tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post6832384329012960398..comments2023-11-02T08:42:23.947+00:00Comments on The Subversive Archaeologist: Oldowan [from Melka] Kunture is Not a Star Wars Characterthesubversivearchaeologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-79916329037335859982012-10-18T04:27:56.558+01:002012-10-18T04:27:56.558+01:00@Marco
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed ...@Marco<br />Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comment. Of course I am familiar with these arguments. I have never seen a map which shows exactly where the Neandertal fossils have been found at different dates, and where the Mousterian industries are at those same time ranges. I could probably do it myself, but I would lack some of the literature (and quite a lot of the inclination). It is still the case, though, that even the presence of Neandertal skeletal material does not prove the point. Maybe neandertals consistently died in caves and moderns did not. But even if that were not the case, the fact that M=N does not work somewhere means that we should be suspicious that it does not work anywhere. <br />What proportion of Mousterian sites have skeletal remains? What proportion of non-Mousterian sites do not have skeletal remains? these are empirical questions that I would like to see (someone else produce) the answers to.<br />I am also not a believer in the spiritual significance of blades. Let us not get into that.<br />Glad we agree on Denisovans.<br />I am very much enjoying your QI paper. The first part needed to be said and needs more publicity.<br />IainDIain Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14097687576640352857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-88256037598293578342012-10-18T04:11:14.936+01:002012-10-18T04:11:14.936+01:00I have the working hypothesis that when it comes t...I have the working hypothesis that when it comes to fossils the archaeological trained are splitters cause every variation has meaning and the biologically trained tend to be lumpers because they are used to variation in species like dogs or gum trees.<br /><br />As for traditional tool classification schemes didnt Brian Hayden have some sort of traumatic experience when a Western Desert traditional Aborigine used a scrapper to chop! IainShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325890799477789627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-85426922456766546682012-10-17T10:20:11.976+01:002012-10-17T10:20:11.976+01:00@Iain D.: I think that *in Europe* when predating ...@Iain D.: I think that *in Europe* when predating 45 Ka, Mousterian IS Neandertals. For the simple reason that we have no convincing fossils of H. sapiens there before 41 ka while we have sh*tloads of Neandertal fossils from that period (mind you, in my opinion the 44 ka date for Kent's Cavern KC4 "modern" maxilla is an overinterpretation not properly taking into account taphonomy and stratigraphic vagaries at the site. I think it is likely =<41 Ka).<br /><br />Post 41 ka, in Europe too "Mousterian" indeed need not equal "Neandertals" and that is the main point of contention for example regarding Slimak et al's "Arctic Neandertals" (Slimak et al, Science 332, p. 841 (2011). See for example the critique by Zwyns et al (Science 335, p.167 (2012)).<br /><br />Outside Europe it is a whole different matter.<br /><br />But it also works the other way around. There is still a tendency to regard Eurasian laminar technologies as "entering H. sapiens", even though we now know that Neandertals produced laminar assemblages from at least OIS 7 onwards. There currently is a tendency for example to see the Bohunician at ~47-40 ka as "the first H. sapiens entering Europe" although there is not a single sapiens fossil dating to this period (but several Neandertal fossils that do). I am convinced it are actually Neandertals re-colonizing previously abandoned territories in west Europe at ~50 ka from refugia elsewhere (= central Asia).<br /><br />@Iain D.: indeed many (including me) have harbored the suspicion that "Denisovans" equal the so-called "archaic Homo sapiens" of East Asia (i.e. the East Asian "Homo heidelbergensis" variant) right from the beginning. I know that Stringer for example is certainly positive towards that idea.Marco Langbroekhttp://www.palaeolithic.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-61212523950009410982012-10-16T07:10:38.494+01:002012-10-16T07:10:38.494+01:00I agree that the current interpretations should fo...I agree that the current interpretations should force us to postulate an interbreeding between 100 000 and 65 000. Positively Tantric.