DOCSLIB.ORG

Tytu³ Artyku³u

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tytu³ Artyku³u Przegląd Antropologiczny – Anthropological Review • Vol. 63 (2000) Eightieth year of Peking Man: Current status of Peking Man and the Zhoukoudian site Qian Wang1,2, Li Sun 2 1 Department of Anatomical Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Rd., Parktown 2193, South Africa, E-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 643, 100044 Beijing, China ABSTRACT The current status of and recent developments around Peking Man and Zhoukoudian are reviewed. The taxonomic status, phylogenetic posi- tion, cultural attributes and taphonomy of Peking Man are in question, and a new chronological frame for the Zhoukoudian site is emerging. Post-war excavation, current Peking Man specimens, the research unit, personalities, commemoration, and classic books are introduced, with special reference to the search for the long-missing Peking Man fossils. KEY WORDS Peking Man, Zhoukoudian, Homo erectus, “Sinanthropus” Prz. Antropol. – Anthropol. Rev. (2000), vol. 63, pp. 19–30, ISBN 83-86969-60-1, ISSN 0033-2003 Anniversaries are not only times for looking back at the past, Nor for appraising where we stand at the present. They are times for looking forward. Phillip V. Tobias, 1997 The excavation of the Peking Man site It was in the summer of 1921, when at Zhoukoudian disclosed the antiquity of Johan G. Anderson, a Swedish geologist, humankind in China, and revolutionized picked up a quartz fragment from cave people’s perception of his long past. The deposits at a small hill at Zhoukoudian events, such as the legendary start, the epic (formerly Chou-kou-tien), the Peking excavation, amazing discoveries, the mys- Man site of today [ANDERSON 1934]. terious disappearance, the hunt for the mis- That began the Peking Man saga. This sing fossils, together with colorful person- year marks the 80th year of Peking Man. alities associated with prehistoric Peking In fact, also in 1921, Otto Zdansky dug at Man at Zhoukoudian have constituted a Zhoukoudian and found the first Peking classic chapter in paleoanthropology of the Man specimen, an isolated tooth, that he 20th century. It is a story full of hope, seren- did not announce until years later dipity, sensation, mystery and tragedy. [BLACK 1926; ZDANSKY 1927]. Thus, on 20 Qian Wang, Li Sun the occasion of the 80th year of Peking Homo erectus became Peking Man’s Man, it is interesting to reflect on how scientific name. Recently, however, it ideas have changed to and what has de- was argued by some anthropologists that veloped in relation to Peking Man and there is no distinct or valid demarcation Zhoukoudian. between H. erectus and H. sapiens, so they should be lumped into the evolu- The name: from Homo erectus to Homo tionary species – Homo sapiens [WOL- uncertain POFF et al. 1994; WOLPOFF 1996]. But Although Zdansky identified human from a cladistic point of view, H. erectus characters in the first two teeth of the is a valid species of Eastern Asia Peking Man fossils, he preferred to label [ANDREWS 1984]. Although there is still them “?Homo sp.” (with a question no consensus on how Peking Man should mark), meaning an “uncertain” human be named, “Peking Man”, as the common [ZDANSKY 1927]. Then, based on the name, has survived. One can even find third tooth unearthed by Berger Bohlin, “Peking Man” in an English-Chinese Davidson BLACK [1927] observed a dictionary. number of interesting and unique chara- Phylogenetic position: from missing link cters and named a new genus and species to cul-de-sac? for the primitive human that once lived near Peking, Sinanthropus pekinensis, The phylogenetic position of H. meaning “Chinese Man of Peking”. From erectus is the basic point of divergence of then on, it was popularly called Peking two opposing hypotheses of the origin of Man. The emergence of the first com- modern humans, the “Multiregional plete skullcap of Peking Man, discovered model” and the “Out-of-Africa” concept. by W. C. Pei in 1929, quited the harsh At first, Peking Man was perceived as the criticism to Black’s interpretation based missing link between apes and humans. on a single tooth, and the resemblance BLACK [1926: p. 734] initially concluded between S. pekinensis and Pithecanthro- that “the Chou K’ou Tien discovery pus erectus, which Eugene DUBOIS therefore furnishes one more link in the [1894] found in Java in 1891, conclu- already strong chain of evidence sup- sively vindicating the human nature of porting the hypothesis of the central the latter. Ironically, the striking