AS: 916036 Time allocation: 5 weeks Assessment: External Exam Credits: 4
Specific Learning Outcomes:At the end of this unit of work you should be able to use the core knowledge listed in the statements below to describe, explain and discuss aspects of human evolution. Questions may be presented to you in unfamiliar situations that will require you to recognize and link these ideas together.
- List skeletal differences between hominins and quadrupedal apes and understand how these differences show that we are adapted for being bipedal.
changes in skull and endocranial features
changes in the manipulative ability of the hand.
- Describe changes in tool manufacture and use.
- Describe changes in communication, language, art.
- Describe changes in methods of acquiring food e.g. change from gathering to hunting, domestication of plants and animals.
- Describe changes in fire, shelter and clothing.
- Describe possible patterns of hominin dispersal such as the multiregional and replacement hypotheses.
- Describe recent developments or new evidence and why human evolution is still subject to much debat
Interpretations on the origins and trends of human evolution may change as new information is uncovered. Interpretations of the trends in human evolution are based on current scientific evidence which is widely accepted and presented in peer-reviewed scientific publications. But be aware of current information, and recent developments and interpretations. (In other words, you must realise that the true picture is like an incomplete jigsaw, constantly under debate).
useful links
Where did I come from? The human species came to be over the last 170,000 years (modern H. sapiens). As well as looking at our divergence from the ape lineage around 7 million years ago. This topic answers those important questions of why our fingers go wrinkly when they get wet and why we no longer swing between trees and like to sit in front of computers and learn stuff.
This topic is all about patterns and trends, what were the patterns leading toward bipedalism, tool uses, culture and looking at the bigger ideas of our biological and cultural evolution as a species. Here are a couple of definitions to learn.
Check out this link for a super overview http://www.newscientist.com/movie/becoming-human
This topic is all about patterns and trends, what were the patterns leading toward bipedalism, tool uses, culture and looking at the bigger ideas of our biological and cultural evolution as a species. Here are a couple of definitions to learn.
- Biological evolution is the transmission / passing on / evolution of genetic information (from parent to offspring).
- Cultural evolution is the transmission / passing on / evolution of learned behaviour / ideas / knowledge / non genetic information.
- Patterns of dispersal of hominins. Hominins refers to living and fossil species belonging to the human lineage. This is a subgroup of hominids, a group which includes both humans and the great apes.
Check out this link for a super overview http://www.newscientist.com/movie/becoming-human
The Science of RedHeads
clever little monkey
|
|
|
1. List skeletal differences between hominins and quadrupedal apes and understand how these differences show that we are adapted for being bipedal.
- Read chapter 19 and the below links in preparation for our first discussion group.
Human evolution is the process by which over time, humans have changed to optimise the fit between the individual members of a population and their environment. In contrast to the modern human desire to live a long life, evolution is directed primarily by the biological drive to reproduce and pass genes on to successive generations. Only lineages that can successfully reproduce will survive.
The process of evolution is driven by the interaction of humans with their environment. The sum of the interactions between the individual and all biotic and abiotic components of their environment will determine the success of the individual in passing on genes and therefore contributing to the survival of the population and features of future generations. These interactions are vast and complex. They present significant variables, including the complexity of intra and inter‐specific interactions playing out in response to biotic and abiotic factors, which when combined with the variation present within the individuals within the population, determine survival.
