These were my review notes from the class The Archaeology of Human History, Spring 2016 at CU Boulder.
1. Archaeologists are very interested in how the human mind developed. We look back in time at our hominid ancestors and try to figure out how smart they were. What lines of evidence do archaeologists have to determine the intelligence of our ancestors? Pick one of our ancestors (Homo habilis, Homo erectus, or Neanderthals) and describe what archaeologists have learned about their intelligence.
Lines of evidence regarding intelligence include the following:
1. Cranial Size
2. Tool Sophistication
3. Imprints on the inside of the skull
Homo Habilis: Oldowan and Levallois techniques
Homo Neanderthalensis: Mousterian technique (primarily flint)
Homo Erectus: Acheulean method (handaxes)
Archaeologists have learned at the Dmansi site that H. erectus practiced elder care. As well H. Neanderthalensis appears to have practiced some sort of ritualistic burial at the Shanidar site with the "flower burial".
2. In class, we discussed a new theory, proposed by Dr. Curtis Marean for the development of the modern human mind. He argues that modern humans not only had evolved increased cognitive ability and a lengthy period of social learning, but also pro-social behavior. What is pro-social behavior and how did it give modern humans the competitive advantage that allowed them to dominate the world? What technological advantages also gave modern humans a competitive edge?
Prosocial behavior is any action intended to help others outside of one's kin group; i.e. teaching non-related group members skills, sharing food and other resources, and protecting those resources. Through the sharing of ideas and technology, modern humans were able to cooperate when hunting and gathering, allowing larger groups to form and be maintained. The most significant technological advantages arose from the development of blades and composite tools. With these implements, moderns began to develop weapons, such as poisoned darts, making hunting and the protection of resources much more practical in terms of growing groups.
3. Neanderthals and fully modern humans had significantly different lifestyles and material culture. Describe and compare archaeological evidence found at Neanderthal and anatomically modern human sites from the Upper Paleolithic. Use real sites (from reading or lecture) or describe a "typical" site.
Bone needles are found in abundance at sites with AMH yet are absent at Neanderthal sites. With the bone needles, AMH were also able to make nets for trapping and woven clothing from furs, allowing survival in the tundra that was the Upper Paleolithic at the time. Art is found at AMH sites such as Lasceaux Cave in France but is absent at Neanderthal sites. According to John Hoffecker, developments in and the evolution of language allowed the "storage of symbolic information outside of the human brain." Evidence includes: 1. Classification of plants and animals; 2. Structured use of space; 3. Symbolic Representation (lion-headed human in Stadel Cave, Germany, 32,000 years old); 4. Sound is structured (music); 5. Burial rituals = attempts to manipulate life.
4. What is the earliest archaeological evidence for family structure or care for others among our hominid ancestors? How did this behavior change through time? Use specific archaeological examples and species in your answer.
The earliest archaeological evidence for family structure or care for each ancestral hominid:
H. erectus: An elder was discovered at the Dmansi site in Georgia with no teeth implying someone likely assisted with food preparation and other day to day tasks.
H. neanderthalensis: A skeleton missing part of an arm was found in Shanidar Cave, Iraq. It is likely that there was a hunting disadvantage and family care was required.
H. sapiens: Moderns practice/d after death care and maintain much larger social groups than previous hominids.
5. Why is the past important? How do people in the present use the past? After discussing these two questions select an example from our class lecture or other source and use it to explain how people use the past to create a social or national identity or as propaganda.
The past is important because it is where we come from. Not only does examining the past highlight both positive and negative events, utilizing the past in the present is important for the creation of identity. For exampe, architecture in many American cities directly reflects ancient Greek and Roman cultures; e.g. Washington, D.C. Other examples include the Mexican flag, incorporating ancient Aztec symbols; the Macedonian flag, which caused controversy with Greece in the 90s when the country was accused by Macedonia of essentially stealing cultural heritage; the country of Zimbabwe, being named after an excavation site; and the Navajo and Hopi tribes in North America, both of which lay claim to certain burial sites.
6. Technology changed enormously from 2.6 mya to 50,000 B.P (the Upper Paleolithic). Discuss the major changes you have read and discussed in class and explain what these changes suggest about cognitive development in the human lineage.
Beginning 2.6 mya with the Oldowan technique, practiced by H. habilis, the technological advancements of early hominids went through what is known as a "reduction sequence"; i.e. as intelligence increased, tool size decreased leading to refinement and composite tools. The sequence can be summed up in these steps: 1. Flint-knapping; 2. Handaxes; 3. Weapons; 4. Fire; 5. Better clothing. In other words, from Oldowan and Levallois (H. erectus) to Mousterian (H. neanderthalensis) to Aurignacion (fully modern humans; microliths).
What role does Archaeology play in the broader field of anthropology? How does archaeology use the scientific method to study the past?
Anthropology: The study of humans.
1. Cultural: Ethnologists: Ethnology; Participant Observation; Small scale; short term
Examples: Paul Shankman, Samoa; Terry McCabe, E. Africa; Margaret Mead;
2. Biological: Primatology; Modern Human Biology; paleoanthropology/osteology
Examples: Demmi Van Gerven: Health & Disease in Sudanese mummies;
Michelle Santher (?): Lemur ecology and paleoecology;
Matt Sponheimer: Early hominims in Africa;
Robin Bernstein: Growth & Development in Gambia;
3. Linguistic: Language preservation; How language shapes social identity, cultural beliefs, etc.
Examples: Andrew Cowell: Arapaho Language
Preserving Languages in the Solomon Islands
4. Archaeology: The study or interpretation of past cultures through their material remains (Large Scale).
Material Culture/Artifacts
Anything made and used by humans.
-Tools, houses, clothing, furniture, etc.
Archaeological Site
Any site where material remains and other artifiacts can be found indicating former hominid presence.
-Stonehenge, Maya Temple, etc.
Archaeological Research Program
1. Define research problem. (What do you want to know?)
2. Define relevant evidence and how to get it.
3. Design fieldwork or collection's work.
4. Conduct fieldwork.
5. Organize and analyze artifacts, ecofacts, features, etc.
6. Interpret results and publish them.
7. Curate (store) collection and documents.
Why is the past important?
The past is where we come from; it is not the "truth". Rather, it is a reconstruction in which positive events are generally highlighted. Because it is a reconstruction, it is contested. In terms of national or cultural identity, there are several examples: The Hopi of the American Southwest--origins in the Grand Canyon, emerged into the present world and are now in Arizona; Chaco Canyon in New Mexico (900-1150 AD) boasts great homes--multi-storied structures with big walls--and even prehistoric roads connecting other Chaco sites; Modern Zimbabwe is named after the Great Zimbabwe archaeological site; Strangely, instead of Native American culture, Americans look to Western cultures such as classical Greece and Rome; An ancient Aztec symbol is on the Mexican flag which has an eagle with a snake on a cactus on a rock in a lake where a great city would be built. In terms of propaganda, the Nazis elevated themselves with the idea of an ancient German superiority which claimed that since there were German artifacts in other countries, that was sufficient to annex those countries. They even went so far as to create a fake ancient site called Externstein which was actually a monastery.
Archaeological Methods, site formation processes, and dating techniques.
An artifact is anything that is made and used by humans. An ecofact is any organic material found at an site that carries archaeological significance. An excavation site is typically chosen once a survey is conducted to determine the relevant features of the land that could indicate former human presence. Using Relative Dating Techniques, such as Stratigraphy, Seriation, and Cross-Dating, a range of possible dates can be determined. Stratigraphy is the process of looking at the layers of an excavation site and dating it according to the convention that the oldest layers are on the bottom and the youngest are at the top. Artifacts in the layers are used to date the layers. Therefore, the dates are "relative". Seriation simply means arranging things in a series and in the context of archaeology, seriation implies that artifacts have life cycles: They appear, increase in popularity, then disappear. (Stratigraphy and Seriation were both used by Nels Nelson at San Cristobal to date the artifacts there.) Cross-dating refers to the process of examining, say, pottery techniques from around the world and using the patterns developed over time to date those techniques; i.e. everywhere we look, black-on-white appears earlier than glaze and 2-color glaze appears earlier than 3-color glaze.
