The Origins Of Human Culture

The Origins of Human Culture Owned. Books/Articles referenced • The Complete World of Human Evolution – Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews – Thames and Hudson, 2005 - A • The Human Revolution – ed Paul Mellars and Chris Stringer – Edinburgh University Press, 1989 – B • The Neanderthal Legacy – Paul Mellars – Princeton University Press, 1996 – C • The Origins of Humankind – Richard Leakey – Phoenix, 2000 –D • Making Silent Stones Speak – Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth – Phoenix, 1993 – E • The Impossible Coincidence: A single-species model for the origins of modern human behaviour in Europe – Paul Mellars – Evolutionary Anthropology, 2005 - F • Raw material selectivity of the earliest stone toolmakers at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia - Dietrich Stout, Jay Quade, Sileshi Semaw, Michael J Rogers, Naomi E Levin – Journal of Human Evolution, 2005 – G • The Human Past – ed Chris Scarre – Thames and Hudson, 2005 - G Important Dates • c 7mya = split from chimps • 2.5 mya = emergence of first stone tools ○ Although there was a plethora of different species around at the time, so it’s hard to tell exactly who it might have been. • c 1.6 mya = first exodus out of Africa

Definitions and Terms • Movius Line ○ The global division line that separates the East and West. The East was still Oldowan, the West, Acheulian. • A tool ○ An object that has been used, either modified or unmodified, by an animal (for our purposes by hominids generally) • An artifact ○ An object that has been modified by human intervention, either intentionally or unintentionally. • Conchoidal fracture ○ The breakage patterns on stone tools. Big Ideas • All species need a niche – maybe ours was meat eating • Learning and tools ○ Does learning necessarily come hand in hand with tools? ○ Learning, when it does exist, is very important for societies as it means they can rapidly progress. ○ But it can occur on several levels.  Individual • Trial and error  Instructive • Parent -> child ○ Imitation  Cultural • As in properly taught as part of general life – pretty uniquely human (yes I realize) Methods

• A proper understanding of the classification of the earliest humans requires study of their physical remains and study based on the evidence of stone tools, animal bones and any traces of activity to try and ascertain aspects of their behaviour. • Looking at post-cranial aspects of the fossils, and brain size • There are certain criteria that must be fulfilled in order for something to be classified as an official archaeological ‘site’ ○ There must be unequivocal signs that the stones were modified by humans and not by natural forces ○ They must be uncovered from “sealed, stratified, geological deposits” so that it is clear from what time period they came. ○ There must be some way of dating them, and then preferably a way of testing the first finding Key Sites • Olduvai Gorge – Tanzania ○ Lake deposits – where an old lake has completely dried up.  It was a very volcanic area = very easy dating using Potassium/Argon dating technique – key finds are between 1.8-2 mya. ○ FLK = one of the biggest ever excavations.  FLK 1 • Shows the repeated use of the same site, but for how long is hard to tell. • Shows that they imported stones, sometimes from as far as 10km away. • Organised use of space

•

•

• •

•

○ The larger tools are always found on the outer parts of the circle. ○ Beds I and II  The work that the Leakeys did here is fundamental to modern understanding of hominid biological and technological development in the Pleistocene. Lake Turkana – Kenya ○ Lake deposits – same as above ○ Good example of stone tools (lava cobbles) that would have been there in the Pleistocene (ie not transported) AND where there have been finds of early Homo (habilis?) and A boisei Omo Region – Ethiopia ○ Decent Plio-Pleistocene sequence, due to large number of volcanic ash deposits. ○ Members E and F of the Omo stratigraphic section, dated to c. 2.35 million years ago, do not contain any Homo or austro themselves (although some have been found nearby) but do contain amazingly simple tools: “small pebbles of milky white or yellowish vein quartz fractured into numerous flakes and fragments” (78 – E) Koobi Fora – Ethiopia Gona – Ethiopia ○ 2.6 -2.5 myr ○ Experienced knapping skills ○ Good raw material selection ○ Deliberate size of cobble as well ○ Accurate edge angles for flaking ○ Well flaked along perimeter ○ Tools carried long distances – anticipation Boxgrove – Sussex ○ There is an abundance of high quality flint in the chalk cliffs

•

•

•

•

•

• •

○ Most of the handaxes are oval-shaped, not actually that pointy ○ At least in Britain there seems to be a contraction around rivers. Mauer – Germany ○ They Mauer/Heidelberg jaw  Perfect example of H erectus, or should it be called H heidelbergensis? Terra Amata – Nice, France ○ Claims that there were hearths = fire, at about 300-400,000 BP ○ At some sites where they’re clearly using handaxes they haven’t totally abandoned cutting tools. Torralba/Ambrona – Spain ○ Lots of animal bones found; more than a hundred elephants! ○ How did they get there?  Driving – to the peat around the rivers, where they can be easily killed.  Binford suggests it was just a scavenging site – where the elephants died naturally and then hominids came and got some food! – There are tools so clearly hominids were there Zhoukouclian (near Peking) ○ Originally a cave site, lots of stone tools around but no handaxes – most famous for its human remains – Peking Man = classic H. erectus Vertesszölös, Hungary ○ Lots of smashed up animal bones and stone tools – some of the animal bones are burned, suggests the use of fire? Sima de los Huesos – Spain ○ A mass of bones, at least 32 individuals identified up to now. Schoeningen – Germany

There are 10 wooden spears, 10ft in length, which are perfectly balanced for throwing – c150-250,000 y/a ○ But Binford claims that there was no hunting until modern humans came along 100,000 years ago, so… • Altamira – Spain ○ Lots of bison, the really famous one. ○ Was it one artist? ○ There’s a lot of debate over here. • La Mouthe – France ○ As well as paintings, they also found stone lamps, which don’t give off much soot, which would explain how it is possible to paint in very deep recesses of the cave and there not be coal marks on the ceiling. ○

Key finds • 1470 skull – 1967 – at least 1.8 myo – it was found smashed into many pieces but has been successfully reconstructed. ○ Remarkably human in appearance ○ c750cc brain case  almost exactly midway between us and chimps. • Olduvai hominid 5 – 1971 – very advanced = Homo habilis (definitely bipedal), some prefer the term Homo rudolfensis NB the crucial thing is that it’s Homo ○ Living in the same area at the same time there were some more primitive forms. • 3733 skull – type specimen of H. ergaster ○ 1.8 mya? ○ 800-1000cc brain size • Nariokatome boy/Turkana boy – from Kenya, best preserved ancient skeleton. Hominoids and Miocene Hominin Origins

