New Neanderthal Data

[mootsman]

Neanderthal survival story revealed in Jersey caves
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:51:13 +0100
New investigations at an iconic cave site on the Channel Island of Jersey have led archaeologists to believe the Neanderthals have been widely under-estimated. The site at La Cotte de St Brelade reveals a near-continuous use of the cave site spanning over a quarter of a million years, suggesting a considerable success story in adapting to a changing climate and landscape, prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens.
* * *"Archaeologists have developed new ways of looking at stone tools since La Cotte de St Brelade was excavated in the 1970s," says Dr Beccy Scott from the British Museum and the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain project. "We have been using these techniques to look at how Neanderthals were making and using the tools they left at La Cotte." Over 250,000 carefully manufactured stone tools show just how technologically skilled early Neanderthal groups were. "The artefacts from the site don't just tell us about what people were doing at the site itself, but throughout the landscapes that are now underneath the channel," continues Dr Scott.
* * *"Neanderthals were travelling to Jersey already equipped with good quality flint tools, then reworking them, very, very carefully so as not to waste anything. They were extremely good at recycling," says Dr Scott. La Cotte's collapsed cave system contains intact ice age sediments spanning a quarter of a million years, revealing a detailed sequence of Neanderthal occupation and occasional abandonment, against a background of changing climate. "The site is the most exceptional long-term record of Neanderthal behaviour in North West Europe," says Dr Matt Pope from the Institute of Archaeology at University College London. "At La Cotte, we get to see far more than a glimpse of their behaviour, we get to see generation upon generation of Neanderthals returning to the same place under lots of different environmental conditions."
* * *Jersey at this time was linked to mainland Europe and La Cotte would have been a sheltered cave, allowing occupation. Neanderthals abandoned the site during the coldest, glacial phases, when much of Britain was frozen. Understanding how they reacted to the onset of these cold periods will allow archaeologists a greater insight into the limits of Neanderthal tolerances.
* * *"We are also starting to look beyond the site and into the waters of the bay with the purpose of attempting to find new sites preserved on the sea bed," says Dr Martin Bates from the University of Wales, Trinity St Davids. "We know from work around the Cotentin (peninsula in Normandy) that such sites exist and if we were lucky enough to find similar sites around Jersey, it would add significantly to our understanding of the Neanderthals and their landscape."

August 30 Edited from BBC

[uniface]

Pretty neat Neanderthal stuff at random :

Robert Turner The First Inhabitants

Schningen site II Recovery of a Wooden Spear Human Evolution

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3393800...100-set-lg.jpg

[mootsman]

Originally Posted by uniface

Pretty neat Neanderthal stuff at random :

Robert Turner The First Inhabitants

Schningen site II Recovery of a Wooden Spear Human Evolution

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3393800...100-set-lg.jpg

Thanks. I enjoyed the turner article....after I got into the groove of his somewhat odd syntax. It was a bit frustrating to see illustrations that had no captions. Lots of good info there and I will definitely try to ferret out more detail. Ive worked with archies on several Mississippian digs but can't imagine the thrill of helping recover stuff that old.

[rokdok]

Robert Turner is the person who stepped in on the thread Levallois in the USA thread on About.com Archeology and disagreed with the American "professionals" on the site who denied the levallois cores and tools i demonstrated there were from a levallois reduction strategy. He has a great deal of hands-on experience with this type of lithics, and ever since he contradicted these local "experts" they have not once again commented on the issue.Personally, just like when choosing who to believe, who knows what they are talking about concerning artifacts from a certain area, i will take the word of someone who has personally handled and examined thousands of similar pieces over someone with just a basic and rudimentary knowledge based on textbook knowledge, no matter how many degrees he has.Robert Turner freely gave an open opinion that the artifacts i displayed were made using a Levallois reduction strategy, including cores and finished tools. When he challenged the American "experts" on the site to debate his opinions, he was met with complete silence. Why?

