Subject- History I Topic- Pre-Historic Civilization

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Subject- History I Topic- Pre-Historic Civilization Subject- History I Topic- Pre-Historic Civilization Lecture 1 Date: 04- Aug-20 Introduction • Prehistory concerns itself with the period of human existence before the availability of written records with which recorded history begins. • It is thus a study of those pre-literate societies of our earliest hunter-gatherer ancestors and the progress – technological and otherwise, as they domesticated animals, gradually mastered agriculture, and settled down in the earliest settlements, villages and towns. • It follows the development of some of these settlements into centralised human societies and the emergence of the first great civilisations of the world. Introduction • Prehistory also deals with smaller communities in some parts of the world that continued their hunter-gatherer lifestyles or as agro-pastoralists without developing into urban centres. • It is important to note that our knowledge of prehistory – of the fact that the history of human origins goes back much further than the earliest evidences from recorded history, has been obtained in the last two hundred years. Introduction • In early 1806, Sir Richard Colt Hoare excavated burial mounds and barrows in England and Ireland and was frustrated that the origins of the ―tribe that built these structures were shrouded in mystery. • In 1774 Johann Esper – a German priest had found remains of cave bears and other extinct animals in association with human remains. • Frenchman Jacques Boucher de Perthes, who in 1846 through his publication of his finds of human artefacts like stone tools found in association to the remains of extinct animals, seriously considered this as evidence of the antiquity of man Introduction • The Stone Age is divided into three periods, namely Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic, based on technological developments and gradual evolution of culture. Paleolithic Society • Paleolithic Period, also spelled Palaeolithic Period, also called Old Stone Age, ancient cultural stage, or level, of human development, characterized by the use of rudimentary chipped stone tools. • The onset of the Paleolithic Period has traditionally coincided with the first evidence of tool construction and use by Homo some 2.58 million years ago. • At sites dating from the Lower Paleolithic Period (2,580,000 to 200,000 years ago), simple pebble tools have been found in association with the remains of what may have been some of the earliest human ancestors. Paleolithic Society • Paleolithic Period or Old Stone Age; the earliest period of human development, last until approx 8000 BC. The Paleolithic Period is divided into two eras: the Lower Paleolithic (to 40,000 BC) and the Upper Paleolithic (40,000–8000 BC). • During the Paleolithic period the man was a hunter and food gatherer. The human being used to use simple chipped and chopped type stone tools for hunting and other purposes. Paleolithic Society • The people were not aware of neither agriculture nor home construction hence the life was not properly settled.It has been traced that people survived consumed roots of trees and fruits and lived in caves and hills. The Paleolithic man was a hunter and food gatherer. • Neanderthal was hunter of prehistoric time. The Middle Paleolithic man was scavenger but few evidences of hunting and gathering were traced. The dead were painted before burial. Image of Neanderthal Human Paleolithic Society Paleolithic tools Paleolithic Tools Paleolithic Society in India • Robert Bruce Foote, a British geologist discovered and identified the first Palaeolithic tool in the Indian Subcontinent in 1863, at the village of Pallavaram, near Madras (now Chennai) and laid the foundations of the Prehistory in India. • Since then, prehistoric archaeologists have located hundreds of prehistoric sites in different parts of India and are attempting to understand the life ways of prehistoric people. • The Palaeolithic sites are found throughout the Indian subcontinent in a variety of ecological contexts, including montane regions, hill slopes, alluvial settings, coastal plains, and in rock shelters Paleolithic Society in India • Traditionally, the lower Palaeolithic evidence in India has been divided into two groups, i.e., the Sohanian or Soanian and the Acheulian, based on distinct typological and technological ground of both the industries. • The evidence of this culture is found at a number of sites in the Siwalik hills in northwest India and Pakistan. Explanation • The stage of human development started at the time when people begin the use of tools for their aid. It was the time that laid the foundation of science and the uses of machines. • About 2.6 million years ago, human beings started the regular use of tools in east Africa. • In Indonesia, several hominid fossils have recently been dated between 1.8 and 1.6 million years. • In China, the early stone tools are associated with human fossils dated between 1.7 and 1.9 million years. • In India, no human fossils have been found associated with Stone