PDA

View Full Version : Glacial effect on Paleolithic and Mesolithic population.



LeBrok
21-01-15, 20:05
I came upon a very interesting article (http://donsmaps.com/icemaps.html) and maps about the extent of Ice Age glaciers with enormous flood basins. Asia as we know it today didn't exist in the past. It was more of landscape of separate lands with huge seas between them and mountains of ice. Till pretty much the end of Ice Age there were communities separated for a long time from each other. This scenario could explain why we can find obvious and distinct genetic groupings of ancient populations, as WHG in Europe, ANE in Asia or ENF in Near East. They were stuck in one place and do lots of inbreeding for ten or twenty thousand years, and didn't travel much and didn't mingle till modern warmer interglacial times.

http://donsmaps.com/images26/icesheetsnorthernhemispheresm.jpg

Altaic part is completely separated, and Siberia cut into small almost separate pieces. European Eastern part cut into sections by gigantic rivers emptying to giant lakes. Lakes and mountains there completely cutting off East Europe from Near East. I'm not sure if there was a land bridge between Balkans and Anatolia. The giant lakes were constantly draining the melt water to Mediterranean Sea.

However, with onset of winters, everything in upper Asia had to be frozen solid. At this time traveling through lakes and rivers would be possible. Especially when hunters are following some migratory herds of animals like reindeer or possibly mammoths. It is hard to know winter practices of these hunters, but judging by their distinct genomes they might not have traveled too far.


This is 20,000 years ago during glacial maximum. Some friendly sole marked paleolithic places of interest.
http://donsmaps.com/images2/icemapmax.gif

State of affairs 13.000 years ago.
http://donsmaps.com/images2/icemap13000bp.gif

And 10,000
http://donsmaps.com/images2/icemapend.gif
http://donsmaps.com/icemaps.html


There are also maps showing an interesting protrusion of ice sheet towards Black and Caspian Sea. This could seriously curtail mixing of WHG with ANE H-Gs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Iceage_north-intergl_glac_hg.png/1024px-Iceage_north-intergl_glac_hg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#mediaviewer/File:Iceage_north-intergl_glac_hg.png


http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2009-12-09-11372/Sites-with-Paleolithic-Art-in-Europe.png
http://www.zonu.com/fullsize-en/2009-12-09-11372/Sites-with-Paleolithic-Art-in-Europe.html


Theoretically this land bridge between Balkans and Anatolia could have helped I2 and C6 hunter-gatherers to enter Near East from Europe and mix with farmers before they expanded into Europe? Though it could have been impassable after glacial maximum when melt water had to flow from Black Sea to Mediterranean almost all the time.

Any idea why Spain, France, Germany and Czechy are so rich in cave settlements, and Balkans or Italy (supposedly with better climate to survive during Ice Age) are almost completely deserted?

This map shows extend of wooden are during Ice Age. Perhaps these hunters didn't like forests?
http://donsmaps.com/images/icelevelstimberlines.gif
Ice Age conditions in Europe

A: The position of the polar timberline in present-day Europe

B: The position of the timberline at the most severe stage of the Würm Ice Age.

C: The limits of glacial debris deposited during the Würm Ice Age.

D: The limits of glacial debris deposited during the Riss and Mindel Ice Age.

Photo: Secrets of the Ice Age by Evan Hadingham, 1980

Aberdeen
21-01-15, 22:41
Really interesting data, but I wouldn't know how to interpret it. Although it might have been easier for Paleolithic people to survive in either an all year round winter environment or an all year round summer environment than one that kept changing. Perhaps they had trouble adapting to more than one environment.

LeBrok
21-01-15, 23:02
http://www.zonu.com/images/0X0/2009-12-09-11372/Sites-with-Paleolithic-Art-in-Europe.png


Any idea why Spain, France, Germany and Czechy are so rich in cave settlements, and Balkans or Italy (supposedly with better climate to survive during Ice Age) are almost completely deserted?


Perhaps they were culturally different and where building simple huts out of wood, instead of finding caves? The way Natufians did between 20-10 kya.
Bones survive well undisturbed in caves, but there is not much left from wooden huts and exposed bones after 20 thousand years. In other words, there were lots of settlements in Balkans but almost all got destroyed, therefore we can't find them.
Just a thought.

Aberdeen
21-01-15, 23:45
Caves versus huts would be a good explanation for there being a better survival rate for the remains of some cultures over others, but I would think that choice would be largely dependent on the availability of suitable caves, and many parts of the Balkans (and Italy) have mountainous regions that should produce suitable caves. The huge number of sites in northern Spain might be at least partly a result of there being suitable caves in the area, but I would think that some parts of the Balkans should have provided the same advantages.

bicicleur
22-01-15, 00:04
Hi LeBrok, the first map does not seem correct to me, it contradicts the other maps you post here and the maps I have seen and studied before : there was no large ice cap that covered the north of eastern Siberia and western Alaska. This was because of the drought in that area.
During the ice age the whole human population went through a big bottleneck, only the most resourceful survived.
That's what caused the distinct genetic groupings of ancient populations.

bicicleur
22-01-15, 00:24
Caves versus huts would be a good explanation for there being a better survival rate for the remains of some cultures over others, but I would think that choice would be largely dependent on the availability of suitable caves, and many parts of the Balkans (and Italy) have mountainous regions that should produce suitable caves. The huge number of sites in northern Spain might be at least partly a result of there being suitable caves in the area, but I would think that some parts of the Balkans should have provided the same advantages.

The key to survival in the ice age were not caves, but good clothing.
Nobody survived the ice age in the Balkans, except in the area around the Agean Sea.
In Europe the largest population survived in southern France with less severe climate, caves and good hunting steppe-tundra hunting grounds.
But the main thing was good clothing. Gravettians had sewing needles, Aurignacians didn't.
Aurignacian (haplo C6) had spread all over Europe, 40000 years ago.
33000 years ago Gravettian (haplo I) started to spread from Caucasus (this was the area where I split from IJ).
They had needles and had even invented rotary drills to bore the eyes in the needles.
Before the ice age Aurignacian survived only in the forested valleys and in the caves, but Gravettians were hunters on the cold steppes.
Aurignacians were no match for Gravettians, Gravettians took over the whole of northern Europe.
During ice age few Aurignacian tribes survived in Iberia, where cold was less severe, but hunting grounds were poorer too.
That is why LaBrana C6 was found in Iberia.
Neolithic C6 in Hungary was not European, they were survivers from the Levantine Aurignacian.

bicicleur
22-01-15, 00:30
Any idea why Spain, France, Germany and Czechy are so rich in cave settlements, and Balkans or Italy (supposedly with better climate to survive during Ice Age) are almost completely deserted?


during the ice age all caves in Germany and Czechia were deserted
Balkans were deserted too, except the coastal areas of the Aegean Sea ; there must have been an are in Italy were people survived, but the exact location hasn't been found, it may have been in the Adriatic Sea which was dry land at the time

LeBrok
22-01-15, 00:52
Hi LeBrok, the first map does not seem correct to me, it contradicts the other maps you post here and the maps I have seen and studied before : there was no large ice cap that covered the north of eastern Siberia and western Alaska. This was because of the drought in that area.
During the ice age the whole human population went through a big bottleneck, only the most resourceful survived.
That's what caused the distinct genetic groupings of ancient populations.
It's true, though I wish I could find an institute or research group who specialises in Ice Age to get the latest data. If there is sort of consensus, from averaging all the maps, it points to glaclial extend looking something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Northern_icesheet_hg.png/1280px-Northern_icesheet_hg.png

The East part of Asia doesn't have big continues mass of ice, but sort of islands. This map also shows this peninsula of ice riching to Black Sea. This could have been the natural divide between WHG and ANE folks. They probably didn't mix much till something like 10-12 thousand years ago, when connection got wide open and populations build up in numbers.

I guess, we can suppose that extreme desert areas worked as a buffer against population movement too.
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/lastgla.gif
The East Asians were pretty much cut off, also Indians (in India), Sub Saharan Africans. North West Africa looks livable though. Perhaps our connection to West African admixture?
Gibraltar was easier to traverse in Ice Age. With friendly winds it could have taken couple of hours on a raft.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQz2bK0mgygTTyHn48N7pEg4wrOb7cNE Lg-1pD53tEly-HAw4lI

LeBrok
22-01-15, 00:56
Caves versus huts would be a good explanation for there being a better survival rate for the remains of some cultures over others, but I would think that choice would be largely dependent on the availability of suitable caves, and many parts of the Balkans (and Italy) have mountainous regions that should produce suitable caves. It crossed my mind, though I doubt that old mountains all over Balkans lack caves.




The huge number of sites in northern Spain might be at least partly a result of there being suitable caves in the area, but I would think that some parts of the Balkans should have provided the same advantages. Yes, this is the viable answer. Lack of favorite pray around caves. Although Balkans are big and surely there would be few areas of populated caves.

LeBrok
22-01-15, 01:00
Neolithic C6 in Hungary was not European, they were survivers from the Levantine Aurignacian.
It was my first thought, when I've seen C6 in Hungarian samples. Well, maybe a second thought. ;)

LeBrok
22-01-15, 01:18
The key to survival in the ice age were not caves, but good clothing.
Nobody survived the ice age in the Balkans, except in the area around the Agean Sea.
In Europe the largest population survived in southern France with less severe climate, caves and good hunting steppe-tundra hunting grounds.
But the main thing was good clothing. Gravettians had sewing needles, Aurignacians didn't.
Aurignacian (haplo C6) had spread all over Europe, 40000 years ago.
33000 years ago Gravettian (haplo I) started to spread from Caucasus (this was the area where I split from IJ).
They had needles and had even invented rotary drills to bore the eyes in the needles.
Before the ice age Aurignacian survived only in the forested valleys and in the caves, but Gravettians were hunters on the cold steppes.
Aurignacians were no match for Gravettians, Gravettians took over the whole of northern Europe.
During ice age few Aurignacian tribes survived in Iberia, where cold was less severe, but hunting grounds were poorer too.
That is why LaBrana C6 was found in Iberia.

Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures ended by Ice Age Maximum. Populations has rebuilt from Spanish refuge as Solutrean and later as Magdalenian cultures, but mostly located in Western Europe. We are still stuck with Balkan puzzle.

bicicleur
22-01-15, 09:51
Aurignacian and Gravettian cultures ended by Ice Age Maximum. Populations has rebuilt from Spanish refuge as Solutrean and later as Magdalenian cultures, but mostly located in Western Europe. We are still stuck with Balkan puzzle.

