Current Anthropology doi: 10.1086/588540
A New Cultural Frontier for the Last Neanderthals: The Uluzzian in Northern Italy
Marco Peresani
Abstract
The Middle–Upper Paleolithic shift was a crucial event intimately involved in Neanderthal biogeography and the patchy scenario that emerges from the last marked cultural and behavioral evolution our extinct relatives underwent during the interval 50-30 k.yr. BP. In Mediterranean Europe, this behavior, considered modern, gave rise to the Uluzzian, a cultural complex confined to central-southern Italy and Greece as a consequence of the supposed retreat of archaic humans in the face of the rapid diffusion of Homo sapiens. The recent discovery of dwelling structures and lithic implements at Fumane Cave in northeastern Italy redraws this scenario and depicts at 33.4 k.yr. BP the northernmost frontier to which the Uluzzian spread around the Great Adriatic Plain, a pivotal region near the western edge of the Middle Danube basin, where the last Neanderthals were using very different cultural items.
Link
7 comments:
As usual it's hard to understand without the article, and this abstract is not clear at all.
So the Uluzzian were neanderthal who retreated to southern Italy and Greece? And how about Fiumane? My understanding of the Fiumane cave near Verona was that it was modern humans, not neanderthals.
cacio
In brief, the paper describes 11 layers in reverse chronological order. A11 through A5 are old/Mousterian, A2 and A1 are Aurignacian in overwhelming detail. The Uluzzian is represented in levels A4 and A3, and, as in many excavations form this transition period throughout Europe, appears to show some, modest modernization of the Mousterian (slightly enlarged tool set, pierced shells). Many Archeologist argue that this modernization resulted from the prolonged (close to 10,000 years) contact with modern humans in Europe. This area has a long history of Neanderthal occupation; that and the dates (~33ky) make it hard to call it an area of "retreat".
One thing that always bothers me is the mention of a river as a boundary. I think that is an extremely modern development associated with standing armies; in ancient times, river valleys were common areas of occupation on both sides, with the defensible mountain passes marking the borders. Of course, the cave in case, being located north of the river Po, also directly contradicts the authors' river border statement...
One thing that always bothers me is the mention of a river as a boundary. I think that is an extremely modern development associated with standing armies; in ancient times, river valleys were common areas of occupation on both sides, with the defensible mountain passes marking the borders.
It may very much depend on the type of river: wide rivers like the Volga may have been major barriers in the past too; the advance of H. sapiens in Europe appears to have temporarily stopped not at the Pyrenees but at the Ebro river. Also consider that mountains have typically been refuge areas for all kind of retreating peoples and that they allow control of both sides of the mountain range from a privileged position. Sure that this again may depend on the type of mountains: their heigth and wether they harbor permanent ice (Ice Age Alps were certainly a major barrier).
My point is anyhow that defending peoples may find mountains, specially if not too high, as a nice defensive position rather than a barrier and control all what is around from them. Placing a line on them is also a modern military concept. Huntergatherers did not build frotificatons nor fought in formation... they mastered guerrilla tactics instead. Broad rivers dont help with these, mountains and forests do instead.
Eurologist:
thanks for the explanation. Now it makes more sense, Fiumane was inhabited first by neanderthals, then by humans. Though from your description the paper seems to argue that it was inhabited by both at the same time (I seem to recall that the frescoes are dated by around 33K yrs ago as well). Contemporaneous cohabitation is of course hard to consider, but these were periods of thousands of years, so it is not hard to imagine some type of successive episodes, where the cave was inhabited by humans at some point, left, etc.
Perhaps it could have been seasonal occupation - the plains must have been warmer and richer in animals than the mountains.
cacio
Though from your description the paper seems to argue that it was inhabited by both at the same time
No, the Uluzzian levels A4 and A3 are cleanly bounded towards the other two occupations, and if I remember correctly from quickly reading through the paper, the authors explicitly state that there is no such indication of alternating habitation.
The paper does state though that the Uluzzian phase is more sparse, and was perhaps more mobile and temporary. Perhaps Neanderthals got uneasy if the proximity to modern humans was too close, with only specialized, mobile bands daring to live there.
maju,
I agree that the above strongly depends on the size of the mountains and rivers. Clearly, the top of hills have always been strategic positions, and there is a lot of evidence for prehistoric use of hilltops by AMHs in Europe (but not so of Neanderthals, apparently).
Funny enough, when I was in Germany this summer and stood at the Rhine river, for some reason I imagined what it must have been like for migrating modern humans to walk hundreds of miles through small valleys and plains with quite small rivers, and then to come upon a new, unknown, relatively broad river. Immediately I thought, if I were to see a herd of animals on the other side, nothing would stop me (and my band) from swimming across for a hunt...
You are right that some large rivers like the Danub do not seem to have been a barrier. Nevertheless it's not the same the Danub at Bavaria than at Rumania, where it is a lot broader.
Anyhow, I don't think that rivers alone would be in most cases an impassable barrier but if all you want is this side of the river and to the other side there are those fierce strong Neanders hidden somewhere in the wooded hills, then you may contain yourself for a number of generations.
None of these borders were anyhow an absolute barrier and all were breached within the Aurignacian period, early Gravettian at most. But anyhow the Mediterranean area may not have been that of greatest interest, maybe because the lack of large mammals or whatever. It is rather clear that neither of the typically Mediterranean provinces of Europe (most of Iberia, Italy, most of the Balcans) was most important in the Paleolithic: early Europeans apparently fared better in other provinces, specially the Franco-Cantabrian region (core and most of it in the Atlantic basin).
So I guess they only thought of conquering the abrupt, hostile and somewhat less desirable southern territories when there was some demographic pressure forcing them to emigrate in search of new lands. And for that demic pressure to build up, some time must have passed.
Post a Comment