•

•

•

•

•

First primates definitely in the Eocene – c 65 mya, maybe ○ The Plesiadaptaforms  But they have relatively small brains, claws, not forward facing eyes BUT the do live in trees, quadrapedal 55 mya + ○ Definite appearance of the first primates ○ NB their geographic range is very different to today because of continual drift ○ It coincided with a huge spike in temperature. 30oC average  Tropical forests, normal forests etc 34 mya + - Oligocene ○ Fossil of Aegyptopithecus – found in Africa  Could be the LCA of a lot of primates today 25-5 mya - Miocene ○ Age of the primates ○ Lots of different species ○ Coincides with much cooler temperatures on the Earth’s surface  Forests begin to break up ○ Some of the primates come down from the trees ○ Some dispersal ○ Where are they?  All confined to North or East Africa ○ NB the Tethys Sea completely separated Africa from Eurasia (Early Miocene)  Mid-Miocene – new land bridges • Spread of higher primates -> Eurasia c. 16 mya 18-17 mya ○ Proconsul fossil • Long trunk (body) • Hands for grasping • Long arms

Central in our ancestry as well ○ Dryopithecus (13-8.5 mya) and Ouranopithecus (9.5-7.5 mya) seem to be related to modern apes and have similarities to australopithecines NB they’re in Eurasia ○ 12-9.5 mya primates flourish in Eurasia while there is a lack of African forms  Implies a back migration in last 10myr for human evolution later. • But there could be missing fossils in Africa ○ What happened?  It could have been that glaciers started to form in northerly latitudes as global temperature went down 20-6 mya, so these species -> Africa ○ We don’t have that critical LCA with African apes and humans – no fossils at all until pretty recently. • Orrorin tugensis ○ Tugen hills in Kenya ○ 6 myr – at the time of the split ○ A new genus and species ○ 13 fragments ○ Claims  That it was the most basal human  Our direct ancestor  Bipedal ○ But are there others? • Sahelanthropus tchadensis ○ Another new genus and species ○ 6-7 myr ○ Forests and woodlands ○ But it has a very distorted crania ○ Sahara, Chad (North Africa) – NB not East Africa – so is North Africa the ‘cradle’ of life ○ Traits  Large brow ridges 

 Short, flat faced  Small canines  Thick tooth enamel ○ Debate  Is it hominin?  Is it pre or post split? – actually an early gorilla or chimp  It has a small brain size (350cc) Direct Comparisons of Hominins • Sahelanthropus tchadensis ○ 7-6 mya ○ Key sites  Toros-Menalla, Chad ○ Key fossils  TM 266-01-060-1 (cranium)  Also a mandible fragment ○ Cranial capacity  Estimated 320-380cc ○ Morphology  Small  Ape-sized cranium  Large brow-ridges BUT low prognathism  Intermediate-thickness of tooth enamel  Anterior position of foramen magnum  We have no postcrania • Orrorin tugenensis ○ c 6 mya ○ Key sites  Lukenio formation, Baringo Basin, Kenya ○ Key fossils  No skull, partial hands, arms and legs ○ Morphology  Thickly-enameled, relatively small teeth  Postcrania could suggest bipediality • Ardipithecus ramidus ○ 5-4.4 mya ○ Key sites  Ethiopia (Gona and Middle Awash)

○ Key fossils  Some partial skeletons ○ Morphology  Large canines, with relatively thin enamel • Australopithecus anamensis ○ 4.2-3.9 mya ○ Key sites  Kenya (Kanapoi and Allia Bay) ○ Key fossils  Minimal ○ Morphology  Bipedal adaptation  Thick enamel and large molars  Pronounced sexual dimorphism • Australopithecus afarensis ○ 4-3 mya ○ Key sites  Ethiopia and Tanzania ○ Key fossils  Lucy – AL 288 ○ Cranial capacity  375-500cc ○ Morphology  Bipedal  Prognathism  Ape-sized brain  Large browridges  Sagittal cresting in males  Large canines and incisors, and relatively large and thickly enameled molars.  Pronounced sexual dimorphism  Long arms compared to legs, long fingers, short and wide pelvis. • Australopithecus garhi ○ 2.5 mya ○ Key sites

 Ethiopia ○ Key fossils  Cranial and dentition remains ○ Cranial capacity  c 450cc ○ Morphology  Prognathism  Large anterior and check teeth – thick enamel  Long arms and legs • Australopithecus africanus ○ 3-2 mya ○ Key sites  South Africa ○ Key fossils  Tuang child – Sterkfontein ○ Cranial capacity  400-500cc ○ Morphology  Prognathism  No sagittal cresting  Longer legs and shorter arms compared AMH  Reduced sexual dimorphism. • Homo ergaster ○ 1,800,000 – 600,000 ya ○ Key sites  Kenya, South Africa, Georgia ○ Key fossils  Numerous crania and other body parts ○ Cranial capacity  600-910cc ○ Morphology  Generally more slender than previous species, especially in the cranial area  First species to have truly human body proportions. • Homo erectus

○ 1,010,000 – 50,000? ya ○ Key sites  Indonesia, China ○ Key fossils  More than 70 individuals represented in China and Indonesia, from crania, mandibles and limb bones ○ Cranial capacity  810-1250cc  Increasing through time ○ Morphology  Prognathic, no chin  Thick skulls  More robust than ergaster or modern humans • Homo heidelbergensis ○ 600,000 – 400,000 ya ○ Key sites  South Africa, Zambia, Tanzania, France ○ Key fossils  Crania ○ Cranial capacity  1225-1300cc ○ Morphology  Large browridge  Larger overall crania size than erectus • Homo neanderthalensis ○ 400,000 – 30,000 ya ○ Key sites  All over Europe, and some in the Middle East ○ Key fossils  Loads, most things really ○ Cranial capacity  1125-1550cc  Increasing through time – average = 1450cc (roughly) ○ Morphology

 Short, very powerful limbs  You know what they’re like! • Homo sapiens ○ 400,000 ya – now ○ Key sites  Africa, then everywhere ○ Key fossils  The whole caboodle ○ Cranial capacity  900-2000cc ○ Morphology  Like us Ardipithecus • Ardipithecus kadabba – 5.8 myr ○ Associated with forests ○ A single toe found – probably bipedal ○ But it has very powerful arms, suggests arboreality ○ Primitive traits  Large canines  Thin enamel on molars • Ardipithecus ramadis – 4.4 myr ○ Less primitive • Is it a) an early hominin? - bipedal b) an early chimp? – primitive dentition c) CA with Pan/Homo – mix of traits • They fit in an important gap around the time we split with chimps Australopithecus – Southern Ape • It’s assumed from Austro’s shape and size that it’s an intermediate between chimps and early Homo. • Split between robust (aethiopicus, boisei, robustus) and gracile (africanus, garhi, bahrelgazali) • Bipedalism

