Early "moderns" and their teeth

PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, has published a paper concerning the teeth of a fossil known as Lagar Velho I or the LV 1 in scientific parlance.  It seems, from a superficial glance at the paper, which was written by several experts who did the study, and who have long had ties with the ongoing research on the Lagar Velho fossil, that there were things about the child's teeth that seem more like that of some Neandertals, than of "modern" humans. 

 

To give anyone reading this a background, the Lagar Vellho fossil was discovered in, IIRC, 1995. It was thought at first that the child, who was apparently about four or five years old when it died, was an example of early "modern" burial culture, and that was about it.  Then Erik Trinkaus, a Neandertal expert and one of the authors of the present paper, took a closer look.  He said he found that the child's skeletal proportions suggested a mixture of early "modern" and Neandertal traits.  João Zilhão, one of the original discoverers, and also an author of the paper, declared at the time, and has been declaring ever since, that Neandertals "took their last stand" so to speak, on the Iberian Peninsula, and the early "modern" population was a "mixed" one.  Needless to say, these assertions have been disputed, just as almost everything concerning Neandertals has been. 

 

Whether or not one believes these claims, it is certainly true that early "modern" humans, e.g. Homo(sapiens)sapiens were more "robust", and in some ways, more like Neandertals, than later ones.  This, as Razib of Gene Expression points out, is probably due in part, at least, to the introduction of agriculture in the so-called Neolithic period.  You just don't need as much muscle and bone bulk to grow crops, as you do to go out and hunt or gather your own meals, so it's no wonder people switched to agriculture!  By that time, of course, there weren't any Neandertals, and, when people started switching to agriculture, there probably weren't that many "modern" foragers(e.g., what have previously been called "hunter-gatherers").  Agriculturalist populations were larger, and probably "swamped" the hunter-gatherers. 

 

Which is food for thought.  At the time they existed, Neandertal populations were even smaller than later "forager" populations, and little groups of them apparently hung on is relative semi-isolation on the Iberian Peninsula rather late.  "Modern" populations eventually filtered their way into the peninsula, but there may not have been very many of them, either, at the time.  Which may account for the "mixed" population, if there was a "mixed" population(people have disagreed about this, too).  In any case, assuming "moderns" and Neandertals "mixed" in the Iberian Peninsula or anywhere else(and they might have, in some places, at various times), there weren't very many of the "mixed" populations, either.  Which would make them easy to "swamp" genetically, even if more "gracile" people didn't originally have some genetic advantage.  In any case, as the PNAS article seems to be suggesting, the "modern European origins" story is rather more complex than some people like to believe.

Anne G

Oh, them Neandertal fish fries(or clambakes, or whatever)!

A lot of very interesting stuff has been emanating from Paleoanthropologyland  in recent weeks.  In the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of  Science, there is a whole series of "origins" articles, relating both to "modern" humans and Neandertals.  The nice part about this is, for those interested, the papers therein are free(they end up free, but on most of them, you have to wait a while), and you can download any pdf you like.  But the most interesting(at least to me) news, comes from anthropology.net, and deals with the kind of things Neandertals were apparently dining on -- 70,000 years ago!  And, -- gasp!  the Neandertals living in a cave in a place called El Salt, apparently ate fish, along with other things more commonly associated with them.  El Salt, as you might guess from what I've just revealed, is on or near the Spanish coast. 

 

It's true that, some 25,000 years ago, the very last Neandertals at Gibraltar, also dined on seafood, but at least up till now, it was thought they did this because they were "desperate", or something of the sort.  However, this find, and the fact that, apparently at a place in France called Grotte XVI, they also  ate fish from time to time, and not only that, but they appear to have smoked it, suggests that they made use of whatever resources they had at hand, as any good "generalized" forager/hunter/gatherer society would do.  True, the Neandertals at Grotte XVI lived later than the ones at El Salt, and somewhat inland, so they probably dined on trout or some other freshwater fish.  Still, the point is, none of them turned up their large pointy noses at such fare. Unfortunately, as usual, a lot of people have trouble believing these things, so there appears, even now, to be a certain amount of resistance and skepticism about this matter.  It also doesn't help that the original paper is in Spanish, unless you read Spanish well.  Equally unfortunately, I don't.  But it's quite possible that once more is published regarding this find, it will generate a fair amount of controversy.  Everything about Neandertals seems to do this, despite the fact, which should be more and more apparent to more and more people if they don't resist it, that Neandertals had basically the same kind of brains and the same range of responses to their surroundings, as "modern" humans do.  As I said, a lot of people still have trouble accepting this.  But Yours Truly will keep every interested party informed about any developments here.  It's going to get very, very interesting, I think.

Anne G

Neandertals, Neandertals, Neandertals!

There has been so much news about Neandertals lately, I really don't know where to begin.  Most of it has been about the draft of a publication of the genome of Neandertals from Vindija, Croatia.  This particular piece is one of the more sensible assessments, and there is also a related piece by the same author that suggests the possibility Neandertals had an artistic bent.  As the author points out , there isn't any evidence that they painted on cave walls, like "modern" humans did at Chauvet Cave or later, at Lascaux or Altamira.  On the other hand, some workers have suggested that Neandertals did, in fact, paint Chauvet Cave.  Few people agree with this, but there's always the possibility. 

