DOCSLIB.ORG

Fact Sheet Week 3 /1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fact Sheet Week 3 /1 ANT-202/ FALL 2014/Fact Sheet Week 3 /1 ANT-202 Fact Sheet Week 3 October 6, 2014 VI Out of Africa: Middle Homo (Homo ergaster, Homo erectus and the Dmanisi skulls)) A Classification of species: Homo ergaster is present in Africa—about 1.8 million years ago. Homo ergaster is very very similar to Homo erectus that appears in Asia almost the same time (1.8 MYA) The two are sometimes referred to as “Middle Homo” B Homo ergaster traits: 1 Generally very robust 2 Cranial capacity of 800-1000 cc 3 Massive supraorbital tori (brow ridges) 4 Thick cranial wall 5 Almost no forehead—low and sloping 6 No chin 7 Almost fully modern post-cranially (below the neck)— indistinguishable from modern humans C Climate and environment 1 Effects of Pleistocene glaciation: a Glacial coverage b Sea levels lower than present D Classification of Stone Tools ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 2 1 Basal Paleolithic : 2.5 (Gona River central Ethiopia) –1.8 million Olduwan Pebble tools (and flakes) only –Homo habilis and Australopithecus garhi 2 Lower Paleolithic is defined by Acheulian hand axes and non-handaxe (choppers)– the tools associated with Middle Homo begin at 1.8 million and continue to dominate assemblages up to about 200,000 years ago E The Fossil and Artifact Records 1 Africa: The oldest Homo ergaster finds are from Lake Turkana in northern Kenya, dating 1.6-1.8 MYA—found by the Leakeys. 2 SE Asia i Java: (a) Trinil site. Java Man. Eugene Dubois 1890s found a tooth, a skullcap, and a thigh bone (femur). The dating of this site is very uncertain. Most people think between 0.8 And 1.0 MYA, but it may be 1.7MYA, based on a newly obtained potassium argon date. The brain size of the specimens is about 900cc. ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 3 (a) The Sangiran site. Poorly dated, but some parts of this site are 1.8My by K/Ar dating. Jaw, skull with teeth, juvenile jaw, child’s skull cap). No definite tools have been found yet at Sangiran. c China. i Zhoukoudian Clearly Homo erectus known as Beijing (Peking) man. Dated to around 0.6-0.4 MYA by several methods. Brain size average of 1000cc.The teeth are intermediate in size between those of early Homo and Homo sapiens The postcrania, including pelvis and femur, is totally modern. Zhoukoudian fossils lost during WWII. d SW Asia: The Dmanisi Skulls and their Implications i 5 Skulls , discovered by David Lordkipanidze ii Carnivore den iii Skull 5: Adult Cranial capacity only 546 cc e Europe (Homo Heidelbergensis) ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 4 i Mauer site, Germany. A mandible usually called the Heidelberg jaw 0.5 millon. Also known as Homo Heidelbergensis (Archaic or Transitional) ii Gran Dolina, Atapuerca region, northern Spain reported in 1995-- about 0.8 million years old. Mostly stone tools and (flakes) and faunal remains—with the remains of 5 or six hominins (Archaic or Transitional) iii Sima de los Huesos (The Pit of Bones), Atapuerca region, northern Spain, over 30 human skeletons dumped in a cave- dating 350,000-500, 000 B.P. iv Clacton in England – 0.25 million non Acheulian hand axes and choppers. v Ambrona and Torralba, Spain 0.4-0.2 MYA, hand axes and elephant bones E Lifeways of Middle Homo 1. Fire—800,000 Gesher Benot Ya’aqov (GBY), Israel – An Israeli team 2. Clothing. ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 5 3. Improved stone tool technologies. Acheulian hand axes and Clactonian choppers show some refinement. 4. Wooden spears recovered from a site in Germany (Schoningen) (0.4 million years old) Meat would have been an important resource in the northern latitudes in the winter when plant foods are not available. 5. Gender division of labor 6. Food sharing and mutual cooperation within groups. 7. Pair –bonding ? 8. Incest taboo 9. Cannibalism ? VII. The emergence of modern humans (Late Homo or Homo sapiens) A. Species classification 1. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis : A special line that developed in Europe and western Asia about 200,000 years ago most likely from Homo heidelbergensis 2. Homo sapiens sapiens or anatomically modern humans (AMHS). 3. Late Homo differs from Middle Homo in having a larger brain, 1200-1400 cc. Less sloping forehead. The vault is higher. Smaller face, jaws, and teeth 4. Homo sapiens idaltu (Known from Africa- apparent precursor to Homo sapiens sapiens, Modern skull with a ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 6 few primitive traits, 160,000 BP, Cranial capacity 1450 cc, lacks most Neanderthal features ________________________________________________________________ Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Homo sapiens sapiens Cranial capacity 1450 cc. Some up to 1850 1400 Brow ridges Present Absent Overall appearance Robust Gracile ________________________________________________________________ Neanderthals were replaced by anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe about 35,000 years ago. B Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (The Neanderthals) 1 Sites a Europe i Neander Valley in Germany 40ky. The first fossil non-modern human ever discovered. A fairly complete skeleton recovered in 1856. The remains represented what today we recognize as classic Neanderthal: Large brow ridges Large brain Sloping forehead Robust ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 7 skeleton representing short stocky individual (5 ft tall) ii Cave of Spy (Spee) Belgium Two similar skeletons and remains of many extinct animals Discovered in 1886 iii La Quina, France, 35ky. A female skull was recovered right at the end of Neanderthal times. b SW Asia i Shanidar Cave in Iraq Ralph Solecki started investigations here in the 1950s. 100,000 – 30,000 years old. 2 Stone Tools: Neanderthals are associated with Middle Paleolithic technologies, dating 200,000 –35,000 years B.P.. In Europe the specific stone technology is commonly known as Mousterian. These show refined working of flakes into various cutting and scraping tools. Named after Le Moustier Cave Site in SW France. The Mousterian is marked by tools made from flakes—including scrapers and points. BY 100,000 years ago it appears that Neanderthals were making composite tools: -- simple stone points were hafted on to wooden shafts. ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 8 a One technique that shows remarkable ability in stoneworking is the Levallois—which is a technique that involves heavy preparation of the core—in order get a particular shape of flake that was a ready-made tool. Only one flake would be obtained from each prepared core. b Environment: Climate and Resources in Europe during the Middle Paleolithic Isotope-defined glacial sequence C Precursor to Anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) 1 Africa a Herto, Modern skull with a few primitive traits, 160,000 BP (Homo sapiens idaltu) D Anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMHS) 1 Asia a Skhul, Israel, 90ky. The remains of 10 people were recovered. Both Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The two may have been interbreeding. 2 Laos 63,000 years olad 3 Europe (Cro Magnon:Homo sapiens sapiens) , 35,000 BP a Climate and Environment (50,000-15,000 years ago) Northern latitudes much colder than today; temperate ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 9 latitudes less effected, but drier, greater expanses of grasslands. Sea levels much lower than today. Last glacial maximum (LGM) 20,000 years ago b Technology and the “Upper Paleolithic Revolution” (35,000-12,000 years ago) i Extensive use of stone blades—which are flakes that are at least twice as long as they are wide. ii Manufacture of objects from a wider variety of raw materials including bone, ivory, and wood. iii Greater specialization and standardization in tools and tool function iv Increase in the number of tools used to make other tools. They especially had a lot of burins (delicate chisels), borers (drills), and scrapers, which were used for engraving and carving bone, wood, and antler v A great increase in the number of hunting weapons. Lower paleothic peoples had handaxes, Middle Paleolithic peoples had spears and ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 10 handaxes, but Upper Paleo peoples had spears, javelins, harpoons, clubs, stone missiles, throwing sticks, harpoons, and probably bows and arrows and spear throwers (atlatl) vi Grinding tools first developed vii Long-distance trade (shells and stone) viii Fantastic art (a) Cave Paintings 1. Lascaux – Fantastic cave discovered in 1940 in southern France . Cave paintings are about 17,000 years old. This is the Magdalenian Period --the last period of the Upper Paleolithic (Beautiful depictions of animals, many of them now extinct from Europe 2. Grotte de Chauvet- Recently discovered cave art in France, 36,000-25,000 years B.P. 3. Cosquer Cave, France (b) Portable art -- Venus figures carved from bone and stone and occasionally of fired clay dating ca. 25,000 years ago. a Lifeways: Successful adaptation to harsh and unpredictable conditions- especially winters. Sites like ANT 202 -- Fact Sheet FALL 2014 - p. 11 Abri Pataud (reindeer) produce abundant bones from large animals . Recent research is also showing that these people also collected and processed plant foods. They must have had storage capabilities. There art demonstrates sophisticated symbolic expression and communication. D Theories about evolutionary relationships 1 The Out of Africa: Proposes that Homo sapiens evolved from Middle Homo (Homo erectus) in southern Africa and spread out from. Stringer and Gamble 1993 2 Multi-regional theory: Suggests that Homo sapiens evolved from Middle Homo in a number of places and the populations all inter-bred so that modern human beings are all similar. Wolpoff et al. 1984, Alan Thorne 3 New findings from DNA!! a Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal DNA b Africans do not c The Denisovans E The last hominin: Homo floresiensis (38,000-18,000 BP) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5 Years on Ice Age Europe Network Celebrates – Page 5