resem- Asiatic origin of the Hominidae”. Peking blance between the two Eastern Asian Man then inevitably helped to eclipse the hominid clans had led scholars repeatedly real missing link, Dart’s Australopithe- to lump them together or to let Peking cus, for at least two decades [TOBIAS et Man sink into Pithecanthropus [ZUCKER- al. 2000]. As the first recognized early MAN 1933; BOULE 1937; KOENIGSWALD primitive hominid in Mainland Asia, & WEIDENREICH 1939]. In 1940 Weiden- Peking Man was a logical ancestor of reich proposed Homo erectus as a taxon modern humans in Eastern Asia. to include both Pithecanthropus erectus WEIDENREICH [1943] observed some and Sinanthropus pekinensis. H. erectus common features shared by Peking Man was ultimately universally accepted in and modern Mongoloids, such as the low the 1950s after MAYR [1951] supported and flat face, high frequency of the Inca the “lumping” trend. From then on, bone, shovel-shaped incisors, and he Eightieth year of Peking Man 21 believed that Peking Man was ancestral WANG & TOBIAS 2000a]. The question to modern Chinese. He also hypothesized as to whether Peking Man is a link to that there had been continuity in human modern humans or a link to nowhere, evolution in China since Peking Man. remains, and it seems there is no answer Confirmation of this hypothesis has be- to this puzzle of pre-paradigm in sight come one of the chief objects of Chinese [ŠTRKALJ 2000]. prehistoric research. After the universal recognition of Australopithecus and then Family: from Beijing (Peking) to Nanjing H. habilis, and the shift of the perceived The Peking Man-like human remains, cradle of humankind from Asia to Africa, including a skull found in Hexian, Anhui this situation has changed considerably. Province in 1981 [WU & DONG 1982], As FRANZEN [1994] pointed out, H. cranial fragments from Yiyuan, Shang- erectus “is still considered a fossil human dong Province in 1981 [XU 1986], and being, not one situated somewhere near two skulls from Tangshan (Nanjing), ape-like ancestors of Man, but very close Jiangsu Province in 1993 [LU 1996], already to Homo sapiens, so close that it suggest that the family of Peking Man seems almost to amalgamate with it”. was widespread throughout areas from The proponents of Multiregional origins northern China to the territory across the of modern humans stressed the ancestor- Yangtze River during the Middle Pleisto- descendant relationship between H. cene [WANG & TOBIAS 2000b]. The erectus and H. sapiens [WOLPOFF et al. Tangshan (Nanjing) skull No. I even 1984, 1994; WOLPOFF 1996; WU 1990; provides an almost complete left face WU & POIRIER 1995]. However, when (the first intact face of H. erectus found invoking cladistic analysis, some schol- in China), which enables us to know ars proposed to exclude H. erectus from what Peking Man looked like [WANG & being ancestral to modern H. sapiens, TOBIAS 2000a]. and regarded it as a dead end, or cul-de- sac [ANDREWS 1984; STRINGER 1984]; Date: a suppressed chronological frame thus, Peking Man is neither a missing link nor an ancestor. Besides, genetic The level of the cave deposits at analyses of both modern people around Zhoukoudian containing the fossil teeth the world [CANN et al. 1987], and people was initially estimated to be Late Tertiary of different ethnic groups in China [CHU or Early Quaternary, and thus BLACK et al. 1998] suggest that modern Chinese [1926] called Peking Man a “Tertiary have a very recent beginning thus pro- Man”! A reliable numerical time scale viding the Out-of-Africa theory with did not emerge until the 1960s when strong support. On the other hand, accu- several techniques, including U-series mulating osteological and paleolithic disequilibrium, fission track, paleomag- cultural evidence in China strongly sup- netism, thermoluminescence and amino ports the regional continuity model of acid racemization, were conducted during human evolution and consequently the a multidisciplinary research project. Multiregional origins of modern humans From then on, Peking Man was generally [WU R. 1986; WU X. 1990; WU & accepted to have lived from 460,000 to POIRIER 1995; LING 1996; ZHANG 1999; 230,000 years B.P. [WU et al. 1985]. 