La historia

Huellas de 14.000 años en una cueva italiana revelan el antiguo comportamiento humano

Huellas de 14.000 años en una cueva italiana revelan el antiguo comportamiento humano


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

La evidencia de rastreo en un sistema de cuevas italiano arroja nueva luz sobre el comportamiento humano en grupos de finales de la Edad de Piedra, especialmente cuando se exploran nuevos terrenos, dice un estudio publicado hoy en eLife.

El descubrimiento del rastreo humano antiguo

La cueva de Bàsura en Toirano y sus restos fósiles humanos y animales se conocen desde la década de 1950, con los primeros estudios realizados por la arqueóloga italiana Virginia Chiappella. En el estudio actual, promovido por la Oficina de Patrimonio Arqueológico de Liguria, investigadores de Italia, Argentina y Sudáfrica utilizaron múltiples enfoques para analizar los rastros humanos e identificaron por primera vez comportamientos de rastreo de hace unos 14.000 años.

El corredor, conocido como Corridoio delle Impronte, dentro de la cueva donde los investigadores analizaron algunas de las huellas de humanos antiguos. (Isabella Salvador / Uso justo )

"En nuestro estudio, queríamos ver cómo los humanos antiguos exploraban este fascinante sistema de cuevas", dice el primer autor Marco Romano, becario postdoctoral en la Universidad de Witwatersrand, Sudáfrica. "Específicamente, nos propusimos descubrir cuántas personas ingresaron a la cueva, ya sea que exploraran como individuos o como grupo, su edad, género y qué tipo de ruta tomaron una vez dentro de la cueva".

Perspectivas sobre el comportamiento humano antiguo

Para responder a estas preguntas, el equipo multidisciplinario estudió 180 pistas desde el interior de la cueva, incluidas las huellas de pies y manos en el suelo rico en arcilla. Aplicaron varios métodos modernos de datación, software que analiza la estructura de las pistas y diferentes tipos de modelado 3D.
"Juntos, estos enfoques nos permitieron construir una narrativa de cómo los humanos entraron y salieron de la cueva, y sus actividades una vez que estuvieron dentro", explica Romano.

Los investigadores encontraron un total de 180 huellas y rastros humanos antiguos que se hicieron hace unos 14.000 años en una cueva en el norte de Italia. Aquí se muestran tres de las huellas, hechas en diferentes superficies dentro de la cueva. (Marco Avanzini / Uso justo )

El equipo determinó que cinco individuos, incluidos dos adultos, un adolescente de unos 11 años y dos niños de tres y seis años, entraron descalzos a la cueva e iluminaron el camino con palos de madera. Esto sugiere que los niños pequeños eran miembros activos del grupo durante la Edad de Piedra tardía, incluso cuando realizaban actividades aparentemente peligrosas.

Los investigadores informaron la primera evidencia de huellas de rastreo desde un túnel bajo, una ruta que se tomó para acceder a la parte interior de la cueva. Los detalles anatómicos en las huellas sugieren que los exploradores iban con las piernas desnudas mientras navegaban por este camino.

  • El descubrimiento de un dedo fósil humano antiguo apunta a una migración euroasiática anterior
  • Cráneo de Homo erectus descubierto en Java Central proporciona más evidencia de homínidos antiguos en el área
  • La caverna secreta subterránea pensada por los mayas como un portal al inframundo

Los antiguos humanos se arrastraron por un túnel bajo de la cueva. (Isabella Salvador / Uso justo )

El análisis del comportamiento humano antiguo

Al analizar las diversas huellas de manos, el equipo descubrió que algunas de ellas parecen 'involuntarias' y se relacionan solo con la exploración de la cueva, mientras que otras son más 'intencionales' y sugieren que las actividades sociales o simbólicas tuvieron lugar dentro de las cámaras internas. "Por lo tanto, los cazadores-recolectores pueden haber sido impulsados ​​por actividades divertidas durante la exploración, así como simplemente por la necesidad de encontrar comida", agrega Romano.

Las antiguas huellas humanas pueden proporcionar información detallada sobre su comportamiento. (Isabella Salvador / Uso justo )

"Juntos, nuestros resultados muestran cómo un enfoque variado para estudiar las huellas de nuestros antepasados ​​puede proporcionar información detallada sobre su comportamiento", concluye el autor principal Marco Avanzini, jefe del departamento de geología de MUSE - Museo de Ciencias de Trento, Italia.
"Esperamos que nuestro enfoque sea útil para pintar imágenes similares de cómo se comportaron los humanos en otras partes del mundo y durante diferentes períodos de tiempo".


Las huellas humanas encontradas en Arabia Saudita podrían tener 120.000 años de antigüedad

Siete huellas presionadas en el sedimento reseco de un antiguo lecho de un lago en el norte de Arabia Saudita pueden atestiguar la presencia de humanos en la región hace unos 115.000 años, informa Maya Wei-Haas para National Geographic.

Los arqueólogos que recorrieron el desierto de Nefud detectaron las impresiones mientras examinaban 376 huellas dejadas en el lodo del cuerpo de agua pasado por animales como elefantes gigantes extintos, camellos, búfalos y antepasados ​​de caballos modernos.

Ahora, un nuevo análisis publicado en la revista Avances de la ciencia sostiene que los humanos anatómicamente modernos crearon las siete huellas entre 112.000 y 121.000 años atrás. Si se confirma, las pisadas serían los rastros más antiguos de Homo sapiens jamás encontrado en la Península Arábiga, señala Bruce Bower para Noticias de ciencia.

Huellas de elefante y camello encontradas en el sitio de Alathar (Stewart et al., 2020)

El hallazgo podría ayudar a revelar las rutas que siguieron los humanos antiguos cuando salieron de África hacia un nuevo territorio, según National Geographic.

La mayoría de las personas no africanas que viven hoy en día tienen antepasados ​​que partieron del continente en masa hace unos 60.000 años. Pero algunos investigadores piensan que grupos más pequeños de Homo sapiens se aventuró fuera de África miles de años antes de esta migración masiva, viajando a través de la península del Sinaí y hacia el Levante. Otros estudiosos proponen una ruta centrada en el Cuerno de África y la Península Arábiga.

Además de las huellas, el lecho del lago & # 8212 apodado Alathar (árabe para & # 8220 el rastro & # 8221) & # 8212 arrojó un tesoro de 233 fósiles, informa Issam Ahmed para Agence France-Presse (AFP). Aunque la península ahora alberga desiertos áridos, probablemente era más verde y más húmeda en el momento en que se dejaron las huellas, con un clima similar al de la sabana africana.

& # 8220La presencia de animales grandes como elefantes e hipopótamos, junto con pastizales abiertos y grandes recursos hídricos, puede haber hecho del norte de Arabia un lugar particularmente atractivo para los humanos que se mueven entre África y Eurasia & # 8221, dice el coautor del estudio Michael Petraglia, arqueólogo del Instituto Max Planck de Ciencia e Historia Humana, en un comunicado.

La primera huella humana descubierta en Alathar (izquierda) y un modelo de elevación digital que ayudó a los investigadores a discernir sus detalles (derecha) (Stewart et al., 2020)

Aunque el sitio pudo haber sido una vez un terreno de caza fructífero, los investigadores no encontraron herramientas de piedra ni huesos de animales con las señales reveladoras de una carnicería. Según la declaración, esta escasez de evidencia sugiere que la visita de los humanos al lago probablemente fue solo una breve escala.

Como informa Ann Gibbons para Ciencias revista, el equipo identificó las pisadas fosilizadas como humanas comparándolas con huellas que se sabe fueron hechas por humanos y neandertales, una especie de homínido relacionada pero separada. Las siete huellas presentadas en el estudio eran más largas que las huellas de los neandertales y parecían haber sido hechas por homínidos más altos y ligeros.

El equipo no puede & # 8217t excluir completamente a los neandertales como los posibles autores de las huellas. Pero si la datación resulta correcta, tal atribución es poco probable, ya que los sedimentos justo encima y debajo de las impresiones datan de un período llamado último interglacial, cuando el clima en la región era relativamente cálido y húmedo.

& # 8220 Es solo después del último interglacial con el regreso de condiciones más frías que tenemos evidencia definitiva de que los neandertales se mudan a la región & # 8221, dice el autor principal Mathew Stewart, biólogo del Instituto Max Planck de Ecología Química, en el comunicado. . & # 8220 Las huellas, por lo tanto, lo más probable es que representen a humanos, o Homo sapiens.”


Los rastros de gatear en una cueva italiana dan pistas sobre el comportamiento social de los humanos antiguos

La evidencia de gatear en un sistema de cuevas italiano arroja nueva luz sobre cómo los humanos de finales de la Edad de Piedra se comportaron como grupo, especialmente al explorar nuevos terrenos, dice un estudio publicado hoy en eLife.

La cueva de B & # 224sura en Toirano y sus restos fósiles humanos y animales se conocen desde la década de 1950, con los primeros estudios realizados por la arqueóloga italiana Virginia Chiappella. En el estudio actual, promovido por la Oficina de Patrimonio Arqueológico de Liguria, investigadores de Italia, Argentina y Sudáfrica utilizaron múltiples enfoques para analizar los rastros humanos e identificaron por primera vez comportamientos de rastreo de hace unos 14.000 años.

"En nuestro estudio, queríamos ver cómo los humanos antiguos exploraban este fascinante sistema de cuevas", dice el primer autor Marco Romano, becario postdoctoral en la Universidad de Witwatersrand, Sudáfrica. "Específicamente, nos propusimos descubrir cuántas personas ingresaron a la cueva, ya sea que exploraran como individuos o como grupo, su edad, género y qué tipo de ruta tomaron una vez dentro de la cueva".

Para responder a estas preguntas, el equipo multidisciplinario estudió 180 pistas desde el interior de la cueva, incluidas las huellas de pies y manos en el suelo rico en arcilla. Aplicaron varios métodos modernos de datación, software que analiza la estructura de las pistas y diferentes tipos de modelado 3D. "Juntos, estos enfoques nos permitieron construir una narrativa de cómo los humanos entraron y salieron de la cueva, y sus actividades una vez que estuvieron dentro", explica Romano.

El equipo determinó que cinco individuos, incluidos dos adultos, un adolescente de unos 11 años y dos niños de tres y seis años, entraron descalzos a la cueva e iluminaron el camino con palos de madera. Esto sugiere que los niños pequeños eran miembros activos del grupo durante la Edad de Piedra tardía, incluso cuando realizaban actividades aparentemente peligrosas.

Los investigadores informaron la primera evidencia de huellas de rastreo desde un túnel bajo, una ruta que se tomó para acceder a la parte interior de la cueva. Los detalles anatómicos en las huellas sugieren que los exploradores iban con las piernas desnudas mientras navegaban por este camino.

Al analizar las diversas huellas de manos, el equipo descubrió que algunas de ellas parecen 'involuntarias' y se relacionan solo con la exploración de la cueva, mientras que otras son más 'intencionales' y sugieren que las actividades sociales o simbólicas tuvieron lugar dentro de las cámaras internas. "Por lo tanto, los cazadores-recolectores pueden haber sido impulsados ​​por actividades divertidas durante la exploración, así como simplemente por la necesidad de encontrar comida", agrega Romano.

"Juntos, nuestros resultados muestran cómo un enfoque variado para estudiar las huellas de nuestros antepasados ​​puede proporcionar información detallada sobre su comportamiento", concluye el autor principal Marco Avanzini, jefe del departamento de geología de MUSE - Museo de Ciencias de Trento, Italia. "Esperamos que nuestro enfoque sea útil para pintar imágenes similares de cómo se comportaron los humanos en otras partes del mundo y durante diferentes períodos de tiempo".

El documento 'Un enfoque multidisciplinario para un registro icnológico humano paleolítico único de Italia (B & # 224sura Cave)' se puede acceder libremente en línea en https: / / doi. org / 10. 7554 / eLife.45204. Los contenidos, incluidos texto, figuras y datos, se pueden reutilizar libremente bajo una licencia CC BY 4.0.

Contactos del autor para obtener más información:

Marco Avanzini, autor principal [email protected]

Elisabetta Starnini, coordinadora de proyectos multidisciplinares [email protected]

Emily Packer, responsable de prensa sénior
eLife
e.packer @eLifesciences.org
01223 855373

eLife es una organización sin fines de lucro inspirada por financiadores de investigación y dirigida por científicos. Nuestra misión es ayudar a los científicos a acelerar el descubrimiento operando una plataforma para la comunicación de la investigación que fomenta y reconoce los comportamientos más responsables en la ciencia. Publicamos investigaciones importantes en todas las áreas de las ciencias biomédicas y de la vida, incluida la Biología Evolutiva, que es seleccionada y evaluada por científicos en activo y está disponible gratuitamente en línea sin demora. eLife también invierte en innovación a través del desarrollo de herramientas de código abierto para acelerar la comunicación y el descubrimiento de la investigación. Nuestro trabajo está guiado por las comunidades a las que servimos. eLife cuenta con el apoyo del Instituto Médico Howard Hughes, la Sociedad Max Planck, el Wellcome Trust y la Fundación Knut y Alice Wallenberg. Obtenga más información en https: //eLifesciences.org/about.

Para leer la última investigación sobre biología evolutiva publicada en eLife, visite https: //eLifesciences.org/subjects/evolutionary-biology.

Descargo de responsabilidad: AAAS y EurekAlert! no son responsables de la precisión de los comunicados de prensa publicados en EurekAlert. por las instituciones contribuyentes o para el uso de cualquier información a través del sistema EurekAlert.


Pequeñas impresiones

Al estudiar la forma, el tamaño y la distribución de las huellas, los investigadores intentaron reconstruir lo que sucedió durante la antigua caminata por el suelo fangoso. El fabricante de pistas principal podría haber sido una mujer de 12 años o más, o posiblemente un hombre joven, según una comparación de las longitudes de la huella con los humanos modernos. En al menos tres puntos del camino, pequeñas huellas se unen al camino principal, evidencia de un niño menor de tres años.

El espaciado de las pistas sugiere que la persona viajaba a unos 6 km por hora. Si bien no es un trote, este habría sido un ritmo apresurado considerando las condiciones embarradas y la carga pesada, señala Hatala.

En algunos puntos, los pasos del viajero eran inusualmente largos, como si estuvieran pisando o saltando un obstáculo. "Podrían ser charcos", dice Reynolds. "Podría ser caca de mamut húmeda".

El niño, sin embargo, fue llevado de una sola manera. Durante el viaje hacia el norte, las huellas del pie izquierdo son un poco más grandes, lo que puede ser el resultado de llevar al niño pequeño en una cadera. Entre las pistas en dirección norte, también hay casos en los que los dedos del pie del caminante se deslizan sobre la superficie fangosa, el pie se arrastra para crear una impresión en forma de plátano. Sin embargo, en el regreso hacia el sur, esta diferencia de tamaño en las huellas no es evidente y el deslizamiento es mucho menos frecuente, lo que sugiere que el caminante no estaba estorbado.

Los investigadores habían sugerido anteriormente que las diferencias en las huellas del pie derecho y del zurdo podrían ser evidencia de que se lleva una carga, pero a menudo se especulaba. El nuevo estudio ofrece un poco más de evidencia: "En este caso particular, ves que las huellas de un niño aparecen repentinamente a la mitad", dice Hatala.

Las huellas de animales ayudaron al equipo a estimar cuándo el aventurero atravesó la tierra. Después del viaje hacia el norte, el mamut y el perezoso gigante cruzaron el sendero fresco, mientras que las huellas del humano hacia el sur cortaban las de los animales. Esta superposición muestra que todas las impresiones se colocaron unas pocas horas antes de que el barro se secara por completo. La presencia de estas criaturas ahora extintas junto a los humanos sugiere que la antigua aventura tuvo lugar hace al menos 10.000 años.


El quid continental

La investigación en Arabia Saudita es parte de un esfuerzo de más de una década dirigido por Petraglia para desenterrar la historia de los homínidos en la Península Arábiga y comprender mejor los primeros pasos de nuestra especie fuera de África.

La mayoría de las personas no africanas de hoy pueden rastrear sus raíces genéticas en una ola de H. sapiens que se aventuró desde el continente hace aproximadamente 60.000 años. Pero no fueron los primeros en irse. Temprano H. sapiens probablemente estaban saliendo de África decenas de miles de años antes. Una mandíbula superior encontrada en Israel sugiere que los humanos llegaron a la región hace 180.000 años. Y un hallazgo controvertido pero sorprendente de un cráneo humano en Grecia que data de unos 210.000 años, indicios de olas incluso anteriores.

