DOCSLIB.ORG

Zuttiyeh Face: a View from the East

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zuttiyeh Face: a View from the East AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 91:325-347 (1993) Zuttiyeh Face: A View From the East SONGY SOHN AND MILFORD H. WOLPOFF Paleoanthropology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 KEY WORDS Zuttiyeh, Paleoanthropology, Asia, Neandertal, Levant, Zhoukoudian ABSTRACT We analyze the phylogenetic position of the frontofacial frag- ment from Zuttiyeh, Israel. This specimen is dated to the Middle Pleistocene (the latest estimate is between 250 and 350 kyr) and is associated with the Acheulo-Yabrudian, which makes it the oldest cranium from the region. It has been previously regarded as a Neandertal, and early “anatomically modern Homo sapiens,” and a generalized specimen ancestral to both. These different phylogenetic interpretations of its features have a historic basis but in our view also result from a confusion of grade and intraspecies clade as valid sources of variation. We show here that generally the differences that distin- guish Zuttiyeh from Neandertals are similarities it shares with the Zhou- koudian remains. These similarities involve a unique combination of features, and suggest the possibility of an ancestral relationship. It is less likely that Middle Pleistocene remains from Europe or sub-Saharan Africa are uniquely or significantly ancestral to Zuttiyeh. An accurate understanding of the rela- tionship between populations of eastern and western Asia is important for resolving the more general questions surrounding the position of the Upper Pleistocene Levant populations in human evolution, including (1)whether there are significantly different contemporary Mousterian populations in the Upper Pleistocene, (2) whether Neandertals are clearly intrusive in the re- gion, and (3) whether there is an early appearance of (what many workers call) “anatomically modern Homo sapiens.” The hypothesis of a recent unique African ancestry for all modern humans is disproved by our study, which shows Asia as a significant source area for at least some living populations. 0 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc. The critical geographic position and early evolution in the Levant, because their solu- date of the Zuttiyeh frontofacial fragment tions are central to the hypotheses about combine to make it pivotal in clarifying a modern human origins. We will examine the number of problems surrounding the evolu- question of different Late Pleistocene lin- tion of Homo in Asia. In this paper we eages in the Levant, and the confusion of present the context and associations of the grade and intraspecies clade in interpreting 1925 discovery, discuss the historic basis for these hominids-especially over the prob- the differing interpretations of its phylogeny lem of whether “non-Neandertal” necessar- (including why it was never systematically ily means “modern.”Our use of the intraspe- compared with the Zhoukoudian remains), cies clade concept is unconventional, resting and establish the best case for its ancestry on Huxley’s (1958) older definition of clades and relationships by comparing it with the as groups sharing common genetic descent. Zhoukoudian sample as well as with Middle Because we use clade to describe a regional Pleistocene humans from Europe and sub- Saharan Africa. It is our intent to examine the issues surrounding local ancestry and Received August 27, 1990; accepted November 17, 1992. Q 1993 WILEY-LISS, INC 326 S. SOHN AND M.H. WOLPOFF aspect of intraspecies variation, monophyly and below the Acheulo-Yabrudian in the is not implied, and indeed cannot apply. Zuttiyeh cave. These were 95 * 10 and 97 * 13 kyr (from the pre-Mousterian GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT above), 148 * 6 from the Acheulo-Yabru- The Wadi el Amud enters the Sea of Gali- dian, and 164 * 21 kyr (from the underlying lee on its northwestern bank. A number of travertine). Following this, Copeland and rich archaeological sites from the Late Pleis- Hours (1983) proposed another date for the tocene, such as Amud, are found along the Acheulo-Yabrudian at Zuttiyeh of 140-150 gorge. Where it cuts through a low range of kyr. Based on these publications, and his limestone hills, just 200 meters upstream analysis of the Levant archaeological se- from the Mugharet el Emireh, F. Turville- quence, Bar-Yosef (1988, 1989) conserva- Petre discovered the Mugharet el Zuttiyeh tively bracketed the date of the Zuttiyeh face (the Cave of the Robbers) in the spring of to between 110 and 150 kyr by uranium se- 1925. Subsequent excavation at this site ries, the most common age estimate to be during the month of June yielded a large widely cited. However, more recently he has human craniofacial fragment which became gathered support for an even earlier date known as the Galilee, or Zuttiyeh, skull. (Bar-Yosef, 1992). TL dates from Yabrud The archaeological sequence of the Middle and ESR dates from Tabun D suggest a ter- to earlier Late Pleistocene in the Levant mination for the Acheulo-Yabrudian in ex- consists of three major complexes-the Up- cess of 