Been pondering a lot since the new #HomoNaledi articles & #CaveOfBones film came out.
While I’m thinking of writing something longform, am also now sharing specific thoughts on #RisingStar interpretations as a 🧵:
- Access
- Fire
- Burial
- Aesthetics
A few things at the outset: Palaeolithic archaeology is HARD; cave archaeology especially, & mortuary archaeology in caves even trickier.
Rising Star is fascinating, exciting, perplexing, and immensely challenging logistically not just to dig but to study & explain.
Even after a decade of work in Rising Star, it's difficult to make judgment on current claims for fire, burials & art presented both academically & in public settings e.g. #CaveOfBones film, because much relevant data is not available.
This thread explores what I see as key Qs.
Comments on cave access:
What were access possibilities into the deep chambers in Rising Star?
How was Naledi getting in? Was Naledi’s access unique?
[pics of Chute from #CaveOfBones]
Comments on fire: considering available information and potential agents of fire.
[pics: Lesedi wall area, burnt area and Dragon's Back burnt bones from #CaveOfBones]
Comment on claimed burials:
What are means of accumulation for all
Naledi remains?
Are there different processes in Dinaledi vs Lesedi?
What is evidence of intentional inhumation, & are other possibilities available to explain?
[pics: #CaveOfBones and Nel et al 2021
Comment on markings and ’tool’:
Are identified areas demonstrably different to geological surfaces?
Are rocks uncommon in Dinaledi?
What is evidence for a tool, & for a connection to other cultural traces?
[pics: natural wall in cave & 'tool-shaped rock' , from #CaveOfBones]
Comment on cave access post-Naledi: Were other hominins including Homo sapiens able to access the caves in later periods, potentially being wholly or in part responsible for fire traces or other features?
[Pic: cave scan Kruger et al 2016)
As a #Neanderthal researcher, I understand well issues of expectation & bias when considering other hominins. But their 165 yr history of study shows that, as we developed understanding of taphonomic complexity, critique & conservatism always needed: bones in holes ≠ burials.
Today, some #Neanderthal mortuary behaviour has been dismissed, some broadly accepted for intentional interring of bodies and other diverse behaviours, and there are some locales where we’ve reached the limit of interpretation with available data. Same thing with aesthetics.
A guarded approach as with claims for burial or aesthetics in Neanderthals doesn't mean ignoring possibilities, but demanding strong evidence.
Lack of proof for some ‘complicated’ behaviours doesn't make Neanderthals or Naledi uninteresting.
[pics: Real Nean CBC & #CaveOfBones]
Final comments:
I look forward to further publications (described as forthcoming by team) on site formation & taphonomy, which are vital to understanding what exactly Homo naledi was doing in the Rising Star caves, together with the revised versions of their 2023 pre-prints.
In choosing to comment publicly, just as in open & signed peer reviews, I do so believing constructive critique is shared with a spirit of collaborative improvement, towards the scientific pursuit of knowledge.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
V excited to see this out.
I talk a lot in #Kindred about #GrotteMandrin, its strange Néronien layer & who might have made it.
Now strong evidence it was Homo sapiens... who then apparently were replaced for millennia by #Neanderthals.
We need more nuanced extinction narratives!
The Néronien at #GrotteMandrin has +1300 Levallois points, a uniquely huge amount, plus some are tiny (smaller than from any #Neanderthal contexts) & suggest light projectile weapons.
Even before tooth ID, this was culturally distinct & much more like IUP assoc w/ H. sapiens.
This really is a HUGE deal. It upsets neat narratives about what happened to "the #Neanderthals" - forces us to ask instead *which* Neanderthals, when?
And what do we mean by Homo sapiens' "success" if initial Euro populations +50ka went extinct for another 10,000 yrs...?
New paper showing more structured material engagement by #Neanderthals: alternating engraved marks on giant deer bone, Einhornhöhle (Unicorn Cave), Germany.
Congratulations to the authors!
#FlintFriday
Flint and clay-ironstone resharpening flakes, Ash Tree Cave, Derbyshire.
Even tiny objects show #Neanderthals moving around their land.
These two artefacts were waste from tool edge maintenance (scrapers or bifaces), but don't match anything in the cave. 1/n
But a few kms from Ash Tree Cave is @CreswellCrags, where scrapers & bifaces made of these stones were found in Church Hole and Robin Hood Cave.
We can't know if they were directly connected, but #Neanderthals were using the caves at Creswell & Ash Tree differently.
2/n
Clay-ironstone is a local, quite soft stone, probably used casually.
Flint however is trickier; there are occasional glacial cobbles of northern-type flint, but southern-type flint – which the scraper looks like – was probably brought into the region by #Neanderthals.
3/n
This find comes from Abri du Maras, SE France, which has already shown exceptional organic preservation due to unusual thin mineral films on the artefacts.
Previous finds included proof of small game butchery: fragments of raptor feathers, rabbit/hare fur and fish scales.
Another find from 7 yrs ago was *possible* evidence of 'string' .
Tiny plant fibres were found on stone artefacts, twisted in a way that didn't look natural.
It was slim evidence and some (inc. me) were skeptical. But the team continued, upping digging & conservation protocols.
Oh my GOSH
1st new #Neanderthal skeleton in +20 years
This is BIG stuff: plenty of bits & pieces found in that time plus vital re-examination of old claimed burials, but what's been missing is a new mostly-complete find we can use 21stC methods on
But note: Shanidar is a tricky site and there's long been evidence of both potential intentional body deposits, AND natural rockfall as ways #Neanderthal bodies got into the ground.
Plus there's a lot of individuals but while some are close to each other spatially (and relative to unexcavated area of this humungous rockshelter, all are clustered in centre), they're not all from same period in time.
DID #NEANDERTHALS TRADE? An excellent question but extremely hard to answer (even for early Homo sapiens) because it relies on a lot of assumptions about how Neanderthal society was organised.
We’ve got two ways in:
- how things were moved around
- how people moved around
The biggest & best-studied category of artefacts to help us look for #Neanderthal trade is lithics: stone tools. Decades of research on where rock was sourced vs. where it ended up shows everybody, including Upper Palaeolithic H. sapiens, mostly shifted stone small distances.