THE MATTER OF PREHISTORY: PAPERS IN HONOR / OF ANTONIO GILMAN GUILLEN

Edited by Pedro Díaz-del-Río Katina Lillios Inés Sastre

CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTíFICAS Madrid, 2020 Antonio Gilman Guillén PhotograPhed by Benedicte Gilman at the Karl Marx House museum, Trier (Germany), 5 aUffUst 2012 VI.

THE MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC REVOLUTION, THE ORIGINS OF ART, AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF PALEOANTHROPOLOGY

Joiio Zilhiio

Abstraet pa hace 40000 años supusieron una «Revolución Gilman (1984) proposed that an "Upper del Paleolítico Superior», desencadenada por el Paleolithic Revolution" triggered by techno­ progreso tecnológico y el crecimiento demográ­ logical progress and demographic growth, and fico y representaron la emergencia de mecanis­ standing for the emergence of ritual reciproci­ mos de reciprocidad ritualizada. Los descubri­ ty mechanisms, explained the major behavioral mientos realizados desde entonces respaldan la innovations se en in Europe after 40,000 years validez del concepto, aunque al mismo tiempo ago. Subsequent developments have shown that han revelado que el registro arqueológico con­ the notion remains valid but that early manifes­ tiene manifestaciones precoces de tales conduc­ tations of those behaviors can be se en in the ar­ tas, distribuidas por todo el Viejo Mundo, desde cheological record since at least the beginning of por lo menos los inicios del Ultimo Intergla­ the Last Interglacial, and across the Old World. ciar. Por lo tanto, el proceso que a partir de la Thus, the process that brought a world of many, humanidad sin fronteras de épocas anteriores diverse, ethnically bounded Humanities out of engendró un mundo de muchas y diversas hu­ the womb of the unbounded single Humanity of manidades separadas por barreras étnicas tuvo earlier times was rather more gradual and longer; que ser bastante más gradual y largo; el inicio the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic/Middle del Paleolítico medio fue su etapa primera, el Stone Age was the initial stage of such a revo­ inicio del Paleolítico superior fue la final. El lution, the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic descubrimiento de que, en la Península Ibérica, was the lasto The finding that, in Neandertal Ibe­ el arte de las cuevas tiene al menos 65000 años ria, cave art dates back to >65,000 ago has been y se remonta a los neandertales, ha sido clave key to this reassessment of the Middle-to-Upper para este replanteamiento de la transición Pa­ Paleolithic transition and, not unexpectedly, un­ leolítico Medio-Superior. Como por otra parte derwent sorne questioning. The arguments used, era esperable, ese descubrimiento no dejó de devoid of empirical basis as they are, highlight cuestionarse, pero los argumentos utilizados es­ the extent to which the debate of Paleoanthro­ tán desprovistos de base empírica. Ilustran más pology's "Big Issues" is biased by often implicit, bien hasta qué punto el debate sobre las «Gran­ obsolete assumptions inherited from the origins des Cuestiones» de la paleoantropología llega a of the discipline and by the social! cultural con­ estar sesgado por supuestos obsoletos heredados text of knowledge production. de los orígenes de la disciplina, frecuentemente apenas implícitos, y por el contexto cultural y Keywords: Neandertals, modern humans, Upper social en que se da la producción del conoci­ Paleolithic Revolution, Antonio Gilman, Cave miento científico. Art, Dating, U-series, Radiocarbon. Palabras clave: Neandertales, humanos moder­ Resumen nos, Revolución del Paleolítico Superior, Antonio Gilman (1984) propuso que las grandes inno­ Gilman, arte parietal, datación, serie del Uranio, vaciones de conducta que se observan en Euro- radiocarbono.

85 6.1. INTRODUCTION Eurasia, and did so extensively, not occasionally only. Subsequent developments demonstrated Thirty-five years ago, Explaining the Upper Paleo­ that the aDNA ofhuman fossils implied gene flux lithic Revolution (Gilman 1984) succinctlyexposed between Africa and Europe and between west­ the shortcomings of the two models of the Mid­ ern Europe and central Asia during the Middle dle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition (henceforth, Pleistocene (Posth et al. 2017) - the time when the Transition) that prevailed through most of branching off a common ancestor through isola­ the second half of the 20th century: cultural de­ tion by distance and drift was supposed to have terminism and biological reductionism. brought about the speciation of Hamo neandertha­ Cultural determinism had "the merit of fo­ lensis (Hublin 2009). Meanwhile, the sequencing cusing research on subsistence techniques, de­ of parts of the Neandertal genome had already mography, and social organization, aspects of sufficed to demonstrate presence of the human the archaeological record too often neglected form of the FOXP2 gene (Krause et al. 2007), in Paleolithic studies, but the specificity which thereby eliminating the basis for speculations gives the approach its heuristic value is carried that Neandertals lacked advanced speech capa­ to the point of becoming a theoretical defect," bilities and symbolic language. because "the Upper Paleolithic Revolution is an At the same time, critical analysis of strati­ Old-World-wide event and cannot be explained graphic sequences, radiocarbon dates, and the by local ecological gimmicks;" in addition, the relevant fossils' technocomplex associations approach failed "to link technical and social showed that material culture of undeniably sym­ changes in a convincing causal sequence." bolic nature was a feature of the archeological Biological reductionism fared no better: "Be­ record left behind by European Neandertals, and cause biological changes underdetermine cultur­ this well before the time of contact with modern alones, the biological approach fails to establish humans (for revisions of the evidence, cf. Zilhao a plausible link between the assumed causes and 2001, 2007, 2013; Caron et al. 2011; Zilhao et the known manifestations ofthe Upper Paleolith­ al. 2011, 2015). In addition, re-excavation of ic Revolution." For instance, the Bouffia Bonneval at La Chapelle-aux-Saints (France) proved the presence of a pit cut into the Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to allow basal bedrock; combined with the human skel­ that Horno sapiens sapiens was biologically more eton's differential preservation (relative to the capable of cognitive representations such as langua­ site's faunal remains), this work satisfied the ar­ ge than his immediate predecessors, however, one cheological and taphonomic criteria demanded would still not be able to use his increased abilities by skeptics to ascertain intentional burial (Rendu as a sufficient explanation for the new elements in et al. 2014). The exchange that followed (Dibble his cultural repertoire. To say, for example, that Cro­ et al. 2015; Rendu et al. 2016) further exposed Magnons were capable of painting caves (and that Neanderthals were not) does not explain why they the double standards used by critics to deny the painted them. Conversely, if painting caves is part of practice among Middle Paleolithic humans, as a more effective adaptive system, then one need not Belfer-Cohen and Hovers (1992) had already appeal to the capability of painting them in order to pointed out in the context of an earlier iteration explain why the painting took place. of the intentional burial debate. The necessary implication of these develop­ Most subsequent research, however, remained ments was that Neandertals and their African oblivious to these points ofplain logic. Eventually, contemporaries were not different species but under the umbrella of the Recent Out-of-Africa geographical variants of a single Humanity - al­ (ROA) model of modern human origins (String­ beit one that, by early Upper Pleistocene times er and Andrews 1988), one of these explanations and because of population structure and low of the Transition - biological reductionism, as numbers, was significantly more internally di­ epitomized by e.g. Klein (2000, 2003), Henshil­ verse, both genetically and morphologically, than wood and Marean (2003) or Mellars (2005) - in the more recent past. Thus, to explain the became almost universally accepted. In the last transcontinental emergence of so-called "behav­ decade, however, its foundations were definitive­ ioral modernity" and its earliest manifestations' ly undermined by discoveries that falsified all of now-you-see-it-now-you-don 't pattern (D 'Errico ROA's empirically testable predictions. There is 2003; Hovers and Belfer-Cohen 2006; Lorblan­ no need to be exhaustive here, but it is none­ chet and Bahn 2017) one must resort to (a) the theless useful to briefly review what such devel­ emergence of the ritual reciprocity mechanisms opments consisted of. derived from alliance theory that Gilman had Human Paleontology (Duarte et al. 1999; envisaged, and (b) proper understanding of the Trinkaus 2007) and Genetics (Green et al. 2010) laws of uneven and combined development. showed that anatomically modern humans and Building on this conclusion and on the ob­ Neandertals interbred at the time of contact in servation that the earliest burials were at sites

86 also used for habitation - and this regardless of lithic Revolution," one that would have ignored whether Neandertals (e.g., Shanidar) or anatom­ continental barriers as much as the boundaries ically moderns (e.g. Skhul and Qafzeh) were in­ between Human Paleontology's taxonomic cat­ volved - I have suggested that the emergence of egories. Such a leap would thus represent the "modern behavior" ought to be interpreted as sig­ first step of the process leading, sorne time be­ naling that of territoriality and ethnicity (Zilhao tween forty and fifty thousand years ago, to the 2015). If, in later prehistoric contexts (e.g., the explosion of symbolic material culture seen at the Mesolithic shell-middens of Scandinavia and Por­ onset of the Upper Paleolithic (in Eurasia) and tugal), the close association between settlement the Later Stone Age (in Mrica). Such an "Upper and interment is taken to stand for the long-term Paleolithic Revolution" would have represented focus of residential activity in a restricted number the culmination, rather than the beginning, of a of places, why think otherwise for the Middle process of social transformation that had begun Paleolithic? The fact that we are dealing with long before: following Gilman's line ofreasoning, much earlier times or with a "racially" distinct that transformation consisted of the change from people is not reason enough. I thus suggested unlimited cooperation, among earlier humans, to that Middle Paleolithic burials stood for "use of closed circles of mutual aid, as observed among dead for the staking of a claim - by associating ethnographically documented hunter-gatherers. them with long-term residential use of certain In keeping with the spirit of the "revolution" sites, formal burial can be taken as signposting analogy, one might therefore describe these two that 'our ancestors lie here; this is our place'." moments as the February and the October of a Even though the precision of available meth­ single process. Put another way, if we look at the ods does not allow the analysis to proceed with evidence not from the perspective of the stages the desirable resolution, further support for this of stone tool technology but from the perspective view comes from a string of discoveries made over of the processes of social transformation, we see the first two decades of our century (Zilhao et al. that the Transition is in fact a gradual process 2010; Pike et al. 2012; Hoffmann et al. 2018a). spanning the Middle Paleolithic time range, not These discoveries showed that (a) the emergence a punctuated event occurring at the start of the of burial coincided, broadly speaking, with that Upper Paleolithic. ofbody painting, personal ornaments, and object decoration, and (b) these behaviors first appeared much earlier than the time of the Transition as 6.2. CAVE ART traditionally defined by e.g. Mellars (1973, 1989) or White (1982). Indeed, at several sites spread Until quite recently, art had remained im­ across western Eurasia, from Shanidar in Irak to mune to the ageing of the other elements of Régourdou in France, the practice ofburial dates the "symbolic package." Apparently, it would back to at least the Last Interglacial (Maureille have emerged much later than personal orna­ and Vandermeersch 2007; Maureille 2016; Pel­ mentation and object decoration, and it would be letier et al. 2017). The perforated and ochred found in exclusive association with anatomically shells of the small marine mollusk Nassanus re­ modern humans indeed. Based on this pattern, trieved in archeological contexts of South Mrica sorne were thus led to cling to the capability for (at Biombos cave) and the Maghreb (at Grotte artistic creation as the litmus test of behavio­ des Pigeons, Taforalt), persuasively interpreted ral and cognitive modernity. The comparatively as components of different types of beadwork late date of the first appearance of cave art in (D'Errico et al. 2005, 2009), are also of Last In­ the archeological record thus became the last terglacial age - as are the levels from the caves of stronghold upon which biological reductionist, Qafzeh (Israel) (Bar-Yosef, Vandermeersch and species-specific models of the emergence of lan­ Bar-Yosef 2009) and Aviones (Spain) (Hoffmann guage, symbolism and advanced cognition could et al. 20 18b) that yielded perforated or ochred hang: "Ask Dibble, Hublin and other sceptics valves of Glycymens, Acanthocardia and Spondylus. what would persuade them that Neanderthals Jewelry made of eagle talons and raptor feathers had minds like ours, and their answer is simple: is another undisputed feature of the Neander­ a pattern of art or other sophisticated symbolic tal-associated Middle Paleolithic of Europe, one expression from a time when no modern humans which, at Krapina, in Croatia, may well stretch could possibly have been around. 'But I don't back to the same time range as the Aviones finds, think it exists,' says Hublin" (Appenzeller 2013). if not beyond (Peresani et al. 2011; Radovcié et It does. At three sites in Spain, U-series dat­ al. 2015). ing of calcium carbonate accretions established Altogether, these developments suggest a a minimum age of about 65,000 years for the common underlying cause: a qualitative leap in underlying motifs: a geometric, scalariform the complexification of social relationships that sign at La Pasiega (Santander); a hand stencil might be described as a sort of "Middle Paleo- at Maltravieso (Cáceres); and a painted stalag-

