Australia: The Land Where Time Began |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tasmanian
Archaeology and Modern Human Behaviour According to Cosgrove et
al. there is still much
debate concerning what constitutes the behaviour of modern humans
(Gamble, 1002); Holdaway & Cosgrove, 1997: Marean et
al., 2007; McBrearty, 2007;
Shea, 2011b). Opinion on the first appearance of modern human behaviour
has shifted from enigmatic cognitive changes that claimed it first
appeared about 45,000 BP (Klein, 2000) to intensification of social and
economic activity during the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe, which
Cosgrove et al. suggest is
enshrined in ideas about developing ‘cultural complexity’. Alternative
arguments have been made for the various regions, Australasian region
(O’Connell & Allen, 1997), Europe (Powell et
al., 2009) and Africa
(Henshilwood & Marean, 2003), which suggests an alternative explanation
for the earlier emergence of complex technologies, subsistence
strategies and art could possibly be explained by population increases
that were driven by competition for resources or intensification.
According to Cosgrove et al.
it is ironic that there were no restrictions on development of:
·
50,000 BP Seafaring (O’Connell et
al., 2010)
·
45,000 BP Deliberate burial (Webb, 1998)
·
45,000 BP early movement of raw materials
over 300 km (Summerhayes & Allen)
·
45,000 BP montane plant exploration
(Summerhayes et al., 2010)
·
44,000 BP Hafted axes (Groube et
al., 1986; O’Connell et
al., 2010)
·
35,000 BP grinding technology at
(Fullagar & Field, 1997)
·
35,000 BP at least, symbolic expression
(Morse, 1993a; Balme & Morse, 2006); Balme et
al., 2009)
·
20,000 BP translocation of animals (Allen
et al., 1988; Flannery &
White, 1991; Leavesley, 2006)
·
20,000 BP early deep-sea fishing
(O’Connor et a.,, 2011a)
·
15,000 BP at least, backed artefacts
(Slack et al., 2004) as a result of the smaller population in Sahul
(Brumm & Moore, 2005), (Table 14.1). The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition has
also been characterised as being an evolutionary process from simple to
complex. Cosgrove et al. suggest this has been a strong organising
principle in the categorisation of human societies into developmental
stages, which link them in terms of the capacities of humans, and their
position as an organism that is evolving. This stems from the view in
Europe that the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic is categorised as having
an economic pattern that is more transitionary, stone technologies that
are more conservative, and lower populations that have simpler social,
economic and organisational networks than is present in the Upper
Palaeolithic, which is viewed as being more dynamic (e.g., Bar-Yosef,
2007: 209). the idea of socio-economic complexity that is increasing
from the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic foragers to the Upper
Palaeolithic that is a logically organised system is clear (Binford,
1980). Based on the presence or absence of stone types such as scrapers,
handaxes, blades, projectile points and microliths in an archaeological
assemblage the Upper Palaeolithic is viewed as reflecting increased
“efficiency” along with a greater degree of cultural complexity.
Cosgrove et al., suggest that
in turn this has been viewed as reflecting the differences in behaviour
between their makers. Cosgrove et
al. suggest, however, that one of the problems of European
Palaeolithic research has been its solipsism, with all else being
measured against the array of stone tool typology resulting in the
production of a cultural continuum. E.g., stone tools in Tasmania have
been described as being from the Middle Palaeolithic, and inappropriate
analogies have often been drawn , in spite of the fact that Aboriginals
in Tasmania are anatomically and behaviourally modern (Holdaway &
Cosgrove , 1997; Cosgrove & Pyke-Tay, 2004). This is paradoxical, as the
transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic is viewed in Europe
as a watershed separating earlier archaic hominids from modern humans. A
greater degree of scrutiny of the defining characteristics of human
behaviour has been called for by critics of these analogies (Holdaway &
Cosgrove, 1997; McBrearty, 2007; O’Connell & Allen, 2007; Brumm & Moore,
2005; Shea, 2011b). According to Cosgrove et
al. it is rare for references
to be given to areas such as Sahul, which lack the classic cultural
progression from handaxes, to scrapers, to blades, given that many
European analyses stem from this perspective. The confounding nature of the Late
Pleistocene in
Tasmania and the archaeological record of the Neanderthals have been
pointed out by an earlier paper (Holdaway & Cosgrove, 1997). These 2
groups, that were closely aligned by scholars in the 19th and
20th centuries; one ‘modern’ and the other ‘archaic’, made
similar stone tools associated with a range of other behavioural
attributes that were commonly identified as Middle Palaeolithic
behaviour. Though according to Cosgrove et
al. when the Middle and Upper
Palaeolithic records of Tasmania, Australia, and Europe are compared
(Table 14.1), a highly variable range of cultural attributes is shown,
which is to some degree comparable to that observed in the African
record (McBrearty, 2007; Shea, 2011b, 2011c).
