POTLACH IN THE NYTIMES

An article in today's NYTimes on Potlach, that classic anthropological topic, this time with a twist…

NEW ADDRESS, NEW SERVER

The Anthrosite Teaching Blog has moved to a new address. Please go to:

ANTHROSITE BLOG - http://anthrosite.com/Blog/

Make sure to update your bookmarks and links

Entire Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequenced: Green et al. 2008

Green and colleagues (see also Green et al. 2006) report in tomorrow's issue of Cell the reconstruction of an entire Neandertal mitochondrial sequence. This was announced earlier (see Green et al. 2006) and here it is. Next step: the sequencing of the complete Neandertal nuclear genome. We do live in exciting times.  

A complete mitochondrial (mt) genome sequence was reconstructed from a 38,000 year-old Neandertal individual with 8341 mtDNA sequences identified among 4.8 Gb of DNA generated from ∼0.3 g of bone. Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years. Of the 13 proteins encoded in the mtDNA, subunit 2 of cytochrome c oxidase of the mitochondrial electron transport chain has experienced the largest number of amino acid substitutions in human ancestors since the separation from Neandertals. There is evidence that purifying selection in the Neandertal mtDNA was reduced compared with other primate lineages, suggesting that the effective population size of Neandertals was small.

(Green et al 2008: summary)

  Cell article

Press release via Eureka

REFERENCES

Green, R., J. Krause, S. Ptak, A. Briggs, M. Ronan, J. Simons, L. Du, M. Egholm, J. Rothberg, M. Paunovic and S. Pääbo

2006        Analysis of one million base pairs of Neanderthal DNA. Nature (444):330-336. 

Green, R., A.-S. Malaspinas, J. Krause, A. Briggs, P. Johnson, C. Uhler, M. Meyer, J. Good, T. Maricic, U. Stenzel, K. Prüfer, M. Siebauer, H. Burbano, M. Ronan, J. Rothberg, M. Egholm, P. Rudan, D. Brajković, Z. Kućan, I. Gušić, M. Wikström, L. Laakkonen, J. Kelso, M. Slatkin and S. Pääbo

2008        A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing. Cell 134:416-426.

3D Scanning Special: McPherron et al 2008 & Grosman et al 2008

In class, I often emphasize that new techniques are as essential (more?) as new concepts in archaeology. Two In Press articles soon to be published in the Journal of Archaeological Science (McPherron et al. 2008; Grosman et al. 2008) describe how 3D structured light scanning was used to improve field data collection and lithic artifact analysis by producing more accurate and consistent data sets.

McPherron et al report "on a trial application of one of these, a structured light scanner, to create 3D representations of excavated surfaces and associated artifacts at two Middle Paleolithic sites in southwest France." (McPherron et al 2008) Here, the challenge was to utilize a structured light scanner in field conditions to capture accurate scans of an archaeological surface being excavated. As stressed by the authors, this application would not be used as part of a routine data collection system but rather for special finds such as hominin remains that require the most accurate tri-dimensional documentation available. What is neat is that this structured light scanner set-up records information about both the geometry and the color of the objects using a single camera lens, which allows for easy overlapping of the 3D data (artifact proveniencing data) and the scans themselves (i.e. easy georeferencing). They tested the method at two French Middle Paleolithic sites (Jonzac and Roc de Marsal; 2.5m2 surface in each case) to conclude that the two main technical challenges were to position the scanner (repositioning to capture large surfaces and control of the light every time the scanner moved) and to control the light (constant light source). Another issue is that the type of scanner they used needs to be positioned at a relatively short and constant distance from the surface being scanned (between 105 and 135cm in this case). This can be delicate when working with uneven or vertical surfaces. It took them a day to scan the 2.5m2 surface at Jonzac and few days at Roc de Marsal due to the unevenness of the terrain and vertical surfaces. Also, considering the large amount of raw data (though limited by scanning software deleting redundant data), the data processing stage is expectedly fairly long, yet it doesn't require much human intervention.

Grosman et al reports on the use of 3D scanning during the analysis of lithic artifacts. Their main point is that metrics are inaccurate when taken by hand (caliper) and these measurements are necessarily biased by the observer/archaeologist as he/she chooses to orientate the artifact one way or another. Accuracy and consistency (inter and intra-observer) are once again the main key-words here. At the end of the scanning process, all the typical metrics are in with a 2D drawing of the artifact and the possibility to quickly calculate other parameters (volume and position of the center of mass). They tested their method against more traditional methods using 90 Acheulean hand-axes (from 3 distinct Israeli sites) to conclude that the 3D scan-aided method is of course more accurate and absolutely consistent. It allows for other calculations impossible without 3D scanning, for comparisons between assemblages (see implications for chronology considerations) and for the creation of artifact databases. They stress that the cost of the equipment could be a downside for certain projects. I would add that the scanning rate of 5-6 artifacts per hour (using a 3D structured light scanner with 2 cameras, turn-table and experienced technicians) may limit the use of the technique to specific artifacts that do require the most accurate measurements and/or comparisons between sites. I am confident that this system could be automated somehow. As the scanners and computers will get faster, this technique may soon be standard in artifact analysis. Very selfishly, I can see how I could use such technique to enhance lithic raw material sample databases to compare samples across a region or between archaeological sites in a consistent and accurate manner…

REFERENCES

Grosman, L., O. Smikt and U. Smilansky

2008 On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science In Press.

McPherron, S., T. Gernat and J.-J. Hublin

2008 Structured-Light Scanning for High-Resolution Documentation of in situ Archaeological Finds. Journal of Archaeological Science. In Press.