Balkans were uninhabited during the ice age, but also during mesolithic times (at least south of the Danube). E.g. in Bulgaria there is only 1 mesolithic site, near Varna.
When the first farmers arrived in the Balkans, it was uninhabited.
Why? It's a mistery.

Aberdeen
22-01-15, 14:28
Maybe the lack of archeological sites in at least some parts of the Balkans has to do with politics and war. It's probably been much easier to do archeology in Spain than in the Balkans for the last 40 years. But that doesn't explain the very limited evidence for human settlements in Italy. The only explanation I can think of is that the earliest settlers entered Europe from Africa into Spain (and only a few into Italy, for some reason) and spread from there but the ice in the Alps kept people from crossing into the Balkans. There must have been some barrier that largely kept people from moving into the Balkans from the Middle East, some geographic barrier that's no longer there.

LeBrok
22-01-15, 20:09
I checked the Paleolithic sites on Balkans

Bacho Kiro is Aurignacian, dated at 45 kya. Supposedly it is disputed, because of very small fragments of bones found, if this is human or Neanderthal site. There is no art.
Some art was found in cave close by but there are no bones or signs of habitation, and no date on it. The art in this cave is rather primitive when compared to other well known caves. Too much mushrooms? lol
http://severozapazenabg.com/wp-content/gallery/magura/img_0396.jpg

http://b-freetravel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Magura-Cave-11.jpg

Cuciulat cave, have some art, but there is no information about bones or dating. Just a rough estimate 23-35 kya.
http://image.stirileprotv.ro/media/images/extra/Jan2011/60469289.jpg

I can't believe these are all the Paleolithic caves. There need to be more for sure.

LeBrok
22-01-15, 20:24
The two Near Eastern Caves from the map above, Mount Carmel and Hayonim Caves are very old with mixed Neanderthal and Human cohabitation.

So we have no signs of human habitation after Glacial Maximum till Neolithic, in Balkans and Near East? To me it looks like a lack of archeological research than lack of people in these prime lands.

bicicleur
22-01-15, 20:38
Maybe the lack of archeological sites in at least some parts of the Balkans has to do with politics and war. It's probably been much easier to do archeology in Spain than in the Balkans for the last 40 years. But that doesn't explain the very limited evidence for human settlements in Italy. The only explanation I can think of is that the earliest settlers entered Europe from Africa into Spain (and only a few into Italy, for some reason) and spread from there but the ice in the Alps kept people from crossing into the Balkans. There must have been some barrier that largely kept people from moving into the Balkans from the Middle East, some geographic barrier that's no longer there.

why would they have found all these paleolithic and neolithic sites in the Balkans, and not the mesolithic?
first paleolithic entries into Europe came through Balkans, Balkans were populated during paleoilthic before the ice ages
Bonunician was related with Emirian in the Levant
Proto-Aurignacian : the trail starts in the Balkans, not southern Spain. Contemporary with Ahmarian in the Levant. Though tools were different, both industries were the first to strike blades directly from core stones, one step beyond Bohunician and Emirian lithic reduction technology.
Aurignacian, recent dating shows it started in Willendorf, Austria near the Danube, these were Proto-Aurignacians expanding north
Gravettian was supposed to have entered through Balkans, it looks more and more that it entered through Mezmaiskaya, Caucasus
There may have been some entries through Gibraltar, it was certainly not the main entry door.

bicicleur
22-01-15, 20:45
The two Near Eastern Caves from the map above, Mount Carmel and Hayonim Caves are very old with mixed Neanderthal and Human cohabitation.

So we have no signs of human habitation after Glacial Maximum till Neolithic, in Balkans and Near East? To me it looks like a lack of archeological research than lack of people in these prime lands.

The Levant does not lack mesolithic sites (Kebaran , Natufian , .. ) and it was probably habited during the ice age. Same goes for the Zagros Mountains.
Anatolia may not have been inhabited during ice age and except coastal areas paleolithic and mesolithic sites are very scarce.

bicicleur
22-01-15, 20:50
I checked the Paleolithic sites on Balkans

Bacho Kiro is Aurignacian, dated at 45 kya. Supposedly it is disputed, because of very small fragments of bones found, if this is human or Neanderthal site. There is no art.
Some art was found in cave close by but there are no bones or signs of habitation, and no date on it. The art in this cave is rather primitive when compared to other well known caves. Too much mushrooms? lol
http://severozapazenabg.com/wp-content/gallery/magura/img_0396.jpg

http://b-freetravel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Magura-Cave-11.jpg

Cuciulat cave, have some art, but there is no information about bones or dating. Just a rough estimate 23-35 kya.
http://image.stirileprotv.ro/media/images/extra/Jan2011/60469289.jpg

I can't believe these are all the Paleolithic caves. There need to be more for sure.

are these paintings reliably dated? first 2 seem rather primitive drawings, not classical Aurignacian / Gravettian style
in the first there seems to be a bow and arrow, which was invented probably after the ice age

LeBrok
22-01-15, 21:13
are these paintings reliably dated? first 2 seem rather primitive drawings, not classical Aurignacian / Gravettian style
in the first there seems to be a bow and arrow, which was invented probably after the ice age
That's right, bow, arrows, emius and giraffes. All none existent in Paleolithic Europe. At the bottom of second picture there is a date 1933 and some scratched big letters at the top of the pick. Looks like a joke to me.