The classic evolutionary continuum was not followed by the
settlers in Sahul. As Cosgrove et
al. say it is also clear that a lack of modern capabilities is not
indicated by the absence of modern human behavioural ‘traits’ (O’Connell
& Allen, 2007). It is in this respect that the evidence from Australia,
and in particular Tasmania, is important in debates concerning which
material evidence represents human modernity and any degree to which it
was gradual or punctuated. It is suggested by Cosgrove et
al. that a comparative
approach is required to unravel these contradictions, which focuses on
the identification of archaeological variability, with archaeological
records at commensurate times and places being compared. E.g., there
were Late Pleistocene populations in Tasmania that were using Middle
Palaeolithic lithic technology; with non-hafted organic technology, they
practised art and hunted systematically and seasonally with an approach
to land use that was structured. The populations of Neanderthals also
had a hafted lithic technology, hunted systematically including
prime-age selection of prey, seasonal resource acquisition and buried
their dead. This should indicate that either the Tasmanian Aboriginal
people were ‘archaic’, a description that does not fit with the emerging
archaeological evidence, or there needs to be a reassessment of the
definition of ‘modern’ and ‘archaic’ behaviour. As there have been major
advances in theory and material evidence over the past 14 years,
Cosgrove et al. suggest it is
time to revisit the question of behavioural variability and modernity as
it relates to these archaeological records.
Palaeoenvironment of Tasmania An important theme in Late Pleistocene
archaeological research in Tasmania is the importance of gaining an
understanding of the palaeoecological structure and the influence it has
on the hunter-gatherer resources (Cosgrove et
al., 1990; Holdaway & Porch,
1995). It is undeniable that the environment provided a range of
subsistence options from which the Aboriginal people could choose how
and when to exploit these resources. According to Cosgrove et
al. the evidence is important
to provide a framework in which there can be examination of human
responses to changing environments and climatic conditions. Tasmania was connected to the Australian mainland
by a land bridge during the Late
Pleistocene
at the time sea levels began dropping after 40,000 BP.
At this time colonising people took the opportunity to colonise
Tasmania where they occupied caves, open places and rock shelters.
Tasmania experienced only limited glaciations and had a climate that was
more maritime than such places as the southwest of France and northern
Spain, both of which are at similar latitudes to Tasmania. Glaciation
was limited to small ice sheets on the high elevations, with the climate
being cool temperate during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 and MIS 2,
which was transitional between glacial and interglacial (Mackintosh et
al., 2006). At the height of
the last glacial average annual temperature depressions of at least 6oC
occurred across the region. The major vegetation structure consisted of
open grasslands in central and eastern Tasmania and infertile soils that
supported low shrubs in western Tasmania (Colhoun, 2000). Temperature
depressions in Europe at the same time of at least 12oC and
possibly 15oC have been suggested (Gilligan, 2007a). The
forests that remained retreated to lower coastal situations. A general
though variable vegetation pattern across the region has been supported
by pollen data from western and central Tasmania. Herbs and
Poa sp. grasses were
supported on substrates underlying discontinuous areas of fertile soils,
while low shrubs and button grass sedges in other places were supported
on acid peats and infertile quartz substrates (Kirkpatrick & Fowler,
1998). It is believed that a patchy distribution of grasses that were
attractive to grazing wallabies in western Tasmania was produced by this
palaeoecological structure (Cosgrove et
al., 1990; Cosgrove, 1999).