• • • •

•

○ Shown from hip/leg bones and skull and the Laetoli footprints (East Africa 3.5 – 4 mya) ○ The tibia also suggests that it is an obligate biped Dating ○ They go back about 5,000,000 years Australopithecines had a large sagittal crest – very much restricting skull size At times referred to as zinjanthropus Gracile Australopithecines ○ Garhi – East Africa, very temporally confined ○ Africanus – South Africa, very long lasting  Traditionally seen as an ancestor to the genus Homo.  Small canines  Bipedal  Large, flat molars  Some ape like characteristics • Prognathic • Small brained (440cc) ○ BUT does A. garhi in fact offer a better transition from afarensis -> Homo?! 2.5 myr  Still a small brain size, but a slight increase (450cc)  Bipedal  Legs elongated over afarensis • = Similar to later patterns in Homo  AND it’s associated with mammal bones that have cut marks on them – they might also have been cut up to get at the marrow = Homo behavior. ○ A. bahrelgazali  3.4-3 million years ago  Similarity with afarensis  An extended range Robust Australopithecines (sometimes called Paranthropus) ○ 2.5 – 1.2 mya, completely extinct by 1 mya

 So quite successful really ○ Oftentimes considered a side branch of us, they were around at the same time as H. habilis and stuff so they can’t be our direct ancestors ○ Found in East and Southern (only robustus) Africa ○ P. aethiopicus  2.5 myr  Very prognathic  Huge sagittal crest  Extreme nuchal muscles and wide zygomatic arches • = powerful chewing jaws ○ P. boisei  Slightly smaller sagittal crest  Flared zygomatics  Very megadontic (larhe molars)  Thick enamel  Molarised premolars  Concave face ○ P. robustus  Just slightly less ‘robust’ features  They’re eating food which is very coarse, tubers and hard fruits ○ How were they related from one to another? Or are they just geographical variants? ○ Phylogeny  Hypothesis 1 – all robusts are related  Hypothesis 2 – South and East African lineages; they’re just similar dietary regulations and so it can’t be said that they’re all closely related • Tool-use ○ Found with tools, assumed they made them, but Homo was found there too – so surely it was the more advanced form that made them… - so what the hell is austro doing there? – food?

○ The tools invariably appear with a concentration of animal bones as well. ○ Stone Cache Hypothesis – Potts  Hominids were very deliberately depositing stones in certain places, and then bringing animal carcasses back to these stone caches to use the tools on them.  Multiple sites formed  Lots of coming and going – mainly to guard against predators – especially when they’re just sitting on the edge of a lake  Novel transport behaviors – specific to Homo • Diet ○ These large animal bone deposits suggest a large degree of meat eating ○ Did they hunt? = big debate ○ Glyn Isaac  He suggests that it shows large scale meat eating = a human trait and that it could also suggest hunting = potentially sharing of food, cooperation and even communication  BUT it could have just been scavenging, and all plant matter perishes, so it’s impossible to see what the ratio of plant to animal matter might have been. ○ Louis Binford  Said that there was no link between the tools and the animal bones at all, and that carnivores could have just brought them there.  Said that it was rubbish that they would have been drastically different  Said that they definitely weren’t actually hunting, pretty much just wandering

around looking for the shade, occasionally finding stones.

and

• Social ○ Sites at Olduvai potentially occupied by family groups – “homebases”  A family group could mean a division of labour and the origins of sexual differentiation? ○ There have been many accusations though of archaeologists simply putting modern behavioural interpretations on these findings. ○ Favored Places Hypothesis – Fith, Kathy  Occupation in attractive foraging areas • Consume food, rest, social activity, sleep  Habitual stone transport led to build up  Foraging would take place nearby  Fauna transported and consumed  Like home bases – but no sharing • Australopithecus afarensis ○ 4-2.9 myr ○ 60-100 individuals found in East Africa and the Horn of Africa ○ Primitive characteristics  Small brian case (420cc average)  Subnasal prognathism  Large anterior teeth ○ Teeth and jaw are intermediate between chimps and humans ○ Sexually dimorphic – which suggests sexual competition between males ○ Clearly a bipedal but…  How bipedal? – did it spend any time in the trees?  Very long arms – partially arboreal… and curved fingers and toes  Gorilla like scapula

Oldowan Industry and associated implications • Traditionally linked with Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis ○ Although there is also some talk of Australopithecus.  There is no evidence to prove that they didn’t use the tools, obviously, but there has to be positive evidence.  Also, the huge cheek and jaw bones of the robust australopithecines suggests that they didn’t really rely on tools.  Furthermore, when the australopithecines went extinct (c1,000,000 years ago) Homo continued and stone technology went on apace. • A new niche after 2.6 myr of no tools! ○ Due to an intensification of tool behavior or a profound dietary shift ○ -> Homo ○ Now a selection for larger brains ○ Now dependent on tools for their survival  Pretty much all about the meat-eating • No other primate uses tools to get faunal meat • And there have been no clear finds of bones and tools directly associated with each other. • Once you have it, you end up finding it everywhere. ○ In conjunction with a new kind of spatial organization and diet. • Types of Oldowan artefacts ○ Heavy-duty tools  Made of cobbles or chunks of rock, from which pretty large flakes have been struck  General thought is that they were deliberately shaped and used – as ‘choppers’ etc

○ Light-duty tools  Made of smaller rocks or flakes, to which tiny adjustments are made. ○ Utilized Pieces  Not deliberately shaped itself, in fact as a byproduct of something else, but used nonetheless. ○ Débitage  Waste or debris caused from the production of the others • Features of the flakes ○ Striking platform – the part where the ‘hammer’ struck the core ○ Bulb/semicone of percussion – bulge/swelling just below the platform, showing the waves of energy caused by the blow ○ Fissures – radiating from the point of percussion ○ Dorsal surface – the backside of the flake, may show natural weathering or the effects of previous blows. ○ Features of the core  Cortex – outer rind of the cobble  Flake scars – concavities showing the negative areas of where the flakes have been removed from the core • Selectivity ○ Required qualities  Relatively hard and consolidated  Fine-grained  Fracture  Fresh on the inside, unweathered by chemical alterations  Less porphyritic ○ Two places that the raw materials might be found  Primary context – where they were formed; lava or obsidian flows for example