200 kyr, and this is supported at least per or Late Acheulean, the Mugharan Tradi- in part by the ESR dates for the Acheulo- tion (Jelinek, 1981), and the Mousterian (re- Yabrudian from Tabun Ea-Ed: from 151 * viewed by Bar-Yosef, 1989). The Mugharan 21 to 182 * 31 kyr (early uptake) and Tradition, or the Acheulo-Yabrudian, is geo- 168 15 to 213 * 46 kyr (linear uptake). graphically limited in its range to the cen- The correlation of Tabun E, F, and G with tral and northern Levant. It can be further Isotope Stages 11-13 extends the base of the subdivided into three facies: (1)a facies with Acheulo-Yabrudian into the 400-500 kyr a high percentages of bifaces and flake age range. Bar-Yosef concludes that the Zut- scrapers (the Acheulean facies); (2) a facies tiyeh specimen is most likely bracketed be- in which scrapers are abundant and bifaces tween 250 and 350 kyr. It is the earliest rare (Yabrudian); and (3) a facies rich in Levantine cranial fragment. blades, end-scrapers, and burins (Amudian or “Pre-Aurignacian”).The Mugharan tradition ZUTTIYEH AS A LEVANTINE is followed by the Mousterian tradition, which NEANDERTAL is characterized by the Levallois technique. Zuttiyeh was uncovered at the base of the First conclusions cave’s archaeological sequence, in a shallow Keith (1927) first presented a description pit dug into the sterile sandy deposit which of the specimen, as a contribution to a vol- filled the lower part of the cave (Turville- ume on the cave edited by Turville-Petre. He Petre, 1927). Later, Garrod (1962) noted later included part of this description in the that the human specimen was under a layer 1931 edition of New Discoveries Relating to which contained an Acheulo-Yabrudian the Antiquity of Man. In this work he sug- (Mugharan) assemblage, similar to the in- gested that the specimen was a young fe- dustry of Tabun E (Bar-Yosef, 1988). This male. His age diagnosis emphasized the un- was later confirmed by the excavation of the fused frontal and sphenoidal sutures. Sex remaining brecciated deposits (Gisis and diagnosis was based on frontal size and fa- Bar-Yosef, 1974). The association of Zut- cial features. Keith regarded the cranium as tiyeh with the Mugharan Tradition shows it that of a Neandertal variant, distinguished to be archaeologically older than any of the from the European Neandertals mainly by a Mousterian associated Levant specimens. high but narrow forehead and an unusually Schwarcz et al. (1980) provided ThKJ broad supraorbital region (especially rela- dates for various stalagmitic layers, above tive to the maximum breadth of the frontal). ZUTTIYEH FACE 327 Hrdlitka examined the Zuttiyeh specimen the specimen represented an advanced Ne- in 1927, and reviewed its morphology in his andertal variety. 1930 monograph (pp. 303-310). He con- As for why McCown and Keith did not in- cluded that it was male because of the prom- clude the “Sinanthropus” remains in their inent supraorbitals. HrdliCka also consid- comparisons, it probably had little to do with ered the specimen a Neandertal variant, the question of how near or far they might specifically regarding this variety as “more have considered the relationship of the east advanced” than the Europeans. In compari- Asians to be. Like Weidenreich, they were son with the European specimens he focused not really familiar with distant, poorly pub- on the narrower, higher forehead and the lished specimens. For instance, over the pe- facial gracility (given his sex determina- riod when they were preparing the mono- tion), the modern (squared) orbital shape, graph, only a cast of the El adolescent was and the narrower nasal root, concluding in the British Museum (or generally avail- that Zuttiyeh “belongs probably well for- able). The Locus L “Sinanthropus” crania ward in this group.” Indeed, when discuss- had not yet been described in detail. Thus, ing his opinion that the newly described while they indeed did decline to use the Zhoukoudian El cranium could also be in- Zhoukoudian material in their comparisons, corporated in the Neandertal paradigm, he it is unlikely that the question of whether or proclaimed (p. 368): not they should be making explicit compari- sons between Zhoukoudian and Zuttiyeh fig- It is not like the lowest type of the Neanderthaler, but ured prominently in their considerations of corresponds rather to the better developed specimens how to limit the sample they would use for of that class such as the Galilee skull [our italics]. comparisons in their description of the Comparison with Zhoukoudian Mount Carmel specimens. This omission, in other words, did not necessarily reflect a This contention, because it concerned studied phylogenetic interpretation. Zhoukoudian and classified one of its speci- mens as a Neandertal, seemed to have been particularly irritating to Weidenreich, who The relation to Tabun discussed its dismissal at length (1943:214- In fact, McCown and Keith drew few con- 215 j, As part of his defense of the contention clusions about Zuttiyeh at all, except in the that the “Sinanthropus” remains were more discussion of the Tabun female, in which primitive than those of the Neandertal they contended (p.
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]
  • Nile Valley-Levant Interactions: an Eclectic Review
    Nile Valley-Levant interactions: an eclectic review The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 2013. Nile Valley-Levant interactions: an eclectic review. In Neolithisation of Northeastern Africa, ed. Noriyuki Shirai. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 16: 237-247. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:31887680 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP In: N. Shirai (ed.) Neolithization of Northeastern Africa. Studies in Early Near Eastern: Production, Subsistence, & Environment 16, ex oriente: Berlin. pp. 237-247. Nile Valley-Levant interactions: an eclectic review Ofer Bar-Yosef Department of Anthropology, Harvard University Opening remarks Writing a review of a prehistoric province as an outsider is not a simple task. The archaeological process, as we know today, is an integration of data sets – the information from the field and the laboratory analyses, and the interpretation that depends on the paradigm held by the writer affected by his or her personal experience. Even monitoring the contents of most of the published and online literature is a daunting task. It is particularly true for looking at the Egyptian Neolithic during the transition from foraging to farming and herding, when most of the difficulties originate from the poorly known bridging regions. A special hurdle is the terminological conundrum of the Neolithic, as Andrew Smith and Alison Smith discusses in this volume, and in particular the term “Neolithisation” that finally made its way to the Levantine literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Hands-On Human Evolution: a Laboratory Based Approach
    Hands-on Human Evolution: A Laboratory Based Approach Developed by Margarita Hernandez Center for Precollegiate Education and Training Author: Margarita Hernandez Curriculum Team: Julie Bokor, Sven Engling A huge thank you to….. Contents: 4. Author’s note 5. Introduction 6. Tips about the curriculum 8. Lesson Summaries 9. Lesson Sequencing Guide 10. Vocabulary 11. Next Generation Sunshine State Standards- Science 12. Background information 13. Lessons 122. Resources 123. Content Assessment 129. Content Area Expert Evaluation 131. Teacher Feedback Form 134. Student Feedback Form Lesson 1: Hominid Evolution Lab 19. Lesson 1 . Student Lab Pages . Student Lab Key . Human Evolution Phylogeny . Lab Station Numbers . Skeletal Pictures Lesson 2: Chromosomal Comparison Lab 48. Lesson 2 . Student Activity Pages . Student Lab Key Lesson 3: Naledi Jigsaw 77. Lesson 3 Author’s note Introduction Page The validity and importance of the theory of biological evolution runs strong throughout the topic of biology. Evolution serves as a foundation to many biological concepts by tying together the different tenants of biology, like ecology, anatomy, genetics, zoology, and taxonomy. It is for this reason that evolution plays a prominent role in the state and national standards and deserves thorough coverage in a classroom. A prime example of evolution can be seen in our own ancestral history, and this unit provides students with an excellent opportunity to consider the multiple lines of evidence that support hominid evolution. By allowing students the chance to uncover the supporting evidence for evolution themselves, they discover the ways the theory of evolution is supported by multiple sources. It is our hope that the opportunity to handle our ancestors’ bone casts and examine real molecular data, in an inquiry based environment, will pique the interest of students, ultimately leading them to conclude that the evidence they have gathered thoroughly supports the theory of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Neanderthal Remains from an Open-Air Middle Palaeolithic Site In
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN The first Neanderthal remains from an open-air Middle Palaeolithic site in the Levant Received: 30 January 2017 Ella Been1,2, Erella Hovers3,4, Ravid Ekshtain3, Ariel Malinski-Buller5, Nuha Agha6, Alon Accepted: 8 May 2017 Barash7, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer8,9, Stefano Benazzi10,11, Jean-Jacques Hublin11, Lihi Published: xx xx xxxx Levin2, Noam Greenbaum12, Netta Mitki3, Gregorio Oxilia13,10, Naomi Porat 14, Joel Roskin15,16, Michalle Soudack17,18, Reuven Yeshurun19, Ruth Shahack-Gross15, Nadav Nir3, Mareike C. Stahlschmidt20, Yoel Rak2 & Omry Barzilai6 The late Middle Palaeolithic (MP) settlement patterns in the Levant included the repeated use of caves and open landscape sites. The fossil record shows that two types of hominins occupied the region during this period—Neandertals and Homo sapiens. Until recently, diagnostic fossil remains were found only at cave sites. Because the two populations in this region left similar material cultural remains, it was impossible to attribute any open-air site to either species. In this study, we present newly discovered fossil remains from intact archaeological layers of the open-air site ‘Ein Qashish, in northern Israel. The hominin remains represent three individuals: EQH1, a nondiagnostic skull fragment; EQH2, an upper right third molar (RM3); and EQH3, lower limb bones of a young Neandertal male. EQH2 and EQH3 constitute the first diagnostic anatomical remains of Neandertals at an open-air site in the Levant. The optically stimulated luminescence ages suggest that Neandertals repeatedly visited ‘Ein Qashish between 70 and 60 ka. The discovery of Neandertals at open-air sites during the late MP reinforces the view that Neandertals were a resilient population in the Levant shortly before Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens populated the region.