22 Qian Wang, Li Sun Together with the morphological features king Man reconstructed by Weidenreich of Peking Man, the date of Zhoukoudian and Swan [WEIDENREICH 1943]. The plays a pivotal role in the assignment and face is low and flat with middle facial dating of other human fossils found in flexion, and the antero-lateral surface of China. However, the apparent co- the frontal process of the zygomatic bone existence of H. erectus and early H. faces forward. These features taken to- sapiens, and the ensuing confusion on gether show a general modern Mongo- how to interpret this phenomenon, led loid-like face. Yet there are some flaws people to cast doubt on the authenticity due to the artificial combination of a of these accepted dates of Peking Man female cranial cap (skull XI or LII) while [CHEN & ZHANG 1991]. Recent attempts a male maxillary bone No. V, even to reanalyze the age of Zhoukoudian though it was mentioned that maxillary deposits have disclosed that the currently bone No. II was chosen in the recon- accepted chronological frame was a struction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H. Erectus 1  H
    Today in Astronomy 106: apes to modern humans Meet the hominids. Brains, diet and toolmaking: going where natural selection fears to tread. Genetic diversity in Africa, the Saharan bottleneck, and the spread of humanity. Selections from The Dawn of Man, The spread of in 2001: A Space Odyssey, by languages. Stanley Kubrick (1968). 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 1 Monkeys to hominids Once bipedal hominids began to Evans 2002 appear in newly-drier East Africa, many gene mutations were naturally selected which accelerated the differences between them and the apes. Distinct process from steady rate of increased difference in junk DNA. Most evident in parts of genes called human accelerated regions (HARs), of which 55 have been noted. 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 2 Monkeys to hominids (continued) HARs were discovered in 2006 by Katie Pollard (UCSF), as one of the first huge achievements +2 of the new science of genomics. HAR1, chromosome 20, for example: • Present in reptiles onward. • Base-pair difference between chimpanzees and chickens: 2. • Base-pair difference +18 between chimpanzees and humans: 18. 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 3 6 Africa’s Hominidae Ardepithecus 5 All bipedal and tail-less: Ardepithecus: several species 4 known mostly by femurs. Australopithecus Australopithecus afarensis (or Paranthropus) (e.g. Lucy), africanus, 3 Myr robustus, bosei. Evolved ago toward bigger teeth. 2 Homo Homo rudolfensis, habilis/ergaster, erectus, 1 heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, 0 sapiens. Evolved toward bigger brains. Genetic difference (schematic) 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 4 6 Evolution of diet 5 As they walked from tree to tree, hominids gradually were selected for eating more than 4 fruit and leave, this also allowed A.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Evolution to Revolution: from a Slowly Developing Finite Communication System with Many Words to Infinite Modern Language
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/166520; this version posted July 20, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Language evolution to revolution: from a slowly developing finite communication system with many words to infinite modern language Andrey Vyshedskiy1,2* 1Boston University, Boston, USA 2ImagiRation LLC, Boston, MA, USA Keywords: Language evolution, hominin evolution, human evolution, recursive language, flexible syntax, human language, syntactic language, modern language, Cognitive revolution, Great Leap Forward, Upper Paleolithic Revolution, Neanderthal language Abstract There is overwhelming archeological and genetic evidence that modern speech apparatus was acquired by hominins by 600,000 years ago. There is also widespread agreement that modern syntactic language arose with behavioral modernity around 100,000 years ago. We attempted to answer two crucial questions: (1) how different was the communication system of hominins before acquisition of modern language and (2) what triggered the acquisition of modern language 100,000 years ago. We conclude that the communication system of hominins prior to 100,000 years ago was finite and not- recursive. It may have had thousands of words but was lacking flexible syntax, spatial prepositions, verb tenses, and other features that enable modern human language to communicate an infinite number of ideas. We argue that a synergistic confluence of a genetic mutation that dramatically slowed down the prefrontal cortex (PFC) development in monozygotic twins and their spontaneous invention of spatial prepositions 100,000 years ago resulted in acquisition of PFC-driven constructive imagination (mental synthesis) and converted the finite communication system of their ancestors into infinite modern language.