Age tools. • The various strata of the Sivalik hills containing stone tools have been dated between 2 to 1.2 million years. • The archaeological site of Bori in Pune district of Maharashtra is about 1.38 million years old. It gives the scientific record for the early stone tools in India. • The early human settlement in India is contemporary to the Asian countries, but it is of the later period than that in the African region. Explanation • Based on tool technology, the Palaeolithic Age in India is divided into the following three phases − – Lower Palaeolithic Hand-axe and cleaver industries; – Middle Palaeolithic Tools made on flakes; and – Upper Palaeolithic Tools made on flakes and blades. • The time period of Lower Palaeolithic culture was marked between 600,000 and 60,000 B.C. • The main tool types of this era were hand axes and cleavers, along with chopper-chopping tools. These were made on cores as well as flakes. • The raw materials used for making the stone tools were largely of different kinds of stones, including quartzite, chert, and sometimes even quartz and basalt, etc. Explanation • Following are the major types of sites of the Lower Palaeolithic culture − – Habitation sites (either under rock-shelters or in the open); – Factory sites associated with sources of raw materials; – Sites that combine elements of both these functions; and – Open-air sites (any of the above categories). Explanation • The Lower Palaeolithic tools have been abundantly found throughout the Indian subcontinent, except the plains of the Indus, Saraswati, Brahmaputra, and Ganga where raw material in the form of stone is not available. • Following are the important sites of Lower Palaeolithic cultures − • Pahalgam in Kashmir, • Belan valley in Allahabad district (Uttar Pradesh), • Bhimbetka and Adamgarh in Hoshangabad district (Madhya Pradesh), • 16 R and Singi Talav in Nagaur district (Rajasthan), • Nevasa in Ahmadnagar district (Maharashtra), • Hunsgi in Gulburga district (in Kanlataka), and • Attirampakkam (Tamil Nadu). Mesolithic Society • The Mesolithic Period, or Middle Stone Age, is an archaeological term describing specific cultures that fall between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic Periods. While the start and end dates of the Mesolithic Period vary by geographical region, it dated approximately from 10,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE. • The people of the Mesolithic Period formed relationship bonds as their predecessors did during the Palaeolithic Period and lived in groups of 10 to 30. • Living in a permanent location during the Mesolithic accentuated the feeling of cohabitation and cooperation. Mesolithic Society • The organization of voyages in the open sea to locate raw materials (obsidian, andesite) suitable for manufacturing stone tools and to catch large fish (Tuna) are some indications of cooperation and social integration in the Mesolithic society. • During the Mesolithic period, humans developed cave paintings, engravings, and ceramics to reflect their daily lives. Mesolithic Art Mesolithic Human Mesolithic Tools Neolithic Society • Neolithic period or New Stone Age. The term neolithic is used, especially in archaeology and anthropology, to designate a stage of cultural evolution or technological development characterized by the use of stone tools, the existence of settled villages largely dependent on domesticated plants and animals, and the presence of such crafts as pottery and weaving. • The domestication of plants and animals usually distinguishes Neolithic culture from earlier Paleolithic or Mesolithic hunting, fishing, and food-gathering cultures. Neolithic Society • The termination of the Neolithic period is marked by such innovations as the rise of urban civilization or the introduction of metal tools or writing. • The earliest known development of Neolithic culture was in SW Asia between 8000 BC and 6000 BC. • Leading to the establishment of settled villages based on the cultivation of cereals, including wheat, barley, and millet, and the raising of cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. Neolithic Society • In the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, the Neolithic culture of the Middle East developed into the urban civilizations of the Bronze Age by 3500 BC Between 6000 BC and 2000 BC Neolithic culture spread through Europe, the Nile valley (Egypt), the Indus valley (India), and the Huang He valley (N China). • The formation of Neolithic cultures throughout the Old World resulted from a combination of local cultural developments with innovations. • In SE Asia, a distinct type of Neolithic culture involving
Recommended publications
  • Rock Art (Part-1)
