>>"A discovery by Francois Rouzaud of the French
>>archaeological service suggests Neandertals were more
>>sophisticated in their use of fire than previously believed. A
>>burnt bear bone found deep in a cave in southern France has been
>>dated to at least 47,600 years ago, before modern humans reached
>>western Europe. It proves Neandertals were able to use fire for
>>illumination. Earlier evidence showed only that they used fire
>>in simple hearths. The bone came from a 13- by 16-foot structure
>>made of stalactite and stalagmite fragments. Built by
>>Neandertals, its purpose is unknown."~Mark Berkowitz, "Neandertal
>>News," Archaeology, Sept./Oct. 1996, p. 22
>
>I would have no problem if "Neandertals were able to use fire for
>illumination" but the fact that there is no evidence they did so,
>until just before the advent of Homo sapiens in Europe about
>35,000 years ago, and its location in "southern France" makes me
>suspect that this could have been an early advance party of Homo
>sapiens from Africa, 10,000 years before the main pulse.
Good grief. What lengths we go to to avoid admitting the poor Neanderthal
to the human family. This is not the only evidence of Neanderthal
construction abilities. During the Mindel/Riss interglacial 200,000 years
ago, Neanderthal and Lunel-Viel made several structures.
"At Lunel-Viel a true dry stone
wall almost 3 m long was also excavated. This separated one part of the cave
which did not appear to have been habitable due to its high humidity and low
roof from the clearly inhabited zone. There were also pits dug along the
underground lakeshore, constructed hearths, bone dumps on the periphery of
habitation zone and other indications of a strongly specialized use of
domestic space inside the cave."~Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of
Neandertals ", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 132n
**
Mindel/Riss is approx 200,000 years
Riss 100-200,000 years Bilal U. Haq and Frans W. B. Van eysinga, Geological
Time Table, Elsivier 1987
"The possibility of lower Paleolithic stone pavements, presumably
constructed to protect cave inhabitants from ground moisture and mud during
times of inclement weather, is a topic on which opinions vary, as they also do
concerning specific sites. The densest, best defined cobble and artefact
accumulations are certainly unusual and enigmatic, requiring some explanation.
However, while the excavators are often convinced of their intentional human
origin, others are more cautious and posit possible, gradually built-up,
unintentional origins for at least some of these deposits. The most widely
accepted candidate for a clearly defined pavement has been excavated in the
Mindel/Riss deposits of Grotte d'Aldene. This continuous 6 m2 pavement was
primarily composed of adjoining rounded limestone cobbles that had been split
and flaked on the sides that were set into the ground with their rounded
surfaces facing up. Waste flakes, stalagmitic slabs with smooth surfaces up
and flint tools also formed part of this pavement. The continuous nature of
the pavement, the occurrence of flaking on the underside of the cobbles and
their limestone material make it seem unlikely that these are randomly
abandoned tools meant to be used for practical tasks. As Barrall & Simone
argue, these factors, as well as 'a good size sorting together with the tight,
almost conjoining fit between the constituents, and the presence of
incontestible flakes, prove that this is certainly an intentional habitation
structure.' Lumley & Bottet excavated other stone concentrations in several
Riss II and III deposits of stratum 30(J) at Baume Bonne. The best example at
this site,with over 185 cobbles per square meter, had well defined edges
forming an oval 5 m long by 2.5 m wide containing up to 70 retouched flint
tools per square meter, leaving little doubt as to its association with human
activity."~Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals ", Journal of
Human Evolution 1993, 24:113-146, p. 132-133
So are we to say that these were advance parties of homo sapiens prior to
their first occurrence on earth?
>
>Current thinking is that Homo sapiens was infiltrating into
>Western Europe at least 50,000 years ago:
>
>"For a long time, the Upper Paleolithic Revolution was taken as an
>indication that the final emergence of modern humans occurred in
>Western Europe. After all, the archeological signal and the fossil
>record coincided there precisely: both indicate a dramatic event about
>35,000 years ago: modern humans appeared in Western Europe
>35,000 years ago and their modern behavior is immediately part of
>the archeological record. Or so it was assumed. Recently, this view
>has changed. western Europe is now recognized as something of a
>backwater, and we can discern a transformation sweeping across
>Europe, from east to west. Beginning about 50,000 years ago, in
>Eastern Europe, the existing Neanderthal populations disappeared
>and were replaced by modern humans, the final replacement taking
>place in the far west by about 33,000 years ago. The coincidental
>appearance of modern humans and modern human behavior in
>Western Europe reflects the influx of a new kind of population,
>modern Homo sapiens. The Upper Paleolithic Revolution in Europe
>was a demographic signal and not an evolutionary signal. If modern
>humans were migrating into Western Europe beginning 50,000 years
>ago, where did they come from? On the basis of the fossil evidence,
>we would say Africa, in all probability-or perhaps the Middle East."
>(Leakey R., "The Origin of Humankind", 1994, p94)
As near as I have been able to determine, the oldest anatomically modern
skeleton on Europe was found at Dolni Vestonice 27,000 years ago. Prior to
that it is assumption that Neanderthal could not make the Aurignacian tools.
Anthropologists also used to think that Neanderthals could not make
Chatelperronian tools, until they found Neanderthal skeletons at 2
Chatelperonian sites. Next, the very earliest aurginacian occurs 39,000
years ago in far Western Europe, which was the territory of Neanderthal. If
the Aurignacian was the product of modern man, why don't we find the earlist
Aurignacian tools in Eastern Europe?
>If this date of "47 600 years BP" was obtained solely by "radiocarbon"
>analysis, then it is unreliable:
>
>"But by the 1970S, scientists began to realise the layers of sediments
>in which they had found these 'proto-human' remnants were much
>more complex than previously appreciated. Unfortunately, they
>lacked instruments that could peer far enough into the past, with
>sufficient precision, to date the strata and their fossil contents. The
>only effective technology that was then available relied on
>radiocarbon dating, a technique that is only effective with remains
>less than 40,000 years old - which put the Levant sediments
>tantalisingly out of reach." (Stringer C., & McKie R., "African
>Exodus", 1997, p77)
>
Conventional radiocarbon can not go beyond 40,000 years. Atomic mass
spectra radiocarbon, which was not available in the 1970s can go much
further back, to about 60-70,000 years. Stringer and McKie are talking
about the historical development of the science.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm