Paranthropus Aethiopicus

- Bigger teeth, big flaring cheek bones, sagittal crest, strong bones in mouth leading to
development of robust chewing apparatus, hence evolving to have a big bite. Nothing to
do with front teeth.
- Gorillas have powerful jaws since they eat hard fibrous plants with their back teeth, but
also Aethiopicus and Africanus evolve to have strong back teeth since similar diet.
Paranthropus Boisei (approx. 2.3 to 1.2 mya)
- East African species
- Older than P. Robustus
- Females = 120 cm, males = 140 cm
- Obligate Bipeds; body proportions also relatively the same.
- Sagittal crest, bug flaring cheek bones, canine pillars for strong bite force (same as
Aethiopicus), but molars are larger
- Massive mandible bigger then other species (expect robostus, smaller front teeth that are
the size as our ours or small, but cheek teeth are huge. This trend follows from africanus
- Brain size: 525 cc (+100 increase, but small body size)
Paranthropus Robustus (approx. 2 to 1 mya)
- South African species; very similar to boisei
- Females = 110 cm, males = 130 cm
- Brain size: 530 cc
- Prominent canine pillars, sagittal crest, big flaring cheek bones, can fit hand under
zygomatic arch
- Both have huge cheek teeth ‘Megadontia’ – means giant teeth *five species*
- Big teeth are used to grind things up so there must be a certain diet perhaps for grinding
up plant food so similar diet to gorilla, is causing them to develop smaller front teeth, but
larger molars

CONCLUSION:
Make up bulk of early hominin tree
Australopithecines: wider distributed, little more variety, more species that paranthropus.
Paranthropines: less variety, but more specialized
Animals tend to be grouped two general categories the generalist and specialist
Most are generalist – able to adapt to wide range of circumstances
Specialist – evolved to be really well adapted to very specific environments and diets and
are better than generalists when they’re in that environment, but the problem is that
things will eventually change. Evolutionary trend of specialists living in an eco system
where that ecosystem has stayed stable through time. Strong selection for species for it to
survive in that ecosystem.
and specialists inevitably run into for example, climate change, then that eco system will
change that will either drive them out and may be able to suttvive long enough to readapt
 to new environment or go extinct, hence don’t have the variability to survive in new
circumstances.
The Paranthropines are a specialist lineage and we know that is the case 2 mya, but
glacial ages become longer and making Africa drier. So, lost a lot of plants and go extinct

UNIT 7: Emergence of the Genus Homo

Homo Habilis (approx. 2.8 to 1.5 mya)
- Mainly East Africa and maybe South too. Overlap with Paranthropines.
- Some people argue that
- First discovered in 1960s by the Leakey’s in Gorge; some people argue that its not that
different from small arth
- If you are going to argue this is a new species, then that fossil becomes the ‘type fossil’
or ‘Holotype’ so if other fossils are found you can compare them to the type fossil to
determine if it is the same species or different
- Average height 130cm, but less sexual dimorphism
New trend is occurring where body proportions of these species are becoming more like us
modern humans. More specifically, the ratios between arm and leg length.
Intermembral Index: (arm length/leg length) x 100
If (a) arm length = leg length, then 100, (b) 2(arm length)/leg length = 200, (c) 1/2(arm
length)/leg length = 50.
- Chimps 100-115
- Australopithecus/Paranthropus = 85-95
- H. habilis 80-90 (< reflection of trends away from quadrupedalism, post cranial
characteristics for walking on fours, but now bipedal)
- Homo sapiens = approx. 70
Fossils
Koobi Fora (1.9 mya)
- 510cc
- H. habilis
Olduvai Gorge “Twiggy” (1.8 mya)
- 590cc (bigger)
Koobi Fora 1470 (1.8mya)
- 775cc (significantly bigger than the paranthepines, considered big in animal kingdom)
LD 350-1 mandible (2.8 mya)
- Afar Depression, 2015
- very small cheek teeth
- Much more ‘modern’ looking
3 traits that distinguish Homo habilis from the Australopithecines:
1. Increased Cranial capacity
H. Habilis: range is about 500-775cc (mean=650) and increase in encephalization. Body size
stays around the same size, but brain size increase. The H. habilis fills in the gap and would have
been smarter than paranthepines and …
2. Smaller Teeth Overall
Molars are much smaller than the paranthepines. The front teeth as well are small and share
similar parabolic dental arcade as us. This trend continues again
A. Ardipithecus ramidus – smaller molars (like chimps)
B. A. afarensis – big jaw & big molars
C. A. africanus – big jaw & huge molars (good candidate for Paranthropus)
D. P. aethiopicus – huge jaw & megadontia (giant molars)
E. P. robustus – massive jaw & megadontia
F. P. boisei – “ “
G. Homo habilis – smaller jaw & molar than afarensis (different lineage than africanus and
aethiopicus despite existing at the same time of one another)

3. More Advanced Precision Grip

Power/precision grip – power for holding a hammer or tool, and precision for small stone tool or
something small.
Chimps did not have a precision grip like ours, but the H. habilis is more like our expanded
Apical Tufts (finger tip bones). Hence, chimps have pointy apical tufts whereas modern humans
have wide and flat ones and the H. habilis is exhibiting that transformation. For example, the
way you hold a pencil.
Very Modern-looking Feet: H. habilis slightly more feet that resemble modern human ones, but
that is not a big deal since the australopithecines and paranthepines also had feet resembling ours
too.
Habilis feet are not prehensile. A chimp’s big toe is bigger and slender like its other toes, but our
big toe and the ball of our foot take a lot of the pressure when we walk, hence why our big toe is
larger than the other toes and closer together.
-abducted big toes; If your feet are prehensile then your big toe is abducted (taken away) from
your other toes
- adducted big toe: If you bring the big toe close to your other toes (added back), then your feet
are adducted toe.
Looking at the ankle: Have a double arch developed. That is, there is a longitudinal arch going
from the ball of your foot to the heel and the transverse arch that goes across left to right of the
foot. If you are born with a lesser double arch, then you are prone to developing pain in your
hips, knees, and lower back faster than someone who has a normal double arch by walking, etc.
since you do not have a proper cushion.
The name Homo habilis means ‘handy man’, and that stems from the fact the that they were
the first hominin species to make new stone tools because the oldest stone tools found
corresponded with the time the H. habilis were alive.
Appearance of Stone Tool Technology
- Simple stone tools at 3.3 mya (Turkana)?
- Cutmarks on 3.4 mya animal bone (Hadar) – groves that are produced by a stone, caused
by cutting animal meat off bone, but normal to hit hard enough to reach bone and leave
mark. Possible australopithecines could have used stone tools and chimps use simple
small stone tools.
Lithic Technology (stones tools)
To flake stones, you need it to be suitable:
- Very hard – sounds intuitive, but some stones are not hard like chalk
- Very fine grained – can not use stones that are composed large grains/crystals like
granite. You can flake large crystals off, but the edge will not be sharp, so you need a
rock to composed of a very fine grain/ fine crystals.
- Homogenous – stone must be the same (uniform) throughout its volume. Rock that is
composed of different characteristics in different parts of the rock. That’s a problem
because when you try to flake it you have no control of what breaks off.
Lots of flint throughout in Europe, but in Africa it is mostly volcanic rock which works, but not
the best.
PROCESS: Throw big rock at boulder and shatter it into many pieces and pick out which pieces
you like but gives you no control on what the flakes will be like.
We can control the flakes though, need raw material and hammer stone. You use the hammer
stone and strike the raw material to knock flakes off. If you want to knock flakes off one side,
you need to strike opposite side and vice versa. Which practice you can predict how the flakes
will fall off with each strike, so you can make them precise.
The Oldowan Industry (3.4 to 1.5 mya) earliest stone tool technology
- Need cobble and hammering tool to create tool with sharper edges
- Useful for butchering animals, skinning, and cutting hides.
- There are still a few cultures around the world that still creates tool
 - Chopping tool: pieces of which flakes are removed from. A very crude hammering tool
for digging, breaking bones, etc.
- When you use a flake to cut stuff overtime it loses flakes and becomes dull overtime, like
your knife at home. You would go along the dull edge knocking the dull flakes off thus
making it sharp again. This is called ‘Edge retouching’.

Biocultural Evolution – The combination and interaction of human biological evolution and the
evolution of our technology.
- If you are using technology to help you to adapt, then you also evolving culturally. For
example, instead of just using our teeth to eat an animal, but now we use stone tools. So
now its not just our biology that matters, but also our technology. Once you start doing
this strongly this effect our biology.
- For example, Chimps use some stones, but heavily rely on their big molars to cut down
food whereas hominins started using tools to cut the meat up into small pieces and then
eat it which explains why our teeth became smaller overtime because we rely on
technology.
- Became effective hunters which lead us to more access to meat which helped us develop
a bigger brain, hence becoming smarter.
Dual Inheritance Theory – Most organisms inherit genetically determined characteristics.
Humans inherit important adaptive traits through their genes AND though social learning.
- If you wanted to see why a certain species has evolved the way it has today, you look at
its ancestors as a ‘blueprint’
- We humans inherit hard wired traits, but we also have inherited traits from social learning
which shapes our behaviour.
- Genetically determined traits and socially learned traits makes us a effective organism.
these things together through dual inheritance – biological and technological – that has
made us success species.
UNIT 8: Major Developments in Hominin Evolution
QUESTION: Why did we develop such large brains?
EVIDENCE
This distinguishes the hominin lineage from other animal lineages.
- Data (Average brain volume): We look at chimps because it was believed we shared a
common ancestor and we get around 400cc. For afarensis there is a bit of an increase
415cc. A. Africanus and A. sediba both have 440cc which is the upper range for chimps.
P. aethiopicus is only 410cc, but we only have one fossil in the record. However, the P.
robustus 530cc and boisei 525cc increase by a 100.
o In the homo lineage we get that the H. habilis is 650cc. the next species, H.
ergaster increase by 200 giving us 850cc.Erectus, another 150 increase, hence
1000cc. The H. heidelbergensis increase again by 250 to 1250cc and finally the
H. sapiens which increases by another 100 – 200 giving us 1350cc - 1450cc.
Incredible rapid rate of brain size happening short period of time. Strange, because the brain is an
expensive organ.
There mammals with bigger brains than ours like whales and elephants, BUT it’s not just larger
brains – it’s an increase in ratio of brain size to body mass that is important. Most large animals
have large brain because they have large body and the brain simply operates the mechanics of
that body.
In general, what we think is going on in some species - like hominins - the brain is increasing
beyond what is needed for body size, so we have extra brain volume which can be used to higher
cognitive thinking, abstract thinking, etc. So, the more extra brain you have the smarter you are.
- Encephalization Quotient (EQ): A formula allowing comparison of brain sizes of
different species while holding body size constant, but that’s still not the whole
story…there’s brain structure too.
We can see what extinct species brains would have looked like by there endocranial casts (e.g.
Taung child). We used to use plaster to figure out how the exterior of the brain looked like, but
now we can make 3D version using software. The image below shows that there was a strong
selection for a bigger brain.
QUESTION: Why this Encephalization trend in hominins and not other organism?
EVIDENCE
Brains are Expensive!! – there are costs when it comes to having big brains the are
metabolically expensive organ more than any other. For example, a gram of brain takes 22x
more energy than a gram of muscle, so you need to eat more or more energy rich diet, but then
you can eat all your resources and then die. Organisms are adapted in very complex ways and if
you change any one part of there environment, behaviour, or physiology than the system can fall
apart.
e.g. Wolves – a wolf that is smarter than others will have to eat more and will be in direct
competition with its own group members which leads to a selection for a bigger brain, but this
change could make the whole system fall apart.
-> need natural selection theories, not simply inferring that bigger brain means smaller
- (1) Socialization Theories: We hominins interact with one another at a complex level
and group social interaction is more cognitively complex than most other types of behaviour.
Complex socialization must provide an adaptive advantage that is worth it for strong selection
that allows hominins to interact more effectively at a complex level, then those people will be the
most reproductively fit. What is it about interacting at a complex level that is so advantageous?
What is about interacting with others at a complex level in groups or between groups that made
us so successful so that there would be strong selection for that trait?
To be effective in interacting in groups you need to be aware of and monitor your
relationship with everyone in your group. For example, who has groomed you, who you have
groomed, you shared food with you, who has a positive attitude toward you, etc.
1. Say 100 people in group. You must know your relation ship to is to every person in
the group. So, 4950 individual relationships.
2. Must know everybody relationship is to everybody else. So, keep track of 4950.
3. These relationships are always changing through time.
A major part of our social behaviour involves trying to learn as much as we can about everyone
else that we may interact at a level, hence gossip. So, the natural selection underlying all of this
is that something about living in these large social groups led us to developed super computers
(big brains) to interact at a complex level. What is about these groups that are providing the
adaptive advantage?
(1a) Hyper-Cooperation!!: e.g. Wolves cooperate to takedown large prey, so they get
more meat per person. We humans can succeed in tasks that would be difficult or impossible if
we had to do it alone. That is, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (e.g. pyramids). Root
of the hominin evolution.
 - (2) The Development of Complex Language: The natural selection argument here is
that to be able to carry out spoken language you need a big brain. Using a complex
language played a role outside of complex group interaction.
o Cooperative Hunting: For a group of hunters to carry out a successful hunt they
need to be able to communicate effectively. That is, you need a complex
language. However, the hunters usually remain quiet and rely on hand signals and
only talk when they are back at the group’s home location. Thus, making it
difficult to explain complex language in cooperative hunting since they do not
talk.
o Teaching/Learning: Passage of knowledge from one individual to another. Thus,
complex language is a necessary to the creation of technology, how to use it,
behave a certain way, etc. Do you need complex language for teaching?
Language allows individuals to more accurately and directly express their desires and intentions.
However, it has been suggested that language could have developed as a method of dissembling.
Where dissembling is like lying, it is giving people a false idea of what your feeling, thinking, or
what your motives are.
- The Problem with the Language Hypothesis: If your argument is that complex
language is the reason for the large development of brain size, but you get a big jump up
in brain size 2 mya. So, then you have to say it started 2 mya or earlier, but we don’t
whether they had complex language then, it is difficult to logically place where they
would have had the language.

Complex language allows the locking in of knowledge at the group level. Without complex
language you can not talk about what’s in front of you, the past or future, abstract ideas, or store
information collectively in an ordered manner. For a group, where hyper cooperation is your tool
to get by then this turbo charges it. Turns group into knowledge database.
CONCLUSION:
QUESTION: Why did we become obligate bipeds 4 mya?
Developed out of earlier hominins that were practicing facultative bipedalism like chimps
and bonobos. There was some major advantage for bipedalism that meant that it was selected for,
hence it became the obligate form.
EVIDENCE
- Problems with Bipedalism: Most predators and prey are faster than you. Quadrupeds
(animals that walk on 4 legs) have been around for 100 million years so that form has
become perfected (like a bridge) and is very effective. The trouble with bipedalism is that
it has only been around for 4 million years, so we have not worked out the ‘bugs’ we are
using a skeleton this way. Lower back pain is the second most common health complaint
because we are using a quadrupedal spine the wrong way.

- 1. Tool Use (Traditional Theory): The argument being we started walking on our hind
legs, so we can free up our front limbs - arms and hands - to make and use tools.

o Problem: Obligate bipedalism appeared 4 mya, but the oldest evidence for tool
use is not that old; oldest evidence that we have is 3 mya.
o Conclusion: It looks like obligate bipedalism developed before we started making
and using tools. Also, if the oldest tools were wood they will mostly likely have
biodegraded overtime. If we do find evidence, it will either coincide or predate
obligate bipedalism.
Throwing: We have incredible hand eye coordination which allows us to throw with
accuracy and force to kill, which is highly important to all hunting and gathering
adaptations.
Dexterity: Most prehensile hand of the primates and possibly of all other species on
Earth and we can do precise actions such as lighting a fire, sewing clothing, and rolling a
dewbie. We became obligate bipedalism, but not likely for dexterous hands, most likely a
by-product.
- 2. Thermoregulation (Wheeler 1991): (regulating core body temperature) Based on the
idea that around the time we became obligate bipedalism coincides with the loss of the
forest (in Africa) and being replaced with the open savannah (grassland, etc.) and this
occurred 4 mya when we became obligate bipedalism. The argument Wheeler poses is
that over the history of primate evolution we evolved mostly in forested environments.
That is, we were mostly boreal. If your being forced to move out of your closed
environment into an open one, then this is an example of adaptive radiation. Hence, one
of things you must adapt to is sunlight because there is no shade. Therefore, walking
bipedally is a huge advantage to this.
 o Explanation: If you are a quadruped, then your back is constantly facing the sun.
However, if you stand up, then you limit the surface area of the sunlight hitting
your back. Also, if you stand upright and move your torso above the ground
surface. You will find that there is decrease in temperature the farther you move
away form the ground, especially when you go up one meter because that is
where it is cooler, and more air movement and your torso is usually in that spot.
Therefore, by standing up becomes a thermoregulation regulation to living in hot
environments.

Problem: The timing does not work. The lose of forest due to changes in climate
happened 2 mya not 4 mya. Obligate bipedalism predates this.
- 3. Efficiency of Locomotion: (energy usage) How efficiently animals use their energy to
get around versus us hominis that use only two legs. The quadruped is usually faster, but
there are advantages to be a biped. We eat food, body breaks it down and burns it,
releases calories, and that is how we run our body. If you are standing in one spot, then
your body is using a little bit of energy to prevent it from slumping over.

