Latest Vindija Neanderthals redated 4 kyr earlier

[Daryl Habel]

Just picked this off Anne Gilbert's Yahoo Palanthsci  group (Thanks Anne), and I'm not sure I've located it on the correct forum board.
CLICK HERE

Redating of the latest Neandertals in Europe
Two Neantertal fossils excavated from Vindija Cave in Croatia in 1998, believed to be the last surviving Neandertals, may be 3,000-4,000 years older than originally thought.
An international team of researchers involving Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis; Tom Higham and Christopher Bronk Ramsey of the Oxford University radiocarbon laboratory; Ivor Karavanic of the University of Zagreb; and Fred Smith of Loyola University, has redated the two Neandertals from Vindija Cave, the results of which have been published in the Jan. 2-6 early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The resultant ages are between 32,000 and 33,000 years ago, and perhaps slightly older. In 1998, the fossils had been radiocarbon dated to 28,000-29,000 years ago.

Since that time, the increasing application of direct radiocarbon dating to late Neandertal and early modern human fossils in Europe has greatly altered perceptions of the chronological relationships between Neandertals and modern humans during the time that the latter spread westward across Europe.

In particular, it has shown that many of the purportedly early modern human fossils are much more recent, while confirming the early ages of important fossil samples in central and eastern Europe. This work has been combined recently with refinements in the sample purification techniques for the radiocarbon dating bone and teeth, to provide more accurate, and usually older, dates for important fossil specimens.

These new fossil ages still document a substantial chronological overlap between Neandertals and modern humans in Europe, but primarily the work highlights the currently tenuous nature of scenarios of modern human dispersals in Europe based on small numbers of direct radiocarbon dates, using various sample preparation protocols, on diagnostic human fossils in this time range.

Probably the most important point made here is in the last paragraph: "...primarily the work highlights the currently tenuous nature of scenarios of modern human dispersals in Europe based on small numbers of direct radiocarbon dates, using various sample preparation protocols, on diagnostic fossils in this time range..."

Dar

[trehinp]

"Two Neantertal fossils excavated from Vindija Cave in Croatia in 1998, believed to be the last surviving Neandertals, may be 3,000-4,000 years older than originally thought. "

Thanks Daryl,

This is very interesting. From a dynamic and chronological point of view what seems important is to understand the time difference between the disappearing of Neandertals in Eastern Europe and the disappearing of Neandertals in South Western Europe, at the tip of the Iberic peninsula.

<<Several archaeological sites in the Western Mediterranean and Portugal show that Neanderthals lived there until around 30,000 B.P.>> (http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10037&entrynumber=93)

Did the extinction wave sweep Europe from East to West ? Was it fast or did it spread slowly?

Some recent researches proposed that the cultural relation between Neanderthals and Modern Humans may have been both way and not only Neanderthals trying to copy the "more advanced" Modern humans. (F. d’Errico et Al, "Archeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music-An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective " Journal of World Prehistory, Vol 17, No. 1 March 2003).

In other words, for example, was the "Levalois" stone knapping technique invented by Modern Humans or did they learn it from the Mousterian Neanderthals? (I have no opinion or knowledge on this but would like to know)
 
Knowing how long did these two populations coexist is hence of a crucial importance. Where, geographically, did that coexistence last for the longest period of time? Could that coexistence have had an impact upon the development of early forms of representative art?

I can't remember where I read that Neanderthals may have posed a challenge to Modern Humans who discovered another group of human beings that was similar to them in some aspects and yet different in some other ways.  This could have triggered some creativity as a necessity for survival, a level of creativity that  apparently wasn't accessible to Neanderthals since only Homo Sapiens Sapiens did survive.

Thanks again Daryl for bringing this info to our attention.

Paul

[Daryl Habel]

Paul,

The authors of the PNAS paper (Higham et al. 2006) seem to be implying something like the idea you propose:  I quote them here:

"....It may, therefore, be possible to maintain a scenario of a time-transgressive replacement of a Neandertal morphology by a morphology of  early modern humans (by a variety of population processes), from east to west across Europe, beginning at least 35,000 B.P. in the lower Danube basin and ending ~30,000 B.P. in Iberia..." (p. 555).

There is, in Higham et al. 2006, a good discussion of the implications of this new dating .

Higham, T., Bronk Ramsey, C., Karavanic, I., Smith, F.H. & Trinkaus, E. (2006). Revised direct radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Paleolithic Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 103 (3): 553-557.

AVAILABLE HERE

But keep in mind what I quoted earlier from the Eureka news release:  "...primarily the work highlights the currently tenuous nature of scenarios of modern human dispersals in Europe based on small numbers of direct radiocarbon dates, using various sample preparation protocols, on diagnostic fossils in this time range..."