    network of heritage sites Magazine Issue 2 aPriL 2018 neanderthal rock art Latest research from spanish caves – page 6 Underground theatre British cave balances performances with conservation – page 16 Caves with ice age art get UnesCo Label germany’s swabian Jura awarded world heritage status – page 40 5 Years On ice age europe network celebrates – page 5 tewww.ice-age-europe.euLLING the STORY of iCe AGE PeoPLe in eUROPe anD eXPL ORING PLEISTOCene CULtURAL HERITAGE IntrOductIOn network of heritage sites welcome to the second edition of the ice age europe magazine! Ice Age europe Magazine – issue 2/2018 issn 2568­4353 after the successful launch last year we are happy to present editorial board the new issue, which is again brimming with exciting contri­ katrin hieke, gerd­Christian weniger, nick Powe butions. the magazine showcases the many activities taking Publication editing place in research and conservation, exhibition, education and katrin hieke communication at each of the ice age europe member sites. Layout and design Brightsea Creative, exeter, Uk; in addition, we are pleased to present two special guest Beate tebartz grafik Design, Düsseldorf, germany contributions: the first by Paul Pettitt, University of Durham, cover photo gives a brief overview of a groundbreaking discovery, which fashionable little sapiens © fumane Cave proved in february 2018 that the neanderthals were the first Inside front cover photo cave artists before modern humans. the second by nuria sanz, water bird – hohle fels © urmu, director of UnesCo in Mexico and general coor­­­di nator of the Photo: burkert ideenreich heaDs programme, reports on the new initiative for a serial transnational nomination of neanderthal sites as world heritage, for which this network laid the foundation.
    [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]
  • Cave Bear Ecology and Interactions With
    CAVEBEAR ECOLOGYAND INTERACTIONSWITH PLEISTOCENE HUMANS MARYC. STINER, Department of Anthropology,Building 30, Universityof Arizona,Tucson, AZ 85721, USA,email: [email protected] Abstract:Human ancestors (Homo spp.), cave bears(Ursus deningeri, U. spelaeus), andbrown bears (U. arctos) have coexisted in Eurasiafor at least one million years, andbear remains and Paleolithic artifacts frequently are found in the same caves. The prevalenceof cave bearbones in some sites is especiallystriking, as thesebears were exceptionallylarge relative to archaichumans. Do artifact-bearassociations in cave depositsindicate predation on cave bearsby earlyhuman hunters, or do they testify simply to earlyhumans' and cave bears'common interest in naturalshelters, occupied on different schedules?Answering these and other questions aboutthe circumstancesof human-cave bear associationsis made possible in partby expectations developedfrom research on modem bearecology, time-scaledfor paleontologicand archaeologic applications. Here I review availableknowledge on Paleolithichuman-bear relations with a special focus on cave bears(Middle Pleistocene U. deningeri)from YarimburgazCave, Turkey.Multiple lines of evidence show thatcave bearand human use of caves were temporallyindependent events; the apparentspatial associations between human artifacts andcave bearbones areexplained principally by slow sedimentationrates relative to the pace of biogenicaccumulation and bears' bed preparationhabits. Hibernation-linkedbehaviors and population characteristics of cave
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Modern Human We Probably All Carry Genes from Archaic Species Such As Neanderthals
    COMMENT NATURAL HISTORY Edward EARTH SCIENCE How rocks and MUSIC Philip Glass on Einstein EMPLOYMENT The skills gained Lear’s forgotten work life evolved together on our and the unpredictability of in PhD training make it on ornithology p.36 planet p.39 opera composition p.40 worth the money p.41 ILLUSTRATION BY CHRISTIAN DARKIN CHRISTIAN BY ILLUSTRATION What makes a modern human We probably all carry genes from archaic species such as Neanderthals. Chris Stringer explains why the DNA we have in common is more important than any differences. n many ways, what makes a modern we were trying to set up strict criteria, based non-modern (or, in palaeontological human is obvious. Compared with our on cranial measurements, to test whether terms, archaic). What I did not foresee evolutionary forebears, Homo sapiens is controversial fossils from Omo Kibish in was that some researchers who were not Icharacterized by a lightly built skeleton and Ethiopia were within the range of human impressed with our test would reverse it, several novel skull features. But attempts to skeletal variation today — anatomically applying it back onto the skeletal range of distinguish the traits of modern humans modern humans. all modern humans to claim that our diag- from those of our ancestors can be fraught Our results suggested that one skull nosis wrongly excluded some skulls of with problems. was modern, whereas the other was recent populations from being modern2. Decades ago, a colleague and I got into This, they suggested, implied that some difficulties over an attempt to define (or, as PEOPLING THE PLANET people today were more ‘modern’ than oth- I prefer, diagnose) modern humans using Interactive map of migrations: ers.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Functional Creativity by Molly Carpenter (Instructor: Jeff Arnett)
