Nexus - 0801 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

point. The point shows signs of use. On the tool itself is written "15.IV.1869 1.5 km N da Bemposta", indicating the artifact was found on April 15, 1869, 1.5 kilometres north of Bemposta, a locality just south of the Murganheira hill. On the new label pre- pared by the Geological Service of Portugal during the period of reclassification, the artifact is identified as an Upper Palaeolithic flint implement found by Ribeiro at Murganheira, near Alemquer. Apparently there was no disputing the artifactual nature of the object, but its age was assigned on the basis of its form rather than its geological provenance. The Upper Palaeolithic refers to a time in the later Pleistocene when humans of modern type were mak- ing stone tools of relatively advanced type. Some time after this reclassification of Ribeiro's collection, the artifacts were removed from display at the Museo Geolégico in Lisbon. Ribeiro and his artifacts entered into an oblivion from which they have yet to emerge. [Ct point. The point shows signs of use. On the tool itself is written Ben Souda quarry near Fez, stone tools were found in place in the "15.IV.1869 1.5 km N da Bemposta", indicating the artifact was Saissian formation which had long been considered Pliocene. found on April 15, 1869, 1.5 kilometres north of Bemposta, a Noting the similarity of the Ben Souda tools to the Acheulean locality just south of the Murganheira hill. On the new label pre- tools from a Middle Pleistocene formation at Cuvette de Sidi pared by the Geological Service of Portugal during the period of | Abderrahman in the area of Casablanca, Onoratini et al. reclassification, the artifact is identified as an Upper Palaeolithic (1990:330) decided to characterise the part of the Saissian forma- flint implement found by Ribeiro at Murganheira, near Alemquer. tion containing the tools at Ben Souda as also being Middle Apparently there was no disputing the artifactual nature of the Pleistocene (repeating the early mistake of Ribeiro!). Another object, but its age was assigned on the basis of its form rather than possibility that deserves to be considered is that there are tools of its geological provenance. The Upper Palaeolithic refers to atime | Acheulean type in the Tertiary of Morocco. in the later Pleistocene when humans of modern type were mak- It may be noted that anatomically modern human skeletal ing stone tools of relatively advanced type. remains have been found in the Tertiary (Pliocene) of Italy at Some time after this reclassification of Ribeiro's collection, the Castenedolo (Ragazzoni, 1880; Sergi, 1884; Cremo and artifacts were removed from display at the Museo Geoldgico in Thompson, 1993:422—432) and at Savona (de Mortillet, 1883:70; Lisbon. Ribeiro and his artifacts entered into an oblivion from Issel, 1868; Cremo and Thompson, 1993:433-435). There may which they have yet to emerge. therefore be some reason, once more, to con- sider the possibility of Tertiary industries in A CONFLICT OF FACT AND THEORY Portugal. The history Carlos Ribeiro's discoveries . . Such a possibility is not much in favour demonstrates the complex interpretative Some time after this today, as can be seen in a recent critical sur- interplay between geology and archaeology reclassification of vey of evidence for the earliest human occu- and evolutionary theories. In the 19th centu- ae . pation of Europe (Roebroeks and Van ry, even though most European archaeolo- Ribeiro i) collection, the Kolfschoten, 1995). The basic thrust of the gists were working within an evolutionary artifacts were removed book, which is a collection of papers pre- framework, the time dimension of the evolu- . sented at a conference on the earliest occupa- tionary process had not been settled, mainly from display at the tion of Europe (held at Tautavel, France, in because of the lack of skeletal evidence in Ani 1993), is to endorse a short chronology, with appropriate geological contexts. The loose- Museo Geologico solid evidence for first occupation occurring ness of the evolutionary framework therefore in Lisbon. in the Middle Pleistocene at around 500,000 allowed archaeologists to contemplate years. Other discoveries favouring a the existence of Tertiary humans. wos . long chronology, perhaps extending That changed in the very last decade Ribeiro and his into the earliest Pleistocene (1.8 to 2 of the 19th century. With the discovery . . million years) are mentioned, although of Pithecanthropus erectus, Darwinists artifacts entered into an the consensus among the authors of the began to solidify an evolutionary pro- oblivion from which Tautavel papers is that such evidence is they have yet gression that led from Pithecanthropus, at the Plio-Pleistocene boundary, to anatomically modern humans in the Late Pleistocene. This left no room for Tertiary humans anywhere in the world, and put the spotlight on South- East Asia as the place to look for Tertiary precursors to Pithecanthropus. artifacts is required. Ribeiro's discoveries lost their rele- Given this liberal approach, Ribeiro's vance and gradually disappeared from the discourse on human artifacts should have been mentioned in the chapter on the Iberian origins.” Peninsula (Raposo and Santonja, 1995). In that chapter, the A century later, things have changed somewhat. Africa is now authors give the impression that the oldest reported stone tool generally recognised as the place where hominids first arose. For industries in Portugal are Early Pleistocene pebble industries, doc- some time, the earliest tools were thought to date back only to the umented by Breuil and Zbyszewski (1942-1945). Raposo and Early Pleistocene. But in recent years, archaeologists are once Santonja (1995:13) called into question the dating of the pebble more pushing the onset of stone toolmaking well into the Tertiary. tool sites, concluding that they "do not document beyond doubt Oldowan tools have been found in the Pliocene at Gona, Ethiopia any Early Pleistocene human occupation". But the main point is (Semaw et al., 1997). The tools, found in large numbers and this: although the industries reported by Breuil and Zbyszewski described as surprisingly sophisticated, are about 2.5-2.6 million were not accepted, they were at least acknowledged. The same is years old. Therefore, we should expect to find stone tools going true of other controversial sites indicating a possible Early highly questionable. The sites and the artifacts are nevertheless mentioned, to emerge. and are not entirely dismissed. The editors and authors of individual chap- ters simply say that, in many cases, bet- ter confirmation of the age of the site and the intentional manufacture of the back even further into the Tertiary. Pleistocene occupation elsewhere in the Iberian Peninsula. Conventional candidates for the Tertiary toolmakers include Raposo and Santonja did not accept them, but they acknowledged the earliest Homo or one of the australopithecines (Steele, their existence, thus offering current archaeologists the option of 1999:25). But there are other possibilities. Footprints described conducting further research to establish more firmly either the as anatomically modern occur in Pliocene volcanic ash, 3.7 mil- dates of the sites or the artifactual nature of the stone objects lion years old, at Laetoli, Tanzania (M. Leakey, 1979).’ There is found there. Ribeiro's discoveries deserve similar treatment. even evidence putting toolmakers close to the Iberian Peninsula, One possible objection is that although there is some reason to in Morocco, in the Late Tertiary (Onoratini et al., 1990). At the believe in a possible Early Pleistocene occupation or even a very from display at the Museo Geoldgico in Lisbon. they have yet to emerge. 60 = NEXUS Some time after this reclassification of Ribeiro's collection, the artifacts were removed | Ribeiro and his oblivion from which DECEMBER 2000 — JANUARY 2001