DOCSLIB.ORG

The Spread of Modern Humans in Europe SPECIAL FEATURE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Spread of Modern Humans in Europe SPECIAL FEATURE The spread of modern humans in Europe SPECIAL FEATURE John F. Hoffecker1 Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, 1560 30th Street, Campus Box 450, Boulder, CO 80309-0450 Edited by Richard G. Klein, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved May 15, 2009 (received for review March 28, 2009) The earliest credible evidence of Homo sapiens in Europe is an made a significant genetic and/or cultural contribution to the archaeological proxy in the form of several artifact assemblages modern human population of Europe. (Bohunician) found in South-Central and possibly Eastern Europe, The interpretation of the genetics of living human popula- dating to <48,000 calibrated radiocarbon years before present (cal tions, supplemented with the analysis of fossil DNA extracted BP). They are similar to assemblages probably made by modern from Neanderthal and early modern human specimens, favors humans in the Levant (Emiran) at an earlier date and apparently the replacement model. The limited number of mtDNA lineages represent a population movement into the Balkans during a warm among living non-African populations is consistent with a model climate interval [Greenland Interstadial 12 (GI 12)]. A second of rapid dispersal, initially eastward out of Africa and subse- population movement may be represented by a diverse set of quently northward into the Eurasian interior (5). Results to date artifact assemblages (sometimes termed Proto-Aurignacian) found from ongoing reconstruction of the Neanderthal genome indi- in the Balkans, parts of Southwest Europe, and probably in Eastern cate a distinctive pattern that cannot be found among living Europe, and dating to several brief interstadials (GI 11–GI 9) that humans and suggests minimal genic exchange between the two preceded the beginning of cold Heinrich Event 4 (HE4) (Ϸ40,000 cal taxa (6). Advocates of the assimilation model argue, however, BP). They are similar to contemporaneous assemblages made by that the existing molecular evidence does not preclude Nean- modern humans in the Levant (Ahmarian). The earliest known derthal contributions to the early modern human European human skeletal remains in Europe that may be unequivocally genome (7). assigned to H. sapiens (Peçstera cu Oase, Romania) date to this time There are factors other than the anatomical and behavioral period (Ϸ42,000 cal BP) but are not associated with artifacts. After traits of the Neanderthals and modern humans that probably the Campanian Ignimbrite volcanic eruption (40,000 cal BP) and the played a role in the transition. One of these is the changing beginning of HE4, artifact assemblages assigned to the classic climates of the MIS 3 interval and their impact on European ANTHROPOLOGY Aurignacian, an industry associated with modern human skeletal biota. The most widely used stratigraphic framework for MIS 3 remains that seems to have developed in Europe, spread through- Europe is the climate proxy record of the North Atlantic and out the continent. Greenland. According to this record, the period between 60,000 and 30,000 cal BP was characterized by a sequence of generally archaeology ͉ Neanderthals ͉ Homo sapiens ͉ Western Eurasia brief, but often relatively pronounced, oscillations in climate. Oxygen-isotope data from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core indicate no less than 13 warm intervals [or he spread of modern humans in Europe is a controversial Greenland Interstadials (GI)] and 14 cold intervals [or Green- Ttopic in paleoanthropology. There is consensus that at the land Stadials (GS)] during this period (8). The most severe cold beginning of the interstadial period corresponding to Marine Ϸ intervals correspond to Heinrich Events (HEs), and there are 3 Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3) at 60,000 years ago Europe was such events during MIS 3 (HE5–HE3). exclusively occupied by Homo neanderthalensis, who produced A more specific climate-related factor is the Campanian stone artifacts classified by archaeologists as Middle Paleolithic, Ϸ Ϸ Ignimbrite (CI) volcanic eruption, dated at 40,000 cal BP, and that by the end of MIS 3 [ 30,000 calibrated radiocarbon which apparently had devastating effects on plant and animal life years before present (cal BP)], the continent was occupied by across large areas of Southern and Eastern Europe and is linked anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens), who produced a to a cold interval. The CI eruption is identified in GISP2 in the variety of artifacts assigned to the Upper Paleolithic. There is form of a sulfate peak above an interstadial (GI 9) and below considerable disagreement, however, about how this transition HE4 (9). occurred. Some paleoanthropologists have argued that the transition Problems with the Human