 Secondary context – moved by natural forces; on a river bed etc ○ The fact that so many of the finds are the ‘correct’ sort of rock would suggest that there was a decent selection process going on. ○ Rocks at the Koobi Fora region the rocks were predominantly chosen because they were near, and there was just an abundance of ‘good’ rocks. ○ There is a clear development over time in a lot of places, but whether this was simply to do with new availability is obviously unclear  Bed I Olduvai Gorge (1.8 million years ago) lava is the most common rock but Bed II (1.5 million) quartz was becoming the predominant one. ○ “The great age of the Gona sites indicates that such selectivity did not develop over time, but rather was a feature of the Oldowan technological variation from its very inception” - G • Oldowan as evidence of pre-planning? ○ Were the tools just an immediate means to an end – as in a problem arose OR did hominins plan ahead and develop them as a process to constantly overcome problems? ○ Immediate need would be shown by the use and discarding of tools at the same place, only used once for a single task  But this is not the pattern seen  Many cores are missing the outermost flakes • What do they suggest about intelligence? ○ Did they set out to make specific kinds of tools (choppers, discoids etc) or were they just what happened when they hit two stones together.

•

•

•

• •

○ The main aim of Stone Age toolmakers may in fact have been the flakes rather than the core = value on the process rather than the product ○ Although the products are still relatively simple, they would have required skill. ○ “We feel that these early stone tool-making hominids had evolved, by 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago, to an important new level of intelligence and cognitive operations” (133 – E) Other implications ○ Beginnings of right-handed dominance?  It would have been easier to teach someone who had the same dominant had as you – ratio in humans is 9:1, right: left, but in animals it’s pretty much 50:50. ○ Technology as an evolutionary accelerator  S Washburn suggests a ‘biocultural feedback’ – where as a culture becomes more adaptive and advantageous to the species, the genes that help with that culture are selected for. Usage ○ No way of knowing for sure what the tools were used for – but often found next to scraped animal bones – so assumed that they were used on carcasses ○ They could also have been used to dig up vegetable tubers. Some people also suggest that there were wooden or hide containers used to store water, but none of these would have survived anyway so there’s no way at all of telling. Tools allow species to survive beyond their biological parameters. Oldowan site formation

○ The stones were specially manufactured. ○ Stones were brought in to a site to be manufactured ○ Some tools were also taken out of sites ○ We can also look at faunal accumulations in the site, and how decayed the bones are. How open was the site? Was it reused?  It does look like they were reused – some are consistently come back to over a 10 year period (?)  Therefore some places must be favored – this must suggest learning, improved cognition and maybe some kind of social group. ○ All Oldowan sites are not the same:  Some just scattered tools  Some a lot more dense  Some with fossils • Hominids were doing different activities in different places ○ There is perhaps even some kind of specialization in animal prey – especially antelope NB very little dangerous predators ○ Issues  Excavations small and concentrated around Olduvai  Poor faunal preservation ○ Important factors  Recurrent visits to certain points  Ranging likely influenced by food, water and sleeping areas  Need to reduce competition with carnivores – still no weapons  Faunal resources exploited • Some faunal transport  Need to be near stone sources  NB lithic transport did occur. • Home Base Hypothesis ○ Use of central place for daily return

○ Sexual division of labour  Males hunted and scavenged  Females gathered ○ Even a suggestion that there was a delayed consumption and sharing of food  Enhanced cognition, language, social bonds – cooperation Homo habilis • Handy-man – tool making man. • Especially in the 60s, tools were seen to be the thing that set us apart from everything else, including nature. ○ NB we never did give up our tools – which suggests that they were pretty useful! • General changes with the transition to genus Homo: ○ Reduction is size of face -> cranial vault = much larger brain  Austros (400-545 cc) and Homo (5091880 cc)  Reduction is zygomatic arches – less emphasis on heavy chewing  Less proganthism – teeth tucked under face – less emphasis on dentition  Reduced muscular crests  Louis Leakey argued for 2 branches in human evolution i) homo ii) australopithecines • By including H. habilis (handy man – Oldowan) Leakey reduced the accepted brain size of Homo from 1000cc->610cc (still 30% bigger that africanus) • BUT nowadays some people say A. habilis • A very recent discovery shows H. habilis dating to 1.44 myr

• • • •

• •

○ = 500,000 year overlap with H. erectus Slightly bigger brain – 30% bigger But large sexual dimorphism Getting taller Feet – much less divergent/differentiated big toe than australopithecines – better for bipedalism ○ Could still climb trees, no need to do it that often Oldowan – could not have been them ○ Unlikely to have enabled proper hunting – more likely to be scavenging Some natural tools potentially used – horns and bones etc., just not modified – just picking them up from lying around ○ A much less smooth line!

Homo heidelbergensis • Traditionally called archaic H. sapiens, but obviously isn’t actually a valid taxonomic term • H. heidelbergensis sites often coincide with H erectus ones • H. heidelbergensis is often used as part of the multi-regional hypothesis – but obviously this has been discredited in many was ○ SO maybe they evolved in Africa and were simply another wave to come out of Africa • 800-300 kyr ○ Crucial time period • Geographically widespread in Africa • Information for it in Asia is pretty limited • H. sap seems to speciate from H heid in Africa and then spread out all over the world and replaced all their ancestors • Primitive Features ○ Low frontal lobe ○ Massive face ○ Thick vault

•

•

•

•

•

○ Large projecting brow ○ No chin ○ Robust postcrania Derived features ○ Lateral, medial brow segments ○ Reduced prognathism ○ Larger average brain size than erectus (c. 1200cc compared to 1000cc) Atapuerca, Spain ○ Gran Dolina (TD6) – H. antecessor ○ > 780 kyr (very early) The few discoveries suggest that H erectus or heid were the first to make it to Europe ○ Sima de los Huesos ○ C 350,000 y/a ○ About 30 individuals of H heid ○ Idea that they foreshadowed the Neanderthals  Well developed nuchals  Severely worn front teeth  Retromolar spacing • Thick bone cross sections • Strong muscle insertions Ceprano, Italy ○ Suggestion that erectus also made it to Europe ○ C 780,000 y/a Eastern Africa – H heid, potentially ○ 230-180 kyr ○ Larger brains ○ Arguments for intermediate morphology  H. erectus and moderns ○ Dail and Jinniushan finds Behavioural and innovation change ○ Some are associated with very late Acheulian, linking it to erectus ○ Pakefield (S Britain) – 700,00 y/a – not a glacial period – v warm

