Source: Caminando por Iberia |
Some ornamental findings and archaeological works at Praileaitz (Bertan) |
Sources[es]: Gara, Caminado por Iberia, Bertan, Amigos de Praileaitz.
Source: Caminando por Iberia |
Some ornamental findings and archaeological works at Praileaitz (Bertan) |
Sources[es]: Gara, Caminado por Iberia, Bertan, Amigos de Praileaitz.
Abstract
In this article we examine the mandible of Riparo Mezzena a Middle Paleolithic rockshelter in the Monti Lessini (NE Italy, Verona) found in 1957 in association with Charentian Mousterian lithic assemblages. Mitochondrial DNA analysis performed on this jaw and on other cranial fragments found at the same stratigraphic level has led to the identification of the only genetically typed Neanderthal of the Italian peninsula and has confirmed through direct dating that it belongs to a late Neanderthal. Our aim here is to re-evaluate the taxonomic affinities of the Mezzena mandible in a wide comparative framework using both comparative morphology and geometric morphometrics. The comparative sample includes mid-Pleistocene fossils, Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. This study of the Mezzena jaw shows that the chin region is similar to that of other late Neanderthals which display a much more modern morphology with an incipient mental trigone (e.g. Spy 1, La Ferrassie, Saint-Césaire). In our view, this change in morphology among late Neanderthals supports the hypothesis of anatomical change of late Neanderthals and the hypothesis of a certain degree of interbreeding with AMHs that, as the dating shows, was already present in the European territory. Our observations on the chin of the Mezzena mandible lead us to support a non abrupt phylogenetic transition for this period in Europe.
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; direction: ltr; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); widows: 2; orphans: 2; }P.western { font-family: “Times New Roman”,serif; font-size: 10pt; }P.cjk { font-family: “Times New Roman”,serif; font-size: 10pt; }P.ctl { font-family: “Times New Roman”,serif; font-size: 10pt; }
Fossil specimen
|
Country
|
mtDNA region
|
Length (bp)
|
Diagnostic Neanderthals trasversion in HVR1 according to
|
Reference
|
Feldhofer 1
|
Germany
|
Complete mtDNA
|
16565
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Feldhofer 2
|
Germany
|
Complete mtDNA
|
16565
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Mezmaiskaya
|
Russia
|
Complete mtDNA
|
16565
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Vindija 75
|
Croatia
|
HVR1
|
357
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Vindija 77
|
Croatia
|
HVR1
|
31
|
16256 C/A
|
|
Vindija 80 (33.16)
|
Croatia
|
Complete mtDNA
|
31
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Vindija 33.25
|
|
Complete mtDNA
|
16565
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Engis 2
|
Belgium
|
HVR1
|
31
|
16256 C/A
|
|
Le Chapelle-aux-Saint
|
France
|
HVR1
|
31
|
16256 C/A
|
|
Rochers de Villenueve
|
France
|
HVR1
|
31
|
16256 C/A
|
|
Scladina
|
Belgium
|
HVR1
|
123
|
16256 C/A
|
|
Monte Lessini
|
Italy
|
HVR1
|
378
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Monte Lessini Mandibula
|
Italy
|
HVR1
|
31
|
16256 C/A
|
This paper
|
El Sidron SD-441
|
Spain
|
HVR1
|
47
|
16256 C/A
|
|
El Sidron SD-1252
|
Spain
|
HVR1
|
303
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
EL Sidron 1253
|
Spain
|
Complete MtDNA
|
16565
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Valdegoba
|
Spain
|
HVR1
|
303
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Teshik Tash
|
Uzbekistan
|
HVR1
|
190
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
Okladnikov
|
Russia
|
HVR1
|
348
|
16139 A/T
16256 C/A
Insertion 16263 A
|
|
AbstractIt is commonly accepted that some of the latest dates for Neanderthal fossils and Mousterian industries are found south of
the Ebro valley in Iberia at ca. 36 ka calBP (calibrated radiocarbon date ranges). In contrast, to the north of the valley the Mousterian disappears shortly
before the Proto-Aurignacian appears at ca.
42 ka calBP. The latter is most likely produced by anatomically modern
humans. However, two-thirds of dates from the south
are radiocarbon dates, a technique that is
particularly sensitive to carbon contaminants of a younger age that can
be difficult
to remove using routine pretreatment
protocols. We have attempted to test the reliability of chronologies of
11 southern Iberian
Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites.