 

And oh, the discussions that have been going on!  Over at Anna's Bones, there's been an ongoing "did they or didn't they" discussion, generated in part by this latest announcement about Neandertal DNA.  The claims about "interbreeding or not" rely very heavily on the apparent lack of identifiable "Neandertal genes" in some "modern" human populations.  On the other hand, one has to bear in mind that human populations anywhere, 30,000 years ago, were probably relatively small and scattered.  This applies to "us" as well as Neandertals.  But one also has to bear in mind that Neandertal populations were even smaller and perhaps more scattered, than "modern" ones.  Therefore, there wasn't a whole lot of opportunity, most of the time, for them to meet and mix it up.  There is some evidence, however, that some populations, notably in the Iberian Peninsula, did, in fact, exchange genes from time to time, if the Lagar Velho child is any indication. The Lagar Velho fossil is dated to a period after Neandertals had apparently ceased to exist, but also apparently, the child seems to have some physical characteristics associated with that population, though it is considered to be a "modern" human.  This suggests that, in the Iberian Peninsula, the people there were pretty "mixed".  Finally, you have to bear in mind that even after there were no more Neandertals, Paleolithic populations were still pretty small, as "forager" societies often tend to be.  Once farming began to spread, populations that farmed had some leeway to get larger, and it's possible that the remaining "forager" humans were simply swamped or absorbed into the larger farming populations, just as Neandertals in certain areas, may have been similarly "swamped" genetically speaking, thousands of years earlier.  This, the possibility of finding genuine "Neandertal genes is probably vanishingly small. 

 

Finally, I give. for your consideration this Ode to Neanderthal 1, courtesy of the very interesting blog Caveman's Corner.  I think it is a fitting tribute to these fascinating prehistoric people, about whom we still know very little, and who, I think are often still essentially misunderstood.

Anne G

An addition to the “anthropological” side of my novelistic research

I’ve just gotten through adding Hominin.net to my list of “anthropology and prehistory” links.  For those interested in that side of my ongoing researches, it’s quite comprehensive.  If you’re really interested, you can even download some pdfs – for free!  That doesn’t happen every day with these kinds of research papers.  I should know.  I have a lot of them, but no direct access.  Anyway, it’s there for anyone to enjoy, or use.

Anne G

Human nature/bonobo nature

The John Hawks blog has an interesting piece here regarding a recent piece in the New Yorker concerning bonobos. It seems that Frans de Waal, who has studied bonobos for years, objected to certain aspects of the article claiming that bonobos are not the peaceable creatures they have been made out to be. He sort of seemed to imply that the New Yorker was promoting some political agenda by publishing this. Now it so happens, I tend to agree with Hawks; he does not seem to think that the New Yorker is promoting some political agenda, whatever that may be. In fact, the New Yorker Magazine generally promotes "agendas"(when it does at all), that are the opposite of what de Waal appears to be implying. OTOH, I have come across people who sort of "valorize" a popular view of bonobos, that they are peaceable and "female dominated", which is partly based on some of de Waal's writings. Whether he's right or wrong, I don't know. I'm hardly a primatologist. But it's also true that for a long time, primatology was dominated by men who were "into" strong "dominance hierarchies" and exaggerated their importance among our closest relatives. This is hardly anything new; well before I got into anything relating to human evolution, I learned(and am still learning, everything I could about wolves. Supposedly, wolves have a "strong" dominance hierarchy in their packs, and, until very recently, most canid researchers were men. And most of these men made much of the "dominance hierarchy" of wolves. Interestingly, more women are getting involved in canid studies, which may, in the future, lead to some interesting results.

In fact, this lupine "dominance hierarchy" is mostly for reproductive purposes(a pack would get awfully large, awfully fast, and run out of territory rather quickly, if all 7-10 wolves in an average pack could be breeding adults). In other words, there's an "alpha pair" that (usually) does all the breeding, but the other wolves in the pack are (usually) all related to the "alpha pair". And eventually, one of the pair may get killed or die of old age or the pack just gets too large, and it splits up, possibly making room for another alpha pair. And even if the pack is "stable", the "alpha-ness" of the pair may be more fluid than meets the eye. I've actually read accounts of some alpha female sneaking off with some wolf other than the alpha male, and breeding.

Which leads me back to Hawks's comment, the New Yorker article, and Frans de Waal. Bonobo behavior is just as variable in its way, as wolf behavior. Which apparently means, as the New Yorker article, and Dr. Hawks, correctly pointed out, that bonobos are sometimes "peaceable hippies" and sometimes something else. Just like humans.

And this, in turn, leads me to the subject of human nature. A lot of people(and this, I think, is where "political" agendas may come in), seem to have the idea that "human nature" is somehow mean and violent. These people like to point to recent wars and conflicts and "ethnic cleansings" as "proof" that humans are "naturally" nasty and violent. This is why some other people with other agendas, sometimes wish "we" were more like those "peaceful" bonobos. Except that human nature --- which, in my opinion has never really been defined --- is a lot of things. Yes, sometimes "we" are nasty and violent. But think of all the saints, prophets, founders of world religions, humanitarians, heroes, who try to do good, and are not violent. Think of those selfess people who try to help poor people out of poverty or care for the very sick, or take in orphaned children or. . . . I think the Gentle Reader will get the idea here. Humans are as variable in their way as wolves, or bonobos. People act nasty or selfless, start wars or bring peace and happiness, often depending on their environments and circumstances.

But some people have a view of humanity that is basically dark and pessimistic. If they are attracted to "agendas", they will be attracted to those agendas that promote such dark and pessimistic views. And they may even work to make these agendas a reality. But in a sense, they are working against, and do not understand, the variability of what is called "human nature" All they are really doing is projecting their own dark views. And this holds true, whether they are projecting onto wolves, bonobos, or humans.

So, if anybody tells you that "human nature is__________(fill in the blank here), you, Gentle Reader, should view such statements with a good deal of skepticism. Because at this moment, we know that there is a "human nature". But at this moment, we don't know what it really is.