    1 Functional Creativity by Molly Carpenter (Instructor: Jeff Arnett) The prominent writer and poet Oscar Wilde once said, “All art is quite useless.” In a literal sense, of course, art does not serve a utilitarian but aesthetic function. Artwork cannot feed an impoverished country or solve a worldwide issue, and it reflects subjective life experiences of the artist instead of life itself. Why then has art flourished as an integral aspect of humanity for tens of thousands of years? What evolutionary function, if any, did creativity serve for prehistoric hominids? Although perhaps unanswerable, these questions invite further contemplation of the dynamic connections between physical brain structure and human consciousness. Anthropologists have theorized ways in which specific brain adaptations gave prehistoric humanoids the evolutionary “edge” over other non-Homo species, and all agree that the rise of a conscious brain directly led to the formation of creative thought. However, as Robert Solso, an influential Russian psychologist, argues, “A serendipitous side effect of a complex brain capable of imagery and symbolic representation was the human tendency to search for understanding of the world and all things therein” (41). The ability to interpret abstract symbols created a world in which those that possessed creative skills—the advanced toolmaker, the resourceful leader, and the talented cave painter—gained a selective advantage over others. While creative thought may require consciousness, creativity did not emerge only after humans achieved biological evolution but, over time, became a necessary ingredient for it. Although creative activities serve leisurely rather than survival purposes today, creativity remains one of the few human universals regardless of any society’s political, economic, or 2 technological achievement.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Evolution to Revolution
    Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e38546 doi: 10.3897/rio.5.e38546 Research Article Language evolution to revolution: the leap from rich-vocabulary non-recursive communication system to recursive language 70,000 years ago was associated with acquisition of a novel component of imagination, called Prefrontal Synthesis, enabled by a mutation that slowed down the prefrontal cortex maturation simultaneously in two or more children – the Romulus and Remus hypothesis Andrey Vyshedskiy ‡ ‡ Boston University, Boston, United States of America Corresponding author: Andrey Vyshedskiy ([email protected]) Reviewable v1 Received: 25 Jul 2019 | Published: 29 Jul 2019 Citation: Vyshedskiy A (2019) Language evolution to revolution: the leap from rich-vocabulary non-recursive communication system to recursive language 70,000 years ago was associated with acquisition of a novel component of imagination, called Prefrontal Synthesis, enabled by a mutation that slowed down the prefrontal cortex maturation simultaneously in two or more children – the Romulus and Remus hypothesis. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e38546. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e38546 Abstract There is an overwhelming archeological and genetic evidence that modern speech apparatus was acquired by hominins by 600,000 years ago. On the other hand, artifacts signifying modern imagination, such as (1) composite figurative arts, (2) bone needles with an eye, (3) construction of dwellings, and (4) elaborate burials arose not earlier than © Vyshedskiy A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity in Animal Resource Diversity in the Late Pleistocene Human Diet of Central Portugal
    Continuity in animal resource diversity in the Late Pleistocene human diet of Central Portugal Bryan Hockett US Bureau of Land Management, Elko District Office, 3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, NV 89801 USA [email protected] Jonathan Haws Department of Anthropology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 USA [email protected] Keywords Palaeolithic, diet, nutritional ecology, Portugal, Neanderthals Abstract Archaeologists studying the human occupation of Late Pleistocene Iberia have identified the Late Upper Palaeolithic, including the Pleistocene-Holocene transition, as a time of resource intensification, diversification and speciali- sation. The primary drivers for these changes were argued to be the result of population-resource imbalances triggered by the postglacial climatic warming and human population growth. Recent research, however, has pushed resource intensification and diversification back in time to the Early Upper Palaeolithic in Iberia and beyond. Dietary diversity may have given anatomically modern humans a selective advantage over Neanderthals. In this article we review the accumulated evidence for Late Middle and Upper Palaeolithic diet in central Portugal, emphasising the importance of small animal exploitation. We incorporate results from on-going research at Lapa do Picareiro and other sites to explore the possibility that the dietary choices of modern foragers in Iberia contrib- uted to the extinction of the Neanderthal populations occupying the region until ca 30,000 14C BP. 1 Introduction Archaeologists studying the human occupation of Late Pleistocene with one that linked situational shifts in Pleistocene Iberia often frame explanations for their different types of small game to human population subsistence economies within the now-classic ‘Broad pulses.