87 FIGURE 6.1. The Iberian cave paintings for which U-series dating of overlying calcite established a minimum age of 65,000 years. Top left. La Pasiega. Scalariform motif in panel 78 of Hall XI ( overview and zoom-in on the dated cauliflower, sample PAS34, after sampling). Top right. Maltravieso. Hand stencil GS3b (original photo and D-stretch enhancement; the inset shows the dated cauli­ flower, sample MAL13, after sampling). Bottom. Ardales. Painted draperies in area II-A-3 and detail of fold 8; the position of sample ARD13 is indicated by the rectangles. &producedfrom Hoffmann et al. (2018a: Jigs. 1-3).

88 mitic dome at Ardales (Malaga) (Hoffmann (defined as the byproduct of a speciation event et al. 2018a) (fig. 6.1). At the latter site, the that occurred somewhere in Africa no more dating of other painted speleothems showed than 200,000 years ago). that we are dealing with at least two, proba­ It is therefore entirely to be expected that bly more episodes of such activity stretching the evidence would not go unchallenged, and, over a period of at least 25,000 years, which given that art had become the skeptics' litmus is suggestive of a long-standing tradition, not test, that most resistance would be directed a short-lived, one-off burst. That people were against the notion that Neandertals had been going deep into caves to perform activities that the first cave artists (Aubert, Brumm and Hunt­ can only be considered of a ritual nature since ley 2018; Pearce and Bonneau 2018; Slimak et well before the onset of the Upper Paleolithic al. 2018). Even though the objections so far is otherwise demonstrated by the annular con­ raised against the dating work have already structions of Bruniquel cave (France), dated to been responded to (Hoffmann et al. 2018c, 176,500 years ago Qaubert et al. 2016). These 2018d, 2019), it is worth going back to them features are found 336 m from the entrance from an epistemological perspective: Were such and implied the extraction and transport of criticisms justified and supported by robust the 2.2 tons of speleothems used to build their empirical arguments and, if not, what do they walls. In an Upper Paleolithic context, no one reveal about the scientific process and the con­ would hesitate in assigning a ritual nature to struction of scientific knowledge, at least with this activity, and one can hardly see what purely regards to Paleoanthropology? These questions "functional" purpose would have required, or are my focus here. Before addressing them, justified, the choice of location and the effort however, we need to briefly review the argu­ involved. It is at least clear that what is implied ments presented by the critics. here is the level of cognitive complexity and social and logistical organization (knowledge of the underground world, advanced planning, 6.3. ARE THE U-SERIES DATES RELIABLE division of tasks, provision of lighting, etc.) one MEASURES OF THE SAMPLES'AGE? infers from comparable Upper Paleolithic in­ cursions in to the deep karst (Rouzaud 1978). The opening salvos (Clottes 2012; Pons-Bran­ In short, with regards to archeological proxies, chu et al. 2014; Sauvet et al. 2017) of the cam­ all the items in the trait-list of Upper Paleolith­ paign against the application of U-series to the ic-ness are now documented in early Last Gla­ dating of cave art stretch back to the paper that cial or Last Interglacial times - and recall that opened the Pandora box (Pike et al. 2012). The the dates for the Mousterian cave art of Iberia basic criticism advanced by the Sauvet-led group are minima only; it is entirely plausible that the of authors was that Pike et al. 's approach assumed true age of that art predates by thousands, if not closed system chemistry whereas the nature of the tens of thousands of years, the growth of the car­ dated accretions rendered the assumption inva­ bonate accretions that eventually covered it. The lid: "In thin layers of carbonate deposits and in single trait-list exception is "style in stone tool damp media, the uranium incorporated into the assemblages," but it is an exception that quite calcite during its crystallization may be partially possibly relates to biases of definition (Middle eliminated because of its solubility in water," and Paleolithic industries classified on the basis of "uranium leaching causes an artificial increase technology, Upper Paleolithic ones classified on of the age that may reach considerable propor­ the basis of typology) or of perspective (there tions." Consequently, "it is nearly impossible and isn't much stylistic patterning in the stone tool very dangerous to base archaeological reasoning assemblages of Late Pleistocene Sahul; Habgood on U/Th ages of Paleolithic artworks, so long as and Franklin 2008). the dates are not confirmed by an independent The temporal coincidence of the emergence method, dating the carbonates in the same sam­ of formal burial and symbolic material culture ples by 14C being the best means of detecting would therefore seem to have been rather more anomalies" (Sauvet et al. 2017). than "broad" and, so far, the only place in which None of these points is valid. Closed system we witness their early coalescence is western conditions were not assumed, they were test­ Eurasia - i.e., the world of the Neandertals, not ed and found to hold, as the dating experts early anatomically moderns. The implications in the Sauvet-led group subsequently acknowl­ of this pattern are profound. Firstly, because, edged (Valladas et al. 2017). The standard with the updates suggested above, it is fully geochronological approach to this issue is to consistent with Gilman's model. Secondly, be­ check for correspondence between age and cause it conclusively refutes the late 20th-cen­ depth along a stratigraphically ordered series tury orthodox view of "behavioral modernity" of sub-samples; if such an order cannot be veri­ as a species-specific attribute of Homo sapiens fied (which is very rarely the case), the samples

89 are discarded. Even though some of Pike et al. 's but from groundwater that percolates through (2012) initial results were based on a single soils and bedrock before dripping from the sample, subsequent work confirmed that (a) roof or wall of a cave to precipitate the calci­ open-system behavior was entirely exceptional um carbonate it is made of. Consequently, that in well-preserved calcite, and (b) the minimum carbonate may be depleted in the radioactive ages derived from single-sample measurements (14C) and enriched in the stable (13C and 12C) were corroborated by higher resolution re-sam­ isotopes of carbon, and this in unknown and pling of the same formations, which made it unknowable amounts and proportions. It is this possible that multiple, stratigraphically ordered Dead Carbon Fraction (DCF) problem that, in sub-samples be individually dated (Hoffmann speleothem research, renders chronologically et al. 2016; Pike et al. 2017). More to the point, meaningless the 14C/ 12C ratio that, in archeolog­ Hoffmann et al.'s (2018a) results for La Pas­ ical and paleontological applications, constitutes iega, Maltravieso and Ardales derive from se­ the radiocarbon dating method's time clock. In quences of sub-samples that not only are age­ addition, the effective limit of applicability of depth consistent but also satisfy all the other radiocarbon is ~45,000 years. Therefore, even stringent quality criteria outlined in Hoffmann if the DCF issues could be overcome, radiocar­ et al. (2016). It is on the back of such very ro­ bon would still be unable to provide relevant bust results that the archeological implications information concerning the age of older speleo­ of the dating evidence lie. thems and, by inference, of the stratigraphically In addition, the notion that radiocarbon associated cave art. ought to be used as a control is at odds with dec­ As an illustration of how U-series might get it ades of work in the geochemistry of speleothems wrong, Sauvet et al. (2017) cite Plagnes et al. 's (Spotl and Bosch 2012). A speleothem's carbon (2003) report on the dating of parietal art from does not derive directly from the atmosphere a cave in Borneo, Lubang Jeriji Saleh (LJS).

FIGURE 6.2. Red-painted speleothems. Left. Ardales. Overview of the massive stalagmitic dome in Area II-A-3; the rectangle indicates the approximate boundaries of the area illustrated in figure 6.1. Right. Nerja. The curtain (top) and zoom-ins on the sampled area before (bottom left) and after (bottom right) sampling; the U-series result for sample G12-25 implies a minimum age of 55,100 years (reproduced from Valladas et al. 2017).

90 Even though U-series returned a 27,000 year ~29,000 years. Put another way, in light of the age for ca1cite from a drapery superimposed consistency between the single-sample and the on a hand stencil, the true age of the sample multiple sub-sample results reported by Pike et was thought to be that provided by its 14C dat­ al. (2012) and Hoffmann et al. (2016, 2017, ing, which set the ca1cite at only between 8000 2018a) , the problem with open-system behavior and 10,000 years-old. As discussed by Pike et al. at Nerja probably resides in the radiocarbon (2017), the friable and weathered nature of the rather than in the U-series resulto It is likely, sample used raises questions about the reliabil­ therefore, that these Nerja speleothem paint­ ity of both results. Nonetheless, assuming, for ings represent a fourth instance of Iberian cave the sake of argument, that they are reliable and art made by Middle Paleolithic Neandertals. DCF is not an issue, the discrepancy needs not imply that one of them must be wrong. This is because (a) radiocarbon is based on the loss of 6.4. WAS THE U-SERIES METHOD APPLIED an isotope (l4C) while U-series is based on the IN ADEQUATE MANNER? gain of an iso tope (230Th), and (b) the individ­ ual micro-Iayers subsumed in a sample vary in To the same open system issues raised by individual age and in uranium concentration. Pons-Branchu et al. (2014), Slimak et al. (2018) Therefore, the dates returned by each meth­ add three arguments leading them to suspect od can be different and yet represent equally that at least sorne of Hoffmann et al.'s (2018a) valid minimum ages - with the oldest being the U-Th results might be too old: (a) a high per­ closest to the true age of the underlying art (it centage of 230Th could have been initially present should go without saying that, if something is in the drip water; (b) the correction for detrital more than 27,000 years-old, then it is also more contamination could have been insufficient; and than 8000 years-old) . Pike et al.'s argument has (c) using the isochron method, the age obtained now been vindicated by the results that Aubert for La Pasiega sample PAS34, taken from a cauli­ et al. (2018) have sin ce obtained for the same flower-type formation overlying a red sign, would LJS speleothem, which they resampled target­ be in the 47,000 to 54,000 year- rather than the ing the dense, unweathered ca1cite found below 65,000 year-old range. Altogether, they conclude the large chunk removed by Plagnes et al. The that the results provide strong support for a min­ sequence of stratigraphically ordered results ob­ imum age of no more than 47,000 years at the tained by Aubert et al. is consistent with Plagnes three sites. et al.'s U-series result and leaves no doubt that Even if correct, this conclusion would not the execution of the motif occurred prior to change the implication that the dated art is of 37,200 years ago. Neandertal make. This is so simply because the The same faulty logic has led the Valladas earliest evidence for modern human presence in et al. (2017) group of authors to reject the Europe postdates by at least 5000 years Slimak U-series date, >55,000 years-old, that they ob­ et al.'s 47,000-year time horizon (Zilhao 2013; tained for the thin layer of ca1cite overlying Zilhao et al. 2015). However, as Hoffmann et al.'s red pigment apposed on a painted stalagmitic (2018d) response, summarized below, conclusive­ formation from the cave site of Nerja (Spain) ly showed, that time horizon has no empirical that is in all aspects reminiscent of Ardales' basis whatsoever. massive dome (fig. 6.2). The result was re­ The dating to the very recent past, no more jected because the radiocarbon dating of the than about one thousand years ago, of samples same sample yielded an age of 29,1l0±200 BP from all three sites falsifies the notion that the (SacA-34251) - which, under the assumption drip water could have had a high 230Th content; of 0% DCF, would make the ca1cite no more the U-series dating equations cannot be resolved than about 33,000 calendar years-old. However, to such younger ages if non-negligible amounts nothing in the data reported by Valladas et al. of non-radiogenic 230Th are initially present. contradicts the notion that, in this case, the Correcting for de tri tal contamination is neces­ discrepancy lies in the most common cause of sary because the samples always contain impuri­ error in radiocarbon dating, namely, the in­ ties (e.g., dust particles) that get trapped in the complete removal of younger carbon contami­ precipitating ca1cite and such detritus contains nants. That this issue needs to be contemplated 230Th that does not derive from the decay of the is due to the thinness of the sampled carbonate 234U dissolved in the drip water. The extent to layer and the fact that, due to microbial activ­ which such contamination may be problematic ity, carbon exchange with the cave's interior is assessed through consideration of the ratio be­ atmosphere is bound to have happened - and tween 230Th and 232Th, the latter being the most no more than about 2.6% of residual contam­ common (and, for all practical purposes, stable) ination by modern carbon suffices to bring isotope of the element. When detrital contami­ a sample's radiocarbon age from ~55,000 to nation is high, and the correction significantly

91 FIGURE 6.3. Corrected ages and (232 Th/234 U)A for carbonate samp!,es associated with art (i.e., as maximum or minimum ages). The error bars denote two standard deviations. (A) Ardal,es. (B) Maltravieso panel GS3b. Reproducedfrom Hoff mann et al. (2018d: fig. 2). changes the age, the results are rejected; when detrital contamination is low, and the correction does not significantly impact the calculated age, the results are retained. Hoffmannet al. (2018a) assumed the bulk earth value for the 23oTh / 232Th ratio (or, in the specific case of Maltravieso, cal­ culated one using sediment samples from the cave itself), corrected the results accordingly, and obtained ages that barely change even if significantly higher, unrealistic correction fac­ tors are used (fig. 6.3). Detrital contamination is therefore not an issue here. With regards to sample PAS34, Hoffmann et al. (2018d) demonstrated that Slimak et al. 's younger age was based on a mathemat­ ically inappropriate calculation. In addition, FIGURE 6.4. The dating of a triangular red sign from La Pasiega. Top. Position of the cauliflower that provided despite otherwise shown by the sequence of the minimum ages. Middl,e. Post-sampling view indicating the stratigraphically ordered results (from top to position of samples PAS4 (single result; Pike et al. 2012) and bottom, in thousands of years ago, 51.6±1.1 for PAS28 (multi sub-samples; Hoffmann et al. 2016). Bottom. PAS34a, 54.4±1.4 for PAS34b, and 79.7±14.9 for Age results (2a errors). PAS34c; 2cr errors), Slimak et al. assumed that the calcite in the three measured sub-samples of PAS34 formed over a very short period. Such posite. Cases in point are La Pasiega samples an assumption might be warranted if evidence PAS28 (fig. 6.4) and PAS30 (fig. 6.5), which existed that, as a rule, cauliflowers form over yielded stratigraphically ordered sub-sample re­ very short-lived episodes of calcite precipitation. sults spanning, in thousands of years ago, the If so, then one would be justified in consider­ 13.4±0.1 to 22.9±0.2 and the 6.6±0.1 to 11.7±0.1 ing the range displayed by PAS34 as anomalous intervals, respectively (2cr errors). and a priori suspect. Slimak et al., however, pro­ In fact, these critics fall way short of general­ vide no evidence supporting such a rule, while izing that cauliflowers formvery rapidly and that Pike et al. (2012) and Hoffmann et al. (2016, the ages obtained for sub-samples thereof ought 2017, 2018a) contain many examples of the op- to be treated under an assumption of penecon-

92 every date published from the caves" (Slimak et al. 2018). As so many of the dates in question come from cauliflowers, Slimak et al. 's state­ ment is explicit endorsement of the notion that the calcite in such formations retains a stra­ tigraphy and that such stratigraphy (a) reflects growth over an extended period, and (b) can be tested for age-depth consistency to ascertain the reliability of dating results. Taking such a stand and then posit that, in one specific case, PAS34, all sub-samples be treated as of the same age despite the significant time span covered is therefore an obvious case of the fallacy of special pleading. Slimak et al. question the age obtained for the sub-sample closer to the pig­ ment, PAS34c, not because there is anything technically problematic with the minimum age of 64.8 ka that the date implies for the under­ lying art but simply because that minimum age is not to their liking.

6.5. IS THE STRATIGRAPHIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ART AND SAMPLES DEMONSTRATED?

Whilesharing Hoffmann et al.'s (2016) meth­ odological premises, Aubert, Brumm and Hunt­ ley (2018) question the early ages obtained for La Pasiega, Maltravieso and Ardales on the grounds that Hoffmann et al. (2018a) would have failed to demonstrate that the dated calcite was indeed found above the art whose age it was supposed to constrain. They do so, however, via a funda­ mental misrepresentation of the facts. Aubert, Brumm and Huntley's account of Hoffmann et al.'s (2018a) modus operandi is as follows:

In each case the team scraped the carbonate deposit un­ til they considered that it was changing color [... ] . This was seen as indicating that they were coming close to the underlying paint of the artwork, and hence they stopped sampling at this point. The team then dated the sampled carbonate under the belief that it had formed on top of the paint layer corresponding to the nearbyartwork [... ] Moreover, in our view, a color change is not evident from most images in the paper [my emphasis]. FIGURE 6.5. The dating of a red horse from La Pasiega. Top. Position of the cauliflower that provided the minimum ages (sam­ p!,e PASJ0). Middle. Zoom-in on the sampled area before surface The description above is fantasy. The car­ cl,eaning. Bottom. The sampled area after the last sub-sampl,e bonate deposit was not scraped until it changed (PASJ0g, 11, 740±80 years old, 2a error) had been removed. color. The sampled carbonate deposits remained the same color, white, throughout. As they were thinned out by the scraping process, however, temporaneity warranting the application of the they became translucent and the different color isochron method. Quite the opposite: referring - red, instead of white - of the pigment present to Hoffmann et al. (2018a), they write that "the directly underneath, not nearby, became visible. authors deserve credit for devising and applying The process was photographically documented the sequential sampling technique that tests for each step of the way, and the detailed imagery preservation of stratigraphic order in essentially published by Hoffmannet al. (2016, 2017, 2018a)

93 FIGURE 6.6. The stratigraphic relation between the dated Iberian cave art and the cauliflowers used to date it. Top. Scenario A is Aubert et al. '.s (2018a) hypothesis, which implies interpreting the results as maximum ages. Bottom. Scenario Bis the real thing; the results are minimum ages. leaves no doubt that the published results con­ eluding the critical PAS34 sample (fig. 6.7), con­ cern samples of white calcite that lay on top of form to scenario B of fig. 6.6; the dating results artwork made with a red pigment applied on a obtained for the carbonate therefore represent white, yellow or grey limestone wall ( or on an minimum ages indeed. earlier layer of white flowstone). To circumvent the potential ambiguity of pig­ Aubert, Brumm and Huntley also worried that ment/ cauliflower associations, Aubert, Brumm the ages provided by the cauliflowersamples could and Huntley advocate a sampling procedure in fact be maxima rather than minima. Their that is destructive of the art itself: coring through concern stemmed from experience with similar the overlying calcite and the art motif down to carbonate formations found in Borneo caves, in the underlying canvas and then do the U-series which they were able to observe instances where dating on sub-samples of the extracted core lo­ no pigment existed under cauliflowers whose base cated above and below the pigment layer. As ar­ was surrounded by painting. In such cases - sce­ gued by Pike et al. (2012) and Hoffmann et al. nario A of fig. 6.6 - the explanation resides in (2016, 2017, 2018a), such destruction is unnec­ that the cauliflower was already present when the essary and can be avoided using the alternative painting was made but run-off along the cave wall protocol successfully applied by these authors to subsequently washed away the pigment that once some 250 panels from 26 different cave sites. In covered the protuberating calcite accretion. How­ addition, note that, in order to be able to follow ever, in all the cases of cauliflower dating reported Aubert, Brumm and Huntley's modus operandi by Pike et al. (2012) and Hoffmann et al. (2016, one would still need to be able to distinguish be­ 2017, 2018a), pigment was observed under the tween the white color of the calcite and the red, calcite as the sub-sampling proceeded from the black, orange or yellow color of the interstratified formation's external skin to its base, eventually pigments the art had been made with; but recall leaving a layer thin enough for the underlying that, to those authors, the change from white to pigment to been seen through. These cases, in- red seen in figs. 6.4-6.5 and 6.7 is not evident ...