I'll send you the paper.

Dar

[lagarvelho]

Paul and Dar:

My apologies for a somewhat "late" reply.  Whatever "they" were doing in the way of upgrades to this site prevented me from posting for longer than I would have liked.  But I'm back on now.  Re:  what Neandertals and "moderns" may have learned from one another --- I was under the impression that *both* Neandertals and "moderns" used "Mousterian" tools, which is why tool types found at a site are not diagnostic.  But did *only* Neandertals use Levallois flaking?  Or are there some "modern" siites that have Levallois type tools too?  I am completely unclear at this point, regardless of who may have "taught" what to whom.
Anne G

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Paul & al.,

The Levallois technology did not have to wait for “moderns” to manifest itself. Its presence is already noticeable about 400,000 years ago along the Somme valley (France) and is well established throughout western Europe by about 300,000 ka. Clearly associated with late Lower Palaeolithic industries likely produced by “archaic” forms of Homo, it becomes prominent during the Middle Paleolithic, ranging initially throughout Europe, the Near East and parts of Africa (mostly North) and, later, extends farther east in Eurasia (i.e., Siberia), during what you might want to call Neanderthal times and, in the Near East, in association with so-called “early moderns”. There, it is known to have manifested itself well into Upper Palaeolithic times.

If you want to read an relatively recent opus (in English) on the Levallois Technology, you might want to have a look at:

Harold L. Dibble and Ofer Bar-Yosef, editors. 1995. The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology.Monographs in World Archaeology No. 23, 502 pp., 274 figs., 79 tables, references. ISBN 1-881094-12-X

… with this, from the online upenn.edu listing:

This volume contains the proceedings of a five-day conference on Levallois technology held in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, which involved over 40 Paleolithic specialists from around the world.

Click HERE for the Table of Contents.

Note also that Google is also there to help you. Looking up “Levallois Technology”, “Levallois Technology in Africa” and variations on the same general theme should provide you with very interesting/informative surprises, including a fair bit of good visual material. Not as revealing as looking at real stones, but...

Jacques

[Daryl Habel]

At risk of straying from the thread title, but since both Paul and Anne have brought the subject of whether Levallois technology was originated and transmitted one-way-or-the-other between anatomically modern and Neanderthal humans, followed by an answer from Jacques,  I'll add a bit of comment on this.  Firstly, I agree with what Jacques has posted above.

What constitutes Levallois technology has a long history of controversial debate, and there have been many conceptions by many workers, with many disagreements in definition.  Like many other themes in paleo, Levallois can have sensu stricto and sensu lato interpretations, and it can be found that when one worker writes that a specific collection of stone tools is dominated by the Levallois technique, that another worker will disagree and write that the same assemblage contains little evidence of Levallois. Harold Dibble had an article that discusses this problem of inter-observer analytical variability, which he published in the volume that Jacques referenced above ("The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology"), available in pdf free from his webpage at::

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~hdibble/publicat.htm
or: CLICK HERE

Look for:

Dibble, H.L. (1995q) Biache Saint-Vaast, Level IIA: a comparison of analytical approaches.  In Dibble, H.L. & Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.) The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Monographs in World Archaeology No 23. pp. 93-116. Madison WI: Prehistory Press.

Also an earlier Palanth discussion on a paper dealing with the origin of Levallois at Botany Pit , Purfleet in England discussed HERE, which  illustrates the point Jacques made (above) that Levallois did not wait for "modern" humans.

I've searched for years for an answer to the question of the origin of Levallois, but I'm still unsure about where and when to place such an origin, or even if it is appropriate to look for an "origin" which might only be incremental improvements in stone tool technology and raw material economy over the centuries, but there's no doubt that what most people would call Levallois has origins that long precede both Neanderthals and "modern humans",  and date to the times which are usually associated with "archaic Homo sapiens" of about 500,000 years ago to 300,000 years ago.

Is everyone confused now?
Cheers,
Dar

 

[trehinp]

Thanks Jacques,

Indeed the Levallois technology started very early in the middle palaeolithic but it lasted all over the Mousterian period until about 30K BP. Without being a specialist of lithic industries, it could be the case that the neanderthals could very well have mastered this technique over so many milleniums and have perfected it becoming precursors of the Gravetian technology. So it could be that modern humans learned some of these skills from the neanderthals. But this was just food for thoughts. I would agree that reading the document you mentionned in your answer would be clarifying the subject. That's far beyond my level of knowledge of lithic industries.