In biological terms, humans sit with the great apes within the hominoid group but are distinguished within this group by specific physical and behavioural traits including bipedalism, brain size, hairlessness, tool making, language development, abstract thought, social organisation, and culture. Current molecular evidence suggests that the pathway to modern humans can be traced back along the hominoid lineage with the first split being the Orang‐utan lineage around 15 million years ago, with the last branch that leads to Homo sapiens splitting from apes 5‐6 million years ago. These dates are based on evidence from the molecular clock which assumes a consistent rate of mutational change over time. The evolution of Hominins (humans and their direct ancestors) has been noted for the development of large brains (leading to intelligence) and relatively long lives. Bipedalism is one of several factors selected for that have resulted collectively in the development of intelligence and the success of the hominins. However, the adaptive advantages that these selected features bring are accompanied by adaptive costs. Collectively adaptive advantage must outweigh adaptive cost for the evolutionary success of the species. However evolutionary fitness (and the adaptations selected) does not necessarily match health and longevity. Here is an excellent podcast: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128415050
The process of evolution is driven by the interaction of humans with their environment. The sum of the interactions between the individual and all biotic and abiotic components of their environment will determine the success of the individual in passing on genes and therefore contributing to the survival of the population and features of future generations. These interactions are vast and complex. They present significant variables, including the complexity of intra and inter‐specific interactions playing out in response to biotic and abiotic factors, which when combined with the variation present within the individuals within the population, determine survival.
In biological terms, humans sit with the great apes within the hominoid group but are distinguished within this group by specific physical and behavioural traits including bipedalism, brain size, hairlessness, tool making, language development, abstract thought, social organisation, and culture. Current molecular evidence suggests that the pathway to modern humans can be traced back along the hominoid lineage with the first split being the Orang‐utan lineage around 15 million years ago, with the last branch that leads to Homo sapiens splitting from apes 5‐6 million years ago. These dates are based on evidence from the molecular clock which assumes a consistent rate of mutational change over time. The evolution of Hominins (humans and their direct ancestors) has been noted for the development of large brains (leading to intelligence) and relatively long lives. Bipedalism is one of several factors selected for that have resulted collectively in the development of intelligence and the success of the hominins. However, the adaptive advantages that these selected features bring are accompanied by adaptive costs. Collectively adaptive advantage must outweigh adaptive cost for the evolutionary success of the species. However evolutionary fitness (and the adaptations selected) does not necessarily match health and longevity. Here is an excellent podcast: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128415050
comparisons between skeletal adaptations of arboreal and bipedal locomotion:
|
|
HRER is an awesome site .
HANDs- we are unique
Bipedalism
Evidence from the fossil record suggests that some bipedal tendencies were present as far back as Orrorin tugenesis (6MYA). There is some possibility that O. tugenesis was not in fact in the hominin line, suggesting either that bipedalism evolved in more than one taxa or that bipedalism had started to develop before the split between the last common ancestor of apes and humans. The well known female Australopithecus afarensis skeleton, “Lucy” is dated 3 million years ago and is believed to have been habitually bipedal, adapted for bipedal walking, but not able to run efficiently. A. afarensis existed from 4‐3MYA so Lucy was a relatively late example of this species. Evidence from earlier fossils of A. afarensis show that some arboreal behaviours were also part of the niche of A. afarensis, suggesting that this was the period of gradual evolution from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion. Selection for bipedalism in this period must have offered survival advantages to the species, which are likely to have resulted from changes in the environment which made this form of locomotion preferential.
Evidence suggests that selection for bipedalism was driven by environmental change seen in eastern Africa around 4MYA in which near continuous forest changed to wooded savannah, creating more open habitats in which food resources became more dispersed. In such habitats, bipedal movement is energetically more efficient than quadripedal movement, particularly at walking speeds. The paleoanthropologist Robert Foley has calculated that, provided the early hominid spent the majority of its time in terrestrial (as opposed to arboreal) foraging, then bipedalism would be adaptive in such environments. Thus the evolution of bipedalism can be seen to have been progressively adaptive as the hominin line evolved, driven by habitat change.
Other arguments that have been put forward for the origin of bipedalism include :
• improved thermoregulatory efficiency, leading to the ability to forage through the heat of the day
• improved ability to see and therefore avoid predators
• improved ability to carry food, tools, and infants during their period of dependence
These adaptations are likely to be secondary to the drive for selection based on energetic efficiency, and could have arisen from the initial adaptation of standing upright and adopting a bipedal gait. While bipedalism was selected for and therefore had adaptive advantage, it also had adaptive costs that resulted from the structural changes that are associated with the upright posture and bipedal gait, as shown in the table below.