94 FIGURE 6.7. The dating of La Pasiega's scalariform sign. Top left. Position of the cauliflower that provided the minimum ages (sample PAS34). Top right. The cauliflower prior to sampling. Bottom. Zoom-in on the sampled area after the last sub-sample - PAS34c, 79,660±14,900 years old, 2a error - had been removed (original photo and D-stretch enhancement).

Even though they claim the high ground, Au­ Aubert et al.'s answer is that "the pigment as­ bert, Brumm and Huntley's reporting actually is sociated with samples LJSl and LJSlA is of the rather sub-standard when it comes to document­ same reddish orange-colored hue as other parts ing their samples' stratigraphic associations. For of the figurative animal painting in question, and instance, they claim to have dated the world's the pigment layer we have dated appears to have earliest figurative art (an undetermined animal been applied with a brush or finger rather than from the LJS cave in Borneo), and there is no sprayed or projected from the mouth." How the question that the calcite core they extracted con­ technique of application can be inferred from tains a clearly visible pigment layer under calcite the two-dimensional observation of a ca.0.05 dated to 40,000 years ago. But does the pigment mm-thick line of pigment is, however, left unex­ whose age is so constrained belong indeed to the plained. In fact, the identification relies entirely figure that the sample was intended to date? The on the naked-eye evaluation of the hues, i.e., the imagery provided - a long shot of the painted pan­ perceived difference between the stencil's mul­ el, a tracing of same, and a zoom-in on the tracing berry and the animal's orange. So, ultimately, the indicating the position of the relevant samples, argument relies on the confidence one can have LJSl and LJSlA (Aubert et al. 2018: fig. 2) - fails to on the hue-discrimination abilities of the authors make that case. The pigment in the cored-through - the same who, in the case of the Iberian caves, area is an isolated patch found half-way between a find it difficult to appreciate the difference be­ hand stencil and the animal painting it is assigned tween white and red, even on the printed page. to, and mineralogical analysis was unable to differ­ In any case, even if we accept that valid grounds entiate the pigments used to make the two motifs. exist to reject the hypothesis that the pigment Based on this evidence, can we exclude that the in LJSl and LJSlA relates to the stencil, the fact dated pigment patch relates not to the animal but remains that several other motifs in the dated to the hand stencil, or to a third undetermined, panel feature the same orange hue as the ani­ and possibly non-figurative motif? mal. Therefore, rejecting the stencil hypothesis

95 does not necessarily reject that the dated patch sents, yet again, a manifestation of the impact of belonged to a motif other than the animal to the the logical issues of double standards and special right of the stencil. pleadingo Why is the anthropogenic nature of Aubert, Brumm and Huntley's (2018) criticisms the pigment underpinning the interpretation of are based on the creation of a straw man and de­ these paintings as speleothem-marking behavior void of empirical basiso They only serve to illustrate questioned at Ardales but not at Nerja or at the the pervasive double standards affecting all Tran­ other sites in which the same behavior has been sition-related researcho Naked-eye assignment of noted? Because, at Ardales, the dating proves that hue suffices to put a time stamp on the "behavioral the artistic activity relates to Neandertals while, modernity" of the anatomically modern humans elsewhere, it has so far been assumed to be a presumed to be the makers of the Borneo cave art, modern human thing? even when done by researchers with self-acknowl­ The second point is that Aubert, Brumm and edged color-recognition handicapso oo but does not Huntley's remarks consist entirely of generalities suffice to prove the stratigraphic position of the with no specific reference to the context and art relative to the calcite whose dating implies Ne­ properties of the concrete marks in questiono UI­ andertal authorship, even when accompanied by timately, their point is that, much like fossils prior detailed graphic demonstration of said positiono to the 17th century, these marks could have been Can one reasonably accept that a stratigraphic re­ lusus naturae that fooled the generations of rock lationship observed, recorded and unanimously art experts who have examined the evidenceo 00 agreed upon by the several generations of rock but not them, who are well aware of "Nature the art researchers who have meticulously examined trickster" and can spot its jokes even from as far and discussed the Iberian sites be questioned in awayas their antipodal officeso Remarkable! total cavalier fashion, remotely, with no direct ex­ Aubert, Brumm and Huntley's wondrous hu­ amination of the evidence? bris apart, the point of the matter is that the anthropogenic nature of the Ardales marks is unquestionableo The pigment is found as a 6.6. IS THE DATED PIGMENT layer of defined thickness atop the underlying ANTHROPOGENIC, AND THE PAINTING calcite and separated from it by a discrete and INTENTIONAL? distinct boundary, not as diffuse staining of the calcite itself. Reddening caused by the presence Slimak et al. (2018) and Aubert, Brumm and of iron minerals in the drip water leads to the Huntley (2018) also raise the issue of whether formation of speleothems that become stained the Ardales paintings are intentional, or even an­ all through their fabric, not to the apposition of thropogenic. One si de of this objection is that homogeneous masses of pigmentatious material the pigment marks could have be en produced over their external surfaceso In theory, mechani­ accidentally, eog o, through contact between cave cal processes - eogo, flooding by waters containing wall and painted clothing, if not painted human large amounts of iron minerals in suspension - skino The other side of the objection is that the might be able to explain the presence of such pigment could well represent natural staining of masses, but not the fact that they are only found the cave wallso on speleothems and within human reach, never The first point one needs to make in this re­ on the ground floor or elsewhere in the naked gard is that speleothem painting is by no means cave wallsoIn addition, the best-preserved patches an exceptional cave art motif. It is certainly not display a splatter pattern that is fully consistent exclusive to Ardales, as illustrated by the nearby with mouth- or airbrush-blowing as experimental­ site ofNerja discussed above, as well as by, among ly replicated (D 'Errico et al. 2016) o Indeed, only others, El Castillo, in Cantabrian Spain, or Les the intentional application of pigment using such Merveilles, in France (Alcalde del Rio, Breuil and a technique can explain the location of many of Sierra 1912; Lorblanchet 2010)0 This is common the marks deep inside the speleothems' folds, in knowledge, aild not only among the communi­ places that in sorne cases are beyond arm's length ty of cave art researchers but also, as sorne of - which suffices to exclude accidental rubbing as these sites remain open to visitors, among the an explanation for their origino general publiCo Examples have been reproduced and discussed in scholarly articles and site mono­ graphs and, for decades, their self-evident anthro­ 6.7. IS THE DATED ART TRULY "ART?" pogenic nature never posed a problem oo o until its makers, or at least the makers of sorne, were Slimak et al. (2018) concede that, if indeed found to be Neandertal instead of anatomically anthropogenic, the Ardales motifs might indicate moderno This may well have happened just by co­ that "sorne late Neanderthal societies may well incidence - albeit, to paraphrase Mellars (2005), have produced sorne parietal traceso" The choice an extraordinary one - , but more likely repre- of expression - 'parietal traces' instead of 'rock

96 art' - is not incidental. It chimes in with the notion tion and types of signs had changed across the that the behavior involved is not really art, as op­ Upper Paleolithic sequence, Breuil placed them posed to La Pasiega's geometric sign and Maltra­ firmlywithin his earlier phase, in association with vieso's hand stencil. While considering the latter lines, spots and disks. to be "the only true parietal expressions of graphic At El Castillo's Panel of Hands, hand sten­ categories that have direct comparisons with clas­ cils and red disks are found together but not sic Upper Paleolithic parietal expressions," Slimak superimposed, while the painted lines defining et al. question their dating to Neandertal times. the panel's "classic Upper Paleolithic parietal ex­ The concept here, therefore, is that, even though, pressions" (namely, the yellow bison depicted in in Ardales as much as at Bruniquel, Neandertals a style that Leroi-Gourhan would have deemed may have done "stuff'' deep inside caves, none of "archaic") are always found on top of either the it can be truly considered "art." stencils or the disks (Pike et al. 2012; Garcfa­ Slimak et al. are right that hand stencils and Diez et al. 2015; Pettitt et al. 2015; D'Errico et al. the kinds of geometric signs dated at La Pasiega 2016) (fig. 6.8). There is not a single instance of are fully within the realm of Paleolithic cave art; this superimposition pattern being reversed, and but they are not "classic Upper Paleolithic pa­ Pike et al. 's (2012) U-series dating of the panel's rietal expressions." A century of research, from carbonates fully corroborated the observed pari­ the Abbe Breuil to A. Leroi-Gourhan, reckoned etal stratigraphy by showing that a red disk had that "rare spots, lines of disks in series, and some­ been made prior to 40,800 years ago and a hand times timid attempts at line drawing" lay at the stencil prior to 37,300 years ago. These minimum base of all parietal stratigraphies known (Breuil ages demonstrated that such kinds of motifs were 1952: 38). The truly "classic Upper Paleolithic being painted in Cantabrian caves well before the parietal expressions" are the primarily animalistic time to which animal representations have been representations that can be dated by comparison securely dated anywhere in Europe, either direct­ with mobiliary art found in stratified archeologi­ ly by radiocarbon or indirectly by stratigraphic cal contexts containing diagnostic Upper Paleo­ position in an archeological sequence. It is true lithic stone tool assemblages. For Leroi-Gourhan that a few hand stencils have been dated by radio­ (1964), such expressions had been preceded by carbon to the Gravettian. But that does not mean a "pre-figurative" phase that antedated the Au­ that hand stencils are "classic Upper Paleolithic rignacian. With regards to hand stencils, while parietal expressions," nor can that be taken to Leroi-Gourhan considered their dating ambigu­ exclude that the practice had begun much earli­ ous and, hence, excluded them from his four­ er, as indeed demonstrated by the results for La stage scheme of how modes of animal representa- Pasiega and Maltravieso; such Gravettian exam-

FIGURE 6.8. The Panel of Hands at El Castillo. Left. Partial overview. Right. Detail and zoom-in on same, illustrating a yellow bison in archaic style superimposed on a red hand stencil.