Fossil and Archaeological Record represents a relatively straightforward replacement of one con- There are several reasons paleoanthropologists have found it generic hominin taxon by another. According to this view, difficult to reconstruct events related to the spread of modern Neanderthals made no significant genetic or cultural contribu- humans in Europe. One is a scarcity of human fossils dating to tion to the human population that inhabited Europe at 30,000 cal the period of the transition, a problem exacerbated in recent BP. The lack of interaction between the two taxa is assumed to years by the redating of a number of human fossils formerly reflect genetic distance and/or profound biobehavioral differ- assigned to this interval to a younger age (7). In some cases, ences (1, 2). The latter may be important to explaining how a human fossil remains are present, but they represent small replacement could have occurred: how a colonizing species from portions of the skeleton (e.g., isolated teeth) difficult to assign outside Europe could successfully compete with an established to a specific taxon (10). local species. Superior cognitive and communicative abilities Because of the gaps and ambiguities of the human fossil record (‘‘behavioral modernity’’) could have conferred a competitive for this period, the transition from Neanderthals to modern advantage on modern humans despite their external origin. humans in Europe has been reconstructed primarily on the basis An alternative model postulates substantial genic exchange of archaeological remains. The latter also contain ambiguities, and cultural influence between Neanderthals and modern hu- mans. Advocates of the ‘‘assimilation model’’ emphasize human fossils that appear to exhibit a combination of Neanderthal and Author contributions: J.F.H. wrote the paper. modern human anatomical traits and archaeological assem- The author declares no conflict of interest. blages that contain a mixture of types both in Middle and Upper This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. Paleolithic industries (3, 4). They conclude that Neanderthals 1E-mail: [email protected]. www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞pnas.0903446106 PNAS Early Edition ͉ 1of6 Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 however, and many artifact assemblages dating to this period (21), which is most clearly manifest in syntactical language. cannot be firmly attributed to one taxon or the other. These Language and other uses of symbols are, however, part of a include assemblages that are not associated with diagnostic broader capacity to create complex, hierarchically organized human fossils and contain a combination of artifact types structures (sometimes labeled recursion) in a variety of media traditionally assigned to Middle and Upper Paleolithic. They are both symbolic and nonsymbolic (22). The latter include tech- often interpreted as manifestations of cultural influence be- nology, which exhibits a pattern of accelerating innovation and tween Neanderthals and modern humans (11), but there are expanding complexity during the Upper Paleolithic (23). The use other reasons typical Middle and Upper Paleolithic artifact of symbols also may have conferred some unique organizational forms might be found together in the same occupation (12). abilities on modern humans (24), and the creation of novel Although stone blade technology is traditionally associated with technologies and organizational structures may have played a Upper Paleolithic industries, it became apparent many years ago significant role in the dispersal of modern humans and their that Middle Paleolithic industries in various parts of Eurasia seemingly rapid colonization of a variety of habitats and climate yield evidence of blade production. Blade manufacture is well zones. documented in the Middle Paleolithic of Europe and the Near Another factor is the presence of competitor species. Both East (13, 14). Neanderthals and hyenas represent likely competitors for mod- If Neanderthals produced at least some of the stone artifact ern humans in Europe, especially with respect to large mammal forms found in Upper Paleolithic assemblages, anatomically prey. With this in mind, it should be noted that comparative modern humans continued to manufacture and use many typical analysis of stable isotope values for Neanderthal and hyena bone Middle Paleolithic forms long after the transition. Production of from a cave in France (late MIS 3) suggests that emphasis on side-scrapers, points, small bifaces, and other such forms con- superherbivores (mammoth and rhinoceros) by the former reduced tinued into the Upper Paleolithic and post-Paleolithic industries. resource competition with hyenas (25). As for modern humans, In North America, such artifacts are common in Paleoindian there is evidence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Many books were read and researched in the compilation of Binford, L. R, 1983, Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology: New York. Binford, L. R, and Binford, S. R (eds.), 1968, New Perspectives in American Museum of Natural History, 1993, The First Humans. Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Braidwood, R 1.,1960, Archaeologists and What They Do. Franklin American Museum of Natural History, 1993, People of the Stone Watts, New York. Age. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Branigan, Keith (ed.), 1982, The Atlas ofArchaeology. St. Martin's, American Museum of Natural History, 1994, New World and Pacific New York. Civilizations. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Bray, w., and Tump, D., 1972, Penguin Dictionary ofArchaeology. American Museum of Natural History, 1994, Old World Civiliza­ Penguin, New York. tions. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Brennan, L., 1973, Beginner's Guide to Archaeology. Stackpole Ashmore, w., and Sharer, R. J., 1988, Discovering Our Past: A Brief Books, Harrisburg, PA. Introduction to Archaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA. Broderick, M., and Morton, A. A., 1924, A Concise Dictionary of Atkinson, R J. C., 1985, Field Archaeology, 2d ed. Hyperion, New Egyptian Archaeology. Ares Publishers, Chicago. York. Brothwell, D., 1963, Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment Bacon, E. (ed.), 1976, The Great Archaeologists. Bobbs-Merrill, and Study ofHuman Skeletal Remains. British Museum, London. New York. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds.), 1969, Science in Archaeology, Bahn, P., 1993, Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. ABC-CLIO, 2d ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Santa Barbara, CA. Budge, E. A. Wallis, 1929, The Rosetta Stone. Dover, New York. Bahn, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Tese1997vol1.Pdf
    Dedicado à Cristina e ao João David Advertência prévia Este trabalho corresponde à dissertação escrita pelo autor para obtenção do grau de doutoramento em Pré-História pela Universidade de Lisboa. A sua redacção ficou concluída em Abril de 1995, e a respectiva arguição teve lugar em Novembro do mesmo ano. A versão agora publicada beneficiou de pequenos ajustamentos do texto, de uma actualização da biliografia e do acrescento de alguns elementos de informação novos, nomeadamente no que diz respeito a datações radiométricas. A obra compreende dois volumes. No volume II agruparam-se os capítulos sobre a história da investigação e a metodologia utilizada na análise dos materiais líticos, bem como os estudos monográficos das diferentes colecções. No volume I, sintetizaram-se as conclusões derivadas desses estudos, e procurou-se integrá-las num quadro histórico e geográfico mais lato, o das sociedades de caçadores do Paleolítico Superior do Sudoeste da Europa. A leitura do volume I é suficiente para a aquisição de uma visão de conjunto dos conhecimentos actuais respeitantes a este período em Portugal. Uma tal leitura deve ter em conta, porém, que essa síntese pressupõe uma crítica das fontes utilizadas. Em Arqueologia, o instrumento dessa crítica é a análise tafonómica dos sítios e espólios. A argumentação sobre as respectivas condições de jazida é desenvolvida no quadro dos estudos apresentados no volume II. É neles que deve ser buscada a razão de ser das opções tomadas quanto à caracterização dos contextos (ocupações singulares, palimpsestos de ocupações múltiplas), à sua homogeneidade (uma só época ou várias épocas), à sua integridade (em posição primária ou secundária), à sua representatividade (universo ou amostra, recuperação integral ou parcial) e à sua cronologia (ou cronologias).
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Mezmaiskaya"
    Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (1) : 131- 136. GETTING BACK TO BASICS: A RESPONSE TO OTTE "COMMENTS ON MEZMAISKAYA" Lubov Golovanova, Vladimir Doronichev and Naomi Cleghorn Marcel Otte recently argued (In "Comments Jar to the Ahmarian tradition, and particularly the on Mezmaiskaya, North Caucasus", Eurasian lithic assemblages from Abu Noshra and the La­ Prehistory, this issue) that the Early Upper Paleo­ gaman, dating between 30 and 35 ky BP (Gilead, lithic (EUP) at Mezmaiskaya Cave can be defined 1991 ). This preliminary conclusion is based on as Aurignacian (versus Golovanova et al., 2006). the prevalence of micro-laminar (bladelet) debi­ This raises an old methodological problem con­ tage, a high percentage of tools made on bladelets cerning the correct use of scientific terms and the (compared with 45 .7 percent at Lagama), and a definition of the Aurignacian. Lithic definitions rather low representation (about 20 percent) of such as Aurignacian and Gravettian, which were endscrapers and burins. It is important to note that ori ginally based on specific materials, have been only the later Ahmarian assemblages provided a rather more loosely applied to assemblages dis­ basis for this comparison. Moreover, despite tant in time and space. We believe that the wider many similarities, the EUP industry from Layer application of these original terms not only sim­ 1C at Mezmaiskaya is not identical to the Ahmar­ plifies them by a subjective reduction of their pri­ ian. mary determining attributes, but also confuses our Ongoing excavations of EUP levels in Mez­ understanding of cultural processes within and maiskaya Cave now permit a more accurate com­ between various regions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa
    Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Introduction 20 The African archeological record of 43-28 ka as a comparison 21 A - The Aurignacian has no direct equivalent in Africa 21 B - Archaic hominins persist in Africa through much of the Late Pleistocene 24 C - High modification symbolic artifacts in Africa and Eurasia 24 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 26 References cited 27 To cite this article Tryon C. A. , 2015 - The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa, in White R., Bourrillon R. (eds.) with the collaboration of Bon F., Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe, Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University, P@lethnology, 7, 19-33. http://www.palethnologie.org 19 P@lethnology | 2015 | 19-33 Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Abstract The Aurignacian technocomplex in Eurasia, dated to ~43-28 ka, has no direct archeological taxonomic equivalent in Africa during the same time interval, which may reflect differences in inter-group communication or differences in archeological definitions currently in use. Extinct hominin taxa are present in both Eurasia and Africa during this interval, but the African archeological record has played little role in discussions of the demographic expansion of Homo sapiens, unlike the Aurignacian. Sites in Eurasia and Africa by 42 ka show the earliest examples of personal ornaments that result from extensive modification of raw materials, a greater investment of time that may reflect increased their use in increasingly diverse and complex social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution
    On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1998. “On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.” Cam. Arch. Jnl 8 (02) (October): 141. Published Version doi:10.1017/S0959774300000986 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211496 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:2 (1998), 141-63 On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution Ofer Bar-Yosef This article discusses two major revolutions in the history of humankind, namely, the Neolithic and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic revolutions. The course of the first one is used as a general analogy to study the second, and the older one. This approach puts aside the issue of biological differences among the human fossils, and concentrates solely on the cultural and technological innovations. It also demonstrates that issues that are common- place to the study of the trajisition from foraging to cultivation and animal husbandry can be employed as an overarching model for the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the core areas where each of these revolutions began, the ensuing dispersals and their geographic contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Garm Roud 2, Iran : Bladelet Production and Cultural Features of an Upper Paleolithic Key Site South of Caspian Sea
    Garm Roud 2, Iran : bladelet production and cultural features of an Upper Paleolithic key site south of Caspian sea. S. Bonilauri, B. Chevrier, A. Asgari Khaneghah, M. Abolfathi, R. Ejlalipour, R. Sadeghinegad, G. Berillon To cite this version: S. Bonilauri, B. Chevrier, A. Asgari Khaneghah, M. Abolfathi, R. Ejlalipour, et al.. Garm Roud 2, Iran : bladelet production and cultural features of an Upper Paleolithic key site south of Caspian sea.. Comptes Rendus Palevol, Elsevier Masson, In press. hal-02605799 HAL Id: hal-02605799 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02605799 Submitted on 24 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike| 4.0 International License Garm Roud 2, Iran : bladelet production and cultural features of an Upper Paleolithic key site south of Caspian sea 1 2 3 Stéphanie BONILAURI , Benoît CHEVRIER , Asghar ASGARI KHANEGHAH , Makhameh 1 4 5 1 ABOLFATHI , Roozbeh EJLALIPOUR , Robab SADEGHI , Gilles BERILLON 1. UMR7194 MNHN-CNRS-UPVD / Département Homme et Environnement, Musée de l'Homme, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, France 2. UMR 7041 CNRS ArScan-AnTET, MSH Mondes, Nanterre, France 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Upper Paleolithic Bladelet Production: Bladelets in Moravian Bohunician Produkce Čepelek V Iniciálním Mladém Paleolitu: Čepelky V Moravském Bohunicienu