Como dice la historia habitual, estos antiguos exploradores probablemente cruzaron el noreste de África sobre la actual península del Sinaí, extendiéndose hacia el Levante, la región al norte de Arabia que incluye a Israel, Siria, Líbano, Jordania y los territorios palestinos, antes migrando a Europa y Asia. Pero algunos sugieren que los primeros humanos cruzaron cerca del Cuerno de África hacia el sur de la Península Arábiga, extendiéndose alrededor del borde del Océano Índico.

En esta crucial coyuntura continental se encuentra Arabia, una vasta extensión de tierra que durante mucho tiempo no se estudió. “Si estábamos pensando en dar un paso adelante fuera de África, necesitábamos saber más sobre Arabia”, dice Petraglia.

Petraglia y su equipo han comenzado a llenar ese vacío, descubriendo pistas sobre una época en la que la ahora árida península era muy diferente. Exuberantes praderas cubrían un paisaje atravesado por ríos y salpicado por unos 10.000 lagos, lo que lo convertía en un lugar atractivo para los exploradores homínidos. Se han encontrado herramientas de piedra esparcidas por muchas orillas de lagos antiguos, pero sus fabricantes siguen siendo desconocidos.

“Eso nos ha mantenido en marcha durante años”, dice Petraglia.


Preservando Engare Sero para el futuro

Varias de las huellas de huellas humanas conducen a una duna de arena cercana al norte. Hemos dejado intencionadamente las huellas conservadas bajo la duna de arena sin excavar por ahora, hasta que podamos trabajar con el gobierno de Tanzania para desarrollar un plan de conservación para rastrear y limitar la erosión de las huellas.

La ceniza endurecida es notablemente resistente a la erosión del agua y el viento. Aún así, gracias al Programa de Digitalización 3D del Smithsonian & # 8217s, hemos capturado meticulosamente datos tridimensionales para cada una de las huellas para que podamos rastrear cualquier destrucción natural de las impresiones a lo largo del tiempo. Incluso puede descargar archivos 3D de algunas de las huellas de Engare Sero, en caso de que desee imprimir en 3D sus propias copias.

Este artículo se vuelve a publicar en The Conversation, un sitio de noticias sin fines de lucro dedicado a compartir ideas de expertos académicos.

William E.H. Harcourt-Smith recibe fondos de la Leakey Foundation, la National Science Foundation y la Wenner-Gren Foundation.

Briana Pobiner recibe fondos de la National Science Foundation, la Leakey Foundation y la Wenner-Gren Foundation.


Preservando Engare Sero para el futuro

Varias de las huellas de huellas humanas conducen a una duna de arena cercana al norte. Por ahora, hemos dejado intencionadamente las huellas conservadas bajo la duna de arena sin excavar, hasta que podamos trabajar con el gobierno de Tanzania para desarrollar un plan de conservación para rastrear y limitar la erosión de las huellas.

La ceniza endurecida es notablemente resistente a la erosión del agua y el viento. Aún así, gracias al Programa de Digitalización 3D del Smithsonian & rsquos, hemos capturado meticulosamente datos tridimensionales para cada una de las huellas para que podamos rastrear cualquier destrucción natural de las impresiones a lo largo del tiempo. Incluso puede descargar archivos 3D de algunas de las huellas de Engare Sero, en caso de que desee imprimir en 3D sus propias copias.

William E.H. Harcourt-Smith, investigador asociado, División de Paleontología, Museo Americano de Historia Natural y Profesor Asociado de Antropología, Lehman College, CUNY y Briana Pobiner, científica investigadora y educadora de museos, Institución Smithsonian

Este artículo se vuelve a publicar desde La conversación bajo una licencia Creative Commons. Lea el artículo original.


Guerra de insectos

Las tumbas de ámbar conservan los cuerpos de hormigas y termitas antiguas, lo que permite vislumbrar el comportamiento y la estructura social de los insectos que vivieron hace millones de años.

Las hormigas, algunas de las cuales están encerradas juntas para siempre en un combate mortal, tienen 99 millones de años, y las termitas en ámbar datan de hace 100 millones de años y son los especímenes de termitas más antiguos encontrados hasta la fecha. Diferentes adaptaciones corporales en las termitas se describen en un estudio que se publicó en febrero de 2016 en la revista Current Biology, y las identifica como soldados o trabajadores, lo que sugiere que incluso hace millones de años y mdash durante las primeras etapas de la evolución de las termitas y la estructura social de las termitas mdash incluía roles altamente especializados.

Los animales sepultados en ámbar realmente parecen estar congelados en el tiempo, conservando la forma y el color de sus cuerpos tal como aparecieron en vida. Debido a que la savia pegajosa del árbol los atrapa tan rápidamente, los animales pueden ser capturados en medio de interacciones que los científicos pueden interpretar millones de años después, para comprender cómo vivían.


Contenido

Cuando los primeros humanos modernos (Homo sapiens) emigraron al continente europeo, interactuaron con los neandertales indígenas (H. neanderthalensis) que ya había habitado Europa durante cientos de miles de años. En 2019, la paleoantropóloga griega Katerina Harvati y sus colegas argumentaron que dos cráneos de 210.000 años de antigüedad de la cueva Apidima, Grecia, representan humanos modernos en lugar de neandertales, lo que indica que estas poblaciones tienen una historia inesperadamente profunda, [1] pero esto fue refutado en 2020 por el paleoantropólogo francés. Marie-Antoinette de Lumley [fr] y colegas. [2] Hace unos 60.000 años, comenzó la etapa 3 del isótopo marino, caracterizada por patrones climáticos volátiles y eventos de retroceso repentino y recolonización de las tierras forestales en forma de estepa abierta. [3]

El primer indicio de la migración humana moderna del Paleolítico superior a Europa es la industria bohunicia de los Balcanes que comenzó hace 48.000 años, probablemente derivada de la industria levantina emirana, [4] y los primeros huesos en Europa datan de hace aproximadamente 45-43 mil años en Bulgaria. [5] Italia, [6] y Gran Bretaña. [7] No está claro, mientras migraban hacia el oeste, si siguieron el Danubio o fueron a lo largo de la costa mediterránea. [8] Hace unos 45 a 44 mil años, la cultura protoaurignaciana se extendió por Europa, probablemente descendiendo de la cultura ahmariana del Cercano Oriente. Después de hace 40.000 años con el inicio del evento 4 de Heinrich (un período de extrema estacionalidad), el propio auriñaciense evolucionó quizás en el centro-sur de Europa y reemplazó rápidamente a otras culturas en todo el continente. [9] Esta ola de humanos modernos reemplazó a los neandertales y su cultura musteriana. [10] En el valle del Danubio, el Aurignacian presenta sitios lejanos y pocos en comparación con las tradiciones posteriores, hasta hace 35.000 años. A partir de aquí, el "típico auriñaciense" se vuelve bastante frecuente y se extiende hasta hace 29.000 años. [11]

El auriñaciense fue reemplazado gradualmente por la cultura gravetiana, pero no está claro cuándo se extinguió el auriñaciense porque está mal definido. Las herramientas "Aurignacoid" o "Epi-Aurignacian" se identifican hace entre 18 y 15 mil años. [11] Tampoco está claro de dónde se originó el gravetiano, ya que diverge fuertemente del aurignicio (y, por lo tanto, puede que no haya descendido de él). [12] No obstante, la evidencia genética indica que no todos los linajes auriñacienses se extinguieron. [13] Las hipótesis para la génesis gravetiana incluyen la evolución: en Europa Central desde el eszeletiano (que se desarrolló a partir del bohunicia) que existió hace 41 a 37 mil años o desde el ahmario o culturas similares del Cercano Oriente o el Cáucaso que existieron antes de 40.000 años atrás. [12] Se debate aún más dónde se identifica la ocurrencia más temprana, con la primera hipótesis argumentando a favor de Alemania hace unos 37.500 años, [14] y el último refugio rocoso Buran-Kaya [ru] III en Crimea hace unos 38 a 36 mil años. [15] En cualquier caso, la aparición del gravetiano coincide con una caída significativa de la temperatura. [3] También hace unos 37.000 años, existía la población fundadora de todos los humanos modernos europeos tempranos posteriores (EEMH), y Europa permanecería en aislamiento genético del resto del mundo durante los próximos 23.000 años. [13]

