|
Feature | Australopithecines & early "H. habilis" | Late "H. habilis" and later Homo spp. |
| Brain size | relatively small | larger w/expanded prefrontal cortex & "speech areas" |
| postnatal maturation | apelike schedule | delayed relative to ape |
| general adaptation | semiarboreal; limited ability to run | essentially terrestrial |
| sexual dimorphism | large | small |
| diet | limited meat, mostly scavenged | increased meat, eventually increased hunting |
| probable dominant sexual behavior | Promiscuous? | pair-bonding? |
| stone tools | limited or none ("Omo Industrial Complex") | increasingly sophisticated ("Advanced Olduwan") |
I. Homo ergaster/erectus
A. 1.9 mya - 300,000 ya (& later in SE Asia??) B. > endocranial volume (1000 cc) C. < cheek teeth & jaw bone D. vertical shortening of face E. pronounced brow ridges F. forward projection of nasal aperture (first appearance of typical human nose with down- flaring nostrils) G. articulate speech possible? (most researchers believe these hominids to be still pre-linguistic) H. 1.9 mya, expansion to Asia, aided by striding gait, elementary stone tools, and simple but expan- sive pattern of scavenging. (6 spp. of African open-country bovids also dispersed to Eurasia between 3 & 2 mya)1. Riwat & Pabbi Hills, Pakistan: simple stone tools have a paleomagnetic age of 1.9 my. 2. Sangiran and Mojokerto in Java (Indonesia), 3 H.e. crania have sedimentary contexts dated by Ar/Ar to 1.7 my. 3. Longuppo Cave, Sichuan Province (south- central) China: Olduwan-like tools at 1.9 mya based on ESR and paleomagnetic analyses.I. Tool kit: early forms such as ergaster retained Olduwan-like industry with flakes with minimal retouch and simple cores (once called chop- pers/chopping tools). About 1.5 mya hand-ax and other bifacial tools appear, marking advent of "Acheulian" industry: more selectino of raw materials; more preparation of cores; more specialized tools. J. Acheulian sites found often at locales offering just one or two of the basic resources (such as water, animal carcasses, and stone for tools), indicating the ability to work across small resource locales simul- taneously or interdependently instead of sequen- tially. K. Fire & hunting probable behaviors, but probably only after 1 mya L. Radiation from Africa to Europe1. Soleihac, SE France, .93 mya; 2. Vallonet Cave, SE France, date uncertain, possibly ca. .95 mya; 3. Gran Dolina, (Atapuerca) Spain, >.78 mya (hominid remains attributed to "Homo antecessor") (others call this H. heidelbegensis, another Archaic sapiens taxon); 4. Isernia, Italy, .73 mya; 5. Arago cave, French Pyrénées, .3 mya; 6. Petralona, Greece, date uncertain; 7. Terra Amata, ca. .3 mya; 8. Torralba & Ambrona, Spain.M. Morphological trends around the world between .5 mya & .13 mya1. "More advanced" people had appeared in Africa & Europe by .5 mya (called "Early [or Archaic] Homo sapiens"; also increasingly called H. heidelbergensis (this is Tattersall's usage). 2. Highly variable morphologically: divergent E/W pathwaysa. Africa & Europe: > cranial capacities & expanded parietals. Early H.s. in Europe progressively approached the morphology of Neanderthal; In Africa, the trend was more in the direction of modern H.s.; b. Asian forms retain more similarities to H. erectus--relative stasis--H.e. lives on.3. But technologies remain generally similar around the world, even in Africa. In detectable aspects of behavior, early H.s. seems to have been similar to H.e.; did not penetrate truly harsh environments; no advances in hunting; stone artifacts were more carefully made, but still comprise relatively few recognizable functional or stylistic types; artifact assemblages remain homogeneous over vast distances and long time spans.
II. 125,000-40,000 ya around the world.
A. European Middle Paleolithic1. In contrast to us, Neanderthals had:a. receding chins b. large cheek bones & prominent brow ridges c. extreme prognathism d. strong chewing apparatus & large front teeth e. short but powerful stature f. cranial capacity similar but on average slightly larger than standard western type.2. Contrasts with earlier Acheulean industriesa. "Mousterian" industry named after Le Moustier, SW France b. Levallois cores & more diverse but still highly stereotyped tools c. Alternative explanations for variability in assemblages (Bordes vs. Binford vs. Chase & Dibble).3. Mobility patterns in SW France & Central Europe & their significance.a. L.P. raw material transport rarely exceeds 60 km; amount of transported materials small b. In Western Europe M.P., transfers rarely exceed 100 km c. In Central Europe M.P., transfers up to 300 km reported d. Reasons for mobility include local depletion of resident spp (roe deer, wild pig, elk, etc.) and seasonal movement of migratory spp (saiga antelope, mammoth, bison, reindeer)4. In Italian Mousterian, anatomical completeness of prey species increases through time; ratio of head-to-limb parts decreases; and ratios of prime-to-old age deer increases; "centripetal" lithic reduction techniques (makes a few big flakes) are superseded by platform techniques (makes many smaller flakes) more similar to Up- per Paleolithic by 50,000. 5. Dominant, general differences between Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) and Upper Paleolithic:a. M.P. flakes vs. U.P. blades. (Blades are twice as long as they are wide.) b. number & variety of discrete tool types in- creases in U.P. c. bone, antler, & ivory recognized as useful raw materials in U.P. d. regional & temporal variants proliferate in U.P.; Cultures vs. cultures (or ethnicity); "art" & personal decoration. e. nonartifactual contrasts in burial; fire; structures; colonization of harsh environ- ments; trade/transport of raw materials; fully modern linguistic capabilities? f. different physical types (almost always).