LITHIC ASSEMBLAGES, PALIMPSESTS AND BEHAVIOR: VAQUERO 2008

In an In Press article to appear in the Journal of Archaeological Science, Manuel Vaquero examines the relationship between lithic assemblages and our ability to identify meaningful past behaviors in the archaeological record. He illustrates his points through the analysis of lithic assemblages from the Mousterian level L of Abric Romani (Spain). This article echoes some quick remarks I made in previous posts regarding the need to better define the analytical categories we use and to be aware of the internal biases these categories may introduce during the analysis. Vaquero focuses here on the complex and fundamental problem of the duration or time depth of stone tool assemblages (see also Vaquero and Pasto 2001). Paleolithic archaeologists tend to group stone tools based on stratigraphic units thus lumping artifacts resulting from an unknown number of occupations and/or activities into convenient analytical units (assemblages). These units are further defined on the basis of their technological characteristics and/or stone tool designs as belonging to a specific chrono-cultural category (Mousterian, Chatelperronian…). A great deal of Paleolithic archaeology is also concerned with reconstructing past behaviors using ethnographical analogs. For Vaquero, here lies another essential problem:

The time scale of the ethnoarchaeological evidence is very different from that of most archaeological assemblages, which correspond to palimpsests formed during hundreds or thousands of years (Bailey, 2007). Practically all known archaeological assemblages are palimpsests. Even in archaeological contexts of high temporal resolution, the succession of different events has been pointed out (Julien et alii, 1992). Nevertheless, these time scales are too often ignored and it is common to find ethnoarchaeological models being used on such archaeological palimpsests. It is assumed that the "average behaviour" inferred from these palimpsests is representative of the actual behaviour of past populations.

(Vaquero 2008)

If this critique is absolutely relevant, it was addressed early on by the New Archaeology and middle-level/middle-range theories designed to bridge the ethnographic and archaeological records. Similarly, Vaquero defines behavior as very short-term processes or activities. If the identification of specific short-term activities in the archaeological record is rich in information, it is certainly not the only scale at which analysis can be conducted. This could be a European research bias emphasizing short-term isolated reduction sequences or chaines opératoires rather than broader group-level types of behavior. For Vaquero, both are pertinent since specific individual activity ultimately reflect broader group-level behavioral strategies. Yet, we still need to assess what part of the large techno-economic system is archaeologically visible through short-term specific activities. Another sampling issue and another big question. Similarly, if I agree that Paleolithic archaeologists tend to substitute behaviors for "average behaviors", this is a problem only if archaeologists don't clearly acknowledge it. My point is that analyses using different scales (individual, group, culture/industry) or sampling strategies are not necessarily contradicting themselves and can in fact complement in each other.

Using a series of simple calculations (including flake size, cortical percentage), Vaquero then demonstrates how this data can be used as a proxy for behaviors. He further adds that this may however be an illusion as shown with the Layer L of Abric Romani. Using refitting, the author shows that the assemblages are in fact composed of 5 distinct clusters. Instead of identifying one overall "average behavior", Vaquero recognizes 3 different behavioral strategies in these clusters:

Three different strategies of lithic provisioning can be therefore identified in level L, each one associated with different accumulations:

- Accumulations L1 and L2 seem to correspond to a provisioning strategy based on the lithic resources habitually transported during the displacements of hunter-gatherer groups.

- Accumulation L3 is the only one that shows the introduction of bulk resources, indicating a strategy of site provisioning (Kuhn, 1995).

- In accumulation L4, the lithic provisioning is based on recycling the resources abandoned in the former accumulations.

(Vaquero 2008)    

Refitting is a very lengthy procedure that may also well be a waste of time when used in disturbed archaeological contexts or when dealing with limited sections of a site based on my own experience. It appears that the Level L at Abric Romani was a good candidate for such method. Refitting also requires high quality assemblages that have been recently excavated using modern excavation techniques and rigorous data collection strategies including a systematic 3D artefact proveniencing system (fairly standard now). Ideally, refitting can be a very powerful tool and but it does also contain assumptions of its own. On that note, the numbers of actual refits in this study is relatively small between clusters while it is much higher within the cluster L3. I am not convinced this can be used to establish the timing or succession of these clusters' accumulation. Could post-depositional processes better explain the movement of 7 artefacts between clusters? I am not sure either this demonstrates the presence of habitual reductions strategies with artifacts at different reduction stages moving from one cluster/activity/behavior to another. Also, a quantified list of the refits (distinguished from conjoins/broken artifacts) would be helpful.

From a behavioural point of view, the archaeological level is an abstract concept without real meaning. If we wish to answer behavioural questions, we should define our assemblages according to a behavioural scale of time. Lithic or bone assemblages defined exclusively according to stratigraphic criteria are not well suited for approaching the behavioural realm. Sentences like "the lithic provisioning strategies of level L are..." make no sense, since the stratigraphic unit cannot be characterised from a behavioural point of view. The behavioural meaning should be searched for in the events. We have seen that each of the three episodes identified in level L shows a different provisioning strategy.

