Hello everyone,

I'm writing my thesis on the adaptation of man to the climate in Eurasia from OIS 5e till the beginning of OIS 3. For this I will need to find all known archarological sites, and make 3 to 4 geographical maps with the sites in their supposed period. Without doubt, we will be able to see interesting things on these maps. The idea is also to see what happens with the Neanderthaler and his ability to cope with changing climate.

Now, that is somewhat the analytical nucleus of my thesis. I would like to take this into a greater perspective and discuss the credibility of archaeology as a scientific discipline. The bigger question to ask in this thesis would be: Can archaeology provide the necassary tools to detect man's adaption to the changing climate? For the reason of science is not to see "interesting" things, but to offer workable hypotheses which are based on data with a high degree of certainty. The question again is: Does archaeology provide such data?

For example, I could see on my maps that during the colder periods there are no sites up north: Hence, man just migrated to the south, unable to live in such harsh conditions. My conclusion would be made on the basis of MISSING data. In effect, it could be very possible that there were humans living there, but due to several taphonomic processes, their sites were heavily damaged or even disappeared.

So what is the value of such a conclusion?

Anyone who wants to add something or another? Be much welcome, as I could use some help to form some ideas.

Can archaeology provide the necassary tools to detect man's adaption to the changing climate?

Yes, I think so. One area you might want to look at is diet. Bones and pollen give good evidence of what foods were being utilized by ancient people. This in turn can tell when they were using certain areas in their environment. You said some of the sites werent in use during colder periods in history. But, evidence could show that those sites were only being used seasonally in the winters, with people living a more mobile lifestyle during the summer when food was more abundant. A more mobile lifestyle would leave less direct evidence.
Obviously any clothing remains would give good evidence for climate adaptation. But structure types (if structures are in use) could show what types of enviroment people were building for. Also, causes of death would be useful since a lack of certain foodstuffs would lead to certain diseases that leave bone or structural signs.
I hope this helps :D
By the way what time periods are you looking at?

hello

The OIS 5 till OIS 3 periods are roughly the Middle Paleolithic, so we are dealing with very little archeological material (in response to your 'optimism' :) )

I don't think a more mobile lifestyle leads to less evidence. It does complicate the interpretation of the different kind of sites (check out Lewis Binford's book on his ethnoarchaeological research on the Inuit).

When dealing with people migrating south, in your example, you wouldn't (hopefully) just have missing data for that time period in the northern area; you should also see evidence for an influx of new cultures and technologies into the southern areas.

Certainly, there would be some sort of noticable difference in the tools made by peoples north and south prior to the OIS 5 time period (assuming we're talking about a large geographical area). As the northern people abandoned their homes for warmer areas, their tool making; house building; pottery (?) design, etc would begin appearing in the southern sites. This would provide you with positive evidence that peoples form the north were at least in part moving south; if this influx of technology and culture occured suddenly, right as the northern sites begin disappearing, you have fairly good circumstancial evidence that people were actively migrating.

Archeology, and indeed any science which basis itself on fossil records, is only guess work. You cannot create a hypothosis, test it under controlled conditions, and revise as needed. You can only take a snap shot of the current knowledge base, and guess as to what may have occured such that the evidence you have today make sense.

One problem with this hypothesis I think is the lack of good dates. The resolution is low and without a better resolution, one is left guessing. There is little certainty in this field. Further, people of the north might just have the same techniques, but just different shaped tools due to the nature of the raw material. When using the same material as the southern people, they might end up with the same morphology and we won't notice the difference. Even if they would be using different techniques, I doubt we would so easily notice this.

Thank you for sharing your thought. I've got some more things to think about now :)

As the northern people abandoned their homes for warmer areas, their tool making; house building; pottery (?) design, etc would begin appearing in the southern sites.Aren't we talking about the Middle Paleolithic? There were no houses and no pottery until the Late Neolithic, isn't that correct?

hum, I wouldn't say that because they might have used organic materials which left no traces whatsoever. What's more, they probably had pottery (and most certainly houses: but in what form?)

hum, I wouldn't say that because they might have used organic materials which left no traces whatsoever. What's more, they probably had pottery (and most certainly houses: but in what form?)Someone earlier said that the universe of discourse here is the Middle Paleolithic. Humans were hunter-gatherers then. They migrated to follow the herds and the ripening wild crops. They didn't build permanent settlements because they couldn't stay in one place long enough to bother inventing the technology to build them.

So many technologies require an infrastructure -- capital. Potters need potter's wheels, which are hard to carry. Containers made of crockery are so fragile compared to those made of hollowed out stones or wood, they're really difficult to carry with you on a long, never-ending journey by foot. You need draft animals to carry a very advanced technology around with you. That's why when settled tribes are forced by circumstances to migrate on foot, they tend to lose quite a bit of their culture.

Pottery can easily be made without a wheel (literally millions of examples are known for example in the Middle East: they just form the pot with clay in a small hole they dug).

When you check the works of Binford on the Inuit, it becomes quite clear how complex such migrating groups can be. If you're interested in this stuff, it's the way to go. Only then I realised that archeology would never be able to solve the issues of the paleolithic. We'll need a time machine ;)