4 maxilla "found in a portion of the deposit that predates the formation of a stalagmitic floor," with the Lincombian strata.  I haven't dug up much on the cave geology yet, only:

Proctor CJ, et al. (2005). Age of Middle Pleistocene fauna and Lower Palaeolithic industries from Kent's Cavern (Devon). Quaternary Science Reviews. 24: 1243-1252.

and while this shows the overall plan of the cave pretty well, it provides specific information only for the Lower Paleolithic sediments.

In any case, if I get this moved to the Prehistory Board in good fashion, it's a subject that's worthy of more discussion.

Regards,
Dar  

 

[Dale Hoogeveen]

Following Jacques' use of the term "Jerzmanovician" I stumbled upon the following web site from a scientist in another field about Neanderthals in general.

http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/lapedo.html

A very interesting read (and not a short one) from a professional scientist who though very fluent obviously has English as a second language.  He covers a whole lot of ground and goes abit outside normal paleo anthro type approaches.  

He is at times both amusing and folksy, but none the less quite careful with his points.

He uses some very interesting mathematical  illustrations and graphs.  He is very confident about his math.

The example about percentages of surviving mtDNA lineages is extremely informative.  (Any given mtDNA lineage has only about a one in four chance of surviving 5 generations beyond any given point, assuming no selection.  IOW the norm for any particular woman's mtDNA expression is relatively quick extinction.)

 As is his related observation that to show Neanderthal mtDNA a current human would have to have all relevant maternal line ancestors to carry it unbroken for something like a 1000 generations to get to present time.

Dale

[dave]

I have to say i think you are wrong to envoke pettits point about there being no justification in attributing leaf point industries to neanderthals. Pettit was refering only to the UK for starters, i am sure no one would question the Althmulian as a neanderthal industry!?

Indeed there is a spread evident through Europe. the Szeletian spreads bopth north and east of the Alps.  it passes as the Ranis-2 through Begium and into england as the Lincombian, and it spreads into Russia were it is labelled the Streletskaya, contemporaneous with the purely Early Upper Palaeolithic Spitsynian of the same region.

personally i can see absolutly no problem with the Lincombian as being of Neanderthal Manufacture! and think we will see the rather drab KC4 re-examined and correctly assigned as Neanderthal.

Dave

[Daryl Habel]

I have to say i think you are wrong to envoke pettits point about there being no justification in attributing leaf point industries to neanderthals. Pettit was refering only to the UK for starters, i am sure no one would question the Althmulian as a neanderthal industry!?

If Paul Pettitt expresses doubt about justification in the attribution of all UK leaf-point industries, it's because most, if not all, of these leaf points are not associated with any fossil human evidence.  I will admit it's only me who is extending the issue of "no justification" for attribution of all leaf-point manifestations of Central Europe to Neanderthals.   Althmulian is only one such manifestation, localized, preceding the Aurignacian of Bavaria and, as you say, generally attributed to Neanderthals.

Indeed there is a spread evident through Europe. the Szeletian spreads bopth north and east of the Alps.  it passes as the Ranis-2 through Begium and into england as the Lincombian, and it spreads into Russia were it is labelled the Streletskaya, contemporaneous with the purely Early Upper Palaeolithic Spitsynian of the same region.

Yes, I'm quite aware of the chronogeographic extent of the Central and Eastern European leaf-point industries of both Middle and Upper Paleolithic age.  But I'm not very comfortable with "lumping" all these varied diachronic assemblages under one blanket as "Szeletian", and then to further attribute all "Szeletian" assemblages to Neanderthals.  There is scant fossil human material directly associated with most of these "Szeletian" industries.  As for the Streletskayan of Russia, some folks would call the Sungir'
lithic assemblage (ca. 25 kya) late Streletskayan (it does have the diagnostic Streletskayan leaf points), while Randall White would call it a variant of Aurignacian, and the associated burials are certainly AMH.

The point I'm making is that it is by no means a sure thing that all European "transitional" MP/UP leaf-point manifestations were manufactured by Neanderthals.  It is more assumption than backed by associated fossil human evidence.  

personally i can see absolutly no problem with the Lincombian as being of Neanderthal Manufacture! and think we will see the rather drab KC4 re-examined and correctly assigned as Neanderthal.

Dave

I don't have a problem with Lincombian being of Neanderthal manufacture.  However, with the absence of associated fossil humans, I see no reason for preconception as such.   It is interesting that UK Middle Paleolithic assemblages prior to the appearance of the Lincombian (leaf-points) were dominated by MTA-like industries similar to those of Western Europe with bout coupe handaxes,  while leaf-points (which are rare to non-existent in Western European MTA assemblages with cordiform handaxes) and the Lincombian seem to signal  a different cultural trajectory and contact with people inhabiting Central Europe at ca. 38 kya.  How do we know all these people were Neanderthals?  Quite simply, we don't know who all these people were.

Best,
Dar