(Vaquero 2008)

I share Vaquero's view that Paleolithic archaeologists should pay close attention to the analytical categories they use. The lumping effect inherent in using stratigraphic units to define archaeological assemblages is a very real problem in Paleolithic archaeology. However, refitting is not a method that can be employed in any archaeological context. Its applicability must be evaluated in each context based on additional information including soil movements and post-depositional processes. At a more theoretical level, the identification of the different accumulations (hence activities) in Layer L does not contradict the main conclusions drawn using proxies for reduction. It would be interesting to test both methods using other assemblages to see if indeed the identification of individual activity clusters contradicts the conclusions reached using a more "generalist" method.

I also much enjoyed one of Vaquero's last points regarding the chrono-cultural attribution of assemblages based on index fossils or technological traits. Same problem, different assumptions: should archaeologists trust mixed-activities assemblages to define chrono-cultural categories or should archaeologists label (or date) lithic assemblages using chrono-cultural categories knowing that assemblages represent the combined accumulation of many unknown occupations and/or activities? In Vaquero et al 2002, the authors took on the critical analysis of a lithic assemblage from Abric Galut (Spain) to demonstrate that its chrono-cultural attribution as Mousterian was erroneous based on new U-series and radiometric dates. In this case, non-typical technological traits and the lack of typical tools were previously used to define the industry as Mousterian while it was in fact Mesolithic in age with important implications for the interpretation of Abric Romani located nearby.

REFERENCES

Vaquero, M.

    2008    The History Of Stones: Behavioural Inferences And Temporal Resolution Of An Archaeological     Assemblage From The Middle Palaeolithic. Journal of Archeological Science In Press.

Vaquero, M., M. Esteban, E. Allue, J. Vallverdu and E. Carbonell

    2002    Middle Palaeolithic Refugium, or Archaeological Misconception? A New U-series and Radiocarbon Chronology of Abric Agut (Capellades, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science 29:953-958.

Vaquero, M. and I. Pastó

    2001    The Definition of Spatial Units in Middle Palaeolithic Sites: The Hearth-Related Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 28(11):1209-1220.

MANDE PARUNG, YETI AND DNA SEQUENCING

A very serious article in The Independent (UK) about two hairs, which allegedly belonged to a forest creature spotted in the Garo hills region of northeastern India. The hairs were collected 5 years ago by a local habitant who saw the "forest man" (the local Mande Parung).

After being brought to Britain, the hairs were magnified up to 200 times, and one of them was cast in varnish to make a better two-dimensional image. They were then compared with hairs from animals known to live in the hills. "We fully expected them to come from a known animal," said Mr Redmond. "We failed to find that. So the mystery remains and we go on to the next stage of investigation." The hairs will now be examined under an even more powerful microscope and sent to two different laboratories – in Oxford and Cardiff – for DNA testing. Follicles containing cells remain on the base of the hairs, said Mr Redmond, "so there is every chance that we will be able to get even closer to the truth". If DNA analysis cannot identify the creature, it should be able to work out what it is related to, he explained. "It could easily be an unknown primate, even if it is not a yeti."

(Source: The Independent)

This could be indeed interesting. After all, the existence of very large still unidentified primates is a very real possibility. However, as reported in another article in Le Monde, Alastair Lawson (BBC reporter who brought the hairs back) offered this final cautionary statement: "Earlier, one of our reporters in Pakistan was given hairs allegedly coming from a Yeti. Yet, further analyses revealed that they came from the scrotum of a goat." (Source: Le Monde 07/28/08; my translation from French translation).

LOOKING BACK AT INTERSTRATIFICATION, TRANSITION AND THE NERONIAN – PART II

For the past two years, I have been working on the analysis of the Chatelperronian and Early Aurignacian assemblages from the site of Grotte du Loup in western France (see Steenhuyse 2007 and upcoming articles) as well as the re-excavation of the site. Some of these issues (interstratification, assemblage definition…) are therefore essential to my current research. To better grasp the specific circumstances of this key-moment of our recent evolutionary history, I am comparing stone tool assemblages (Mousterian, Chatelperronian, Aurignacian and even later parts of the Upper Paleolithic) produced in a similar regional setting and designed as adaptive responses to similar environmental constraints. I tend to emphasize stone raw material availability/morphology/quality as important variables, well because these are stone tools after all! My point is that the most revealing differences and similarities between Middle and Upper Paleolithic industries are not only different stone tool styles/designs but also, and more importantly, different resources management and procurement systems, mobility patterns and hunting strategies. As many paleoanthropologists, I believe the challenge is here to integrate different types of evidence (faunal, lithic, climatic, environmental…) into testable models targeting specific aspects of highly complex procurement strategies. Even though it is difficult to evaluate what behavioral information is contained in a lithic assemblage, it remains clear that stone tool design only reflects some aspects of complex broader adaptive strategies. I would also argue that these systems were primarily geared towards food procurement needs (hunting, butchering and processing) as expected for groups of hunter-gatherers targeting large migrating herbivores. This does not imply that social or ideological aspects of these groups are ultimately inaccessible using archaeological data; this means however that a safe assumption is that the main rationale behind these adaptive systems was to secure safe and stable food items and caloric intakes throughout the year.