Hace unos 29.000 años, comenzó la etapa 2 del isótopo marino y se intensificó el enfriamiento. Esto alcanzó su punto máximo hace unos 21.000 años durante el Último Máximo Glacial (LGM) cuando Escandinavia, la región del Báltico y las Islas Británicas estaban cubiertas de glaciares y el hielo marino invernal alcanzó la costa francesa. Los Alpes también estaban cubiertos de glaciares y la mayor parte de Europa era un desierto polar, con estepas gigantescas y estepas forestales dominando la costa mediterránea. [3] En consecuencia, grandes extensiones de Europa eran inhabitables, y dos culturas distintas surgieron con tecnologías únicas para adaptarse al nuevo entorno: la solutrense en el suroeste de Europa, que inventó nuevas tecnologías, y la epi-gravetiana de Italia a la llanura de Europa del Este. que adaptó las tecnologías gravetianas anteriores. Los pueblos de Solutrean habitaban la zona de permafrost, mientras que los pueblos de Epi-Gravetian parecen haberse quedado en áreas menos duras, heladas estacionalmente. Se conocen relativamente pocos sitios hasta este momento. [16] Los glaciares comenzaron a retroceder hace unos 20.000 años, y el Solutreano evolucionó hacia el Magdaleniense, que recolonizaría Europa Occidental y Central durante los próximos dos mil años. [3] Comenzando durante el Antiguo Dryas hace aproximadamente 14.000 años, aparecen las últimas tradiciones magdalenienses, a saber, la aziliana, la de Hamburgo y la creswelliana. [17] Durante el calentamiento de Bølling-Allerød, los genes del Cercano Oriente comenzaron a aparecer en los europeos indígenas, lo que indica el fin del aislamiento genético de Europa. [13] Posiblemente debido a la continua reducción de la caza mayor europea, el Magdaleniense y el Epi-Gravetiense fueron completamente reemplazados por el Mesolítico a principios del Holoceno. [17] [18]

Europa fue completamente repoblada durante el óptimo climático del Holoceno hace 9 a 5 mil años. Los Cazadores-Recolectores de Europa Occidental del Mesolítico (WHG) contribuyeron significativamente al genoma europeo actual, junto con los Antiguos Euroasiáticos del Norte (ANE), que descendían de la cultura siberiana Mal'ta-Buret '[19] (y se separaron de EEMH antes de hace 37.000 años [13]). A diferencia de ANE, el genoma WHG no prevalece en ambos lados del Cáucaso y solo se ve en una medida significativa al oeste del Cáucaso. La mayoría de los europeos actuales tienen una proporción de 60 a 80% WHG / (WHG + ANE), y el hombre de Loschbour mesolítico de 8.000 años parece haber tenido un patrón similar. Los agricultores del Neolítico del Cercano Oriente que se separaron de los cazadores-recolectores europeos hace unos 40.000 años comenzaron a extenderse por Europa hace 8.000 años, marcando el comienzo del Neolítico con los primeros agricultores europeos (EEF). EEF aporta aproximadamente el 30% de la ascendencia de las poblaciones bálticas actuales, y hasta el 90% en las poblaciones mediterráneas actuales. Este último puede haber heredado la ascendencia WHG a través de la introgresión EEF. [19] [20] La población de Cazadores-Recolectores del Este (EHG) identificada alrededor de las estepas de los Urales también se dispersó, y los Cazadores-Recolectores escandinavos parecen ser una mezcla de WHG y EHG. Hace unos 4.500 años, la inmigración de las culturas Yamnaya y Corded Ware de las estepas orientales trajo la Edad del Bronce, la lengua protoindoeuropea y más o menos la composición genética actual de los europeos. [21]

Históricamente, los EEMH se han denominado "Cromañones" en la literatura científica hasta alrededor de la década de 1990, cuando el término "humanos anatómicamente modernos" se hizo más popular. [22] El nombre "Cro-Magnon" proviene de los 5 esqueletos descubiertos por el paleontólogo francés Louis Lartet en 1868 en el refugio rocoso Cro-Magnon, Les Eyzies, Dordogne, Francia, después de que el área fuera descubierta accidentalmente mientras limpiaba un terreno para un ferrocarril. estación. [23] Los fósiles y artefactos del Paleolítico se conocían desde hacía décadas, pero se interpretaron en un modelo creacionista (ya que el concepto de evolución aún no se había concebido). Por ejemplo, el geólogo Reverendo William Buckland describió en 1822 a la Dama Roja Auriñaciense de Paviland (un joven) de Gales del Sur como ciudadana de la Gran Bretaña romana. Los autores posteriores sostuvieron que el esqueleto era evidencia de gente antediluviana (antes del Gran Diluvio) en Gran Bretaña, o fue arrastrado lejos de las tierras habitadas más al sur por las poderosas inundaciones. Buckland asumió que el espécimen era una mujer porque estaba adornado con joyas (conchas, varillas y anillos de marfil, y un pincho de hueso de lobo), y Buckland también declaró (posiblemente en broma) que las joyas eran evidencia de brujería. Alrededor de esta época, el movimiento del uniformismo estaba ganando terreno, encabezado principalmente por Charles Lyell, argumentando que los materiales fósiles eran muy anteriores a la cronología bíblica. [24]

Siguiendo la 1859 de Charles Darwin En el origen de las especies, los antropólogos y raciólogos raciales comenzaron a escindir supuestas subespecies y subrazas de los humanos actuales basándose en métricas poco fiables y pseudocientíficas recopiladas de la antropometría, la fisonomía y la frenología hasta el siglo XX. [25]: 93–96 Esta fue una continuación de 1735 de Carl Linnaeus Systema Naturae, donde inventó el sistema de clasificación moderno, al hacerlo clasificando a los humanos como Homo sapiens con varias clasificaciones de subespecies putativas para diferentes razas basadas en definiciones de comportamiento racista (de acuerdo con conceptos históricos de raza): "H. s. europaeus"(Ascendencia europea, regida por leyes)",H. s. despues"(Ascendencia africana, impulso)",H. s. asiaticus"(Ascendencia asiática, opiniones) y"H. s. americanus"(Ascendencia nativa americana, costumbres). [26] El sistema de clasificación racial se extendió rápidamente a los especímenes fósiles, incluidos tanto EEMH como los neandertales, después de que se reconoció la verdadera extensión de su antigüedad. [25]: 110 En 1869, Lartet había propuso la clasificación de subespecies "H. s. fossilis"para los restos de Cro-Magnon. [22] Otras supuestas subrazas de la 'raza Cro-Magnon' incluyeron (entre muchas otras):"H. pre-aethiopicus"para un cráneo de Dordoña que tenía" afinidades etíopes ""H. predmosti" o "H. predmostensis"para una serie de cráneos de Brno, República Checa, supuestamente de transición entre neandertales y EEMH [27]: 110-111 H. mentonensis para una calavera de Menton, Francia [27]: 88 "H. grimaldensis"para el hombre Grimaldi y otros esqueletos cerca de Grimaldi, Mónaco [27]: 55 y"H. aurignacensis" o "H. a. hauseri"para el cráneo de Combe-Capelle. [27]: 15

Estas `` razas fósiles '', junto con la idea de Ernst Haeckel de que existen razas atrasadas que requieren una mayor evolución (darwinismo social), popularizaron en el pensamiento europeo la idea de que el hombre blanco civilizado había descendido de antepasados ​​primitivos de simios de cejas bajas a través de una serie de razas salvajes. . Las crestas prominentes de las cejas se clasificaron como un rasgo similar al de los simios y, en consecuencia, los neandertales (así como los aborígenes australianos) se consideraron una raza humilde. [25]: 116 Se consideró que estos fósiles europeos habían sido los antepasados ​​de razas europeas específicamente vivientes. [25]: 96 Uno de los primeros intentos de clasificar la EEMH fue realizado por los antropólogos raciales Joseph Deniker y William Z. Ripley en 1900, quienes los caracterizaron como proto-arios altos e inteligentes, superiores a otras razas, que descendían de Escandinavia y Alemania. Otras teorías raciales giraban en torno a razas progresivamente más claras, más rubias y superiores (subespecies) que evolucionaban en Europa Central y se extendían en oleadas para reemplazar a sus antepasados ​​más oscuros, culminando en la "raza nórdica". Estos se alinearon bien con el nórdico y el pangermanismo (es decir, la supremacía aria), que ganó popularidad justo antes de la Primera Guerra Mundial, y fue utilizado notablemente por los nazis para justificar la conquista de Europa y la supremacía del pueblo alemán en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. . [25]: 203-205 La estatura fue una de las características utilizadas para distinguir estas subrazas, por lo que los EEMH más altos, como los especímenes de los sitios franceses Cro-Magnon, Paviland y Grimaldi, se clasificaron como ancestrales de la "raza nórdica", y los más pequeños como Combe-Capelle y Chancelade man (también de Francia) fueron considerados los precursores de la "raza mediterránea" o de los "esquimoides". [28] Las figurillas de Venus, esculturas de mujeres embarazadas con senos y muslos exagerados, se utilizaron como evidencia de la presencia de la "raza negroide" en la Europa Paleolítica, porque se interpretó que estaban basadas en mujeres reales con esteatopigia (una condición que causa muslos más gruesos, común en las mujeres del pueblo San del sur de África) y los peinados de algunos son supuestamente similares a los que se ven en el Antiguo Egipto. [29] By the 1940s, the positivism movement — which fought to remove political and cultural bias from science and had begun about a century earlier — had gained popular support in European anthropology. Due to this movement and raciology's associations with Nazism, raciology fell out of practice. [25] : 137

The beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic is thought to have been characterised by a major population increase in Europe, with the human population of Western Europe possibly increasing by a factor of 10 in the Neanderthal/modern human transition. [30] The archaeological record indicates that the overwhelming majority of Palaeolithic people (both Neanderthals and modern humans) died before reaching the age of 40, with few elderly individuals recorded. It is possible the population boom was caused by a significant increase in fertility rates. [31]

A 2005 study estimated the population of Upper Palaeolithic Europe by calculating the total geographic area which was inhabited based on the archaeological record averaged the population density of Chipewyan, Hän, Hill people, and Naskapi Native Americans which live in cold climates and applied to this to EEMH and assumed that population density continually increased with time calculated by the change in the number of total sites per time period. The study calculated that: from 40 to 30 thousand years ago the population was roughly 1,700–28,400 (average 4,400) from 30 to 22 thousand years ago roughly 1,900–30,600 (average 4,800) from 22 to 16.5 thousand years ago roughly 2,300–37,700 (average 5,900) and 16.5–11.5 thousand years ago roughly 11,300–72,600 (average 28,700). [32]

Following the LGM, EEMH are thought to have been much less mobile and featured a higher population density, indicated by seemingly shorter trade routes as well as symptoms of nutritional stress. [33]

Physical attributes Edit

For 28 modern human specimens from 190 to 25 thousand years ago, average brain volume was estimated to have been about 1,478 cc (90.2 cu in), and for 13 EEMH about 1,514 cc (92.4 cu in). In comparison, present-day humans average 1,350 cc (82 cu in), which is notably smaller. This is because the EEMH brain, though within the variation for present-day humans, exhibits longer average frontal lobe length and taller occipital lobe height. The parietal lobes, however, are shorter in EEMH. It is unclear if this could equate to any functional differences between present-day and early modern humans. [34]

EEMH are physically similar to present-day humans, with a globular braincase, completely flat face, gracile brow ridge, and defined chin. However, the bones of EEMH are somewhat thicker and more robust. [35] Compared to present-day Europeans, EEMH have broader and shorter faces, more prominent brow ridges, bigger teeth, shorter upper jaws, more horizontally oriented cheekbones, and more rectangular eye sockets. The latter three are more frequent in certain present-day East Asian populations. [36] Aurignacians featured a higher proportion of traits somewhat reminiscent of Neanderthals, such as (though not limited to) a slightly flattened skullcap and consequent occipital bun protruding from the back of the skull (the latter could be quite defined). Their frequency significantly diminished in Gravettians, and in 2007, palaeoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus concluded these were remnants of Neanderthal introgression which were eventually bred out of the gene pool in his review of the relevant morphology. [37]

In early Upper Palaeolithic Western Europe, 20 men and 10 women were estimated to have averaged 176.2 cm (5 ft 9 in) and 162.9 cm (5 ft 4 in), respectively. This is similar to post-industrial modern Northern Europeans. In contrast, in a sample of 21 and 15 late Upper Palaeolithic Western European men and women, the averages were 165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in) and 153.5 cm (5 ft), similar to pre-industrial modern humans. It is unclear why earlier EEMH were taller, especially considering that cold-climate creatures are short-limbed and thus short-statured to better retain body heat. This has variously been explained as: retention of a hypothetically tall ancestral condition higher-quality diet and nutrition due to the hunting of megafauna which later became uncommon or extinct functional adaptation to increase stride length and movement efficiency while running during a hunt increasing territorialism among later EEMH reducing gene flow between communities and increasing inbreeding rate or statistical bias due to small sample size or because taller people were more likely to achieve higher status in a group before the LGM and thus were more likely to be buried and preserved. [28]

Prior to genetic analysis, it was generally assumed that EEMH, like present-day Europeans, were light skinned as an adaptation to absorb vitamin D from the less luminous sun farther north. However, of the 3 predominant genes responsible for lighter skin in present-day Europeans — KITLG, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 — the latter two, as well as the TYRP1 gene associated with lighter hair and eye colour, experienced positive selection as late as 19 to 11 thousand years ago during the Mesolithic transition. These three became more widespread across the continent in the Bronze Age. [39] [40] The variation of the gene which is associated with blue eyes in present-day humans, OCA2, seems to have descended from a common ancestor about 10–6 thousand years ago somewhere in Northern Europe. [41] Such a late timing was potentially caused by overall low population and/or low cross-continental movement required for such an adaptive shift in skin, hair, and eye colouration. However, KITLG experienced positive selection in EEMH (as well as East Asians) beginning approximately 30,000 years ago. [40] [42]

Genética Editar

While anatomically modern humans have been present outside of Africa during some isolated time intervals potentially as early as 250,000 years ago, [43] present-day non-Africans descend from the out of Africa expansion which occurred around 65–55 thousand years ago. This movement was an offshoot of the rapid expansion within East Africa associated with mtDNA haplogroup L3. [44] [45] Mitochondrial DNA analysis places EEMH as the sister group to Upper Palaeolithic East Asian groups ("Proto-Mongoloid"), divergence occurring roughly 50,000 years ago. [46]

Initial genomic studies on the earliest EEMH in 2014, namely on the 37,000-year-old Kostenki-14 individual, identified 3 major lineages which are also present in present-day Europeans: one related to all later EEMH a "Basal Eurasian" lineage which split from the common ancestor of present-day Europeans and East Asians before they split from each other and another related to a 24,000-year-old individual from the Siberian Mal'ta–Buret' culture (near Lake Baikal). Contrary to this, a 2016 study looking at much earlier European specimens, including Ust'-Ishim and Oase-1 dating to 45,000 years ago, found no evidence of a "Basal Eurasian" component to the genome, nor did they find evidence of Mal'ta–Buret' introgression when looking at a wider range of EEMH from the entire Upper Palaeolithic. The study instead concluded that such a genetic makeup in present-day Europeans stemmed from Near Eastern and Siberian introgression occurring predominantly in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (though beginning by 14,000 years ago), but all EEMH specimens including and following Kostenki-14 contributed to the present-day European genome and were more closely related to present-day Europeans than East Asians. Earlier EEMH (10 tested in total), on the other hand, did not seem to be ancestral to any present-day population, nor did they form any cohesive group in and of themselves, each representing either completely distinct genetic lineages, admixture between major lineages, or have highly divergent ancestry. Because of these, the study also concluded that, beginning roughly 37,000 years ago, EEMH descended from a single founder population and were reproductively isolated from the rest of the world. The study reported that an Aurignacian individual from Grottes de Goyet, Belgium, has more genetic affinities to the Magdalenian inhabitants of Cueva de El Miròn than to more or less contemporaneous Eastern European Gravettians. [13]

Haplogroups identified in EEMH are the patrilineal (from father to son) Y-DNA haplogroups IJ, C1, and K2a [note 1] [48] and matrilineal (from mother to child) mt-DNA haplogroup N, R, and U. [note 2] Y-haplogroup IJ descended from Southwest Asia. Haplogroup I emerged about 35 to 30 thousand years ago, either in Europe or West Asia. Mt-haplogroup U5 arose in Europe just prior to the LGM, between 35 and 25 thousand years ago. [47] The 14,000 year old Villabruna 1 skeleton from Ripari Villabruna, Italy, is the oldest identified bearer of Y-haplogroup R1b (R1b1a-L754* (xL389,V88)) found in Europe, likely brought in from Near Eastern introgression. [13] The Azilian "Bichon man" skeleton from the Swiss Jura was found to be associated with the WHG lineage. He was a bearer of Y-DNA haplogroup I2a and mtDNA haplogroup U5b1h. [42]

Genetic evidence suggests early modern humans interbred with Neanderthals. Genes in the present-day genome are estimated to have entered about 65 to 47 thousand years ago, most likely in West Asia soon after modern humans left Africa. [50] [51] In 2015, the 40,000 year old modern human Oase 2 was found to have had 6–9% (point estimate 7.3%) Neanderthal DNA, indicating a Neanderthal ancestor up to four to six generations earlier, but this hybrid Romanian population does not appear to have made a substantial contribution to the genomes of later Europeans. Therefore, it is possible that interbreeding was common between Neanderthals and EEMH which did not contribute to the present-day genome. [38] The percentage of Neanderthal genes gradually decreased with time, which could indicate they were maladaptive and were selected out of the gene pool. [13]

There is a notable technological complexification coinciding with the replacement of Neanderthals with EEMH in the archaeological record, and so the terms "Middle Palaeolithic" and "Upper Palaeolithic" were created to distinguish between these two time periods. Largely based on Western European archaeology, the transition was dubbed the "Upper Palaeolithic Revolution," (extended to be a worldwide phenomenon) and the idea of "behavioural modernity" became associated with this event and early modern cultures. It is largely agreed that the Upper Palaeolithic seems to feature a higher rate of technological and cultural evolution than the Middle Palaeolithic, but it is debated if behavioural modernity was truly an abrupt development or was a slow progression initiating far earlier than the Upper Paleolithic, especially when considering the non-European archaeological record. Behaviourly modern practices include: the production of microliths, the common use of bone and antler, the common use of grinding and pounding tools, high quality evidence of body decoration and figurine production, long-distance trade networks, and improved hunting technology. [52] [53] In regard to art, the Magdalenian produced some of the most intricate Palaeolithic pieces, and they even elaborately decorated normal, everyday objects. [54]

Hunting and gathering Edit

Historically, ethnographic studies on hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies have long placed emphasis on sexual division of labour and most especially the hunting of big game by men. This culminated in the 1966 book Man the Hunter, which focuses almost entirely on the importance of male contributions of food to the group. As this was published during the second-wave feminism movement, this was quickly met with backlash from many female anthropologists. Among these was Australian archaeologist Betty Meehan in her 1974 article Woman the Gatherer, who argued that women play a vital role in these communities by gathering more reliable food plants and small game, as big game hunting has a low success rate. The concept of "Woman the Gatherer" has since gained significant support. [55]

It has typically been assumed that EEMH closely studied prey habits in order to maximise return depending on the season. For example, large mammals (including red deer, horses, and ibex) congregate seasonally, and reindeer were possibly seasonally plagued by insects rendering fur sometimes unsuitable for hideworking. [56] There is much evidence that EEMH, especially in Western Europe following the LGM, corralled large prey animals into natural confined spaces (such as against a cliff wall, a cul-de-sac, or a water body) in order to efficiently slaughter whole herds of animals (game drive system). They seem to have scheduled mass kills to coincide with migration patterns, in particular for red deer, horses, reindeer, bison, aurochs, and ibex, and occasionally wooly mammoths. [57] There are also multiple examples of consumption of seasonally abundant fish, becoming more prevalent in the mid-Upper-Palaeolithic. [58] Nonetheless, Magdalenian peoples appear to have had a greater dependence on small animals, aquatic resources, and plants than predecessors, probably due to the relative scarcity of European big game following the LGM (Quaternary extinction event). [3] Post-LGM peoples tend to have a higher rate of nutrient deficiency related ailments, including a reduction in height, which indicates these bands (probably due to decreased habitable territory) had to consume a much broader and less desirable food range to survive. [33] The popularisation of game drive systems may have been an extension of increasing food return. [57] In particularly southwestern France, EEMH depended heavily upon reindeer, and so it is hypothesised that these communities followed the herds, with occupation of the Perigord and the Pyrenees only occurring in the summer. [59] Epi-Gravettian communities, in contrast, generally focused on hunting 1 species of large game, most commonly horse or bison. [18] It is possible that human activity, in addition to the rapid retreat of favourable steppeland, inhibited recolonisation of most of Europe by megafauna following the LGM (such as mammoths, woolly rhinoceroses, Irish elk, and cave lions), in part contributing to their final extinction which occurred by the beginning of or well into the Holocene depending on the species. [60]

For weapons, EEMH crafted spearpoints using predominantly bone and antler, possibly because these materials were readily abundant. Compared to stone, these materials are compressive, making them fairly shatterproof. [56] These were then hafted onto a shaft to be used as javelins. It is possible that Aurignacian craftsmen further hafted bone barbs onto the spearheads, but firm evidence of such technology is recorded earliest 23,500 years ago, and does not become more common until the Mesolithic. [61] Aurignacian craftsmen produced lozenge-shaped (diamond-like) spearheads. By 30,000 years ago, spearheads were manufactured with a more rounded-off base, and by 28,000 years ago spindle-shaped heads were introduced. During the Gravettian, spearheads with a bevelled base were being produced. By the beginning of the LGM, the spear-thrower was invented in Europe, which can increase the force and accuracy of the projectile. [56] A possible boomerang made of mammoth tusk was identified in Poland (though it may have been unable to return to the thrower), and dating to 23,000 years ago, it would be the oldest known boomerang. [62] Stone spearheads with leaf- and shouldered-points become more prevalent in the Solutrean. Both large and small spearheads were produced in great quantity, and the smaller ones may have been attached to projectile darts. Archery was possibly invented in the Solutrean, though less ambiguous bow technology is first reported in the Mesolithic. Bone technology was revitalised in the Magdalanian, and long-range technology as well as harpoons become much more prevalent. Some harpoon fragments are speculated to have been leisters or tridents, and true harpoons are commonly found along seasonal salmon migration routes. [57]

Society Edit

Social system Edit

As opposed to the patriarchy prominent in historical societies, the idea of a prehistoric predominance of either matriarchy or matrifocal families (centred on motherhood) was first supposed in 1861 by legal scholar Johann Jakob Bachofen. The earliest models of this believed that monogamy was not widely practiced in ancient times — thus, the paternal line was resultantly more difficult to keep track of than the maternal — resulting in a matrilineal (and matriarchal) society. Matriarchs were then conquered by patriarchs at the dawn of civilisation. The switch from matriarchy to patriarchy and the hypothetical adoption of monogamy was seen as a leap forward. [63] However, when the first Palaeolithic representations of humans were discovered, the so-called Venus figurines — which typically feature pronounced breasts, buttocks, and vulvas (areas generally sexualised in present-day Western Culture) — they were initially interpreted as pornographic in nature. The first Venus discovered was named the "Vénus impudique" ("immodest Venus") by the discoverer Paul Hurault, 8th Marquis de Vibraye, because it lacked clothes and had a prominent vulva. [29] The name "Venus", after the Roman goddess of beauty, in itself implies an erotic function. Such a pattern in the representation of the human form led to suggestions that human forms were generally pornography for men, meaning men were primarily responsible for artwork and craftsmanship in the Palaeolithic whereas women were tasked with child rearing and various domestic works. This would equate to a patriarchal social system. [64]

The Palaeolithic matriarchy model was adapted by prominent communist Friedrich Engels who instead argued that women were robbed of power by men due to economic changes which could only be undone with the adoption of communism (Marxist feminism). The former sentiment was adopted by the first-wave feminism movement, who attacked the patriarchy by making Darwinist arguments of a supposed natural egalitarian or matrifocal state of human society instead of patriarchal, as well as interpreting the Venuses as evidence of mother goddess worship as part of some matriarchal religion. Consequently, by the mid-20th century, the Venuses were primarily interpreted as evidence of some Palaeolithic fertility cult. Such claims died down in the 1970s as archaeologists moved away from the highly theoretical models produced by the previous generation. Through the second-wave feminism movement, the prehistoric matriarchal religion hypothesis was primarily propelled by Lithuanian-American archaeologist Marija Gimbutas. Her interpretations of the Palaeolithic were notably involved in the Goddess movement. [63] Equally ardent arguments against the matriarchy hypothesis have also been prominent, such as American religious scholar Cynthia Eller's 2000 The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory. [64]