Bordered on grassy patches on which the wallabies fed, was limestone
geology in which there were caves and rock shelters from which the
occupants hunted the wallabies. At about 20,000 cal BP the coldest periods
occurred, and the annual precipitation in western Tasmania would have
been more than 1,500 mm, probably in the form of snow, though the
rainfall was down by 50 % of the values of the present. In areas to the
east there would have been droughts, as the annual precipitation would
have been reduced to between 200 and 150 mm. As a result of reduced
vegetation cover in the Midlands at this time dune and lunette building
was common, and pockets of
Eucalyptus sp.
and rainforest with a shrub understorey in the east and west survived in
locations that were protected (Kirkpatrick & Fowler, 1998). Cosgrove et
al. suggest that at this time
it is likely rain and snow would have been brought to the west coast as
a moist maritime climate would have prevailed on the west coast of
Tasmania, instead of a continental climate, which is reflected more at
inland locations like Lake
Mungo on the mainland of the present (Bowler et
al., 2003). It appears that human impact on the environment was
coupled with deterioration of environmental conditions and instability
of the landscape that resulted from reduced precipitation and vegetative
cover (MacIntosh?et al.,
2009). The reasons for the extinction of the range of megafauna present
in Tasmania have been contested. It is suggested by evidence from
Tasmania that though at about 40,000 cal BP it appears there was human
overlap with 2 large kangaroo species,
Protemnodon anak and
Macropus giganteus titan,
no bones of these animals have been found in any of the archaeological
sites in central or western Tasmania (Cosgrove et
al., 2010), with all of the
prey species being smaller than extant species of wallaby and wombat.
The marsupial lion,
Thylacoleo carnifex,
and the Pleistocene species of the Tasmanian devil,
Sarcophilus laniarius,
and
Thylacinus cynocephalus
were the only large carnivores that have been recorded in Tasmania.
There were no bones of these animals present in archaeological sites.
The situation in Europe was quite different where, unlike in Tasmania,
the European hyenas, cave bears and wolves, are believed to have posed
more competition to humans for prey resources and potential occupation
of caves.
Sarcophilus laniarius and
Thylacinus cynocephalus
were not much larger than a medium-sized dog and both hunted or
scavenged individually. Cosgrove et
al. suggest it is possible
Thylacoleo carnifex,
about 87-130 kg (Wroe et al.,
2003), was extinct before humans reached Tasmania, the latest date known
for this animal being 53,000 ± 4,000 BP (Cosgrove et
al., 2010). Technology It has been observed that much of the Tasmanian
Aboriginal stone technology is similar to that of the Middle
Palaeolithic in Europe, though it does not include the Levallois
technology, and was mainly composed of multiplatform and single platform
cores, primary flakes, retouched flakes, and scrapers of various sizes
(Jones, 1977). Little if any change in technology occurred for at least
25,000 years, though there were additional items such as small
denticulate flakes, delicate ‘thumbnail’ and end scrapers, which
indicate a greater range of types of tool. Cosgrove et
al. suggest that organic technology probably comprise wooden spears
and clubs, which were familiar and flexible technology, as well as some
equivocal evidence of the presence of bone armatures (Webb& Allen,
1990). No direct evidence has been found of hafting or the use of resins
or mastics for gluing. There were no large, dangerous prey species or
large carnivores that could be considered as competitors. There was no
need for heavy-duty stone points and less need for scrapers for the
preparation of hides, as the available marsupial prey was thin-skinned
with no subcutaneous fat. The use of static traps, falls and the use of
fire to capture prey is suggested by ethnographic evidence from
Tasmania. The possible range of techniques used in hunting has been
discussed (Cosgrove & Allen, 2001) and deduced from the early
ethnography from Tasmania. No evidence has been found of the use of
lined hearths in sites from the Late Pleistocene, most being simple fire
pits used for cooking. Limited evidence is known of an organised use of
space, though there appears to have been a greater spatial use in
Nunamira Cave, Bone Cave and Stone Cave dated to around 16,000 BP, which
suggests there was some organisation of activities. There has been no
large-scale spatial excavation undertaken, however, to further
investigate this, though Mackintosh Site has been investigated with
open-area investigation, though without detecting strong dispersal of
activities (Stern & Marshall, 1993). The lack of research in this area
is suggested by Cosgrove et al.
to be reflected in the limited evidence of organised space within these
caves, as there have been only small amounts of deposit excavated
(Allen, 1996a, 31-39).