Migration patterns can thus be conceived as one of the prime movers explaining group mobility patterns, stone raw material procurement likely being imbedded within these patterns. To compare these techno-economic strategies, I aim at identifying adaptive choices in an archaeological context where some environmental variables are held constant. I would argue that variables directly associated with stone raw materials remained constant over time (for example, the location of the main stone raw material sources) assuming our capacity to identify stone raw material sources with accuracy and reliability. Similarly, recent studies have demonstrated that the behavior and availability of large herbivores (cervids in particular) tend to be highly predictable in a given region under similar climatic conditions and thus during large portions of the Late Pleistocene (see Steele 2002 for red deer ecology and Faith 2007 for reindeer population size). This means regional comparisons across the Middle to Upper Paleolithic boundary are not only relevant but one of the few opportunities we have to tease out some major differences/similarities between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic focusing on resources procurement strategies likely explaining the slow gradual shift from one to the other.

I recently gave a talk at Georgia State University on some of these issues. I was asked what I thought of these transitional industries and what the story was outside of western France/northern Spain mentioning the Neronian industry of southern France. I answered emphasizing that we do indeed need to scrutinize the specific circumstances of the MP-UP transition at a regional scale to conclude that the migration of modern humans into Western Europe was likely far from being a single-wave or simple event and that mosaic or particularistic models were likely better suited to take into account the regional variations of the MP-UP transition. I posted a while back a quick link to Ludovic Slimak's latest article on his research at Grotte Mandrin (France; Slimak 2008). In class, we talked about the fact that the Neronian's significance as a peculiar transitional industry has recently been re-emphasized by Slimak and his work on the stratigraphy of Grotte Mandrin. At that site, the Neronian layer (39-38,000 cal. years) is located at the base of the sequence underneath five Mousterian layers followed by a Protoaurignacian layer (Remember, Bryce asked me about the name Mandrin and I had to spend 15 minutes narrating -with much passion I'll add- the story of Mandrin, a famous 18^th century bandit and smuggler who rose against the tax collectors in southern France.).

The most characteristic technological traits of the Neronian industry are a laminar/blade and lamellar/bladelet blank production and the manufacture of Soyons Points (with thin inverse and convergent semi-abrupt retouch). The most striking feature of the industry is the presence of two distinct blank production schemas (blade and bladelet) and the absence of a typically Mousterian flake production (see Slimak 1999, 2004, 2005 and 2007). The use of a laminar operational sequence with crested blade and an opportunistic approach consisting of using the existing curvatures of the blocks could echo some aspects of the Chatelperronian industry. Similarly, the Soyons points share some morphological similarities with typical Chatelperron points. Yet, the microlithic component of the Neronian stands out when compared with Chatelperronian assemblages and microliths are fairly rare in Middle Paleolithic contexts (excluding unusual cases such as the Asinipodian of Pech de l'Azé IV in western France with the systematic production of small unretouched flakes from truncated-facetted cores/pieces and maybe some components of Chez-Pourré-Chez-Comte with very high frequency of truncated facetted pieces/cores that I documented). Also, the raw materials used by the Neronians tend to be more exotic than the ones used by the later Mousterians, which mainly used local lithic resources (except for the Mousterian layers of Néron II and III caves). For Slimak and others (Combier 1990), the Neronian emerged from the local Charentian Mousterian (Rhodanian Quina Mousterian) as documented at Maras and Néron. They see the Charentian/Neronian tandem as similar to the MTA/Chatelperronian tandem of western France thus emphasizing the local invention of Upper Paleolithic-like blank production techniques… Whatever the final interpretation may be at this point, Slimak's regional approach will greatly contribute to our current understanding of the MP-UP transition and its local complexity. This research is also reinforcing the idea that Late Mousterians are bound to surprise us a lot in the future…

REFERENCES

Combier, J.

1990 De la fin du Mousterien au Paleolithique superieur. Les donnees de la region rhodanienne. In Paleolithique moyen recent et Paleolithique superieur ancien en Europe, edited by C. Farizy, pp. 267-278. vol. 3. Memoires du Musee de Prehistoire d'Iˆle de France, Nemours.

Faith, T.

2007 Changes in reindeer body part representation at Grotte XVI, Dordogne, France. Journal of Archaeological Science (34):2003-2011.

Slimak, L.

1999 Mise en evidence d'une composante laminaire et lamellaire dans un complexe mousterien du Sud de la France. Paleo 11:89-109.

2004 Les dernières expressions du moustérien entre Loire et Rhône, PhD Dissertation, Université de Provence.

2005 Entre deux mondes, les derniers Néandertaliens en moyenne vallée du Rhône. Ardèche Archéoologie 22:1-7.

2007 Le Neronien et la structure historique du basculement du Paleolithique moyen au Paleolithique superieur en France mediterraneenne. Comptes Rendus Palevol (6):301-309.

2008 The Neronian and the historical structure of cultural shifts from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Mediterranean France. Journal of Archaeological Science xxx(In Press):xx.

Steele, T.

2002 Red Deer: Their Ecology and How They Were Hunted by Late Pleistocene Hominids in Western Europe, Stanford University.

Steenhuyse, A.