Looking at the archaeological record, depictions of women are markedly more common than of men. In contrast to the commonplace Venuses in the Gravettian, Gravettian depictions of men are rare and contested, the only reliable one being a fragmented ivory figurine from the grave of a Pavlovian site in Brno, Czech Republic (it is also the only statuette found in a Palaeolithic grave). 2-D Magdalenian engravings from 15 to 11 thousand years ago do depict males, indicated by an erect penis and facial hair, though profiles of women with an exaggerated buttock are much more common. [65] There are less than 100 depictions of males in the EEMH archaeological record (of them, about a third are depicted with erections.) [66] On the other hand, most individuals which received a burial (which may have been related to social status) were men. [67] Anatomically, the robustness of limbs (which is an indicator of strength) between EEMH men and women were consistently not appreciably different from each other. Such low levels of sexual dimorphism through the Upper Pleistocene could potentially mean that sexual division of labour, which characterises historic societies (both agricultural and hunter-gatherer), only became commonplace in the Holocene. [33]

Trading Edit

The Upper Palaeolithic is characterised by evidence of expansive trade routes and the great distances at which communities could maintain interactions. The early Upper Palaeolithic is especially known for highly mobile lifestyles, with Gravettian groups (at least those analysed in Italy and Moravia, Ukraine) often sourcing some raw materials upwards of 200 km (120 mi). However, it is debated if this represents sample bias, and if Western and Northern Europe were less mobile. Some cultural practices such as creating Venus figurines or specific burial rituals during the Gravettian stretched 2,000 km (1,200 mi) across the continent. [33] Genetic evidence suggests that, despite strong evidence of cultural transmission, Gravettian Europeans did not introgress into Siberians, meaning there was a movement of ideas but not people between Europe and Siberia. [13] At the 30,000 year old Romanian Poiana Cireşului site, perforated shells of the Homalopoma sanguineum sea snail were recovered, which is significant as it inhabits the Mediterranean at nearest 900 km (560 mi) away. [68] Such interlinkage may have been an important survival tool in lieu of the steadily deteriorating climate. Given low estimated population density, this may have required a rather complex, cross-continental social organisation system. [33]

By and following the LGM, population densities are thought to have been much higher with the marked decrease of habitable lands, resulting in more regional economies. Decreased land availability could have increased travel distance, as habitable refugia may have been far and few between, and increasing population density within these few refugia would have made long-distance travel less economic. This trend continued into the Mesolithic with the adoption of sedentism. [33] Nonetheless, there is some evidence of long-distance Magdalenian trade routes. For example, at Lascaux, a painting of a bull had remnants of the manganese mineral hausmannite, which can only be manufactured in heat in excess of 900 °C (1,650 °F), which was probably impossible for EEMH this means they likely encountered natural hausmannite which is known to be found 250 km (160 mi) away in the Pyrenees. Unless there was a hausmannite source much closer to Lascaux which has since been depleted, this could mean that there was a local economy based on manganese ores. Also, at Ekain, Basque Country, the inhabitants were using the locally rare manganese mineral groutite in their paintings, which they possibly mined out of the cave itself. [69] Based on the distribution of Mediterranean and Atlantic seashell jewellery even well inland, there may have been a network during the Late Glacial Interstadial (14 to 12 thousand years ago) along the rivers Rhine and Rhône in France, Germany, and Switzerland. [68]

Housing Edit

EEMH cave sites quite often feature distinct spatial organisation, with certain areas specifically designated for specific activities, such as hearth areas, kitchens, butchering grounds, sleeping grounds, and trash pile. It is difficult to tell if all material from a site was deposited at about the same time, or if the site was used multiple times. [52] EEMH are thought to have been quite mobile, indicated by the great lengths of trade routes, and such a lifestyle was likely supported by the constructions of temporary shelters in open environments, such as huts. Evidence of huts is typically associated with a hearth. [71]

Magdalenian peoples, especially, are thought to have been highly migratory, following herds while repopulating Europe, and several cave and open-air sites indicate the area was abandoned and revisited regularly. The 19,000 year old Peyre Blanque site, France, and at least the 260 km 2 (100 sq mi) area around it may have been revisited for thousands of years. [71] In the Magdalenian, stone lined rectangular areas typically 6–15 m 2 (65–161 sq ft) were interpreted as having been the foundations or flooring of huts. At Magdalenian Pincevent, France, small, circular dwellings were speculated to have existed based on the spacing of stone tools and bones these sometimes featured an indoor hearth, work area, or sleeping space (but not all at the same time). A 23,000 year old hut from the Israeli Ohalo II was identified as having used grasses as flooring or possibly bedding, but it is unclear if EEMH also lined their huts with grass or instead used animal pelts. [72] A 13,800 year old slab from Molí del Salt, Spain, has 7 dome-shaped figures engraved onto it, which are postulated to represent temporary dome-shaped huts. [70]

Over 70 dwellings constructed by EEMH out of mammoth bones have been identified, primarily from the Russian Plain, [73] possibly semi-permanent hunting camps. [74] They seem to have built tipis and yarangas. [75] These were typically constructed following the LGM after 22,000 years ago by Epi-Gravettian peoples [76] the earliest hut identified comes from the Molodova I site, Ukraine, which was dated to 44,000 years ago (making it possible it was built by Neanderthals). [77] Typically, these huts measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter, or 4 m × 6 m (13 ft × 20 ft) if oval shaped. Huts could get as small as 3 m × 2 m (9.8 ft × 6.6 ft). [75] One of the largest huts has a diameter of 12.5 m (41 ft) — a 25,000 year old hut identified in Kostenki, Russia — and was constructed out of 64 mammoth skulls, but given the little evidence of occupation, this is postulated to have been used for food storage rather than as a living space. [76] Some huts have burned bones, which has typically been interpreted as bones used as fuel for fireplaces due to the scarcity of firewood, and/or disposal of waste. A few huts, however, have evidence of wood burning, or mixed wood/bone burning. [76]

Mammoth hut foundations were generally made by pushing a great quantity of mammoth skulls into the ground (most commonly, though not always, with the tusks facing up to possibly be used as further supports), and the walls by putting into the ground vertically shoulder blades, pelvises, long bones, jaws, and the spine. Long bones were often used as poles, commonly placed on the end of another long bone or in the cavity of where tusk used to be. [75] Foundation may have extended as far as 40 cm (16 in) underground. Generally, multiple huts were built in a locality, placed 1–20 m (3 ft 3 in–65 ft 7 in) apart depending on location. Tusks may have been used to make entrances, skins pulled over for roofing, [73] and the interior sealed up by loess dug out of pits. Some architectural decisions seem to have been purely for aesthetics, best seen in the 4 Epi-Gravettian huts from Mezhyrich, Mezine, Ukraine, where jaws were stacked to create a chevron or zigzag pattern in 2 huts, and long bones were stacked to create horizontal or vertical lines in respectively 1 and 2 huts. The chevron was a commonly used symbol on the Russian Plain, painted or engraved on bones, tools, figurines, and mammoth skulls. [75]

Dogs Edit

At some point in time, EEMH domesticated the dog, probably as a result of a symbiotic hunting relationship. DNA evidence suggests that present-day dogs split from wolves around the beginning of the LGM. However, potential Palaeolithic dogs have been found preceding this — namely the 36,000 year old Goyet dog from Belgium and the 33,000 year old Altai dog from Siberia — which could indicate there were multiple attempts at domesticating European wolves. [78] These "dogs" had a wide size range, from over 60 cm (2 ft) in height in Eastern Europe to less than 30–45 cm (1 ft–1 ft 6 in) in Central and Western Europe, [79] and 32–41 kg (71–90 lb) in all of Europe. These "dogs" are identified by having a shorter snout and skull, and wider palate and braincase than contemporary wolves. Nonetheless, an Aurignacian origin for domestication is controversial. [80]

