Discovery of Early Hominins

The immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus Australopithecus

. The australopithecines
(or australopiths) were intermediate between apes and
people. Both australopithecines and humans are biologically similar enough to be
classified as members of the same biological tribe--the Hominini
. All people, past
and present, along with the australopithecines are hominins
. We share in common
not only the fact that we evolved from the same ape ancestors in Africa but that both

genera are habitually bipedal

, or two-footed, upright walkers. By comparison,
chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are primarily quadrupedal
, or four-footed.
Over the last decade, there have been a number of important fossil discoveries in Africa
of what may be very early transitional ape/hominins, or proto-hominins. These
creatures lived just after the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with
chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs. The
fossils have been tentatively classified as members of three distinct genera-Sahelanthropus , Orrorin , andArdipithecus . Sahelanthropus was the
earliest, dating 7-6 million years ago. Orrorin lived about 6 million years ago,
while Ardipithecus remains have been dated to 5.8-4.4 million years ago. At present,
the vote is still out as to whether any of these three primates were in fact true hominins
and if they were our ancestors. The classification of Sahelanthropus has been the most
in question.
The earliest australopithecines very likely did not evolve until 5 million years ago or
shortly thereafter (during the beginning of the Pliocene Epoch) in East Africa. The

primate fossil record for this crucial transitional period leading to australopithecines is
still scanty and somewhat confusing. However, by about 4.2 million years ago,
unquestionable australopithecines were present. By 3 million years ago, they were
common in both East and South Africa. Some have been found dating to this period in
North Central Africa also. As the australopithecines evolved, they exploited more types
of environments. Their early proto-hominin ancestors had been predominantly tropical
forest animals. However, African forests were progressively giving way to sparse
woodlands and dry grasslands, or savannas
. The australopithecines took
advantage of these new conditions. In the more open environments, bipedalism would
very likely have been an advantage.
By 2.5 million years ago, there were at least 2 evolutionary lines of hominins descended
from the early australopithecines. One line apparently was adapted primarily to the food
resources in lake margin grassland environments and had an omnivorous diet that
increasingly included meat. Among them were our early human ancestors who started
to make stone tools by this time. The other line seems to have lived more in mixed
grassland and woodland environments, like the earlier australopithecines, and was
primarily vegetarian. This second, more conservative line of early hominins died out by
1 million years ago or shortly before then. It is likely that all of the early hominins,
including humans, supplemented their diets with protein and fat rich termites and ants
just as some chimpanzees do today.

Major early
hominin sites

History of Discovery
In his 1871 book entitled The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles
Darwin speculated that fossils of the earliest humans and their immediate progenitors
ultimately would be found somewhere in Africa. He based this on the fact that the
natural range of our nearest living relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, is limited to
Africa. He concluded that we ultimately must have shared a now extinct common
ancestor with those apes in Africa. This view was mostly rejected by the scientific world
of the time. Before the 1920's, knowledge of our fossil ancestors only went back to
the Neandertals
in Europe and some presumably earlier human-like forms from

Java, in Southeast Asia. Few researchers were willing to estimate the time period of the
earliest hominins at much more than 100,000 years, and there was no inkling of
anything older from Africa. In addition, there was a bias among the predominantly
European paleoanthropologists against accepting early Africans as the ancestors of all
humanity.

Raymond Dart
(1893-1989)

"Taung child" reconstruction

(Australopithecus africanus)

In 1924, Raymond Dart, an Australian anatomy professor at the University of

Witerwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, obtained a fossil skull that had been
blasted out of a nearby limestone quarry at Taung
. It took him 73 days to chisel the
skull free from its surrounding stone matrix and 4 years of spare time to free the jaw and
the fossilized brain. However, long before then, Dart recognized the importance of this
find. In 1925 he named it Australopithecus africanus
(literally "southern ape from
Africa"). Because of its small size, he called it the "Taung baby." In fact, its teeth
indicate that it was a 3-4 year old child. Despite its relatively small brain, he concluded
that this species was intermediate between apes and humans. He based this mainly on
the shape and position of the base of the brain cast. It indicated that the foramen
magnum
, or hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes, pointed
downward and was nearly at the central balance point of the skull. This meant that the
Taung child must have been bipedal. In addition, the canine
teeth were relatively
short. In both of these traits, the Taung child was much more like a human than an
ape. Most paleoanthropologists in the 1920's rejected Dart's claims
that Australopithecus africanus was intermediate between apes and humans in favor of
the view that it was just an ape. Dart's claims were not widely accepted until the late
1940's.

Robert Broom
(1866-1951)

Following Dart's discovery, several other caves were investigated in South Africa. Most
of the work was done byRobert Broom from 1936 through the 1940's. Broom was a
medical doctor and an enthusiastic amateur paleontologist from Scotland. In 1903, he
was appointed professor of geology at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa
and became internationally respected for his studies of early mammal-like reptiles. His
insistence on the correctness of the theory of evolution led to his dismissal from this
conservative religious university in 1910. Consequently, he returned to being a medical
doctor in a rural town in South Africa but continued paleontological research in his spare
time. In 1934, at the age of 68, he retired from his medical practice and joined the staff
of the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria as a paleoanthropologist. The rest of his life was
spent searching for early hominin fossils.
Robert Broom's most important discoveries were made in the Sterkfontein valley of
South Africa. It was there in 1936 that he found the first known adult Australopithecus
africanus while excavating in Sterkfontein
cave. In 1938, he discovered more fossil
remains of africanus and other early hominins in Kromdraai
cave. Some of these
fossils were larger boned and more muscular with powerful jaws. Broom named
them Paranthropus robustus
(Paranthropus means "parallel to
man"). Significantly, these robust hominins also differed in having a sagittal crest
,
or ridge of bone extending from front to back, along the midline of the top of the skull. A
sagittal crest serves as an anchor attachment for exceptionally large, strong jaw
muscles. This skeletal feature is also present in large apes but not in africanus or
humans.

Australopithecus
africanus

Paranthropus
robustus

NOTE: Some paleoanthropologists lump Paranthropus robustus and other

paranthropoids into the genus Australopithecus. They consider them to be a
physically robust subgroup of australopithecines.

In 1948, Robert Broom found more paranthropoid fossils at Swartkrans

cave in
South Africa. Following that excavation, he dedicated the rest of his life to writing
everything known about all of the early hominins. He completed this compendium

work in 1951. He was 85 years old and ill. As he finally finished his writing,
he reportedly said "now it is done and so am I." He died a few minutes later.

Leopard canines fit

punctures in hominin
skull from Swartkrans

Between 1965 and 1983, Swartkrans cave was carefully reinvestigated by another
South African paleoanthropologist, C. K. Brain, using more thorough field and
laboratory techniques than had been used by Robert Broom a generation earlier. Many
thousands of bone fragments, including the remains of 130 individual hominins, were
recovered by Brain. These bones were from australopithecines and paranthropoids as
well as early members of our genus, Homo. Because many of the bones had chewing
marks and at least one of the skulls had peculiar depressions reminiscent of punctures
made by the canine teeth of a leopard, Brain hypothesized that some of the Swartkrans
hominins had been eaten by these big cats. The early hominin fossil-bearing strata in
the cave also contained 195 stones that were from locations distant from the cave.
Brain believed that 30 of them may have been used as tools or weapons. In any case,
the presence of these stones suggests that not all of the early hominins in the cave
were there as a result of being the victims of carnivores.
Unfortunately, most of the South African sites where early hominin fossils have been
found are not easily dated because they lack association with volcanic deposits that
would readily allow radiometric dating. That is not the case with most of the early
hominin sites in East Africa.

The oldest fossil hominins have been recovered from sites in East Africa, especially in
the Great Rift Valley. One of the most important sites there is Olduvai Gorge
. It is
an approximately 30 mile (48 km.) long, eroded canyon complex cutting into the
Serengeti
Plain in Northern Tanzania. It is only about 295 feet (90 m.) deep, but its
neatly stratified layers of dirt and rock interspersed with easily datable volcanic ash and
lava layers cover the last 2.1 million years of geological and evolutionary history. The
remains of many australopithecines, paranthropoids, and early humans have been
found at Olduvai. When these ancient hominins lived there, it was a lake margin
grassland area that had abundant plant food and meat sources that could be exploited
by scavenging.

Mary and Louis Leakey with

the "Zinjanthropus boisei"
palate and a modern human
skull in 1959

Zinjanthropus boisei
(Paranthropus boisei)

Early hominin fossils from Olduvai Gorge are known mostly as a result of the many
expeditions of Louis and Mary Leakey
. Louis began searching there in 1931, and
his second wife Mary joined him in 1935. However, it was not until 1959 that they found
their first early hominin fossil. Louis gave it a new genus and species
designation, Zinjanthropus boisei
(literally "East African man"). Subsequently, it
was recognized to be only a super robust paranthropoid. It is now generally referred to
as Paranthropus boisei
. Using the then new potassium-argon dating method, the
fossil was determined to be 1.75 .25 million years old. This was a startlingly early
date when it was made public in 1959. Louis Leakey andZinjanthropus instantly
became international media stars, and both of their pictures were on the front page of
newspapers around the world. Louis was also the focus of several television
documentary programs. In the years after his death in 1972, Mary became well known
as a paleoanthropologist in her own right.

NOTE: Louis Leakey gave his Zinjanthropus find the species name boisei in
honor of Charles Boise, a wealthy American who funded fieldwork by the
Leakeys.

In 1974, a team of paleoanthropologists, under the direction of an American, Donald

Johanson, found an even more ancient species of australopithecine at the Hadar
site in the Afar
Desert region of Northern Ethiopia. It was a 40% complete skeleton
of an adult female whom they named Lucy. She had been only 3 feet 3 inches (1 m.)
tall with a slender body weighing only about 60 pounds (27 kg.). She lived 3.2-3.18
million years ago. Johanson concluded that Lucy was from a different species than had
been previously discovered. He classified her as an Australopithecus afarensis
(named for the Afar region). Many other specimens of this species and later ones were
found in Ethiopia since 1974, but none is as complete as Lucy.