According to Cosgrove et
al. the use of fitted clothing
would possibly have been encouraged by the sub-Antarctic conditions, and
bone points with use-wear polish have been recovered from archaeological
deposits (Webb& Allen, 1990). It is suggested by ethnographic
descriptions of Aboriginal people in Tasmania that a wallaby or kangaroo
skin ‘cloak’ that was worn loosely across the shoulders was their only
form of clothing (Plomely, 1966, 531). It has been suggested by research
on ‘clothing’ and human energetic requirements during the Late
Pleistocene (Gilligan, 2007a; 2007b) that fitted or ‘complex’ clothing
did not develop as a result of wind chill, which is a significant factor
in the tolerance of humans to cold, did not reach critical levels. It
has been pointed out (Gilligan, 2007a) that in Tasmania climatic
conditions were more similar to those of MIS 5b and 4 in Europe, rather
than MIS 3 or 2 in the Northern Hemisphere, a suggestion which has been
supported to some extent (Mackintosh et
al., 2006). According to
Cosgrove et al. the point that
is made here is that the technological items, such as blades and fine
needles that are required to make fitted clothing, have not been found
in either Middle Palaeolithic assemblages in Europe or in assemblages
from Tasmania (Gilligan, 2007a). It is suggested that these
technological developments respond more to specific environmental and
social needs that have a tendency to appear when the tolerance of humans
to cold moves beyond the critical thermal threshold (Gilligan, 20007a). There are 3 sources that have provided evidence of
the movement of raw material across southwest Tasmania.
1.
Darwin glass was moved inland from Darwin
Crater on the west coast of Tasmania in straight-line distances of at
least 100 km, being found only in limestone caves in southern Tasmania.
Small thumbnail scrapers have been made from this quite brittle
material.
2.
Blue-grey chert, which was made into
thumbnail scrapers, originates in the Ragged Range and is commonly
recovered from the easterly sites in the southwest Tasmanian region
(Fig. 14.1). This material has been recovered from Bone Cave, 10 km from
the site of this raw material, Nunamira Cave, 15 km, Warreen Cave 37 km,
and Pallawa Trounta Cave, 45 km from the site of origin (Sheppard,
1997).
3.
Also, brecciated chert has been recorded
from Kutikina Cave (Burch, 2007, 26). This material originates at Parwee
Quarry in northern Tasmania, which is 130 km away (Cosgrove, 2000). This
same raw material has also been found in the Parmerpar Meethaner site
which is 60 km southwest of the site of origin. According to Cosgrove et
al. the movement of these raw
materials for the manufacture of artefacts in the Late Pleistocene,
though in small amounts, suggests that movement of raw material was
relatively extensive, particularly as distances would have been much
greater when that movement would have been via river valleys and other
routes that are not direct. A degree of social connectedness between the
western regions of Tasmania during the Last Ice Age is also reflected. Subsistence
and land use Understanding of the economic behaviour of
Aboriginal People in Tasmania during the Late Pleistocene has been enhanced in
recent years by investigations into the use of caves on a seasonal basis
and studies of the economic utility of prey species (Pike-Tay et
al., 2008; Garvey, 2010). Cosgrove et
al. say a convincing picture has emerged concerning the seasonal
exploitation and butchery patterns of these prey animals. It has been
shown clearly that caves at elevations greater than 400 m above sea
level were used in summer, whereas caves at lower elevations, such as
Warreen and Kutikina caves, were occupied at least during the winter. At
these locations records show that most wallabies were killed between
autumn and spring, though at Nunamira and Bone Caves, which are located
in the upper mountains, hunting was practised in summer. It is believed
this scheduled hunting was driven by the need to secure higher quality
fat and marrow, as well as thick fur pelts, in the cooler times of the
year (Cosgrove & Allen, 2001). It has been shown by seasonal and spatial
studies of the distribution of the wallabies via marrow, muscle and
brain quality that irrespective of season they supplied a reliable,
stable protein and fat supply (Garvey, 2011). There didn’t appear to be
great difference between male or female wallabies, or between different
altitudes or seasons. These results differ greatly from Northern
Hemisphere animals, such as caribou herds, in which fat is depleted over
winter and into early spring resulting in the quality of the meat and
marrow is highly variable (Cosgrove, 2011). It has also been shown
clearly that in spite of the small size of the wallabies selective
butchery was carried out. Caribou studies in the Northern Hemisphere
have shown that these large animals were butchered selectively, with
some elements being carried back to rock shelters and caves (Castel et
al., 2002). The same pattern
is found in Tasmania where the focus was on the lower limb bones
contained the highest amount of meat as well as bones with the highest
content of marrow (Cosgrove & Allen, 2001; Garvey 2006). The eating of
marrow provided a substitute for carbohydrate that played an important
role in the metabolism of the protein of meat (Cosgrove et
al., 1990; Cosgrove, 1995a).