    Rock Art (Part-1) drishtiias.com/printpdf/rock-art-part-1 About Rock Arts are ancient, human-made markings/paintings/sculptures made on natural stone. Rock art consists of paintings, drawings, engravings, stencils, prints, bas-relief carvings and figures in rock shelters and caves, on boulders and platforms. India houses one of the largest, richest and most diverse repositories of rock art. Prehistoric rock paintings, rock-cut architectures of caves & temples and sculptures carved out of rock are some examples of rock art in India. It is often divided into three forms: Petroglyphs: These are carved into the rock surface Pictographs: These are painted onto the surface Earth figures: These are formed on the ground Significance of Rock Art Spiritual and cultural heritage: Rock art reflects humankind’s rich spiritual and cultural heritage and has great significance to its creators and their descendants. It also has great significance to humanity generally. Its beauty, its symbolism, and its rich narrative means that it is widely appreciated and treasured internationally, regionally, and locally. Diverse cultural traditions: Its continued existence is important to help global communities recognize and learn about the diverse cultural traditions, their ancient origins and relationships to the landscapes they have inhabited. Tribal communities rely on the rock arts for deriving their cultural connections by following the customs engraved in the rock art. Source of history: The rock arts serve, as a “historical record”, detailing the hunting habits and ways of life of the local communities. 1/5 Prehistoric Rock Paintings Prehistoric: It can be defined as events that occurred before the existence of written records in a given culture or society.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleolithic Archaeology in Iran
    Intl. J. Humianities (2011) Vol. 18 (2): (63-87) Paleolithic Archaeology in Iran Hamed Vahdati Nasab 1 Received:21/9/2010 Accepted:27/2/2011 Abstract Although the Iranian plateau has witnessed Paleolithic researches since the early twenty century, still little is known about the Paleolithic of Iran. There are several reasons for this situation and lack of scholarly enthusiasm on the part of Iranian archaeologists seems to be the most imperative one. Concerning the history of Paleolithic surveys and excavations conducted in Iran, three distinct phases are recognizable. First, from the beginning of the twenty century to the 1980 when numerous field missions were executed in this region all by western institutes, second phase observes a twenty years gap in the Paleolithic studies hence; only few surveys could be performed in this period, and the third phase starts with the reopening of the Iranian fields to the non-Iranian researchers, which led to the survey and excavation of handful of new Paleolithic sites. This article reviews Paleolithic researches conducted in Iran since the beginning of twenty century to the present time. Keywords: Paleolithic, Iran, Zagros, Alborz Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 4:34 IRST on Monday September 27th 2021 1. Assistant Professor of Archaeology, Faculty of Humianities, Tarbiat Modares University. [email protected] Paleolithic Archaeology in Iran Intl. J. Humianities (2010) Vol. 18 (1) Introduction The most peculiar point about the Iranian Iran is surrounded by some of the most Paleolithic is the absence of any hominid significant Paleolithic sites in the world. To its remains with just few exceptions (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Computation (Abacus) Aspects of the Sahasralingam
    International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 143 – No.13, June 2016 Computation (Abacus) Aspects of the Sahasralingam Jayabrata Mukherjee Deepak Bhattacharya, PhD Murugeshpallya, C/o Sri Radha Krishna, Bangalore-17, Karnataka, India Kedar Gouri Road, Bhubaneswar-751002, India. ABSTRACT used to conduct such & related studies. Herein, the India claims deep heritage in ancient sciences and specially Sahasralingam has been imagined as an abacus; numbers from in Mathematics & Astronomy – which means computation. 1-to-1020 have imputed and the results are presented as Evidence based works not noted (archaeology platform). tentative findings. The deductions posit as having unique and Sahasralingam (million indicator) is a artifact of indo novel applications in computation with versatility. Such type archaeology. One devise from Bhubaneswar is studied from of study and report has not been done pre to this computation aspects. Has 1020 indentures which transpires as communication. magic number. Sets of various types; Fibonacci; Pi; Permits The historical cum cultural identity of the candidate continuous computations viz., calculus, algebra, discreet math archaeology‘s locale is Kalinga (cleaver & intelligent) [3], in imperative and declarative languages; offers semantics; Utkala (excellent) and Kosala (capable), which have an embedment; steganography & VLSI type; lattices of various enviable heritage in high rise construction (intact array); orders; types & axis; symmetry with versatility and an architecture[4, 5]; compass & maritime engineering [6-7]; extraordinary level of mathematical maturity is reported from inspirational designs [8]; positional astronomy [9,10] and the first time. 1020 posits also as unique & novel testing archaeoastronomy [11,12] continuously from c.6th A.D [13], platform number.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence of Middle Stone Age Technology to the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition Supports a Complex Hominin Evolutionary Scenario in West Africa