    Přehled výzkumů 61/1, 2020 X 21–29 Initial Upper Paleolithic bladelet production: Bladelets in Moravian Bohunician Produkce čepelek v iniciálním mladém paleolitu: čepelky v moravském bohunicienu – Yuri E. Demidenko*, Petr Škrdla, Tereza Rychtaříková – “What about the bladelets?” J. Tixier, 1987 (Williams, Bergman 2010, 117) Introduction KEYWORDS: The “bladelet issue” continues to be central to continuing discussions on the recognition of various Early Upper Palaeo- Initial Upper Palaeolithic – Bohunician – bladelets – Boker Tachtit – lithic (UP) techno-complexes and industry types in the Levant, Kara-Bom – Ořechov especially concerning the identifi cation of the so-called true Au- rignacian in the region (for the latest discussions, see Williams, Bergman 2010; Demidenko, Hauck 2017; Goring-Morris, ABSTRACT Belfer-Cohen 2018). The present paper touches on the bladelet issue for the chronologically earlier Initial UP techno-complexes Bladelets are a common Upper Palaeolithic technological category, often in Eurasia (Fig. 1) and particularly its Central European Bohu- described as a proxy for the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, bladelet pro- nician “representative”. duction has already been documented within preceding Initial Upper Palae- Nowadays it can be surely said that the bladelet issue is in- olithic techno-complexes, e.g. at Boker Tachtit (Negev Desert, Israel) and deed one of the most discussed subjects in Eurasian Palaeolithic Kara-Bom (Altai Republic, Russian Federation). Only isolated bladelets have Archaeology (e.g. Le Brun-Ricalens et al. eds. 2005). From our been reported from the Central European Bohunician. However, a recently point of view, this is mostly due to the recognition of the impor- discovered and excavated site, Ořechov IV – Kabáty has yielded a large series tant role of bladelets in the hunting projectile weaponry of UP (over 1,000 items) of micro-blades and bladelets, documenting a higher de- humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Ain Difla Rockshelter (Jordan) and the Evolution of Levantine Mousterian Technology
    Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (1): 47- 83. QUANTIFYING DIACHRONIC VARIABILITY: THE 'AIN DIFLA ROCKSHELTER (JORDAN) AND THE EVOLUTION OF LEVANTINE MOUSTERIAN TECHNOLOGY Mentor Mustafa' and Geoffrey A. Clark2 1 Department ofAnthropology, Boston University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215; [email protected] 2 Department ofAnthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona; 85287-2402; [email protected] Abstract Typological, technological, and metrical analyses of a lithic assemblage from the 'Ain Difla rockshelter in west­ central Jordan are consistent with the results of previous studies that align 'Ain Difla with the Tabun D-type Levantine Mousterian. Technological and typological affinities are discernible from a direct comparison of tools from this assem­ blage with those found in Tabun layer D, as well as metrical and categorical comparisons between 'Ain Ditla and other well-known Tabun D Mousterian sites. The 'Ain Difla sample is dominated by elongated Levallois points. Blanks were obtained from both uni- and bipolar convergent and predominantly Levallois cores that show evidence of bidirectional flaking. The typological and technological comparisons reported here suggest that the evolution of the blade-rich Mouste­ rian can be viewed as a continuum between the early (Tabun) and late (Boker Tachtit) Mousterian; that (on any index) 'Ain Difla falls somewhere around the middle of this continuum, and that Mousterian laminar technologies develop more or less continually into the early Upper Paleolithic Ahmarian. INTRODUCTION rich technologies
    [Show full text]
  • Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus
    Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Adler, Daniel S., Guy Bar#Oz, Anna Belfer#Cohen, and Ofer Bar# Yosef. 2006. Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus. Current Anthropology 47, no. 1: 89–118. Published Version doi:10.1086/432455 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12242824 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 1, February 2006 89 Ahead of the Game Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus by Daniel S. Adler, Guy Bar-Oz, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Ofer Bar-Yosef Over the past several decades a variety of models have been proposed to explain perceived behavioral and cognitive differences between Neanderthals and modern humans. A key element in many of these models and one often used as a proxy for behavioral “modernity” is the frequency and nature of hunting among Palaeolithic populations. Here new archaeological data from Ortvale Klde, a late Middle–early Upper Palaeolithic rockshelter in the Georgian Republic, are considered, and zooar- chaeological methods are applied to the study of faunal acquisition patterns to test whether they changed significantly from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic.