[BenjaminEble]

Rockdok,

The behavior you are describing has been indicative of a great deal of North American archaeologists possibly going all the way back to Hrdlicka. A hundred years ago, a number of leading North American archaeologists were adamant that man could not have been in the Americas, during the Ice Age, because the ice would have blocked a land entry via the Bering Strait. What is the assumption here? That they came in via Bering Strait. As a result of being overly driven by a theory, early experts succeeded in finding some way in which to cry foul, every time evidence to the contrary was unearthed. Early researchers did find stone knives deposited with mammoth remains. But, in order to preserve the initial theory, they had to invent secondary theories as to how geological movements, and shifts of hills, and cliffs, caused the tools to be found next to the mammoth remains. In old literature diagrams are even given showing how this supposedly happened. Meanwhile, the underlying assumption - that man was not here, during the Pliestocene, was preserved.

If you study the archaeology of Patagonia, in the southern cone of South America, it is clear that researchers knew Pleistocene era remains were found in association with extinct animals, by the late 1800's. The idea that Folsom was a "discovery" is actually a bit bogus. What happened at Folsom is that the evidence was carefully recovered, in situ. I think they pulled the whole block out of the earth, with bone, and point, preserved. So that, afterwards, nobody could continue to claim that there was "no proof", as had been repeatedly done in the past. But, the reality is that the evidence was always there. Unfortunately, some "researchers" spent more energy trying to deny the evidence than to try to ascertain it's veracity.

Still, what actually drove all of this behavior? - The theory that people came into the Americas, via the Bering Strait, after the ice thawed. Now, why would researchers so tenaciously cling to that theory? Because, (excuse the poor language) nobody thought that the dumb, stupid, drunken "injuns", could have built seaworthy boats. By the same token, no one thought that the same "injuns" built all of the ruins, and temples, of Central America - until they got inside the temples, in the mid-1800's, and saw hand prints and images, of the "injuns", on the walls, and in the frescoes.
Then, they realized that the "injuns" in the frescoes looked just like their Mayan tour guides, which meant that the "injuns" must have built the temples, in some remote epoch.

I would say that if the First Americans entered, into the Americas, via the Bering Strait, then (A) there should be evidence on the other side, and (B) it may not have been possible, during the Ice Age. Also, there is a fluted point presence up in that area. But, the fluted point type looks much like the other v-based fluted points, found all the way down into Arizona, and Sonora. Plus, the dates on the Alaskan fluted points point to a later entry, from lower North America. In other words, it appears that when the ice corridor opened, the paleoindians shot up out of the lower US, and entered into what is modern day Alaska. But, this happened quite late as is evidenced by the points, and by the dates, on the sites.

Also, the signs of potential backmigration are there. All known camelids, in the world, originated in North America. During the Pleistocene, or late Pleistocene, a few stray camels migrated into the Old World, via the Bering Strait corridor. They entered Siberia, from Alaska. And, from Siberia, the camels went on to populate Eurasia, Asia, the sub-Indian continent, Arabia, Africa, and other places. The fact that this did not happen until a certain point, during the Pleistocene, suggests to me that the passage was truly blocked for a long time.

Anyway, while I understand the reasoning behind thinking that man could not have been in the New World, if the Bering Strait was inhospitable, or the was Cordillion ice corridor was blocked, I cannot agree with the premise that the only way man could have entered the New World, is via land. Actually, in the New World, I think that there are some pretty remarkable signs of maritime industry. For example, there were tribes that built seaworthy boats, by sewing planks of wood together, and then covering the boats with pitch. I think some of the California tribes may have built seaworthy plankboats, in this manner. And, this also may have been practiced in South America, as well. Also, at Monteverde, there is really spectacular examples of the planking, and planing, of wood. The whole idea definitely seems odd for people who just "raced down" two continents, while sporadically killing big game, while living nomadically. In fact, to me, their employment of sophisticated woodworking, and plank making, seems completely incongruous with a group of hunters who are supposedly randomly wandering about the continent. Plus, they liked to chew seaweed. So, they might of had a fondness for the sea.