"Lucy" skeleton (Australopithecus afarensis)

Finding Lucy--how she was discovered

This link takes you to a video at an external website. To return here, you must
click the "back" button on your browser program. (length = 4 mins, 33 secs)
Becoming a Fossil--how Lucy was preserved
This link takes you to a video at an external website. To return here, you must
click the "back" button on your browser program. (length = 2 mins, 34 secs)

Early hominin footprints

at Laetoli, Tanzania

About 30 miles south of Olduvai Gorge in Northern Tanzania is the Laetoli

site. It
was investigated in the late 1930's by Louis and Mary Leakey, but no fossil hominins
were found at that time. Mary Leakey returned to Laetoli with Tim White, an American
paleoanthropologist in 1978. They found bones of what were likelyAustralopithecus
afarensis dating 3.7-3.5 million years ago (several hundred thousand years older than
Lucy). They also found 59 footprints of bipedal hominins (presumably afarensis) in a
now hardened volcanic ash layer. These individuals walked in two close parallel tracks

across volcanic dust at least 3.5 million years ago. The footprints look almost like those
of modern humans. They are narrow with a low arch, and they clearly show that the big
toe was in line with the others. These are all traits of humans but not of apes. Based
on the characteristics of the footprints, Mary Leakey concluded that their makers were
adults who were 4 feet 9 inches and 4 feet 1 inch tall and that they walked parallel to
each other in a strolling fashion with relatively short strides. In addition, there are a
child's footprints within those of the larger adult.

The "Black Skull"

(Paranthropus aethiopicus)

In northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia, there is an arid region around Lake
Turkana
in the Great Rift Valley that has exposed geological deposits dating to at
least 4.3 million years ago. Richard Leakey, the son of Mary and Louis Leakey, began
looking for hominin fossils there in the late 1960's. During the 1970's, his team of field
researchers from the National Museum of Kenya made a number of important finds,
including fossils of early humans who will be described in the next tutorial of this series.
While working on the western side of Lake Turkana in 1985, an American
paleoanthropologist namedAlan Walker made an important discovery. This was a
nearly complete paranthropoid skull with an unusually large sagittal crest and some
features reminiscent of the more ancient Australopithecus anamensis (described
below). Manganese in the soil deposit where it was located stained it black. As a
result, this unusual fossil has become known as the "black skull." It has been
classified as Paranthropus aethiopicus (named after Ethiopia). Since it dates to 2.5
million years ago, it is a prime candidate for being the earliest paranthropoid species.
In 1995, Meave Leakey, the wife of Richard Leakey, began discovering bones of a very
early australopithecine species at several sites southwest of Lake Turkana. She named
it Australopithecus anamensis
("anam" is "lake" in the Turkana language).
Thedentition of this hominin seems to be transitional between apes and later
australopithecines. This fits with the 4.2-3.9 million year dates for the volcanic ash

associated with the anamensis fossils. The shapes of the arm and leg bones of this
species indicate that it was bipedal. Anamensis is currently the earliest known
australopithecine species. Bones from at least 8 more anamensisskeletons have been
found in Ethiopia.
In 1996, Berhane Asfaw, an Ethiopian researcher, and Tim White found a 2.5 million
year old hominin fossil in the Middle Awash Valley of Ethiopia that remains
problematical. The skull characteristics are similar in some ways to Australopithecus
afarensis, but it lived several hundred thousand years after that species had presumably
ended. Asfaw named his new hominin, Australopithecus garhi
("garhi" is
"surprise" in one of the languages of the Afar Desert region). Whether or not garhi was
a late afarensis, a variant of africanus, or a distinct species is not clear. Associated with
the remains of garhi were animal bones with what appear to be cut marks made by
simple stone tools. If they were using such tools, this is remarkable because only early
humans have heretofore been associated with stone tool making.

In 2001, Meave Leakey announced the discovery of a 3.5-3.2 million year old
hominin skull from the west side of Lake Turkana. She suggested that this
fossil may displace Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) as the progenitor of
humans. Meave named itKenyanthropus platyops ("flat-faced man of
Kenya"). This hominin lived during the same time period as Lucy. However, it
had a comparatively large, flat face and smaller teeth. The latter characteristic
suggests that Kenyanthropus regularly ate softer foods than did Lucy.
However, it is not yet clear where this new discovery fits within our evolution.
Some paleoanthropologists have suggested that it is only a variant
of Australopithecus afarensis.

Recent Discoveries
In 2006, Tim White, now a professor at the University of California, Berkeley,
announced the discovery of bones from at least 8Australopithecus
anamensis individuals dating to 4.1 million years ago in what had been a
woodland environment in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia. In 2009, White and
his team of researchers announced the discovery of a 4.4 million year old
ape/transitional species named Ardipithecus ramidus that also lived in
woodland environments of the Awash Valley. White believes that this very
early species was the direct ancestors of Australopithecus afarensis.

In 2010, Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg,

South Africa announced his discovery of two partial skeletons of what may be
a new australopithecine species that lived 1.977 million years ago in South
Africa. He named itAustralopithecus sediba ("sediba" means "fountain" or
"wellspring" in the seSotho language of South Africa). Berger and his
colleagues suggest that this new species may be descended
from Australopithecus africanus and could be one of the last links in the
evolutionary line between the australopithecines and our genus Homo.

NOTE: Our understanding of early hominins was led astray at the beginning
of the 20th century as a result of the discovery by Charles Dawson in 1912 of
a fossil skull in England that became known as the Piltdown man. It had a
large brain case similar to modern humans but an ape-like jaw. This fit with
the popular but incorrect assumption that our early ancestors would have apelike bodies and human-like brains. The discovery of australopithecines in
South Africa beginning in 1924 showed that the early hominins were actually
just the reversethey had almost human-like bodies below the neck but
brains that were very little changed in size from those of apes. It was not until
the early 1950's that the Piltdown man skull was exposed for what it really
was, a clever fraud. This realization came as a result of close examination by
independent researchers and fluorine analysis dating.

Analysis of Early Hominins

The bones of more than 500 early hominins have been found. From them, we have
gained a broad understanding of these related species using an array of new
technological aids.

It is now understood that while there were considerable anatomical differences between
the early hominins, they also shared a number of important traits. By 3 million years
ago, most of them probably were nearly as efficient at bipedal locomotion as humans.
Like people, but unlike apes, the bones of their pelvis, or hip region, were shortened
from top to bottom and bowl-shaped (shown below). This made the pelvis more stable
for weight support when standing upright or moving bipedally. The longer ape pelvis is
adapted for quadrupedal locomotion. Early hominin leg and foot bones were also much
more similar to ours than to those of apes. This is consistent with the likelihood of early
hominin bipedalism.
Comparison of Pelvis and Foot Bones

Bipedal locomotion may have been an adaptation to living in a mixed woodland and
grassland environment. It has been suggested that bipedalism was selected for
because it made it easier to see long distances when moving over areas covered with
tall grasses. This would have been a useful advantage in scavenging for food and
watching for big cats and other predators in open environments. An upright posture
also potentially helps to dissipate excess body heat and reduces the absorption of heat
from the sun because less skin has a direct exposure to ultra violet radiation during the
hottest times of the day. There is evidence suggesting that bipedal animals usually can
walk greater distances because less energy is expended with their longer strides. This
would be useful for scavenging for food throughout vast areas. However, the legs of
bipedal animals need to be sturdy enough to support at least 2.5 times their body weight
while running. Over many generations, early hominin legs grew longer and much
stronger than their arms. Their feet became longer and developed arches for more
efficient support of their bodies. In addition, their hands became more adept at carrying
and manipulating objects such as tools and food. It also made it easier to hold babies
and to tend to their needs. These adaptations to walking bipedally on the ground made

it progressively more difficult to climb and travel through the canopies of trees.
However, they obviously provided many other natural selection advantages.

Chimpanzees and all of the other apes have longer arms than legs and lack
arches on the bottoms of their feet. In addition, their big toes are divergent
from their other toes much like human thumbs.
While the late australopithecines were similar to humans anatomically below the neck,
their heads were significantly different from ours in several key features. Their adult
brain size was about 1/3 that of people today. As a result, the widest part of the skull of
these early hominins was below the brain case. For modern humans, it usually is in the
temple region. Early hominin faces were large relative to the size of their brain cases.
They had comparatively big molar teeth with thick enamel. By comparison, their front
teeth were small. They had large jaws, and powerful jaw muscles. The size and shape
of these muscles is indicated by flaringzygomatic arches
, or cheek bones, behind
which the major jaw muscles pass and the presence of a sagittal crest
, which is a
jaw muscle attachment ridge of bone on top of the skull in the robust species
(paranthropoids). In modern humans, the jaw muscles are much smaller and attach
onto the skull in the temple region. From the side view, early hominin faces were
concave or dish-shaped and projecting forward at the bottom due to their relatively
small brain cases and huge teeth and jaws. In contrast, our teeth and jaws are
relatively small, and our faces are nearly vertical.

Paranthropus boisei

Modern human

NOTE: When the lower portion of the face markedly projects forward (as in
the case of the early hominins), it is known asprognathism.

Australopithecine and other early hominin fossils have been found only in Africa. The
majority of them were discovered in East and South Africa. However, some also were
found in Chad, which is located in North Central Africa. Current evidence indicates that
there were as many as 12 species of early hominins between 6 and 1.5 million years
ago, but they did not all live at the same time. The following species are the most
widely accepted ones:
1.

Australopithecus anamensis

2.

Australopithecus afarensis

3.

Australopithecus africanus

4.

Paranthropus aethiopicus (or Australopithecus aethiopicus)

5.

Paranthropus boisei (or Australopithecus boisei)

6.