Only two, Jarama VI and Zafarraya, were found to contain material that
could be
reliably dated. In both sites, Middle
Paleolithic contexts were previously dated by radiocarbon to less than
42 ka calBP.
Using ultrafiltration to purify faunal
bone collagen before radiocarbon dating, we obtain ages at least 10 ka 14C
years older, close to or beyond the limit of the radiocarbon method for
the Mousterian at Jarama VI and Neanderthal fossils
at Zafarraya. Unless rigorous pretreatment
protocols have been used, radiocarbon dates should be assumed to be
inaccurate
until proven otherwise in this region.
Evidence for the late survival of Neanderthals in southern Iberia is
limited to one
possible site, Cueva Antón, and
alternative models of human occupation of the region should be
considered.
Update (Feb 12): Basque prehistorian Joseba Ríos Garaizar inaugurates his new blog with an article[es] on this issue. He argues that the two new dates do not seem enough to revolutionize the whole understanding of Neanderthal periodization in SW Europe, especially with the recent re-dating of Saint-Césaire (which confirmed Neanderthal authorship of Chatelperronian and gives a date as late as c. 36 Ka BP, uncalibrated) and the various and also recent datings for Mousterian in the North of the Iberian Peninsula (Arrillor, Fuentes de San Cristobal, Esquilleu, Sopeña) all with dates more recent than 40 Ka BP (uncalibrated). In addition to these Axlor (Basque Country) has a Mousterian layer above another dated to c. 42 Ka BP (uncal.) and Lezetxiki is probably in the same situation. On top of those Mousterian layers many sites have their own Chatelperronian layer, of clear Neanderthal manufacture.
And then there are the already mentioned cases of the anomalous late Mousterian from Cantabria recently dated to 22 Ka BP and several Southern Iberian caves, including Gorham (Gibraltar), which appear also to be more recent than the dates managed by Wood et al.
The Nefud or An Nafud is a desert that sits on the North of Arabia Peninsula. Last year, tireless archaeologist Michael Petraglia published a paper on a newly found archaeological culture from that, now so arid, region (see here) dated to c. 75,000 years ago.
Location of the Nefud site of Jubbah (fig. 16 of present study) |
Abstract
The Arabian Peninsula is a key region for understanding hominin
dispersals and the effect of climate change on prehistoric demography,
although little information on these topics is presently available owing
to the poor preservation of archaeological sites in this desert
environment. Here, we describe the discovery of three stratified and
buried archaeological sites in the Nefud Desert, which includes the
oldest dated occupation for the region. The stone tool assemblages are
identified as a Middle Palaeolithic industry that includes Levallois
manufacturing methods and the production of tools on flakes. Hominin
occupations correspond with humid periods, particularly Marine Isotope
Stages 7 and 5 of the Late Pleistocene. The Middle Palaeolithic
occupations were situated along the Jubbah palaeolake-shores, in a
grassland setting with some trees. Populations procured different raw
materials across the lake region to manufacture stone tools, using the
implements to process plants and animals. To reach the Jubbah
palaeolake, Middle Palaeolithic populations travelled into the
ameliorated Nefud Desert interior, possibly gaining access from multiple
directions, either using routes from the north and west (the Levant and
the Sinai), the north (the Mesopotamian plains and the Euphrates
basin), or the east (the Persian Gulf). The Jubbah stone tool
assemblages have their own suite of technological characters, but have
types reminiscent of both African Middle Stone Age and Levantine Middle
Palaeolithic industries. Comparative inter-regional analysis of core
technology indicates morphological similarities with the Levantine Tabun
C assemblage, associated with human fossils controversially identified
as either Neanderthals or Homo sapiens.
Though so far a small excavated stone tool assemblage, the recovery of
28 artefacts in a deposit dated to 211±16 ka represents the oldest
reliably dated occurrence in the Arabian Peninsula. We tentatively
associate this assemblage with the Middle Palaeolithic on the basis of
the age of the technology and the recovery of two Levallois flakes.
Although we cannot be certain of the species that manufactured the
artefacts, we note that the lithic assemblages were produced at a time
corresponding with the origin of Homo sapiens in Africa based on mitochondrial DNA [40] and nuclear genomic [41] age estimates and fossil finds [42], [43].