Anyway, the assumption that people walked into North America, just after the Ice Age ended, seems to be what drove all of the "no-man-in-Americas during-Ice-Age" behavior. If one boils this down, it is evident that what happened is that somebody made a religion out of the idea. This probably happens all the time. "Well, he is a professor, and he studied, plus he did experiments, so what he says must be true." Right there, the idea just became a religion - or an article of faith.

Anyway, after Folsom, the "no-man-in-the-Americas-during-Pleistocene" religion simply fell apart. So, they came up with another one: "Clovis-First-in-North-America". You know, it almost seems like the second religion stuck worse than the first one. Ha ha. Here we go again! While the experts were busy becoming entrenched in their elaborate Clovis-First theories, evidence was already coming in from places like South America. Of course, the "experts" could always say things like, "Well, no fluted fishtail was ever actually excavated in situ, and properly dated. So, we cannot say for sure..." Okay, then how can you be so sure that Clovis is first, if you have not searched out and reviewed all of the evidence??? Later, Dillehay comes along with Monteverde. You would think that the "experts" would have been eager to see what was found down there, given all the organic remains, found in situ, right alongside Pleistocene animal remains. But, no, many "experts" refused to look.

So, what is up with North American archaeology?? I can tell you for certain that the refusal to communicate, as you described, in other societies, is viewed as a sign of childishness, immaturity, poor upbringing, and defeat. I have been living in Mexico for five years. And, I have never seen a single Mexican say, "Hmph, well I am not going to talk to that person, because I don't like his point of view." In my opinion, if American researchers deliberately attempt to "stonewall" someone, simply for having a different opinion, they are behaving in a very irresponsible manner. In fact, it opens the door to the question: "What is it that they are afraid of? Are they worried that their "religion" might get shot down?" It amazes me that while archaeology seems to be getting more technical by the minute, many North American researchers will continue to head down the same old roads, even when those roads can never actually get them where they want to go. If nothing else, differing opinions are valuable in that they can help a person put things into better perspective.

Ben

[Mojave]

Originally Posted by BenjaminEble

Later, Dillehay comes along with Monteverde. You would think that the "experts" would have been eager to see what was found down there, given all the organic remains, found in situ, right alongside Pleistocene animal remains. But, no, many "experts" refused to look.

I don't think that is really fair. This is an all-too frequent argument towards the "closed-minded biased American archaeologists". It is also not true. Another case of anti-"Clovis-first" people embellishing stuff to make their case.
Clearly there were people in the Americas prior to Clovis. It seems to me the folks having the most difficulty letting this go are the folks who always argued to let it go.
Irony I guess...
From: Monte Verde Excavation: or Clovis Police Beat a Retreat

The archeologists made the site inspection under the auspices of the Dallas museum, where their conclusions were reported Monday, and with additional support by the National Geographic Society. The archeologists, all specialists in the early settlement of America, included Dr. C. Vance Haynes of the University of Arizona, Dr. James Adovasio of Mercyhurst College in Erie, Pa., Dr. David J. Meltzer of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Dr. Dena Dincauze of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Dr. Donald K. Grayson of the University of Washington in Seattle and Dr. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. Dincauze, who had expressed serious doubts about the site's antiquity, said that Dillehay's report made "a convincing case" that the remains of huts, fireplaces and tools showed human occupation by a pre-Clovis culture. "I'm convinced it's 100 percent solid," Dr. Brian M. Fagan, an anthropologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, said of the new assessment of Monte Verde. "It's an extraordinary piece of research."