    This is a repository copy of Persistence of Middle Stone Age technology to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition supports a complex hominin evolutionary scenario in West Africa. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/129212/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Scerri, E.M.L., Blinkhorn, J., Niang, K. et al. (2 more authors) (2017) Persistence of Middle Stone Age technology to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition supports a complex hominin evolutionary scenario in West Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 11. pp. 639-646. ISSN 2352-409X https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.003 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Persistence of Middle Stone Age technology to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition supports a complex hominin evolutionary scenario in West Africa Eleanor M.L. Scerria*, James Blinkhornb, Khady Niangc, Mark D. Batemand, Huw S. Groucutta a Research
    [Show full text]
  • The Denisova Hominin Need Not Be an out of Africa Story
    Journal of Human Evolution 60 (2011) 251e255 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol News and Views The Denisova hominin need not be an out of Africa story María Martinón-Torres a,*, Robin Dennell b, José María Bermúdez de Castro a a National Research Centre on Human Evolution (CENIEH), Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca s/n, 09002 Burgos, Spain b Department of Archaeology, Northgate House, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4ET, UK article info Giraffa camelopardis at Latamne, Syria, from the late Early Pleisto- cene (Guérin et al., 1993) (depending on whether or not the gravels Article history: underlying the Acheulean horizon at this site are regarded as late Received 7 May 2010 Early Pleistocene in age); and the African suid Kalpochoerus at Accepted 5 October 2010 Evron, Israel, ca. 1.0 Ma (Tchernov et al., 1994). Theropithecus, Keywords: Palaeoloxodon antiquus, Panthera leo, and Panthera pardus were Evolutionary scenario other mammals that left Africa in the Early Pleistocene (Martínez- Atapuerca Navarro and Rabinovich, in press). There is also archaeological Eurasia evidence of at least two hominin dispersals before 0.7 Ma. The first Hominin dispersals is marked by the appearance of an early Acheulean bifacial tech- Homo heidelbergensis nology at ‘Ubeidiya, Israel, ca. 1.4e1.5 Ma (Bar-Yosef and Goren- Inbar, 1993), and the second is marked by the appearance of African types of cleavers at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov (GBY), Israel, ca. 780 ka (Saragusti and Goren-Inbar, 2001). Both of these dispersals The recent retrieval of a complete mitochondrial (mt) DNA appear to have been very localised within Asia, as there is no sequence from a 48e30 ka human bone from Denisova (Siberia) unequivocal evidence of Acheulean assemblages outside the Levant (Krause et al., 2010) is a remarkable achievement fully deserving until ca.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa
    Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Introduction 20 The African archeological record of 43-28 ka as a comparison 21 A - The Aurignacian has no direct equivalent in Africa 21 B - Archaic hominins persist in Africa through much of the Late Pleistocene 24 C - High modification symbolic artifacts in Africa and Eurasia 24 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 26 References cited 27 To cite this article Tryon C. A. , 2015 - The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa, in White R., Bourrillon R. (eds.) with the collaboration of Bon F., Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe, Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University, P@lethnology, 7, 19-33. http://www.palethnologie.org 19 P@lethnology | 2015 | 19-33 Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Abstract The Aurignacian technocomplex in Eurasia, dated to ~43-28 ka, has no direct archeological taxonomic equivalent in Africa during the same time interval, which may reflect differences in inter-group communication or differences in archeological definitions currently in use. Extinct hominin taxa are present in both Eurasia and Africa during this interval, but the African archeological record has played little role in discussions of the demographic expansion of Homo sapiens, unlike the Aurignacian. Sites in Eurasia and Africa by 42 ka show the earliest examples of personal ornaments that result from extensive modification of raw materials, a greater investment of time that may reflect increased their use in increasingly diverse and complex social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Pre-Historic Stone Age Period of India