Walking: If you are a quadruped then you start using more energy because you
must push off to create forward momentum. However, bipeds do not have to do
this (unless in hurry or sprinting), we just lean forward, and our legs just swing
like pendulums underneath our pelvis, so the energy usage is about the same when
bipeds are standing.
Jogging: If quadrupeds start running or jogging. Then they must create more
forward momentum to push off which is inefficient for them. Whereas, bipeds
jogging is just a fast walk so it is still an efficient use of energy for us (unless
 going up a hill.) and running is just more energy usage and requires moving the
legs more.
Sprinting: If you are a biped, then you must start creating forward momentum
which is not efficient for us, but this is where quadrupeds strive.

We evolved to be to be joggers and became obligate bipeds to efficiently use our energy
and we did not have to eat as much as quadrupeds which we can travel greater distance
than a quadruped could.
CONCLUSION:
QUESTION: Why would we develop reduced body hair cover when most mammals have thick
coats or thick skin?
Hard to figure out when we developed hairless body because hair does not survive in
fossil record. We are not in fact hairless since have very fine hair, but ours is distinctive
EVIDENCE:
- Highly Variable in Modern Humans: Some people who have fine body hair and there
are other people who have thick body hair cover. Because hair morphology is a ‘plastic
trait’; traits that can respond quickly to selective pressure like skin colour or hair
morphology in approx. Thousand years.
- Development of Sweating (transpiration): Transpiration over the whole body is a very
effective thermoregulation system in hot, dry climates. Movement of internal moisture to
the outer surface of your skin is an effective way of cooling the down your internal body
temperature since it takes with it some of the heat. We are better than any other animal in
the African savannah at this but does not work well if you have a lot of body hair.

Mammals have 3 types of sweat glands:

Sebaceous: Most mammals have this gland, it secretes oil, effective for
insulating against hot/cold temperature.
Eccrine: Secretes water, we have 3-5 million which is more than other
mammals. More effective at moving internal moisture to the surface of our
skin.
Apocrine
>QUESTION: When did this occur?
This hyper-efficient thermoregulation physiology is likely tied to hominins moving from
forests to living in open environments and the development of modern body proportions
(Nina Jablonski).
Wheeler he thought that the climate change that happened 4 mya argued that is was
associated with bipedalism, but this major change occurred 2 mya (H. ergaster). This is
 when the ice ages, so the Earth got cooler, but not that much in Africa, but this allowed
some of our hominin ancestors to move outside of Africa.
Wheeler: Thermoregulation benefits of increased body size?
It turns out, having a larger body is more effective to reducing body heat. So, if you are
small bodied you are going to sweat then you will lose more sweat. If you have a large
body, you will not need to drink as frequently and this in turn would allow you to travel
further. More specifically, a taller narrow body. (H. Ergaster).
Skin Cancer – But, increased exposure of bare skin to sunlight (UV radiation) would
require some sort of skin protection: increased melanin production which equates to a
darker skin tone.

- Thermoregulation AND Efficiency of Locomotion: Wheeler thermoregulation

hypothesis does not match our current understanding of environment changes, but it we
do have efficient thermoregulation systems and locomotion for walking and jogging. If
we add this together we get unique ability to jog for a very long time in hot environments,
whereas most quadrupeds cannot since they over heat quickly. This means that we can
run down animals. There are groups of Africa where they ‘persistence hunt’. That is, they
chase the animal via jogging and put the pressure on the animal, but the animal
eventually overheats.
However, transitioning from a habitual environment to an open one and suddenly being able
to persistence hunt seems unlikely, the ability to persistence hunt is a bonus for being an
obligate biped. So, perhaps there was a selection for something before this?
CONCLUSION:

QUESTION: What was the role of meat eating and potentially hunting during hominin
evolution?
We are not the only mammal specie that eats meat (carnivorous). Most primates were
omnivores so eating meat becomes a new.
Researchers think mostly of male hominins bravely facing huge predators with there
technology and skills, which the idea of using your brain and tools to hunt which was unique.
EVIDENCE:
- EARLY IDEAS: Hunting would potentially explain two major trends in hominin
evolution discussed earlier:
o Bipedalism: Freed up the hands for the manufacture and use of hunting weapons,
which may be true
 o Encephalization: A need for increased cooperation and communication to be
successful hunters led to a larger brain but remember this does not require that
much complex language.

- THE ‘HUNTING HYPOTHESIS’: Over the course of the 20th century hunting was an
important part of hominin evolution. This would explain the distinction between
hominins and other animal species. The hypothesis explains anatomical/physiological
several changes - though all not true - such as:
o Reduction in Canine Size: We have tiny canine teeth that are small compared to
primates. The argument being that we did not need them anymore because we
started filling in the role of big canines with hunting tools. Chimps hunt and kill
other animals using their canines, but we do not since we had butchering tools.
o Increased Hominin Body Size: Argued that once you start hunting then a larger
body is advantageous trait. That is, the larger you are, then the more effective it is
for you to face down large. Also, if you are hunting the in the open savannah, then
you are competing with other predators like lions. So, having the large body
makes you more difficult to take down and you have a fighting chance. However,
if you leave the forest you small body is now a disadvantage since you must deal
with the open land and large predators.
o Division of Labour based on Sex: (behavioural changes) Development of
hunting that lead to the development of division of labour based on sex. That is,
once hunting becomes your primary source of food for your group, then – in
general - the men will do the hunting, and this is risky for women, so it makes
sense for them to stay behind and have babies and look after them, so the men
share the food.
o Food Sharing: In general, primates do not like sharing with other individuals,
especially when it is meat. However, in hunting and gathering societies, sharing is
a universal. You must share everything, since individuals rely on one another, so
people do not have their own possessions. This developed from hunting because if
food is coming in large packages, then it makes sense to share especially when the
women are taking care of the children.
Furthermore, if females were dependent on males for their food supply it might
explain 2 notable human physiological traits:
Constant sexual reception among human females: Unlike other primates, human
females are not necessarily only receptive to sex around the time of ovulation.
Argument here is that if a lot of the of food being brought in large packages by the
men, then the constant sexual receptiveness of females will encourage the males to
share it with them.
Concealed ovulation unlike most other primates, among modern human females
there are no obvious, outward physical signs of ovulation. All the male’s attention is
towards the ones that are ovulating. Argument here is that there is more of a tendency
 to stick with one female and maintain a monogamous reproductive relationship and
not be distracted by others because the male does not know when they are ovulating.
Hence, evolved from hunting because the large food packages are coming from the
males and males can not be direct competition with each other, so this requires
cooperation.
>QUESTION: Changing views on the importance of hunting and meat eating?
Earliest primatologists during the 60s and 70s noted that if you wanted to use chimpanzees has a
common ancestor, then how did meat eating come about, since they mostly ate plants, etc.
Furthermore, there was work done among modern hunter-gatherer tribes and there was a big
conference in the 60s where it was shown – by anthropologists - that 75% of these tribe’s diets
were from gathering plant foods and very little meat from small mammals. Also, the meat did not
always come from hunting. Sometimes they would find a corpse of a freshly killed animal or
they would chase the predator away from its kill and take they meat.
However, in the 90s, the research from the 60s/70s was based on marginalized hunter-gatherer
societies. That is, there was less success and prey, than say hundred years ago.
>CONCLUSION:

- ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: Meat has been important for at least the last 2
million years: bones of butchered animals that are found with hominin-made stone tools
are broken in half to get marrow, usually to get all the pieces of meat of a bone you need
to strike the bone several times, hence cut marks. Plus, bone chemistry analysis, we can
take the bone of an extinct hominin species and powder up a little bit of it and in the lab
analysis its elemental makeup and we can tell from the different elements and isotopes
what their diet was like and meat was important.

- HUMAN INTESTINE’S: Humans are omnivores, but our digestive system is more like
carnivores than herbivores. Our digestive system is short compared to body length
relatively short small intestine (as proportion of entire system). Herbivore intestines are
long because typical plant food like grass or plants have low caloric potential, so you
must eat a lot of it (or all the time) and it takes a long time to break down to get calories.
Carnivores eat meat which has more caloric potential and is easier (faster) to break down.
Chimps and Bonobos favourite food is meat. The chimp uses crude wood spears. Also,
our digestive system is like both primates.
QUESTION: Why did hominins begin eating meat and possibly hunting?
EVIDENCE:
- “EXPENSIVE TISSUE” HYPOTHESIS (Meat-Eating and Encephalization): An
organism’s body produces only a finite amount of energy to run all its various
components (11 systems). Each system takes energy from the body’s reserves so must
provide some adaptive advantage to be worth it. How much energy is there available to
run a system depends on 4 factors:
1. Body size - large bodies requires more energy.
2. Environment the organism lives in - some environment requires more energy
output to live in them like cold enrolment, but if you are living on land that
was a lot of hills then that requires more energy than a quadruped on flat land.
3. Organism’s metabolism - some organisms have more efficient metabolism
than others their digestive system can get energy out of food more efficiently
than others.
4. Source of nutrition - some foods are more easily turned into energy and some
foods have more energy available in them from the start.
Each system in an organism must provide an adaptive advantage, otherwise that system is
wasting energy that is not providing an adaptive advantage. For example, eyesight in
cave species. Strong selection to lose eyes and selection for something more
advantageous like smell.
 BUT, what about us hominis? The brain is the most expensive organ, but we dramatically
increased brain size over past 2-3 mya. Our physiology had to change to accommodate
this. That is, there is a need to balance our body’s energy needs with energy
production/availability (need to rebalance equation of energy intake + energy to systems).
Note, we cannot increase gut size (simply eat more food) because the gut is second most
expensive organ.