Including:

Science Volume 275, Number 5304, Issue of 28 February 1997, pp. 1256-1257

©1997 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Ann Gibbons

It was the ultimate field trip. A dozen prominent archaeologists flew to Chile in January to see a crucial site in a long-standing dispute over when humans first reached South America. And when the expedition announced earlier this month that the Monte Verde site was indeed 12,500 years old--and so the oldest accepted human site in the Americas--The New York Times compared it to "aviation's breaking of the sound barrier." Thanks to this trip, the paper concluded, the field had "finally come to a consensus" and had abandoned the leading model for the peopling of the New World. That model proposes that the first Americans were the Clovis people, big-game hunters who came over the Bering land bridge and then swept rapidly through the Americas about 11,500 before the present.

Also:

The one member of the trip who was not persuaded beforehand was C. Vance Haynes of the University of Arizona. And his epiphany is indeed significant, archaeologists admit, because his stature as a leading Clovis expert will influence nonspecialists and the undecided. He and the others inspected the site, which has been mostly destroyed by farmers and now blends into a sandy hillside. But new trenches allowed the group to see the artifact-bearing layer in a "secure stratigraphic context," topped by a layer of peat dated to 10,300 to 12,000 years ago. "So, the artifacts had to be older than that, and I had to buy those dates," says Haynes. With most of the group already persuaded, "I was the heavy," he recalls. After days of intense debate, the moment of truth came at a bar in a nearby town. "I asked if people would agree that the site was 12,500 years old," recalls Meltzer. Everyone did.

[uniface]

Eventually, yes.

But initially ?

[BenjaminEble]

Right. How much arm twisting did it take to get the people to go? How long did it take? When was that article printed? In 1997? The site dig began in 1975. As your reference states, "The one member of the trip who was not persuaded beforehand was C. Vance Haynes of the University of Arizona." If Haynes was "not convinced" then why wait twenty years to show up? This is the problem. Also, I am not anti-Clovis first, because Clovis culture does appear in the lowest occupation levels in sites, all over North America. But, I am anti-Bering Strait entry for about a dozen reasons. And, the whole Clovis First idea was sailing on the Bering Strait entry idea, as earlier textbooks showed. Prior to that, it was the "Bering Strait entry, after Ice Age ended" theory. But, when North American researchers were forced to accept, via Folsom, that man was in the New World, during the Pleistocene, then the First Americans became the "First American ice trekkers", who crossed through Siberia, and Alaska, during the Ice Age, and not after the Ice Age had ended. Ironically, if one maps the progressive spread of lithic technologies, up into Canada, after the Ice Age ended, then it can be seen that subsequent lithic styles appeared farther, and farther north, in Canada, as time progressed, and as the ice continued to thaw. This shows that early peoples moved northwards, as the ice retreated. So, why should anyone think that the First Americans trekked over the ice, from Siberia, to Alaska, and then down into the lower portion of North America, during the Ice Age, before the ice had even thawed? Should we believe all of this, only so that we can confirm our thoughts to someone's theory? Actually, after the ice thaw occurred, in the Cordillion corridor, the very opposite happened. Both man, and even some animals, moved northwards all the way up into Alaska. But, that was a late Paleoindian event - not an early event. So, I am not necessarily against the Clovis First idea, in terms of North American lowest occupation levels. But, I do not think that the lowest occupation Clovis models automatically rule out the possibility of people being elsewhere, in the Americas, prior to the advent of Clovis culture, in North America. Essentially, I am against believing in a Bering Strait entry, and all derivative theories, without substantial proof that the Siberian based entry occured. And, the Clovis First theory basically road on the Bering Strait entry assumption. I mean as long as it was presumed that people entered via the Bering Strait, prior to the end of the Ice Age, it was always very easy to speculate about Clovis being "first". Okay, where is the proof that this entry actually occurred? There are still plenty of researchers, today, who say that there is no evidence of the Clovis culture, over in Siberia.

To be clear, I am not against people, or any person. But, I disagree with how ideas have been turned into unquestionable articles of faith. I do not think that this is what science is supposed to be about. So, from my perspective, to see theories treated as though they are facts, and then see people get stonewalled for not "following along with the crowd", I think, is tyrannical. And, this would not occur so easily if the theories were treated as theories, and not as facts. Just my honest opinion.

Ben