Aberdeen
22-01-15, 22:32
That's right, bow, arrows, emius and giraffes. All none existent in Paleolithic Europe. At the bottom of second picture there is a date 1933 and some scratched big letters at the top of the pick. Looks like a joke to me.

Look at the bottom left hand side of the first picture. Isn't that a dinosaur chasing someone? That places the time of the painting to something other than the Paleolithic.

Aberdeen
22-01-15, 22:37
why would they have found all these paleolithic and neolithic sites in the Balkans, and not the mesolithic?
first paleolithic entries into Europe came through Balkans, Balkans were populated during paleoilthic before the ice ages
Bonunician was related with Emirian in the Levant
Proto-Aurignacian : the trail starts in the Balkans, not southern Spain. Contemporary with Ahmarian in the Levant. Though tools were different, both industries were the first to strike blades directly from core stones, one step beyond Bohunician and Emirian lithic reduction technology.
Aurignacian, recent dating shows it started in Willendorf, Austria near the Danube, these were Proto-Aurignacians expanding north
Gravettian was supposed to have entered through Balkans, it looks more and more that it entered through Mezmaiskaya, Caucasus
There may have been some entries through Gibraltar, it was certainly not the main entry door.

If the main entry point was through the Balkans, why isn't there more evidence? Possibly not enough archeology being done in the area, as I suggested earlier. But if we were to go by the number of known sites, Iberia would appear to be the main entry point. Assumptions aren't enough.

LeBrok
22-01-15, 22:53
I did some digging and it looks like after Glacial Maximum people knew how to build simple huts.
Contemporary to Solutreans, Kostenki-Willendorf culture lived in huts made of mammoth bones, sticks and stones.
http://donsmaps.com/images23/mammothhousekievsm.jpg

Magdalenian tent:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Pincevent_tent.gif

Contemporary to Magdalenians, Natufians had even more elaborate huts. (couldn't find a nice reconstruction pic)

It is hard to imagine situation on Balkans being different. For hunters, stationary settlements like caves are not very practical. Tents and huts serve much better purpose in their mobile lifestyle. The best example are prairie Indians who only lived in tents all year round and never left any paintings in caves. Future archeologist could think that prairies were unoccupied before white men showed up, if not very well documented recent history.

I think the Western European abundance of well decorated caves is quite a phenomenon when compared to the rest of the world. It just might give an impression to early archeology that this was the only place occupied in europe after Ice Age Maximum. I think there is an archeological gold mine of pre-neolithic to be discovered in Balkans.

Angela
23-01-15, 01:22
I don't have any answers to some of these questions, but what I can say is that historically there wasn't very much interest in the Paleolithic in Italian archaeological circles. When investigation first began, the foremost researcher at the time, Luigi Pigorini, stated that there was nothing in Italy between the Mousterian and the Neolithic and that was that. He had such a dominant effect on Italian archaeology that it took decades for other viewpoints to surface. Perhaps it was because there was so much to investigate from the Bronze Age and especially from the Iron Age to the Classicial Era. That has lead to a situation where the most important works on the Paleolithic in Italy are an outdated French work and one book written in English, but by an Italian, which attempts to gather in one place the research that has been done in Italian language journals. (See link below...) I have to say that in all my years of university study and extensive reading on Italian history and pre-history I never paid much attention to it either, so it may be a cultural blind spot of some sort. From abstracts I have read, there does seem to be some increased interest recently, but I don't follow it very much.
https://books.google.com/books?id=yrTVXIpWMakC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Why+so+few+Paleolithic+sites+in+Italy&source=bl&ots=GevsU8cHKy&sig=RDA1SEI6fyCKfpjyGncq1RTOoVw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gRvBVLzzDoPfsASMpICoDQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Why%20so%20few%20Paleolithic%20sites%20in%20Ital y&f=false

Although it's been investigated periodically, it's only since 2009, for example, that the Equi Terme grotto right near me has even been secured. Starting on page 11 of this summary of the papers presented this last August at the European Society of Human Evolution, there is a discussion of the site and pictures of it. (The abstracts are very interesting in their own right.)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/3167231428_e1e7434b0e.jpg

Certainly, there are many grottoes and caves in Italy, but Italy has been extremely densely populated since the Neolithic, and these caves have been used since that time...they were still used as recently as sixty years ago by shepherds in our area, and during the war were used by partisans etc. I doubt many Paleolithic remains could be found in them at this point. The same is probably true of the also densely populated Near East and Balkans.

Still, there are more sites than appear on some of these maps that have been posted. I think the situation is analogous to that of Beaker artifacts, where much of the work was not published in English, and so was unknown to English speaking researchers. I tried to remedy that a little bit on this blog with my posting of the work of Delfino.

In terms of the Paleolithic, even the excerpted version of the Mussi book on google books is very long, and I haven't read most of it. However, this review of it does point out some interesting things.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/reviews/04_04_mussi.htm

"Chapter 5, ‘Moderns versus Neandertals’, addresses the question of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition. In Italy the lithic industries found immediately after the Mousterian are classified as belonging either to the Uluzzian or to the Aurignacian, and there seems to be a tacit assumption that the former were made by Neanderthals while the latter were made by modern humans, Homo sapiens. In fact, human remains are very rare in the Italian Early Upper Palaeolithic, and consequently the association between different hominid species and lithic industries remains unclear.

Chapter 6, ‘Fully Equipped Hunter-Gatherers’, is concerned with the Gravettian and Early Epigravettian periods, between 25,000 BP and 16,000 BP. Beginning with the Gravettian, the archaeological record becomes more comprehensive, due to the extensive array of material found, such as works of art and the first evidence for burials. Although human settlement was as scattered as it had been in previous occupations, and in fact only about fifty sites can be dated to this period, the occupation of Italy appears to have been stable. This is in contrast to the preceding five thousand or so years, between 30,000 BP and 25,000 BP, when only isolated individuals, or small human groups, visited part of the Italian peninsula episodically. Some of the Gravettian and Early Epigravettian sites are multilayered settlements with thousands of artefacts indicating frequent reoccupation of a preferred spot, while others are short-term campsites.


Chapter 7, ‘The Great Shift’, is the final chapter in the book, and addresses the Late Glacial and Early Postglacial record, corresponding with the Final Epigravettian and the Mesolithic periods, from 16,000 BP to 7500 BP. Given the presence of mountain ranges within a short distance of the coast, Italy is ideally suited to illustrate the great shift in human adaptation that occurred at this time. Rising temperatures resulted in rising sea levels, which in turn caused the coastal plains to shrink and, in some areas, to disappear. This is reflected in a shift from marine to terrestrial molluscs in the shell middens, and in the abandonment of many sites. On the other hand, with rising temperatures the nearby mountain ranges became accessible to plants, animals, and, eventually, to humans, and hundreds of sites have been recorded between 1900 and 2300 metres above sea level, and up to the Alpine watershed. Some of these sites were short-lived, while others were repeatedly occupied, during summer excursions to hunt ibex and chamois. Sicily was permanently colonised during this period, although the evidence for pre-Neolithic occupation on Sardinia is more ambiguous."

What I take from this is that there is some Aurignacian in Italy, but there is not very much of it. There is more in the Gravettian than appears in maps produced by Engish speakers (he mentions 50 sites), but still not as much perhaps as some other areas?

So, what is the reason? Is it that the caves have indeed had their remains scattered because of dense population? Even Classical Era or Iron Age Era finds are still being found every time a new tunnel or road is built, and these kinds of remains would be below that. Were many of them along the coastlines and they were submerged in subsequent periods? After all, the Adriatic used to only go up to Gargano.
http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/aa799.jpg

However, I'm also intrigued by some of the suggestions posted upthread about the influence of topography and fauna and flora. Most of Italy was warmer and forested during this period? Am I interpreting the maps correctly? If that's the case, perhaps these ancient people used open air camps more frequently, and wooden structures, which would have mostly left little trace in the record. It's true that in his review of the Mussi book on the Italian Paleolithic, the author states that Mousterian open air sites have indeed been found, so that may not be the total answer, but I think it would be safe to say that all evidence of lots of them may be buried under the traces of subsequent migrations.

Unless the Alps and, in the case of the Balkans, the Dinaric Alps, were a barrier to some of this gene flow, especially that which came from the east? However, then what about Iberia? Did these Paleolithic settlements penetrate far south of the Pyrennees? If they did, then in the case of Iberia perhaps we should look to gene flow from North African?

It's a puzzle.

LeBrok
23-01-15, 03:12
Certainly, there are many grottoes and caves in Italy, but Italy has been extremely densely populated since the Neolithic, and these caves have been used since that time...they were still used as recently as sixty years ago by shepherds in our area, and during the war were used by partisans etc. I doubt many Paleolithic remains could be found in them at this point. The same is probably true of the also densely populated Near East and Balkans. I was thinking the same. Balkans were densely populated from early Neolithic on and damage have could been done to many caves.


Chapter 7, ‘The Great Shift’, is the final chapter in the book, and addresses the Late Glacial and Early Postglacial record, corresponding with the Final Epigravettian and the Mesolithic periods, from 16,000 BP to 7500 BP. Given the presence of mountain ranges within a short distance of the coast, Italy is ideally suited to illustrate the great shift in human adaptation that occurred at this time. Rising temperatures resulted in rising sea levels, which in turn caused the coastal plains to shrink and, in some areas, to disappear. This is reflected in a shift from marine to terrestrial molluscs in the shell middens, and in the abandonment of many sites. On the other hand, with rising temperatures the nearby mountain ranges became accessible to plants, animals, and, eventually, to humans, and hundreds of sites have been recorded between 1900 and 2300 metres above sea level, and up to the Alpine watershed. Some of these sites were short-lived, while others were repeatedly occupied, during summer excursions to hunt ibex and chamois. Sicily was permanently colonised during this period, although the evidence for pre-Neolithic occupation on Sardinia is more ambiguous."
Did they ever find in Italy a skull from this Late Glacial period?

bicicleur
23-01-15, 09:48
If the main entry point was through the Balkans, why isn't there more evidence? Possibly not enough archeology being done in the area, as I suggested earlier. But if we were to go by the number of known sites, Iberia would appear to be the main entry point. Assumptions aren't enough.

the major problem with old paleolithic sites in Europe, there are not many skelletons found, and there is no 100 % certainty whether these sites were Neanderthal or modern human
so there is a lot of possibilities for building your own theories
however better dating technology and better understanding of the evolution of lithic reduction technology results in growing consensus about the European paleolithic chronology and evolution

if you're interested, I can recommend you this blog : http://www.aggsbach.de/

bicicleur
23-01-15, 10:05
this is a cave in the Zagros Mountains, Kurdistan

7042

80 kya it was occupied by Neanderthals
36 kya it was occupied by modern humans with some technology similar to Aurignacian
during ice age it probably was abandoned for a while
after ice age it was reoccupied by people who probably lived in Georgia, Caucasus area before the ice age
this cave has been occupied ever since, till recently by sheepherders

still the stratification in this cave is intact
some caves may be disturbed by neolithic or later occupation, but most of the time, if there were paleolithic artefacts there, they are still there

most paleolithic tribes were mobile and had tents or builded temporary dwellings
it didn't prevent them from temporarily staying in a good cave, if it was in the neighbourhood

MOESAN
23-01-15, 12:45
Thanks LEBROK
beautiful and useful maps

ElHorsto
23-01-15, 17:37
It is also possible that there were cults or religions in certain cultures which considered caves as either dangerous or sacred, thus to be avoided. Still today there are cultures who never climbed certain prominent mountains because people believe it is inhabited by powerful ghosts, gods or daemons who would kill any intruders.
Maybe a cultural progression happened in Iberia and France where selected shamans or wizards started to "communicate" with these ghosts by eating mushrooms and painting walls.

bicicleur
23-01-15, 21:40
it seems that certain tribes worshiped certain animals
that would have been the case with the cave bear
it didn't prevent other tribes to hunt the cave bear
the cave bear became extinct 27000 years ago

LeBrok
23-01-15, 23:37
this is a cave in the Zagros Mountains, Kurdistan

7042

80 kya it was occupied by Neanderthals
36 kya it was occupied by modern humans with some technology similar to Aurignacian
during ice age it probably was abandoned for a while
after ice age it was reoccupied by people who probably lived in Georgia, Caucasus area before the ice age
this cave has been occupied ever since, till recently by sheepherders

still the stratification in this cave is intact
some caves may be disturbed by neolithic or later occupation, but most of the time, if there were paleolithic artefacts there, they are still there

most paleolithic tribes were mobile and had tents or builded temporary dwellings
it didn't prevent them from temporarily staying in a good cave, if it was in the neighbourhood
I think you are referring to Glacial Maximum around 20 kya. The whole Ice Age lasted 120 thousand years.

LeBrok
23-01-15, 23:39
It is also possible that there were cults or religions in certain cultures which considered caves as either dangerous or sacred, thus to be avoided. Still today there are cultures who never climbed certain prominent mountains because people believe it is inhabited by powerful ghosts, gods or daemons who would kill any intruders.
Maybe a cultural progression happened in Iberia and France where selected shamans or wizards started to "communicate" with these ghosts by eating mushrooms and painting walls.
I think it is possible scenario, however it is hard to imagine this religious beliefs lasting such long time through upper paleolithic and mesolithic, and through such vast areas of Balkans and Near East.

bicicleur
24-01-15, 12:43
I think you are referring to Glacial Maximum around 20 kya. The whole Ice Age lasted 120 thousand years.

as far as I know, this cave has only been occupied since 80 kya

there are caves with longer history :

Central-Asia : Obi-Rakhmat near Tashkent and Kara-Bom near Altaï Mts : 200 kya
A new Neanderthal tribe arrived in Obi-Rakhmat som 87 kya, before were either Neanderthal or maybe Denisova. Modern humans arrived 48.8 kya

Mount Carmel and Galilee caves have 600 kya history

bicicleur
24-01-15, 12:46
I think you are referring to Glacial Maximum around 20 kya. The whole Ice Age lasted 120 thousand years.

indeed, that is what I mean, Last Glacial Maximum is the proper word

Aberdeen
24-01-15, 20:00
It is also possible that there were cults or religions in certain cultures which considered caves as either dangerous or sacred, thus to be avoided. Still today there are cultures who never climbed certain prominent mountains because people believe it is inhabited by powerful ghosts, gods or daemons who would kill any intruders.
Maybe a cultural progression happened in Iberia and France where selected shamans or wizards started to "communicate" with these ghosts by eating mushrooms and painting walls.

If you eat certain kinds of mushrooms, you will imagine that you're in a cave and will see magical beings. Or so I've been told. I imagine that would encourage shamans to visit actual caves to hang out there, paint the walls and play music for the spirits, even if their tribal customs had previously included a taboo against going into caves. I suppose such a taboo could have originated because dangerous animals had been living in caves, and the taboo could last for a long time after such animals became extinct, until something such as magic mushrooms convinced people to change their habits.