Expected organ size for human-sized mammal

(left) versus actual organ size for human-sized
mammal. Hominins evolved a smaller gut to free
up energy to support our huge brains!

To support brain of this size we had to switch to higher quality diet, which is protein and
mostly fat: carbohydrates 4kc/g, protein 4kc/g, and fat 9kc/g. Meat – depending on fat
 content – if it is lean meat, then less fat. Food source: edible leaves < avg. wild plant <
seeds and nuts < meat, for net return kilocalories size.
- THE ‘COOKING’ HYPOTHESIS (Richard Wrangham): Argument where the discovery
of fire and cooking food that supported a larger brain. Cooked food digests much more
efficiently (regardless of what it is) = increases energy returns by saving yourself energy
to burn down the food (predigesting) before you put it in your system. Modern humans
must cook some food: “raw foodists” experience amenorrhea (stop ovulating) and low
sperm counts. Wrangham argues that cooking (not meat eating) explains jump in H.
erectus encephalization around 2 mya. However, archaeological evidence does not
support such an early appearance of regular use of fire.
CONCLUSION:
SUMMARY:
UNIT 9: Homo erectus/ergaster (9.1 Homo erectus Traits and Important Fossils)

QUESTION: Who is H. ergaster and H. erectus?

Appeared in Africa approximately 2 mya. First large bodied
. Hominins that looks like us modern day hominins from post
. crania. First hominin species we know that left Africa. Went to
. Europe and Asia, but never made it to the Americas.

EVIDENCE:
>QUESTION: When do they appear?
H. ergaster appears in Africa c. 2 mya and is replaced by H. erectus in Africa c. 1.6 mya.
H. erectus continues in:
•Africa until 600,000 years ago
•Europe until 500,000 years ago *
•Asia until 100,000 years ago??
* Today, all European fossils that were once called Homo erectus have been given
different species names. *something here about debate 2:18)
‘lumpers’ versus ‘splitters’ – lumpers are researchers that tend to focus on the
similarities between things in a group. Whereas, splitters tend to focus on the differences
between things in a group. Need data to have multiple interpretations for your science to be and
progress in a healthy direction. Why lumper and splitters? We have a lot of variability even
though we identical DNA. For example, consider basketball players and a West African
fisherman. Even though the basketball player is huge and possibly of different ethnicity they all
share common DNA (99.9%) where a little bit of causes (0.1%) causes the variability. Hence, all
normal male human phenotype (or morphology). Our species is a low degree of genetic
variability, even though we can see a lot of morphology. In the case of sexual dimorphism, we do
not have a lot of differences, but there is significant overlap in height and bone structure. Could a
robust skull be male or female in x species or is it part of a different species y,...,z entirely?
>QUESTION: What is the relationship between ergaster and erectus?
2 Options:
Simple ancestor-descendent Replacement – H. habilis evolves into ergaster and then
evolves to erectus (not a common scenario in evolution).
Divergent Evolution ancestor-descendent - Start with H. habilis then ergaster evolves
from H. habilis so it is the descendent, but ergaster is still around while the erectus
 appear. Geographically, all three start out in Africa and the ergaster barely makes it to
Asia before going extinct and erectus makes it deep into Asia and is there for a long time
before going extinct.

Seems sure we (H. sapiens) evolved from H. erectus with at least one other species
between – H. heidelbergensis.
>QUESTION: What is the morphology of the ergaster and the erectus (treated as the same)?
First large bodied hominin.
Post Cranium
Modern-looking Proportions – there ratios between arm: leg (I.I = 70), leg: torso, and lower leg:
upper leg is very similar to us modern humans. However, they have more strongly built bones
than us (thick-walled bones).
Average Height – approximately 5’0’’ for females and 5’6’’ for males (5’2’’ and 5’8’’ modern)
Cranium
Thick Cranial Bone – bones that build up the wall for the brain case are thick.
Back of Skull – has pentagonal shape where the maximum width is near the base of the skull.
Lateral View – heavy browridge (supraorbital torus), channel above browridge called supratoral
sulcus, low receding forehead, long low cranial vault (more wider than longer), back of cranium
sticks out (occipital torus), lacks chin, little bit of projecting lower face (alveolar prognathism),
and teethe are slightly larger than ours.
Anterior View – have parasagittal depression which is a ridge that runs front to back on the skull,
sagittal ridges one both sides of skull, and the supraorbital torus is continuous across brow (like
shelf).

Cranial Capacity – mean is 900cc. For ergaster it is 850cc and for erectus it is 1000c
>QUESTION: What are some major fossils?
Koobi Fora 3733 – ergaster skull; comes from Eat Africa; around 1.75 mya; brain size = 850cc.
“Nariokotome Boy” or “Turkana Boy” – West Turkana, Kenya; around 1.65 mya; 85% complete
skeleton; brain size = 880cc. Thought to be a teenager because height, but teeth analysis shows
that he was probably more around eight years old. Evolved faster because lived in dangerous
environment (r-selected).
Hominin 9 – H. erectus skull; Olduvai Gorge; around 1.2 mya; brain size = 1100cc; big
browridge.
“Daka” – skull; Ethiopia; around 1.0 mya so recent; brain size = 1000cc; big boney browridge
that is heavily arched; skull preludes to next species.
Bodo – skull; Ethiopia; 600,000 bp; brain size=1200cc; considered to be early H. heidelbergensis
which is ancestor of H. sapiens; has stone tool cut marks, perhaps cannibalism?
Kabwe cranium or “Broken Hill” cranium– skull; Zambia; 500-300,000 bp; discovered in 1920s;
brain size = 1300cc!; considered H. heidelbergensis.
>QUESTION: What was a major event that brought about the H. ergaster/erectus?
Major climatic change around the world 2 mya. In Africa it is getting hotter and dryer, but when
you move away longitudinally north or south it gets significantly colder. Forest and jungles start
to shrink into open environments. This poses a problem to our ancestors because they were not
adapted to open environment so they either go extinct or adapt. Hence, adaptation to open
environments.
Around 2 mya:
• Global reduction in forests >> increase in open, grassland habitats
• Hominins faced with loss of original forest habitat: need to adapt
• Evolved large body with long legs >> more efficient bipeds
• Evolved effective thermoregulation system and hairless bodies
• Grasslands have much larger numbers of game species (huge herds)
• Increased reliance on meat (more active hunting and/or better at it?)
• Classic example of adaptive radiation
Another product is the spread of the grasslands around the old world (which today are mostly
deserts now). They stretched from West Africa to all the way to Eat China. Since game species
moved into these grasslands. Our ancestors followed which led them outside of Africa for the
first time since they started to hunt.

Site: Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia (oldest site outside of Africa so far)

Studied from 1930s but was studied by medieval archaeologists since there is a castle, but during
the 1980s they found bones of extinct animals (1.6 mya) and then crude stone tools. Studied by
paleolithic archaeologists, but then the USSR collapsed, and Republic of Georgia gained its
independence and the site became more open which is still being dug up today.
Basalt – volcanic rock that has cooled and hardened which was dated to be 1.6 – 1.8 mya old.
Early hominis would have hunted here since we found stone tools and then when volcano
erupted, died. Found five individuals.
 However, there brain capacity averages to 650cc which is quite small. We consider them
to be H. ergaster. Mean brain size of ergaster drops from 850 to 725 making a smoother
transition from habilis to ergaster. No big jump in brain size with ergaster – maybe with
erectus? Disproves Wrangler’s hypothesis and possibly the cooking hypothesis.
Cranium #4: Old man
There distinctive features on your skull and are quite distinct when you are young so if you died
at 18 then it would be possible to know simply by looking at your skull. However, the older you
get – after 25 – you lose you diagnostic features. The old man skull had lost all his teeth and the
bone reabsorbed and filled in his jaw. This is difficult when you are an early hominin because
chewing meat requires some form of cutting it up. This implies that he was being taken care of
by his group until his death.

Ergaster leaves Africa at 1.8 mya, but no good evidence for when they leave Dmanisi. In Asia
and Europe, the fossils are not ergaster only Erectus. It is hypothesized that when Ergaster first
appeared they left Africa and 1.6 mya Erectus also leave Africa and move into Europe.
Nihewan Basin (150 km west of Beijing)
Area where river has been cut by wind silts. Archaeologists walk along the banks of the river to
find fossils and then walk upwards to see what layer it is from. Sites with stone tools and animal
bones, but no hominin fossils – yet, and oldest is 1.6 mya – oldest in Asia so far (BUT a new
contender: Shangchen), most likely h. erectus.
Zhoukodien
Second h. erectus remains were found and is still being dug up today. H. erectus are finding
shelter under the cave entrances and leaving stone tools behind. During WWII American marines
who had a base near by in foot lockers and they were supposed to be to America but disappeared
and no one knows what happened to them. After the war archaeologists continued digging, there
were also casts of the missing bones. Craniums are 700,000 bp with mean cranial capacity of
1040cc, no different than the ones found in Africa.

Java (one of the most densely populated islands today)

Eugene Dubious went here looking for the ‘Missing Link’. More precisely, the Solo River. Walk
along bank looking for places where erosion is exposing bone or stone tools and then digging it
up. A cranium called Sangiran 17 is found there with a cranial capacity of 1030 cc which is
almost identical to the Zhoukoudian ones.
>QUESTION: When did Homo Erectus appear in Java and how long were they there for?
Did not have dating methods we have today so people were guessing. Some researcher went
back to Java and using notes and looking at sediment’s and figured out exactly where and what
layers these fossils were from and then used modern dating methods to determine the oldest ones
were. However, before that we were guessing or Biochronology (developed in Africa, still used
today). Involves getting palaeontologists to look at layer and tell you how old that layer is based
on extinct species that were present in the layer, so you get an age for your fossil. So, the
paleontologists were looking at the layer containing the hominin and animal bones also the layer
above and below. So, they look at the species through the change of time and see when they were
around, when they went extinct, when new species appeared, etc. This lets you know which
species were around when the hominis were and which predate and postdate them. During the
19th the work at Java was all over the place and were using their knowledge from mainland
China. The researcher found that there was a lot of volcanic ash in the layers, so she dated them
the ash which concluded to the oldest remains being 1.5 mya, at most.
SUMMARY:
9.2: A Couple More Things
QUESTION: What lithic technology did the Homo erectus use?
EVIDENCE:
- The Acheulian Industry (Mode 2): Built around the appearance of large ‘hand axes’
which are distinct. Oldest one’s date to 1.5 mya shortly after H. erectus appears – not
coincidence. Sometime around 1 mya this technology spreads into Asia and Europe, but
then around 250 tya it disappears. The hand axes are “bifaces” (2 faces). Flakes are
removed from a pseudo material in a controlled way that forms a symmetrical shape, they
mainly differ in sizes. The Oldowan tools did not have a formal shape or size.
o Mental Template: When the Australopithecines or H. habilis were making the
Oldowan tools, there was no goal other then to get a sharp edge. The hand axes
were an end goal. Meaning, before they would collect the material and flake they
had a mental image of how the tool should look like. Spheroids are round rocks
that are made by bashing rocks into others.
SUMMARY:
QUESTION: How did Homo erectus reach the island of Java??
EVIDENCE:
- Boats: perhaps they were able to build crude rafts, but this is not true sense H. erectus
adaptation was terrestrial (i.e. land oriented). They did not exploit marine resources.
- Ice Ages: cycles of cold and warm periods based on the movement of the earth around
the sun and the relative position of the earth to the sun. Every time you have an ice age on
the planet you get huge glaciers that form on land (e.g. Greenland) and their huge. Large
amount of water is evaporated from the ocean and then freezes on the land, it makes the
ocean less deep (e.g. 150m 75000 ya). If water rises continents are covered and if it
decreases, then more land is exposed. In the case of Java, we get the Sunda Land (Sahul
Land for Australia and New Guinea) which is makes it, so Java is connected to Sumatra,
Borneo, and Malaysia which means Java was connected to mainland Asia. Odds are that
 there was an Ice age when H. erectus arrived and when it warmed up again they were
then stuck on the island.
- Wallace Line: The ocean has a deep channel in the middle so the H erectus could not
travel further. Wallace noticed that the plants and animals on each side of the trench were
significantly different from one another because they could never travel across, unless by
accidental rafting since the sea levels did not drop enough during ice ages.
SUMMARY:
QUESTION: How did people get to Australia?
EVIDENCE:
Homo erectus never made it Australia since no fossils have been found. Us modern humans
arrived there by 60 tya or earlier presumably through Southeast Asia.
- Boat: Most likely invented boats since we were more intelligent, but we do not have
evidence since oldest evidence for boats goes 10 tya.
- Fish Hooks: Indirect evidence; Island of Timur where archaeologists where dig layers
that go back to 40 bp and are finding fish hooks and deep-sea fish remain like Tuna.
Which means we most likely must go out on a boat and throw our hook in. You can not
find Tuna along shore.
SUMMARY:
QUESTION: Who is Homo floresiensis?
Probably related to H. erectus. On the Island of Flores which is by the Wallace Line and
Australia.
EVIDENCE:
- Liang Bua Cave, Flores: Early 2000s archaeologist announce discovery of nine
individual remains that are dated 65000 bp. Their hominin, but tiny (e.g. female 1.9m),
more tiny then what we have looked at. In 2016, in Mata Menge, Flores they found a
mandible that is 700000 bp and it is small. The remains were found when the LOTR
movies came out, so they named it ‘The Hobbit’.
>QUESTION: Who are they related to? Where did they come from? How do the fit on out
phylogenetic tree? Why are they so small?
Some people argued that because of their short stature that they could be descendants of the
australopithecines. Not compelling because the australopithecines never left Africa. H.
habilis because of there similar brain size, but they never left Africa either. Homo Erectus
because Flores is really close to Java since H. erectus was already there. The brains size is
around 415cc, but their body is also small so EQ is like H. erectus also.
 Flores is on the east side of the Wallace Line? So how did they get there? Mostly likely jump
dispersals or accidental rafting like the old-world monkeys that made it to the Americas since
the distance between these islands is not that big and the area has a history of earthquakes
and tropical storms (e.g. 2004 earthquake in Indian ocean)
Island Dwarfism – evolutionary phenomenon; whenever you get an ecosystem that is
insulated from other ecosystems around it and where around it there are no major predators.
Island are the best examples since resources are bounded by the ocean and if there are no
large predators on that island then all the other animals are free from the selected pressure
that predation that puts on potential prey species. Having a large body is a good evolutionary
response to the threat of predation from large predators, but if there are no large predators
then this is a disadvantage since you will need to eat more to maintain it. SO, there is a more
selected pressure for a smaller body. COROLLARY: If you got a small isolated ecosystem
with no large predators, then small animals will evolve to fill the predator niche and often
those animals will develop large bodies. For example, the Flores Giant Rat.
SUMMARY:
UNIT 10: Early Hominins in Europe
Europe is empty for most of our evolution. It is cold, and most hominin species are adapted
to African climates.
QUESTION: What about Europe?
EVIDENCE:
- 3 Major Migrations into Europe:
o 1. First Arrival: whatever first hominins that are first to arrive in Europe around
1.4 mya. Do not have fossils so do not what they look like. They are some form of
H. erectus.
o 2. Second Migration: around 600-500000bp the H. heidelbergensis arrives from
Africa and moves into Europe. Do NOT evolve from earlier species. Later evolve
into Neandertals are 250000 bp.
o 3. Third Migration: Us modern humans arrive around 45-40000 bp
First Arrival
Oldest evidence we have for them comes from Orce and Atapuerca, Spain which are regions
with multiple sites.
Barranco Leon, Orce, Spain
No hominin remains yet, but we do have simple Oldowan stone tools form 1.4 mya which are
dated using small mammal biochronology. That is, looking at the changes in mouse because
small animals are sensitive to changes in climate so tend to respond quickly to changes in
climatically driven natural selection (i.e. small species evolve faster than large species) and using
Paleomagnetism. Thus, Barranco Leon is the oldest site for hominins in Europe.
Atapuerca Hills, Spain
Back in the late 1800s the Spanish put a rail line right through the hills, but the hills were right in
the way, so they blasted a trench, but they bisected cave systems including big dolinas. The
dolinas have been exposed and archaeologists saw animal and hominin bones.
Gran Dolina (1981-1993 test excavation): they did a test excavation: When a new site has
been discovered, the paleontologists will quickly excavate a small part of the site so the get a
good understanding of the layers and what they have or nothing. Once you do that then you can
do a formal one which is slower, but now you have an idea of what may find. Created 2x2 metre
pit which took over ten years.
Layer 6: Found approx. 100 hominin bones that are from at least 6 different individuals.
Oldest Hominin cranium found here. Also, stone tools from layer 1.
Sima del Enfante (huge dolina): stratigraphy is more complicated with 21 layers. In layer
9 they found some hominin remains: a finger bone (phalanx), and mandible part, and
some Oldowan tools.
QUESTION: How old are these fossils??
Dating methods: ‘Absolute’ (or ‘radiometric’), Biochronology, and Paleomagnetism
- Paleomagnetism: gives accurate date that may not be precise. The earth has a
paleomagnetic field which has a directional flow (i.e. compass). The field has strong
effect on metal on earth’s surface and it is also quite unstable. The polarity fluctuates
daily, but sometimes the north-south flips entirely resulting in a reverse polarity instead.
We go through long periods of normal and reverse polarity and we call them ‘Chron’
which is when the polarity switches. Currently in Brunhes Normal Chron, there are
subchrons in each period.
>QUESTION: How can we use this to date sites?
Iron is one of the most common elements in the Earth’s crust and its sediments (volcanic rocks,
etc.). When sediments slowly accumulate in a lake or ocean floor the tiny iron particles in the
sediment will orient to Earth’s magnetic field direction (positive pole at that time). Later, more
and more sediments will accumulate on top of the previous, then they will become locked into
their initial position. Go into any sites and take sediments of any of the layers to see what Earth’s
polarity was for each sample. Sediments with particles orientated north might be relatively recent
since that’s the current condition. However, sediments with particles oriented south MUST be at
least 780,000 years old.

European hominis from 1.4 mya to 600 tya don’t really know what these hominins look like
since these are the only face bits we have, likely they are like h. erectus in Africa and Asia. After
600 to 200 tya we have better information about these hominins. These fossils probably represent
a new wave from Africa and they look like Africa hominis that date to after 700 tya. Like the
Bodo cranium (600 tya) from Ethiopia and the Kabwe cranium (500 tya) from Zambia. Most
researchers put the ones from Africa and Europe from 600 tya into the species Homo
heidelbergensis. H heidelbergensis brought Acheulian hand axe technology with them – or re-
invented it in Europe.
Sites in Europe where heidelbergensis fossils have been found.
Mauer, Germany
“type fossil” of H. heidelbergensis (fossil for which name was invented) and massive lower jaw
with moderately-sized teeth (≈ 600,000 bp)
Petralona, Greece
Cranial capacity = 1230 cc (300–200,000 bp). The interesting things about this skull is that it is
really striking to the Kabwe (Zambia, Africa), but they are separated by 6000km and 2
continents.
Sima de los Huesos (“Pit of the Bones”), Atapuerca Hills, Spain

Sediments have been accumulating over the years (approx. 400,000 bp). There are 17 skulls and
7000 other teeth and post-cranial fragments. Having several pieces is better than having one
complete skeleton because it gives you more data. WE know how many bones humans have so
you can partition the bones to see how many individuals are from the pile. For example, if you
have a pile with two skulls, then you know there are two individuals. This is called the minimum
number of individuals (MNI). At Sima de los Huesos, the MNI is 28 with at least 12 female and
8 males. The skull, pelvis, and brow ridge are the give away for sex. We can also tell the age by
the skulls. When you’re a fetus you just have cartilage, but it ossifies and then fuse at the joint
and we can tell the age range by looking at this development. One individual was less than 5 and
three were greater than 35, but the majority were young adults.
Crania
Have pentagonal-shaped cranium from behind, BUT widest point is mid way up where
ergaster and erectus is closer to the ridge. Also, they have a double-arched brow ridge.
Finally, they have mid-facial prognathism which different from the previous species.
Their nose are sticks out versus chin. They have an average cranial capacity range of
1025cc to 1400cc
 Postcrania
The males averaged 5’9’’ and females 5’5’’ and were much more robust and muscular.
Some of males were 5’11’ and weighed 90kg!
However, some of the skulls found had fractures on their skull, but this is normal when bones
fall, etc. However, some of the fractures were fresh, the fractures either happened around death
or right after, but a lot were healed so the individual did not die and lived.
>QUESTION: What caused this?
Violence: result of interpersonal violence. That is, violence between individuals or between
groups. However, violence during this time is not that common since it is counterproductive, and
groups created mechanisms that prevent this
Normal Product of Cave Life: Walking through the dark and hitting you head on a low part of a
cave, but their skulls were much robust than ours.
>QUESTION: How did the remains get here?
Living in The Cave: No, they did not live deep inside them because there was poor access, it was
cold, and it had sloped floors. They lived at the mouth of the cave and left animal remains at
their camp site, but not that much present in this site and there were no stone tools either.
Food for Other Animals: There are indeed predators that kill and drag victims to caves, but cave
bears were more herbivores than carnivores, but the carnivore ones do not drag their victims. The
problem with this interpretation is that the predators have a tendency so target young or the old
and not prime aged individuals because there easy. Our collection from the site is mostly prime
aged.
Thrown Intentionally: The Spanish researchers are arguing that it is a funeral ritual and the only
evidence for it is the only hand axe found there and it is a shiny stone, but why don’t you have
more skulls intact? Most likely, just washed through the cave system into the pit (think, kitchen
stink) and moving stone tools is hard.
SUMMARY:
UNIT 11: Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis
These are our closest cousin. We evolved in Africa and they evolved in Europe.
Often depicted in as the ‘caveman’ in pop culture Modern researchers in the early 1900s argue
that Neandertals were animal brutes and hence were not like us. Around the 1960s and 70s we
start to see them as a species like us since we did share a common ancestor 500,000 ya.
Earliest Discoveries:
1830 Engis Cave, Belgium: Skull of a child.
1856 Feldhofer Cave, Germany: First one that started debate of whether it was some specie other
species different from us modern humans
1886 Spy d’Orneau Cave, Belgium (2 skeletons): So many similar fossils proved they were all
members of an ancient species, not diseased modern humans.
1890s–1930s Lots of Neandertal discoveries
1899 Krapina, Croatia: MNI of 2 dozen, but unlike in Sima all these bones are fragmented with
some cutmarks and burning. Perhaps cannibalism?
1908 La Chapelle-aux-Saints, France: Two catholic priests who dug a small cave and found
mostly complete old man with arthritis. First site where the individually looked like he was
“intentional buried.”
1907-1922 La Ferrassie, France: Big cave site where 6 individuals were found and more possible
evidence for “intentional burials.”
1950s Shanidar Cave, Iraq: Guy and wife found 9 individuals which are argued to be
intentionally buried. One was buried with wild flowers, but also possible for wild flower pollen
to get into sediment.
1959-1972 Roc de Marsal, France: Found remains of a young 2-4-year-old infant male. Also,
said to be an intentional burial.
QUESTION: What was the duration of the Neandertals?
EVIDENCE:
- H. Heidelbergensis: European H. heidelbergensis (600 to 200 tya) is direct ancestor of
Neandertals (250 to 30 tya) which is clear from their morphology and they share common
DNA.
- Earliest ‘real’ Neandertals: Looking at the fossil record and the first fossil we find that we
all agree on is in Ehringsdorf, Germany (250 tya). We have the remains of 2 individuals,
2 mandibles, partial cranium, and some other bits.
o Teeth: If we look at their teeth, this is what distinguishes them from other hominin
species including us. They have ‘taurodontism’, in molars which is a large pulp
cavity and they also have shovel-shaped incisors. The front teeth on the top and
bottom have a scooped shape, like a chair. This makes the Neandertals unique.
 The cranium is of a adult female and is 1450cc which is large. The latest (most recent)
fossil comes from Mezmaiskaya, Russia which is a 1-2-week-old infant from 30 tya
Which is when they disappeared completely.

- Distribution: Most Neandertals remains come mostly from Europe and a few in Northern
East Asia, longitudinal distribution. For much of their existence, Neandertals were living
in cold and harsh conditions, so they must have been adapted for that condition
biologically and technologically.
>QUESTION: When did hominins start using fire?
Handful of claims for fire use in Africa dated to between 2 and 1 million ago that
predates the Neandertals. However, none are convincing: MIGHT be residues from
hominin fires but are likely to be from natural fires which are VERY common in Africa.
There are better claims for use of fire - Africa and Middle East - between 1 million and
300,000 bp which is being excavated at Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa. It is more
convincing because the residue is deep inside of cave as apposed to being outside. The
oldest definitive evidence for people using fire goes back approximately 300 tya where
obvious hearths were discovered in caves in Israel. There is a problem that even though
they did use fire, there are layers in sites that do not have evidence for fire and it appears
they used fire during the hot time of the year and not the cold. So, how did they manage
to live in ice age Europe without clothes?
>QUESTION: What was the diet of the Neandertals?
Eating plants during the warm season, but mostly meat. In the site, we find tens of
thousands of butchered animal bones. The Ice Age fauna had a lot of animals for the
Neandertals to chose and hunt for food. We put Neandertals in ‘Hypercarnivore’
category. That is, 70% or more of their diet is composed of meat. Looking at their bone
chemistry, we can take some bone and turn it into powder and in a lab analyze the
 elements that the bone is made up of and some of those elements are diagnostic of diet.
More precisely, Nitrogen-15 isotope which is found mostly in plant animals, but if those
animals are eaten by carnivores then they have a higher concentration. Since Neandertals
ate small-medium sized herbivores and carnivores, they consistently had higher levels of
the Nitrogen isotope.