97 pIes simply mean that, in Europe, the practice and imagination, typicaIly in a visual form such of making hand stencils persisted through the as painting or sculpture, producingworks to be ap­ earlier part of the Upper Paleolithic. preciated primarily for their beauty or emotional A more radical version of the argument that powero" It shouldn't be necessary to stress that this the types of cave paintings dated to the Neander­ definition is useless and inapplicable for the study tal time range are categoricaIly and fundamen­ of the Paleolithic past, a field in which 'art' is more taIly distinct from true "art" is that "using colors productively treated as a form of transmitting en­ to make a mark with your hand or painting your coded information (eogo Barton, Clark and Cohen body in red ocher is not like painting a Renais­ 1994) oIn evolutionary perspective, and when deal­ sance picture of the Quattrocento" (Hublin, cit­ ing with what art reveals in terms of the human ed in Lidz 2019) o RecaIl that Hublin's reaction brain's cognitive capabilities, the specific form un­ to Pike et al. (2012) was that aH he would need der which the information is stored - figurative, to be convinced was "a pattern of art or other schematic, abstract, etc. - is not relevanto What sophisticated symbolic expression" (see above) o is relevant is the fact that information is being The moving of goal posts apart, that a differ­ encoded and decoded, revealing the possession ence exists between the Neandertal paintings of the capability for thinking and communicating and those of the Quattrocento is undeniableo with symbols that underpins language and aH hu­ However, it is no less undeniable that Quattro­ man culture as we know it. And, to demonstrate cento paintings are also different from those of that possession, you do not need Quattrocento Ancient Egypt, or from those of 20th-century paintings; geometric signs are good enougho It abstractionistso In fact, there is a good reason would hardly occur to anyone to suggest that the for Quattrocento art to be caHed sOo It was made combination of simple lines used to produce the in the 1400's of the Christian Era, not before graphic sign that combines a 'c,' an 'a' and a 't' is or after, which puts the Neandertal painters of somehow cognitively less complex than the most speleothems, stencils and signs on a par with the realistic portrait of the animal represented by 'cato' overwhelming majority of anatomicaIly modern To anyone, that is, outside the strange world of humans who have ever lived - presumably the Neandertal/modern human debates 000 opposite of the point Hublin's remark was in­ tended to press on the readero Hublin's idea would seem to be that only 6.8. CONCLUSION: "modern humans" are capable of something like PALEOANTHROPOLOGY AS SCIENCE the Quattrocento paintingso This not only begs AND AS IDEOLOGY the question of why most such modern humans never produced any such paintings but also leads Gilman's (1984) essay was explicitly Marxisto one to suspect the underlying assumption to be A major aspect of this approach (but one that is that such a capability is something of an "imma­ not exclusive to it; cfo Kuhn 1970) is the empha­ nent" property, exclusive to the modern human sis on the need to understand the production brain and in which it resided for sorne 200,000 of knowledge, including scientific knowledge, in years 000 in wait for the right moment to manifest its cultural and social context. In short, aware­ itselfo In fact, being capable of the making of ness that "it is not the consciousness of men that a Quattrocento painting depends primarily on determines their existence but their social exist­ the ontogenetic acquisition of the required skills, ence that determines their consciousness" (Marx over many years of hard work and learning, and 1859) is a prerequisite to understand, expose and in the appropriate cultural contexto My predic­ overcome ideology (in this theoretical context, tion is that, placed in front of a blank canvas meaning false knowledge) o with aH the necessary tools and pigments, not Paleoanthropology is a form of enquiry even the most artisticaIly gifted of anatomical­ whose origins lie in the western European soci­ ly modern humans wiIl produce anything like eties of the 19th centuryo As such, it is almost a Quattrocento painting if he has not se en one inevitable that the ever more numerous nuggets before, has no familiarity with the people, the of true knowledge that the discipline has been landscapes and the ideas that such paintings refer able to produce through observation, practice, to, and has not been taught how to make proper and reflection would have come embedded in a use of the materials made available to himo This gangue of beliefs derived from the cultural, so­ is a proposition that can be empiricaIly tested, cial, and philosophical background within which and, should someone proceed to do so, 1 for one Paleoanthropology was incubated and that the wiIl certainly be looking forward to the outcomeo institutions that frame it professionaIly and ac­ What lies at the heart of the issue at stake here ademically, conservative as all institutions are, is what we mean by 'art.' The current meaning, have taken upon themselves to perpetuateo Ex­ as defined in eogo Google,s dictionary, is "the ex­ amples are plentyo For instance, it does not take pression or application of human creative skill extreme powers of insight to realize that the

98 designation - the Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis - can find for the resistance expressed in sorne of the gene tic component of the ROA model of academic quarters to the Neandertal-age dates modern human origins is entirely appropriateo obtained by Hoffmann et al. (2018a) for the It chimes in perfectly with the model's biblical beginning of western Europe's cave art, with overtones: a small group of humans (the Chosen attendant implications for the Transition as a People) inhabiting a privileged corner of the Middle Paleolithic Revolutiono How else can world (the Promised Land) eventually taking one explain that all expressions of such resist­ it all for themselves upon acquiring language ance represent textbook examples of logical and advanced cognition (the Revelation) thanks error? Among these, the most pervasive and to sorne sort of genetic mutation (the Hand of transparently fallacious are: (a) double stand­ God)o ards, for instance, Neandertals are denied bur­ Likewise, let us take a moment to read again ial, but archeologically similar modern human the official definition of Homo neanderthalensis manifestations are accepted as such, no ques­ (King 1864): tions asked, or, naked-eye distinction of related hues suffices to support c1aims for oldest fig­ The distinctive faculties of Man are visibly expressed urative art in Borneo, but naked-eye distinc­ in his elevated cranial dome, a feature which, though tion between red and white is insufficient to much debased in certain savage races, essentially demonstrate the stratigraphic relationship be­ characterizes the human specieso But, considering tween the Neandertal-age calcite and the art for that the Neanderthal skull is eminently simial, both which it provides a minimum age; (b) special in its general and particular characters, 1 feel myself pleading, for instance, sequential sub-sampling constrained to believe that the thoughts and desires of cauliflowers is a valid way of assessing age­ which once dwelt within it never soared beyond those of a bruteo The Andamaner, it is indisputable, posses­ depth consistency, but when the basal sub-sam­ ses but the dimmest conceptions of the existence of pIe implies a Neandertal age for the underlying the Creator of the Universe: his ideas on this subject, art, then the calcite in that particular cauliflow­ and on his own moral obligations, place him very er must be taken as formed in one go, with no little aboye animals of marked sagacity; nevertheless, internal stratigraphy; (c) moving goal posts, for viewed in connection with the strictly human confor­ instance, symbolic material culture, eogo, per­ mation of his cranium, they are such as to specifically sonal ornaments and simple geometric-linear identify him with Horno sapienso Psychical endow­ ments of a lower grade than those characterizing the motifs suffice to demonstrate cognitive moder­ Andamaner cannot be conceived to exist: they stand nity, as in the BIombos finds from South Mrica next to brute benightednesso [o oo] Applying the abo­ (Henshilwood et al. 2018), but when the same ve argument to the Neanderthal skull, and conside­ is found among Neandertals the requirement ringo oo that it more closely conforms to the brain-case becomes Quattrocento paintingo of the Chimpanzee, 000 there seems no reason to be­ Ultimately, the skeptics' questioning derives lieve otherwise than that similar darkness characteri­ from the need to reconcile the empirical evi­ zed the being to which the fossil belongedo dence with an overarching worldview generat­ ed via yet another fallacy, that of affirming the Clearly, recent notions of the Neandertals' consequent. Their reasoning can be summed­ fundamental otherness closely follow the original up as follows: 'It is well-established that Neandertals and, like it, are deeply rooted in several undisput­ were anatomically non-modern and, hence, cognitively ed flaws of 19th-century natural science: mistaken non-modern too; therefore, dates that imply Neandertal confusion of evolution with progress (ioeo, that authorship for cave art must be wrong; removing such "fossil" of necessity implies "less evolved" or "prim­ dates from consideration, as they one should do, the itive"); teleology, epitomized by Haeckel's "Tree chronological evidence shows that art begins with the of Life," in which humans were an Aristotelian Upper Paleolithic and is modern human-associated; final cause sitting at the top of the progressive­ therefore, Neandertals never did any art, and, if they ly more complex series of organisms generated didn 't, it can only be beca use they were devoid of the by the evolutionary process; phrenology, or the capability; consequently, we can conclude that they notion that the shape of a brain case can be in­ were cognitively non-moderno' terpreted in terms of the psychological attributes This style of reasoning applied to archeology and intelligence of the individual it belonged to; and human evolution issues is hardly newo For and racism, or the notion that a correlation exists instance, one can easily see how these Neander­ between facial morphology and other physical tal arguments are but a present-day equivalent features of a human being, on one hand, and of the "Mound Builder" frame of mind that led its capability to master advanced knowledge and many early North American students of the past be a civilized person, on the othero to argue that Cahokia and similar monuments The enduring power of such obsolete no­ could only have been built by a superior race tions and the extent to which they have ballast­ of Old-World immigrants: the continent's indig­ ed Paleoanthropology is the only explanation 1 enous people were too primitive and obviously

99 lacked the capability ... Replace a few words, anthropologists end up falling into the acritical and the argument you get is that 'cave art must reproduction of received wisdom and obsolete be a modern human-only thing because Neandertals narrative as soon as they step out of their own obviously lacked the corresponding capability;' or, as narrow field of specialization to indulge in gen­ Slimak et al. (2018) fall short of explicitIy stating eralizations about Neandertals and "modernity." but transparentIy intimate 'if the dates hold, what Not so in the case of Antonio Gilman, the ex­ they might be telling us then is that modern humans pert in the Bronze Age Archeology of Iberia who were in Europe at the time, well before it has hitherto cracked the origins of the Upper Paleolithic for been contemplated.' The impact of such epistemological issues on the benefit of the rest of uso all things Neandertal is well apparent in Trinkaus and Shipman's (1994) review of the intellectual history of 19th- and 20th-century human evolu­ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS tion controversies. To that impact we need to add the consequences of the industrial-s cale division This paper is a contribution to project ARQE­ of labor that, with all its benefits but also with all VO (Archeology and Evolution of Early Humans its defects, carne to characterize the production in the Western Fa<;:ade of Iberia; PTDC/HAR­ of scientific knowledge. Combined, these factors ARQ/30413/2017), funded by FCT (Funda<;:ao may well explain why so many excellent paleo- para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, Portugal).