Pottery is usually associated with absolute dating techniques. Absolute Dating gives us a sense of the calendar year with a range of time that the events took place. In other words, this method must be interpreted as it doesn't always give an exact date. Dendrochronology gives an exact calendar year by examining the number of rings in a cross-section of a tree (wet years give fat rings; dry years give thin rings). Carbon-14 Dating use the natural decay process of carbon isotopes to determine site dates and is usually only valid form up to around 40,000 years ago. (The first example of this is in the 1940s with Herb Dick at Bat Cave. This was later refined by Chip Willis in 1981 from 5500 to 3000 BP.) Other techniques include Potassium/Argon dating, where the radioactive isotope of potassium decays into argon at a known rate--its half-life, Luminescence Dating, which measures the amount of energy that is trapped in material recovered at sites as a result of natural radioactive decay in the surrounding soil, and Paleomagnetic Dating, which is based on the fact that the position of magnetic north is not fixed and continuously moves.
A final note should be made regarding the Bluff Great House. There are two main questions regarding this site: 1. Is the Bluff Great House a Chacoan great house site? 2. How closely was Bluff connected with Chaco Canyon? The evidence indicates that the Bluff dates to the correct time period. The fieldwork includes gathering ceramics to get the dates. In terms of connection, the Bluff architecture is similar to Chaco. The fieldwork here includes exposing architecture for comparison as well as collecting artifacts and determining where they were made.
What makes us human?
When examining the progression of hominid skulls, one of the most prominent features that indicates an increase in intelligence over time is the increase of cranial capacity in the genus Homo. Australopithicenes capacity was around 400-500 cc while Homo Habilis and Modern Humans had capacities of ~700 cc and ~1200 cc, respectively. As well, bipedalism is indicated by the connection of the spine to the base of the skull (foramem magnum), wider hips, longer femur, and the arching of the feet with an alignment of all of the toes. Homo Habilis (2.4-1.4 mya) appears in the archaeological record the same time as the first stone tools are found. The earliest stone tools date to around 2.6 mya in Gona, Ethiopia.
In terms of technology, there are a few key differences that have been noted between chimps and hominids. First, chimps used stone hammers to crack nuts (similar to early hominids) but there was little transport of those tools to other areas. Second, the tools were mostly organic materials; i.e. there were no tools to make tools. Lastly, there was no repair or maintenance on the tools so we find no concetrations of them.
Early hominid stone technology is called Oldowan and dates to ~2.5-1.5 mya. Oldowan tools (H. Habilis) were made using a technique called flint-knapping which depends upon conchoidal fracturing. Conchoidal fracturing occurs in minerals such as Obsidian or other volcanic rock and provides flakes that can be further refined for multiple tools. Two kinds of knowledge are necessary: That of angles and that of making particular tools. Through use-wear analysis (sometimes using scanning electron microscopes), it has been determined that Oldowan tools were used for cutting meat and plants as well as working with wood. Oldowan tools are typically found in concentrations with animal bone indicating this was NOT chimp technology.
At a site in Koobi Fora in Kenya, which dates to around 1.5-1.6 mya, flakes, cores, and broken animal bones were found together on the edge of a stream. At least two interpretations have been offered. First, this could have been a sort of "home base" where males would go out to hunt and would bring back food to females and children. Second, bone and stone washed in from other places and they have no relation to each other. In any case, the evidence suggests that stone and bone were used at the same time; i.e. there were cut marks on bone, cut marks near joints (indicating processing techniques), and blow marks to get to the bone marrow.
What is the significance of Homo Erectus in human evolution and early hominid development?
Homo erectus is dated ~1.8 mya to around 400,000 years ago. Although the field is constantly changing as new evidence emerges, it was believed that H. erectus descended from H. Habilis (there are some questions about this). One of the most prominent examples is the Nariokotome Boy whose post cranial skeleton is like us with a smaller capacity (~900 cc) and a low braincase. A characteristic tool technology associated with H. erectus is called Acheulean--the most prominent being the handaxe.
Although there are no dates associated with the site yet, a discovery published in the Fall of 2015 adds a new branch to our "family tree": Homo Naledi. H. Naledi was discovered in Rising Star Cave, South Africa and has a mix of both homo and australo traits (thumb and wrist are modern). The fossils were found deep in a cave with a 12 meter vertical shaft, suggesting the possibility of intentional disposal of the dead.
Greater intelligence and the use of fire are the main culprits in the journey Out of Africa (the first one). This migration was rapid and happened after the evolution of H. erectus. Evidence in Dmansi, Georgia dating to around 1.8-1.6 mya suggests the migration was north and took homonids through the Middle East. The Dmansi hominids were likely young individuals, one or two were possibly female, and highly resemble African H. erectus. Teeth missing from a Dmansi skull indicate the liklihood of elder care. Mostly complete skulls suggest that H. erectus was variable even in the same population.
In Gran Dolina, Spain, around 80 fossils and 200 stone tools were found dating to around 780,000 years ago. Although no handaxes were found, 25% of the bones show cut marks like those on animal bones demonstrating the possibility of cannabilsm. Several thousand miles away on the island of Flores (above Australia), a species called Homo Florensiesis was discovered (although it is argued that it is possibly a small H. erectus with a small brain) that lasted until around 18,000 years ago. LB-1 was an adult female around 30 years old, 3.5 feet tall, and had a cranial capacity of around 400 cc.
By examining the relative abundance of the oxygen isotopes O-16 and O-18 in ogranic material, a temperature profile has been created for the past 780,000 years by Shackleton and Opdyke. (From the book, p 111) "Simply, the colder the world gets and the more ice builds up on land, the lower the proportion of [O-16] in water and, concomitantly, in the shells of marine micro-organisms. The shells of those organisms can be collected, dated, and measured for their isotope concentrations. Those concentrations can, in turn, be interpreted as a record of fluctuations in worldwide temperature."
One of the key indicators of H. erectus' intelligence is the possibility of the projection of a mental template onto a stone in order to produce a tool. Whereas dogs can recognize a food bowl, we (modern humans) can imagine something that isn't there. So, the question is this: Is imagining a handaxe in a rock evidence of complex problem solving or is it just "hard-wired skill"? The evidence suggests that H. erectus was very similar to us in the use of sophisticated tools and the taming of fire.
(Other key terms: human babies are said to be secondarily altrical, meaning that they are physically but not completely mentally dependent upon their parents as newborns. Pleistocene refers to the geological epoch dating from around 2.5 mya to around 11,500 years ago. Reduction sequence is the relationship of increasing cranial capacity to thinness and refinement of tools.)
The Middle Paleolithic Period, Archaic Homo sapiens and Neanderthals
Archaic Homo Sapiens lived from around 400,000 years ago until around 40,000 years ago in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The best known example is Neanderthal. Classic Neanderthals date from 130,000 to 40,000 years ago. Oxygen isotopes tell us that this period was very cold.
Evidence indicates that the typical Neanderthal group size was around 10 people (in contrast to 30-50 for modern hunter-gatherers) with no larger groups (100-150 for modern hunter-gatherers). Neanderthals were big game hunters and scavengers that used tool techniques called Mousterian and Levallois (shaping a core; one big flake is removed from the top exactly the shape desired). Using edge-analysis, it has been determined that composite tools (multiple components) and spears were dveloped by Neanderthals. Bone chemistry indicates a diet consisting of mostly meat with some plants. According to John P. Speth of the University of Michigan, along the Lower Volga River, no evidence of organization of space or structures are found.
Several distinctions can be made between us and Neanderthals. First, Neanderthals had small home territories mostly in Eastern Europe. Second, there were no bone needles and, thus, no tailored clothing. In fact, there were no bone objects at all. Finally, there is no Neanderthal art. As well, the possibility of language has been debated and in 2013, a hyoid study, which reconstructed the muscles and performed a biochemical analysis, was conducted on a Neanderthal hyoid bone found in Kabara Cave in Israel and found that it functioned like human and chimp hyoids. The FoxP2 gene in modern humans, which is linked to speech, was also in Neanderthals so it was at the very least possible.
At the Shanidar Cave site in Iraq, a flower burial was discovered that contained pollen from medicinal plants dating to 60,000-80,000 years ago. The question: Is this a coincidence or did Neanderthals have medicinal knowledge? Speth says that if human cognitive hardwire was in place 2.5 mya then all change since that time has simply been the accumulation of human "know-how" and worldwide population growth. In terms of DNA, modern humans and Neanderthals split between 400,000 and 600,000 years ago.
What differentiates modern Homo sapiens from other hominids and what do we know about when and where they developed--both anatomically and in terms of human mental abilities?
The Replacement Model of the evolution of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) is currently the most accepted "Out of Africa II" model. Fossil evidence shows that the oldest AMH are in Africa and that there is continuity between premodern and modern types. Outside of Africa, modern humans are very different from premoderns. In Europe and SW Asia, premodern and modern humans were contemporary. Therefore, one could not have evolved from the other. At Lagar Velho in Portugal, the child in a child burial (~25,000 years ago) has a combination of Neanderthal and human charachteristics. And, according to DNA evidence, 1-4% of DNA in European, Asian, and North American people comes from Neanderthals but is absent in Africans.
Modern humans produced blades: a standardized stone form that could be used for many different kinds of tools. The earliest blade tools were found in Africa at Lake Baringo in Kenya and date to around 240,000 years ago. Blades and Levallois flakes were also found at the Klasies River Mouth in South Africa, dating between 115,000 and 90,000 years ago. Microliths date to between 70,000 and 80,000 in Africa. Dietary evidence was found in Blombos Cave in South Africa dating to 100,000-70,000 years ago. Eland, tortoise, fish, shellfish, birds, and ostrich eggs were all found along with ochre processing tools (100,000 years ago) and even crayons (80,000 years ago). So, fossil evidence, DNA, and artifacts all support the Replacement Model; i.e. modern humans evolved in Africa and migrated to the rest of the world.
Regarding newly discovered species, DNA from a finger bone found that Denisovians are as different from Neanderthals as they are from us. Today, Pacific and SE Asians have 5% Denisovian DNA; but not East Asians. DNA from the hair of an Australian Aboriginal was analyzed and it was discovered that Aboriginal and Europeans split 75,000 years ago, suggesting multiple migrations out of Africa. A new theory from Curtis Marean of Arizona State University, examining excavations in South Africa, explains that the reason humans were so successful at dominating the planet is because we are the most invasive species of all. Our defining characteristics are: 1. Great Intelligence; 2. Long childhood; 3. Highly developed social learning; and 4. Pro-social behavior (willingness to cooperate with non-kin). Marean suggests that these are genetically encoded. As well, there is a natural selection for pro-social behavior. The coasts represent dense, predictable natural resources where people could cooperate to defend food (Pinnacle Point, South Africa; projectile reconstruction; possibility of new weapons, poison tips, etcetera).
What significant changes characterize the Upper Paleolithic Period and how do they relate to Intellectual development?
The extinction of Neanderthals occurred between 45,000 and 10,000 years ago. The newest data suggest that around 45,000 years ago, this was a Neanderthal world with small pockets of moderns in the South. Over the next 5,000 years, moderns and Neanderthals were contemporary (the greatest gene flow was 77,000-114,000 years ago) and at some point between 40,000 and 39,000 years ago, Neanderthals were extinct. We know most about early modern human behavior during this time, though. The earliest European technology associated with fully modern humans around 45,000 years ago is called Aurignacion. Aurignacion technology is characterized by blade tools and microblades.
Composite tools, such as the Atlatl and rotary drill, were common. Blades were typically twice as long as they were wide and can be described as similar to a Swiss Army Knife in terms of versatility. Bone needles were used to fashion tailored clothing out of animal furs, such as rabbit, and proved to be excellent for insulation. Woven nets allowed the capture of smaller mammals for food and furs with much less energy expenditure. Combined with the use of structures, tailored clothing allowed the proliferation of modern humans in much colder climates. As well, the earliest evidence for domestication of dogs comes from around 33,000 years ago in Siberia.
Settlement patterns indicate organization of fairly large groups of people trading with distant groups and sharing seasonal gatherings to maintain relations. Burial sites reveal ceremonies and rituals such as at the Surgir site in Russia. It was here where the first evidence of art was found. On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, there is rock art dating to around 40,000 years ago; i.e. hand prints and animals. However, most cave art (80%) is from the end of the Upper Paleolithic, known as the Magdelienian Period, from around 16,000-10,000 years ago. While animals are carefully drawn, humans are rarely depicted as stick figures. (Many hand prints appear smaller and less robust leading to the idea that they were painted by women or were perhaps of adolescents. The ring fingers in men are generally longer than the index while the reverse is true in women--showing a strong possibility that these were painted by women.)
The purpose of this "art" is a hotly debated topic. According to some, these were possibly-psychadelically-induced "trances" that resulted in an almost otherworldy experience that was documented by the cave paintings. Others suggest that these were used to document important hunts. Still others believe that these might have been used to actually teach how to hunt. Chauvet Cave in France, discovered in 1994, dates from around 32,000 years ago and boasts powerfully realistic images. Sixty-three percent of the images are of lions, rhinos, and other animals not typically hunted. There are also horses, bison, reindeer, red deer, aurochs, and even panthers and an owl (the only one ever found).
