Chapter 11 The Origin & Dispersal of Modern Humans

Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens (AMH) Earliest evidence of AMH are the remains of the Omo I skull from Omo, Ethiopia. Date to 195 kya.

Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens (AMH) Distribution in Time and Space: Africa: kya (thousand years ago) Near East: 92 kya Australia (by boat): kya Europe: kya N. and S. America (via the Bering Land Bridge and/or boat): kya

Migrations of AMH

Early AMH Sites (Fig. 13.1)

AMH Skull Characteristics High, well-rounded skull Rounded back, no occipital bun Small brow ridges Face protrudes little Chin Vertical forehead Border Cave, South Africa, at least 100 kya

Homo sapiens All contemporary populations are placed within H. sapiens.

Why did AMHs Evolve? Language Some argue a recent and sudden evolution of language ability (although Neanderthals may also have had language). Others suggest there was little difference in linguistic ability between archaics and moderns. We are not sure then if language abilities were the reason for why AMH evolved.

Why did AMHs Evolve? Biological Change Why the change from large teeth, faces, and bones? Structural characteristics of archaics may have been the result of stresses generated by the use of front teeth as tools.

Why did AMHs Evolve? Biological Change As cultural behaviors were relied upon, these larger features were no longer adaptive. Evidence indicates that large teeth would have been maladaptive once technology advanced, and so they were selected against

Why did AMHs Evolve? Biological Change Evolution is about costs and benefits. Behavioral and cultural changes change the balance. As biology changes, behavior changes, which then leads to other biological changes.

Why did AMHs Evolve? Biological Change Biological changes take time after cultural changes, so we still are ‘biologically’ hunter-gatherers! Our hunter-gatherer ancestors evolved to crave fats, salt, and sugars, which are relatively hard to come by in the wild. We still crave those things, but our culture has made it incredibly easy for many to obtain them, causing health problems.

Models of AMH Origins What was the nature of the transition from archaic to modern humans? Cladogenesis (branching speciation) Anagenesis (change within a species) If AMH arose through cladogenesis, in what part of the world did modern humans arise as a new species?

African Replacement Model (ARM) Proposes that modern humans emerged as a new species (cladogenesis) in Africa between 200 and 150 kya. Some populations left Africa around 100 kya and spread throughout the Old World. Neanderthals and all other archaic populations outside of Africa became extinct and are not part of our ancestry.

African Replacement Model (ARM) (Fig )

African Replacement Model

Multiregional Model (MRM) Proposes that human evolution over the past two million years occurred within a single evolving lineage (anagenesis), from Homo erectus to archaic humans to modern humans. AMH started in Africa as H. erectus, later spread into Asia and Europe, continuing to evolve over time and kept coherent by GF among the groups.

Assimilation Model (AM) (“Partial Replacement Model” in Jurmain et al.) Proposes that the initial change from archaic to modern anatomy took place in Africa (like ARM); these changes then spread to other populations outside of Africa through GF (anagenesis, like MRM). This model claims that interbreeding occurred between emigrating Africans and resident premodern populations.

Comparison of the 3 Models

Class Activity: Evaluating the Models Discuss three types of evidence Morphology in time and space Genetics Archaeological What patterns do you think would support each of the three models just profiled?

ARM vs MRM vs AM: Expectations ARM: expect modern humans to appear in Africa first and then replace the archaics (no evidence of GF or regional continuity) MRM: expect AMH to appear around the same time around the Old World. AM: expect the earliest evidence of AMH in Africa, but also evidence of GF (including regional continuity) with archaics in Africa, Asia, and Europe

Time Line of Modern Homo Sapiens Discoveries: What do the Data Say?

Herto Cranium From Ethiopia, dated 160,000–154,000 ya. Adult Mosaic of modern and premodern traits Very large, and extremely long cranial vault Large, arching browridge and projecting occipital bun

Specimens From Israel Skhül 5. (Earliest evidence of AMH outside of Africa) 130, ,000 ya Qafzeh 6 (b) 120,000-92,000 ya The vault height, forehead, and lack of prognathism are modern traits. Contemporary with Neandertals in Region

Geography of Modern Humans in East Asia and Australia

Australia 50,000 ya modern humans inhabited Sahul, area including New Guinea and Australia Lake Mungo, SE Australia (60,000?) 30, ,000 ya Kow Swamp 14,000-9,000 ya fossils with archaic features, including receding foreheads, heavy supraorbital tori, and thick bones

Geography of Modern Humans in Europe

Mladec and Dolní Crania The Mladec (a) and Dolní Věstonice (b) crania from the Czech Republic, is a good example of early modern Homo sapiens in central Europe. Along with Oase in Romania, the evidence for early modern H. sapiens appears first in central Europe, then later in western Europe.

Cro-Magnon I Cro-Magnon I (France). In this specimen, modern traits are quite clear. (a) Lateral view, (b) Frontal view

Abrigo do Lagar Velho Child Possible AMH-Neanderthal “hybrid”

Compar the Skulls Homo Sapiens Neandertals

Evaluation of 3 models Discuss whether you believe these fossil data support one or more of the models. Which model is best supported?

Origins: Fossil Evidence Fossil evidence is compatible with the ARM and the AM. It shows modern humans first appeared in Africa then later outside of Africa. The data so far show that AMH first appeared in Africa, then in the Middle East, then in Europe.

Origins: Fossil Evidence This is contrary to the prediction of the MRM that the boundary between archaic and modern humans will be less clear with no single point of origin.

Origins: Regional Continuity Regional continuity of many traits within regions is predicted by the AM. If AMHs spread and mixed with different archaic populations that had evolved variations (NS and GD)… the resulting mixed populations would retain some of the variations inherited from their archaic ancestors.

Origins: Genetic Evidence Gene trees are used to compare DNA sequences from pairs of living people and use them to build a “tree” showing the evolutionary history of a gene. They can allow us to reconstruct the past by estimating when the most recent common ancestor likely lived and on which continent.

Origins: Genetic Evidence Mitochondrial DNA studies show 2 clusters: one African, the other African mixed with non-African, indicating that the most recent common female ancestor of all living humans came from Africa ~200 kya. This is evidence for the ARM (African Eve Hypothesis).

Origins: Genetic Evidence Other DNA studies show a similar pattern, but some show older ‘roots’ and non- African ancestry, which may support the AM.

Origins: Genetic Evidence Another method is to compare patterns of genetic diversity in living humans. Studies show that populations in Africa have more diversity than other regions. These results are often seen as evidence of ARM, assuming that the older population would have more genetic variation.

Origins: Genetic Evidence But age is not the only thing that can account for this. GD makes small populations lose alleles (less diversity). More diversity in Africa could have been because Africa had a larger population in the past than other regions. This means these studies cannot tell us if it was caused by anagenesis or cladogenesis.

Origins: Consensus? The ARM and the AM have some support from fossil and genetic evidence. Fossil evidence for regional continuity outside of Africa points to the AM. Our recent origins can be considered mostly, but not exclusively, out of Africa.

Real Hobbits?

Location of the Flores Site, Indonesia

Homo floresiensis Discovered in nearly complete skeletons (but only one skull) dated between 94 and 12 kya. Adults were only ~3.5 ft tall AND had cranial capacity of ~417 cc (smaller than H. habilis!). Associated tools were found suggesting intelligence and culture.

Homo floresiensis Either a new species evolved from H. erectus through founder effect and island dwarfism …OR AMHs with a pathological disease. Fossils of other species, including a miniature elephant, were found on Flores. It is also unlikely that this was caused by disease because all of the fossils are the same general size.

Homo floresiensis There is still much debate and more research to carry out. If these fossils represent a separate species, it means that another hominid co-existed alongside AMH more recently than 20 kya. H. floresiensis and H. sapiens sapiens

Homo Tools: Time Frame General terms for stone tool technologies: Lower Palaeolithic: H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, and erectus. Middle Palaeolithic ( ≅ Middle Pleistocene): H. heidelbergensis and neanderthalensis Upper Palaeolithic: AMH. This lasted until the Mesolithic in Europe (c. 12 kya).

Upper Palaeolithic Tools More precisely made, more diverse functions and styles. Blades (2x as long as wide). Burins- special tools to make other bone tools (needles, awls, points, knives, harpoons) and art or decorative objects.

Upper Palaeolithic Tools A burin (a) and a blade (b)

Technological Innovations

Upper Palaeolithic Tools: Blades

Upper Palaeolithic Tools: Blades and Other Tools

Upper Palaeolithic Tools Bone, ivory and antler become more widely used raw materials Bone Awl

Upper Palaeolithic Shelter Caves and rock shelters like archaic hominids. First evidence of constructed shelters: huts of wood and bones of large mammals, such as mammoth, and animal hides. What would be the great advantage of having the technology to construct shelters?

Upper Palaeolithic Shelter Mal’ta, Russia shelter: 18 kya (Fig ); made of mammoth bone, other animal bones and hides, antler, wood, and boulders. Mezhirich, Ukraine shelters: 15 kya; 4 shelters made almost entirely of mammoth bones.

Reconstructed Shelter, Mezhirich, Ukraine

Innovations in Symbols More investment in grave offerings Variable social status reflected in grave offerings

Upper Palaeolithic Symbolism Symbolic expression emerged in Africa ~77 kya, then increased in frequency in across the Old World. Engravings and drilled shells are first documented at Blombos Cave, South Africa dated to kya.

Earliest Symbolism: Blombos Cave, South Africa

Shell beads (above), engraved ochre (below)

2 nd Earliest Symbolism: Katanda, Republic of Congo Decorated bone harpoon point (88-78 kya)

Upper Palaeolithic Symbolism Cave paintings: Lascaux Cave, France (~17 kya), Altamira, Spain (~ kya), and the Trois Frères, France (~13 kya). It began c. 30 kya in Europe, Africa, and Australia. Most are scenes of hunting and animals that would have been central to UP life.

Earliest Symbolism: Lascaux Cave, France The site is a long, complex system of chambers that has no natural light.

Lascaux Cave, France

Altamira Cave, Spain

The Trois Frères Cave, France The “Sorcerer”

Upper Palaeolithic Symbolism Several interpretations for this ‘non- functional’ activity: Sympathetic magic. Cultural expression. Transmission of cultural ideas (i.e., teaching). All of these may have been functions served by this early art.

Upper Palaeolithic Symbolism There also were engravings, beads, pendants, and sculptures. “Venuses” are engraved statuettes found from east-central Russia to northern Spain. They were made of soft stone, bone, ivory, or fired clay. They ranged from 4-25 cm in height.

Venus Figurines

Upper Palaeolithic Symbolism The Venus figurines often show large- breasted and large-hipped females, possibly representing goddesses, abstract fertility, and/or actual women.

Upper Palaeolithic Symbolism It is unlikely that they represent women because cultural anthropological data suggest women would rarely be so large, whereas later fertility goddess statues often highlight large breasts and hips.

Venus Figurines

Upper Palaeolithic Symbolism There have only been a few UP phalli found. The oldest is from Hohle Fels Cave, Germany and is dated to 28 kya. It is 20x3 cm.

Recent Biological and Cultural Evolution in Homo sapiens Human evolution continues! Most of the major changes in the recent past (~10-15 kya) have been cultural. Agriculture and other manipulations of environment have led to many changes. Industrialization and recent technological changes have led to an incredibly rapid rate of cultural change.

Recent Biological and Cultural Evolution in Homo sapiens These changes can be viewed as a continuation of the basic adaptations of culture and learning that have been apparent for at least the past 2.5 million years of human evolution.