100 REFERENCES D'ERRICO, F.; HENSHILWOOD, c.; VANHAEREN, M., and VAN NIEKERK, K. (2005): "Nassarius krauss­ ALCALDE DEL RIO, H.; BREUIL, H., and SIERRA, L. ianus Shell Beads from Blombos Cave: Evi­ (1912): Les cavernes de la région cantabrique. A denee for Symbolie Behaviour in the Middle Chene, Monaeo. Stone Age", Journal 01 Human Evolution, 48: 3-24. APPENZELLER, T. (2013): "Old Masters. The Ear­ liest Known Cave Paintings Fuel Arguments D'ERRICO, F.; VANHAEREN, M.; BARTON, N.; Bou­ about Whether Neanderthals Were the Men­ ZOUGGAR, A, MIENIS, H.; RICHTER, D.; ... and tal Equals of Modern Humans", Nature, 497: LOZOUET, P. (2009): "Additional Evidenee on 302-4. the Use ofPersonal Ornaments in the Middle Paleolithie of North Afriea", Proceedings 01 the AUBERT, M.; BRUMM, A, and HUNTLEY,J. (2018). National Academy 01 Sciences USA, 106: 16051- "Early Dates for 'Neanderthal Cave Art' 56. May Be Wrong", Journal 01 Human Evolution, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/jJhev- D'ERRICO, F.; DAYET BOUILLOT, L.; GARCÍA-DIEZ, 01.2018.08.004. M.; PITARCH MARTÍ, A; GARRIDO PIMENTEL, D., and ZILHÁO, J. (2016): "The Teehnology AUBERT, M ; SETlAWAN, P.; O KTAVIANA , A A; of the Earliest European Cave Paintings: El BRUMM, A; SULISTYARTO, P. H.; SAPTOMO, E. Castillo Cave, Spain", Journal 01 Archaeological W.; ... and BRAND H. E. A (2018) : "Palaeolith­ Science, 70: 48-65. ie Cave Art in Borneo", Nature, 564 : 254-7. DIBBLE, H. L;ALDEIAS, v.; GOLDBERG, P.; MCPHER­ BAR-YOSEF MAYER, D. E.; VANDERMEERSCH, B., RON, S. P.; SANDGATHE, D., and STEELE, T. E. and BAR-YOSEF, O. (2009): "Shells and Oehre (2015): "A Critieal Look at Evidenee from La in Middle Paleolithie Qafzeh Cave, Israel: In­ Chapelle-Aux-Saints Supporting an Intention­ al N eandertal Burial", Journal Archaeological dieations for Modern Behaviour", Journal 01 01 Science, 53: 649-57. Human Evolution, 56: 307-14. DUARTE, C.; MAURÍCIO,J.; PETTlTT, P. B.; SOUTO, BARTON, C. M.; CLARK, G. A, and COHEN, A P.; TRINKAUS, E.; VAN DER PLICHT, H., and E. (1994): "Art as Information: Explaining ZILHÁO, J. (1999): "The Early Upper Paleo­ Upper Palaeolithie Art in Western Europe", lithie Human Skeleton from the Abrigo do World Archaeology, 26: 185-207. Lagar Velho (Portugal) and Modern Human Emergenee in Iberia", Proceedings 01 the Nation­ BELFER-COHEN, A, and HOVERS, E. (1992): "In al Academy 01 Sciences USA, 96: 7604-9. the Eye of the Beholder: Mousterian and Natufian Burials in the Levant", Current An­ GARCÍA-DIEZ, M.; GARRIDO, D.; HOFFMANN, D.; thropology, 33 (4): 463-71. PETTlTT, P.; PIKE, A, and ZILHÁO, J. (2015): "The Chronology ofHand Stencils in Europe­ BREUIL, H. (1952): 400 Siecles d'Art Pariétal, les ca­ an Palaeolithie Roek Art: Implieations of N ew vernes ornées de l'Age duRenne. Centre d'Études et U-Series Results from El Castillo Cave (Canta­ de Doeumentation Préhistoriques, Montignac. bria, Spain)", Journal 01 A nthropological Sciences, 93: 1-18. CARON, F.; D'ERRICO, F.; MORAL, P. DEL; SAN­ TOS, F., and ZILHÁO, J. (2011): "The Re a­ GREEN, R. E.; KRAUSE, J.; BRIGGS, A W.; MARICIC, lity of Neandertal Symbolie Behavior at the T.; STENZEL, U.; KIRCHER, M.; ... and PÁÁBO, S. Grotte du Renne, Arey-sur-Cure, Franee", PloS (2010): "A Draft Sequenee of the Neandertal ONE, 6: e2154. Available at: http:/ / dx.doi. Genome", Science, 328: 710-22. org/10.1371/journa1.pone.0021545. HABGOOD, Ph. J., and FRANKLIN, N. R. (2008): CLOTTES,J. (2012). "Datations U-Th, évolution "The Revolution That Didn't Arrive: A Review de l'art et Néanderthal", International Newslet­ of Pleistoeene Sahul", Journal 01 Human Evolu­ ter on Rock Art, 64: 1-6. tion, 55: 187-222.

D'ERRICO, F. (2003): "The Invisible Frontier. A HENSHILWOOD, C. S., and MAREAN, C. (2003): Multiple Species Model for the Origin of Be­ "The Origin of Modern Human Behavior. havioral Modernity", Evolutionary Anthropolo­ Critique of the Models and Their Test Impli­ gy, 12: 188-202. eations", Current Anthropology, 44: 627-51.

101 HENSHILWOOD C. S.; D'ERRICO, F.; VAN NIEKERK, HOVERS, E., and BELFER-COHEN, A (2006): "'Now K. L.; DAYET, L.; QUEFFELEC, A, and POL­ You See it, NowYou Don't'-Modern Human LAROLO, L. (2018): "An Abstraet Drawing Behavior in the Middle Paleolithie", in E. Hov­ from the 73,000-Year-Old Levels at BIombos ers and S. L. Kuhn (eds.), Transitions Before the Cave, South Afriea", Nature, 562: 115-8. Transition. Evolution and Stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Springer, N ew HOFFMANN, D. L.; PIKE, A W. G; GARCÍA-DIEZ, York: 295-304. M.; PETTITT, P. B., and ZILHAO,]. (2016): "Methods for U-Series Dating of CaC03 HUBLIN,].:J. (2009): "The Orígin of Neander­ Crusts Associated with Palaeolithie Cave Art tals", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci­ and Applieation to Iberian Sites", Quaternary ences USA, 106: 16022-7. Geochronology, 36: 104-19. ]AUBERT,].; VERHEYDEN, S.; GENTY, D.; SOULIER, M.; CHENG, H.; BLAMART, D.; ... and SANTOS, HOFFMANN, D. L.; UTRILLA, P.; BEA, M.; PIKE, A. F. (2016): "Early Neanderthal Construetions W. G.; GARCÍA-DIEz, M.; ... and DOMINGO, R. Deep in Bruniquel Cave in Southwestern (2017): "U-Series Dating of Palaeolithie Roek Franee", Nature, 534: 111-4. Art at Fuente Del Trueho (Aragón, Spain)", Quaternary International, 432: 50-58. KING, W. (1864): "The Reputed Fossil Man of the Neanderthal", Quarterly Journal of Science, 1: HOFFMANN, D. L.; STANDISH, C. D.; GARCÍA-DIEz, 88-97. M.; PETTITT, P. B.; MILTON, A; ZILHAO, ].; ... and PIKE, A W. G. (2018a): "U-Th Dating of KLEIN, R. G. (2000): "Arehaeology and the Evolu­ Carbonate Crusts Reveals Neandertal Origin tion of Human Behavior", Evolutionary Anthro­ ofIberian Cave Art", Science, 359: 912-5. pology, 9: 17-36.

HOFFMANN, D. L.; ANGELUCCI, D. E.; VILLAVERDE, - (2003): "Whither the Neanderthals?", Science, v.; ZAPATA,]., and ZILHAO,]. (2018b): "Sym­ 299: 1525-7. bolie Use of Marine Shells and Mineral Pig­ ments by Iberian Neandertals 115,000 Years KRAUSE, ].; LALUEZA-Fox, C.; ORLANDO, L.; Ago", ScienceAdvances, 4.2: eaar5255. Available ENARD, W.; GREEN, R. E.; BURBANO; ... and at: http://doi.org/l0.1126/sciadv.aar5255. PAABO, S. (2007): "The Derived FOXP2 Vari­ ant of Modern Humans Was Shared with Ne­ HOFFMANN, D. L.; STANDISH, C. D.; PIKE, A W. andertals", Current Biology, 17: 1908-1912. G.; GARCÍA-DIEz, M.; PETTITT, P. B.; ANGE­ LUCCI, D. E.; ... and ZILHAO,]. (2018e): "Dates KUHN, Th. S. (1970): TheStructureofScientificRev­ for N eanderthal Art and Symbolie Behaviour olutions. Uníversíty of Chieago Press, Chieago. Are Reliable", Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2: 1044-5. Available at: https:/ /www.nature. LEROI-GOURHAN, A (1964): Les religions de laPré­ eom/ articles/ s41559-0 18-0598-z. histoire (Paléolithique). Presses U niversitaires de Franee, París. HOFFMANN, D. L.; STANDISH, Ch. D. ; GARCÍA­ DIEZ, M.; PETTITT, P. B.; MILTON, A.; ZILHAO, Lmz, F. (2019): "WhatDo We ReallyKnow About Neanderthals?", Smithsonian, 50/2 : 24-35, 86. ].; ... and PIKE, A W. G. (2018d): "Response to Comment on 'U-Th Dating of Carbonate LORBLANCHET, M. (2010): Art pariétal: grottes or­ Crusts Reveals Neandertal Origin of Iberi­ nées du Quercy. Rouergue, París. an Cave Art''', Science, 362: eaaul736. Avail­ able at: http://doi.org/l0.1126/scienee. LORBLANCHET, M., and BAHN. P. (2017): The aau1736. First Artists: In Search of the World 's Oldest Art. Thames and Hudson, London. HOFFMANN, D. L.; STANDISH, Ch. D.; GARCÍA­ DIEZ, M.; PETTITT, P. B., MILTON, ]. A.; MARX, K. (1859): Zur Kritik der Politischen Okono­ ZILHao,].; ... and PIKE, A W. G. (2019): "Re­ mie. Franz Duneker, Berlin. sponse to Aubert Et Al.'s Reply 'Early Dates for 'N eanderthal Cave Art May' Be Worng"', MAUREILLE, B., and VANDERMEERSCH, B. (2007): Journal of Human Evolution, 125 (2018), 215- "Les sépultures néandertaliennes", ín B. 217",journalofHumanEvolution, 135: 102644. Vandermeerseh and B. Maureille (eds.), Les Available at: https://doi.org/l0.l016/jJhev- Néandertaliens. Biologie et cultures. Éditíons du 01.2019.102644. CTHS, Paris: 311-22.