<br />But if S/Q is moderns then Mousterian can be moderns earlier, later, there, elsewhere. And the whole game changes in ways I have only just begun to write about.Iain Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14097687576640352857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-21089107309635643902012-10-16T07:05:55.917+01:002012-10-16T07:05:55.917+01:00Iain. Mousterian equals Qafzeh at 100 Ka and Kebar... Iain. Mousterian equals Qafzeh at 100 Ka and Kebara at 60 Ka. That's when the suppose interbreeding took place, not at 40 or 35 in Europe when there were Mousterians and Us.<br /> Just sayin' ;-)<br />thesubversivearchaeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-23085991496336501782012-10-16T06:47:04.678+01:002012-10-16T06:47:04.678+01:00Marco was/is right (again) (and so is Iain). But ...Marco was/is right (again) (and so is Iain). But 1) typological is much more pervasive than just in the stone tools. The splitting of the hominin fossil record into named species is another example. With the definition of a new species known only from a tooth, a bone and its DNA,a whole new option has opened up. Maybe all (or some of) those Chinese hominins that did not fit neatly into the Eurocentric classification (typology) of fossils were actually Denisovans. We will not know until a skeleton is found with enough Denisovan aDNA. Of course it is also true that the Skhul and Qafzeh skellies are only modern human through such a process and I might be quite wrong about the destruction of the equation M=N (Mousterian equals Neandertal).<br />2) Iain is so right, but it is not just stone tools but the assemblages of them. Try to unpick the complexities of the Aurignacian or the Magdalenian in Europe and then persuade any European gatekeepers that the concepts should be abandoned. <br />Just sayin'<br />Iain Davidson Iain Davidsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14097687576640352857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-27909399377047085232012-10-15T14:46:56.812+01:002012-10-15T14:46:56.812+01:00@Marco: I'm. Such. An. Idiot. I've ... er ...@Marco: I'm. Such. An. Idiot. I've ... er ... adjusted the text accordingly and acknowledged your timely and helpful [and gentle] observation. A bit reckless of me. Thank you very much.thesubversivearchaeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-54307731928895852482012-10-15T10:10:21.427+01:002012-10-15T10:10:21.427+01:00What I see as the biggest drawback of typologies, ...What I see as the biggest drawback of typologies, is the distinction between formal "tools", and "waste" (unmodified flakes).<br /><br />Modified artifacts falling into a formal "tool" category get all the attention (e.g. in spatial analysis) while unmodified flakes are treated as "waste", as by-product, as a somewhat uninteresting leftover category.<br /><br />In reality, it are these un-modified flakes which are in many cases the desired "tools" and should be the focus of attention.Marco Langbroekhttp://www.palaeolithic.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-26861304828367676222012-10-15T09:55:56.482+01:002012-10-15T09:55:56.482+01:00I agree, by the way, that names like "chopper...I agree, by the way, that names like "chopper" etcetera are meaningless in a functional sense. I alos agree, and I think many palaeolithic archaeologists would agree, that the class called "choppers" in most cases are cores.<br /><br />I hate typology, for the reasons you write: people take it too literally. It also "hides" the variation present within one typological class, but can also put superficial boundaries in what in some cases is a continuum.<br /><br />At the same time, I do think iyt serves a function: when you say "chopper" all archaeologist will know what you are talking about.<br /><br />You do it yourself too. You use the class name "core", which is a typological unit with a functional implication itself and your use of the word hence is not much different from the use of the word "chopper"Marco Langbroekhttp://www.palaeolithic.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-9772104445142027482012-10-15T09:44:53.718+01:002012-10-15T09:44:53.718+01:00I actually think the photograph depicts *only one ...I actually think the photograph depicts *only one tool* seen from different sides. I.e. the two top images are two side views and the third is the top view. Of one and the same artifact.Marco Langbroekhttp://www.palaeolithic.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-50827419089307937182012-10-15T03:45:25.262+01:002012-10-15T03:45:25.262+01:00Hear, hear!Hear, hear!thesubversivearchaeologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730417511321512990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3040099150725637733.post-66323605628634369602012-10-15T03:41:45.250+01:002012-10-15T03:41:45.250+01:00Given that Leaky was educated in the mid 1920'...Given that Leaky was educated in the mid 1920's his categorisation of stone tools is not surprising and on par which what was going at the time. The real issue is the failure to update or modify the classification to reflect modern understandings. IainShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325890799477789627noreply@blogger.com