Neanderthal Art II

Now closed. An exhibition of figure-stones and Mousterian tools from the Palaeolithic site of Fontmaure in France.

Watford Museum,

194 High Street,

Watford

Hertfordshire

WD17 2DT

Opening times: Thursday-Saturday 10:00-17:00

Free Admission

Modern humans and refuted hypotheses

This week Chris Stringer tweeted his response to the Nature paper "An early modern human from Romania with a recent Neanderthal ancestor".

Chris Stringer's comments come as no surprise to those closely following his shift in position: from proposing that so-called "anatomically modern humans" originated as a separate species from Africa who upon migrating into Europe were unable to interbreed with the resident Neanderthals which they soon "replaced", to a position which fundamentally refutes this theory.

Stringer may be one of the last anthropologists to be surprised by the results. By referring to the "belief" of a Neanderthal extinction he implies that the results are extraordinary, or in other words not to be expected to be representative of a wider pattern. Of course by applying taphonomic logic it is evident that the results add further to the evidence refuting the idea that Neanderthals became "extinct".

But before examining his comments closer it is important to scrutinise the facts as they are presented. It is implicitly claimed in the title of the Nature paper that Oase 1 is a "modern human" yet even the description of the mandible by Trinkhaus et al cited (http://m.pnas.org/content/100/20/11231) makes it clear that whilst there are some modern features there are also archaic and derived Neanderthal features. At best, the individual could be considered to be transitional (from robust to gracile) but by no stretch of the imagination could it be concluded that they were a "modern human". Indeed if we assume that Oase 1 was indeed a Neanderthal then the results only add to the evidence for continuity between the robust populations of the past and the gracile populations of the present.

Not unusually but rather typically, Neanderthals are presented by the professor as being cognitively inferior to "modern humans" although no evidence is presented to support this claim. Moreover, there is no explanation for why these hypothetical Neanderthals, who if they are assumed to lack "complex technology" or "more complex behaviour", should want to mimic behaviour or adopt technologies that they had no need for. Not only is there no evidence which places a "complex technology" directly with a specific species or even group of humans, all the evidence suggests that wherever this technological development arose it developed in-situ and over a long period of time (see blogs passim). There simply was no "replacement" of one technology by another. Indeed mounting evidence refutes the previously favoured hypothesis which strangely starts from a premise that denies Neanderthals were capable of a range of behaviours observed in modern day humans until presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit

And again!

New research suggests that archaeologists are leading scientists astray again...

This time, Dr John Stewart Associate Professor in Palaeoecology and Environmental Change from Bournemouth Uinversity heads up a team who have published a paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248413000079 apparently demonstrating that in Iberia at least those super smart (but elusive) "modern humans" survived where those "slightly smarter than we'd previously given them credit for" Neanderthals "disappeared". Or something like that.

What the paper hinges on is the idea that stone tool "typologies" can be used as a proxy for cultural or biological markers - which of course they can't. At best they are technological indices, at worst these classifications exist only within the context of Pleistocene archaeology and are not falsifiable. 

What is apparent from the archaeological record - which can no more be expected to be representative of a wider cultural pattern than a household bin might be expected to be - is that stone tools became smaller over time, with a focus on blade production. Where this development has been documented in-situ in regionally diverse areas across Europe, it ranges from as early as 52,000 years ago to as recently as 8,000 years ago and shows no evidence of a "replacement" of one set of humans with another. See comments and references in past blogs for further info.

Picture, blade production at Fontmaure. Top left blade cores. Jasper and Sandstone.

Exhibition @ Watford Museum

Exhibition 9th July to 1st August.

Figure-stones of Fontmaure.

Watford Museum,

194 High Street,

Watford

Hertfordshire

WD17 2DT

Opening times: Thursday-Saturday 10:00-17:00

Free Admission

Not by the hair on your chinny chin chin

New research reported in the Journal of Anatomy from the University of Iowa reaches an unsurprising conclusion: that the development of the chin did not result from mechanical forces such as chewing.


In fact, the prominence of the chin in present day humans is well documented and understood.


"Compared to chimpanzees and macaques, human skulls exhibit a derived spatial distribution of growth fields, especially in the face (Enlow, 1990). While the internal (basicranial) surface of the maxilla grows via interosseous bone deposition (sutural bone growth), the external (facial) surface of the maxilla as well as the external symphyseal area of the mandible exhibit resporptive fields. As an effect, the human face grows inferiorly and anteriorly through maxillobasiocranial bone apposition, but forward growth is counteracted by maxillofacial resportive growth fields. The combination of these processes results in a retracted, vertically oriented face in which the chin represents the most prominent (i.e., least resorbed) part."


Zollikofer C., 2012, Evolution of hominin cranial ontogeny, Progress in Brain Research, 195: 273-289.


Clearly the chin is a neotenous feature but Robert Franciscus from the University of Iowa proposes that it is evidence of so-called "modern humans" replacing "Neanderthals" around 60,000 years ago. Past horizons (http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/04/2015/our-chins-developed-when-we-started-to-build-social-networks) quote him saying:


"What we’re arguing is that modern humans had an advantage at some point to have a well-connected social network, they can exchange information, and mates, more readily, there’s innovation and for that to happen, males have to tolerate each other. There had to be more curiosity and inquisitiveness than aggression, and the evidence of that lies in facial architecture.”


So in a desperate bid to support the contention that "modern humans" outcompeted or absorbed Neanderthals Franciscus turns incredibly to face architecture. Whilst it is probably correct to imply that the transition from the robust hominins of the past to the gracile hominins of the present day may be in part explained by changing hormone levels (as a result of increasingly culturally mediated mating behaviour for neotenous features) there is no evidence to support the contention that the chin is a feature found only in populations exiting Africa, or indeed that there were well connected social networks exclusive to these groups.

Scott elaborated on her research at the AAPA 2015 conference which refutes the suggestion that the prominent chin observed in extant humans is an autapomorphy upon which to differentiate between "modern humans" and "Neanderthals".
"...this research, demonstrating overlap in overall anterior symphyseal shape between H. sapiens and Neandertals, raises questions about the distinctiveness of the human chin."

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session39/scott-2015-the-phylogenetic-utility-of-mentum-osseum-morphology-in-pleistocene-homo.html

As noted on numerous occasions on this blog there is no evidence of a "replacement" of Neanderthals in Europe by "modern humans" let alone evidence for the "well connected social networks" that Franciscus refers to. Past Horizons have confused matters further by referring to work that does not support an evidence base for morphological distinction between so called species but rather underlines the key learning: extant autapomorphies are a result of pedomorphosis through neoteny, a heterochronic process.

#FlintFriday

Exhibition 9th July to 1st August.

Figure-stones of Fontmaure.

Watford Museum,

194 High Street,

Watford

Hertfordshire

WD17 2DT

Opening times: Thursday-Saturday 10:00-17:00

Free Admission

#FlintFriday

Exhibition 9th July to 1st August.

Figure-stones of Fontmaure.

Watford Museum,

194 High Street,

Watford

Hertfordshire

WD17 2DT

Opening times: Thursday-Saturday 10:00-17:00

Free Admission