102 MAUREILLE, B.; HOLLIDAY, T.; ROYERD, A; PEL­ PIKE, A W. G.; HOFFMANN, D. L.; GARCÍA-DIEz, M.; LETIER, M.; COUTURE-VESCHAMBREA, Ch.; PETTITT, P. B.; ALCOLEA,].; BALBÍN, R DE; ... DISCAMPS, E.; ... and TURQ, A (2016): "New and ZILHAO,]. (2012): "U-Series Dating of Data on the Possible Neandertal Burial at Paleolithic Art in 11 Caves in Spain", Science, Régourdou (Montignae-sur-Vézere, Dordo­ 336: 1409-13. gne, Franee)", in M. Lauwers and A Zemour (eds.), Qu 'est-ce qu 'une sépulture? Humanités et PIKE, A W. G.; HOFFMANN, D.].; PETTITT, P. B.; systemes funéraires de la Préhistoire a nos jours, GARCÍA-DIEz, M., and ZILHAO,]. (2017): "Dat­ XXXVIemes rencontres Internationales d 'Archéo­ ing Palaeolithic Cave Art: Why U-Th Is the Way logie et d'Histoire d'Antibes. APDCA, Antibes: to Go", Quaternary International, 432: 41-9. 175-91. PLAGNES, v.; CAUSSE, CH.; FONTUGNE, M.; VAL­ LADAS, H.; CHAZINE, ].-M., and FAGE, L.-H. MELLARS, P. A (1973): "The Charaeter of the (2003): "Cross Dating (Th/U-14C) ofCalcite Middle-Upper Paleolithie Transition in South­ Covering Prehistorie Paintings in Borneo", West Franee", in C. Renfrew (ed.), The Expla­ Quaternary Research, 60/2: 172-9. nation of Cultural Change. Models in Prehistory. Duekworth, London: 255-76. PONs-BRANCHU, E. et al. (2014): "Uranium-Series Dating of Carbonate Formations Overlying Pa­ (1989): "Major Issues in the Emergenee of laeolithic Art; Interest and Limitations", Bulletin Modern Humans", Current Anthropology, 30/3: de la SociétéPréhistoriqueFranr;aise, 111/2: 211-24. 349-85. POSTH, C.; WISSING, Ch.; KITAGAWA, K.; PA­ - (2005): "The Impossible Coineidenee. A Sin­ GANI, L.; VAN HOLSTEIN, L.; RACIMO, F.; ... and gle-Species Model for the Origins of Modern KRAUSE,]. (2017): "Deeply Divergent Arehaie Human Behavior in Europe", Evolutionary An­ Mitochondrial Genome Provides Lower Time thropology, 14:12-27. Boundary for Mriean Gene Flow into Nean­ derthals", Nature Communications, 8: 16046. PEARCE, D. G., and BONNEAU, A (2018): "Trou­ Available at: https://www.nature.eom/arti­ ble on the Dating Seene", Nature Ecology & eles/ neomms16046. Evolution, 2: 925-6. Available at: https:/ / doi. org/1 0.1 038/ s41559-018-0540-4. RADOVCIé, D.; OROS SRSEN, A; RADOVCIé,]., and FRAYER, D. W. (2015): "Evidenee for Neander­ PELLETIER, M.; ROYER, A, HOLLIDAY, T. W.; DIS­ talJewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws CAMPS, E.; MADELAINE, S., and MAUREILLE, B. atKrapina", PLoS ONE, 10/3: e0119802. Avail­ (2017): "Rabbits in the Grave! Consequene­ able at: https:/ /journals.plos.org/plosone/ es of Bioturbation on the Neandertal 'Buri­ artiele?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119802. al' at Regourdou (Montignae-sur-Vézere, Dordogne)", ¡ournal of Human Evolution, 110: RENDU, W. BEAUVAL, C.; CREVECOEUR, 1.; 1-17. BAYLE, P.; BALZEAU, A; BISMUTH, T.; ... and MAUREILLE, B. (2014): "Evidenee Supporting PERESANI, M.; FIOREB, 1.; GALAB, M.; ROMANDI­ an Intentional Neandertal Burial at La Cha­ NIA, M., and TAGLIACOZZO, A (2011): "Late pelle-aux-Saints", Proceedings of the National Neandertals and the Intentional Removal of Academy of Sciences USA, 111/1: 81-6. Feathers as Evideneed from Bird Bone Tapho­ - (2016): "Let the Dead Speak ... Comments on nomy at Fumane Cave 44 Ky B.P., Italy" , Pro­ Dibble et al. 's Reply to 'Evidenee Supporting an ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Intentional Burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints"', 108/10: 3888-93. ¡ournal ofArchaeological Science, 69: 12-20.

PETTITT, P.; ARIAS, P.; GARCÍA-DIEZ, M.; HOFF­ ROUZAUD, F. (1978): La PaléosPéléologie: l'homme et MANN, D.; CASTILLEjO, A M.; ONTAÑON-PERE• le milieu,souterrain pyrénéen, au Paléolithique su­ DO, R; ... and ZILHAO,]. (2015): "Are Hand Périeur. Eeole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Steneils in European Cave Art Older Than Sociales, Toulouse. We Think? An Evaluation of the Existing Data and Their Potential Implieations", in P. SAUVET, G.; BOURRILLON, R; CONKEY, M.; FRITZ, Bueno-Ramírez and P. Bahn (eds.), Prehistor­ C.; GÁRATE-MAIDAGAN, D.; RIvERO VILÁ, O.; ... ic Art as Prehistoric Culture. Studies in Honour and WHITE, R (2017): "Uranium-Thorium of Professor Rodrigo de Balbín-Behrmann. Arehe­ Dating Method and Palaeolithie Roek Art", opress, Oxford: 31-43. Quaternary International, 432: 86-92.

103 SLIMAK, L.; FIETZKE, J.; GENESTE, J.-M., and ON­ - (2007): "The Emergenee of Ornaments and TAÑÓN, R. (2018): "Comment on 'U-Th Dating Art: An Arehaeologieal Perspeetive on the ofCarbonate Crusts Reveals Neandertal Origin Origins of Behavioural 'Modernity' of be­ of Iberian Cave Art"', Science, 361: eaau1371. havioural 'modernity"', Journal 01 Archaeologi­ Available at: https://scienee.scieneemag.org/ cal Research, 15: 1-54. content/sci/361/6408/ eaau1371.full.pdf. - (2013): "Neandertal-Modern Human Contaet SPOTL, Ch., and BOCH, R. (2012): "Uranium Series in Western Eurasia: Issues of Dating, Taxono­ Dating of Speleothems", in W. White and D. Cul­ my, and Cultural Associations", in T. Akazawa ver (eds.), Encyclopedia 01 Caves. 2nd edition. El­ T., y Nishiaki and K. Aoki (eds.), Dynamics 01 sevier/Aeademie Press, Waltham, MA: 838-44. Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans. Volume 1: CulturalPerspectives. Springer, Tokyo: STRINGER, C., and ANDREWS, P. (1988): "Genet­ 21-57. ies and the Fossil Evidenee for the Origin of Modern Humans", Science, 239: 1263-8. - (2015): "Lower and Middle Palaeolithie Mor­ tuary Behaviours and the Origins of Ritual TRINKAUS, E. (2007): "European Early Modern Burial", in C. Renfrew, M.J. Boyd and 1. Mor­ Humans and the Fate of the Neandertals", ley (eds.), Death Rituals, Social Order and the Archaeology 01 Immortality in the Ancient World: Proceedings 01 the National Academy 01 Sciences 'Death Shall Have No Dominion '. Cambridge USA, 104/18: 7367-72. University Press, Cambridge: 27-44. TRINKAUS, E., and SHIPMAN, P. (1994): The Nean­ ZILHÁO, J.; ANGELUCCI, D. E.; BADAL-GARCÍA, E.; dertals: 01 Skeletons, Scientists, and Scandal. Vin­ D'ERRICO, F.; DANIEL, E; DAYET, L.; ... and tage, New York. ZAPATA, J. (2010): "Symbolie Use of Marine Shells and Mineral Pigments by Iberian Nean­ VALLADAS, H.; PONs-BRANCHU, E.; DUMOULIN, J. dertals", Proceedings 01 the National Academy 01 P.; QUILES, A.; SANCHIDRIÁN, J. L., and ME­ Sciences USA, 107/3: 1023-8. DINA-ALCAIDE, M. A. (2017): "U/Th and l4C Crossdating of Parietal Calcite Deposits: Ap­ ZILHÁO,J.; BANKS, W. E.; D'ERRICO, E, and GIOIA, plication to NeIja Cave (Andalusia, Spain) P. (2015): "Analysis of Site Formation and As­ and Future Perspeetives", Radiocarbon, 59/6: semblage Integrity Does Not Support Attribu­ 1955-67. tion of the Uluzzian to Modern Humans at Grotta del Cavallo", PLoS ONE, 10: e0131181. WHITE, R. (1982): "Rethinking the Middle/Up­ Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ per Paleolithie Transition", Current Anthropolo­ journal.pone.0131181. gy, 23/2: 169-92. ZILHÁO, J.; D'ERRICO, E; ]ULIEN, M., and DAVID, ZILHÁO,J. (2001): Anatomically Archaic, Behavioural­ E (2011): "Chronology of the Site of Grotte ly Modern: The Last Neanderthals and Their Du Renne, Arey-Sur-Cure, Franee: Implica­ Destiny. Stichting Nederlands Museum voor tions for Radioearbon Dating", Before Farming, Anthropologie en Praehistoriae, Amsterdam. 2011/3: arto 3.

104 BIBLIOTHECA PRAEHISTORICA HISPANA, XXXVI

Director Ignacio de la Torre Sáinz, Instituto de Historia, CSIC

Secretario Xosé Lois Armada Pita, Instituto de Ciencias del Patrimonio, CSIC

Comité Editorial Primitiva Bueno Ramírez, Universidad de Alcalá de Henares Brais X. Currás Refojos, Instituto de Historia, CSIC Teresa Chapa Brunet, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Pedro Díaz-del-Río Español, Instituto de Historia, CSIC Leonor Peña Chocarro, Instituto de Historia, CSIC Alicia Perea Caveda, Instituto de Historia, CSIC Juan Pereira Sieso, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha Inés Sastre Prats, Instituto de Historia, CSIC

Consejo Asesor Federico Bernaldo de Quirós Guidotti, Universidad de León Concepción Blasco Bosqued, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Francisco Burillo Mozota, Universidad de Zaragoza Felipe Criado Boado, Instituto de Ciencias del Patrimonio, CSIC Nuno Ferreira Bicho, Universidade do Algarve Susana González Reyero, Instituto de Historia, CSIC Victorino Mayoral Herrera, Instituto de Arqueología (Mérida), CSICjunta de Extremadura Ignacio Montero Ruiz, Instituto de Historia, CSIC Lourdes Prados Torreira, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, Universidad Complutense de Madrid Margarita Sánchez Romero, Universidad de Granada María Asunción Vila Miga, Institución Milá y Fontanals, CSIC Reservados todos los derechos por la legislación en materia de Propiedad Intelectual. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro, incluido el diseño de la cubierta, puede repro­ ducirse, almacenarse o transmitirse en manera alguna por medio ya sea electrónico, químico, óptico, informático, de grabación o de fotocopia, sin permiso previo por escrito de la editorial.

Las noticias, los asertos y las opiniones contenidos en esta obra son de la exclusiva responsabilidad del autor o autores. La editorial, por su parte, solo se hace responsable del interés científico de sus publicaciones.

Catálogo de publicaciones de la Administración General del Estado: https://cpage.mpr.gob.es

EDITORIAL CSIC: http://editonal.csic.es (correo: [email protected])

GOBIERNO MINISTERIO DE ESPAÑA DE CIENCIA ilCSIC E INNOVACIÓN

jJ FSC MIXTO Papel FSC· C016626

© CSIC © Pedro Díaz-del-Río, Katina Lillios e Inés Sastre © De las imágenes, los autores y las fuentes mencionadas a pie de figura ISBN: 978-84-00-10721-5 e-ISBN: 978-84-00-10722-2 NIPO: 833-20-189-7 e-NIPO: 833-20-190-X Depósito Legal: M-30504-2020 Maquetación, impresión y encuadernación: Estudios Gráficos Europeos S.A. Impreso en España. Printed in Spain

En esta edición se ha utilizado papel ecológico sometido a un proceso de blanqueado ECF, cuya fibra procede de bosques gestionados de forma sostenible.