○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○

 = stone tools – but who, erectus/antecessor/heid Boxgrove – 500,000 – tibia of heid found and Acheulian stone tools found From about 500,000 – the evidence for fire picks up immensely  Potentially as a result of going further North where it would have been colder Stone tools are associated with formidable animals  Elephants, rhinos and buffalos -> Indicates consumption and increasing importance of meat Increased use of caves as shelters Open air sites suggest domestic space use  Bilzinglseben – Germany Schoningen, Germany  Wooden spears – 400,000 y/a  Carefully manufactured  2-3m long  Associated with horse – cut marls and puncture marks Early symbolism?  Berekhat Ram – Middle East Atapuerca “Burials”?  32 individuals in a cave shaft?  Strangely mainly adolescents and young adults  A beautiful handaxe was found at the bottom of the pit as well

Movement and Geography • Homo are the first hominids to get out of Africa • Previous ‘given’ idea: ○ Homo habilis -> ergaster -> (erectus) ○ BUT in 2007 we got some dates of H. habilis – 1.4 myr = large overlap with ergaster ○ BOTH habilis and ergaster were around at the dispersal from Africa

• First outings ○ Dmanisi, Georgia  1.75 myr  A much bigger range for the hominids  Who got out first?! 1.75 myr overlaps with habilis, erectus and ergaster (African erectus)  Brain sizes found at the site are relatively small (600-780cc) • = quite early hominid  Technology at Dmanisi • Oldowan may have facilitated dispersal itself • ‘Advanced’ technology was not needed for expansion ○ Java, Indonesia (at the time it was connected to SE Asia)  Sangiran and Mojokerto – 1.7 myr  H. erectus – lots of them ○ Nihewan Basin (East Asia)  1.66-1.36 myr (no bones, stone tools)  Mode 1 assemblages  As high North as they get 40oN • Argument for Early, Permanent Dispersals ○ Early = c 1.8 myr ○ Dispersals rapid and permanent ○ H. erectus persists in East Africa ○ Disperse with relatively basic technologies in variable ecological settings ○ [Traditional model] ○ BUT – signs for hominins actually quite rare, sites spatially and temporally discontinuous, initial settlement not followed by permanent settlement. • Colonisation of Northern Europe from c500,000 y/a ○ How?  Straits of Gibraltar?

 Across the Med?  From the East? ○ Why?  Dispersals probably driven by environmental factors  Probably just following lake edges and large mammals • How did the colonisation of these Northern parts of Europe take place? ○ It’s much colder and very seasonal – you need to be in control of fire and some kind of clothing = a much heavier reliance on animals – as food as well because there wouldn’t be as much plant food available in the winter. • c 60,000 y/a AMh came out of Africa ○ Probably over a Red Sea crossing • Europe 40,000-45,000 BP ○ Replacement of Neanderthals by H. sapiens populations ○ Dramatic behavioural changes = Middle/Upper Palaeolithic Revolution  Human Revolution Model • 40-50kyr – a dramatic shift in behavior in our own species ○ Cognitive change – Klein suggests there was a brain mutation ○ Symbolism ○ Origin of language • It enabled us to finally replace everyone else – ie the Neanderthals, who date to c 20,000yrs ○ The point = previously species had avoided glacial Europe, but in the Middle Palaeolithic, Neanderthals -> tundra and could survive the cold winters

○ Neanderthals were short and stocky and very strong, average brain size is very comparable to modern humans – but obviously size isn’t everything ○ Modern humans used the same route -> Europe as did the first farmers 30,000 years later. ○ Neanderthals were fully adapted to the cold environments, but were kicked out by AMH within a few thousand years…due to disease? Technology? Climate change? • Colonisation of Australia ○ We know that Australia was inhabited from 45,000 y/a – so H sap must have left Africa before that ○ They can’t have walked there – it had to be some kind of rafting technology  Kind of supports the idea that they became proficient with the sea, coastal migration Climate (Changes) • There are glacial and interglacial periods – roughly 10,000 years each in length • Caused by slight variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun • Therefore at times it becomes too cold for trees in much of Europe = all grass, lichen etc. (good for grazing). Only in Sothern Europe were there any trees. • Bipedalism and Environment ○ -> Pliocene = a greater cooling -> break up of some of the extensive forest habitats, so maybe hominins had to change their habits. Acheulian/Hand-axe industry • Generally associated with Homo ergaster or Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus,

•

•

• • • • • •

• •

Neanderthals and early ancestors of Homo sapiens. Defined by these hand-axes. A very obvious advance on he previous chopping tools. ○ Extensively flaked on both surfaces to form a sharp edge all the way around – bifacial ○ Normally tear-shaped  This shape hardly changed for hundreds of thousands of years, and can clearly be seen in southern Africa, Israel, India and Britain. Distinguishing features ○ Larger tools, made to a more standardized and sophisticated design. ○ Large tools, with pointed edges. ○ Handaxes = bifacially flaked tools ○ Picks = made on large flakes or long, flat cobbles, sometimes flaked on one side, sometimes both. ○ Cleavers = large tools with a sharp bit at the end Double function ○ Sharp edges ○ Bashing end More than just a functional item, a lot of care was put into making them. First examples appear in East Africa (Olduvai and Lake Turkana) People think that although it is much more advanced, it’s clearly developed from earlier chopping tools. Deliberately smashed In Africa they were normally made of volcanic rock, but in other places they were made of local materials, like flint or chert. ○ Were suitable rocks imported? Called choppers or cutters Produces a jagged chopping edge (bifacial)

• Used for: ○ We’re not really sure. ○ Meat – carcasses and skins ○ Wood ○ Probably no precise function • Results in core and flakes ○ Were the flakes just by-products or were they used too? ○ They were definitely used and sometimes ‘recut’ – finely adapted themselves – they wouldn’t do that if they weren’t used ○ MAYBE the chopping tools were actually just the waste product?  Probably not – they’re very standardized and some wear is visible as well • Quite complex technology, and very there’s variety as well. • Spheroids – spherically shaped stones – hammer stones? Pounders? For processing vegetables (roots)? • NB could go back even older than Olduvai and Lake Turkana – Gona = potentially 2.5-2.6 million years ago • Function is uncertain – intention is clear ○ Very complicated noduling – requires skill, practice and conceptual planning and potentially training. ○ The standardised nature of the tools suggests ‘traditions’ and therefore possibly ‘learning’ ○ It is also sometimes said that there is an obsession with symmetry – which would suggest that they are working from some kind of template. • The technique remained dominant with remarkably little change until c250,000 y/a • Why did the Acheulian not move East?