    Journal of Arts and Culture ISSN: 0976-9862 & E-ISSN: 0976-9870, Volume 3, Issue 3, 2012, pp.-126-128. Available online at http://www.bioinfo.in/contents.php?id=53. A STUDY OF PRE-HISTORIC STONE AGE PERIOD OF INDIA DARADE S.S. Mula Education Society's Arts, Commerce & Science College, Sonai, Newasa- 414105, MS, India *Corresponding Author: Email- [email protected] Received: November 01, 2012; Accepted: December 06, 2012 Abstract- Tools crafted by proto-humans that have been dated back two million years have been discovered in the northwestern part of the subcontinent. The ancient history of the region includes some of South Asia's oldest settlements and some of its major civilizations. The earli- est archaeological site in the subcontinent is the palaeolithic hominid site in the Soan River valley. Soanian sites are found in the Sivalik region across what are now India, Pakistan, and Nepal. The Mesolithic period in the Indian subcontinent was followed by the Neolithic period, when more extensive settlement of the subcontinent occurred after the end of the last Ice Age approximately 12,000 years ago. The first confirmed semipermanent settlements appeared 9,000 years ago in the Bhimbetka rock shelters in modern Madhya Pradesh, India. Keywords- history, Mesolithic, Paleolithic, Indian Citation: Darade S.S. (2012) A Study of Pre-Historic Stone Age Period of India. Journal of Arts and Culture, ISSN: 0976-9862 & E-ISSN: 0976 -9870, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp.-126-128. Copyright: Copyright©2012 Darade S.S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Li- cense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution
    On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1998. “On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.” Cam. Arch. Jnl 8 (02) (October): 141. Published Version doi:10.1017/S0959774300000986 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211496 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:2 (1998), 141-63 On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution Ofer Bar-Yosef This article discusses two major revolutions in the history of humankind, namely, the Neolithic and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic revolutions. The course of the first one is used as a general analogy to study the second, and the older one. This approach puts aside the issue of biological differences among the human fossils, and concentrates solely on the cultural and technological innovations. It also demonstrates that issues that are common- place to the study of the trajisition from foraging to cultivation and animal husbandry can be employed as an overarching model for the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the core areas where each of these revolutions began, the ensuing dispersals and their geographic contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Clovis Dynamics: Confronting Theory with Models and Data Across Scales
    QUANTIFYING CLOVIS DYNAMICS: CONFRONTING THEORY WITH MODELS AND DATA ACROSS SCALES by MARCUS JOHN HAMILTON B.Sc., Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 1998 M.S., Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 2002 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ANTHROPOLOGY The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico August, 2008 Marcus J. Hamilton: Quantifying Clovis Dynamics ©2008, Marcus John Hamilton ii Marcus J. Hamilton: Quantifying Clovis Dynamics DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my wife, Ana Desiree Davidson, and the two halves of my family, the UK Hamilton side and the US Davidson side, for all their love and support. I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to two old friends who were instrumental in getting me interested in archaeology, Briggs Buchanan, and Wayne Warren Kinney, Jr. iii Marcus J. Hamilton: Quantifying Clovis Dynamics ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee for their advice and guidance over the years. They are co-chairs, Bruce Huckell and Jim Boone, 3rd department member Ozzie Pearson, and outside member Vance Holliday. Much of this dissertation would not have been possible without access to the Rio Grande Valley Clovis collections, granted by Dr. Robert H. Weber, of Socorro, New Mexico. Bob sadly died in February, 2008 after leading a long and productive life, very much in the tradition of classic Southwest scientists. Over his 80+ years Bob amassed an encyclopedic knowledge of the geology, geography, archaeology and history of the region, much of it on foot with a canteen and map.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioural Complexity and Modern Traits in the Philippine Upper Palaeolithic
    Behavioural Complexity and Modern Traits in the Philippine Upper Palaeolithic AlFred F. PAwlIk introduction The discussion of cultural, cognitive, and behavioral modernity has a long tradition in europe’s prehistoric archaeology ( Dibble 1989; Hahn 1986; Jelinek 1982; klein 1995, 1999; Mellars 1989a, 1989b). The appearance of specialized blade indus- tries, bone and antler tools, and especially figurative art, musical instruments, and personal ornaments are seen as significant indicators of the highly developed cultural and cognitive abilities of their makers (Clottes 2001; Conard 2003; Conard et al. 2004). The seemingly sudden appearance of expressive art and symbolism together with complex tool technologies in europe at around 40,000 years ago has been attributed to explosive cultural and