Moorpark College Neanderthals & Other Homins Interactions Discussion Discuss the evidence for contact and interaction(s) between Neanderthals (Homo sapiens

Moorpark College Neanderthals & Other Homins Interactions Discussion Discuss the evidence for contact and interaction(s) between Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neandertalensis) and other homins, especially anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens). Discuss genetic, fossil, and archaeological evidence.i can only use the documents provided. 2 pages and a citation and single spaced THE TRANSITION FROM H. ERECTUS TO ARCHAIC HOMO SAPIENS
In the last lecture we left off with the discussion of Homo erectus and the
adaptive radiation out of Africa.
Remember that Homo erectus was a very long-lived species. It was around for
over 1 million years and in that time it accumulated a great many derived traits.
Derived traits are mutations that arise after a species is separated from the last
common ancestor shared with another species. Essentially, derived traits are “new”
traits. Traits that are carried over from an earlier species, and shared among a number
of species with a shared ancestor are called “primitive” traits.
At about 500,000 BP (years before present) Homo erectus begins to
accumulate enough derived traits that the new population can be classified as a
different species (that, you will remember, is the process called anagenesis). That new
species is generally referred to as Archaic Homo sapiens. Archaic Homo sapiens is a
descriptive term, not a scientific taxonomic name.
Many prefer a more specific scientific name, such as Homo Heidelbergensis. It
could also just be called Homo sapiens sp. (Which means the species Homo sapiens,
without a specified subspecies). But Archaic Homo sapiens will do for our purposes
because we wish to distinguish these early Homo sapiens from later sub-species, such
as Homo sapiens sapiens.
Archaic Homo sapiens (A.h.s.) had a “mosaic” of features. It has some traits
that look like late Homo erectus and some that look like an anatomically modern
human (Homo sapiens sapiens, or AMH to use the convenient acronym). You will
remember that last week, in discussing Homo erectus, I said that the species is very
much like us (Homo sapiens sapiens or Anatomically modern humans, aka AMH) from
the neck down, except that most individuals were more robust. That is, its most
distinguishing characteristics of Homo erectus are in the cranium. It follows that the
most distinguishing characteristics of Archaic Homo Sapiens will also be in the cranium.
Homo erectus is recognized by the flat top of its skull, the prominent brow
ridges, and the almost pentagonal profile of the skull when viewed from the rear.
In contrast, Archaic Homo sapiens has a high and rounded cranial vault like modern
humans. The brow ridges are still there, but are reduced in size, and the front of
the face is a little bit flatter (less prognatic) than Homo erectus. The size of the
brow ridges, the degree of prognathism, and the height of the cranial vault vary by
region and population.
The increasing height of the cranium is due in part to the continued
enlargement of the brain. Although late Homo erectus fell within the range of modern
humans, the average cranial capacity was at the low end of the modern spectrum. At
the same time the brain was growing, the jaw was decreasing in size due to a reduction
in tooth size. The reduction in tooth size was probably due to the larger amount of
cooked food being eaten. Soft food means that there was no selective advantage to big
molars, and so there was a gradual drift downward. With the front of the face getting
smaller, the only place for the brain to go was up. (Motion studies have shown that
enlarging the cranium to the sides or to the back would have created imbalances when
running).
Fossil examples of Late H. erectus/early Archaic Homo sapiens
Germany: Steinheim ~330 kya Similar to Swanscombe with big brow ridges, rounded back
to the skull and 1150 cc.
Africa: The Broken Hill, Zambia skull ~130 kya -cutmarks on the head (“Rhodesian man”)
Archaic Homo sapiens Broken Hill, Rhodesia: A mosaic of features
Archaic Homo sapiens in Spain: Atapuerca ~350 kya. Several individuals have been
found in this region. The fossil record from Atapuerca (a region that includes the site of
Sima de los Huesos) is lengthy and, as you might expect, the specimens show a great
deal of variability. Some look erectus-like and some look like later Neandertals in their
features. Asia: Solo, Java, Indonesia ~300-100 kya poorly dated (“Solo man”).
Changes in culture
The first Archaic Homo sapiens used material culture derived from the
Acheulean technology. They had handaxes and and chopper tools. Later Archaic
Homo sapiens developed a technology called Middle Stone Age (the term used in
Africa) or Middle Paleolithic (used outside of Africa). Middle Stone Age (MSA)
technology much more specialized than the Acheulean.