    [Show full text]
  • Bipedal Hominins
    INTRODUCTION Although captive chimpanzees, bonobos and other great apes have acquired some of the features of There is fairly general agreement that language is a language, including the use of symbols to denote uniquely human accomplishment. Although other objects or actions, they have not displayed species communicate in diverse ways, human anything like recursive syntax, or indeed any language has properties that stand out as special. degree of generativity beyond the occasional 4 The most obvious of these is generativity -the ability combining of symbols in pairs. To quote Pinker, to construct a potentially infinite variety of they simply don’t “get it.” This suggests that the sentences, conveying an infinite variety of common ancestor of humans and chimpanzee was meanings. Animal communication is by contrast almost certainly bereft of anything we might stereotyped and restricted to particular situations, consider to be true language. Human language and typically conveys emotional rather than must therefore have evolved its distinctive propositional information. The generativity of characteristics over the past 6 million years. Some language was noted by Descartes as one of the have claimed that this occurred in a single step, characteristics separating humans from other and recently -perhaps as recently as 170,000 years species, and has also been emphasized more ago, coincident with the emergence of our own recently by Chomsky, as in the following often- species. This is sometimes referred to as the “big quoted passage: bang” theory of language evolution. For example, Bickerton5 asserted that “… true language, via the “The unboundedness of human speech, as an emergence of syntax, was a catastrophic event, expression of limitless thought, is an entirely occurring within the first few generations of Homo different matter (from animal communication), sapiens sapiens (p.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FORGOTTEN CONTINENT Fossil Finds in China Are Challenging Ideas About the Evolution of Modern Humans and Our Closest Relatives
    NEWS FEATURE THE FORGOTTEN CONTINENT Fossil finds in China are challenging ideas about the evolution of modern humans and our closest relatives. n the outskirts of Beijing, a small BY JANE QIU government is setting up a US$1.1-million limestone mountain named Dragon laboratory at the IVPP to extract and sequence Bone Hill rises above the surround- spread around the globe — and relegated Asia ancient DNA. Oing sprawl. Along the northern side, a path to a kind of evolutionary cul-de-sac. The investment comes at a time when palaeo- leads up to some fenced-off caves that draw But the tale of Peking Man has haunted anthropologists across the globe are starting to DEAGOSTINI/GETTY 150,000 visitors each year, from schoolchildren generations of Chinese researchers, who have pay more attention to Asian fossils and how to grey-haired pensioners. It was here, in 1929, struggled to understand its relationship to they relate to other early hominins — creatures that researchers discovered a nearly complete modern humans. “It’s a story without an end- that are more closely related to humans than ancient skull that they determined was roughly ing,” says Wu Xinzhi, a palaeontologist at the to chimps. Finds in China and other parts of half a million years old. Dubbed Peking Man, Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ver- Asia have made it clear that a dazzling variety of it was among the earliest human remains ever tebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Homo species once roamed the continent. And uncovered, and it helped to convince many (IVPP) in Beijing.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia
    World Heritage papers41 HEADWORLD HERITAGES 4 Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia VOLUME I In support of UNESCO’s 70th Anniversary Celebrations United Nations [ Cultural Organization Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia Nuria Sanz, Editor General Coordinator of HEADS Programme on Human Evolution HEADS 4 VOLUME I Published in 2015 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France and the UNESCO Office in Mexico, Presidente Masaryk 526, Polanco, Miguel Hidalgo, 11550 Ciudad de Mexico, D.F., Mexico. © UNESCO 2015 ISBN 978-92-3-100107-9 This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. Cover Photos: Top: Hohle Fels excavation. © Harry Vetter bottom (from left to right): Petroglyphs from Sikachi-Alyan rock art site.
    [Show full text]