Evidence from the fossil record suggests that some bipedal tendencies were present as far back as Orrorin tugenesis (6MYA). There is some possibility that O. tugenesis was not in fact in the hominin line, suggesting either that bipedalism evolved in more than one taxa or that bipedalism had started to develop before the split between the last common ancestor of apes and humans. The well known female Australopithecus afarensis skeleton, “Lucy” is dated 3 million years ago and is believed to have been habitually bipedal, adapted for bipedal walking, but not able to run efficiently. A. afarensis existed from 4‐3MYA so Lucy was a relatively late example of this species. Evidence from earlier fossils of A. afarensis show that some arboreal behaviours were also part of the niche of A. afarensis, suggesting that this was the period of gradual evolution from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion. Selection for bipedalism in this period must have offered survival advantages to the species, which are likely to have resulted from changes in the environment which made this form of locomotion preferential.
Evidence suggests that selection for bipedalism was driven by environmental change seen in eastern Africa around 4MYA in which near continuous forest changed to wooded savannah, creating more open habitats in which food resources became more dispersed. In such habitats, bipedal movement is energetically more efficient than quadripedal movement, particularly at walking speeds. The paleoanthropologist Robert Foley has calculated that, provided the early hominid spent the majority of its time in terrestrial (as opposed to arboreal) foraging, then bipedalism would be adaptive in such environments. Thus the evolution of bipedalism can be seen to have been progressively adaptive as the hominin line evolved, driven by habitat change.
Other arguments that have been put forward for the origin of bipedalism include :
• improved thermoregulatory efficiency, leading to the ability to forage through the heat of the day
• improved ability to see and therefore avoid predators
• improved ability to carry food, tools, and infants during their period of dependence
These adaptations are likely to be secondary to the drive for selection based on energetic efficiency, and could have arisen from the initial adaptation of standing upright and adopting a bipedal gait. While bipedalism was selected for and therefore had adaptive advantage, it also had adaptive costs that resulted from the structural changes that are associated with the upright posture and bipedal gait, as shown in the table below.
the ape that took over the world
The footprints at Laetoli are just part of the fossil evidence that depicts human evolution. In 1974, paleontologist Don Johanson’s team discovered the skeleton of Lucy, now known as Australopithecus afarensis. Lucy’s skeleton was clearly different from other primates. Her knees could lock, her femur slanted inward, and her large toe was in line with her other toes, allowing her to walk upright. The discovery of Lucy surprised paleontologists because although she was unquestionably bipedal, she was remarkably apelike—with a brain about the size of a chimpanzee’s. Bipedalism is a tremendous adaptation for humans and a distinguishing characteristic between humans and other primates. There are many hypotheses about the advantages of bipedalism, including the ability to carry food from place to place, to walk long distances efficiently, the freeing of hands for tool use, and the ability to see further or more clearly during travel. Any or all of these hypotheses may be correct and are being explored by anthropologists today.
The human brain
A second major adaptive advantage that appeared later in human evolution was an increase in brain size. Fossil evidence
allows us to trace the development of the brain as it increased threefold over the last 3 million years. Early hominids such as
the australopithecines had brains the size of modern apes (400 to 500cc). Homo habilis, with a brain of about 650cc, was probably the first hominid to make and use stone tools. As brain size increased new capabilities evolved, improving the ability of hominids to adapt to and modify their environments.
The earliest evidence of the use of tools to modify or manipulate objects and elements of the environment is seen in Homo habilis. This is the same time that we observe an increase in brain size in both absolute terms and relative to body size. Australopithecines had absolute and relative brain sizes not greatly different from those of the modern apes. In comparison, the brain size of the Homo lineage showed an exponential increase from H.habilis onwards (Fig 3).
Brain size is not inherently linked to evolutionary success. The Neanderthal brain had a larger volume than the modern human brain, yet was not as successful. Indeed, brains are energetically expensive and there are many large animals with highly successful volutionary histories yet relatively small brains (witness the dinosaur prior to the asteroid‐induced extinction). Thus the question of why hominins evolved large brains and Homo sapiens is endowed with its unique set of capacities is not self‐evident. There are several inter‐related theories on the evolutionary origin of
brain expansion. Effectively they either place emphasis on Homo species finding adaptive advantage in social interactions within their group, or in planning their affairs for hunting and tool making. The weight of evidence now favours the former.
The reproductive cost of brain expansion
The development of the large brain had other consequences for hominins. Most significant being the problems associated with giving birth to a baby with a large head through the narrow and rigid birth canal that arose as a result of the pelvic changes associated with bipedalism. If the human infant was born at the same stage of maturity as other primates, then pregnancy would last about 21 months: this would require a pelvic canal so wide that it would be impractical for efficient bipedal locomotion. The compromise has been that humans give birth to an infant at a stage when the head can fit through the birth canal, but this means that the human infant is entirely dependent on its mother for many months after birth. This need to give birth to a totally dependent infant has determined human social structure—if the mother is to support the infant she in turn needs to be confident of support from the father. Thus while early hominids showed great sexual dimorphism, with the males much larger than the females, implying a harem type mating system with fighting between males for mating rights, Homo sapiens has a much lesser degree of sexual dimorphism, suggesting that in general females were able to have continued support from one male.
allows us to trace the development of the brain as it increased threefold over the last 3 million years. Early hominids such as
the australopithecines had brains the size of modern apes (400 to 500cc). Homo habilis, with a brain of about 650cc, was probably the first hominid to make and use stone tools. As brain size increased new capabilities evolved, improving the ability of hominids to adapt to and modify their environments.
The earliest evidence of the use of tools to modify or manipulate objects and elements of the environment is seen in Homo habilis. This is the same time that we observe an increase in brain size in both absolute terms and relative to body size. Australopithecines had absolute and relative brain sizes not greatly different from those of the modern apes. In comparison, the brain size of the Homo lineage showed an exponential increase from H.habilis onwards (Fig 3).
Brain size is not inherently linked to evolutionary success. The Neanderthal brain had a larger volume than the modern human brain, yet was not as successful. Indeed, brains are energetically expensive and there are many large animals with highly successful volutionary histories yet relatively small brains (witness the dinosaur prior to the asteroid‐induced extinction). Thus the question of why hominins evolved large brains and Homo sapiens is endowed with its unique set of capacities is not self‐evident. There are several inter‐related theories on the evolutionary origin of
brain expansion. Effectively they either place emphasis on Homo species finding adaptive advantage in social interactions within their group, or in planning their affairs for hunting and tool making. The weight of evidence now favours the former.
The reproductive cost of brain expansion
The development of the large brain had other consequences for hominins. Most significant being the problems associated with giving birth to a baby with a large head through the narrow and rigid birth canal that arose as a result of the pelvic changes associated with bipedalism. If the human infant was born at the same stage of maturity as other primates, then pregnancy would last about 21 months: this would require a pelvic canal so wide that it would be impractical for efficient bipedal locomotion. The compromise has been that humans give birth to an infant at a stage when the head can fit through the birth canal, but this means that the human infant is entirely dependent on its mother for many months after birth. This need to give birth to a totally dependent infant has determined human social structure—if the mother is to support the infant she in turn needs to be confident of support from the father. Thus while early hominids showed great sexual dimorphism, with the males much larger than the females, implying a harem type mating system with fighting between males for mating rights, Homo sapiens has a much lesser degree of sexual dimorphism, suggesting that in general females were able to have continued support from one male.
WOW so that is how we do it!!
2. Getting to know the relatives
Read chapter 20- to discover the characteristics of austarlopithecines.
Read chapeter 21- to discover the characteristics of the Homo species.......cultural evolution in on the rise......and with nthat further biological evolution
Read chapeter 21- to discover the characteristics of the Homo species.......cultural evolution in on the rise......and with nthat further biological evolution
Wow I would love to be involved in reconstructing a Hominin face!!
|
|
check out this interactive timeline: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive
homo erectus
neanderthal
3. Hominin Evolution- Homo sapiens
Read chapter 22- look at the typical characteristics of H.sapiens, their technologies, migration pathways, lifestyle and the more recent cultural evolution.
tools...
O L D O W A NOldowan tools are the oldest known, appearing first in the Gona and Omo Basins in Ethiopia about 2.4 million years ago. They likely came at the end of a long period of opportunistic tool usage: chimpanzees today use rocks, branches, leaves and twigs as tools. The key innovation is the technique of chipping stones to create a chopping or cutting edge.
Most Oldowan tools were made by a single blow of one rock against another to create a sharp-edged flake. The best flakes were struck from crystalline stones such as basalt, quartz or chert, and the prevalence of these tools indicates that early humans had learned and could recognize the differences between types of rock. Typically many flakes were struck from a single "core" stone, using a softer spherical hammer stone to strike the blow. These hammer stones may have been deliberately rounded to increase toolmaking control. Flakes were used primarily as cutters, probably to dismember game carcasses or to strip tough plants. Fossils of crushed animal bones indicate that stones were also used to break open marrow cavities. And Oldowan deposits include pieces of bone or horn showing scratch marks that indicate they were used as diggers to unearth tubers or insects. Currently, all these tools are associated with Homo habilis (rudolfensis) only; if the robust australopithecines used tools, they were apparently not shaped stones.
A C H E U L E A N The Acheulean tool industry first appeared around 1.5 million years ago in East Central Africa. These tools are associated with Homo ergaster and western Homo erectus. The key innovations are (1) chipping the stone from both sides to produce a symmetrical (bifacial) cutting edge, (2) the shaping of an entire stone into a recognizable and repeated tool form, and (3) variation in the tool forms for different tool uses. Manufacture shifted from flakes struck from a stone core to shaping a more massive tool by careful repetitive flaking. The most common tool materials were quartzite, glassy lava, chert and flint. Making an Acheulean tool required both strength and skill. Large shards were first struck from big rocks or boulders. These heavy blades were shaped into bifaces, then refined at the edges (using bone or antler tools) into distinctive variations in shape — referred to by paleoanthropologists as axes, picks, and flat edged cleavers. About 1.0 million years ago, symmetrical, teardrop or lanceolate shaped blades (so called hand axes) begin appearing in Acheulean deposits. Some of these "hand" axes are extremely large and may possibly have had a ceremonial or monetary function; or they may have been used for very heavy work such as butchering large animals or milling branches or trees into fire fuel. Either way, their size suggests both a more complex technology and a more interdependent group structure.
M O U S T E R I A N The Mousterian industry appeared around 200,000 years ago and persisted until about 40,000 years ago, in much the same areas of Europe, the Near East and Africa where Acheulean tools appear. In Europe these tools are most closely associated with Homo neanderthalensis, but elsewhere were made by both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens. Mousterian tools required a preliminary shaping of the stone core from which the actual blade is struck off. The toolmakers either shaped a rock into a rounded surface before striking off the raised area as a wedge shaped flake (see photo at left), or they shaped the core as a long prism of stone before striking off triangular flakes from its length, like slices from a baguette. Because Mousterian tools were conceived as refinements on a few distinct core shapes, the whole process of making tools had standardized into explicit stages (basic core stone, rough blank, refined final tool). Variations in tool shapes could be produced by changes in the procedures at any stage. A consistent manufacturing goal was to increase as much as possible the cutting area on each blade. Though this made the toolmaking process more labor intensive, it also meant the edges of the tools could be reshaped or sharpened as they dulled, so that each tool lasted longer. The whole toolmaking industry had adapted to get the maximum utility from the labor invested at each step. Tool forms in the Mousterian industry display a wide range of specialized shapes. Cutting tools include notched flakes, denticulate (serrated) flakes, and flake blades similar to Upper Paleolithic tools. Points appear that seem designed for use in spears or lances, some including a tang or stub at the base that allowed the point to be tied into the notched end of a stick. Scrapers appear for the dressing of animal hides, which were probably used for shoes, clothing, bedding, shelter, and carrying sacks. These accumulating material possessions imply a level of social organization and stability comparable to primitive humans today. Because tools were combined with other components (handles, spear shafts) and used in wider applications (dressing hides, shaping wood tools, hunting large game), Mousterian technology was the keystone for many interrelated manufacturing activities in other materials: specialized tools created specialized labor. As these activities evolved and standardized, the efficient and flexible Mousterian toolmaking procedures made possible the accumulation of physical comforts on which wealth and social status are based.