○ Asia was definitely colonized by 1.5 mya (Java etc) and they would have brought Oldowan with them ○ Perhaps the raw materials just weren’t good enough ○ It is also very possible that they might have forgotten how to make handaxes on their migration eastwards. ○ It is also possible that the lack of evidence for stone handaxes in East Asia comes from the fact that they might have used bamboo instead, which would obviously have perished. • Acheulian as a Dispersal Event ○ 1.7 myr – Africa ○ Acheulian sites are common outside of Africa  Early dates are few  Later occupations secure ○ BUT they don’t make it North, or East Asia/Indonesia ○ Movius Line – the line marking the geographic extent of the Acheulian – further is Mode 1 or nothing – bio-geographic significance ○ Ubeidiya, Israel  1.4-1myr  Out through the Levant Levallois technique • c 300,000 y/a there was another large step forward in tool technology • Prepares bigger and better flakes • More regular, with more regular edges • Particularly common in the Middle-East. • = Prepared-core techniques – created many different flakes. Would have required a lot of skill and forward planning, maybe even teaching?

•

• •

• • •

•

○ NB they’re not any less variable than biface retouch flakes in any way yet measured. NB it does have a lot in common with the production of a handaxe, all you had to do was strike a heavy blow on a handaxe and you make a Levallois flake. SO why did it take so long to arrive? Flake control – the flake tools (which existed in Olduvai) become much more common and more standardized and you can clearly see which one is for what purpose – scraper, cutter, point. There are 63 discrete types of stone tool recognised in Europe and the Near East in the Middle Palaeolithic. The important question = were these variations deliberately made with a specific end shape in mind? Some people think that instead the stones were just constantly reshaped until their eventual discard, which would suggest that there was not as high cognitive function etc as the first theory would suggest ○ Unless of course there was a consistent reduction model as data from Tabun (Near East) and La Quina (France) would suggest. ○ ALTHOUGH it seems more likely that the pattern is due to technological constraints – as in the stones were unusable unless they were altered, rather than due to any cultural pattern, because the tools in Israel and France are totally unrelated. NB It seems that morphological variation in the tools can be accounted for more by technological constraints than cultural rules – shown by the fact that tools in very different places are very similar – so unless individuals in France and Israel were speaking the same language…

Mousterian industry • Associated with Neanderthals. • Not all the flakes were Levallois flakes – normal flakes were used as well • Mousterian = a mid Palaeolithic industry, highly dominated by flake tools – called such because the type stone comes from le Moustier in France ○ Quina – side scrapers ○ Ferassie – Lev flakes, side scrapers ○ Denticulate - nodular ○ Typical ○ MTA • How do you explain the Mousterian variations? ○ Borde says there are 5 ‘tribes’ of Neanderthal who made different kinds/amounts of certain tools  BUT he also says there’s no chronological difference; ie they’re all living in the same area at the same time for thousands of years. ○ Paul Mellars suggests it was chronological ○ Binford agreed they couldn’t live in the same place – but that they were contemporaries. So the difference represents the different activities on different sites for different seasons. • AMH Mousterian sites ○ Skhul ○ Qafzeh Homo ergaster • 1.9 – 1.5 myr • Increased brain size (750-1000cc) • Broad and high cranial vault • Distinct brow ridges • External nose Homo erectus

• • • • •

Did it live to 53,000 yr?! Long, low, vaulted cranium Sagittal keel Thick cranial walls Thick brow ridges, slight sulcus (depression just behind the brow ridge) • Enlarged brain (750 – 1250cc) • Body Form ○ The ‘Turkana Boy’ – 90% complete ○ Longer legs, shorter arms ○ 3-4ft -> 5-6ft ○ It’s thought to somehow be related to dispersal ○ It facilitates long-distance movement ○ And to combat hot, dry savannah environments Neanderthals • Neanderthal symbolism ○ What is a symbol?  “a symbol is anything, be it object, sign, gesture or vocal expression which in some way refers to or represents something beyond itself (Chase 1991; Hodder 1982)” (369 - C) ○ You can’t have a ‘real’ language without a grasp of symbolism, because abstract sounds have to refer to different concepts ○ BUT can you have symbolism without language? ○ Language?  To look at when language first entered the hominid line you can either look at fossil evidence or artefacts.  A reconstruction of the vocal tracts of Neands found at La Capelle-aux-Saints suggests that they couldn’t make any

 





○ Use 



complex sounds, but this test has understandably been criticised for potentially not being very accurate. But of course language is much more than just a range of sounds that can be produced. The stone tool evidence is generally based on the idea that the more standardised the design becomes, the more contact must have been going on between individuals and the more likely it is that there were ‘names’ for the tools in question. BUT the lack of hard evidence for any real symbolic behaviour in Neanderthals is perhaps enough to suggest that they didn’t have a language… This ties in with the biological argument which says that because of the form of the mandible and basi-cranial region of some of the Neands found they would not have been able to form complex vowel sounds, which obviously doesn’t rule out language all together, but which does suggest it would have been limited at best. of pigments Fragments of ochre have been recovered from several areas in southwestern France dated to the Middle Palaeolithic. • They show clear signs of scraping Can the use of simple coloring tools be seen as explicitly symbolic – yes, but of course we don’t know exactly how they were used so they could theoretically have been used in some strange nonsymbolic way.

• They could have just been coloring things in ○ Symbolic Artifacts  There have supposedly been finds of decorated bone from one of the Rissian levels at Pech de l’Azé (Bordes 1969,1972)  Fossil nummulite from the Mousterian levels at Tata (Hungary) that shows clear markings to form a symmetrical cross, using a natural mark as one of the lines.  But they’re so rare…which makes “it difficult to see symbolic expression as a significant component of Neanderthal behaviour” (375 - C)  “The central assumption is that this kind of morphological standardization and imposed form in tool manufacture does indeed have some clear symbolic significance” (382 - C) ○ Burial?  It does seem unlikely that so many complete Neanderthal skeletons would have survived in the same place, unless they had been in some way placed there and protected – from the traditional threats to fossilization (predators, erosion etc)  Earliest examples date to the later part of the Middle Palaeolithic  La Chapelle-aux-Saints  Shanidar (Iraq) – a whole series of burials (10ish) of Neanderthals. • Pollen remains found there – did that mean that flowers were thrown there? – potentially not, later excavation showed that there were

burrows of some animal that took flower heads down with it.  Grave offerings? • Probably the stone tools and animal bones that have been found there just fell in at some point during the burial of after.  Are burials inherently symbolic? • OR are they just a practical way of disposing a body, so that you don’t attract predators and encourage disease. • There are however, easier ways to get rid of bodies, so it must mean something.  No evidence of ritual – it could just be compassionate burial – you don’t want to watch it get eaten by wolves – so it clearly suggests something – even if not the required cognition for burial. • Neanderthal intelligence ○ One of the hardest parts of qualifying Neanderthal intelligence is defining the term ‘intelligence’ in the first place  Is it the ability to coordinate several activities at once – as would be necessary for hunting?  Creation of mental maps of the spatial and temporal environment?  Creating complex and varies tools? • At one Neanderthal site in Western Europe it seems that Neanderthals dud copy some AMH bone tools, NB copy • NB it is essential not to judge them solely on their lack of a very complex tool set ○ Look at modern Aborigines in Australia and the Bushmen of Africa – they’re no less intelligent than other peoples, they just use simpler tools.

• It is also possible that there was internal variation in intelligence between different Neanderthal populations Upper Palaeolithic Revolution • If these huge steps forward are accepted, then how did they come about!? ○ Did they emerge by a purely internal cognitive and behavioral evolution among the European populations – coming straight from the Neanderthal line? ○ OR was much of it due to a second influx from Africa or Asia of a new species? • Speed and scale ○ “…it is now possible to show beyond any reasonable doubt that many of the most distinctive archaeological hallmarks of the classic Middle-Upper-Paleolithic transition in Europe can be documented at least 30,000 to 40,000 years earlier in certain parts of African than anywhere within Europe itself.” –F • Climatic driver? ○ Rapid climatic/environmental oscillations (60,000-30,000 BP) ○ -> Demographic changes and displacements ○ -> Increased interaction and competition between local populations ○ -> Technological, economic and social innovations /adaptations ○ -> The “Upper Paleolithic Revolution” • Tools ○ Improved blade technology – as opposed to the cruder Levallois flakes ○ Aurignacian = a whole new range of tools ○ Appearance of the first shaped bone tools.

Aurignacian antler spear head – c 35,000 BP – imposed form ○ c. 36,000 BP = ivory beads, which could have taken up to 1hr to make Earliest art – there are differences from region to region ○ herd (Aurignacian), South Germany – 36,000 BP – a carved mammoth, out of mammoth ivory and a horse and a lion head = very symbolic, they’re not just direct representations ○ ‘Notation’ – marks on stone that look like they might mean something First ceremonial burial – Sungir (Russia) c 30,000 BP Music? – flutes from Das Geissenklosterle (South Germany) – c 36,000 BP Trading – Bergerac flint found as far South as the Pyrenees Higher population (density) First huts Vigne Brune – 32,000 BP Improved blade technology ○ In the earliest stages of the Aurignacian the quality of the blades is so much greater than anything seen in even the later stages of the Mousterian. ○ Better dexterity ○ Greater standardization means better communication? ○ Introduction of hafting technology New forms of stone tools ○ 60ish types of differentiated tools, as opposed to 20 odd before ○ A better memory if you’re working to a template for all those different tools Bone, antler and ivory technology ○ “The appearance of complex, standardized and extensively shaped bone, antler and ○

•

• • •

• •

•

•

•

ivory artefacts is a striking feature of the early Aurignacian sites throughout Europe (Hahn 1977; Bánesz & Kozlowski)” (396 - C) ○ The feature of an imposed form is even more widely accepted with these tools than with the stone ones. ○ Imposed form means learning, and culture? ○ Beginnings of exploiting even more of the world around them ○ Hunting more likely than scavenging – well not more likely, but when linked to other things – at least a better understanding of the parts of an animal ○ Desire to create ○ Blombos caves are a good place to find these things. • Personal ornaments ○ Shells, beads or ivory ○ Why? As a status symbol, to attract a mate? The creation of things solely for their aesthetic merit now, not just tools that happen to be symmetrical • Art and decoration ○ The appearance of representational art = the first proof of symbolism ○ Ivory animal sculptures from Vogelherd, das Geissenklosterle and Hohlenstein-stadel in southern Germany ○ Phallic symbols from the Abri Blanchard and Vogelherd ○ The arrival of symbolism as a real force ○ Again the desire to create things and make a point of some sort ○ If a lack of symbolism is the best argument for Neands not having language, is this the best argument for AMH having it? • Expanded distribution and trading networks

The best evidence is the “occurrence of fartravelled marine shells in early Aurignacian sites throughout Europe – for example the frequent occurrence of shells from the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts in early Aurignacian levels in the Perigord region, or the shells from the Black Sea coast sites in the Kostenki region of south Russia” (398 C) ○ If the last one didn’t prove language origins, then this surely must ○ Also suggests some kind of firm camp, otherwise who would you trade with • Summary of Upper Palaeolithic innovations ○ Improved (punch-struck_ blade and bladelet) technology ○ New end-scraper and burin forms ○ Increased ‘imposed form’ in tool manufacture ○ Complex, highly shaped bone, antler and ivory tools ○ Appearance of personal ornaments  Perforated teeth, marine shell, shaped stone and ivory beads ○ Appearance of complex and varied art forms  Engravings, sculptures and cave paintings ○ Appearance of symbolic ‘notation’ systems ○ New musical instruments  Bird-bone flutes ○ Long distance distribution and exchange networks  For marine shells and high quality stone etc ○ Improved missile technology ○ Rapid changes in technological patterns ○ Increased population densities ○ More highly structured occupation sites ○

○ Increased ‘specialization’ in some animal exploitation patterns Earliest Art • Very Early ○ The Makapansgat cobble (South Africa)  Entirely natural object, brought into a cave – aesthetic appreciation  2.3 million years ago ○ Differentiating between natural and manmade marks  Pech de l’Azé (France) • Looks like lots of markings and some parallel lines, but now we know it’s natural. ○ Kozarnika, Bulgaria  Clear marks  1.4-1.2 mya ○ Berekhat Ram, Israel  > 300,000 BP  A very rough figurine – proto figurine ○ Hand axes  Some people argue that the evident time spent to make a really well crafted axe shows aesthetic appreciation  Some still have fossils that must have been deliberately preserved in it. • Middle Palaeolithic Art ○ La Ferassie  Clear marks on tools, parallel lines ○ Axlar (Spain)  A pebble with a groove ○ Arcy-sur-Cure, France  Last gasp of the Neanderthals  Lots of jewelry – made by distinctly different technology to AMH jewelry ○ Invention or Acculturation? Palaeolithic Art 35-10,000 y/a

• General ○ 2 colours used  Red – iron oxide/haemotite  Black – Manganese dioxide ○ To try and explain art, some people turn to modern bush art – but it’s a bit derived, and also a tad racist. ○ The Mayans are the only modern society to actually use cave art.  They felt that the deeper you went into a cave, the further remove you were from normal life  The question obviously is: did Ice Age folk think in the same way? ○ Early interpretations  Ideas of ‘sympathetic magic’ – like voodoo • In the hope of gaining favorable conditions of some sort.  Hunting magic • This doesn’t actually seem very likely because there are relatively few examples of missiles on the same paintings as the animals • Also, it’s possible that they were drawn on later. • Do they even symbolise missiles, or are they something come out? • They’re not always drawing what they’re eating.  Fertility magic • To get animals to copulate so that there were more for them to kill. • Sometimes there are clear ‘vulva’ in the pictures, but naturally the French see far too many. • No clear depiction of animal copulation at all

• And the human copulation images are iffy at best. ○ Mainly images of horse and bison. ○ Therianthropes  Half-man half-animal images  Shamans and stuff  BUT they are actually extremely rare, only 5 or so examples have ever been found… ○ Was it public?  Yes probably, at least some of it – the ones in the larger galleries  Some stalactites have been broken off to make it easier to see paintings from other sides of the cave.  BUT there was also some very private art, in places very hard to reach. One example is only reachable by putting your arm in a crack in the rock and painting blind • Offered to something else. ○ It’s definitely possible that open air art was a lot more common and it has simply perished. • Caves ○ They certainly weren’t afraid of caves, but almost certainly didn’t live in them. ○ Lots of footprints in caves – mainly from children  Was it a place for play?  For initiation? • As a way of imprinting certain things on youngsters, and the paintings were a way of helping with that. ○ NB you shouldn’t make everything in a cave religious. ○ Chaffaud, France – carvings in reindeer antlers found in a cave. ○ Altamira and La Mouthe – see sites.

Anatomically Modern Humans • Timing – the transition occurred somewhere between 500,000-34,000 y/a ○ Neanderthals were around 135,000-34,000 y/a  Where did they go?  but Neands and sapiens basically coexisted for as much as 60,000 years “In 1989, the Tabun Neanderthal was shown to be at least 100,000 years old, making it a contemporary of the modern humans from Qafzeh and Skhul” (119 – D) • Multi-regional Hypothesis ○ The idea that AMH developed independently all over the world, and through genetic drift and cross-breeding we ended up as we are today. ○ Potentially places the Neanderthals as an intermediary between us and H erectus ○ Problems  It’s assuming that the Neanderthals had the brain capacity for the UPR already, and then this led to biological change as well  It’s fucking unlikely that it would all have happened at such a similar time! • Single-species or Out of Africa Hypothesis ○ One species developed in Africa (Homo sapiens), which then moved out and replaced any earlier species all across the world.  The idea is that they brought with them the UPR ○ It does seem like an ‘impossible coincidence’ (Mellars, 2005) that H sapiens developed this similarly all over the world.

○ Also, the speed at which the transition occurred suggests that it was one species. ○ Evidence – (all from F)  Mitochondrial DNA patterns of modern Europeans suggest an African-derived “founder lineage” dating to about 40,000 to 50,000 years BP • Fossil evidence has given us Neand mtDNA and it is totally lacking from early anatomically modern humans and modern day humans in Europe  Rogers and Jorde’s study of “mtDNA ‘mismatch’ distributions” suggests a date of expansion about 40,000 BP  The (less reliable) study of Ychromosome DNA points to two expansions i) 40-45,000 BP ii) c. 30,000 BP  Fossil evidence – 5/6 discoveries that point unmistakably to the presence of anatomically modern humans in Europe and the Near East c. 30,000-45,000 BP • Most significant discovery was three separate individuals from a cave in Romania – Pestera cu Oase – which have been radiocarbon dated to about 35,000 BP • AND one at Ksal Akil in Lebanon, dated by radiocarbon and associated material to about 39,000 BP  It is hard to believe that after 200,000 years of being in Europe the Neanderthals developed this complex tool set at the same time a new species arrived on the scene, only to be eradicated regardless within the next 60,000 years.

•

•

•

•

•

•

Modern Homo sapiens = “humans with a flair for technology and innovation, a capacity for artistic expression, an introspective consciousness, and a sense of morality” (99 - D) Language ○ It seems that this is pretty central ○ It is quite hard to believe that any species could possess a language as complex as our modern languages and not also be fully modern by all other standards. Reasons for the transition ○ Binford (1968) believes that it is mainly due to the onset and development of cooperative hunting. ○ Runaway brain hypothesis ○ Will ○ More complex culture led to the need for a more powerful brain, which gave the opportunity for a more complex culture etc. Specialised Hunting ○ Mellars (1973) says that the archaeological record in the Dordogne shows a specialised hunting of reindeer  But there is little evidence for such reliance on one species anywhere else, which suggests that it was more a case of there simply being an abundance of reindeer in the area. Cooperative hunting ○ S Binford (1968) – she thinks that the hunting of herds as they migrated between the coastal plains and the highlands would have required sizeable groups and therefore sizeable cooperation and communication between individuals  a genetic change. Foresight and sharing ○ L Binford (1984) feels that a lack of planning and foresight is shown by the faunal data at

the Klasies River Mouth sites in South Africa, where the carcasses were butchered in such a way that the best parts were eaten on the spot, and also because either the animals were small or the parts consumed were small.  He also suggests that small parts were cut off because only small parts were needed because you hunted for yourself alone. ○ Not completely sure we agree with Binny on this one – small game like fish and rabbits can very easily be shared around. ○ In many sites one species outnumbers the rest – whereas you’d expect it to be pretty random if there was no foresight and animals were just killed on sight and eaten  Combe Grenal in SW France – there is a predominance of red deer. ○ It probably suggests people going to a specific place to hunt a specific animal at a specific time of year. ○ “The regular transportation of food certainly implies regular sharing” (pg 329) ○ “The very existence of burials in the Middle Palaeolithic implies affective bonds among individuals that would be hard to understand without at least the emotional capability for sharing and cooperation.” ○ NB always important to consider whether these would have been possible without language… • Culture ○ It must be remembered that much of the evidence for many aspects of culture is completely invisible – a shamanic ritual or marriage would leave no trace.