Paranthropus robustus (or Australopithecus robustus)

The fossil record of early hominins is being added to by new important

discoveries almost every year. As a result, it is not yet clear how many
species of them actually existed nor is it certain what their evolutionary
relationship was to each other. However, the broad outlines of this complex
evolutionary history are already known and are summarized here. To see a
more complete listing of proposed species of early hominins and their
immediate ancestors, select the button below. It would be helpful to have a
printout of this table in order to understand the discussion of the early
hominins that follows.
Table of Early Hominins and Their Immediate Ancestors

Australopithecine Species
Australopithecus anamensis may have been the earliest australopithecine species.
They lived about 4.2-3.9 million years ago in East Africa. Unfortunately, little is known
about them due to the scarcity of their fossils and the fact that the ones that have been
found are highly fragmentary. This species apparently was descended
from Ardipithecus ramidus, which lived around 4.4 million years ago, or an even
earlier ape/hominin transitional species near the beginning of the Pliocene
Epoch. Anamensis was bipedal but may still have been an efficient tree climber. The
shapes of the arm and leg bones indicate that it was bipedal. The canine teeth are

relatively large compared to later australopithecines and humans. The alignment of

teeth in the jaw is somewhat rectangular, reminiscent of apes, rather than like the
modern human parabolic dental arch (like the McDonald's golden arches
sign). Anamensisremains have been found in what had been woodlands around lakes.
Their diets were apparently mainly vegetarian with an emphasis on fruits and nuts.
Australopithecus afarensis lived about 3.7-3.0 million years ago in East Africa.
Skeletally, they were still somewhat transitional from earlier ape species. This can be
seen in their legs which were relatively shorter than those of the later australopithecines
and humans. Afarensis also had slender curved fingers reminiscent of chimpanzees.
Because of these anatomical characteristics, it has been suggested that they were less
efficient bipeds and more efficient tree climbers than the later
australopithecines. Afarensiscanine teeth were relatively large and pointed, reminiscent
of apes. They projected somewhat beyond their other teeth but not as much as in
chimpanzees. Some of the male afarensis had small sagittal crests.

Australopithecus afarensis
(Lucy)

Australopithecus afarensis
(reconstructed appearance)

Kenyanthropus platyops
(reconstructed appearance)

Tim White and some other paleoanthropologists believe that there was considerable
physical variation within the species Australopithecus afarensis. They suggest that the

recently discovered fossils classified as Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5-3.2 million years

ago) was a variant form of afarensis but with somewhat smaller teeth. White discounts
the flattened face of platyops as being due to the deformation of the bones by ground
pressure after death. Its discoverer, Meave Leakey, disagrees. She believes
thatplatyops was a separate species and that it was more likely to have been the
progenitor of humans. Additional hominin fossils from the crucial time period of

4-3 million years ago must be discovered to conclusively determine the place
of platyops in our evolution.
Australopithecus africanus lived about 3.3-2.5 million years ago in South and East

Australopithecus africanus

Africa. Skeletally, they were less ape-like than earlier species of australopithecines but
were still usually small and light in frame like afarensis. However, the teeth
ofafricanus were in some ways more like humans than like afarensis. Specifically, the
front teeth of africanuswere relatively large like ours and their canine teeth did not
project beyond the others. Microscopic wear patterns on africanus teeth suggest a diet
consisting of relatively soft foods, which very likely included some meat along with
plants. This does not necessarily imply efficient hunting skills. More likely, they
obtained meat by scavenging what remained on the abandoned corpses of large
animals killed by lions and other predators. It is possible that they also did some
hunting of small animals in much the same inefficient manner of chimpanzees today.
They probably ate insects and eggs as well.
The classification of Australopithecus garhi is still very problematical. This Ethiopian
fossil has been dated to 2.5 million years ago, which makes it contemporaneous with
late africanus. Largely for that reason, some paleoanthropologists have suggested
thatgarhi is a variant of africanus. However, several features of the head of garhi look
more like a holdover from the older afarensisspecies. On the other hand, the relative
lengths of the arms and legs of garhi are more reminiscent of the first humans. The
discovery of butchered animal bones with garhi suggests that their diet included at least
some meat, as was the case with africanus.

Paranthropoid Species
The australopithecines have been referred to collectively as gracile
species (literally "gracefully slender") of early hominins. Most of them were relatively
small, slender, and delicate boned compared to the somewhat more muscular, robust

species(paranthropoids) that mostly came later. However, this is not always a reliable
descriptive distinction because the range of variation in physical appearance of the two
groups of species overlaps. Subsequently, some individual graciles were bigger than
some of the robust ones. However, the robust species shared some characteristics of
their heads that dramatically show that they had diverged from the evolutionary line that
would become humans. They had larger faces and jaws accompanied by pronounced
sagittal crests (in the case of males). They also had much larger back teeth (premolars
and molars) and smaller front ones (incisors) compared to gracile australopithecines
and early humans who were alive at the same time.

Australopithecus
(gracile body)

Paranthropus
(robust body)

Paranthropus
teeth (upper)

human teeth
(lower)

Little is known about Paranthropus aethiopicus

(the "black skull") other than it
apparently was one of the earliest robust species--it lived about 2.5 million years ago.
So far, this species has been found only in East Africa. Since it had a smaller brain than
the other robust species and it was early, aethiopicus is thought to be a transitional form
from one of the gracile species that came before. It had an unusually large sagittal
crest (shown below).
Paranthropus robustus was a South African robust species that lived about 2.0-1.4
million years ago. They had strong jaws and very large molar and premolar teeth with
thick enamel. Males also had pronounced sagittal crests, though not as large as the
species listed next.
Paranthropus boisei was a super-robust East African species that lived about 2.0-1.4
million years ago. They tended to be more massive and beefy-looking even
than Paranthropus robustus. Male boisei were especially muscular. Like their South
African cousins, robustus, they had prominent sagittal crests and very large grinding
teeth with thick enamel. These teeth would have been capable of cracking hard nuts
and dry seeds. However, such food items may not have been important in their diet.
Microscopic analysis of dental wear patterns and carbon isotope analysis of teeth
indicate that what boisei predominantly ate was soft foods such as grasses, leaves,
roots, and possibly even meat.

Paranthropus aethiopicus

Paranthropus robustus

Paranthropus boisei

Early Hominin Body Size

The early hominins were significantly smaller on average than modern humans. Adult
male australopithecines were usually only about 4.3-4.9 feet tall and weighed around
88-108 pounds. Females were much smaller and less muscular. They were usually
3.4-4.1 feet tall and weighed only 64-75 pounds. This is greater sexual dimorphism
than is found in human populations today. In some australopithecine species, sexual
dimorphism may have been nearly as great as among the great apes. Female gorillas
weigh about 61% that of males, while modern human females are about 83% the weight
of males.

AVERAGE WEIGHT

SPECIES

Australopithe
cus afarensis
Australopithe
cus
africanus
Paranthropus
robustus
Paranthropus
boisei
earliest
humans
(Homo
habilis)

males

females

92 lbs
(42 kg)

64 lbs
(29 kg)

90 lbs
(41 kg)

AVERAGE STATURE

females
as
% of males

females
as
% of males

males

females

64%

4 ft 11 in
(151 cm)

3 ft 5 in
(105 cm)

70%

66 lbs
(30 kg)

73%

4 ft 6 in
(138 cm)

3 ft 9 in
(115 cm)

83%

119 lbs
(54 kg)

88 lbs
(40 kg)

74%

3 ft 9 in
(114 cm)

3 ft 3 in
(99 cm)

87%

108 lbs
(49 kg)

75 lbs
(34 kg)

69%

5 ft 4 in
(137 cm)

4 ft 1 in
(124 cm)

91%

114 lbs
(52 kg)

70 lbs
(32 kg)

61%

5 ft 2 in
(157 cm)

4 ft 1 in
(125 cm)

79%

modern
humans 1
(Homo
sapiens)

144 lbs
(65 kg)

119 lbs
(54 kg)

83%

5 ft 9 in
(175 cm)

5 ft 3 in
(161 cm)

92%

1 The relatively low weight and height of modern humans shown here is a rough average of all people
around the globe. Some populations are significantly bigger (e.g., many Europeans and Africans).
(Source: H. M. McHenry, "How Big Were Early Hominids?", Evolutionary Anthropology 1 [1992] p. 18;
and "What Does It Mean To Be Human? Human Evolution Evidence" [2010}, Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History)

Possible Evolutionary Links

There has been a gap in the fossil hominin record for the crucial period before 4.2
million years ago when Australopithecus anamensis appeared. New discoveries are
now beginning to fill in the missing picture of evolution leading to the australopithecines
at that early time. Beginning in 1992, Tim White and several of his Ethiopian colleagues
found fossils of what may be the immediate ancestor of the australopithecines at the
Aramis site in the Middle Awash region of Northern Ethiopia. The teeth of these very
early fossils seem to have been transitional between apes and Australopithecus
anamensis. Among the living apes, they were most similar to chimpanzees, however,
they were not apes as we usually think of them today. These Aramis fossils date to
about 4.4 million years ago and may represent the first stage in the evolution of
bipedalism. Because of their primitiveness, White has given them a new genus and
species designation (Ardipithecus ramidus
, nicknamed "Ardi") rather than include
them with australopithecines.
Based on the time frame, body shape, and dentition similarities, it is reasonable to
conclude that some of the early hominin species were ancestors of our genus Homo.
Most likely, some of the australopithecines (shown as red in the diagram below) were in
our line of evolution, but the later paranthropoids (blue below) were not. The first
humans (Homo habilis
) were contemporaries of the paranthropoids. As a result,
they could not be our ancestors. However, it is likely that Australopithecus
afarensis andAustralopithecus africanus were in our evolutionary
line. Australopithecus garhi and/or Australopitheus sediba may also have been our
ancestors, though more evidence is needed to settle this question.

We have not yet been able to extract DNA from the bones of any
australopithecine for comparison with modern human DNA. When we can do
this, it is almost certain that we will discover many of their genes still in us
today.
Beginning around 2.5 million years ago or a bit earlier, there was a major forking in the
evolutionary path of hominins. The australopithecines diverged into at least two very
different evolutionary directions. One led to the paranthropoids and a genetic dead-end
by about 1.4 million years ago. The other led to the first humans. It is likely that these
diverging evolutionary paths were the result of exploiting different environmental
opportunities. Coinciding with this hominin divergence was a shift in the global climate
to progressively cooler conditions and frequently fluctuating environments. In East and
South Africa, where most of the early hominins apparently lived, dry grasslands
expanded at the expense of woodlands and forests. It has been suggested that the
adaptive radiation that led to humans and paranthropoids is connected with this change
in the environment. The early human line succeeded by learning how to exploit new
kinds of habitats for food. It is likely that climate instability selected for their adaptability.

NEWS: John Novembre et.al. reported in the October 1, 2007 issue of Nature
Genetics that human saliva has significantly more of the enzyme amylase
compared to chimpanzees. Amylase breaks down starches into glucose

which can be readily used by the cells of the body. With more amylase,
humans get more useable calories from starchy vegetable foods such as
tubers, corms, and bulbs. The authors suggest that this would have been a
distinct advantage for early humans because these foods are readily
available. They believe that natural selection favored additional copies of the
gene responsible for amylase production (AMY1) in our early hominin
ancestors but not in apes.
This paper presents the hypothesis that linguistic capacity evolved through the
action of natural selection as an instrument which increased the efficiency of the
cultural transmission system of early hominids. We suggest that during the
early stages of hominization, hominid social learning, based on indirect social
learning mechanisms and true imitation, came to constitute cumulative cultural
transmission based on true imitation and the approval or disapproval of the
learned behaviour of offspring. A key factor for this transformation was the
development of a conceptual capacity for categorizing learned behaviour in
value terms - positive or negative, good or bad. We believe that some hominids
developed this capacity for categorizing behaviour, and such an ability allowed
them to approve or disapprove of their offsprings- learned behaviour. With such
an ability, hominids were favoured, as they could transmit to their offspring all
their behavioural experience about what can and cannot be done. This capacity
triggered a cultural transmission system similar to the human one, though prelinguistic. We suggest that the adaptive advantage provided by this new system
of social learning generated a selection pressure in favour of the development of
a linguistic capacity allowing children to better understand the new kind of
evaluative information received from parents.

human evolution
The Evolution of Culture
Among hominids, a parallel evolutionary process involving increased intelligence and cultural complexity
is apparent in the material record. Evidence of greater behavioral flexibility and adaptability presumably
reflects the decreased influence of genetically encoded behaviors and the increased importance of
learning and social interaction in transmitting and maintaining behavioral adaptations (see culture).
Because the organization of neural circuitry is more significant than overall cranial capacity in establishing
mental capabilities, direct inferences from the fossil record are likely to be misleading. Contemporary
humans, for example, exhibit considerable variability in cranial capacity (1150 cc to 1600 cc), none of
which is related to intelligence.
Tool use was once thought to be the hallmark of members of the genus Homo, beginning with H.
habilis, but is now known to be common among chimpanzees. The earliest stone tools of the lower

Paleolithic, known as Oldowan tools and dating to about 2 to 2.5 million years ago, were once thought to
have been manufactured by H. habilis. Recent finds suggest that Oldowan tools may also have been
made by robust australopithecines. The simultaneous emergence of H. erectus and the more complex
Achuelian tool tradition may indicate shifting adaptations as much as increased intelligence.
While it is clear that H. erectus was much more versatile than any of its predecessors, adapting its
technologies and behaviors to diverse environmental conditions, the extent and limitations of its
intellectual endowment remain a subject of heated debate. This is also the case for both archaic H.
sapiens and Neanderthals, the latter associated with the more sophisticated technologies of the middle
Paleolithic. However impressive the achievements of H. erectus and early H. sapiens, most material
remains predating 40,000 years ago reflect utilitarian concerns. Nonetheless, there is now scattered
African archaeological evidence from before that time (in one case as early as 90,000 years ago) of the
production by H. sapiens of beads and other decorative work, perhaps indicating a gradual development
of the aesthetic concerns and other symbolic thinking characteristic of later human societies. Whether the
emergence of modern H. sapiens corresponds to the explosion of technological innovations and artistic
activities associated with Cro-Magnon culture or was a more prolonged process of development is a
subject of archaeological debate.

The Paleolithic Era

The Paleolithic (or Palolithic) Era, is the name historians give to the time period between 2.6
million years ago, and approximately 12,000 years ago. Historians categorize the Paleolithic Era
as prehistory because there was no written language to record events, names, dates or places.
Everything we know today about prehistory, including the Paleolithic age, is as a result of the
investigations of paleo-anthropologists, archaeologists, physical and cultural anthropologists,
zoologists, chemists, botanists, physicists, historians and dedicated amateurs. It is difficult and
under-appreciated work, but it is necessary if our understanding of the past is to advance.

Hominids

Homo erectus
Four useful developments came about during this time. These developments were very important to
the Homo habilis they helped with everyday doings including hunting and cooking. Tools, the ideas
of tools, fire and shelter are the four developments that were introduced to the Homo habilis. A fifth
development was language, it acted both as a cultural artifact and mental change.

Homo neanderthalensis
Neanderthal humans were a prehistoric, stone-tool using species of human, the last of which are
thought to have lived 28,000 years ago. First published in 1863 from a cave in Germany's Neander
Valley, Neanderthal remains and associated tools have since been found across Eurasia from
Gibraltar to Uzbekistan. The average adult Neanderthal was much more powerfully built than a
modern adult human, with distinct facial features including low, thick brow ridges. Neanderthals

inhabited Europe during Ice Age periods, surviving extremely harsh climatic conditions which may
have prompted the evolution of their stout, muscular frames.
Neanderthals buried their dead, and even included flowers with some burials. When Homo
sapiens arrived in Europe 40,000 - 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals were present. There has been
much speculation about contact and even interbreeding between the two types of human, but
genetic surveys have never found modern humans with DNA that could be matched to DNA
recovered from Neanderthal remains. It is possible that modern humans, using more refined tools
and techniques for hunting, out-competed Neanderthals for food resources and brought about their
extinction.

Homo sapiens
Anthropologists believe that modern man, or Homo sapiens, emerged as a distinct species by about
100,000 years ago. Extensive studies of ancient human remains and shelters seem to show that
groups of Homo sapiens left Africa and entered Asia via the Middle East around 65,000 years ago.
The first modern humans to evolve in Africa lived mainly on meat. By 70,000 years ago, they had
switched to a marine diet consisting largely of shellfish. This new research suggests they moved
along the coasts of the Arabian peninsula into India, Indonesia and Australia about 65,000 years
ago. An offshoot later settled the Middle East and Asia about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. (Ref: BBC
News 13 May 2005 "Early humans followed Coast" )
By 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, modern humans were living across the Old World from Europe to
Australia. About 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, humans crossed into North America from Asia via
Beringia, a now submerged land bridge that existed during the Pleistocene Ice Age when sea levels
were lower. They rapidly spread across North and South America after the climate became warmer
and the ice sheets retreated.
Around 10,000 years ago agriculture began at sites such as Jericho and atalhyk in the Fertile
Crescent, an area in the Middle East between the eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.
These early towns and villages were generally located near sources of water for growing crops. It
was not until a millennia later that humans developed irrigation techniques and could grow crops
using the rising and falling waters of The Fertile Crescent's twin rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates.
This period is generally accepted as the birth of modern civilization and the beginning of the nationstate.

Hominids to Humans

Physical Changes
As hominids developed into humans (Homo sapiens), they underwent various physical changes.
Most obviously, our ancestors learned to walk upright on two legs, rather than alternating between
two legs and four legs. This straightened the spine, and moved the foramen magnum from the back
of the skull to the underside. Hominin faces flattened, and the space between the eyes narrowed, so
that they could look forward and see from side to side.
Our ancestors also developed a taste for a broad variety of foods. Early hominids,
like Australopithicus robustus, were clearly vegetarian plant-eaters, based on their teeth and jaw
structure. But later hominids, including Australopithicus afarensis and Homo erectus, clearly used
their incisors to tear meat and their molars to chew it.

Mental Changes
Mental changes in early hominins were substantial. From Australopithicus afarensis, who had barely
300 cubic centimeters of brain size, hominin heads eventually expanded to Homo neanderthalensis's
impressive 1950 cubic centimeters. At least some of this expanded brain power was shifted from
processing scents to processing sights and sound. Another substantial portion went to controlling the
auditory and language functions. Smell diminished in importance as more brain power was reserved
for looking, listening and talking.
The modern Homo sapiens brain is actually smaller than neandethalensis, but paleoanthropologists
theorize that once the brain reached an optimum size for certain kinds of work, it began specializing,
miniaturizing, and integrating. The result is that the modern human brain may be smaller, but its
critical functions are much more closely packed into a narrower space, for more efficient functioning.
In this way, the process of evolution continued in early humans.

Technological Changes
The Paleolithic Era accounts for millions of years of human experience, a period many times longer
than the mere ten thousand years that something resembling civilization can be said to have existed.
This first primitive era saw few changes in how humans lived. Yet four great developments did occur
which represent some of the most momentous changes in human lifestyles. These four changes
may be summarized: the idea of a tool, a range of tools, fire, and shelter. A fifth "tool", language, acts
as both a cultural artifact and a mental change.