It could also be any other technique than stone knapping that the Neanderthalians could have developped in their long stay all over the vast European continent : hunting strategies adapted to the local environment, knowledge of the plants, etc. and that they could have if not passed on to modern men, shared with them.

My point was that, contrary to the position of Denis Lewis-Williams in "The Mind in the Cave" and some other authors, Neanderthalians were far more culturaly competent than previously envisionned (Baffier 1999, Arsuaga 2001).

So it is possible that a longer coexistence between Neanderthal and Modern men, such as proposed in the article which started this discussion, would have a great importance on the development of Modern men culture.

In the French website "Ma prehistoire" (http://ma.prehistoire.free.fr/former_indexxx.htm) I have found another great article discussing the time overlap of Neanderthal and Modern men in Europe.

It gives a view of the geographical spreading of moden men and at the same time the fading of Neanderthalians. (http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/bocquet/anti2000.pdf)

I sincerely think this could have great influence on how we understand the so called "cultural explosion" of the uppr Palaeolithic.

Yours very friendly.

Paul

D. Baffier, ”Les derniers Néandertaliens, le Châtelperronien”, La maison des roches, Paris 1999
J. L. Arsuaga, "Le Collier de Néandertal, nos ancêtres à l’ère glaciaire", Odile Jacob, 2001, 344 p

[trehinp]

Without being a specialist of lithic industries, it could be the case that the neanderthals could very well have mastered this technique over so many milleniums and have perfected it becoming precursors of the Gravetian technology.

Appologies for another denomination error, I mentionned "Gravetian" in the above sentence. That was a slip of the mind from my part what I had really in mind was the"Chatelperonian".

So it should have read "perfected it becoming precursors of the Chatelperonian technology", an idea that is developped precisely ine Dominique Baffiers book quoted on my previous post.

(Sorry for this error, I shouldn't post message so late in the night...)

Yours very friendly.

Paul

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

At risk of straying from the thread title, but since both Paul and Anne have brought the subject of whether Levallois technology was originated and transmitted one-way-or-the-other between anatomically modern and Neanderthal humans, followed by an answer from Jacques,  I'll add a bit of comment on this.  Firstly, I agree with what Jacques has posted above.

What constitutes Levallois technology has a long history of controversial debate, and there have been many conceptions by many workers, with many disagreements in definition.  Like many other themes in paleo, Levallois can have sensu stricto and sensu lato interpretations, and it can be found that when one worker writes that a specific collection of stone tools is dominated by the Levallois technique, that another worker will disagree and write that the same assemblage contains little evidence of Levallois. Harold Dibble had an article that discusses this problem of inter-observer analytical variability, which he published in the volume that Jacques referenced above ("The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology"), available in pdf free from his webpage at::

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~hdibble/publicat.htm
or: CLICK HERE

Look for:

Dibble, H.L. (1995q) Biache Saint-Vaast, Level IIA: a comparison of analytical approaches.  In Dibble, H.L. & Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.) The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology. Monographs in World Archaeology No 23. pp. 93-116. Madison WI: Prehistory Press.

Also an earlier Palanth discussion on a paper dealing with the origin of Levallois at Botany Pit , Purfleet in England discussed HERE, which  illustrates the point Jacques made (above) that Levallois did not wait for "modern" humans.

I've searched for years for an answer to the question of the origin of Levallois, but I'm still unsure about where and when to place such an origin, or even if it is appropriate to look for an "origin" which might only be incremental improvements in stone tool technology and raw material economy over the centuries, but there's no doubt that what most people would call Levallois has origins that long precede both Neanderthals and "modern humans",  and date to the times which are usually associated with "archaic Homo sapiens" of about 500,000 years ago to 300,000 years ago.

Is everyone confused now?
Cheers,
Dar

 

Dar,

First, I must admit that not bringing up references from the Forum (i.e., just Google) in my earlier message was, at the very best, an overly altruistic faux-pas. Indeed, by going through the Forum ‘Search” module, people can find about twenty two topics that, in one way or another, pertain the Levallois question. Apologies for this lack of selfish judgment on my part!

As for your statement regarding the definition of Levallois sensu stricto and sensu lato, you are essentially right. And it is very nice of you to allude to the fact that it is connected to the question of “inter-observer analytical variability”. Personally, I would also have added “and or abilities”. As is the case with radiocarbon dates, not all published lithic analyses “are born equal”!

Finally, on your quest for the “origins” of it all, I can only wish you good luck. I suppose we could expand on this at a later time, but I am pretty sure that the investigation of cultural evolutionary issues, such as the one discussed here, cannot be explained on the basis of some sort of an “eureka” factor or moment. Too Kleinian for my taste.

Jacques