Both Acheulean and Oldowan can be described as “core tool” technologies;
together they are called the Lower Paleolithic. In both technologies flakes are
removed from a core, and the core is then the primary tool. In contrast MSA and
Middle Paleolithic technologies are centered on the smaller flakes that are removed
from the core. Moreover, the flakes are worked after removal from the core (through
the
removal of very small flakes or “retouching”). The fine reworking of the flakes shaped
them into a variety of tool shapes. That is, MSA technologies produced specialized
tools, designed with particular tasks in mind. In contrast, both Oldowan and
Acheulean technologies produced more generalized tools.
Archaeological Sites
Clacton-on-Sea, England ~ 300 kya
Menez-Dregan, France ~ 465 kya (thousands of years ago)
Terra Amata, France ~350 kya (beach hut on the ocean) ”
Non- utilitarian” behavior Post- mortem (after death) manipulation of human and
animal skulls: Zhoukoudian, China ~ 400 kya
Bodo, Ethiopia ~ 600 kya Ornamentation – ocher.
Tool technology
Europe – Wooden spears shaped like a javelin (for throwing?) at 400,000 ya
Prepared core, or “levallois” tool technology (a core is prepared before the last
blow, which requires imagining it) “Flake” tools (small pieces) and possible composite
tools (e.g. stone “hafted” to wood).
The Neandertals
Homo erectus entered Europe soon after 800, 000 BP. The earliest date comes
from Atapuerca Spain, at 780,000 BP. The European population of Homo erectus did
very well and expanded into northern Europe, England, and Scotland by 500,000 BP.
The pan-genus transition from Homo Erectus to Archaic Homo sapiens suggest that the
European H. erectus maintained contact with the rest of the species and that there
was gene flow throughout H. erectus and early H. Sapiens populations.
Soon after 300,000 years ago (after the development of Archaic H. Sapiens)
the climate began to cool. Glaciers moved southward throughout Europe and Asia.
In Europe the glaciers expanded over the Alps and the Pyrenees ranges, isolated
the European H. Erectus population. That population had to survive in western
Europe during a glacial maximum.
The Neandertals were the product of the western European Archaic H.
Sapiens population adapting to glacial conditions. The “Classic” Neandertals date form
about 150, 000 BP to 25,000 BP. Many of their physical traits are best understood as
cold weather adaptations. Neandertals were short and stocky compared to Archaic H.
Sapiens, and to us. This is an example of Bergman’s rule: stocky bodies preserve heat
better, because they maximize body mass while minimizing suface area. In effect, short
stocky bodies preserve body heat better. Their limb proportions are an example of
Allen’s Rule: in cold climates, the length of body appendages is minimized. In effect,
Neandertals demonstrate a combination of Bergman’s Rule and Allen’s Rule. Their
body cores (chest and torso) are larger than Archaic H. Sapiens, while their arms and
legs are shorter. The Neandertals had large noses and sinuses, which functioned to
warm air before it entered the lungs. These features enlarged their faces and made
them more prognathic (forward projecting) than Archaic Homo sapiens.
To counterbalance the forward-projecting face, the Neandertals developed an
occipital bun (a bony mass on the back of the skull). Motion studies by David
Lieberman at Harvard have shown that the counterbalance of the occiptal bun served
to
kept the head steady while running. In this way, Neandertals were able to maintain
a steady focus on prey as they ran.
The cranial capacity of Neandertals was actually larger (1300 -1640 cc) than
that of modern humans (ca 1300 cc on average). Because of their larger body mass,
however, the Neandertal ratio of mass to brain capacity is equal to that of modern
humans.
Neandertal fossils
La Chapelle aux Saints, France
Neandertal, La Ferrasie, France
Neandertal:
Skhul V, Israel 35 kya
Cultural behaviors
The stone tool industry most closely associated with Neandertals is called the
Mousterian. Mousterian is effectively a Middle Stone Age technology, based upon the
specialized working of flakes.
One distinctive product of the Mousterian technology is the “Levallois flake.”
A Levallois flake is one removed from a carefully prepared core. The final product is
removed from the core with a single blow and yields a beautifully shaped tool with
sharp edges around is margins.
Other Neandertal cultural characteristics
Neandertals buried their dead. Neandertal fossils have been found in
prepared pits, or graves. Neandertals Cared for the old and sick. Many Neandertal
fossils show severe injuries, such as amputations, that would have made it
impossible
for
them to fend for themselves. Those individuals were nursed back to health and were cared
for afterwards. Many Neandertal skeletons show severe injuries that include broken bones.