Tools
Tools seem like such a basic part of everyday life that it is hard to imagine a world without them. The
computer you are using to read this book is a tool, though, and so is the desk or table on which the
computer rests. Your chair is a tool, and the electricity which powers your computer is provided by
another tool, a power plant which converts other forms of energy into electrical power. Tools, in a
very real sense, are all artifacts -- objects made by human hands to serve some purpose.
In the early Paleolithic period, from about 3 million years ago until 1 million years ago, the hominids
from which we arose lived much like other animals: they hunted and gathered food from natural
sources, and ate only the food that was immediately edible to a human digestive system. No one
appears to have had any tools at all. Some early hominids were vegetarian; others were meateaters. Yet neither group cooked their food, consuming it raw instead. This placed significant
limitations on their diets a number of plants and animals cannot be consumed and digested raw.
About two million years ago, our predecessor, a hominid known as Homo habilis used his hands with
opposable thumbs to construct a crude tool from stone. This tool, called a hand axe was about the
size of a modern adult male's fist, bi-faced, with a sharp point. The hand axe was used for breaking
open bones to scoop out the rich marrow inside, a popular food item among hominids. No doubt, the
same tool served as a weapon as well.
The hand axe was formed by taking a nodule of flint, and gradually breaking away all the pieces of
flint which did not match the shape of the ideal hand-axe. This process is called core-formed flintknapping, because it takes a lump of flint and gradually disposes of all of the flint which does not
match the desired shape.
Homo habilis and his relatives made core-formed hand axes for a million years before a new group
of hominids, Homo erectus, hit upon a new technology which reverberates to the present day.
Before Homo erectus, there was only one tool in the world, and it was a hand axe. However, Homo
erectus hit upon a new method for producing hand axes. Instead of chopping away at a flint nodule
until it looked like a hand axe, the new tool-makers would knock a piece of flint off a core, and then
shape the splinter, or flake to the desired shape. This process created numerous microliths, or sharp
pieces of flint or chert, which could be used as small knives or as scrapers on hides or bone.
The development of flaking, or using smaller chips from a flint nodule rather than the main core of
the nodule, spread rapidly. Within 100,000 years, nearly all peoples in the world were using the new
technique for making hand axes. Something else interesting happened as well. As the technique of
flaking spread, new forms of flaking appeared as well. No longer were hominids making only hand
axes. They began creating a whole series of new tools out of flint and quartzite and chert and

obsidian: burins, or drills, for putting holes in wood; awls for punching holes in leather; scrapers for
cleaning the meat off of hides and bones; knives for cutting meat or vegetables; points for spears
(and later still, arrows); and chisels for working stone, wood and bone.
Tool Specialization
Archaeologists would say that the denizens of the late Paleolithic had begun to specialize.
Specialization in a historical context means the development of new forms to accommodate new
activities. The hand axe had been a sufficient tool when everyone in the world was interested in
collecting marrow from the insides of bones. However, around one million years ago, there was an
explosion of new tool types, ranging from needles to drills to knives.
The increasing number of tool types suggests to archaeologists that there was also an explosion in
the number and types of human activity. Why make a needle, if there is no thread to use with it?
Why make a needle, if you have no cloth or leather to sew together? The presence of so many tools
shows that hominids were opening oysters with finesse, instead of simply smashing the shells. They
were sewing leather or plant material together, to make baskets and bags and clothing. They were
drilling holes in wood, to make houses or boats. They were scraping hides because they wished to
make leather. They were making knives to use in their kitchen areas because they were making
more complex types of food. They were making spears because they were hunting large animals -and defending themselves against human predators as well.
Perishable Tools
Other types of tools show up in the late Paleolithic age. It is hard to tell what they are, however,
because many of these tools are made of perishable materials such as wood, bone, leather and
cloth. We can guess at their existence today only by hints. If a bone fishing hook appears at an
archaeological site, we can presume they had fishing line, perhaps made out of vegetable fibers. If a
stone with a specific shape and a hole in it is found, scientists can guess at the existence of a
spinning spindle, to make thread. The presence of beads in patterns in a grave suggests thread for
the beads to be strung upon, or even clothing for the beads to be sewn on. It is hard to make
generalizations about the existence of baskets in the Paleolithic period, but people must have made
nets, baskets and bags for carrying food and fruit, and catching fish, at many places around the
world.

Fire
Sometime between 300,000 and 1.5 million years ago, humans also tamed fire. Taming fire may not
be the same as controlling it. Some scientists believe that the hominid Homo erectus stumbled upon

a lightning-struck tree or a forest fire, and captured a few coals in a basket, a bag or an animal horn.
It may not have been able to put out the fire and re-start it, but it at least had some coals from which
it could keep a hearth fire alive.
Homo erectus used fire in a number of interesting ways. First, their overnight stops now included a
warm and welcoming light at the center and a fire that kept animals at bay. Second, that warm and
welcoming light also provided enough heat to cook food. New plants and animal foods became open
to humans for the first time as a result of this tamed fire. Third, the heat and light on a torch could be
used to start large fires, and drive animal prey towards a trap or ambush site. Homo habiliscould
now catch a lot more food on the hoof. Fourth, the same fire could be used to drive away predators.
It made camps safer, and it gave hominids a new tool for defeating rivals who ate the same animals.
Finally, fire probably stimulated the creation of language. As early peoples sat around the fire, they
would have enacted stories from their family history, and discussed new tool types. At first, these
conversations may have been mere gestures accompanied by grunts, perhaps boastful males reenacting their daring deeds of the day. However, over dozens or hundreds of generations, hominids
would have developed strong speech centers in the brain, which would make word banks and
grammars possible. The existence of many language families in the world today is one strong
argument for the independent development of language. Language seems inherently human, a
process linked to thinking and the development of reason.
Yet all of these many benefits of fire would be canceled if the people failed to keep their fire fed. The
coals would go out, and all the benefits of having fire would be lost, for the hominids had no way to
restart the flame once it was extinguished and the coals turned to ash.
Controlling Fire
Sometime between 500,000 and 1 million years ago, one of the hominids (probably Homo erectus)
discovered that some stones gave off sparks when they were struck together. They also discovered
that friction can produce heat, and heat can produce sparks which then generate flame. Four
techniques developed for mastering friction and sparks. The first of these simply involved jamming
one stick into a groove in another stick, and rubbing back and forth until the friction produced a spark
or a flame. The second method, the drill method, involves twirling one stick against another until the
heat produced generates a spark or a flame. Bow-drilling, the third method, involves using a bow
with a cord strung around the vertical stick, to speed the friction and increase the likelihood of flame.
The fourth method requires a naturally occurring ferrous metal and a piece of flint; when the two are
struck together, the resulting sparks can start a fire.
With four methods for generating fire, hominids no longer needed to fear the loss of their coals.
Bowdrilling or stick rubbing were slow and inefficient ways of starting a fire, but they worked reliably

and well. Now hominids really controlled fire, because they could let it go out, and start it again,
whenever they needed and wherever they wanted. It was likely considered an almost magical
process. The Greek myth of Prometheus attributes almost mystical power to the ability to control fire,
and declared that the wrath of the gods must surely fall on one who knew such secrets. More: Karlo
Sostaric, Book Isis and Osiris

Clothing
The third technological shift represents the development of shelter and clothing. Most clothing is
made out of perishable materials like leather and cloth, which readily decay in the ground after only
short periods of time. Modern scientists can only postulate the existence of clothing in the Paleolithic
Age from the existence of needles and other tools for sewing and preparing hides. Archaeologists
find one possible sign of clothing in the Paleolithic era, though: in some very ancient grave sites, a
thin layer or halo of colored earth surrounds the skeleton. Most scholars believe this red ocher
residue to be the remnants of paint smeared on the body. However, some believe this colored earth
to be the remains of clothing at burial.
Certainly, later Neanderthal man (Homo neanderthalensis) started burying their dead. The graves
tend to be very simple. Often the dead person is buried in a fetal position, suggesting the same
shape in death as the infant at birth. Flowers are often scattered in the grave, along with strands of
beads and a few simple tools. The custom of burying someone with grave goods remains a
consistent part of human life in many places even today.

Shelter
Most early hominids probably lived in the open air, near to sources of food and water. They chose
locations that could be defended against predators and rivals and that were shielded from the worst
weather. Many such locations could be found near rivers, lakes and streams, perhaps with low
hilltops nearby that could serve as refuges in troubled times. Since water can erode and change
landscapes quite drastically, both in the course of ordinary motion and catastrophe, many of these
campsites are utterly destroyed, and not even skilled archaeologists can find them, much less
reconstruct them. Our understanding of Paleolithic dwellings is thus necessarily limited.
Even so, a few examples of Paleolithic houses exist, although they only come to light very recently in
the Paleolithic era, no more than 200,000 years ago. These "houses" are more frequently campsites
within caves or in the open air, with little in the way of formal structures for living in. However, as the
Paleolithic era progressed, dwellings became more sophisticated, more elaborate, and more houselike. The oldest examples are shelters within caves, followed by houses of wood, straw and rock; a
few examples exist of houses built out of bones.

Caves
Caves are the most famous example of Paleolithic shelter, though the number of caves used by
Paleolithic peoples is drastically small compared with the number of hominids thought to have lived
on earth 500,000 years ago. Most hominids probably never entered a cave in their lives, much less
lived in one. Nonetheless, the remains of hominid settlement show interesting patterns. In one cave,
a tribe of Homo neanderthalensis kept a hearth fire burning for a thousand years, leaving behind an
accumulation of coals and ash. In another cave, post holes in the dirt floor reveal that the residents
built some sort of shelter or enclosure with a roof to protect themselves from water dripping on them
from the cave ceiling. They often used the rear portions of the cave as middens, depositing their
garbage in the back of the cave.
In the later, more recent Paleolithic period, about 125,000 years ago, caves ceased to act as
houses. Instead, they became religious or magical places for early peoples to gather
for ritual purposes. Caves, such as Lascaux in France and Altamira in Spain, became art galleries
filled with elaborate images of horse, bison, buffalo, mammoths and other animals. Lit by flickering
firelight, these images appeared to move and come alive. Archaeologists do not know whether
ancient peoples worshiped these images or used them for the purpose of working magical spells on
the animals they hunted. Modern visitors to such caves are awed by the beauty of these ancient
artworks, even so.
Some scholars today believe that these caves were the work of Homo sapiens sapiens -- our own
direct ancestor. As of this writing, no artwork has yet been found at any Homo erectus or Homo
neanderthalensis archaeological site, anywhere in the world. The creation of art, and the symbolic
thinking that goes with creating sculptures or paintings, may truly be the mental process that
separates human beings from other types of animals. Other scholars contest this claim.
Tents and Huts
Other than caves, modern archaeologists know few other types of shelter available to ancient
peoples. Some examples exist, but they are quite rare. In Siberia, a group of Russian scientists
uncovered a house or tent with a frame constructed of mammoth bones. The great tusks supported
the roof, while the skulls and thigh bones formed the walls of the tent. Several families could live
inside, where three small hearths, little more than rings of stones, kept people warm during the
winter. Archaeologists presume that the roof was made of mammoth hides in several layers. Similar
houses existed in France and Germany; all date to about 90,000 years ago.
Much more recently than that, around 50,000 years ago, a group of Paleolithic Homo
sapiens camped on a lake shore in southern France. At Terra Amata, these hunter-gatherers built a

long and narrow house. The foundation was a ring of stones, with a flat threshold stone for a door at
either end. Vertical posts down the middle of the house supported roofs and walls of sticks and
twigs, probably covered over with a layer of straw. A hearth outside served as the kitchen, while a
smaller hearth inside kept people warm.
Both dwellings could be easily abandoned by their residents. This is why they are not considered
true houses, which was a development of the Neolithic period rather than the Paleolithic period.
However, they give us brief looks at the lives of our most distant ancestors.

Language and Culture

In modern eyes, perhaps the most significant technology of the Paleolithic Age was the development
of language. Language is not strictly speaking a technologyyou cannot hold it or touch it. Instead,
it relies upon changes in the human brainthe development of speech centers to govern the tongue
and lips to produce precise sounds, the development of memory to hold lists of words, the
development of rules to govern how those words are used in different circumstances, and the
development of hearing centers in the brain to process foreign sounds as words within a set of rules.
These functions did not come overnight. Fire may have stimulated some of them: ancient peoples
sat or danced around fires, and they must have had stories to tell each other of their discoveries.
Hunting stimulated others: needing to catch food that ran away required co-ordination among
different hunters. People also created language while searching for edible plants, and plants with
medical properties to cure or lessen the hurts of themselves and their families.
With the development of language came the development of culture. Having a name for a thing -be it a plant, an animal, a stone, a tool, or an event -- meant that early humans carried ideas about
how the world worked. They taught those ideas to their children, and to their children after them.
Young people not only learned what plants to eat and what not to eat, they learned about the dead
and the living within their family and beyond; they learned how to make tools, and what those tools
were for. By extension, children learned what they should do and what they should not -- a series of
prescriptions and taboos that governed behavior. As different groups of humanity spread across the
globe, some of these prescriptions and taboos were forgotten, and new ones were learned. Different
places, with different animals and plants, and different dangers, developed different lists of forbidden
and acceptable activities. In this way, the many peoples and tribes and cultures of the world
originated.
By 20,000 years before the present, with the exception of some islands off the beaten track of
human exploration, humans had settled in virtually every place in the world. Then came the Ice.

Homo habilis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homo habilis
Temporal range: Early Pleistocene
Pre

O
S
D
C
P
T
J
K
Pg

Scientific classification
Kingdom:

Animalia

Phylum:

Chordata

Clade:

Synapsida

Class:

Mammalia

Order:

Primates

Suborder:

Haplorhini

Family:

Hominidae

Tribe:

Hominini

Genus:

Homo

Species:

H. habilis
Binomial name
Homo habilis
Leakey et al., 1964

Homo habilis is a species of the tribe Hominini, during the Gelasian and earlyCalabrian stages of
the Pleistocene period, which lived between roughly 2.1 and 1.5 million years ago, [1] with a possible
discovery of a fragment of a jawbone intermediate between Australopithecus and H. habilis dated to
2.8 million years ago reported in 2013.[2]
A team led by scientists Louis and Mary Leakey uncovered the fossilized remains during the time
frame of 1960-1963 at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania; these fossils were speculated to be a new
species, and called Homo habilis ("handy man"), because they suspected that it was this slightly
larger-brained early human that made the thousands of stone tools also found at Olduvai Gorge.[3][4][5]
In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis is the least similar to modern humans of all species in
the genus Homo (except the equally controversial H. rudolfensis), and its classification as Homo has
been the subject of controversial debate since its first proposal in the 1960s. [6]

How They Survived:

Early Homo had smaller teeth than Australopithecus, but their tooth enamel was still
thick and their jaws were still strong, indicating their teeth were still adapted chewing
some hard foods (possibly only seasonally when their preferred foods became less
available). Dental microwear studies suggest that the diet of H. habilis was flexible and
versatile and that they were capable of eating a broad range of foods, including some
tougher foods like leaves, woody plants, and some animal tissues, but that they did not

routinely consume or specialize in eating hard foods like brittle nuts or seeds, dried
meat, or very hard tubers.
Another line of evidence for the diet of H. habilis comes from some of the earliest cutand percussion-marked bones, found back to 2.6 million years ago. Scientists usually
associate these traces of butchery of large animals, direct evidence of meat and
marrow eating, with the earliest appearance of the genus Homo, including H. habilis.
Many scientists think early Homo, including H. habilis, made and used the first stone
tools found in the archaeological recordthese also date back to about 2.6 million years
ago; however, this hypothesis is difficult to test because several other species of early
human lived at the same time, and in the same geographic area, as where traces of the
earliest tool use have been found.

Evolutionary Tree Information:

This species, along with H. rudolfensis, is one of the earliest members of the
genus Homo. Many scientists think it is an ancestor of later species of Homo, possibly
on our own branch of the family tree. Naming this species required a redefining of the
genus Homo (e.g., reducing the lower limit of brain size), sparking an enormous debate
about the validity of this species.
While scientists used to think that H. habilis was the ancestor of Homo erectus, recent
discoveries in 2000 of a relatively late 1.44 million-year-old Homo habilis (KNM-ER
42703) and a relatively early 1.55 million-year-old H. erectus (KNM-ER 42700) from the
same area of northern Kenya (Ileret, Lake Turkana) challenged the conventional view
that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, this evidence - along with other
fossils - demonstrate that they co-existed in Eastern Africa for almost half a million
years.
Search
Introduction

is a well-known, but poorly defined species. The specimen that led to the
naming of this species (OH 7) was discovered in 1960, by the Leakey team in Olduvai
Gorge, Tanzania. This specimen and its designation was the subject of much
controversies up through the 1970s. The material was found in the same region
Homo habilis

where A. boisei had previously been found, and many researchers of the time did not
fully accept that the material was sufficiently different from that material (or maybe A.
africanus) to denote a new species. Louis Leakey was convinced that this was the
Olduvai toolmaker he had spent his life looking for, and placed this as a direct human
ancestor, with H. erectus a dead-end side-branch.
The specimen was subjected to intense study by the multidisciplinary team of Louis
Leakey, John Napier, and Phillip Tobias. They placed the material as different from
penecontemporary australopithecines due to the teeth, which fell outside the known
range of A. africanus, with very large incisors. Also, the large brain size and shape of the
hand suggested a closer affinity with Homo. In January 1964, the team announced the
new species Homo habilis. The name was suggested by Raymond Dart, and means
handy man, in reference to this hominids supposed tool making prowess.
Leakey believed that habilis was a direct human ancestor, with erectus out of the picture.
While H. habilis is a generally accepted species, they opinion that it was a direct human
ancestor seems to be in question. There are now at least two species of
early Homo (whether habilis and rudolfensis or an undescribed species) living prior to 2.0
myr. In addition, H. erectus (which is almost universally accepted as a direct human
ancestor) continues to be pushed further back into the paleontological record, making it
possible that it is the first Homo ancestor of modern humans.
Other problems include that some people see KNM-ER 1813 as a near perfect erectus,
except for its small brain and size. It could be an erectus that was at the small scale of a
wide variation of traits, or it may belong to ergaster, which some believe to be the
ancestor of erectus. The questions are far from solved, and new specimens are
needed. Homo habilis may be a direct human ancestor, a dead-end side-branch that leads
nowhere, an invalid species whose designated examples belong in other species, or
Wolpoff may be right, and all these species are basically part of one highly variable
widespread species.
Diagnostic Features

It is particularity hard to list the features of Homo habilis, because the

specimens attributed to habilis (and the reasons the material was placed
there) vary widely. The species is a mishmash of traits and specimens, whose
composition depends upon what researcher one asks. The simplest way to
describe the general features is to describe specimens that are generally
considered habilis by most people, and list their relevant traits.
OH 7 is the type specimen of habilis, and the first material attributed to the species. The
specimen consists of a nearly complete left parietal, a fragmented right parietal, most of
the mandibular body (including thirteen teeth), an upper molar, and twenty-one finger,
hand, and wrist bones. The remains belonged to a 12 or 13 year old male. The brain
size attributed to this specimen varies, ranging from 590710 cc. P. Tobias and G. von
Koenigswald used three traits to set habilis apart, as a transitional species between A.
africanus and H. erectus:

Expanded cranial capacity (relative to africanus).

Reduced postcanine tooth size.

The presence of a precision grip (determined from the hand bones present
in OH 7), which provides the anatomical basis for tool-making.
General features of the specimen seems to support these three traits (whether or not it
is transitional from africanus to erectus):

Larger cranial capacity (though very problematic). Tobias gives an estimate of

647 cc, Holloway gives an estimate of 710 cc, and Wolpoff has estimated it at
590 cc.

Molar megadontia is gone, with molars longer than they are wide.

The P3 is smaller and more asymmetric.

The P4 is much more similar to the P3.

Metacarpal 1 and trapezium is much less interlocked, which allowed more

movement.

The distal phalanges have apical tuffs.

OH 8 a fairly complete foot was found nearby OH 7, and was initially determined to be
from another individual. This was due to the fact that OH 7 was known to be from an
adolescent around age 12, and the foot seemed to be of a more advanced age, due to
the presence of arthritis in the specimen. However, the partially gnawed remains have
arthritis due to a sustained injury, and the actual age runs close to OH 7, making it likely
they are from the same individual (many researchers consider this part of OH 7 now,
rather than OH 8). The remains show clear signs that this was an obligate biped,
including:

Presence of digital shortening.

Enlargement of the hallux, as well as being fully abducted.

Alignment of digits 25.

Thickened metatarsal shaft with a humanlike cross-sectional shape.

A fully developed double arch to the lower surface.

Mechanically set up for efficient weight transmission at the ankle.

While it shows definite obligate bipedalism, the specimen also has a marked tubercule
for the tibialis posterior muscle, an invertor of the foot that could be useful for climbing.
So it is possible that while this individual was an obligate biped, it still spent some time
in the trees (which goes well with paleoecological evidence that suggests that various
hominid species spent most of their time in marginal woodland environments). From the
talus, H. McHenry calculated an estimated weight of 31.7 kg. Using the various
estimated brain size, one gets brain/body weight ratios of:
Wolpoff: 590 cc brain = 1.86%

Tobias: 647 cc brain = 2.04%

Holloway: 710 cc brain = 2.24%

Even using the smaller brain estimate, this is one of the largest relative brain size for
any male hominid up to the time period this individual lived (1.75 myr). When compared
to primate allometry, the OH 7 brain size is at the top of the allometric expectations within
non-human primates. This is a large brained specimen relative to its body size.
Another relatively complete habiline specimen is OH 13 Cinderella. This is a poorly
preserved and fragmentary specimen of a 1516 year old female habilis, dating to a little
younger than 1.66 myr. This makes it one of the most (if not the most) recent habilis
specimens known. The material consists of the mandible and the maxilla, several teeth,
pieces of the cranial vault, and some postcranial elements, including a small piece of
proximal ulna. This specimen (along withOH 16) were the object of much inaccurate
brain size estimations, which originally lead to the two being classified as H. erectus.
More recent estimates put the brain size at around 500 cc, and along with an estimated
body size near that of AL 2881, gives this specimen a relative brain/body weight ratio
similar toOH 7.
The case of OH 16 is a tragic one. The specimen was discovered nearly complete near
the end of a field day, so the position of the find was marked and roped off. The next
morning the researchers were horrified to discover that a herd of cattle had charged
through the area, and completely crushed it. Some of the specimens features include:

Very large teeth (close to australopithecus in size).

An uncertain brain size, but probably larger than OH 7.

The individual was age 1516 when they died.

The individual had very bad caries on one side of its jaws (very unusual in
ancient specimens), which lead to differential chewing on the other side, causing it
to develop a huge temporalis muscle on that side.

Cranial bone markedly thinner that erectus.

Dramatic differences in the supraorbital torus and the nuchal torus that
distinguish it from erectus.
These features (the last two shared with OH 13) seem to indicate that the specimen is a
habiline, and not an erectus specimen, as was attributed by J. Robinson.
OH 24 (Twiggy) is the most australopithecine-like of specimens attributed to H. habilis,
and may be more highly correlated with A. africanus. The specimen was found completely
fractured, and cemented together in a coating of limestone. R. Clarke was the
researcher who went through the long and painful process of reconstruction, but over
100 small fragments could not be placed in the reconstruction. Hence, the specimen is
extremely distorted, making an accurate estimate of its brain size very difficult, though
Holloway has given an estimate of 590 cc (many researchers believe that number is too
high). Several features caused this specimen to be placed in habilis, including:

Increased cranial capacity over australopithecines (though some doubt this

estimate).

Less postorbital constriction.

Elongated molars.

Absence of postcanine megadontia.

Large front teeth relative to the postcanines.
A broad and short cranial base.
Anteriorly positioned foramen magnum.
Less convex and bulging zygomatics, and more vertically oriented.
A distinct maxillary notch.
While these features seem to support the notion that it is not an australopithecine,
several other features do not support the habilis distinction. For example:

Lacks a salient anterior nasal spine.

Lacks broad nasal bones.

Lacks nasal bone peaking caused by the internasal angle.

Lacks the projection of the middle and top of the nose away from the face, shown
by expanded and outward projecting maxillary bones to its side (i.e., maxillary
pillar eversion).
While this specimen does not seem to be an australopithecine, it also does not seem to
fit perfectly into the classic habilis mold. Perhaps it fits more closely with rudolfensis, or an
undefined penecontemporary species. Another option may be that the distorted
reconstruction is blurring a clear species designation. For now, a clear designation is up
in the air.
The last to discuss is OH 62. Publicized widely as Lucys Child by Johanson, it is a very
scrappy collection of 302 bone fragments. Portions of the maxilla (which permitted
identification as habilis), parts of the femur, and upper limb bones. The entire specimen is
problematic, and raises many questions as to sexual variation and behavior. The most
controversial aspect of the specimen was the Johanson et al. calculation of a humerofemoral index of 95%. The material was far too sparse to calculate such an index, but
even using their own estimated range of possible lengths for the incomplete femur, they
should have computed an index quite close to the A.L. 2881 value of 83.8%. It is
unclear why Johanson et al. calculated the index in the manner they did, and it is
generally not accepted in any form at all.
Homo erectus (meaning "upright man", from the Latin rigere, "to put up, set upright") is an
extinct species of hominid that lived throughout most of thePleistocene geological epoch. Its earliest
fossil evidence dates to 1.9 million years ago and the most recent to 70,000 years ago. It is generally
thought that H. erectusoriginated in Africa and spread from there, migrating throughout Eurasia as
far asGeorgia, India, Sri Lanka, China and Indonesia.[1][2]

Use of tools and fire[edit]

An alternate graph-model of the temporal and geographical distribution of severalHomo species, evolving over
the last two million years ; proposed by Reed, et al., redrawn from Stringer.[53] Note the depiction of Homo
ergaster as an ancestor of Homo erectus.

The Paleolithic Age (Old Stone Age) of prehistoric human history and industry is dated from 2.6
million years ago to about 10,000 years ago;[55] thus it closely coincides with the Pleistocene epoch of
geologic time, which is 2.58 million to 11,700 years ago. [56] The beginning of early human evolution
reaches back to the earliest innovations of primitive technology and tool culture. H. erectus were the
first to use fire to cook and made hand axes out of stone.
Homo ergaster used more diverse and sophisticated stone tools than its predecessors, where
early Homo erectus used comparatively primitive tools. This is probably because H.
ergaster inherited, used, and created tools first ofOldowan technology and later advanced the
technology to the Acheulean.[57]Because the use of Acheulean tools began ca. 1.8 million years ago,
[58]

and the line of H. erectus diverged some 200,000 years before the general innovation of

Acheulean industry in Africa, then it is plausible that the Asian migratory descendants of H.
erectus made no use of Acheulean technology. It has been suggested that the Asian H. erectus may
have been the first humans to use rafts to travel over bodies of water, including oceans. [59] And the
oldest stone tool found in Turkey reveals that hominins passed through the Anatoliangateway from
western Asia to Europe approximately 1.2 million years agomuch earlier than previously thought. [60]

Use of fire[edit]
East African sites, such as Chesowanja near Lake Baringo, Koobi Fora, and Olorgesailie in Kenya,
show potential evidence that fire was utilized by early humans. At Chesowanja, archaeologists found
fire-hardened clay fragments, dated to 1.42 mya. [61] Analysis showed that, in order to harden it, the

clay must have been heated to about 400 C (752 F). At Koobi Fora, two sites show evidence of
control of fire by Homo erectus at about 1.5 mya, with reddening of sediment associated with heating
the material to 200400 C (392752 F).[61] At a "hearth-like depression" at a site in Olorgesailie,
Kenya, some microscopic charcoal was foundbut that could have resulted from natural brush fires.
[61]

In Gadeb, Ethiopia, fragments of welded tuff that appeared to have been burned, or scorched, were
found alongside H. erectuscreated Acheulean artifacts; but such re-firing of the rocks may have
been caused by local volcanic activity.[61] In the Middle Awash River Valley, cone-shaped depressions
of reddish clay were found that could have been created only by temperatures of 200 C (392 F) or
greater. These features are thought to be burnt tree stumps such that the fire was likely away from a
habitation site.[61] Burnt stones are found in the Awash Valley, but naturally burnt (volcanic) welded
tuff is also found in the area.
A site at Bnot Ya'akov Bridge, Israel is reported to evidence that H. erectus or H. ergaster controlled
fire there between 790,000 and 690,000 BP;[62] to date this claim has been widely accepted. Some
evidence is found that H. erectus was controlling fire less than 250,000 years ago. Evidence also
exists that H. erectus were cooking their food as early as 500,000 years ago. [63] Re-analysis of burnt
bone fragments and plant ashes from the Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa, has been dubbed
evidence supporting human control of fire there by 1 mya.[64]

Cooking[edit]
Main article: Cooking History
There is archaeological evidence that Homo erectus cooked their food.[63]

Sociality[edit]
Homo erectus was probably the first hominin to live in a hunter-gatherer society, and anthropologists
such as Richard Leakey believe that erectus was socially more like modern humans than the
more Australopithecus-like species before it. Likewise, increased cranial capacity generally
coincides with the more sophisticated tools occasionally found with fossils.
The discovery of Turkana boy (H. ergaster) in 1984 evidenced that, despite its Homo sapiens-like
anatomy, ergaster may not have been capable of producing sounds comparable to modern
human speech. It likely communicated in a proto-language lacking the fully developed structure of
modern human language but more developed than the non-verbal communication used
by chimpanzees.[65] This inference is challenged by the find in Dmanisi, Georgia, of an H.
ergaster /erectus vertebrae (at least 150,000 years earlier than the Turkana Boy) that reflects vocal

capabilities within the range of H. sapiens.[39] Both brain size and the presence of the Broca's
area also support the use of articulate language.[66]
H. erectus was probably the first hominin to live in small, familiar band-societies similar to modern
hunter-gatherer band-societies;[67] and is thought to be the first hominin species to hunt in
coordinated groups, to use complex tools, and to care for infirm or weak companions.
There has been debate as to whether H. erectus,[54] and possibly the later Neanderthals,[68] may have
interbred withanatomically modern humans in Europe and Asia. See Neanderthal admixture theory.

Descendants and subspecies[edit]

Homo erectus is the most, or one of the most, long-lived species of Homo, having existed well over
one million years and perhaps over two million years; Homo sapiens has existed for about 200,000
years. If considering Homo erectus in its strict sense (that is, as referring to only the Asian variety)
no consensus has been reached as to whether it is ancestral to H. sapiens or any later hominins
(see above, "Interpreting evolution: ...").

Cro-Magnon ( /kromnjn/ or US pronunciation: /kromnn/;French: [koma]) is a common

i

name that has been used to describe the first early modern humans (early Homo sapiens sapiens)
that lived in the European Upper Paleolithic.[1] Current scientific literature prefers the term European
early modern humans (EEMH), to the term Cro-Magnon, which has no formal taxonomic status, as it
refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. [2] The earliest
known remains of Cro-Magnon-like humans are radiocarbon dated to 43-45,000 years before
present that have been discovered in Italy[3] and Britain,[4] with the remains found of those that
reached the European Russian Arctic 40,000 years ago.[5][6]
Cro-Magnons were robustly built and powerful. The body was generally heavy and solid with a
strong musculature. The forehead was fairly straight rather than sloping like in Neanderthals, and
with only slight browridges. The face was short and wide. The chin was prominent. The brain
capacity was about 1,600 cc (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern humans.[7]

Physical attributes[edit]
19th century impression of life in the upper Paleolithic. Artist: Viktor Vasnetsov, 1883.

Cave painting from Lascaux,France dated to approximately 16,000 years ago (Upper Paleolithic).

Cro-Magnons were anatomically modern, straight limbed and tall compared to the
contemporaneous Neanderthals. They are thought to have stood on average
176.2 cm(5 feet 9 13 inches) tall. They differ from modern-day humans in having a more robust
physique and a slightly larger cranial capacity.[34] The Cro-Magnons had long, fairly low skulls, with
wide faces, narrow aquiline noses,[35] and moderate to no prognathism.[26] A distinctive trait was the
rectangular eye orbits.[36] Their vocal apparatus was like that of present-day humans and they could
speak.[37]
Mitochondrial DNA analysis places the early European population as sister group to the Asian
groups, dating the divergence to some 50,000 years ago.[38] The very light skin tone found in modern
Northern Europeans is a relatively recent phenomenon,[39] and may have appeared in the European
line as recently as 6 to 12 thousand years ago, indicating Cro-Magnons had dark skin. [40] Sequencing
of finds of the late post-ice-age hunter-gatherer populations in Europe indicate that some CroMagnons likely had blue eyes and dark hair, and an "olive" complexion.[41][42] A small ivory bust of a
man found at Doln Vstonice and dated to 26,000 years indicates the Cro-Magnons had straight
hair, though the somewhat later Venus of Brassempouy may show wavy or curly hair, possibly
braided.

Cro-Magnon culture[edit]
Main article: Aurignacian
The flint tools found in association with the remains at Cro-Magnon have associations with
the Aurignacian culture that Lartet had identified a few years before he found the first skeletons. The
Aurignacian differ from the earlier cultures by their finely worked bone or antler points and flint points
made for hafting, the production of Venus figurines and cave painting.[43] They pierced bones, shells
and teeth to make body ornaments. The figurines, cave-paintings, ornaments and the mysterious
Venus figurines are a hallmark of Cro-Magnon culture, contrasting with the utilitarian culture of the
Neanderthals.[44] Unlike earlier cultures, the Aurignacian appear to have been developed in Europe,
and to have spread in the wake of the Phlegraean eruption 37 000 years ago.[45]

Like most early humans, the Cro-Magnons were primarily big-game hunters, killing mammoth, cave
bears, horses, andreindeer.[46] They hunted with spears, javelins, and spear-throwers. Archery had
not yet been invented. They would have been nomadic or semi-nomadic, following the annual
migration of their prey, and also have eaten plant materials. InMezhirich village in Ukraine, several
huts built from mammoth bones possibly representing semi-permanent hunting camps have been
unearthed.[37][47]
Finds of spun, dyed, and knotted flax fibers among Cro-Magnon artifacts in Dzudzuana shows they
made cords for haftingstone tools, weaving baskets, or sewing garments.[48] Apart from the mammoth
bone huts mentioned, they constructed shelter of rocks, clay, branches, and animal hide/fur. These
early humans used manganese and iron oxides to paint pictures and may have created one early
lunar calendar around 15,000 years ago.[49]
The Cro-Magnons lived in Europe between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago. They are virtually identical to
modern man, being tall and muscular and slightly more robust than most modern humans.
Notice how they slip in that slightly more robust bit.

The fact is, the Cro-Magnon man was, compared to the other anatomically modern humans around
him, practically a superman. They were skilled hunters, toolmakers and artists famous for the cave art at
places such as Lascaux, Chauvet, and Altamira. They had a high cranium, a broad and upright face, and
cranial capacity about the same as modern humans (can we say larger?), but less than that of
Neanderthals. The males were as tall as 6 feet.

They appeared in Europe in the upper Pleistocene, about 40,000 years ago and their geographic origin
is still unknown.

Their skeletal remains show a few small differences from modern humans. Of course, the out of
Africa theory advocates suggest that Cro-Magnon came from Sub Saharan Africa and a temperate
climate and that, they would eventually adapt to all extremes of heat and cold. In this way, the slight
differences between Cro-Magnon and other forms of anatomically modern humans can be explained
away as an adaptation to cold.

But, as we will see, this idea doesnt hold water.

Cro-Magnons tools are described as the Aurignacian technology, characterized by bone and antler
tools, such as spear tips (the first) and harpoons. They also used animal traps, and bow and arrow. They
invented shafts and handles for their knives, securing their blades with bitumen, a kind of tar, as long as
40 thousand years ago. Other improvements included the invention of the atlatl, a large bone or piece of
wood with a hooked groove used for adding distance and speed to spears.

They also invented more sophisticated spear points, such as those that detach after striking and cause
greater damage to prey.144 The Cro-Magnon type man was also the originator of such abstract
concepts as time. They marked time by lunar phases, recording them with marks on a piece of bone,
antler or stone. Some of these calendars contained a record of as many as 24 lunations. 145

In the relatively recent past, tool industries diversified.

The Gravettian industry (25 to 15 thousand years ago), characterized by ivory tools such as backed
blades, is associated with mammoth hunters. One type of brief industry was Solutrean, occurring from
18 to 15 thousand years ago and limited to Southwest France and Spain. It is characterized by unique
and finely crafted laurel leaf blades, made with a pressure technique requiring a great skill.

The industry is associated with horse hunters. The tool industry of the Clovis Culture in North America
(11 to 8 thousand years ago) is notable for its remarkable similarity to Solutrean. Some suggest that the
Solutrean culture migrated to North America around 12,000 thousand years ago. 146

Cro-Magnon people lived in tents and other man-made shelters in groups of several families. They were
nomadic hunter-gatherers and had elaborate rituals for hunting, birth and death. Multiple burials are
common in the areas where they were found. What is most interesting is that from 35 to 10 thousand
years ago, there was no differentiation by sex or age in burials.

They included special grave goods, as opposed to everyday, utilitarian objects, suggesting a very
increased ritualization of death and burial..147

144 Eric Whitaker, Steve Stewart; Article Reviews; Late Ice Age Hunting Technology (Heidi Knecht) Scientific American, July
1994.
145 Marshack, Alexander, The Roots Of Civilization - Moyer (Mt. Kisco, New York: Bell Limited 1991).
146 Preston, Douglas, The Lost Man, New Yorker Magazine, June 16, 1997.
147 Schirtzinger, Erin, The Evidence for Pleistocene Burials, Neanderthals versus Modern Humans, December 6, 1994.

They were the first confirmed to have domesticated animals, starting by about 15 thousand years ago
(though ancient sapiens may have domesticated the dog as much as 200 thousand years ago).

They were the first to leave extensive works of art, such as cave paintings and carved figures of animals
and pregnant women. Huge caves lavishly decorated with murals depicting animals of the time were at
first rejected as fake for being too sophisticated. Then they were dismissed as being primitive,
categorized as hunting, fertility or other types of sympathetic magic.

Re-evaluations have put these great works of art in a more prominent place in art history.

They show evidence of motifs, of following their own stylistic tradition, of impressionist like style,
perspective, and innovative use of the natural relief in the caves. Also possible, considering the new
concepts of time reckoning practiced by Cro-Magnon, are abstract representations of the passage of
time, such as spring plants in bloom, or pregnant bison that might represent summer.148

Aside from pregnant women and other Goddess worship iconography,149 representations of people,
anthropomorphs, are very few, and never show the accuracy or detail of the other animals. Humans
are represented in simple outlines without features, sometimes with masks, often without regard to
proportion, being distorted and isolated. At the Grottes des Enfants in France are found four burials with
red ocher, and associated with Aurignacian tools.

At Lascaux, France, are the famous caves of upper Paleolithic cave art, dated to 17 thousand years
ago, and even older, in some cases, by many thousands of years!

148 Reeser, Ken, Earliest Art: Representative Art In The Upper Paleolithic Era, 1994 (after: Marshack, 1991; Grand, 1967; Ucko,
Peter J., and Rosenfeld, Andre, 1967; Brown, G. Baldwin, 1932; Breuil, Abbe H., date unknown) (unpublished).
149 Stone, Merlin, When God Was A Woman (San Diego, New York, London: Harvest/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1976).

The modern human types that appeared in the Levant were, however, somewhat different from CroMagnon. They were the sub-Saharan type, less robust individuals than the Cro-Magnon superman of
Europe.

What seems to be the truth of the matter is simply that the modern humans of the Levant were
different from the Cro-Magnon types that appeared in Europe. Try as they would, there is simply was
no way to prove that Cro-Magnon evolved in Africa or the Levant and then moved to Europe.