If anyone is personally inept, it is I. And, if my words have offended you, please accept my sincere apology.
I had hoped that our exchange of ideas wouldn't turn into a 'pissing contest'. That's still my hope.
But, forgive me for saying so, your original comment seemed to me to be verging on the aggressive, and it felt to me that you were attempting to school me. That's water under the bridge, as they say.
With respect to the two comments you posted today… I hope this will help to clarify.
First, you say that
'Neandertals did distinctly *not* give meaning to place/space the way we do'
and
'Neandertal spatial conceptions were quite different from "us".'
Unfortunately a blog is not the venue for extensive discussions of theory, such as yours, newly published in Quaternary International. So let me try to explain.
When I stated that you believed the Neanderthals gave meaning to their spaces in the same way that you or I do, I shouldn't have left it there. I should have pointed out that, for me, 'giving' any 'meaning' to 'a space' is a (modern) human ability. And, so far as I know, no one has adequately linked 'archaeological spatial patterning' associated with the Neanderthals (at any scale) with the kind of meaning that you or I might assign to a space.
Moreover, you use the expression 'Neandertal spatial conceptions.' I take that to mean that Neanderthals were capable of having 'spatial conceptions.' I take that to mean that they were capable of 'conceiving' of space. I believe that you and I are capable of having a 'concept,' but the jury is still out on any such abilities in the Neanderthals.
I must say, it's unfortunate that in your research on spatial analysis of Middle Palaeolithic archaeological sites you evidently didn't encounter Cave Bears and Modern Human Origins: The Spatial Taphonomy of Pod harem Cave, Czech Republic, published in 1996, which lays out the issues and problems that have grown up around MP spatial analyses. For example, you mention 'the construction of a small temporary personal space by sweeping materials away.' Numerous animals do just that and more, and leave empirically identifiable non-random spatial patterning, without any hint of the modern human ability to think symbolically about their spaces. Why then should we interpret any such patterning in the MP archaeological record to be the result of meaningfully constituted behavior? I can conclude only that you believe the Neanderthals were able to give meaning to their spaces.
You also mention that
'the idea that Neandertals were lumbering idiots, more ape than human. … is a biased view as too much archaeological evidence speaks against it.'
Well, despite your own and others' interpretations of the MP archaeological record, I'm afraid we must agree to disagree. There are many who'd disagree with your statement, and on many dimensions. For example, in recent months all manner of long-cherished interpretations have come under scrutiny and failed to stand up to re-examination: the Castelperronien, purposeful burial, the Levallois technique, handaxes, and so on.
Finally, you mention a few factual errors. Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of my scholarship. But, let's face it, the inclusion of an additional genome from equatorial west Africa makes no difference to my argument--it's too little, and still too great a distance from the (likely) location of the emigrant population to be strong support for Pääbo and others' claim that the Neanderthals bred with the contemporaneous ancestors of modern humans.
I hope I've managed to smooth any ruffled feathers, Dr. Langbroek. And I sincerely hope that you'll walk away from this brief, but intense, conversation without a bad taste in your mouth.
I do enjoy a nice polemic every once in a while, and science thrives by discussion. Yet, there is a point (and a rather fine line) where a polemic or discussion is no longer a polemic or discussion, but descends into a pub brawl. In general, ad hominem (pc paleoanthropologists might prefer "ad hominin" nowadays) attacks becoming the center of the argument and the person rather than issue becoming the primary target, do cross that line. Let us leave that for Republican Presidential candidate debates.
ReplyDeleteYou accuse me (and others) of a priori assumptions. But there are clear a priori assumptions in your own points of view, e.g. when you write above: "for me, 'giving' any 'meaning' to 'a space' is a (modern) human ability".
That is a pretty damn definite statement. And it is an assumption, or assertion, and nothing more than that. In truth, we do not yet know if this is a strictly human ability only. You rather assert it.
And here we differ. Where you assert, I prefer to investigate. I do that from the realization, that potentially unique forms of behaviour of Neandertals have been persistently ignored so far. If we don't try to probe these potentially unique behaviours first, which is what I am doing with my research, we cannot assert that Neandertals did not have their own conceptions of space at all, different from us but conceptions of space nevertheless.
With my investigation of the latter, I might find that I am right. I might find that I am wrong. But at least: I find something out. And that is science. You are the one just assuming, in this case. You assume research into this is worthless because of your a priori assumption that only modern humans have perceptions of space.