The best modern analogues to those injuries come from rodeo riders. The suggestion has
been made that Neandertals attacked their prey “up close and personal.” That is, they may
have jumped on their prey and dispatched them with knives, rather than using spears, darts,
or traps.
Dental wear patterns (cutmarks visible under the microscope) show they
probably held food with their teeth and then cut it off. They display taurodontism, or
an enlarged pulp cavity in the molar.
Neandertal classification problems
Some physical anthropologists (e.g. Ian Tattersal and Tim White) believe that
the differences between Neandertals and Archaic Homo sapiens is so great that they
should be given a separate species designation (Homo neandertalensis). Others feel
that they are just a distinctive population of Archaic Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens
neandertalensis). Genetic studies (see below) suggest that Nendertals were capable
of interbreeding with H. Sapiens sapiens and producing fertile offspring; hence, they
belong to the same species.
After 90,000 BP the glacial ice of Europe began to retreat and the Neandertals
spread into Eastern Europe and southwest Asia (the Near East: Lebanon, Syria, Israel,
Palestine).
They lived there for tens of thousands of years, although they were highly mobile
and did not reside in one place for long. At the same time, however, another group
of hominids was moving northward out of Africa. This latter group was Homo sapiens
sapiens, who are known colloquially as Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH).
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
For the sake of brevity, I’ll use the term Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) to refer to H.
Sapiens sapiens.
While the Neandertals were developing in western Europe, archaic Homo sapiens were
having fun elsewhere. The archaeological record of Archaic Homo sapiens is weak in Asia
outside of cave sites, such as Zhoukoudian in China. So with the exception of that single (but
spectacular site) there is not much to go on. In Africa,
however, the record of Archaic Homo sapiens and the Middle Stone Age is very, very
good.
The Powerpoint presentation includes a map of some of the best-known archaeological
sites of the MSA (Middle Stone Age). In recent years, the record has included some finds of
“modern” behavior that twenty years ago was thought to be no older than about 20,000
years. These behaviors include the creation of art and personal adornments such as jewelry.
Despite increasing cultural complexity, Archaic H. Sapiens faced a crisis of sorts just
before 200,000 years ago. Environmental degradation reduced human populations to very
low levels, perhaps no more than a few thousand people. Out of this crisis, a new population
developed and they are labelled Homo sapien sapiens, or AMH.
Physical Characteristics of AMH
Some of the distinguishing traits of AMH are continuations of trends begun with
Archaic H. Sapiens. These included a higher cranial vault, flatter face, and smaller teeth.
One unique trait of AMH however, is the presence of a notable chin. All archaic H.
Sapiens (including Neandertals) have a receding chin, whereas all AMH (except perhaps
the British royal family) have chins.
Distinctive cultural behaviors of AMH
The distinctiveness of AMH behavior has been undermined by the recent
discovery of “modern” behaviors during the Middle Stone Age (MSA). There are,
however, trends in behavior that quicken after the appearance of AMH. These
behaviors include1) the use of “Upper Paleolithic” technologies including blades
(stone tools with parallel edges), harpoons, and objects made from bone and
antler. 2) Symbolic behavior, including “art”
and personal adornment (beads and other jewelry) Some have suggested, also, that marks
on stones and bone represent a type of notational system, perhaps for counting or even a
calendar.
The use of blades, barbed points (such as harpoons), and the increasing use of bone
are customarily used to define the “Upper Paleolithic.” It is best to think of Upper Paleolithic
as a type of technology, rather than a time period. The reason for that is simply that while
AMH are using their Upper Paleolithic technology, Neandertals are using the Mousterian (a
Middle Paleolithic technology). So, one group is using Middle Paleolithic technology while
the other is using Upper Paleolithic technology. If that is confusing to you, things will get
much worse in just a minute
The Fossil Record of Homo sapiens sapiens
Anatomically modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) first appear in the fossil record
soon around 200,000 BP. A set of skulls from the site of Herto, Ethiopia dated to about
160,000 BP have undeniably modern traits, including a flat face and a high cranial vault. Soon
after, AMH fossils from Klasies River Mouth and Border Cave (150,000 – 120, 000 BP) have
similar traits. After 100,000 BP the fossil record becomes much larger.