P P E R P A L E O L I T H I C The Upper Paleolithic industry, dominant from 40,000 to 12,000 years ago, appears to have originated independently in both Asia and (as early as 90,000 years ago) in Africa. This toolmaking culture shows a remarkable proliferation of tool forms, tool materials, and much greater complexity of toolmaking techniques. It also quickly diversified into distinctive regional styles, some of which appear as sequentially overlapping but esthetically recognizable toolmaking cultures. These adaptations in tool forms respond to the increased range of material tasks that appeared in the Mousterean industry. Regional styles are probably not just stylistic variations but reflect the adaptation of tools to different materials and the manufacturing requirements of different habitats, different food sources, and a corresponding increase in the size of human habitations. It is, for example, in the Upper Paleolithic industry that sewing needles and fish hooks first appear. The geographically extensive Aurignacian period (40,000 to 28,000 years ago) is associated with both Homo sapiens (Cro Magnon) and Homo neanderthalensis throughout Europe and parts of Africa. The more limited Châtelperronian (40,000 to 34,000 years ago) is a variant of the Aurignacian principally associated with the declining tribes of European Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. After Neanderthals went extinct, the Gravettian period (28,000 to 22,000 years ago) added backed blades and bevel based bone points to the tool repertory. Ivory beads turn up as burial ornaments, and ritual "Venus figurines" appear. Ritual and religion were added to the wealth and status hierarchies of human culture. The brief Solutrean period (22,000 to 19,000 years ago) introduced very elegant tool designs made possible by heating and suddenly cooling flint stones to shatter them in carefully controlled ways.
Most Oldowan tools were made by a single blow of one rock against another to create a sharp-edged flake. The best flakes were struck from crystalline stones such as basalt, quartz or chert, and the prevalence of these tools indicates that early humans had learned and could recognize the differences between types of rock. Typically many flakes were struck from a single "core" stone, using a softer spherical hammer stone to strike the blow. These hammer stones may have been deliberately rounded to increase toolmaking control. Flakes were used primarily as cutters, probably to dismember game carcasses or to strip tough plants. Fossils of crushed animal bones indicate that stones were also used to break open marrow cavities. And Oldowan deposits include pieces of bone or horn showing scratch marks that indicate they were used as diggers to unearth tubers or insects. Currently, all these tools are associated with Homo habilis (rudolfensis) only; if the robust australopithecines used tools, they were apparently not shaped stones.
A C H E U L E A N The Acheulean tool industry first appeared around 1.5 million years ago in East Central Africa. These tools are associated with Homo ergaster and western Homo erectus. The key innovations are (1) chipping the stone from both sides to produce a symmetrical (bifacial) cutting edge, (2) the shaping of an entire stone into a recognizable and repeated tool form, and (3) variation in the tool forms for different tool uses. Manufacture shifted from flakes struck from a stone core to shaping a more massive tool by careful repetitive flaking. The most common tool materials were quartzite, glassy lava, chert and flint. Making an Acheulean tool required both strength and skill. Large shards were first struck from big rocks or boulders. These heavy blades were shaped into bifaces, then refined at the edges (using bone or antler tools) into distinctive variations in shape — referred to by paleoanthropologists as axes, picks, and flat edged cleavers. About 1.0 million years ago, symmetrical, teardrop or lanceolate shaped blades (so called hand axes) begin appearing in Acheulean deposits. Some of these "hand" axes are extremely large and may possibly have had a ceremonial or monetary function; or they may have been used for very heavy work such as butchering large animals or milling branches or trees into fire fuel. Either way, their size suggests both a more complex technology and a more interdependent group structure.