It would take me a book rather than a blog comment to point out why Neandertals were not lumbering idiots, and why they did possess abilities not granted them by those who cling to the late '80-ies/early '90-ies views that they were ape-like in cognition rather than human. But to name one: there is now good evidence for composite tool use by Neandertals, e.g. in the shape of birch tar residues pointing to hafting on artifacts from e.g. Inden-Altorf in Germany, Campitello Quarry in Italy, and birchtar finds at Konigsau in Germany. There is no way to avoid the conclusion from this, that there was complex design (and a clear understanding of pyrotechnology and its effects on chemical compounds, as the production of usable birch-tar requires a strict control of temperature) involved in these tools, and a clear sense of (future) function. I do not see lumbering idiots achieve this and I do think this points to a complex cognition, able of conceiving the construction of objects for future use that involve a composition from widely varying materials that all have to be separately fabricated, including a stone point, a haft to fit it to, and production of the chemical compound used in the fitting, a compound that requires fire and moreover the careful controle of that fire.
And this is just one example of why I feel that Neandertals were not lumbering idiots, but in general quite capable humans, albeit different from us.
Marco: I've squeezed my comments in between snippets of yours.
Delete> I do enjoy a nice polemic … descends into a pub brawl.
Agreed.
> In general, ad hominem (pc paleoanthropologists might prefer "ad hominin"
good one! Can I use it?
> nowadays) attacks … target,
If you know anything about my own so-called career, Marco, you'd know that I'm already too familiar with ad hominem arguments, having been the target of so many over the past twenty or so years. By the way, it's not ad hominem to mention someone by name. It's ad hominem if you try to discredit their argument by bringing up their personal shortcomings. e.g. "That guy couldn't tie his own shoelaces. Why should we believe he could repair our car?"
> do cross that line. Let us leave that for Republican Presidential candidate debates.
Agreed.
> You accuse me …' is a (modern) human ability".
Sorry. Perhaps I should have been more precise. Here is what I probably should have said: "I know that giving meaning to a space is a modern human ability. I do not know that it is part of the cognitive/behavioral repertoire of the Neanderthals." You see? Neither statement contains an assumption. The first is based on personal observation and the scholarship of generations. The second is also a statement of fact. No one has yet demonstrated that Neanderthals did or were capable of giving meaning to their living spaces. As I point out in my book we are barely at the stage where we can infer the meaning that archaeological modern humans gave to their spaces. How can we possibly know anything about the Neanderthal's ability to attach symbolic significance to a place? Your example of the 'cleared space' is indicative of our evident inability to make sense of what such spaces MAY have meant. My own work demonstrates that similar spaces are a commonplace in the animal kingdom. Still, you're right in pointing out that it's an empirical question whether such spaces 'meant' anything to a Neanderthal. All one can say is 'perhaps they did.'
> That is a pretty damn definite statement.
I'll admit that!
> And it is an assumption, or assertion, and nothing more than that.
see above
> In truth, we do not yet know if this is a strictly human ability only. You rather assert it.
see above
> And here we differ. Where you assert, I prefer to investigate.
That's a bit of an overgeneralization. See above
> I do that from …space nevertheless.
See above
> With my investigation of the latter, … But at least: I find something out. And that is science.
Sorry. I can't agree with that. It's a false dichotomy. I find out, too. You missed my book. You may not want to be persuaded by my arguments.
> You are the one just assuming, in this case. ….
see above
> It would take me a book rather than a blog comment to point out why Neandertals were ….function.
Stay tuned.
> I do not see … that fire.
If they could do it, I'd have to agree with you. But, as with so many of the claims for modern human behaviour on the part of Neanderthals, the jury is still out. And with respect to the scientific value of my work, what is unscientific about examining the empirical evidence used in support of extraordinary claims?
> And this is just one example …different from us.
I can't fault you for wanting to feel that way. I hope you won't fault me for wanting to examine the evidence and arguments before I come to a decision.
re your "And with respect to the scientific value of my work, what is unscientific about examining the empirical evidence used in support of extraordinary claims?": I never said your work does not have scientific value. It is a valid scientific endeavour to take a critical look at the evidence for Neandertal burial, as you did, and you were right at that time that several "burials" can be questioned. I myself question some of them too, e.g. Saint-Cesaire.
DeleteWhat however worried many people with your CA paper (and later follow-on in JHE), is that you used criteria that are impossible to answer to, not just by Neandertals but by most if not all modern burials before the mid-Holocene as well. Basically, with your approach everything that does not have a tombstone would fail the criteria for "burial". In that sense, the outcome of your analysis was already fixed in the premisses (as translated in the used criteria). That was the main point made by commentators to your CA paper, e.g. Farizy & Masset, Gilman, and later in more detail by Belfer-Cohen and Hovers who applied your criteria for Neandertal burials to the burials of the Natufian.
The same issues of impossible to meet criteria appear at hand with the current discussion. I point to the evidence for hafting with use of birch-tar above (references are in a second reply I just posted). That evidence consists of multiple finds of artifacts with birch-tar on it (and it really is birch-tar in these cases, as they all have been archaeometrically investigated on chemistry of the compounds). Nevertheless, you maintain that "the jury is still out": so I wonder what kind of evidence in this you would accept?
Some references for the use of birch-tar by Neandertals:
ReplyDelete- Pawlik and Thissen, Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 1699-1708;
- Mazza et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (2006) 1310-1318;
- Koller et al., European Journal of Archaeology Vol. 4(3): 385-397.
It entails:
- Koller et al.: the find of a lump of birch-tar in Königsaue, with a human fingerprint on it;
- Mazza et al.: the find of a flint artifact in Campitello Quarry with a lump of birchtar still attached to the base, with the impression of a haft in it. A second flake from the site has remnants of the same birch-tar as well;
- Pawlik and Thissen: finds of 39 artifacts with traces of birch-tar still on it at the Micoquian site of Inden-Altdorf.
In all of these cases the chemical composition of the material was determined and confirmed to be the composition of birch-tar.
Birch-tar production entails that you have to maintain temperature control. The temperature during distillation has to be between 340 and 400 C, otherwise you will either get nothing at all, or a compound that does not stick well but crumbles.
Hi, Thanks for your willingness to keep the conversation rolling. I don't have a lot of time just now. But I have a couple of observations.
ReplyDeleteMy 'criteria' for recognizing purposeful burial are intended to make the inference of burial more rigorous than 'articulated, therefore buried' or any of a number of other unwarranted arguments. It was intended to point out that you simply can't say
'They were buried'. All you can say is 'They might have been buried', but the evidence is inconclusive.
On the pitch. I've had a quick look at the Pawlik and Thissen. They report: 'dried dark brownish black viscous liquid with micro-hairline cracks in the surface can be seen. It possesses a strong similarity to the birch pitch residues identified on Neolithic tools from the lake dwelling site Burgäschisee-Süd, Switzerland and implements from the Mesolithic sites of Henauhof-Nord, Germany'. So, under a stereo microscope it's VISUALLY similar. Then to the SEM: 'SEM showed layers of molten plant tissue frazzles and fibres in an amorphous matrix of solidified pitch, thus indicating the vegetable origin of the residues. So, with no other empirical evidence presented, it's gone from 'looks like it' to 'solidified pitch.' On to the EDX: 'The spectrum of elements acquired from several residue samples shows a significant peak for carbon, verifying the organic nature of the samples.' So, it's organic. Any archaeologist would have suspected as much at the outset. They go on to say only this: 'More significant is the presence of Ca, K and S. Their traces are shown in considerable quantities as well in the EDX histograms of birch pitch found on artefacts from the Neolithic site Burgäschisee-Süd and the Mesolithic site of Henauhof-Nord II (Fig. 5f and g).' End of story. I don't know about you, Marco, but to my way of thinking that's nowhere near the level of certainty that you imply in your statement that 'the chemical composition of the material was determined and confirmed to be the composition of birch-tar.' Do you know what the chemical composition of birch tar is? It is compounded of guaiacol, phenols, cresol, xylenol, and creosol. These are all organic compounds. I've made up a little figure http://thesubversivearchaeologist.blogspot.com/p/birch-tar-or-just-pitch.html. I've aligned the four spectra and adjusted the image sizes so that the scales are all the same on the x-axis. Have a look. All four have, to varying degrees, big C and O peaks. That's a no-brainer, since we're dealing with organic compounds. Because of the ubiquity of C and O in organic compounds you can effectively ignore those two elements. That leaves us with the rest. Looking at the rest, we see peaks of Si in all four. Over 90% of the Earth's crust is composed of silicate minerals, making silicon the second most abundant element in the earth's crust (about 28% by mass) after oxygen. Thus, I would expect to see a peak of Si in any sample taken from the earth's crust, whether organic or not. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Each of the four chemical signatures are unique, and contain unique occurrences of elements not shared with the other three. I guess I'm not much of a chemist. But, to me, this doesn't look like inconclusive proof of anything other than that these four samples are organic in nature, and derive from the lithosphere. If these were fingerprints, they wouldn't hold up in court. If they were DNA comparisons, OJ goes free again! Am I wrong in being skeptical of Pawlik's conclusions? If so, I should get out of the science business, 'cause this sure doesn't look like science to me. More like wishful thinking on Pawlik and Thissen's parts.
It's nice talking to you. Have a good weekend!
Just discovered a recent, true, chemical characterization of Birch Tar. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165237011000404
ReplyDeleteWhen I finally found this on the site I decided I only wanted to add one thing at the moment. Why do people not interpret the analysis by Hovers and Belfer Cohen as indicating that some of the bodies in caves in the Natufian were ALSO not buried? They simply bring "Natufians did fancy stuff so bodies must have been buried" to the table.
ReplyDeleteOne day I'll find the review I was asked to do for Current Anthropology on Anna and Erella's paper. I think the editor was foolish to have ignored my comments. C'est la guerre, I suppose. You're absolutely correct. What if?
Delete