At the 27 to 24 thousand year old Předmostí site, Czech Republic, 3 "dogs" were identified with their skulls perforated (probably to extract the brain), and 1 had a mammoth bone in its mouth. The discoverers interpreted this as a burial ritual. [80] The 14,500 year old Bonn-Oberkassel dog from Germany was found buried alongside a 40-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman, as well as traces of red hematite, and is genetically placed as an ancestor to present-day dogs. It was diagnosed with canine distemper virus and probably died between 19 and 23 weeks of age. It would have required extensive human care to survive without being able to contribute to anything, suggesting that, at this point, humans and dogs were connected by emotional or symbolic ties rather than purely materialistic personal gain. [81]

It is hypothesised these proto-dogs provided a vital role in hunting, as well as domestic services such as transporting items or guarding camp or carcasses, but their exact utility is unclear. [82]

Arte Editar

When examples of Upper Palaeolithic art were first discovered in the 19th century — engraved objects — they were assumed to have been "art for art's sake" as Palaeolithic peoples were widely conceived as having been uncultured savages. This model was primarily championed by French archaeologist Louis Laurent Gabriel de Mortillet. Then, detailed paintings found deep within caves were discovered, the first being Cueva de Altamira, Spain, in 1879. The "art for art's sake" model came apart by the turn of the century as more examples of cave art were found in hard-to-reach places in Western Europe such as Combarelles and Font-de-Gaume, for which the idea of it being simply a leisure activity became increasingly untenable. [83]

Cave art Edit

EEMH are well known for having painted or engraved geometric designs, hand stencils, plants, animals, and seemingly human/animal hybrid creatures on cave walls deep inside caves. Typically the same species are represented in caves which have such art, but the total number of species is quite numerous, and namely includes creatures such as mammoths, bison, lions, bears, and ibex. Nonetheless, some caves were dominated by certain forms, such as Grotte de Niaux where over half of the animals are bison. Images could be drawn on top of one another. [83] They are found in dark cave recesses, and the artists either lit a fire on the cave floor or used portable stone lamps to see. Drawing materials include black charcoal and red and yellow ochre crayons, but they, along with a variety of other minerals, could also be ground into powder and mixed with water to create paint. Large, flat rocks may have been used as palettes, and brushes may have included reeds, bristles, and twigs, and possibly a blowgun was used to spray paint over less accessible areas. [84] Hand stencils could either be made by holding the hand to the wall and spitting paint over it (leaving a negative image) or by applying paint to the hand and then sticking it to the wall. Some hand stencils are missing fingers, but it is unclear if the artist was actually missing the finger or simply excluded it from the stencil. It has generally been assumed that the larger prints were left by men and the smaller ones by boys, but the exclusion of women entirely may be improbable. [85] Though many hypotheses have been proposed for the symbolism of cave art, it is still debated why these works were created in the first place. [83]

One of the first hypotheses regarding their symbolism was forwarded by French religious historian Salomon Reinach who supposed that, because only animals were depicted on cave walls, the images represented totem veneration, in which a group or a group member identifies with a certain animal associated with certain powers, and honours or respects this animal in some way such as by not hunting it. If this were the case, then EEMH communities within a region would have subdivided themselves into, for example, a "horse clan", a "bison clan", a "lion clan", and so forth. This was soon contested as some caves contain depictions of animals wounded by projectiles, and generally multiple species are represented. [83]

In 1903, Reinach proposed that the cave art represented sympathetic magic (between the painting and the painting's subject), and by drawing an animal doing some kind of action, the artist believed they were exerting that same action onto the animal. That is, by being the master of the image, they could master the animal itself. The hunting magic model — and the idea that art was magical and utilitarian in EEMH society — gained much popularity in the following decades. In this model, herbivorous prey items were depicted as having been wounded prior to a hunt in order to cast a spell over them some animals were incompletely depicted to enfeeble them geometric designs were traps and human/animal hybrids were sorcerers dressed as animals to gain their power, or were gods ruling over the animals. Many animals were depicted as completely healthy and intact, and sometimes pregnant, which this model interprets as fertility magic to promote reproduction however, if the animal was a carnivore, then this model says that the depiction served to destroy the animal. By the mid-20th century, this model was being contested because of how few depictions of wounded animals exist the collection of consumed animal bones in decorated caves often did not match types of animals depicted in terms of abundance and the magic model does not explain hand stencils. [83]

Following the 1960s, begun by German-American art historian Max Raphael, the study of cave art took on a much more statistical approach, analysing and quantifying items such as the types and distribution of animals depicted, cave topography, and cave wall morphology. Based on such structuralist tests, horses and bovines seem to have been preferentially clustered together typically in a central position, and such binary organisation led to the suggestion that this was sexual symbolism, and some animals and iconography were designated by EEMH as either male or female. This conclusion has been heavily contested as well, due to the subjective definition of association between two different animals, and the great detail the animals were depicted in, permitting sexual identification (and further, the hypothesis that bison were supposed to be feminine contradicts the finding that many are male). [83]

Also in the late 20th century, with the popularisation of the hypothesis that EEMH practised shamanism, the human/animal hybrids and geometrical symbols were interpreted within this framework as the visions a shaman would see while in a trance (entoptic phenomena). Opponents mainly attack the comparisons made between Palaeolithic cultures and present-day shamanistic societies for being in some way inaccurate. [83] In 1988, archaeologists David Lewis-Williams and Thomas Dowson suggested trances were induced by hallucinogenic plants containing either mescaline, LSD, or psilocybine but the only European plant which produces any of these is ergot (which produces a substance used to make LSD), and there is no evidence EEMH purposefully ate it. [86]


Researchers Uncover 1.5-Million-Year-Old Footprints

Freshly discovered trails of ancient footprints, left on what was once the muddy shores of a river near Ileret, Kenya, indicate that some 1.5 million years ago human ancestors walked in a manner similar to that of people today. The international team of researchers who analyzed the prints say that those who left them had feet that looked a lot like ours.

The prints were probably left by Homo ergaster, an earlier, larger version of the widespread Homo erectus, says David Braun, a lecturer in archeology at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and co-author of the study set to be published tomorrow in Ciencias. This discovery "lets us know that they were probably just as efficient at walking upright as we are," he says.

Previous research has shown that human ancestors were perfectly capable of getting around on their hind legs 3.5 million years ago&mdashand perhaps even earlier. But Braun says these prints reveal, for the first time, a very modern foot with a parallel big toe&mdashunlike an ape's opposable digit that's easily curled for grasping tree branches. Homo sapiens proper are said to have emerged about 200,000 years ago.

Footprints can tell scientists a lot about creatures that a skeleton cannot. From them, scientists can learn about the gait, weight distribution and even the approximate size of those who made them. Braun says these prints were apparently made by pedestrians who stood just under five feet (1.5 meters) tall. A modern upright stride can indicate a lot about behavior, as well, says David Raichlen, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, who cites long-distance walking and running as possible benefits of this adaptation.

"It really is a snapshot of time," Braun says. The preserved area also shows a wealth of animal prints, which gives more precise information about what creatures shared the space and time. Exhumed fossils can yield info on general environments footprints can provide a glimpse into life over days rather than millennia. "With the footprints," Braun says, "we can almost certainly say these things lived in the same time as each other, which is unique."

It is much rarer to find footprints than bones, because conditions must be perfect for tracks to be preserved, according to Braun. In this case, the tracks were made during a rainy season near an ancient river just before that river changed course and swept a protective layer of sand over them.

The last major set of footprints, discovered in 1978 in Laetoli, Tanzania, were dated to about 3.6 million years ago. But those revealed a more ancient foot and gait, and it is still debatable whether those who made them had a stride more akin to humans or to chimpanzees, says Raichlen, who has studied the Laetoli prints.

The Ileret tracks were digitally scanned using a laser technique developed by lead study author, Matthew Bennett, a geoarchaeologist at Bournemouth University in Poole, England. Raichlen says the find gives people a rare view of those that have trod before. "It's important to think about what you're really getting: a glimpse of behavior in the fossil record that you wouldn't really get in any other way," he says. The research reveals "a moment in time when individuals are walking around the landscape. It sort of fleshes out and brings them back to life, in a way."


Ver el vídeo: Huellas humanas de hace casi un millón de años (Julio 2022).


Comentarios:

  1. Quintin

    Creo que estas equivocado. Hablemos de esto. Envíame un correo electrónico a PM, hablaremos.

  2. Donatien

    Está usted equivocado. Tenemos que hablar. Escríbeme en PM, habla.

  3. Shaktitaxe

    Que me despidan de esto.

  4. Beolagh

    Maravillosa idea



Escribe un mensaje