>QUESTION: What did Neandertals have for material culture?

They rarely used bone, but regularly used wood. In Northern Germany, we found 7
wooden spears and they are like a men’s javelin. We are lucky because wood biodegrades
quickly, but sediment formed and protected these spears.
Lithic Technology Mode 3: Prepared Core Technology – Find nodal material and shape
it. A core is a material for the source of flakes, where the flake is the intended tool.
Produces more flakes per volume of flint which is more economical of raw material. The
Neandertal gets more tools and does not waste material versus the H. habilus.
>QUESTION: What was Neanderthal skeletal morphology like?
Like us, but wider, stockier build than modern humans. The Neandertal male averages
around 5’10’’ and the female 5’1’’ which is slightly shorter than us modern humans, but
the mean is the same Significantly more robust than us and heidelbergensis. For example,
their femur bone wall is much thicker than ours. Also, where the muscle attaches on the
bone, in the Neandertals they really show. Think ordinary person compared to body
builder. Their ribcage is more conical than ours which usual for cold environments. Their
shoulder structure enabled them to swing their arms powerfully. There hands are strongly
build given the size of the bones we have. They have expanded apical tufts that are
“spatulated.” There legs are the same, but their proportions are different. Our tibia and
femur are similar in size. The crural index is just the tibia length/femur length x 100. The
crural index of Neandertals is close to modern indigenous Arctic populations. I shorter
stockier body is adaptive for cold climates.

If you have a species in in a hot and cold environment, then the hot one will be smaller in
size compared to its cold counterpart.
Bergmann's rule: Body mass tends to be greater in populations that live in cold
environments.
Allen’s rule: Shorter appendages are adaptive in cold climates.
Both conditions result in increased body mass relative to body surface area. Effective at
reducing body heat loss in cold environments/body mass: surface area of skin. Groups in
cold environments tend to have less surface area to body volume and vice versa for
groups in hot environments to regulate body temperature better.
Cranium
 Long front to back cranial vault, big brain with average of 1450-1550cc, mid-facial
prognathism so middle of face sticks out, pronounced brow ridge that is getting smaller
(supraorbital torus), backward-sloping forehead, flattening on back of the skull which
results in obvious ‘occipital bun’, small mastoid process where muscles attach, retro-
molar gap where they could have a fourth molar, and no chin.
Face
Big face, big eye orbits that are more circular, a larger nasal aperture (=big nose).
SUMMARY:
>QUESTION: What are some things we think we know about Neandertals?
1) Neandertals were cold adapted species. No evidence they ever moved into warmer
regions to the south in Africa or Asia – always stayed north of 30° north latitude.
2a) Neandertals disappeared around 30,000 ya, but why this occurred is not known. A lot
of things happened at this time. Their disappearance coincides with start of last glacial
maximum that occurs 25 tya so it is possible that it was too cold to survive.
2b) They disappear shortly after we arrive in Europe. Perhaps we actively ‘removed’
them through violence, outcompete them with better technology, or swamp them with
greater numbers of people?
3) We and Neandertals interbred. People of European and Asian ancestry have 1 - 4%
Neandertal DNA. People of strictly African ancestry do not have any. Interbreeding
occurred before modern humans reached Asia – in the Middle East? We left Africa
around 80 tya and into the Old World via the Middle East where the Neandertals were
already residing. The ancestors that moved in Europe and Asia took some Neandertal
DNA with them.
4) Our Neandertal genes (alleles) have not gone away because the often are advantageous
and thus are selected for. Analysis of which alleles we inherited from Neandertals
indicates they are still influencing our colouring, stature, sleep patterns, propensity for
getting certain diseases, etc.
SUMMARY:
UNIT 12: Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH)
12.1: AMH Morphology and Fossils
QUESTION: What is the morphology of Anatomically Modern humans?
EVIDENCE:
- Cranium

We have a tall, rounded cranial vault that is long top to bottom, but not that long, our
occipital is more rounded instead of a bun, our forehead is more vertical forehead, little or no
browridge, a flat face, a prominent pointy chin, and large mastoid process. Some have skulls
have pentagonal shape, but widest is point is high up. Our eye orbits tend to be more rectangular
and we have quite a small nasal aperture (=small nose). We lacked a retromolar gap unlike
Neandertals, so we have no room for our 3rd molar (wisdom teeth). For many people their 3rd
molars are either ‘impacted’ (gets stuck on 2nd molar) or do not develop at all.

The average cranial capacity of our early ancestors was 1500cc, but today it is 1350-1450cc.
However, our body masses have been get narrow and small as well faster than our brains.
 - Post-crania: Probably the tallest hominin, but not by much. Our build is narrower and
less robust when compared to Neanderthals or heidelbergensis. A high crural index only
when compared to Neandertals who are the odd ones out. Finally, our rib cage is more
cylindrical and not conical.

- Fossils:

Jebel Irhoud, Morocco:

2 crania and a mandible where the crania look modern like us. Has a little bit of a browridge,
more of a forehead , flat face, and little bit of an occipital bun, elongated, but not as much as
Neandertals, a large mastoid process, and eye sockets are square. A brain with cranial capacity of
14500cc, around 300 tya. Could possibly be heidelbergensis.

Omo Kibish, SW Ethiopia:

2 crania, 4 mandibles, other assorted bits that is from 200 tya.
The bits we have are the important pieces like chin brow ridge, and mastoid process. It has an
approximate cranial capacity that is greater than 1400cc so clearly it’s AMH.
 - Recent Fossils:
Caves on Coast of S. Africa:
Archaeologists have discovered stratigraphic sequences that span the emergence of modern
humans and are full of stuff. What is unique about these sites is that we have earliest evidence of
hominins using symbolic behavior at 100 tya.
Symbolic Behaviour – the use of abstract imagery or ideas to convey complex information
between individuals or groups. For example, tattoos, cloths, national flags, etc.
In South Africa, we see the appearance of shell beads and they are intentionally perforated so
you can make necklaces or add them to your clothes. They don’t make you better hunterer or
gatherer, it is merely jewelry. Also, they discovered seashells inside with red ochre which is a
naturally occurring sedimentary rock that is bright red. It is soft enough to grind and use as a
pigment to colour things like your face, skin, walls, etc. Himba tribe in Africa today uses it
today.
Grotte de Contrbandiers, (Smugglers’ Cave), Morocoo:
Found hominin remains of a fully modern female child that is said to be 8-10 years old around
time of death. Named ‘Bouchra’ (good news) and died 100 tya. We also find more shell beads,
so she could have been wearing jewelry.
- Sites outside of Africa:
Qafzeh Cave, Israel:
In this cave we find 5 “buried” individuals where one is an adult female with at child at her feet
dated back to 100 tya and is fully anatomically modern. Her skull is not different from us modern
humans.
 Skhul Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel:
Excavated in the 1920s and remains of at least 10 individuals are found that go back 80 tya. They
looked like the ones found in Qafzeh, but some of them looked different. Skull number five
looked more like Neandertals, possibly first individuals from interbreeding between
Neanderthals and modern humans.

- Earliest AMH (70 to 25 tya): We were adapted to Africa’s hot environment, so we did
not want to go up north. So, we filled out the southern latitudes before going up north.
 Lijiang, China:
We have well preserved cranium with missing mandible that dates to 60-70 tya which makes it
the oldest example of AMH from East Asia. The incisors have the property of sinodoty ‘shovel-
shaped incisors’ which is still present in some people from Asia. Note, they developed these
independent of Neandertals who also had something similar.
Cro Magnon, France:
5 to 8 individuals discovered that date back to approximately 27000 bp and we also found some
blade tools and bone points.
Předmostí, Moravia, Czech Republic:
Excavated in the late 1800s and discovered 18 individuals that date back to 30000 ya. Some
having mixture of AMH & Neandertal traits – hybrids like at Skhul?? Some were destroyed
during WWII, but we have casts.
Peştera cu Oase, Romania:
Discovered in 2002 which is small cave structure where 5 to 8 individuals have been discovered
which date to 27 tya. Cave bear and human bones scattered on cave floor (not buried). So small
that some researcher had to remove car keys to fit in hole!
SUMMARY:
UNIT 12: Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH)
12.2: The Emergence of AMH
Strange circumstance where 30 tya modern humans and Neandertals lived during the same time
and if you go back further you can add more species too like the Hobbit and maybe
heidelbergensis, but now there is only one hominin species left, us.
QUESTION: What are some theories that explain how we became the only hominin species
present?