6 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

GONZALO ARANDA JIMÉNEZ FAYSAL BIm Universidad de Granada Museum für Naturkunde Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitatsfors­ Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología chung, Berlin Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071 Granada, Deutschland España E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] ANTONIO BLANCO GONZÁLEZ XosÉ-LOIS ARMADA Universidad de Salamanca Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Facultad de Geografía e Historia Instituto de Ciencias del Patrimonio, INCIPIT Grupo PREHUSAL Avda. de Vigo s/n, 15705 Santiago de Compostela Calle Cervantes s/n, 37002 Salamanca España España E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

JESS BECK CARMEN CACHO QUESADA University of Cambridge Museo Arqueológico Nacional McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Departamento Prehistoria Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3ER Calle Serrano 13, 28001 Madrid UK España E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

MARÍA DOLORES CAMALICH MASSIEU LUIS BENÍTEZ DE LUGO ENRICH Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Universidad de La Laguna Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Departamento de Geografía e Historia, Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología UD! Prehistoria, Arqueología e Historia Antigua Crta. Colmenar Viejo km. 15, 28049 Madrid Aptdo. 456, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife España España E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia JOSÉ LUIS CARO HERRERO Dpto. de Geografía e Historia Universidad de Málaga (Centro Asociado de Ciudad Real) Departamento de Lenguajes Calle Seis de Junio 55, 13300 Valdepeñas, Ciudad Real y Ciencias de la Computación España Complejo Tecnológico, Campus de Teatinos, E-mail: [email protected] 29071 Málaga España E-mail: [email protected] ALFONSO BENITO-CALVO Centro Nacional de Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca 3, 09002 Burgos España E-mail: [email protected]

11 SEBASTIÁN CELESTINO PÉREZ MARTA DÍAZ-ZORITA BONILLA Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Universitat Tübingen Instituto de Arqueología-Mérida Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archaologie Plaza de España 15, 06800 Mérida des Mittelalters España Geschwister-Scholl-Platz, 72074 Tübingen E-mail: [email protected] Deutschland E-mail: [email protected] TERESA CHAPA BRUNET Universidad Complutense de Madrid TIMOTHY EARLE Facultad de Geografía e Historia Department of Anthropology Departamento de Prehistoria, Historia Antigua Northwestern University y Arqueología 1810 Hinman Ave Calle Profesor Aranguren 2, 28040 Madrid Evanston, Illinois 60206. España USA E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

FELIPE CRIADO-BoADO ]AVIÉR ESCUDERO CARRILLO Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Universitat Tübingen Instituto de Ciencias del Patrimonio, INCIPIT Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archaologie Avda. de Vigo s/n, 15705 Santiago de Compostela des Mittelalters España Geschwister-Scholl-Platz, 72074 Tübingen E-mail: [email protected] Deutschland E-mail: [email protected] MARÍA CRuz-BERROCAL Universidad de Cantabria. CÉSAR ESTEBAN Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias de Cantabria, IIIPC Calle Vía Láctea s/n. 38200 La Laguna. Gobierno de Cantabria, Santa Cruz de Tenerife Universidad de Cantabria y Santander España E-mail: [email protected] Avenida de los Castros s/n, 39005 Santander España Universidad de La Laguna E-mail: [email protected] Facultad de Ciencias Departamento de Astrofísica BRAIS X. CURRÁs Avda. Astrofísico Francisco Sánchez s/n, 38206 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife Instituto de Historia España Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid España CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ FREIRE E-mail: [email protected] Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales GERMÁN DELlBES DE CASTRO Unidad SIGyHD Universidad de Valladolid Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid Departamento de Prehistoria, Arqueología, Antropolo­ España gía Social y Ciencias y Técnicas Historiográficas Plaza del Campus s/n, 47011Valladolid MARCOS GARCÍA GARCÍA España Servicio Español para la Internacionalización E-mail: delibes@:tyl.uva.es de la Educación Ministerio de Universidades PEDRO DÍAZ-DEL-RÍO ESPAÑOL Calle General Oraa 55, 28006 Madrid Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas España Instituto de Historia E-mail: [email protected] Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid España ALMUDENA HERNANDO E-mail: [email protected] Universidad Complutense Facultad de Geografía e Historia MARGARITA DÍAz-ANDREU Departamento de Prehistoria, Historia Antigua y Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan<;ats, Arqueología ICREA Calle Profesor Aranguren s/n, 28040 Madrid Pg. Uuís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona España Espanya E-mail: [email protected] Universitat de Barcelona Departament de Historia i Arqueologia Calle Montalegre 6, 08001 Barcelona Espanya

12 KruSTIAN KruSTIANSEN MIGUEL MEJÍAS MORENO Institutionen for Historiska Studier Instituto Geológico y Minero de España Goteborgs universitet Calle Ríos Rosas 23, 28003 Madrid Box 200, 40530 Goteborg España Svenska E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] RAFAEL MICÓ KATINA llLLIOS Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona The University of Iowa Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres Department of Anthropology Departament de Prehistoria 114 Macbride Hall, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona USA Espanya E-mail: [email protected] E-mails: [email protected]

JOSÉ ANTONIO LÓPEZ-SÁEZ LARA MILESI Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Universidad de Granada Instituto de Historia Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología España Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071 Granada E-mail: [email protected] España E-mail: [email protected] ÁGUEDA LOZANO MEDINA Universidad de Granada IGNACIO MONTERO-RUIZ Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología Instituto de Historia Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071 Granada Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid España España E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

VICENTE LULL MERCEDES MURILLo-BARROSO Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Universidad de Granada Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Departament de Prehistoria Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071 Granada Espanya España E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

DIMAS MARTÍN SOCAS JACKSON NJAu Universidad de La Laguna Indiana University Departamento de Geografía e Historia, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences UDI Prehistoria, Arqueología e Historia Antigua 1001 E Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 Aptdo. 456, 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife USA España E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] ALMUDENA OREJAS MARÍA ISABEL MARTÍNEZ NAVARRETE Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Instituto de Historia Instituto de Historia Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid Departamento de Arqueología y Procesos Sociales España Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid E-mail: [email protected] España E-mail: [email protected] CÉSAR PARCERo-OUBIÑA Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas JUAN ANTONIO MARTOS ROMERO Instituto de Ciencias del Patrimonio, INCIPIT Museo Arqueológico Nacional Avda. de Vigo s/n, 15705 Santiago de Compostela Departamento Prehistoria España Calle Serrano 13, 28001 Madrid E-mail: [email protected] España E-mail: [email protected]

VICTORINO MAYORAL HERRERA Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Instituto de Arqueología-Mérida Plaza de España 15, 06800 Mérida España E-mail: [email protected]

13 SHUWEN PEI SALVADOR ROVIRA-LLORENS Chinese Academy of Sciences Gubilado) Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology Museo Arqueológico Nacional and Paleoanthropology Departamento Prehistoria Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution Calle Serrano 13, 28001 Madrid and Human Origins España Beijing 100044 E-maíl: [email protected] China E-mail: [email protected] F. JAVIER SÁNCHEZ-PALENCIA Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas ALICIA PEREA Instituto de Historia Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid Instituto de Historia España Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid E-mail: [email protected] España E-maíls: [email protected]; aliciaperea.auproj­ MARGARITA SÁNCHEZ ROMERO [email protected] Universidad de Granada Facultad de Filosofía y Letras CRISTINA RIHUETE HERRADA Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071 Granada Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres España Departament de Prehistoria E-mail: [email protected] Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona Espanya JONATHAN SANTANA CABRERA E-mail: [email protected] Durham University Department of Archeology ROBERTO RISCH South Rd. DH1 3LE Durham Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona United Kíngdom Facultat de Filosofia i Lletres E-mail: [email protected] Departament de Prehistoria Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona INÉS SASTRE Espanya Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas E-mail: [email protected] Instituto de Historia Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid FLORENT RIVALS España Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avanc;:ats, E-mail: [email protected] ICREA Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 0801 O Barcelona MARÍA SEBASTIÁN LÓPEZ Espanya Universidad de Zaragoza E-mail: [email protected] Calle Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza España Institut Catala de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució E-mail: [email protected] Social, IPHES Zona Educacional 4, Campus Sescelades URV ELENA SERRANO HERRERO (Edífici W3), 43007 Tarragona Universidad de Cantabria Espanya Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistóricas Universitat Rovira i Virgilí de Cantabria, IIIPC Área de Prehistoria Gobierno de Cantabria, Universidad de Cantabria y Avinguda de Catalunya 35, 43002 Tarragona Santander Espanya Avenida de los Castros, s/n. Santander 39005 España JOSÉ ANTONIO RODRÍGUEZ MARCOS E-mail: [email protected] Universidad de Burgos Departamento de Historia, Geografía y Comunicación HAOWEN TONG Calle Paseo de Comendadores, 09001 Burgos Chinese Academy of Sciences E-mail: [email protected] Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology FRANCISCO JAVIER RODRÍGUEZ SANTOS Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Universidad de Cantabria / Gobierno de Cantabria Origins Banco Santander Instituto Internacional Beijing 100044 de Investigaciones Prehistóricas de Cantabria China Avenida Los Castros 52, 39005 Santander E-mail: [email protected] España E-mail: [email protected]

14 IGNACIO DE LA TORRE XIUJIE Wu Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Chinese Academy of Sciences Instituto de Historia Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology Departamento de Arqueología y Procesos Sociales and Paleoanthropology Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution España and Human Origins Beijing 100044 CHENGHWA TSANG China National Tsing Hua University E-mail: [email protected] No. 101, Section 2, Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, Taiwan 30013 JOAO ZILHAO RO.e. Universitat de Barcelona E-mail: [email protected] Facultat de Geografia i Historia Departament de Prehistoria, KEVIN UNO Historia Antiga i Arqueologia Columbia University Seminari d'Estudis i Recerques Prehistoriques Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (SGR20l7-00011) Division of Biology and Paleo Environment Espanya USA E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa, UNIARQ ANTONIO UruARTE GONZÁLEZ Faculdade de Letras 1600, 214 Lisboa Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Portugal Instituto de Historia Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan<,;ats, España ICREA E-mail: [email protected] Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona Espanya SARA VARELA Museum für Naturkunde Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversititsfors­ chung, Berlin Deutschland E-mail: [email protected]

JUAN M. VICENT GARCÍA Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Instituto de Historia Calle Albasanz 26-28, 28037 Madrid España E-mail: [email protected] SABAH WALID SBEINATI Underground Arqueología España E-mail: [email protected]

15