The large number so of wallaby leg bones that had been smashed
systematically that have been found in archaeological deposits is
evidence of how crucial it was to access marrow, for both
thermoregulation and digestion of lean meat. The commonest animal
remains found in all the caves were the wallaby and the wombat, their
bones comprising 75%-90% of all faunal remains at densities of more than
250,000 in less than 1 m3 of deposit. Though it is assumed
plant material formed part of their diet, in spite of the cooler growing
seasons and the lack of suitable geophytes, no evidence has survived of
the exploitation of plant food. Among bird bones that have been found in the
archaeological deposits at Kutikina and Nunamira Caves in Tasmania are
the native hen (Gallinula
mortierii) of medium size, and the large Tasmanian emu (Dromaius
diemenensis). Emu eggshell was recovered from Nunamira Cave and
at Mannalargenna Cave eggshell of the Cape Barren goose (Cereopsis novaehollandiae)
was found (Brown, 1993; Cosgrove, 1995b; Garvey, 2006). The remains of
the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) have been found at OSR 7 Cave, Warreen
Cave, Bone Cave and Nunamira Cave, which indicates that the people
occupying these cave had a detailed knowledge of the behavioural ecology
of this animal. The platypus live in burrows, they reproduce by laying
eggs, and are mainly nocturnal, though are known to be diurnal, and feed
by foraging for food on the beds of rivers coming to the surface to
breaths (Bethge et al., 2009).
Cosgrove et al. suggest the
hunters of these animals would need to largely plan their hunting rather
than hunting opportunistically if they were to be successful at killing
the platypus. It has been argued that the platypus would have been an
attractive source of fat and fine pelts (Marshall, 1992). The echidna (Tachyglossus
aculeatus), the other monotreme, has been found at Warreen Cave,
where it was represented by 3 bones, though it is possible these bones
are the remains of food it seems that if it was part of their diet it
was a negligible part. The eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus
giganteus), barred bandicoot (Perameles
gunnii) and the Tasmanian bettong (Bettongia gaimardi) are either rare or not present in bone
assemblages from Tasmania. As in the case of the echidna these animals
prefer the drier, open grassy woodland habitats. It has been found
(Cosgrove et al., 2010) that
no remains of megafauna were present in the food refuse, and it is
suggested by archaeological data that medium sized, 12-25 kg, animals,
were hunted during the Late Pleistocene occupation. Stencil art In 1986 it was confirmed that rock art dated from
the Ice Age. Red ochre hand and arm stencils were found deep in the
limestone caves of southwest Tasmania (Fig. 14.3). Stencilled hands are
a motif that is commonly found in cave art from around the world dating
to prehistoric times. Examples where hand stencils found are the French
caves Peche Merle, Gargas and Cosquer (Clottes, 2007, 86-87, 92-93, 98).
At least 5 sites are known in Tasmania: Ballawinnie Cave (Harris et
al., 1998, 94-95), Judd’s
Cavern (Cosgrove & Jones, 1989), Keyhole Cavern (Allen, 1996a, 35-36),
and Mount Riveaux (unpublished). Ballawinnie Cave in a limestone doline, which was
the first to be discovered, is now deep within thick temperate forest.