    [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]
  • A New Small-Bodied Hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia
    articles A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia P. Brown1, T. Sutikna2, M. J. Morwood1, R. P. Soejono2, Jatmiko2, E. Wayhu Saptomo2 & Rokus Awe Due2 1Archaeology & Palaeoanthropology, School of Human & Environmental Studies, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia 2Indonesian Centre for Archaeology, Jl. Raya Condet Pejaten No. 4, Jakarta 12001, Indonesia ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Currently, it is widely accepted that only one hominin genus, Homo, was present in Pleistocene Asia, represented by two species, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Both species are characterized by greater brain size, increased body height and smaller teeth relative to Pliocene Australopithecus in Africa. Here we report the discovery, from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia, of an adult hominin with stature and endocranial volume approximating 1 m and 380 cm3, respectively—equal to the smallest-known australopithecines. The combination of primitive and derived features assigns this hominin to a new species, Homo floresiensis. The most likely explanation for its existence on Flores is long-term isolation, with subsequent endemic dwarfing, of an ancestral H. erectus population. Importantly, H. floresiensis shows that the genus Homo is morphologically more varied and flexible in its adaptive responses than previously thought. The LB1 skeleton was recovered in September 2003 during archaeo- hill, on the southern edge of the Wae Racang river valley. The type logical excavation at Liang Bua, Flores1.Mostoftheskeletal locality is at 088 31 0 50.4 00 south latitude 1208 26 0 36.9 00 east elements for LB1 were found in a small area, approximately longitude. 500 cm2, with parts of the skeleton still articulated and the tibiae Horizon.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation and Climate History of the Southern Levant During the Last 30,000 Years Based on Palynological Investigation
    Vegetation and climate history of the southern Levant during the last 30,000 years based on palynological investigation Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades (Dr. rer. nat.) der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn vorgelegt von Vera Schiebel aus Troisdorf Bonn, März 2013 Angefertigt mit Genehmigung der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn 1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Thomas Litt 2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Dietmar Quandt Tag des Promotionskolloquium: 06. Juni 2013 Erscheinungsjahr: 2013 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Current state of research 6 2.1 Paleoclimate since the Last Glacial Maximum 6 2.2 Paleo-vegetation in the Levant 7 2.3 Settlement history in the Levant 8 3 Area of work 11 3.1 Topography 12 3.2 Geology 14 3.3 Modern climate conditions 15 3.4 Vegetation 18 3.5 Coring Sites 22 4 Material and methods 24 4.1 Coring campaign 24 4.2 Lake Kinneret 24 4.3 Birkat Ram 31 4.4 Reconstruction of vegetation based on pollen data 37 4.5 Dating of Late Pleistocene/Holocene lake sediments 38 5 Results 41 5.1 Lake Kinneret 41 5.2 Birkat Ram 47 6 Discussion 56 6.1 The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 56 6.2 The Late Glacial 58 6.3 The Younger Dryas (YD) 60 6.4 The Holocene 61 7 Summary 72 8 Zusammenfassung 74 9 Résumé 76 10 Appendix 78 11 Table of figures and charts 89 12 References 90 1 Introduction Understanding the relations between variations of paleo-climate and its effects on the paleo-vegetation is of particular interest to a broad range of scientific disciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • Water and Insecurity in the Levant by Ido Bar and Gerald Stang
    15 2016 Rafael Ben-Ari/Cham/NEWSCOM/SIPA Ben-Ari/Cham/NEWSCOM/SIPA Rafael Water and insecurity in the Levant by Ido Bar and Gerald Stang The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is a series of multi-year droughts, leading to increased the most water-stressed area in the world. In the stress on groundwater reserves. A 2016 NASA study Levant sub-region, Jordan, Syria, West Bank/Gaza, calculated that 1998-2012 was the driest period to and Israel are already water scarce while two other strike the region in 900 years. countries – Iraq and Lebanon – are ‘water stressed’. This water challenge is a major problem for more This drought has had a serious impact on regional than simple development reasons – the domestic economies, particularly in the agricultural sector: instability that led into the Syria conflict was par- the number of people employed in agriculture has tially driven by drought effects, and now the over- plummeted, as has the portion of population living flow of refugees is placing greater stress on dry in rural areas and the contribution of agriculture neighbours. to the economy. These trends are global, but have been accelerated in the Levant, most notably in For a region that is expected to become drier yet Syria, where an estimated 1.3 million people were due to a changing climate, the potential for further pushed from rural to urban areas during 2006- water-driven instability is significant. Responding 2010 as their crops and livelihoods dried up. These to this will require more than improved water sup- shifts contributed to social and economic disrup- plies.