2007 Continuity and change in technological and economic strategies: the Middle and Upper Paleolithic industries of the Brive basin (France). PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.

LOOKING BACK AT INTERSTRATIFICATION, TRANSITION AND THE NERONIAN – PART I

Last semester, I taught a seminar covering some hot topics connected to the broader question of the origins of modern humans and the relationship between Neandertals and modern humans in Europe around 40-35,000 years ago. We thus took a close look at an important subtopic within this broader question: the case of Aurignacian-Chatelperronian interstratifications. We covered that subtopic right when the trench warfare opposing Zilhao et al. and Mellars et al. (Mellars and Gravina 2008; Zilhao et al 2008a, 2008b) was re-ignited with the online publication (in Paleoanthropology) of articles on the French site of Grotte des Fées (eponym site of the Chatelperronian industry). Contradictory models were once again clashing with much intensity and the occasional exchange of strong words. This time, the core of the argument focused on the possible presence of Aurignacian artifacts in Chatelperronian layers. This was interpreted by Mellars and colleagues as an interstratification supporting the notion that the Chatelperronian industry was best seen as resulting from an extended period of contact of Neandertal groups with newly-arrived modern humans/Aurignacians. In class, I remember concluding that, beyond the harsh words and beyond the radically opposing paradigms, there were still theoretical and methodological issues that required much attention if we wanted to move toward the resolution of some questions surrounding that topic.

If there is little doubt that post-depositional processes and/or historical factors (excavation method biases) best explain the presence of a few Aurignacian artifacts in mostly Chatelperronian assemblages at Grotte des Fées and elsewhere (Roc de Combe, Le Piage and el Pendo), the very existence of interstratifications cannot be ruled out solely based on theoretical assumptions. There are also several problems related to the way we use stone tools to tackle these big questions. These problems are too often exacerbated by deeper unresolved methodological concerns that I find rather fundamental here including the industrial/cultural attribution of stone tool assemblages based on diagnostic artifacts (these good old "index fossils") or the ability for stone tool assemblages to actually reflect punctual or historical type of events (contact between two different adaptive modes/hominin species/cultural traditions, acculturation). Briefly put, I am not convinced that the concept of stone tool assemblage as an analytical category is clearly defined in terms of duration, cultural attribution, homogeneity… but this should be the topic of a much longer post. The point here is that it could be tempting to forget that stone tool assemblages are best defined as undetermined samples of behavioral sets reflecting specific aspects of complex foraging procurement strategies. Similarly, it is also difficult to conceptualize what an assemblage affected by acculturation processes should look like (overall re-hauling of the production system? punctual borrowing of techniques? of artifacts?). Tough.

To get back to the Grotte des fées controversy, the re-excavation of an intact section of the site (unlikely for Grotte des fées since no deposits left) using modern excavation methods could help us settle the dispute. Much like the project I am directing at Grotte du Loup in western France, the re-excavation of previously excavated Paleolithic sites has been a productive strategy for many archaeologists in the past decades. I also believe the analysis of the faunal component of the site is currently being conducted (see E. Morin's work on the faunal assemblages from Saint-Césaire for the use of faunal refits to assess stratigraphic integrity: Morin 2004; Morin et al 2005) so there may be hope.

REFERENCES

Mellars, P. and B. Gravina

2008 Châtelperron: Theoretical Agendas, Archaeological Facts, and Diversionary Smoke-Screens. Paleoanthropology:43-64.

Morin, E.

2004 Late Pleistocene population interactions in Western Europe and modern human origins: newinsights based on the faunal remains from Saint-Cesaire, southwestern France. PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan.

Morin, E., T. Tsanova, N. Sirakov, W. Rendu, J.-B. Mallye and F. Leveque

2005 Bone refits in stratified deposits: testing the chronological grain at Saint-Cesaire. Journal of Archaeological Science (32):1083-1098.

Zilhão, J., F. d'Errico, J.-G. Bordes, A. Lenoble, J.-P. Texier and J.-P. Rigaud

2008a Grotte des Fées (Châtelperron): History of Research, Stratigraphy, Dating, and Archaeology of the Châtelperronean Type-Site. Paleoanthropology:1-42.

2008b Like Hobbes' Chimney Birds. Paleoanthropology:65-67.

TRANSITION

These past weeks, I have been experiencing a flurry of technical difficulties with the Blogger version of this blog. Many of my students reported that they could not access some of the posts and that the formatting was sometimes a little wacky. I also had to battle massive waves of spam comments in the past months. So I am making a slow transition to a new server able to handle more efficient spam comment filtering and a different publishing platform (WordPress).

I primarily use blogging as a quick communication tool with my students to highlight news and recent articles related to my courses' topics. Since my research projects, publications and teaching are my priorities, I cannot afford to spend much time blogging and I need an efficient tool. I think that blogging can be a neat instructional tool and can enhance the learning experience outside of the classroom setting by connecting course material and current research projects. I also use this blog as a personal filing system to keep tract of publications using tags and other filing applications for my own research.

I am trying to make this transition as smooth as possible and I will be posting on both blogs for the next week. If no major problems are reported, I will soon make the switch. The new address is:
http://anthrosite.com/Blog/ . Please make sure to update your bookmarks, links and feeds. Many thanks for reading this blog and special thanks to my students (aren't they amazing?).

Link: http://anthrosite.com/Blog/

RSS Feed: http://anthrosite.com/Blog/feed/

Atom Feed: http://anthrosite.com/Blog/feed/atom/

NEANDERTAL AND MODERN TEETH AND ENAMEL THICKNESS & VOLUME: OLEJNICZAK ET AL 2008

Made of extremely tough materials, teeth usually survive the worse preservation conditions. They also contain valuable information about the diet, nutrition (hence, overall health, adaptation, environmental conditions…), growth and maturation rate of an individual. In the last issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, Olejniczak and colleagues published an analysis comparing Neandertal (42 molars from 21 individuals) and anatomically modern human teeth using microcomputed tomography. The analysis specifically targeted current hypotheses and claims regarding enamel thickness in Neandertal and modern human populations. Using radiographic 2-dimensional techniques, previous studies have demonstrated that Neandertals enamel thickness was thinner than the one of modern humans. Various conclusions regarding differential dietary and/or development patterns have been proposed to explain differential enamel thickness and teeth eruption/growth (Smith et al 2007). Based on this new study and 3-dimensional imagery (see Smith and Hublin 2008 for background), it appears that the absolute enamel volume of Neandertals is in fact similar to modern humans. It is however deposited over a larger dentine volume creating an enamel layer thinner than the one observed in modern humans.

Homo sapiens individuals have smaller molar crowns than Neandertals in terms of buccolingual breadth and mesiodistal length (total crown volume, calculated as enamel volume plus coronal dentine volume, is also greater in Neandertal molars than modern human molars; Table 2). A reduction in modern human tooth size took place within the last 100,000 years (Brace et al., 1987), and a likely means of reducing tooth size is to decrease the quantity of the dentine component of the tooth crown (Grine, 2002, 2005). It may be the case that dental reduction in modern humans has preferentially reduced the volume of dentine, resulting in relatively thicker enamel (given that relative enamel thickness is scaled by the volume of dentine). Data from our study demonstrate that Neandertal molar crowns are comprised of 60.35% dentine, while only 50.13% of modern human molar crown volume is dentine, on average (Table 2); thick enamel in modern humans may simply be an artifact of dental reduction. (Olejniczak et al 2008:21)

This is already very neat. Stressing that they only used recent modern human teeth (from North America and Europe), the authors emphasize the needs for studies evaluating the impact of dietary choices on enamel thickness within the genus Homo using larger sample size. They also call attention to the fact that we do not fully understand the developmental mechanisms behind the differences in enamel and dentine volumes in Neandertals and modern humans. Focusing on the methodological aspects of this article, it is apparent that new measurement techniques are fundamental to better comprehend certain aspects of the fossil record. As demonstrated by recent studies of stone tool reduction challenging widely-used analytical categories, it is also true for the archaeological record. For stone tool analysis in particular, more accurate metrics will greatly contribute to better identify the factors constraining stone tool morphology and the rationale behind the selection of specific stone tool reduction strategies from blank production to tool maintenance. In both cases, we are dealing with complex multifactorial interactive systems that require first and foremost the most accurate data collection techniques.

Although the causes of differences in enamel thickness and tissue proportions in Neandertals and modern humans await future studies of larger samples of fossil Homo molars, enamel thickness and tissue proportions do distinguish these groups. The data presented here show that categorical distinctions such as ''thin enamel'', ''intermediate-thick enamel'', and ''thick enamel'' have little paleobiological value at the subgeneric level, where dental tissue conformation (e.g., the percentage of the molar crown volume that is dentine) accounts for differences in enamel thickness, rather than differences in the absolute quantity of enamel on a tooth. (Olejniczak et al 2008:22)

REFERENCES

Olejniczak, A., T. Smith, R. Feeney, R. Macchiarelli, A. Mazurier, L. Bondioli, A. Rosas, F. J., M. de la Rasilla, A. Garcia-Tabernero, J. Radov, M. Skinner, M. Toussaint and J.-J. Hublin

2008 Dental tissue proportions and enamel thickness in Neandertal and modern human molars. Journal of Human Evolution 55:12-23.

Smith, T.M. and Hublin, J.-J.

2008 Dental tissue studies: 2D and 3D insights into human evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 54:169-172.

Smith, T.M., Toussaint, M., Reid, D.J., Olejniczak, A.J. and Hublin, J.-J.

2007 Rapid dental development in a Middle Paleolithic Belgian Neanderthal. PNAS 104:20220-20225

50 MILLION EUROS FOR THE PARISIAN MUSEE DE L’HOMME

A quick post for the Parisians on my beloved Musée de l'Homme. I can't say that I like the museum for the quality of its displays or pedagogy. But every visit to the place conjures up childhood memories of wonderful afternoons spent staring at its dusty and outdated displays and mysterious stone tools. Well, the budget for the rehabilitation of the museum was confirmed yesterday (50 million Euros). The museum will be basically gutted out and fully re-hauled from the inside out (the building itself is registered) with new floor plans, new library access and new study rooms for researchers. The future of the Musée de l'Homme has been debated for years and it didn't look too good 10 years ago. This new project reflects the new focus on ethnography, "primal arts" (sic; see Quai Branly Museum) and even human evolution taken by the City of Paris and the Parisian museums. I wish the funding for research was also there…

Le Monde article

PAGLICCI 23 mtDNA SEQUENCING

A new article published on PLoS One on a recent analysis of the mtDNA (hypervariable region I) extracted from Paglicci 23 (tibia and skull fragments) from Paglicci cave (Italy; specimen excavated in 2003; dated to 28,100 +/-350; classified as early modern human or Cro-Magnoid). The team conclude that this specimen radically differ from all Neandertal mtDNA so far sequenced and falls within the range of variability of modern populations.