The cavern, which is about 20 m underground, is reached by a narrow
tunnel which leads to a large cavern. There are about 18 human hand
stencils and splashes of red paint along the walls. As far as can be
determined all are adult hands in negative stencils, which had been
executed by ochre, adhesive and a liquid mixture being blown over a hand
to make a stencil (Cosgrove & Jones, 1989). Some of the stencils are of
only certain fingers being held against the wall to produce the various
hand stencil shapes. In Judd’s Cavern, a large stream cave about 30 m
from the entrance on the western side is an area of
level shelf about 8 m above the
water level with evidence of cave art. There is an area with 5 hand
stencils composed of 4 adult right hands and 1 left hand on the sloping
lintel about 2.4 m above the floor. It is suggested by the height above
the floor that the person making the stencil needed to raise his or her
hand up against the rock face then spray red ochre paint from the mouth
(Cosgrove & Jones, 1989). There were another 6 stencils on the south wall
that were placed within 2 concave channels that had formed by
differential erosion, separated by a raised harder formation. The
channels are about 16 cm wide and 3 red ochre hand stencils have been
placed in each of the 2 channels in a linear fashion. Right adult hands
are represented by 2 of them and 1 is a perfectly formed child’s hand
and 1 stencil consists of a single finger. An activity of a family group
is suggested by the stencil of the child’s hand. There are 7 complete
arms outlined in red ochre 1 km further into the cave but the details
are as yet unpublished (Cosgrove, 1999). Summary There are many of the qualities of the Middle
Palaeolithic in the archaeology of Late Pleistocene Tasmania,
particularly in the stone technology, though with a degree of
variability that simultaneously challenges the meaning of ‘archaic’ and
‘modern’ human behaviour as it is usually defined by European
archaeologists. A remarkable variety of the cultural repertoire of the
Aboriginals people of Tasmania is shown that allowed them to prosper
during the glacial period on the southern peninsula of Sahul. According
to Cosgrove et al. many of the
attributes that are common to the Tasmanian inhabitants of the Ice Age
can also be found among the behavioural attributes of the Neanderthals
(Table 14.1). The question of using simple 1-to-1 correlations between
technology and biology to define evolutionary developments between
groups of humans is raised by the Tasmanian people clearly being
anatomically and behaviourally ‘modern’. The clear differences in
environmental structures and about 500,000 years of evolutionary
divergence are what separates Neanderthals from the Aboriginal people of
Tasmania. The similarities in their technology, hunting behaviour,
butchery and selection of prey are suggested by Cosgrove et
al. to give cause to
re-evaluate the perceptions of what it means to be part of the human
lineage. Cosgrove et al. asks
the question if the Aboriginal people of Tasmania are modern humans who
behave technologically like the people from the Middle Palaeolithic, as
seems to be the case, what does it say about the classification of the
Neanderthals and what are the wider implications for understanding the
archaeological attributes of modern human behaviour? The
Neanderthal case Knowledge of
Homo neanderthalensis, the
closest known fossil relative of modern humans has increased greatly
over the past decade. Various aspects of the skeletal material of
Neanderthals have been the subject of study (reviewed in Hublin, 2009;
Weaver, 2009), chemical studies of the bones have produced information
on the dietary signal (e.g. Richards & Trinkhaus, 2009), on their
archaeological record and distribution (Roebroeks, 2008) and important
studies of their genetic characteristics. Understanding of the evolution
of Neanderthals and their relationship with humans has increased as a
result of genetic studies. It is indicated by these genetic studies that
Neanderthals and modern humans have a common ancestor that lived about
400,000-700,000 years ago, and according to Cosgrove et
al. the picture that is emerging from their skeletal remains is
somewhat comparable (Hublin, 2009). According to Cosgrove et
al. 2 different lineages of
hominin emerged, building on the same
bauplan: in Africa, modern
humans, and in western Eurasia, Neanderthals, which culminated in
Neanderthals in the last glacial. These were thought until very recently
to have been extinct by about 35,000 years ago. When the draft
Neanderthal genome was compared with the genomes of living humans it was
discovered that humans of the present outside Africa have genomes that
contain between 1 % and 4 % of Neanderthal ancestry. Importantly, the
results of these studies indicate that Neanderthals were among the
ancestors of some modern humans. Also, some living humans outside Africa
can trace part of their ancestry to an Asian hominin group that is as
yet not known, the Denisovans, who have a genome that differs as much
from the Neanderthal draft genome as the Neanderthal draft genome
differs from that of living humans (Reich et
al., 2010). A very schematic overview of the biological,
behavioural and cultural differences between Neanderthals and modern
humans from the Upper Palaeolithic of Europe is given in Table 14.2.
Such an overview needs to be too short in the context of this volume to
do justice to the complexity of the record, though it is also necessary
to acknowledge that Neanderthals and modern humans had aspects of their
biology and behaviour that were very similar. Nevertheless there are
very striking differences (see Table 14.2). They are usually interpreted
in terms of, and they often result from, the lack of fully modern
language in Neanderthals (see Roebroeks & Verpoorte, 2009 for
discussion). The presence of language patterns that are more complex and
sophisticated cognitive abilities are thought to be shown by the
archaeological record in such interpretations by the time of the Upper
Palaeolithic in Europe, and even 10s of thousands of years earlier in
the Middle Stone Age of southern Africa. Cosgrove et
al. say there is a problem
with these explanations that are cognitive and language based in that
they can lead to tunnel vision in which the accomplishments of “modern
humans” are treated as more complex in any domain and superior to
anything the ‘archaics’ ever accomplished (Corbey & Roebroeks, 1999). An
example is evidence that is presented (Brown et
al., 2009) from Pinnacle Point
is Southern Africa where heat treatment was regularly employed by humans
to increase the quality and efficiency of the manufacturing process of
stone tools 164,000 years ago. Their inference is that a novel
association between fire, its heat, and a structural change in the stone
is required in this technology that consequently resulted in flaking
benefits that demanded “an elevated cognitive ability”. They also
suggest that their ability to alter and improve available raw material
and increase the quality and efficiency of stone tool manufacture could
have provided a behavioural advantage when they encountered Neanderthals
as early modern humans moved into Eurasia. It is pointed out by Cosgrove
et al. that there is solid and
well-published data that by at least 200,000 years ago onwards European
Neanderthals used fire to synthesise glue from birch bark for the
hafting of stone tools (Mazza et
al., 2006). Therefore the hypothesis of Brown et
al. is not tenable, on the
basis of the current understanding of the archaeological record of the
use of fire, and this evidence for the processing of pitch in particular
(Roebroeks & Villa, 2011). The failure to address the fact that “fully
modern” humans had left very diverse archaeological signatures, in some
cases showing a strong resemblance to what Neanderthals had left in the
landscape of Western Europe, (Roebroeks & Verpoorte, 2009), is another
problem with these cognitive explanations. As discussed here the
Pleistocene record of Aboriginal People in Tasmania shows many of the hallmarks
of the record of Neanderthals (Holdaway & Cosgrove, 1997). It is noted
by Cosgrove et al. that the
colonisation of wider Australia has been interpreted as the ”earliest
evidence of modern human behaviour” (Noble & Davidson, 1996, 217).
Cosgrove et al. suggest that in the view of Noble & Davidson, that humans were
probably responsible for behaviour that can be identified as
‘linguistic’, when “the archaeological record shows that actions were
taken upon materials that show evidence of forward planning to achieve a
goal” (1996, 217). The arrival of humans in the Australian region,
according to this view, is based on such behaviour, as this could only
have taken place if seagoing vessels were constructed to a plan.
Thousands of years later and a few thousand kilometres to the south, the
planners of the seagoing vessels descendants created the archaeological
record that that has been discussed earlier, that shows strong
resemblance to the Middle Palaeolithic record in Europe (cf Holdaway &
Cosgrove, 1997). Table 14.2 Biological behaviour and cultural
comparisons between the Late Middle Palaeolithic and the Upper
Palaeolithic in Europe
Modified after Cosgrove et
al., in Dennell & Porr, 2014 An alternative to the cognitive explanations of
difference in the previously mentioned record has resulted from a focus
on the ecology of hunter-gatherers, Neanderthal and modern human. In
contrast to the cognition-based explanations, these explanations focus
on the costs and benefits of various behavioural strategies, and they
account for the diversity that is observed within the record of modern
human hunter-gatherers (e.g., Verpoorte, 2006). Such explanations reduce
the “proxies” for language to the outcome of cost-benefit analyses, by
placing the focus on the different trade-offs the hunter-gatherers
needed to deal with. Cosgrove et
al. say there is now a rich picture of other aspects of the life of
Neanderthals. This has resulted from the new genetic studies, the use of
other cutting-edge methods such as isotope studies and detailed
archaeological research, which is often stimulated by dichotomous views.
Populations of Neanderthals were rather low and subject to local
extinction (Hublin & Roebroeks, 2009; Roebroeks et
al., 2011). They occupied a
wide range of environments covering a range from full interglacial to
cold steppe environments. They differed from the early humans in that
they are indicated by the faunal evidence to have hunted and butchered
large mammals in a manner that can compare to that of humans from the
Upper Palaeolithic (Burke, 2004; Voormolen, 2008). The dominant species
among the large mammals they hunted included large herbivores living in
herds such as bovids, equids and cervids, as well as solitary animals
such as rhinoceros (reviewed in Gaudzinski-Windheuser & Niven, 2009).