M O U S T E R I A N The Mousterian industry appeared around 200,000 years ago and persisted until about 40,000 years ago, in much the same areas of Europe, the Near East and Africa where Acheulean tools appear. In Europe these tools are most closely associated with Homo neanderthalensis, but elsewhere were made by both Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens. Mousterian tools required a preliminary shaping of the stone core from which the actual blade is struck off. The toolmakers either shaped a rock into a rounded surface before striking off the raised area as a wedge shaped flake (see photo at left), or they shaped the core as a long prism of stone before striking off triangular flakes from its length, like slices from a baguette. Because Mousterian tools were conceived as refinements on a few distinct core shapes, the whole process of making tools had standardized into explicit stages (basic core stone, rough blank, refined final tool). Variations in tool shapes could be produced by changes in the procedures at any stage. A consistent manufacturing goal was to increase as much as possible the cutting area on each blade. Though this made the toolmaking process more labor intensive, it also meant the edges of the tools could be reshaped or sharpened as they dulled, so that each tool lasted longer. The whole toolmaking industry had adapted to get the maximum utility from the labor invested at each step. Tool forms in the Mousterian industry display a wide range of specialized shapes. Cutting tools include notched flakes, denticulate (serrated) flakes, and flake blades similar to Upper Paleolithic tools. Points appear that seem designed for use in spears or lances, some including a tang or stub at the base that allowed the point to be tied into the notched end of a stick. Scrapers appear for the dressing of animal hides, which were probably used for shoes, clothing, bedding, shelter, and carrying sacks. These accumulating material possessions imply a level of social organization and stability comparable to primitive humans today. Because tools were combined with other components (handles, spear shafts) and used in wider applications (dressing hides, shaping wood tools, hunting large game), Mousterian technology was the keystone for many interrelated manufacturing activities in other materials: specialized tools created specialized labor. As these activities evolved and standardized, the efficient and flexible Mousterian toolmaking procedures made possible the accumulation of physical comforts on which wealth and social status are based.
P P E R P A L E O L I T H I C The Upper Paleolithic industry, dominant from 40,000 to 12,000 years ago, appears to have originated independently in both Asia and (as early as 90,000 years ago) in Africa. This toolmaking culture shows a remarkable proliferation of tool forms, tool materials, and much greater complexity of toolmaking techniques. It also quickly diversified into distinctive regional styles, some of which appear as sequentially overlapping but esthetically recognizable toolmaking cultures. These adaptations in tool forms respond to the increased range of material tasks that appeared in the Mousterean industry. Regional styles are probably not just stylistic variations but reflect the adaptation of tools to different materials and the manufacturing requirements of different habitats, different food sources, and a corresponding increase in the size of human habitations. It is, for example, in the Upper Paleolithic industry that sewing needles and fish hooks first appear. The geographically extensive Aurignacian period (40,000 to 28,000 years ago) is associated with both Homo sapiens (Cro Magnon) and Homo neanderthalensis throughout Europe and parts of Africa. The more limited Châtelperronian (40,000 to 34,000 years ago) is a variant of the Aurignacian principally associated with the declining tribes of European Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. After Neanderthals went extinct, the Gravettian period (28,000 to 22,000 years ago) added backed blades and bevel based bone points to the tool repertory. Ivory beads turn up as burial ornaments, and ritual "Venus figurines" appear. Ritual and religion were added to the wealth and status hierarchies of human culture. The brief Solutrean period (22,000 to 19,000 years ago) introduced very elegant tool designs made possible by heating and suddenly cooling flint stones to shatter them in carefully controlled ways.
Human dispersal
|
|
|
who am i?
Thi is cool see VIDEO
|
|
revision
Bbc radio-listen up:
The Neanderthals (45 minutes)
Are we still Evolving Part 1 (30 min)
Are we still Evolving Part 2 (30 min)
Are we still Evolving Part 1 (30 min)
Are we still Evolving Part 2 (30 min)