EVIDENCE:
- Complete Replacement, or “Out of Africa” Hypothesis: Argues that out lineage
evolved exclusively in Africa only.
1. AMH evolved exclusively in Africa between 250,000 and 150,00 ya.
2. After 100,00 bp we spread out from Africa and the Old World into Europe, Asia, and
the New World (Americas).
3. Between 70,000 and 30,000 bp, we replaced all other hominin species in the world
(with little interbreeding).
Therefore, we all come from a single population and everyone’s mitochondrial DNA
traces back to a woman who lived in Africa pre-100,00bp. Only down passed by females,
so if you’re a male you received it from your mother, but you can not pass it down.
European and Asian mitochondrial DNA can be traced to a single female or a small
group meaning we share a great (x 5000) grandmother! We call her “Mitochondrial Eve.”
We show p in Africa and around 80,000 ya we leave Africa and into the Old World
starting with Asia 90 tya, Australia 60 tya, Europe 45 tya, then groups from Asia mov to
Siberia 30 tya, and eventually New World (americas) 15 tya.
 - Regional Continuity Hypothesis: Argument was AMH evolved from all over the world
from the local groups. So, Neandertal in Europe, Heidelbergensis is Africa, and H.
erectus in Asia. We did NOT appear as a single lineage from Africa.
1. AMH evolved in multiple regions across the Old World (Africa, Asia, and Europe)
from the local archaic groups.
2. Appeared at same time in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
3. This occurred through constant gene flow between regions (interacted like a single
population - not parallel evolution).
The regions were not separate from one another. Remark, divergent evolution is aided
by geographic isolation. This works since Neanderthals interbreed and so did species
from Asia, hence they were never isolated from another. For example, if you had an
allele for a trait that appeared in Asia and it was a good thing, then interbreeding with
groups from Europe or Africa then it will show up in each of the groups.
>This hypothesis failed compared to “Out of Africa.”

- Evidence in support of “Out of Africa”

1. The Fossil Record: oldest AMH are from Africa and when you leave Africa the other
fossils are younger when compared.
2. A) Genetics: especially the mtDNA and Y chromosome data. When compared to mst
other animal species, we modern humans have a very low degree of variability in our
mtDNA we only differ by 0.01% from one another.
B) Also appears to be a very low degree of variability in the Y chromosome among
modern males.
C) These data indicate we went through a recent genetic bottleneck 70-80,000 yrs ago
(example of Founder Effect). Among modern humans, African groups have greatest
degree of variability in their mtDNA and y chromosome. This indicates Africa was place
of origin prior to the bottleneck.
BUT, when you look at genetic variability amongst people who are of Africa ancestry, they have
greater degree of genetic variability compared to non-African ancestry.
Geneticist when comparing genetics of diff population, they use these things haplogroups and
haplotypes which are short sections of DNA that tend to change slowly. Once they appear they
stick around for a long time and are easy to identify and we have working knowledge when
certain ones appear. Haplotype L in Africa is the oldest.
3. Modern Language Origins: Language evolve also, just like DNA the change is slow. The
basic units of sound, Phoneme = basic unit of language: individual sounds which are
combined to form meaningful units (words). The older the language around the higher the
phoneme diversity. The ones with the most phonemes are from Africa.
4. Advanced Material Culture: For example, 70,00 ya we get the appearance of Mode 4:
Blade Technology and 60,000 ya we get Mode 5: Microlith Technology, tools made of
bone, and small bifacial spear points.
Mode 4: Blade Technology
Blade core which is a chunk of flint form which they remove the blade (long, narrow flake)
from. They are more economical and versatile.
Mode 5: Microliths
Tiny blade technology where you start with a microblade core like Mode 4 and produce micro
blades, but you then shape the micro blades into specific shapes called microliths which you are
used to make composite tools like spears. If it dulls you just replace the piece not the whole tool.
Shows up in Africa 60 tya and outside 30 tya. Also, includes bone tools and bifacial spear points.
 - Other Early Modern Human Developments: There is a type of tool called an in-scraper
from some site (35,000 ya) which is excellent for scarping hides and turning into
applicable leather, but none have been found at Neandertal sites or bone needles. This
distinct tool allowed us to make tailored clothing. Also, cave/rock art from 40- 30,000 ya
found in Europe and Australia, they coincide with when modern humans emerged
(symbolic behaviour).
SUMMARY:
UNIT 13: Modern Human Variability
We are closely related as opposed to chimps in term of allele frequency. Perhaps, our idea about
variability might be unhealthy.
QUESTION: What are some historical views about our variability?
EVIDENCE:
- “Race”: idea that you can identify discrete groups of humans. You look a certain way, so
you belong to a fixed group that is distinguishable from other groups.
- C. Linnaeus (mid-1700s): classified animal and plants and humans which reflected that
time. He split humans up into 4 categories based on skin colour which seemed like the
logical thing to do:
Homo sapiens Europeus albescens white people from Europe
Homo sapiens Africanus negreus black people from Africa
Homo sapiens Asiaticus fucus dark people from Asia
Homo sapiens Americanus rubescens red people from the Americas

It was not skin colour people also used to divide people, but also the behaviour of these
people from groups:
americanus “stubborn and angered easily”
africanus “relaxed and negligent”
asiaticus “greedy and easily distracted”
europeanus “gentle and industrious”

- Anders Retzius (1840s): develops the Cephalic Index - breadth/length x 100 - which is
just a measure of skull morphology. He then created categories and classified races:
≤ 75 = dolicocephalic (Africans)
75-79.9 = mesocephalic (Asians)
80-84.9 = brachycephalic
85+ = hyperbrachycephalic

- Alfred Kroeber’s “Family Tree of the Humans Races”:

- Carleton Coon: most recent version of five races:
Caucasoid ‘white’
Mongoloid ‘Asian’
Australoid Australasians
Negroid ‘Africans’
Capoid ‘Bushmen’ of S. Africa’
The idea of intrinsic differences between ‘races’ is reflected in the notion of Social
Evolution: the misconception that cultures evolve like organisms and that this evolution
is moving towards more advanced forms.
The view – even in the 20th century – is still strictly about discrete races

- Biological Determinism: Cultural variability was seen as biologically determined and,

therefore, inherited in the same way that physical characteristics were. Meaning, you act
a certain way because of the race you are born into and it is part of your biological
makeup. The idea that people of visibly different geographic origin have intrinsic,
biologically determined differences in behaviour and intelligence is the definition of
racism.

- Race and Intelligence: The most damaging misconception that has accompanied racial
views is that “races” differ in cognitive abilities.
‘The Bell Curve’ - two American researchers who collected data from white, asian, black,
and hispanic people. The data was crappy the way they looked at it was crappy, etc.
There is no evidence that intelligence varies with skin colour or geographic origin
(‘race’) at all. We only differ by 0.01%.
- Race Today?: The most common and prevalent use is in the biological sense.
“Race” = visibly distinct groups associated with broad geographic regions.

- The Problem with the Normative View: The normative view = members of different
groups are characterized by discrete traits and can be easily divided into discrete
categories. For example, English people and French people. Thinking about English men
they have bad teeth, bad style, drink tea not wine, and poor lovers. Thinking about French
women great cooks, good fashion sense, and romantic. So, what if the English man drinks
wine or the French woman is a bad cook. Hence, no one trait where you can draw a line
between all members of a culture.
Anthropologists were seeing continuous (not discrete) distributions of traits across
“racial” boundaries and geographic regions.
All the traits we can see (as well as genetic traits that are not visible) have a clinal
distribution – they grade across space in either form or frequency.

- Skin Colour Distribution: If you start in the middle of Africa and walk south and then
go back to the middle and then north and note these peoples skin colour. There is no
 place where you can say dark skin ends here and light skin starts, vice versa. Skin colour
is just a direct product of how long a population has been living in region where they get
more sunlight.
Humans are a recently-evolved species, and genetic diversity is very low compared to
other apes. On average, we humans differ in 0.1% of our genome: we are 99.9% identical
to each other. Typically, there is more genetic variability within groups than between
different geographic groups.

Furthermore, of the minor genetic differences between us, there is more within any one
geographic population than there is between any of them. Individuals with a common
geographic ancestry will share some characteristics that may visibly distinguish them from
individuals from other geographic regions (eye colour, head shape) but, in fact, they typically
have more genetic differences between them than either one has with individuals from distant
geographic regions (blood type, eye colour, hair type, etc. etc.). Hence, human genetic diversity
is distributed mainly within populations and Currently, there is no genetic basis in support of the
concept of race.