Beginning with their earliest lineage they hunted with weapons including
simple spears (Thieme, 1997), though not investing much effort in the
production of projectiles. A large proportion of their dietary protein
is suggested by the isotopic signal to have come from meat, which
reflected a diet that was relatively narrow (Richards et
al., 2000a). The scarcity of
game that was relatively fast moving in sites from the Middle
Palaeolithic in the Mediterranean region also infers a narrow diet
(Stiner et al., 2000). There were also smaller game in their diet, such as
tortoises, rabbits and birds, which has been documented from some sites
on the southern edge of their range in detail, at for instance Bolomor
Cave in Spain (Blasco, 2008; Blasco & Fernández Peris, 2009). Cosgrove
et al. suggest that it appears
that in the Middle Palaeolithic some Neanderthals targeted birds for
their feathers (Peresani, et al.,
2011). Evidence has also been found in northern sites of the
exploitation of birds, e.g., from Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, Germany
(Gaudzinski-Windheuser & Niven, 2009). Neanderthals also ate plant food,
some of which was cooked, and their use of fire was not much different
the from manner in which it was used by hunter-gatherers in the Upper
Palaeolithic (cf. Henry et al.,
2011). Conclusion Cosgrove et
al., suggest there appears to be enough variability in the
archaeological records of Neanderthals and Tasmanian Aboriginals from
the Pleistocene to require the labels of ‘archaic’ and ‘modern’ to be
reconsidered for the archaeological record. In the data from Israel and
northern populations across the very large time and space evidenced in
skeletal form and diet, there is clear variability in the behaviour of
Neanderthals that possibly reflects different environmental adaptations
(Conrad & Richter, 2011). There are also differences in the
distributions of Neanderthal populations across their range. In the
archaeological records from the Late Pleistocene of Tasmania and
mainland Australia are also clearly detectable. These allowed a vast
continent to be colonised while using a straightforward flaked stone
technology with a component of ground-edge technology that is considered
to be the oldest in the world (Geneste et
al., 2010). The development of
symbolism and language is further confirmed by other material items and
cultural adaptions and developments, such as the appearance of rock art
in the Late Pleistocene. Planning depth and specific land-use focus is
suggested by the evidence of prey selection in Europe in the Middle
Palaeolithic and in Tasmania in the Late Pleistocene. Also, there is a
degree of similarity in the lithic distribution, movement and technology
of Neanderthals and Tasmanian Aboriginal populations in the Late
Pleistocene that cannot simply be explained away as was attempted in
claiming that “so far as stone implement-making furnishes a test of
culture, the Tasmanians are undoubtedly at a low palaeolithic stage,
inferior to the Drift and Cave men of Europe” (Taylor et
al., 1895, 336, 340). The
Tasmanian Aboriginal People were also characterised as living relics of
Palaeolithic peoples, at the turn of the last century, writing of “this
isolated people, the most unprogressive in the world, which in the
middle of the nineteenth century were still living in the dawn of the
Palaeolithic epoch” (Sollas, 1911, 70). It has been noted repeatedly
that the archaeological record of the Tasmanian Aboriginals, which at
that time in the Late Pleistocene were the most southerly living people,
resonated with the Mousterian of Europe (Jones et
al., 1977, 191), that included
its prevalence of scrapers and no known blades, microliths, hafted bone
tools and carved bone ornaments. Nonetheless, the first occupants of
Tasmania were anatomically modern people, as were all the first
colonists of Sahul. The models that have been used to describe human
groups as either ‘archaic’ or ‘modern’ have been shown by this to be
faulty and are clearly unhelpful in explaining issues such as the
transition in Europe from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. Cosgrove et
al. suggest the uncoupling of
‘simple’ to ‘complex’ social evolutionists’ paradigm is necessary to
really comprehend the process of changing humanity, and understand the
archaeological record in terms of its cultural variability reflecting
the wide range of responses to solving social and environmental problems
that are similar that humans are capable of.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Author: M.H.Monroe Email: admin@austhrutime.com Sources & Further reading |