cognitive advancement with the arrival of ana- tomically modern Homo sapiens ( Klein and Blake 2002; Mellars 1991; Mithen 1996). Whether this Upper Palaeolithic revolution in europe was due to social factors or genetic mutation, was related to changes in the ecosystem, or has a cultural expla- nation (such as competition with another human species, the Neanderthals) is still under debate ( Bar-Yossef 2002; Conard et al. 2004; d’errico 2003; Haidle 2006; McBrearty and Brooks 2000; Mellars 2005; Zilhão 2001). Yet, the “human revolu- tion” model is used to explain the success of the Homo sapiens immigrants over the Neanderthals ( Bräuer and Smith 1992; Conard 2006, 2008; Mellars 2005). On the other hand, potential indicators of an earlier and gradually developing cul- tural and cognitive modernity have been seen in African assemblages. The appearance of some modern cognitive traits (e.g., production of projectile points, shell-fishing, personal ornaments, notational or incised pieces, and pigment processing) in Africa has been dated back to the Middle Pleistocene, earlier than the first evidence of ana- tomically modern hominids 200,000 years ago (Henshilwood et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Concept of Home at Hunter-Gatherer Sites in Upper Paleolithic Europe and Epipaleolithic Southwest Asia
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title Homes for hunters?: Exploring the concept of home at hunter-gatherer sites in upper paleolithic Europe and epipaleolithic Southwest Asia Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9nt6f73n Journal Current Anthropology, 60(1) ISSN 0011-3204 Authors Maher, LA Conkey, M Publication Date 2019-02-01 DOI 10.1086/701523 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Current Anthropology Volume 60, Number 1, February 2019 91 Homes for Hunters? Exploring the Concept of Home at Hunter-Gatherer Sites in Upper Paleolithic Europe and Epipaleolithic Southwest Asia by Lisa A. Maher and Margaret Conkey In both Southwest Asia and Europe, only a handful of known Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic sites attest to aggregation or gatherings of hunter-gatherer groups, sometimes including evidence of hut structures and highly structured use of space. Interpretation of these structures ranges greatly, from mere ephemeral shelters to places “built” into a landscape with meanings beyond refuge from the elements. One might argue that this ambiguity stems from a largely functional interpretation of shelters that is embodied in the very terminology we use to describe them in comparison to the homes of later farming communities: mobile hunter-gatherers build and occupy huts that can form campsites, whereas sedentary farmers occupy houses or homes that form communities. Here we examine some of the evidence for Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic structures in Europe and Southwest Asia, offering insights into their complex “functions” and examining perceptions of space among hunter-gatherer communities. We do this through examination of two contemporary, yet geographically and culturally distinct, examples: Upper Paleolithic (especially Magdalenian) evidence in Western Europe and the Epipaleolithic record (especially Early and Middle phases) in Southwest Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Foods and the Dietary Ecology of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans
    Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2014) 1e11 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Plant foods and the dietary ecology of Neanderthals and early modern humans Amanda G. Henry a,*, Alison S. Brooks b, Dolores R. Piperno c,d a Plant Foods in Hominin Dietary Ecology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany b Department of Anthropology, Center for Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, The George Washington University, 2110 G St NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA c Program in Human Ecology and Archaeobiology, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20013- 7012, USA d Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Box 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancon, Panama article info abstract Article history: One of the most important challenges in anthropology is understanding the disappearance of Nean- Received 3 February 2012 derthals. Previous research suggests that Neanderthals had a narrower diet than early modern humans, Accepted 22 December 2013 in part because they lacked various social and technological advances that lead to greater dietary variety, Available online xxx such as a sexual division of labor and the use of complex projectile weapons. The wider diet of early modern humans would have provided more calories and nutrients, increasing fertility, decreasing Keywords: mortality and supporting large population sizes, allowing them to out-compete Neanderthals. However, Phytolith this model for Neanderthal dietary behavior is based on analysis of animal remains, stable isotopes, and Starch grain Microfossil other methods that provide evidence only of animal food in the diet.
    [Show full text]