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Many books were read and researched in the compilation of Binford, L. R, 1983, Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology: New York. Binford, L. R, and Binford, S. R (eds.), 1968, New Perspectives in American Museum of Natural History, 1993, The First Humans. Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Braidwood, R 1.,1960, Archaeologists and What They Do. Franklin American Museum of Natural History, 1993, People of the Stone Watts, New York. Age. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Branigan, Keith (ed.), 1982, The Atlas ofArchaeology. St. Martin's, American Museum of Natural History, 1994, New World and Pacific New York. Civilizations. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Bray, w., and Tump, D., 1972, Penguin Dictionary ofArchaeology. American Museum of Natural History, 1994, Old World Civiliza­ Penguin, New York. tions. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Brennan, L., 1973, Beginner's Guide to Archaeology. Stackpole Ashmore, w., and Sharer, R. J., 1988, Discovering Our Past: A Brief Books, Harrisburg, PA. Introduction to Archaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA. Broderick, M., and Morton, A. A., 1924, A Concise Dictionary of Atkinson, R J. C., 1985, Field Archaeology, 2d ed. Hyperion, New Egyptian Archaeology. Ares Publishers, Chicago. York. Brothwell, D., 1963, Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment Bacon, E. (ed.), 1976, The Great Archaeologists. Bobbs-Merrill, and Study ofHuman Skeletal Remains. British Museum, London. New York. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds.), 1969, Science in Archaeology, Bahn, P., 1993, Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. ABC-CLIO, 2d ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Santa Barbara, CA. Budge, E. A. Wallis, 1929, The Rosetta Stone. Dover, New York. Bahn, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Heidelbergensis: the Ot Ol to Our Success Alexander Burkard Virginia Commonwealth University
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Auctus: The ourJ nal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Scholarship 2016 Homo heidelbergensis: The oT ol to Our Success Alexander Burkard Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/auctus Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons, and the Biology Commons © The Author(s) Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/auctus/47 This Social Sciences is brought to you for free and open access by VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Auctus: The ourJ nal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Scholarship by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Homo heidelbergensis: The Tool to Our Success By Alexander Burkard Homo heidelbergensis, a physiological variant of the species Homo sapien, is an extinct spe- cies that existed in both Europe and parts of Asia from 700,000 years ago to roughly 300,000 years ago (carbon dating). This “subspecies” of Homo sapiens, as it is formally classified, is a direct ancestor of anatomically modern humans, and is understood to have many of the same physiological characteristics as those of anatomically modern humans while still expressing many of the same physiological attributes of Homo erectus, an earlier human ancestor. Since Homo heidelbergensis represents attributes of both species, it has therefore earned the classifica- tion as a subspecies of Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis, like anatomically modern humans, is the byproduct of millions of years of natural selection and genetic variation. It is understood through current scientific theory that roughly 200,000 years ago (carbon dat- ing), archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus left Africa in pursuit of the small and large animal game that were migrating north into Europe and Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • K = Kenyanthropus Platyops “Kenya Man” Discovered by Meave Leaky