At any rate, the finding of the Cambridge Reference Sequence in Paglicci 23 shows that one of today's mtDNA variants has been present in Europe for at least 28,000 years, and that modern and archaic anatomical features appear associated with mtDNA sequences that can be classified, respectively, as modern and non-modern. Because no HVR I sequence similar to the Neandertals' has been described in more than 4800 Europeans studied so far [32], models whereby Neandertals were part of the genealogy of current Europeans are at odds with the data, at least as far as maternal inheritance is concerned. In our opinion, the burden of the proof is now on those who maintain that Neandertals might have contributed to the modern gene pool. (Caramelli et al 2008)

The most interesting aspect of this study is that they made sure that the genetic material of Paglicci 23 was free of modern contamination (minimal handling of the specimen, genotyping of all the team members' mtDNAs including the excavators and selection of bone fragments that suffered little manipulation over the years due to their lack of morpho-anatomical data). Such contamination has been the major issue in the most recent studies of ancient DNA (see a recent article on ancient mtDNA extraction –Mackelprang and Rubin 2008- and John Hawks' review of the Paglicci article). The other interesting aspect of this study is that the fact that they analyzed an early modern human specimen. We currently possess few early modern European specimens and this has been a major source of problems when scrutinizing the transitional/contact period between newly-arrived modern humans and local Neandertal populations.

REFERENCES

Caramelli, D., L. Milani, S. Vai, A. Modi, E. Pecchioli, M. Girardi, E. Pilli, M. Lari, B. Lippi, A. Ronchitelli, F. Mallegni, A. Casoli, G. Bertorelle and G. Barbujani

    2008    A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences. PLoS ONE.

 

Mackelprang, R. and E. Rubin

    2008    New tricks with old bones. Science 11, vol. 321, no. 5886, pp. 211 – 212.

EDWARD O. WILSON

A little portrait of Edward O. Wilson in today's New York Times by Nicholas Wade. The article mentions the controversies but remains fairly neutral. Dr. Wilson is famous for his work on ants (The Superorganism), evolutionary mechanisms (group-level selection, "multilevel selection") and social evolution (including the controversial Sociobiology published in 1975). If you ask me, someone who states that we have a lot to learn from ants in terms of behavior and even ethics makes me feel quite uncomfortable, at so many levels. Beyond the political and moral implications of his work and statements, Wilson is a great writer and his books are quite fun to read (two Pulitzer Prices). Nothing really new in this article except some news about his upcoming books and the projects he's currently working on.

Don't hesitate to quote Wilson if you are planning to start a heated debate/fight in an anthropology department or at lunch:

"Groups with men of quality — brave, strong, innovative, smart and altruistic — would tend to prevail, as Darwin said, over those groups that do not have those qualities so well developed," Dr. Wilson said. "Now that, obviously, is a rather unpopular idea, very politically incorrect if pushed, but nevertheless Darwin may have been right about that. Undoubtedly that will be another big controversy," he said without evident regret, "and that will be my next book, when I get through my novel." (Source)

:::

Un portrait rapide du biologiste Edward O. Wilson dans le New York Times par Nicholas Wade. L'article reste prudent mais introduit brièvement les quelques controverses que son travail sur le comportement animal et humain (Sociobiology, 1975) continue à susciter dans la communauté scientifique et au-delà. Un scientifique qui déclare que nous avons beaucoup à apprendre des fourmis d'un point du vue moral me fait froid dans le dos. En revanche, son énorme travail, sur les fourmis et certains mécanismes (sélection à l'échelle du groupe) en particulier, demeure intéressant (deux Prix Pulitzer tout de même). Je ne sais pas dans quelle mesure son travail est traduit en français ; les implications de certaines de ces conclusions et ses commentaires (hors publications) ne sont sans doute pas des plus appréciées dans la communauté scientifique française.

Une petite citation extraite de l'article en question pour vous donner le gout :

« Les groupes constitués d'hommes possédant des qualités –courageux, forts, innovateurs, intelligents et altruistes- tendraient à se développer, comme Darwin l'a écrit, à l'encontre de groupes qui ne possèdent pas ces qualités de façon aussi prononcée. » déclare Dr. Wilson. « Bien entendu, ceci est une idée plutôt impopulaire, absolument politiquement incorrect si on l'a pousse un peu plus loin, néanmoins Darwin avait peut être raison à ce sujet. Sans aucun doute cette idée va créer une autre grande controverse, » dit-il sans regret apparent, « et cette idée sera mon nouveau livre, quand j'aurai fini d'écrire mon roman. »

HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS' EAR ::: L'OREILLE D'HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS

Everybody's talking about it! It's a paper given at the Acoustics 08 Paris conference (PDF abstract; Martinez et al. 2008) on hearing capacity of Homo heidelbergensis based on the analysis of fossils from Atapuerca (Spain; aren't they H. antecessor? I probably missed the memo). They looked at the ear bones and ear canal morphology using CT scans to conclude that Homo heidelbergensis was capable of hearing sounds similar to how modern human do. Their middle ear anatomy is remarkably similar to modern Homo sapiens, even though Homo heidelbergensis is not directly related to us. This conference paper is a great addition to the current literature regarding the emergence of language suggesting here that the anatomy of the ear may have evolved in parallel with the apparatus required to produce complex articulated language around the same time (circa 500,000 years ago).