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Projectile Technology and Homo Sapiens Dispersal Into Western Eurasia
    Complex Projectile Technology and Homo sapiens Dispersal into Western Eurasia JOHN J. SHEA Department of Anthropology and Turkana Basin Institute, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364, USA; [email protected] MATTHEW L. SISK Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364, USA; [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper proposes that complex projectile weaponry was a key strategic innovation driving Late Pleistocene human dispersal into western Eurasia after 50 Ka. It argues that complex projectile weapons of the kind used by ethnographic hunter-gatherers, such as the bow and arrow, and spearthrower and dart, enabled Homo sapiens to overcome obstacles that constrained previous human dispersal from Africa to temperate western Eurasia. In the East Mediterranean Levant, the only permanent land bridge between Africa and Eurasia, stone and bone projectile armatures like those used in the complex weapon systems of recent humans appear abruptly ca 45–35 Ka in early Upper Paleolithic contexts associated with Homo sapiens fossils. Such artifacts are absent from Middle Paleolithic contexts associated with Homo sapiens and Neandertals. Hypotheses concerning the indigenous vs. exogenous origins of complex projectile weaponry in the Levant are reviewed. Current evidence favors the hypothesis that complex projectile technology developed as an aid to ecological niche broadening strategies among African popu- lations between 50–100 Ka. It most likely spread to western Eurasia along with dispersing Homo sapiens popula- tions. Neandertals did not routinely deploy projectile weapons as subsistence aids. This puzzling gap in their otherwise impressive record for survival in some of the harshest environments ever occupied by primates may reflect energetic constraints and time-budgeting factors associated with complex technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Prehistoric Edible Land Snails in the Circum-Mediterranean : the Archaeological Evidence
    PETITS ANIMAUX ET SOCIÉTÉS HUMAINES. DU COMPLÉMENT ALIMENTAIRE AUX RESSOURCES UTILITAIRES XXIVe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes Sous la direction de J.-P. Brugal et J. Desse Éditions APDCA, Antibes, 2004 Prehistoric edible land snails in the circum-Mediterranean : the archaeological evidence David LUBELL* Résumé Les escargots comestibles sont souvent abondants dans les gisements du Pléistocène final et de l’Holocène (c. 10000 à 6000 BP) partout en région méditerranéenne. Cette étude, la première à essayer de résumer sommairement ces données, soutient la thèse que la plupart de ces incidences représentent les déchets des repas préhistoriques. Abstract Edible land snails are often abundant in late Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological sites (c. 10000 to c. 6000 BP) throughout the Mediterranean region. This chapter, the first attempt to summarize the evidence, argues that in almost every instance the land snails found in occupational deposits are the remains of prehistoric meals. * Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 0N8, Canada. <[email protected]> Department of Anthropology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1 Canada 77 [email protected] David LUBELL [land snails] together with a few other similar mollusks,... have – or ought to have – an honored placed in the history of food. For they represent the key and perhaps the solution to one of the greatest mysteries of our story : why and how did the human animal begin to herd and breed other animals for food ? (Fernández-Armesto, 2002, p. 56). Land snails are a frequent, often abundant, component in Late Pleistocene and early- to mid-Holocene archaeological sites throughout the circum- Mediterranean region (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • [2019.10.10] Mina Weinstein Evron / the Mount Carmel Caves
    The Mount Carmel Caves at the Crossroads of Prehistoric Human Dispersals Mina Weinstein-Evron A UNESCO World Heritage Site (2012) Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority Outstanding Universal Values (OUV): • Long cultural (and paleo-environmental) continuum and changes in life-ways • Human evolution various MP human types (H. sapiens & Neanderthal); early burial site • The Natufian culture – on the threshold of agriculture • History of archaeological research Mount Carmel: a unique overlap of the Neanderthal and early modern humans ranges, within the same Middle Paleolithic cultural framework Did they meet ? When? Who was there before? What was the results? Levantine MP sites 250,000-45,000 YBP Amud Hayonim Human remains Qafzeh 140/120-50,000 YBP Misliya Tabun Skhul Kebara H. sapiens – 120/90,000 YBP Neanderthals – 70/45,000 BP 50,000 B Tabun Cave: A long sequence with important Cultural Developments/ C Revolutions MP D 250,000 E F LP G 400,000 Tabun 1 Upper part of Layer C (or Layer B) 100/120 (150/160 ky) Tabun 2 Lower part of Layer C Harvati and Nickolson Lopez 2017 Skhul Early modern humans 100-135,000 ky IV V Skhul early modern human burials D’Ericco et al. 2010 McCown 1937 Nassarius gibbosulus shell beads (Vanhaeren et al. 2006) from Skhul V Isotope Ky TL-based Entities stage BP chronology Hominides Ksar Akil Ahmarian UP 3 Qafzeh 50 - Tabun B Amud, Kebara Dederiyeh type T. Faraj, Quneitra Kebara, Amud 4 Dederiyeh Tabun 1 ? 100 - Qafzeh Qafzeh Skhul 5 Skhul Skhul Hayonim E TABUN 1 ? Tabun C type Tabun 1 150 - 6 Tabun II (jaw) Tabun 2 200 - Negev sites Tabun D 7 type Hayonim E Misliya ? Misliya 250 - Are the cultural/technological 8 Important implications for understanding the changesAcheuloorigins– ofrelated early modernto changes humans and their 300 - Yabrudianin humanrelationshipspopulations with the? Neanderthals 9 Zuttiyeh Qesem 350 - 10 Tabun E Bar-Yosef 1998 Dispersal of modern humans 2016 Modern humans reach First modern humans in Europe Americas 15 ka 45 ka Willendorf Kent’s Cavern 43 5 ka.
    [Show full text]