The early JQ-1 artefacts also correspond with the upper age range
limits of the Acheulo-Yabrudian and the Zuttiyeh fossil, potentially
indicating the presence of archaic hominins [44] in Arabia, and possibly early representatives of the Neanderthals [45].
Fig. 17 (Jebel Qattar and Jebel Katefeh are the Jubbah Lake sub-sites) |
Abstract
The recovery at Shi’bat Dihya 1 (SD1) of a dense Middle Paleolithic human occupation dated to 55 ka BP sheds new light on the role of the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the alleged expansion of modern humans out of Africa. SD1 is part of a complex of Middle Paleolithic sites cut by the Wadi Surdud and interstratified within an alluvial sedimentary basin in the foothills that connect the Yemeni highlands with the Tihama coastal plain. A number of environmental proxies indicate arid conditions throughout a sequence that extends between 63 and 42 ka BP. The lithic industry is geared toward the production of a variety of end products: blades, pointed blades, pointed flakes and Levallois-like flakes with long unmodified cutting edges, made from locally available rhyolite. The occasional exploitation of other local raw materials, that fulfill distinct complementary needs, highlights the multi-functional nature of the occupation. The slightly younger Shi’bat Dihya 2 (SD2) site is characterized by a less elaborate production of flakes, together with some elements (blades and pointed flakes) similar to those found at SD1, and may indicate a cultural continuity between the two sites. The technological behaviors of the SD1 toolmakers present similarities with those documented from a number of nearly contemporaneous assemblages from southern Arabia, the Levant, the Horn of Africa and North Africa. However, they do not directly conform to any of the techno-complexes typical of the late Middle Paleolithic or late Middle Stone Age from these regions. This period would have witnessed the development of local Middle Paleolithic traditions in the Arabian Peninsula, which suggests more complex settlement dynamics and possible population interactions than commonly inferred by the current models of modern human expansion out of Africa.
Most intriguing, the stone tools found at the site fall into the
tradition of older Stone Age tools, rather than ones associated with the
early modern humans thought to have left Africa roughly 60,000 years
ago. They might have belonged to descendants of earlier modern human
migrants from Africa who established themselves in Arabia despite its
desert conditions. Or maybe they belonged to a sister human species,
our Neanderthal cousins, suggest the researchers:“Our fieldwork at the Wadi Surdud in
Yemen demonstrates that during the period of the supposed expansion of
modern humans out of Africa (60,000 to 50,000 years ago), and their
rapid dispersal toward south-eastern Asia along the western and southern
Arabian coastlines, the interior of this region was, in fact, occupied
by well-adapted human groups who developed their own local technological
tradition, deeply rooted in the Middle Paleolithic. Future research
will likely reveal whether the archaeological assemblages recovered from
the Wadi Surdud can be associated with the descendents of anatomically
modern human groups who occupied the Arabian Peninsula during (this era)
or the southernmost expansion of the Neanderthals.”
Reconstructed Mousterian spear (source) |
Levallois core and flake (replica) |
Neanderthal-made rock art? |
Upper Paleolithic & Epipaleolithic
Russian fish trap findings |
Malta inscription |
Fig. 2 – PCA (BAM stands for Bamileke) |
Middle Paleolithic
The origins of Neanderthals could be in Atapuerca
Update: the reference paper is this one (hat tip to Neanderthalerin):
Mirjana Roksandic et al., A human mandible (BH-1) from the Pleistocene deposits of Mala Balanica cave (Sićevo Gorge, Niš, Serbia). Journal of Human Evolution 2011. Pay per view.
Beautifully preserved bulls of Qurta |
Shell ornaments from Franchthi |
Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age
Iron Age
1-China (Han), 2-Austronesian speakers (Maluku), 3-Papuan speakers (Maluku), 4-Highland New Guinea |
Let’s assume that there are 20 well-documented companions [of William the Conqueror]. Only one of these (William Mallet) has possibly passed on his Y chromosome to the present time and even that male line of descent is disputed. This is fully consistent with our understanding of genetics when you consider that most male lines are likely to die out in a few generations. Those that survive ten generations or so are unlikely to become extinct since there will likely be several male lines at that time.
Byzovaya tools |
“Neanderthal finds” refers to skeletal ones only and they have forgotten Palestine anyhow |
Ref:
(Thanks to Tim, by the way).