    [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]
  • Craniofacial Morphology of Homo Floresiensis: Description, Taxonomic
    Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 644e682 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Craniofacial morphology of Homo floresiensis: Description, taxonomic affinities, and evolutionary implication Yousuke Kaifu a,b,*, Hisao Baba a, Thomas Sutikna c, Michael J. Morwood d, Daisuke Kubo b, E. Wahyu Saptomo c, Jatmiko c, Rokhus Due Awe c, Tony Djubiantono c a Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Nature and Science, 4-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki Prefecture Japan b Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan c National Research and Development Centre for Archaeology, Jl. Raya Condet Pejaten No 4, Jakarta 12001, Indonesia d Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia article info abstract Article history: This paper describes in detail the external morphology of LB1/1, the nearly complete and only known Received 5 October 2010 cranium of Homo floresiensis. Comparisons were made with a large sample of early groups of the genus Accepted 21 August 2011 Homo to assess primitive, derived, and unique craniofacial traits of LB1 and discuss its evolution. Prin- cipal cranial shape differences between H. floresiensis and Homo sapiens are also explored metrically. Keywords: The LB1 specimen exhibits a marked reductive trend in its facial skeleton, which is comparable to the LB1/1 H. sapiens condition and is probably associated with reduced masticatory stresses. However, LB1 is Homo erectus craniometrically different from H. sapiens showing an extremely small overall cranial size, and the Homo habilis Cranium combination of a primitive low and anteriorly narrow vault shape, a relatively prognathic face, a rounded Face oval foramen that is greatly separated anteriorly from the carotid canal/jugular foramen, and a unique, tall orbital shape.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Erectus: a Bigger, Faster, Smarter, Longer Lasting Hominin Lineage
    Homo erectus: A Bigger, Faster, Smarter, Longer Lasting Hominin Lineage Charles J. Vella, PhD August, 2019 Acknowledgements Many drawings by Kathryn Cruz-Uribe in Human Career, by R. Klein Many graphics from multiple journal articles (i.e. Nature, Science, PNAS) Ray Troll • Hominin evolution from 3.0 to 1.5 Ma. (Species) • Currently known species temporal ranges for Pa, Paranthropus aethiopicus; Pb, P. boisei; Pr, P. robustus; A afr, Australopithecus africanus; Ag, A. garhi; As, A. sediba; H sp., early Homo >2.1 million years ago (Ma); 1470 group and 1813 group representing a new interpretation of the traditionally recognized H. habilis and H. rudolfensis; and He, H. erectus. He (D) indicates H. erectus from Dmanisi. • (Behavior) Icons indicate from the bottom the • first appearance of stone tools (the Oldowan technology) at ~2.6 Ma, • the dispersal of Homo to Eurasia at ~1.85 Ma, • and the appearance of the Acheulean technology at ~1.76 Ma. • The number of contemporaneous hominin taxa during this period reflects different Susan C. Antón, Richard Potts, Leslie C. Aiello, 2014 strategies of adaptation to habitat variability. Origins of Homo: Summary of shifts in Homo Early Homo appears in the record by 2.3 Ma. By 2.0 Ma at least two facial morphs of early Homo (1813 group and 1470 group) representing two different adaptations are present. And possibly 3 others as well (Ledi-Geraru, Uraha-501, KNM-ER 62000) The 1813 group survives until at least 1.44 Ma. Early Homo erectus represents a third more derived morph and one that is of slightly larger brain and body size but somewhat smaller tooth size.
    [Show full text]