Press release via Science News

For background information and recent papers on language: FOXP2 and Neandertals and recent papers on primate brain anatomy and language (Anthropology.net)

A good summary on evolution of language: The Evolution of Language by Juan Uriagereka (Seed)

:::

Un nouvel article issu de la conférence Acoustics 08 Paris (résumé en anglais; Martinez et al. 2008) sur les capacités auditives d'Homo
heidelbergensis en s'appuyant sur l'étude de fossiles d'Atapuerca (Espagne ; Homo antecessor ?). L'équipe de chercheur ont comparé certains aspects de l'anatomie de l'oreille interne d'Homo
heidelbergensis avec l'aide de scans CT pour conclure qu'elle était très similaire à notre propre oreille interne et donc que leur capacités auditives étaient probablement les mêmes que les notre. L'enjeu est évidemment d'identifier si les modifications des capacités auditives peuvent être corrélées avec les changements anatomiques liés à la production de langage articulé. Apparemment, c'est le cas et ces changements sont visibles au moins autour de -500,000 ans.

Communiqué de presse via Science News (en anglais)

Pour plus d'info sur les articles récents sur l'évolution du langage : sur FOXP2 et Néandertal et sur l'anatomie du cerveau de certains primates (sur Anthropology.net ; en anglais)

Un bon résumé des chapitres précédents sur l'évolution du langage chez les hominidés : The Evolution of Language par Juan Uriagereka (Seed ; en anglais)

REFERENCES

I. Martínez, R.M. Quam, M. Rosa, P. Jarabo, C. Lorenzo and J.L. Arsuaga, Auditory capacities of human fossils: a new approach to the origin of speech. Conference Paper. Acoustics 08 Paris.

100 YEARS AFTER, THE OLD MAN BACK HOME ::: LES 100 ANS DE LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS

In August 1908, the Bouyssonie brothers (with L. Bardon) unearthed a Neandertal skeleton near the French village of La Chapelle-aux-Saints (often called "the old man of La Chapelle") in a small cave. This amazing specimen played a key-role in the shaping of our understanding of Neandertals during the first part of the 20^th century. 100 years after, you are invited to celebrate the discovery from July 25^th to August 8^th. Not only you can attend a series of talks on various topics (3D reconstruction of the skull, Mousterian/Neandertal technology, history of the discovery…) by renowned archaeologists and paleoanthropologists but there will also be activities (flintknapping demonstration…) and visits of the site with the archaeologists that recently re-excavated the site (team led by C. Beauval and T. Bismuth).

So if you are travelling through western France, you must stop by. The best part… the original skeleton will be there as a loan of the Musée de l'Homme. Welcome home, Old Man.

Schedule and activities (in French)

Museum of La Chapelle-aux-Saints (English)

En 1908, les frères Bouyssonie (et L. Bardon) mettent au jour le squelette d'un vieux Néandertal dans une petite grotte au sud de Brive sur la commune de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Cet extraordinaire spécimen jouera un rôle majeur pour l'étude des néandertals au début du 20^ème siècle. Nous sommes tous invités à célébrer cette découverte majeure pour la paléoanthropologie du 25 Juillet au 8 Aout avec des conférences (sur divers sujets et par des archéologues/paléoanthropologues de renom, dont Yves Coppens), des activités (taille du silex, atelier feu…), des visites du site avec les archéologues qui l'ont récemment fouillé (équipe de C. Beauval et T. Bismuth). Si vous êtes du coté de Brive ou dans le Sud-ouest, n'hésitez pas y passer, sans oublier de visiter l'excellent Musée de La Chapelle-aux-Saints.

La cerise sur le gâteau est naturellement le retour du squelette original (prêt du Musée de l'homme) sur le site.

Programme complet

Site du Musée de La Chapelle

PRACTICAL EVOLUTION ::: EVOLUTION PRATIQUE

Since I am a little busy with several projects right now, I want to point at John Hawks' blog (new format, new design, same brilliance and same fun) and his new series of posts on some aspects of evolutionary theory that we think we understand and/or that we like to misinterpret. He announced a post every Friday, so make sure to head that way on Fridays. The first post is on weeds species…

Many thanks John!

Rationale behind the series

:::

Je suis un peu pris par différent projets mais je ne pouvais m'empêcher de signaler non seulement le (merveilleux) blog de John Hawks (en anglais) et sa nouvelle série d'articles sur l'évolution, dans une perspective « pratique », au travers desquels il va tenter de rectifier quelques erreurs d'interprétation quant à la théorie de l'évolution (synthèse moderne). Il envisage publier un article tous les vendredis, j'ai hâte ! Le premier article est sur les mauvaises herbes…

Un grand merci John !

L'idée derrière cette série d'articles