    K = Kenyanthropus platyops “Kenya Man” Discovered by Meave Leaky and her team in 1998 west of Lake Turkana, Kenya, and described as a new genus dating back to the middle Pliocene, 3.5 MYA. A = Australopithecus africanus STS-5 “Mrs. Ples” The discovery of this skull in 1947 in South Africa of this virtually complete skull gave additional credence to the establishment of early Hominids. Dated at 2.5 MYA. H = Homo habilis KNM-ER 1813 Discovered in 1973 by Kamoya Kimeu in Koobi Fora, Kenya. Even though it is very small, it is considered to be an adult and is dated at 1.9 MYA. E = Homo erectus “Peking Man” Discovered in China in the 1920’s, this is based on the reconstruction by Sawyer and Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History. Dated at 400-500,000 YA. (2 parts) L = Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 in Ethiopia. Lucy, at 3.2 million years old has been considered the first human. This is now being challenged by the discovery of Kenyanthropus described by Leaky. (2 parts) TC = Australopithecus africanus “Taung child” Discovered in 1924 in Taung, South Africa by M. de Bruyn. Raymond Dart established it as a new genus and species. Dated at 2.3 MYA. (3 parts) G = Homo ergaster “Nariokotome or Turkana boy” KNM-WT 15000 Discovered in 1984 in Nariokotome, Kenya by Richard Leaky this is the first skull dated before 100,000 years that is complete enough to get accurate measurements to determine brain size. Dated at 1.6 MYA.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Aestheticus’
    Conceptual Paper Glob J Arch & Anthropol Volume 11 Issue 3 - June 2020 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Shuchi Srivastava DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2020.11.555815 Man and Artistic Expression: Emergence of ‘Homo Aestheticus’ Shuchi Srivastava* Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, University of Lucknow, India Submission: May 30, 2020; Published: June 16, 2020 *Corresponding author: Shuchi Srivastava, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, An Autonomous College of University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India Abstract Man is a member of animal kingdom like all other animals but his unique feature is culture. Cultural activities involve art and artistic expressions which are the earliest methods of emotional manifestation through sign. The present paper deals with the origin of the artistic expression of the man, i.e. the emergence of ‘Homo aestheticus’ and discussed various related aspects. It is basically a conceptual paper; history of art begins with humanity. In his artistic instincts and attainments, man expressed his vigour, his ability to establish a gainful and optimistictherefore, mainlyrelationship the secondary with his environmentsources of data to humanizehave been nature. used for Their the behaviorsstudy. Overall as artists findings was reveal one of that the man selection is artistic characteristics by nature suitableand the for the progress of the human species. Evidence from extensive analysis of cave art and home art suggests that humans have also been ‘Homo aestheticus’ since their origins. Keywords: Man; Art; Artistic expression; Homo aestheticus; Prehistoric art; Palaeolithic art; Cave art; Home art Introduction ‘Sahityasangeetkalavihinah, Sakshatpashuh Maybe it was the time when some African apelike creatures to 7 million years ago, the first human ancestors were appeared.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Members of the Genus Homo -. EXPLORATIONS: an OPEN INVITATION to BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
    EXPLORATIONS: AN OPEN INVITATION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Editors: Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff American Anthropological Association Arlington, VA 2019 Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. ISBN – 978-1-931303-63-7 www.explorations.americananthro.org 10. Early Members of the Genus Homo Bonnie Yoshida-Levine Ph.D., Grossmont College Learning Objectives • Describe how early Pleistocene climate change influenced the evolution of the genus Homo. • Identify the characteristics that define the genus Homo. • Describe the skeletal anatomy of Homo habilis and Homo erectus based on the fossil evidence. • Assess opposing points of view about how early Homo should be classified. Describe what is known about the adaptive strategies of early members of the Homo genus, including tool technologies, diet, migration patterns, and other behavioral trends.The boy was no older than 9 when he perished by the swampy shores of the lake. After death, his slender, long-limbed body sank into the mud of the lake shallows. His bones fossilized and lay undisturbed for 1.5 million years. In the 1980s, fossil hunter Kimoya Kimeu, working on the western shore of Lake Turkana, Kenya, glimpsed a dark colored piece of bone eroding in a hillside. This small skull fragment led to the discovery of what is arguably the world’s most complete early hominin fossil—a youth identified as a member of the species Homo erectus. Now known as Nariokotome Boy, after the nearby lake village, the skeleton has provided a wealth of information about the early evolution of our own genus, Homo (see Figure 10.1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Dates of the Discovery of the First Peking Man Fossil Teeth
    The Dates of the Discovery of the First Peking Man Fossil Teeth Qian WANG,LiSUN, and Jan Ove R. EBBESTAD ABSTRACT Four teeth of Peking Man from Zhoukoudian, excavated by Otto Zdansky in 1921 and 1923 and currently housed in the Museum of Evolution at Uppsala University, are among the most treasured finds in palaeoanthropology, not only because of their scientific value but also for their important historical and cultural significance. It is generally acknowledged that the first fossil evidence of Peking Man was two teeth unearthed by Zdansky during his excavations at Zhoukoudian in 1921 and 1923. However, the exact dates and details of their collection and identification have been documented inconsistently in the literature. We reexamine this matter and find that, due to incompleteness and ambiguity of early documentation of the discovery of the first Peking Man teeth, the facts surrounding their collection and identification remain uncertain. Had Zdansky documented and revealed his findings on the earliest occasion, the early history of Zhoukoudian and discoveries of first Peking Man fossils would have been more precisely known and the development of the field of palaeoanthropology in early twentieth century China would have been different. KEYWORDS: Peking Man, Zhoukoudian, tooth, Uppsala University. INTRODUCTION FOUR FOSSIL TEETH IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM PEKING MAN were excavated by palaeontologist Otto Zdansky in 1921 and 1923 from Zhoukoudian deposits. They have been housed in the Museum of Evolution at Uppsala University in Sweden ever since. These four teeth are among the most treasured finds in palaeoanthropology, not only because of their scientific value but also for their historical and cultural significance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biting Performance of Homo Sapiens and Homo Heidelbergensis
    Journal of Human Evolution 118 (2018) 56e71 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol The biting performance of Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis * Ricardo Miguel Godinho a, b, c, , Laura C. Fitton a, b, Viviana Toro-Ibacache b, d, e, Chris B. Stringer f, Rodrigo S. Lacruz g, Timothy G. Bromage g, h, Paul O'Higgins a, b a Department of Archaeology, University of York, York, YO1 7EP, UK b Hull York Medical School (HYMS), University of York, Heslington, York, North Yorkshire YO10 5DD, UK c Interdisciplinary Center for Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behaviour (ICArHEB), University of Algarve, Faculdade das Ci^encias Humanas e Sociais, Universidade do Algarve, Campus Gambelas, 8005-139, Faro, Portugal d Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile e Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany f Department of Earth Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UK g Department of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY 10010, USA h Departments of Biomaterials & Biomimetics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY 10010, USA article info abstract Article history: Modern humans have smaller faces relative to Middle and Late Pleistocene members of the genus Homo. Received 15 March 2017 While facial reduction and differences in shape have been shown to increase biting efficiency in Homo Accepted 19 February 2018 sapiens relative to these hominins, facial size reduction has also been said to decrease our ability to resist masticatory loads. This study compares crania of Homo heidelbergensis and H.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Paleolithic of China1) HUANG Weiwen2)
    第 四 紀 研 究 (The Quaternary Research) 28 (4) p. 237-242 Nov. 1989 The Early Paleolithic of China1) HUANG Weiwen2) spread widely and existed for a long time. The Introduction deposits contained very rich fossils of mammal. 1. Geographic Distribution and the Types of The fauna exisiting in the stage from the early Deposits to the middle Pleistocene can be at least divided Before the 1940's, only one locality of the into three groups, which have their own Early Paleolithic period was discovered in characteristics and sequence: Nihewan fauna of China. That is Zhoukoudian near Beijing early Pleistocene, Gongwangling (Lantian Man) City (the site of Peking Man). Since the 1950's fauna of the latest stage of early Pleistocene many new localities have been found, of which or the earliest stage of middle Pleistocene and no less than fifteen are relatively important. Zhoukoudian (Peking Man) fauna of the middle These localities spread in North, South and Pleistocene. In the recent years, some scholars Northeast China covering a range from 23°35' to have suggested that locations of Dali and 40°15'N and from 101°58' to 124°8'E which Dingcun which originally recognized as be- includes two climate zones, namely, the sub- longing to the early stage of late Pleistocene tropical zone and warm temperate zone in the should place in the middle Pleistocene, as the eastern part of today's Asia (Fig. 1). latest stage of this epoch (LIU and DING,1984). The localities include three types of deposit: There also existed fluviatile and fluviol- 1) Fluviatile deposit: acustrine deposits of Pleistocene in South Xihoudu (Shanxi), Kehe (Shanxi), Lantian China.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoanthropology Society Meeting Abstracts, St. Louis, Mo, 13-14 April 2010
    PALEOANTHROPOLOGY SOCIETY MEETING ABSTRACTS, ST. LOUIS, MO, 13-14 APRIL 2010 New Data on the Transition from the Gravettian to the Solutrean in Portuguese Estremadura Francisco Almeida , DIED DEPA, Igespar, IP, PORTUGAL Henrique Matias, Department of Geology, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, PORTUGAL Rui Carvalho, Department of Geology, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, PORTUGAL Telmo Pereira, FCHS - Departamento de História, Arqueologia e Património, Universidade do Algarve, PORTUGAL Adelaide Pinto, Crivarque. Lda., PORTUGAL From an anthropological perspective, the passage from the Gravettian to the Solutrean is one of the most interesting transition peri- ods in Old World Prehistory. Between 22 kyr BP and 21 kyr BP, during the beginning stages of the Last Glacial Maximum, Iberia and Southwest France witness a process of substitution of a Pan-European Technocomplex—the Gravettian—to one of the first examples of regionalism by Anatomically Modern Humans in the European continent—the Solutrean. While the question of the origins of the Solutrean is almost as old as its first definition, the process under which it substituted the Gravettian started to be readdressed, both in Portugal and in France, after the mid 1990’s. Two chronological models for the transition have been advanced, but until very recently the lack of new archaeological contexts of the period, and the fact that the many of the sequences have been drastically affected by post depositional disturbances during the Lascaux event, prevented their systematic evaluation. Between 2007 and 2009, and in the scope of mitigation projects, archaeological fieldwork has been carried in three open air sites—Terra do Manuel (Rio Maior), Portela 2 (Leiria), and Calvaria 2 (Porto de Mós) whose stratigraphic sequences date precisely to the beginning stages of the LGM.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Age Technology
    World’s Early People DIGGING UP DNA STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH Worlds_Early_People_FC.indd 1 2/7/17 11:22 AM 2 Who Lived in the Stone Age? When you think of “old,” what comes to But they helped hominins to thrive. mind? Last year’s shoes? Life before the The first species to make tools is from the Internet? Try a little earlier – 2.5 million genus (category) we call Homo (human). It years earlier! is known as Homo habilis, or “handy That’s about the time some of the first person.” It most likely lived in Africa 1.5 hominins, or humanlike species that walk to 2.4 million years ago. Homo habilis upright, started making tools from rocks. represented a big change. How big? Big Their tools were simple – mainly stones enough that we call its time the Paleolithic split to form a point or a sharp edge. era, or the Old Stone Age. l THE BRAINS ability to make of Homo habilis and use tools. were about Homo habilis’s half the size of tools and brain- present-day human power helped it brains. However, spread. Over the brains of Homo millennia, it habilis were larger adapted, or made than the brains changes that of the hominins helped it survive, to that came before live in regions that it. This may have earlier species had contributed to its found too harsh. d HOMO ERECTUS, or early as 2.5 million communities, hunt “upright person,” years ago, Homo for food, create art, was probably a lot erectus was at its and control fire like Homo habilis, peak about 1.9 for warmth and but taller and thin- million years ago.
    [Show full text]