Posts
The colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans (AMH, technically Homo sapiens) is generally accepted to be clear with the rapid Aurignacian expansion, c. 41-40 millennia ago (kya). But the real implications of the MP-UP transition are often controversial.
In this sense, John F. Hoffecker has made a nice review of the matter, to which I've been directed twice in the last weeks by Dienekes and Tim respectively, and that I feel it's about time to comment on here as well.
John F. Hoffecker, The spread of modern humans in Europe. PNAS, 2009.
The author reviews in few pages the available data on the MP-UP transition in Europe and their possible relations with each of the human species extant at the time.
In the conclusion, he argues for two waves of AMH colonization of Europe: first, beginning c. 48 kya, the Bohunician (that for him includes Bachokirian), that would originate in the Emirian culture of Levant, extending into the East Balcans, parts of Central Europe and even Eastern Europe. Second would be the proto-Aurignacian, originating in the Ahmarian culture (derived from Emirian) and extending specially southern European areas, like Italy and the Pyrenees. The Aurignacian proper would be a European culture, possibly originated in the Balcans (though others have argued Central Europe).
Let's review the sequence and groups in more detail:
Group A: would include the Szletian (Central Europe) and Chatelperronian (Western Europe) cultures. At least the later is clearly associated with Neanderthal remains and, by extension, many believe that Szletian would be too.
Group B: would include the Bohunician (SE, Central and Eastern Europe) and its possible ancestor the Emirian of the Near East (specially the sites of Bocher Tachtit in Palestine, Ksar Akil in Lebanon and Üçagizli in southern Turkey). The Bohunician dates to c. 48 kya (Bacho Kiro, Bulgaria) and the latest dates are of c. 40 kya. There are no clear forsenic remains associated to it but some indications of it being of AMH creation are the presence of ornaments in some sites and the relation between Emirian and Ahmarian, this one clearly product of H. sapiens.
Group C: would include the proto-Aurignacian of Bulgaria (Temnata) Italy, Pyrenees and other southern European sites (and even Kostenki 14 in Eastern Europe) and the Ahmarian of the Near East. This one is clearly the product of AMH and Hoffecker argues that some of the oldest H. sapiens remains of Europe (Pestera cu Oase and others in Rumania) could belong to this techno-cultural group, even if they are devoid of any direct artifactual associations. Some Italian proto-Aurignacian also shows personal ornaments and bone industry, which again suggest AMH manufacture. The proto-Aurignacian dates to c. 45-40 kya.
Other:
The Uluzzian of Italy (since c. 48 kya) again is not directly associated to any particular human species. For this reason many think it could be a Neanderthal creation. But Uluzzian shows again personal ornaments and bone industry and could therefore be associated to H. sapiens on mere cultural grounds.
The Kostenki culture of Eastern Europe (since c. 44 kya) is clearly of AMH creation and, while original, shows occasional similitudes with Italian proto-Aurignacian (Kostenki 14) and the later Aurignacian. It is rich in bone industry and includes the first eyed needles known.
The Aurignacian. Hoffecker suggests a Balcanic origin for this culture though it's best documented first in Central Europe (c. 40-38 kya), overlying the transitional industries. It is possible that its expansion was favored by the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, the most catastrophic volcanic event in the area in some 200 milennia, which is dated to c. 40 kya. Guess it could be included in group C.
.
4 comments:
"he argues for two waves of AMH colonization of Europe".
In other words the change from Neanderthal to modern was even more complicated than what I suggested in my essay "Neanderthals et al". Here it is if you haven't already read it:
http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-neanderthals.html
I return to the subject in "Culture":
http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-culture.html
I'll try to explain the format of the essays. The prosecution are the evolution-deniers, the jury is the general public. I regard you as being ultimately a member of the defence. We are merely arguing over the finer details.
In other words the change from Neanderthal to modern was even more complicated than what I suggested in my essay "Neanderthals et al".
Don't know if it was more complicated but my post is a lot shorter, what makes it look simpler, in a sense. ;)
I think that at this point there are the following models for the MP-UP:
1. Only Ahmarian-Aurignacian (and separately Kostenki) are AMH because we can document that with actual human rumains.
2. All UP but Chateleperronian is AMH because only Chatelperronian can be documented as Nenaderthal
3. Something in beteween, following logical cultural similitudes, like the presence of beads and bone industry.
I'll try to explain the format of the essays. The prosecution are the evolution-deniers, the jury is the general public. I regard you as being ultimately a member of the defence. We are merely arguing over the finer details.
I'm not really interested in participating in that trial. There are no serious evolution-deniers worth the effort. For me it's as exotic as Voodoo or ritual cannibalism.
For me the interesting stuff is in the details, and in particular I am interested in human prehistory and the genesis of historical and modern humankind.
Someone said: "truth does not need defense, it defends itself". So if you just try to uncover the truth, it will fight its own battles like an alchemical golem. Human mind is almost defenseless against factual truth.
"There are no serious evolution-deniers worth the effort".
Maju, you know as well as I do that widespread, distorted beliefs about our evolution and history are regularly used to support particular undesirable political perspectives.
"Human mind is almost defenseless against factual truth".
But vested interests spend a lot of time and money delaying its widespread acceptance.
IDK. We live in different realities: here nobody really dares to challenge evolution (well, there are a handful ultra-conservative semi-literate - but no one with any influence).
I really don't pay any attention to religious freaks until they begin being annoying. Most people here is agnostic anyhow, even those who consider themselves Christians are in practical terms in most cases or are religious only in their personal intimacy.
And sincerely I don't think that the kind of fanatics that would deny evolution Bible in hand would ever read me or pay any attention to what I may say.
Post a Comment