LeBrok
26-01-15, 04:29
if you're interested, I can recommend you this blog : http://www.aggsbach.de/
Interesting read. I was reading some and scrolling down to check on progress of stone tools..., and could never reach the end of the page. After a while I noticed it is "infinity" page, lol. When one scrolls almost to the end, new stuff pops up constantly to existence, adding more and more articles.

bicicleur
26-01-15, 09:28
Interesting read. I was reading some and scrolling down to check on progress of stone tools..., and could never reach the end of the page. After a while I noticed it is "infinity" page, lol. When one scrolls almost to the end, new stuff pops up constantly to existence, adding more and more articles.

best is to get acquinted with some cultures and lithic technics like e.g. Aurignacian or Levallois via wikipedia or other sources and then get more details at the aggsbach site by making some searches in Aggscbach

Aggsbach deals only with European and Levantine cultures, and with the Nubian Complex

for the Nubian Complex you should first check Dieneke on his 'out of Arabia' theory

LeBrok
26-01-15, 20:55
best is to get acquinted with some cultures and lithic technics like e.g. Aurignacian or Levallois via wikipedia or other sources and then get more details at the aggsbach site by making some searches in Aggscbach

Aggsbach deals only with European and Levantine cultures, and with the Nubian Complex

for the Nubian Complex you should first check Dieneke on his 'out of Arabia' theory

Certainly Nubian Complex is an excellent candidate for being first out of Africa.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=inline&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028239.g001
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028239


To bad there are no skeletal remnants to definitively conclude that they were HSS and not Neanderthals. From the same time we have a skull from Morocco dating to 100,000 BC, but it doesn't look like a skull from Israel from 90,000. I couldn't find the skull picture from Moroccan cave, but the reconstruction shows very SSA face. They just assumed the skin colour will be lighter for some reason.
http://ficcontentsales.com/Files/Programmes/1257.Main.jpg

bicicleur
26-01-15, 21:22
Certainly Nubian Complex is an excellent candidate for being first out of Africa.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=inline&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028239.g001
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028239


To bad there are no skeletal remnants to definitively conclude that they were HSS and not Neanderthals. From the same time we have a skull from Morocco dating to 100,000 BC, but it doesn't look like a skull from Israel from 90,000. I couldn't find the skull picture from Moroccan cave, but the reconstruction shows very SSA face. They just assumed the skin colour will be lighter for some reason.
http://ficcontentsales.com/Files/Programmes/1257.Main.jpg

indeed, no skeletons or skuls, and very few dates

Neandertahls have been identified in the Levant but none in Africa or Arabia
early modern humans heva been identified in East-Africa

2 early dates I know :
Taramsa (Egypt/Sudan) 118 +/- 7 ka , more or less contemporary with 1st modern human out of Africa (Jebel Faya 123 - 127 ka)
Dhofar, Oman 106 ka , probably shortly after arrival of Nubian Complex in Arabia

Nubian Complex came back to Taramsa +/- 70 ka, but there is no continuity between early (118 +/- 7 ka) and late (70 ka) Nubian complex in Africa, so this was backmigration from Arabia

According to Dienekes this backmigration is haplogroup E. I agree with that.
But in that case Emirian should be haplogroup C & F, while in the mean time D would have migrated further east.
Emirian was the first blade industry (52 ka) , as opposed to flake Levallois.
Emirian has evolved from a mixture of Nubian and Tabun complexes.

There are still a lot of mysteries left, but in the end, it all makes sense.
Aggsbach tells you how Bohunician, Ahmarian and Aurignacian evolved from Emirian.

bicicleur
26-01-15, 21:35
To bad there are no skeletal remnants to definitively conclude that they were HSS and not Neanderthals. From the same time we have a skull from Morocco dating to 100,000 BC, but it doesn't look like a skull from Israel from 90,000. I couldn't find the skull picture from Moroccan cave, but the reconstruction shows very SSA face. They just assumed the skin colour will be lighter for some reason.
http://ficcontentsales.com/Files/Programmes/1257.Main.jpg

what do you mean by SSA?

it looks like this reconstruction was done by a Moroccan guy : same eye colour , hair and skin complexion as himself ..
or did they extract DNA ?

LeBrok
26-01-15, 22:51
what do you mean by SSA?

it looks like this reconstruction was done by a Moroccan guy : same eye colour , hair and skin complexion as himself ..
or did they extract DNA ?
It is a reconstruction from the skull. Yes, the complexion could be seen as contemporary Moroccan, but features like shape of head, nose, jaw and lips are definitely Sub Saharan.

MOESAN
29-01-15, 00:35
THANKS TO DIENEKES
I found that today and i've not had time to think about it


January 28, 2015~55 thousand year old modern human from Manot cave in Israel (http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/2015/01/55-thousand-modern-human-from-manot.html)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VXABm2MjMAI/VMkpe9cRu_I/AAAAAAAAJ44/MkConGXpF00/s1600/manot.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VXABm2MjMAI/VMkpe9cRu_I/AAAAAAAAJ44/MkConGXpF00/s1600/manot.jpg)
It seems that this abstract came online one day early on my news feed and will probably appear in Nature tomorrow. I will update this entry when the paper properly appears. This is of course very important because it directly proves that modern humans appear in Eurasia before the Upper Paleolithic revolution, and disproves the theory that modern humans spread UP technologies with an expansion out of Africa.

We will have to wait until tomorrow to see exactly what they compared it against. The abstract contrasts it with "other early AMH" from the Levant, which I presume means the Skhul/Qafzeh specimens of ~50ka earlier than Manot. But, they also say that it is similar to UP Europeans and recent Africans, which suggests that they did not find any particular similarities to old African skulls of which there are many.

UPDATE: The paper is now online

UPDATE I: The authors write:

Manot 1 could also have been a direct descendant of early AMH populations (such as Skhul/Qafzeh), but the differences in morphology between Manot 1 and the majority of fossils from these sites render this possibility unlikely (Supplementary InformationC).However, it should be noted that within- and between-group morphological variations in these populations are extremely large18, rendering any conclusion based exclusively on morphology as tentative. Nevertheless, the absence of
otherAMHspecimens in the Levant between the Skhul/Qafzeh material (,120–90 kyr ago) and the later appearing Manot 1 (,55 kyr ago) does not support the hypothesis of continuous representation and local evolution of AMHs in the Levant.
On the other hand, the considerably fluctuating climatic conditions during MIS 5 and 4 (favouring an alteration of differently adapted populations), the unequivocal presence of Neanderthals in the region in the time gap between early AMHs and the Manot population, and the continuing evolution of AMHs in Africa19 advocate for the most parsimonious explanation, which is that theManot people re-colonized the Levant from Africa, rather than evolved in situ.I don't buy this explanation. The key phrase is "the majority of fossils". In Figure 3 is it is clear that Qafzeh 9 is completely modern. Moreover, UP Europeans like Cro-Magnon 3, Mladec 6/5 are close to AMH Levantine specimens such as Skhul-5 and Qafzeh-6. Indeed, the late Neandertals such as Shanidar and Amud are already moving towards "modern" humans.

African samples like Omo-2, LH18, and and Jebel Irhoud 1/2 don't look anything like modern humans. It is quite strange that the authors interpret this evidence as discontinuity between ~100ka humans from the Levant and replacement by a fresh Out-of-Africa wave, when in fact all the Qafzeh/Skhul remains (and a couple of Neandertals) look much more plausible relatives of Manot than any of the ancient African samples. Not single sample has been found in Africa from the mysterious hypothetical ancestral population of modern humans that supposedly colonized Eurasia ~60ka. As far as I can tell, this theory has nothing to support it, except, perhaps, (i) some misinterpretation of old genetic data based on the now discredited "fast" mutation rate, and (ii) the belief that behavioral modernity first arose in Africa and coincided with the spread of modern humans from that continent into Eurasia.



Nature advance online publication 28 January 2015. doi:10.1038/nature14134

Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans

Authors: Israel Hershkovitz, Ofer Marder, Avner Ayalon, Miryam Bar-Matthews, Gal Yasur, Elisabetta Boaretto, Valentina Caracuta, Bridget Alex, Amos Frumkin, Mae Goder-Goldberger, Philipp Gunz, Ralph L. Holloway, Bruce Latimer, Ron Lavi, Alan Matthews, Viviane Slon, Daniella Bar-Yosef Mayer, Francesco Berna, Guy Bar-Oz, Reuven Yeshurun, Hila May, Mark G. Hans, Gerhard W. Weber & Omry Barzilai

A key event in human evolution is the expansion of modern humans of African origin across Eurasia between 60 and 40 thousand years (kyr) before present (bp), replacing all other forms of hominins. Owing to the scarcity of human fossils from this period, these ancestors of all present-day non-African modern populations remain largely enigmatic. Here we describe a partial calvaria, recently discovered at Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel) and dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr bp (arithmetic mean ± 2 standard deviations) by uranium–thorium dating, that sheds light on this crucial event. The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls as well as to European skulls from the Upper Palaeolithic period, but different from most other early anatomically modern humans in the Levant. This suggests that the Manot people could be closely related to the first modern humans who later successfully colonized Europe. Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations. Moreover, at present, Manot 1 is the only modern human specimen to provide evidence that during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic interface, both modern humans and Neanderthals contemporaneously inhabited the southern Levant, close in time to the likely interbreeding event with Neanderthals.
Link (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14134.html)

4 comments: (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7785493&postID=8912855823273105717&isPopup=true)Email This (http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7785493&postID=8912855823273105717&target=email)BlogThis! (http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7785493&postID=8912855823273105717&target=blog)Share to Twitter (http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7785493&postID=8912855823273105717&target=twitter)Share to Facebook (http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7785493&postID=8912855823273105717&target=facebook)Share to Pinterest (http://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=7785493&postID=8912855823273105717&target=pinterest)



Labels Homo sapiens (http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/search/label/Homo%20sapiens), Israel (http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/search/label/Israel), Near East (http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/search/label/Near%20East), Paleoanthropology (http://dienekes.blogspot.fr/search/label/Paleoanthropology)

LeBrok
29-01-15, 02:43
Thanks Moesan for posting it. I'm just surprised that they came with such strong conclusions from analyzing top of the skull of one individual. I wish they did some effort getting DNA for plotting.
I'm with Dienekes on this one. Could have been local mutation, another step in evolution or another cross/admixture between species. Many ancient skulls from this area are looking fairly modern anyway. We also see many archaic features, like slanted forehead or protruding jaw, in recent populations and it is not standing in the way to call them modern humans.
This paper is confusing for sure.

Aberdeen
29-01-15, 07:17
I hadn't yet seen Moesan's post when I published a link to the abstract for that paper in a separate thread. I guess that thread isn't necessary so should maybe be deleted.