Genetic Evidence for Homo sapiens sapiens
Recent advances in genetic studies have significantly altered how we understand
early AMH. The first genetic study done in 1998 by Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking and Alan
Wilson of UC Berkeley suggested that modern humans developed out of a population that
lived in Africa between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. This study used mitochondrial DNA, a
type of DNA that occurs outside the nucleus of cells (Mitochondria help to produce energy
for cells). Unlike nuclear DNA, which come from both mother and father, Mitochrondrial DNA
(MtDNA) are passed only through the mother. Thus MtDNA is much easier to analyze than
nuclear DNA. Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson collected MtDNA from living people with ancestry
in different parts of the world. They used a type of statistical cluster analysis to determine
how closely related modern people are to one another. Using a known event to determine a
mutation rate, they calculated that all living people last shared a common female ancestor
just over 150,000 years ago and that the common ancestor lived in Africa.
The popular accounts in the press labeled the hypothetical ancestor as the “African
Eve” and their theory of a recent common ancestor became known as the “Eve Hypothesis.”
In point of fact, what Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson claimed was all living peoples are
descended from a small population (not necessarily a single woman) that lived in Africa prior
to 150,000 years ago. Although there were some problems with their statistics and their
methodology (they sampled African-Americans as proxies for African populations, rather than
modern Africans), held up for many years.
A very important study published in 2018 suggests that the history of early AMH
was much more complex. A team led by Eleanor Scerri proposed that early AMH populations
emerged from diverse and numerous populations within Africa. Chris Stringer, a co-author with Scerri said
“”When we look at the morphology of human bones over the last 300,000 years, we see a complex mix of
archaic and modern features in different places and at different times… As with the material culture, we do
see a continental-wide trend towards the modern human form, but different modern features appear in
different places at different times, and some archaic features are present until remarkably recently.”
If you have time, you can read about the Scerri study at
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180711114544.htm
The Multi-Regional Hypothesis
The Multi-Regional Hypothesis has been most forcefully advocated by Milford Wolpoff, of the
University of Michigan (now retired). Wolpoff believes that AMH developed in various regions
throughout the world from populations that go back to the adaptive radiation of Homo erectus.
That is, according to Wolpoff, modern Asians descend from Asian Homo erectus, Modern Africans
descend from African Homo erectus, modern Europeans descend from European Homo erectus,
etc. In this model, there was gene flow between those regional populations that spread derived
traits throughout the world populations of the genus Homo, effectively keeping everyone
moving along the same line of development.
Wolfpoff believes that he can trace certain biological traits from Homo erectus
populations up to modern times in each region. For example, modern Asian populations
(and Native Americans) have a distinctive shape to their incisor teeth, called “shovel- shaped
incisors”. There is a thick rim of enamel on the edge of the teeth that give them the
appearance of a flat-end shovel. Wolfpoff identifies that trait in Asian Homo erectus (the
Zhoukoudian specimens) and believes he can trace it all through the fossil records, up to
modern Asians.
Few physical anthropologists agree unreservedly with Wolpoff. First, many of the
derived traits he identfies in the regional Homo erectus populations are week.
Personally, I don’t see shovel-shaped incisors in the Zhoukoudian specimens. Second, the
fossil record in Asia is almost nonexistant at 100,000 BP, so demonstrating cultural
continuity is almost impossible.
Another problem is whether we are looking at homologous traits or analogous traits.
Here, occipital buns are a good example. Neandertals had occipital buns. Many
western Europeans today also have occipital buns. (In the interest of full disclosure, you
should know that I have an occiptal bun). But not all buns are the same. As I mentioned,
Daniel Lieberman at Harvard studied Neandertal crania and found that in that species the
occipital bun developed to counterbalance a prognathic face. What Lieberman found in
modern humans, however, is that the occipital bun is the product of an expanding brain.
Modern humans with an occipital bun also have skulls that are narrow in front (above the
eyes). That is, modern humans have an occipital bun because their skulls are constricted in
front: the skull expanded to the back in order to hold the increasing size of the brain. In short,
Lieberman says that occipital buns in modern Europeans have nothing at all to do with
Neandertals and are not evidence of genetic continuity.
Wolpoff’s ideas cannot be accepted without many qualifications, and it is largely
incompatible with the genetic and fossil evidence that AMH originated in Africa.
However, the evidence that AMH interbred with the Neandertals and perhaps other populations
such as the Denosivans, keeps some of Wolpoff’s ideas in play.
The Denosivans
The Denosivans were a population of Archaic Homo sapiens known only from a small
number of fossils. The population was defined by the genetic analysis of a finger bone and a
tooth from Denos…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment