Lecture 8 Flashcards
Homo habilis age
~2.4-1.4mya (most ~1.8mya)
Homo habilis location
East Africa:
* Tanzania: Olduvai Gorge
* Ethiopia: Shungura Formation, Omo region; Hadar Formation
* Kenya: Koobi Fora/Lake Turkana
Homo habilis specimens
- Jaw fragments, skull parts, hand, foot and leg bones
Homo habilis body size
- Male ~37kg, 1.31m tall
- Female ~32kg, 1m tall
Homo habilis brain size
~500-650cm3 (slight enlargement?)
Homo habilis teeth
- Smaller teeth and jaw than afarensis but similar diet?
Homo habilis bipedal
- But still has relatively long arms compared to legs
Homo habilis tool maker
- Relatively secure associations of fossil remains with Oldowan tools
Homo habilis paleoenvironment
- Lived in both open and wooded environments at different sites
Homo habilis controversy
- Ancestral to H. ergaster?
- Is it a valid taxon or a collection of derived bits of Australopithecines and
primitive bits of other Homo species? - If valid, is does it really belong in Homo or in Australopithecus?
Homo rudolfensis age
- ~1.9mya
Homo rudolfensis location
- East Africa: Kenya, Lake Turkana
Homo rudolfensis specimens
- Skull, face, jawbones
Homo rudolfensis body size
Unknown
Homo rudolfensis brain size
~700-850cm3
Homo rudolfensis face
- Less prognathism than habilis
- Rounder cranium than habilis
- (though at least one reconstruction
found it to look a bit more primitive
than this!)
Homo rudolfensis teeth
- Extremely large teeth compared to
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis controversy
- Too large a difference from Homo
habilis to be sexual dimorphism? - Should we consider it an
australopithecine?
Tool use: who made tools?
- Once thought to have been Homo
habilis: ‘handy man’ - But date to 2.4-2.3mya i.e. after the now
earliest tools! - Now many australopithecines and
even paranthropines are in the frame
Problems with identifying which species used tools
Associations between fossils and
tools/cutmarked bones
* At many sites more than one fossil species
is attested to!
Hand bone evidence
* The vast majority of hand bones (some
could be foot bones) from this time period
are not securely linked to species!
Problems with archaeologically identify tools
- Are they actually stone tools, i.e. produced anthropogenically, rather than by natural processes?
- How good is the association? I.e. how close together are the fossils and tools found?
- What produced the association? Actual behaviour, or taphonomic effects? Does an association genuinely
demonstrate that the hominin represented used the stone tools found? - Are marks found on fossil bones genuinely anthropogenic?
- When evidence of stone tool use is not associated with a fossil hominin, is there any way of telling which species was
involved?
Problems with palaeoanthropologically identifying tools
- Hand bones are small and fragile and aren’t always preserved recovered
- Not particularly ‘diagnostic’, i.e. can be difficult to assign to individual species with certainty
- Shows potential for stone tool use: but assumes that precision grip and stone tool use are always associated, i.e. that
precision grip is an adaptation for/selected by stone tool use and not for something else, later exapted by stone tool
use!
Precision grip in humans
Human hand:
* Short, straight fingers
* Long, stout thumb
* Broad fingertips
Precision grip in chimps
Chimpanzee hand:
* Short, curved fingers
* Short thumb
* Weakly developed palm and
forearm muscles
* Narrow fingertips
* Wrist locks for stable knuckle-walking
Australopithecus afarensis use of tools?
- Dikika, Ethiopia, c. 3.3mya
- No actual stone tools found
- Bones with cutmarks
- Microscopic analysis shows the marks are
‘v-shaped’ so likely to come from stone
tools but controversial! - Some cutmarks suggested accessing
marrow - If true, does confirm access to meat and
protein - Predated expectations (i.e Homo!) by
800,000yrs
Kenyanthropus platyops use of tool?
- Artefacts from Lomekwe 3, Kenya but
not directly associated with any fossil
hominins - Securely dated to 3.3mya: Homo
habilis not around till 2.34mya - Only species in region at the time
(that we know of!) is Kenyanthropus - Basalt and quartz raw material, found
near sites: well suited to knapping but
don’t naturally flake
Core and flake technology
* Single striking platform
* Mixture of hammer-and-anvil technique (cf Kanzi) and
freehand percussion
* Lots of errors and failed strikes apparent i.e. not very skilled?
Australopithecus garhi use of tools?
- No tools found but evidence for bone
processing at Herto Bouri, Ethiopia,
2.5mya - Bovids, hippo, ancient cattle bones all
cracked for access to marrow - A handful of simple stone tools have
been recovered from the vicinity but
association with fossils uncertain
Australopithecus sediba use of tools?
- Malapa, South Africa, 1.97mya
- No stone tools, but they are found at other nearby sites
- Almost complete right hand and wrist of adult female allows detailed study
- Long thumbs, short fingers: adaptation to precision gripping?
- but thumb length falls outside modern human range
- Morphology suggests thumb muscles adapted to forceful flexion: morphological features associated with stone tool production?
- Fossils suggest this is a primitive trait, i.e. tool use goes back quite far
- Arguably more ‘modern’ than those of Homo habilis?!
- Did precision grip/human-like hand evolve more than once? Convergent evolution?
Paranthropus robustus/Paranthropines
use of tools?
Modified bones known from many South African sites (e. g. Swartkrans; Sterkfontein)
* ‘Osteodontokeratic’ industry!
* Then dismissed as taphonomic effects
* Then re-accepted as ‘digging tools’ for digging underground storage
organs and other vegetation
* NOW thought to relate to termite fishing?
- Swartkrans, South Africa: 22 hand fossils, c1.8mya
- Hand morphology suggests precision grip (derived feature more
like Homo than other primates)
Associated tools (stone and bone) probably used for foraging insects/vegetation rather than obtaining animal protein
* Small brain, large (molar) teeth and reduced arboreality supports this?
* Swartkrans: 23,000 animal bones found, 85 showed evidence of
anthropogenic damage
Paranthropus boisei use of tools?
- Remains of this species (OH 5) found on same
level as stone tools at FLK I in Olduvai Gorge - In fact, the original interpretation was that the tools
were made by OH 5
Later discovery of Homo habilis, also associated
with Oldowan stone tools, at three other localities
in Olduvai
* H. habilis ‘looked’ more plausible as a toolmaker due
to bigger brain and ‘more modern’ hand bones
* P. boisei still posited as possible tool-maker but
considered more likely an ‘intruder’ or even ‘a victim’
on a H. habilis ‘living site’
Evidence?
Hand bones definitively belonging to P. boisei are
lacking:
* Swartkrans member 1 bones probably P. robustus (about
95% of other remains from this site are!) and these suggest
a modern human-like precision gri
Tool summary- Homo habilis
- Securely identified fossil hominin remains closely associated with clearly anthropogenic stone tools
- Still clearly a tool maker but probably not the only one!
- Earliest known tools now pre-date Homo habilis (~2.4mya)
Tool summary- Kenyanthropus platyops
- Lomekwe 3, Kenya, 3.3mya.
- Securely dated stone tools but not actually associated with K. platyops: in the frame because this species was the only one around in the region at the
time!
Tool summary- Australopithecus afarensis
- Dikika, Ethiopia, >3.3mya
- Animal bones with probable cutmarks associated with remains of A.afarensis but no actual stone tools
Tool summary- Australopithecus garhi
- Herto Bouri, Ethiopia, 2.5mya
- Evidence for animal bone processing but no stone tools
- A. garhi present at this time nearby
Tool summary- Paranthropus robustus
- Microwear evidence from probable tools found associated with fossil hominin remains
- Analysis of hand bones suggests tool use possible
Tool summary- Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus sediba
- Analysis of hand bones suggests tools use possible
- But no actual finds either of tools or damaged fossil animal bones associated with remains of these hominins
Tool summary-
