« What To Do If You Discover Something
Main
Senator Mary Landrieu on Katrina Recover Efforts »

September 2, 2005

Neanderthals and Early Moderns in the Grotte des Fées de Châtelperron

With all the well-deserved attention to the publications of the Chimpanzee genome and the new Chimp fossil, I haven't heard much about another article in Nature Online entitled, "Radiocarbon dating of interstratified Neanderthal and early modern human occupations at the Chatelperronian type-site" by Brad Gravina, Paul Mellars and Christopher Bronk Ramsey.

From the abstract and from the articles in Times Online and Reuters if appears that the researchers used radiocarbon technology to date the bones that were in storage from the earlier excavation at Grotte des Fées de Châtelperron, in east-central France. These bones are associated with distinct strata within the cave. Châtelperronian and Aurignacian tools were found in the different strata. Therefore, dating the various strata containing the tools also dates when the owners of the tools left them in the cave.

Here are the results as best as I can glean.

Châtelperronian tool culture is associated with H. neanderthalensis and Aurignacian tool culture is associated with H. sapiens, us.

If this is all there is too it would be very interesting because it provides dates for the comings and goings of the two species in western Europe at a fairly late date in Neanderthal existence. It is also interesting that the 39,000 - 36,000 BP period was especially cold in that part of the world. As the two articles point out, that might mean that our species was better adapted to deal with the cold. Better adapted because of our tools, clothing and other reasons not directly associated with our anatomical differences with the Neanderthals. But if this is true it means that the Neanderthal went elsewhere and returned some three thousand years later. Why the H. sapiens left is unknown. It further indicates that both species overlapped in time in western Europe. And this may well be all there is to it.

But the articles seem to claim much more. The Times Online headline says, "Neanderthals and modern man shared a cave" while the Reuters headline reads, "Ancient and modern man lived side by side." The veracity of the Times Online headline rests on the meaning of the word "shared." The Reuters headline may be OK if it weren't for the second paragraph,

Now a group of scientists claim to have proof -- based on radiocarbon dating of artefact finds in France -- that the two distinct groups did indeed share the same space at the same time some 38,000 years ago.

Well, this is only indicated if one makes the "same space" considerably bigger than the Grotte des Fées.

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that the two tool cultures were ever mixed. In fact, the method of dating the strata would make one think that they were in quite separate and definable loci.

Authors of the Nature article did say,

These data strongly support the chronological coexistence -- and therefore potential demographic and cultural interactions -- between the last Neanderthal and the earliest anatomically and behaviourally modern human populations in western Europe [Reuters]

But this is a long way from sharing the Grotte des Fées at the same time. I have no problem with the idea that our species and the Neanderthals ran into each other. My guess is that they did and they didn't get along very well. My problem is with reports that overstate the evidence and the claims.

Posted by Duane Smith at September 2, 2005 2:42 PM | Read more on Paleoanthropology |

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1338

Comments

That would be my interpretation also. There doesn't seem to be evidence that the two shared the cave at the same time - otherwise I would expect a level containing both types of tools. Instead the boundries between Chatelperronian and Aurignacian are pretty distinct.

Posted by: afarensis at September 2, 2005 5:15 PM

Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.

Tags: