Social Formations in The Ancient World: From Evolution of Humans To The Greek Civilisation 1st Edition Rakesh Kumar

Social Formations in the Ancient World:
From Evolution of Humans to the Greek

Civilisation 1st Edition Rakesh Kumar
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/social-formations-in-the-ancient-world-from-evolution-
of-humans-to-the-greek-civilisation-1st-edition-rakesh-kumar/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Social Evolution Of World Politics 1st Edition

Mathias Albert
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-social-evolution-of-world-
politics-1st-edition-mathias-albert/
Rome in the Ancient World From Romulus to Justinian 3rd

Edition David Potter
https://ebookmeta.com/product/rome-in-the-ancient-world-from-
romulus-to-justinian-3rd-edition-david-potter/
Twelve Caesars Images of Power from the Ancient World

to the Modern 1st Edition Mary Beard
https://ebookmeta.com/product/twelve-caesars-images-of-power-
from-the-ancient-world-to-the-modern-1st-edition-mary-beard/
Innovative Development in Micromanufacturing Processes

1st Edition Pawan Kumar Rakesh
https://ebookmeta.com/product/innovative-development-in-
micromanufacturing-processes-1st-edition-pawan-kumar-rakesh/
Social Psychiatry Principles and Clinical Perspectives
1st Edition Rakesh K Chadda Vinay Kumar Siddharth
Sarkar
https://ebookmeta.com/product/social-psychiatry-principles-and-
clinical-perspectives-1st-edition-rakesh-k-chadda-vinay-kumar-
siddharth-sarkar/
Tolkien Europe and Tradition From Civilisation to the

Dawn of Imagination 1st Edition Armand Berger
https://ebookmeta.com/product/tolkien-europe-and-tradition-from-
civilisation-to-the-dawn-of-imagination-1st-edition-armand-
berger/
The Smithsonian History of Space Exploration From the

Ancient World to the Extraterrestrial Future Roger D.
Launius
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-smithsonian-history-of-space-
exploration-from-the-ancient-world-to-the-extraterrestrial-
future-roger-d-launius/
From Empires to Imperialism The State and the Rise of

Bourgeois Civilisation 1st Edition Boris Kagarlitsky
Renfrey Clarke
https://ebookmeta.com/product/from-empires-to-imperialism-the-
state-and-the-rise-of-bourgeois-civilisation-1st-edition-boris-
kagarlitsky-renfrey-clarke/
In Search of the Classical World An Introduction to the

Ancient Aegean 1st Edition Dudley Moore
https://ebookmeta.com/product/in-search-of-the-classical-world-
an-introduction-to-the-ancient-aegean-1st-edition-dudley-moore/
SOCIAL FORMATIONS IN THE
ANCIENT WORLD
This book encapsulates a long period of history of human progress by highlighting crucial
social, economic, and cultural dynamics. It presents recent historiography and new analytical
tools used to analyse multi-dimensional themes involved in social formations in different parts
of the world. This is a reader-friendly book with simple and lucid language and fulfils the
pressing needs of students studying the course on Social Formations and Cultural Patterns of the
ancient and medieval world at various universities across the world. The summary, key words,
and representative questions at the end of each chapter would assist in revision and a better
understanding of the issues dealt with therein. A detailed chapter-end reference would enable
and motivate the readers to engage in further studies for a better understanding of the themes.
This book will be of interest to students, researchers, and academics in the area of
history – ancient and medieval world history, in particular, and anthropology. It will also be
an interesting read for general readers interested in knowing about the ancient and medieval
world.
Rakesh Kumar has obtained an MPhil and PhD in History from Delhi University, India.
His area of specialisation is medieval Indian history, but his interest area goes beyond to
cover studies dealing with the ancient and medieval world. He has written on several themes
related to medieval Indian history such as ‘Nature of the Mughal State’, ‘Currency System
during the Mughal Age’, ‘Art of Printing and Painting of Cloth during the Mughal Period’,
‘Ghalib’s Contribution towards Urdu Literature’, ‘Indo-Persian Literature-Works of Amir
Khusrau’, ‘Labourers and Artisans in Seventeenth Century Ahmadabad’ to mention a few.
His passion for teaching and caring for students has meant that most of his publications have
been aimed towards benefitting the students. Present work is a move in a similar direction
with a difference that while his earlier publications had readership primarily among students
at Delhi University, this book, it is hoped, would benefit students and general readers at the
pan-Indian and global level. His devotion towards teaching has earned him the ‘Teaching
Excellence Award’ conferred by the University of Delhi on its Foundation Day, 1 May 2014.
Dr Kumar’s MPhil dissertation is on ‘Labourers and Artisans in the City of Agra (16th–17th
Centuries)’ and his PhD thesis is titled ‘Towns, Bazars, and the Working Population in the
Ahmadabad Region during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’.
Rakesh Kumar has also presented papers in international seminars organised by the Center
for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. As part of a Government of India
project, he has been instrumental in developing the first of its kind geo-tourism model in
India aimed at education, protection of geo-diversity, and benefit to the rural community in
Almora District of the Indian hill state of Uttarakhand. Presently he is working as Professor
at the Department of History, Ram Lal Anand College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India.
SOCIAL FORMATIONS IN
THE ANCIENT WORLD
From Evolution of Humans to the
Greek Civilisation
Rakesh Kumar
Designed cover image: Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 Rakesh Kumar
The right of Rakesh Kumar to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Disclaimer: Maps used in this book for representational purposes only.
The international boundaries, coastlines, denominations, and other
information shown in the maps in this work do not necessarily imply any
judgement concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement
or acceptance of such information. For current boundaries please refer to
Survey of India maps.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-032-56925-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-62516-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-62517-1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781032625171
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
CONTENTS
List of Figuresvi
Prefacevii
1 Evolution of Humans: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures 1
2 The Neolithic Cultures: Food Production and Animal

Husbandry in Asia and Europe 58
3 Bronze Age Civilisations – I: Mesopotamia and Egypt 100
4 Bronze Age Civilisations – II: Shang and Minoan 150
5 Nomadism in Central and West Asia: Advent of Iron and Its

Implications176
6 Ancient Greece 218
Index 269
FIGURES
2.1 Early Neolithic Sites of Southwest Asia 71

3.1 Transitional Cultures of North Mesopotamia 105
3.2 Transitional Culture of South Mesopotamia 108
3.3 Evolution of Writing in Mesopotamia (3200–1000 BCE) 120
3.4 Map of Pre-dynastic and Dynastic Egypt 125
3.5 Egyptian Hieroglyphs With Corresponding Phonetics and Meaning 131
3.6 Hieratic and Their Corresponding Hieroglyphic Writing
and Phonetics 132
4.1 Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Cultures in China 151
4.2 China under Shang Dynasty (c. Mid-1700s–Mid-1000s BCE) 157
4.3 The Aegean Civilisations of Second Millennium BCE 163
5.1 Central Asia During the Bronze Age 182
5.2 West Asia and Eastern Mediterranean During the Middle
Bronze Age 191
6.1 Regions and City – States of Ancient Greece 219
PREFACE
The present book has been written keeping in mind the needs of students of history
studying the course on social formations and cultural patterns of the ancient and
medieval world in Indian universities and ancient and medieval history in different
universities across the world. A general reader with an interest in history would
also find the book interesting and informative. This work is a result of my long-
standing interest in the subject, kindled by my teacher Prof. Amar Farooqui during
my graduation days at Hansraj College, University of Delhi, India. In the past few
decades, several new research and monographs on ancient and medieval world
history have appeared providing new historiographical dimensions on various rel-
evant themes of world history. Through this book, an attempt has been made to
introduce these to the readers in as simplified a manner as possible. The work
deliberately avoids the methodology of a well-researched monograph and instead
incorporates a wide range of secondary sources for the benefit of the students and
readers with the objective of exposing them to several ways in which different
themes have been analysed by different sets of scholars.
The book has taken a little longer to materialise due to my commitments towards
my students, my present institution, and the University of Delhi for which I offer
sincere apologies to the publisher. But, at the same time, I would like to appreci-
ate the continuous pressure applied on me by the Taylor & Francis team through
several deadlines that kept me focused on the project. My colleagues and friends
have helped me through their continuous motivation. A special gratitude must be
reserved for my wife, Sarbani, and my children, Sangini and Snehil, who have
borne the brunt of my lack of attention due to my focus on this project. Their
unstinted support has helped me concentrate fully on the book.
1
EVOLUTION OF HUMANS
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures
Evolution of Humans
Human evolution and its related aspects have been a topic of much debate among
historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists. The notion (based
on Biblical traditions) that humans were a part of God’s creation has been success-
fully challenged since the mid-eighteenth century with the emergence of disciplines
like Geology and Archaeology. The scientific research and findings presented evi-
dence of changes in the earth and animal species, including humans, much before
4004 BCE, the supposed year of the earth’s creation mentioned by James Usser
(an Irish Archbishop) supported by John Lightfoot (Cambridge Scientist) follow-
ing the Biblical traditions. By the mid-nineteenth century, several findings of tools
and bones (of both humans and animals) put human existence tens of thousands of
years in the distant past. Findings of the fossils of Neanderthal man (the first archaic
human ancestor) from Dusseldorf in Germany (1856) and stone tools from the grav-
els of the Somme River in Northern France (1859) further strengthened the argu-
ments in favour of the evolutionists. The publication of Charles Darwin’s On the
Origin of Species (1859) and later The Descent of Man (1871) dealt a severe blow
to conservative scientists (the creationists) by providing a theory of natural selec-
tion of species and human evolution. By the end of the nineteenth century, a series
of events related to new findings provided not only a scientific basis for human evo-
lution but also scientific tools to study the human evolutionary process. But, while
the evolutionary nature of the human species has been conclusively established,
there is no unanimity among paleontologists regarding the sequence of the emer-
gence of a particular human species. This is largely on account of recent findings of
several human fossils across the world. The present discussion will largely rely on
fossil discoveries that are well spread across the world and extensively researched.
DOI: 10.4324/9781032625171-1
2 Evolution of Humans
Humans are considered a part of the group of organisms that have evolved
on the planet Earth since about 3,500 million years ago (Mya). But, unlike other
organisms, humans have displayed better adaptability in the face of several cli-
matic changes that the earth has been witnessing since its formation in about 4500
Mya. Better adaptability of the human species has been attributed to certain physi-
ological features but more importantly to the acquisition of culture or adaptive
strategies unavailable to other species. This effectively means that both biological
and cultural aspects are closely associated with the human evolutionary process.
Bipedalism (the ability to walk erect on two feet) and a large brain size are consid-
ered the two fundamental physiological changes during human evolution, whereas
the ability to make tools, social interactions, and acquisition of language fall in the
category of prominent cultural traits displayed by early humans. However, we must
keep in mind that biological and cultural aspects were not isolated but interrelated
processes, each influencing the other at crucial stages of human evolution. Another
crucial determinant in the evolutionary process of humans was the climatic factor
that had a bearing on both biological and cultural aspects and so needs to be ana-
lysed first.
Environment and Human Evolution

The environmental changes that occurred in different periods of the earth’s his-
tory had a profound impact on the emergence and extinction of several organ-
isms. While these changes, particularly long cycles of cold and warm climates, that
occurred on a millennial scale allowed migration from one continent to the other,
they also forced these organisms to adjust constantly to unusual weather conditions
(extreme heat or cold as well as drought and floods). Only organisms with better
adaptability could survive these climatic changes that coincided with the origin of
the human species.
Geologists, based on environmental conditions prevailing during the evolu-
tion of the earth, have divided the history of the earth into several ‘eons’, ‘eras’
and its smaller divisions ‘periods’ and ‘epochs’ in a chronological sequence
(see Table 1.1). From the point of view of human evolution, the Cenozoic era
(also known as the age of mammals) is of prime concern to us. The Cenozoic
era began about 65 Mya when the land masses of the earth assumed its present
form and primates began to emerge. The term ‘primate’ has been used to classify
certain mammals having special physiological characteristics such as vertebrae
(backbone in the column of discs) and females possessing mammary glands to
feed milk to their offsprings. The Cenozoic era has been further divided into
‘tertiary’ and ‘quaternary’ periods, each representing several epochs. The ter-
tiary period includes five epochs – Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene,
and Pliocene. The quaternary has been divided into two epochs – Pleistocene
and Holocene.
TABLE 1.1 Geological Divisions of the Earth From the Evolution of Species
Eon Era Period Epoch Developments
Holocene Growth of human civilisation until present day.

11,000 years ago, until today
Quaternary
Pleistocene Evolution of human species
(The Age of Humanity)
(last Ice Age) (Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens
1.6 Mya until today
1.6 Mya until 11,000 years ago sapiens)
Extinction of large mammals.
Pliocene 5–1.6 Mya Emergence of early hominid (Australopithecines)
Cenozoic And first Homo species (Homo habilis).
(The Age of Mammals) Emergence of modern forms of whales.
65 Mya until today Miocene 23–5 Mya Emergence of horse dogs and bears.
Emergence of apes.
Tertiary 65–1.6 Mya Oligocene 35–23 Mya Extinction of old and emergence of new
mammals.
PHANEROZOIC Eocene 56–35 Mya Mammals expand.
(540 Mya until Emergence of rodents and primitive whales.
present day) Paleocene 65–56 Mya Emergence of large mammals and primitive
primates (Prosimii).
Cretaceous 146–65 Upper 98–65 Mya Continents assume modern-day form.
Mya Extinction of dinosaurs.
Lower 146–98 Mya Dinosaurs flourish.
Mesozoic Emergence of first crocodiles and earliest-known
Evolution of Humans 3
(The Age of Reptiles) butterflies, snakes, ants, and bees emerge.
248–65 Mya Jurassic 208–146 Mya Age of Giant Dinosaurs
Evolution of birds and flowering plants.
Triassic 248–208 Mya Emergence of dinosaurs and mammals.
Extinction of amphibians.
Paleozoic Age of amphibians and reptiles.
540–248 Mya Emergence of winged insects.
Formation of coral reefs.
The Ice Age

For any study related to the emergence of humans, the Pleistocene epoch (1.6
Mya until 11,000 years ago) is of supreme importance. This geological period is
termed the ‘Age of Humanity’ because it was during this period that not only did
the process of human evolution gather momentum but humans also populated most
parts of the world. Environmentally, this time period marked the climax of the gla-
cial phase of the earth’s history that began about 35 Mya. Prior to the Pleistocene
phase, the world climate had become much cooler bringing down the sea level
and leading to the formation of glaciers. The period after 2.5 Mya was the phase
of intense glaciation till about 1.64 Mya when the earth saw a phase of frequent
climatic changes. These changes (from 1.64 Mya onwards) varied between warm
(inter-glacial) to extremely cold (glacial) phases in frequent intervals. It has been
estimated that, in the past 800,000 years, there have been nine glacial periods, each
lasting about 90,000–100,000 years with brief phases (lasting between 20,000 and
40,000 years) of inter-glacial. This is the reason why the Pleistocene epoch is also
called ‘The Great Ice Age’.
The constant fluctuation between warmer and extremely cold conditions had
a profound impact on the plant and animal life on the earth. The period of glacia-
tion was marked by the lowering of the sea levels and the inter-glacial by their
corresponding rise. These climatic variations, besides affecting the shape of land
masses, also brought about significant changes in flora and fauna. For example,
in the temperate zones, the glacial phase resulted in a decline of forests and the
growth of open grasslands, and in the animal world this resulted in the replacement
of forest species (sylvan species) with those that were more suited to tundra (areas
with no vegetation) or steppe (grasslands). Alternatively, during the inter-glacial
period, the spread of rain forests brought about converse floral and faunal changes.
Prior to the Pleistocene period (between 4 and 2 Mya), the climate was more stable,
and the African savannah region, where humans are supposed to have emerged
first, was the homeland of a substantial number of mammals, both large and small.
But frequent climatic variations beginning from the Pleistocene period, bringing
with it resultant floral and faunal changes, meant that humans had to continuously
adapt themselves while competing with other animal species for the same reserve
of food resources for their subsistence. Paleontologists inform us that as many as
113 mammal species appeared on the earth during the past 3 million years. In the
face of such competition, the adaptive strategy of early humans constitutes what is
known as ‘culture’.
The adaptive strategy of humans was not sufficient to compete with other ani-
mal species. The climatic changes went parallel with anatomical changes in various
organisms including humans to bring it in balance with the environment. Varia-
tions among species, caused by continuous and consistent mutation, were a part of
the process of natural selection. These mutations sometimes proved advantageous
to certain species particularly during ecological transitions. Among humans, these
physiological changes relate to bipedalism, an increased brain size, and related

changes that facilitated tool making, which in turn enabled humans to broaden their
diet (including meat eating), giving them an edge over other terrestrial primates.
Thus, it can be argued that the environment not only facilitated the natural selection
of the human species but also shaped their adaptive strategy, which had a decisive
impact on the human evolutionary process.
Origin of Human-Like Species

As mentioned earlier, humans belonged to the order of primates that emerged
around 69 Mya. Primates have been divided into two sub-orders – Prosimii, which
include lemurs, tarsiers, lorises, tree shrews, and species that fall in the category
of ‘pre-monkey’; and Anthropoidea/Anthropoids, which include monkeys, apes,
and humans. While prosimians are called primitive, Anthropoids are considered
advanced primates. The Prosimii species emerged between 69 Mya and in present
times are restricted to parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and Madagascar. Prosimians
are mainly suited to arboreal habitat (tree living), which has been made possible
due to such features as their prehensile hands and feet, extensive use of forelimbs,
and stereoscopic vision (ability to see three-dimensionally due to binocular disor-
der). On the other hand, except for monkeys, the anatomical features of all other
Anthropoids make them suitable for terrestrial habitats (living on land).
Anthropoidea or advanced primates are said to have separated from Prosimii
around 40 Mya with the evolution of monkeys. The sub-order Anthropoidea is fur-
ther divided into Cercopithecoidea (Old World Monkeys), Ceboidea (New World
Monkeys), and Hominoidea (apes and humans). Hominoidea separated from mon-
keys around 30 Mya and further branched into Pongidae (apes including chimpan-
zees, gorillas, gibbons, and orangutans) and Hominidae (modern humans and all
extinct earlier human sub-species and their ancestors). It is the Hominoidea group
with which we shall be principally concerned in the process of our analysis of
human evolution. However, a brief description of the point of divergence between
monkeys and apes and that between non-human primates (apes) and human-like
species is necessary to understand crucial stages in the evolution of genus Homo.
It is generally believed that apes diverged from monkeys in the Miocene epoch
(about 23 Mya) and the place of divergence was Africa. But the earliest evidence of
this divergence goes back to the Oligocene period (about 30 Mya) with the emer-
gence of a small ape called Aegyptopithecus in the Nile Valley in Egypt, which had
a small brain, but its visual capabilities were better than earlier primates and its
bones resembled those primates that emerged in East Africa from about 23 Mya.
Many primates emerged in Africa between 23 and 20 Mya, and it is believed that
the number of ape species in Africa was larger than that of monkeys. It would be
worthwhile to mention here that while monkeys are exclusively adapted to tree liv-
ing due to their small size, long and highly developed forelimbs, better vision, and
ability to jump with precision from one tree to the other, modern apes are adapted
to living on the ground due to their large size, longer hind limbs in comparison to
forelimbs, large canine teeth, and powerful body structure, though they can exploit
food resources of the trees as well. However, the earliest-known ape that emerged
in Africa around 20 Mya, called Proconsul, had ape-like teeth but had bodies like
monkeys and could easily move from the branch of one tree to the other.
It is largely accepted by the geologists that dating about 17 Mya, world climates
became cooler, mountain ranges like the Alps were formed, and a continental drift
linked Africa and Arabia with Europe and Asia, which were earlier separated by
sea. This enabled species of these regions to come into contact with each other
through the land bridges. This not only created new habitats for these species, but
their intermixing opened a new path of evolution too. It is believed that an ape
named Dryopithecus, dating about 20 Mya, moved to Asia and, around 14 Mya,
separated into several species, one of them having evolved into Ramapithecus
known as the ‘Asian ape’. Around the same time, a semi-terrestrial, hard fruit and
grass-seed-eating, and knuckle-walking ape, named Kenyapithecus, flourished in
Eastern Africa. For some time, it was believed that hominids have evolved from
Asian apes around 14 Mya. But new dating methods (for different dating meth-
ods, see Box 1.1) from the 1960s onwards involving molecular biology completely
changed this belief. The DNA analysis of albumin protein substances, found in pri-
mate blood, revealed a different path of human evolution. The analysis is based on
the scientific assumption that albumin protein in primates changes at a constant rate.
Thus, the time of separation of two primates (the existing ones) can be calculated
based on the difference between the albumins of a pair of primates. This analysis
has suggested that humans are closer to apes than monkeys. Further refining of this
method led to suggestions that monkeys and apes separated around 25 Mya, the
bigger apes from smaller apes around 17 Mya, gorillas from chimpanzees around 8
Mya, and chimpanzees from humans around 7 Mya. The molecular evidence thus
shows that chimpanzees are closest to our human ancestors. Another significant
revelation was that humans are much closer to Africans than to Asian apes. Since
this chronology put forward by molecular biologists is largely accepted, it is now a
firm belief that hominids emerged first in Africa.
An important marker of divergence between apes and hominids is the latter’s
ability to walk straight on two feet, that is, bipedalism. It was traditionally believed
that bipedalism developed over a long period of time possibly because of spending
more time exploiting food resources on the ground in an African savannah type of
climate, which was marked by the reduction of forests and the emergence of open
grasslands interspersed with trees. This is also known as the ‘Savanna hypothesis’.
However, the recent fossil findings of some bipedal hominin species (Ardipithecus
and Australopithecus anamensis) in woodlands or mixed grassland and forest
environments supported by recent research on African climate have led critics to
propose ‘climatic variability hypotheses’, where bipedalism is seen as a response
to extreme climatic variability experienced in Africa. But exactly at what point

hominids developed bipedalism is a matter of intense debate. This divergence of
opinion is largely due to the complete lack of fossil records between 8 and 4 Mya.
However, the later fossil evidence and inputs from molecular biological studies
have led scholars to conclude that bipedalism among early hominids began around
7 Mya. It was around this time that the Hominidae group split into two further divi-
sions forming two different lineages – ancestors of modern chimpanzees and mod-
ern humans. The ancestors of modern humans have been further divided into two
categories: (a) Australopithecus/Australopithecines (Southern Ape) and (b) Homo.
The process of evolution of hominid species is now considered more com-
plex than hitherto believed. Several bipedal ape-like hominids evolved between
7 and 4 Mya. One of the earliest among these, according to the available fossil
evidence, was Ardipithecus ramidus (named to distinguish them from the later Aus-
tralopithecus species). The fossils of this species have been found from the Awash
region in Ethiopia (East Africa) and are dated 4.5 Mya. Although it stood upright,
it had an ape-like skull resembling that of the chimpanzees. Another Species, A.
anamensis, fossils of which have been found in the Anam Lake in Turkana (East
Africa) and is dated 4.2 Mya, had a mix of ape and human like anatomy. Though
fully bipedal, it had short legs and was not as efficient a walker as later hominids.
With the fossil findings of several bipedal Australopithecus species from East and
South Africa, dated between 3.75 and 1 Mya, it was firmly established that Austra-
lopithecus represented the final stage of bipedalism. One of the lines of Australo-
pithecus evolved into Homo species around 2.5 Mya.
Based on the present fossil evidence of fully bipedal Australopithecus spe-
cies, Australopithecus afarensis (‘Southern Ape of Afar’) is considered the
oldest of this order. Fossils of this species have been found from Hadar in the
Afar region of Ethiopia (East Africa) and Laetoli in Northern Tanzania (South
Africa). These fossils, based on the potassium-argon dating method, have been
dated between 3.75 and 3 Mya. A complete skeleton of female afarensis spe-
cies, nicknamed ‘Lucy’ was found at Hadar. While ‘Lucy’ was a small-sized
(1 to 1.2 metres) species, other fossils of the same species found from this region
are much larger in size. All of them were bipedal, which is confirmed by fossils
and fossil footprints found at Laetoli. The brain size of afarensis was found to be
approximately that of a chimpanzee, that is, 410 cc (cubic centimetre). Its lower
limbs, though showing bipedalism, were smaller than its upper limbs. It also had
ape-like face, forward-thrusting jaws, and brow ridges, and although it might
have foraged for plant foods including hard and fibrous fruits, it spent larger time
on the trees. Marks on the animal bones found from Dikika site in the Awash
Valley (Ethiopia) in the year 2009 have led some to suggest that afarensis may
have been the earliest hominin to use cutting tools and hammerstones. The fos-
sil evidence also suggests that females, like humans, had narrower birth canals
(a direct result of bipedalism) indicating the early birth of the newborn. Thus,
some consider Australopithecus afarensis as an ‘anatomic mosaic’ of apes and

humans. It became extinct around 3 Mya.
It is generally believed that after 3 Mya the descendants of afarensis split into
two lines, one of which led to the evolution of Homo. One line of descent led to
the evolution of A. africanus (‘Southern Ape of Africa’), fossils of which were
found by Raymond Dart in 1924, mostly from South Africa. Africanus, which
lived between 3 and 1 Mya, was a small gracile creature that walked upright.
It had strong neck muscles, and its brain size (450 cc) was not much different
from the apes but had a delicate skull and a different brain structure from that
of the apes.
BOX 1.1 DATING METHODS FOR PRE-HISTORIC

FINDINGS
1. Potassium-argon dating – It is a radiometric method applied on volcanic

rocks and is used to date early pre-history. This method is based on the the-
ory that volcanic rocks contain radioactive Potassium-40, which constantly
decays and turns into an inert gas Argon-40. For every 100 potassium atoms
that decay, 11% turn into argon gas, which escapes from the rock when it
is in a molten state. As volcanic rocks cool and become hard, the argon-40
concentration drops to zero and gets trapped in the rocks, but potassium
decay continues. With the help of a spectrometer, it is possible to meas-
ure the concentration of argon-40 trapped since the formation of volcanic
rocks. Human tools found along with lava ash in volcanically active areas
can thus be dated. Through this method, fossils existing between 2.6 billion
years ago and about 100,000 years ago can be dated. Findings at Olduvai
Gorge and other sites in Eastern Turkana in Kenya have been dated using
this method.
2. Radiocarbon dating – Among the radioisotopic dating methods, the
radiocarbon dating technique is the most well known. It is based on the
theory that the sun’s radiation converts a small amount of atmospheric
nitrogen into radioactive Carbon-14, which is absorbed by living organ-
isms at a constant rate so that the percentage of radioactive C-14 in
them equals that in the atmosphere. Upon the death of an organism, the
C-14 present in the cells of these organisms disintegrates back as nitro-
gen at a known rate. Thus, the date of the death of the living organism
can be established by measuring the amount of C-14 left in the sample
discovered. Since the dates arrived at through this method are prone to
error due to alterations in the solar activity affecting the concentration of
radiocarbon, scientists have recalibrated them to get correct dates using

radiocarbon-dated tree rings. Antiquity of organic materials like charcoal,
shell, wood, and hair can be established through this method. But using
this method, one can get reliable dates only up to 50,000 years ago as
beyond this period the radioactive carbon left in the organisms is too little
to be measured.
3. Dendrochronology (tree-ring dating) – This method is used to date
pre-historic sites where woods of trees such as pines and oaks were used
by humans as beams of their dwellings and for other purposes. These trees
have rings which are formed during the early growth of the trees and are
a common site. The concentric rings keep on increasing with each passing
year and maintain an almost similar structure, depending upon the tem-
perature, humidity, and age of the trees. For the purpose of dating, each of
these ring structures is plotted against the year of their formation calculated
from the outermost ring dated to the year of its cutting. The pre-historic
sample is compared for its ring structures with already identified structures
to estimate its date. This method has proved to be quite effective in dating
the sites of the Mediterranean region and Western Europe. This technique
has also proved quite efficient in recalibrating radiocarbon dates. Using this
method sites existing between 10,000 years ago and present times can be
dated with some accuracy.
4. Obsidian hydration – It is a geochemical method of determining the
age of an artefact made of obsidian. Obsidian is a glassy rock, also some-
times referred to as volcanic glass. This was used by humans in early
pre-history as raw materials to make a variety of sharp tools such as pro-
jectile points, knives, and cutting tools. When obsidian glass is broken, it
absorbs water from the environment, which forms a hydration layer on
the exposed parts. The rate of hydration formation can be measured in
the laboratory. The thickness of the hydration layer on the available sam-
ple can be converted into years using the data on the rate of hydration.
The principle behind this method is that the longer the artefact surface
has been exposed, the thicker the hydration band will be. Through this
method, dates of artefacts in existence between 1,000,000 years ago and
about just the beginning of the Christian era can be established. Though
an inexpensive method, it has limited applicability as its efficacy is limited
to artefacts made of obsidian.
Besides the aforementioned dating methods, there are several others such
as uranium–thorium, thermoluminescence, and archaeomagnetic dating,
but they do not have universal applications.
Its gracile bones (like humans which ensure easy movability) and the existence
of what has been identified as ‘area 10’ in the brain, which plays a major role in
decision making, advance planning, and initiative, bring them closer to the line of
Homo than later other Australopithecines species.
Another line of descent from A. Afarensis led to the evolution of robust Austra-
lopithecines species in the form of A. robustus and A. boisei. A. robustus (‘robust
southern Ape’), also known as Paranthropus (‘beside man’), was a larger and
strongly built species than Africanus. It lived between 2.5 and 1.5 Mya, and fossil
findings suggest that it inhabited both Eastern and Southern Africa. It was much
taller (averaging about 5.3 feet) and heavier (average weight being 50 kg) with a
bigger brain of 500 cc and a flatter skull. It had large teeth specialised for chew-
ing coarse and fibrous plant foods and hard seeds. The skull comparison has led
some scholars to suggest that it was ancestral to modern gorilla. A. boisei (‘Boise
Southern Ape’), found by Louis and Mary Leakey and named after the sponsor
of its fossil search, Charles Boise (also known as Zinzanthropus or ‘East Africa
Man’), was a massive version of robustus. Its height ranged between 5.3 and 5.8
feet and weight between 60 and 80 kg. It lived between 2.5 and 1 Mya and inhab-
ited Tanzania (South Africa) where its fossils have been found in Olduvai Gorge
as well as East Africa in Omo Valley near West Turkana in Kenya. It had a slightly
bigger brain than robustus measuring 550 cc. It walked upright, yet it was built
on the lines of a gorilla and like them males were much taller than females. This
is called sexual dimorphism, which was also found among early Homo species.
It had a large skull with brow ridges, a flatter face, and small canine teeth but
immense molars and premolars. Crude stone tools found along with the bones
of this species led some to suggest that it may have been the earliest toolmaker.
But others have rejected this notion on the ground that with a small brain size, A.
Boisei was not capable of designing crude tools which require a certain amount of
imagination and planning. (For a skull comparison of Australopithecines species,
see Image 1.1.)
Recently discovered Australopithecines species named Australopithecus garhi
(‘garhi’ meaning surprise in the local dialect) from the Awash desert of Ethiopia
in East Africa has been classified neither in a gracile nor robust category. Dating
about 2.5 Mya, this species stood about 4.1 feet, had a brain size of 450–500 cc,
and had several features of a chimpanzee with long lower limbs like humans and
upper limbs like an ape. Butchered animal bones near the fossil bones of garhi have
led to suggestions that they were not only meat eaters but also efficient users of
stone tools. Brian Fagan (2010) has suggested that a high-protein diet in the form of
meat may have led to an increase in the brain size seen among early hominids. This
must also be seen in the background of the fact that major changes in the hominid
skull and face occurred after 2.5 Mya, many of which were a direct outcome of
brain enlargement. It is also possible that the increasing use of stone tools to scav-
enge meat from dead animals may have played an important role in this crucial
stage of human evolution. Yet it has not been conclusively established that A. garhi
directly led to the evolution of the first human.
A Skull Comparison (Reconstructed) of Australopithecines Species
A. afarensis (brain size 410 cc)
A. africanus (reconstructed, brain size 450 cc)
A. robustus (brain size 500 cc)
A. boisei (brain size 550 cc)
A. garhi (brain size 500 cc)
Homo Species
All hominids other than Australopithecines have been classified under the single
order ‘Homo’. The early species of genus Homo is said to have evolved either from
more gracile forms of Australopithecines such as A. africanus or from those Aus-
tralopithecines species displaying more human characteristics such as A. garhi.
Whatever the case may be, the Homo species are distinguished by their larger
brain size, ability to acquire language, an opposite thumb-facilitating precision
grip, small and crowded teeth, their ability to manufacture (not simply use) stone
tools, and better social interaction. The Homo group has been divided into four
major sub-groups, that is, H. habilis, H. erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, and H.
sapiens (modern man). These species evolved between 2.5 Mya and 40,000 years
ago. Further bifurcation, sometimes, is made between H. habilis, on the one hand,
and later Homo species, on the other. The reason is the similarity between Austra-
lopithecines and H. habilis, due to a combination of terrestrial bipedalism, expert
tree climbing, and arboreal adaptation. A low body mass, similar tooth design,
and sexual dimorphism among male and female species are the other similarities.
Other Homo species have been placed in separate categories based on shared
characteristics of larger body mass, a more human-like physique, larger brain
size, suitability with terrestrial living and limited ability to move around trees and
tooth, and jaw design more akin to that of modern humans.
Homo habilis
All early Homo species evolving from about 2.5 Mya have been conveniently
placed in the category of H. habilis or ‘Handy Man’. The earliest fossil of H. habi-
lis was found in 1960 by Louis and Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania
(East Africa). Although most of its fossils have been found in East Africa, few have
also been recovered from South Africa and Southeast Asia where the terms Telan-
thropus and Meganthropus have been used, respectively, for the H. habilis species.
As pointed out earlier, H. habilis had many similarities with the Australopith-
ecines species and, besides other similarities, research has suggested that both were
bipedal and primarily fruit eaters too. But the major difference lay in the cranial
capacity and its structures, as well as the facial features. H. habilis had a larger brain
with an average cranial capacity of 650 cc in comparison to the Australopithecines
species, having an average cranial capacity of 450–500 cc. The head of H. habilis
was also higher and rounder, and it had a smaller jaw and a less protruding face.
Although it had a powerful grasping hand like chimpanzees, the existence of an
ape-like thumb, even though found technologically crude, permitted both powerful
gripping and manipulation of fine objects, which helped them manufacture tools.
Another major evolutionary advantage that the habilis had over Australopithecines
was the existence of speech-producing and control area, termed ‘Broca’s area’ in the
brain, which allowed this species to produce a variety of sounds. Though H. habilis
is believed to be capable of taking out limited sounds only, this biological feature
subsequently enabled the growth of articulate speech among the later Homo species.
Sexual dimorphism, however, was only slightly reduced among the habilis species.
Apart from some crucial physiological differences, another and more impor-
tant aspect of divergence was the acquisition of culture, represented chiefly among
other things by their ability to manufacture tools. A detailed discussion on the cul-
tural achievements of H. habilis and the subsequent Homo species would be taken
up later in the chapter, but here it would suffice to say that the ability to manufac-
ture tools and display of rudimentary form of social organisation proved to be an
extremely efficient adaptive strategy. These not only enabled habilis to compete
better with other animal species while exploiting limited natural food resources
but also enabled later Homo species to move out of Africa and settle in extreme
climatic conditions in different parts of the Old World.
A large number of crude tools made from pebbles along with hominid and ani-
mal bones were found at Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania) dated around 2 Mya, making
it the earliest designated human culture, that is, the Oldowan culture. The artefacts
found during excavations at Olduvai between 1935 and 1959 by a team led by
Louis Leakey suggest that H. habilis used chipped stones to shape them into crude
choppers, scrapers, burins, and hammer stones. They used these to cut, scrape, or
dig. The tool marks on the animal bones, found from the same site, suggest that
meat was a part of the regular diet of habilis distinct from the exclusively vegeta-
ble/plant diet of the apes. However, the small size and crudeness of the tools found
at Olduvai have led some to conclude that H. habilis was not an expert hunter but
scavenged meat and bone marrow from animal carcasses killed by other carnivores.
Again, since the tools were not standardised nor made with a predetermined design,
it has been argued that habilis did not possess articulate speech. The evidence of
rudimentary social organisation and cooperation among the habilis species comes
from Olduvai itself. A huge assemblage of animal bones and stone tools have been
found here, and a careful analysis of these has led scholars to conclude that animal
carcasses were brought here from a distance and butchered for meat and bone mar-
row with the help of a variety of tools stored here. Based on their primitive tools
and language, it has been argued that habilis was not a big game hunter. However,
findings of stone balls at Olduvai do indicate the hunting of small animals such as
antelopes by them. With these cultural traits, the habilis species was able to not
only adapt to the savannah-type environment of East Africa but also compete bet-
ter with contemporary animal species. H. habilis became extinct around 1.5 Mya,
paving the way for the evolution of much advanced Homo species.
H. ergaster and H. erectus

Based on recent discoveries and a more scientific analysis, scholars argue that pos-
sibly there were five to six hominid species along with H. habilis in existence before
the beginning of the Pleistocene period (1.64 Mya). The connection of these with
habilis is unquestionable, but the evidence from Koobi Fora in Kenya (East Africa)
of the co-existence of H. habilis (the latest fossil having been dated to 1.44 Mya)
and H. erectus (which emerged around 1.64 Mya) has raised doubts about the belief
that the latter directly evolved from the former. A species named H. ergaster (‘work-
ing man’) emerged in East Africa and is said to have flourished between 1.8 and 1.5
Mya. The fossil of this species (in the form of a complete skeleton of a boy) was dis-
covered in 1984 by Richard Leakey and others from Nariokotome near Lake Tur-
kana (therefore named ‘Turkana boy’ or ‘Nariokotome boy’) in Kenya, dated about
1.6 Mya. A careful analysis of the fossil has suggested that it was a powerfully built
human with massive brow ridges and a large face with a low skull, which accom-
modated a larger brain than habilis averaging about 800 cc. More importantly, it
had larger legs and shorter arms, suggesting an exclusively terrestrial living, and
its narrower hips enabled them to run faster over long distances, which was crucial
for hunting and scavenging. H. ergaster is considered as the first modern hominin.
Tools found near the skeletal remains of H. ergaster suggest that they made such tools
as hand axes and cleavers, which is considered an advancement over the crude tools fash-
ioned by H. habilis. The tools belong to the Acheulean industry that fully developed dur-
ing the time of H. erectus. H ergaster is also known to have used natural fire supposedly
for protection against cold and carnivores as well as for cooking. Sexual dimorphism
diminished (estimated to be 20%) among the ergaster, and a narrower birth canal among
the females meant that a newborn was born early. While some tend to put H. ergaster and
H. erectus in the same category, others consider ergaster an altogether different species.
However, recent research does suggest a direct link between the two species.
H. erectus (‘Upright man’) emerged at the beginning of the Pleistocene period
though the earliest erectus fossil has been dated 1.7 Mya. During this time great
mountain chains such as the Alps and the Himalayas were formed, land masses
were raised and new species of animals such as horses, wild cattle, elephants, and
camels came into evolution. H. erectus emerged in Africa and then radiated to Asia
and Europe. In Africa, the earliest specimen of H. erectus has been discovered from
Eastern Turkana (Kenya) and is dated 1.75 Mya. In Asia, the erectus fossils have
been found in Trinil beds on the Solo River in Northeastern Java (Indonesia) by
a Dutchman E. Dubois. The fossil was named Pithecanthropus erectus (‘upright
ape man’) or ‘Java man’ and is dated about 700,000 years ago. Another significant
erectus fossil discovery in Asia was in Zhoukoudian caves near Beijing. The fos-
sil was named Sinanthropus (‘Peking man’) and is dated between 500,000 and
250,000 years ago. In Europe, erectus fossils have been found spread over Spain,
France, Germany, England, and Hungary dated between 1 Mya and 400,000 years
ago. Their radiation suggests that H. erectus species were adapted to different envi-
ronmental conditions, from tropical savannah in East Africa to forested parts of
Indonesia, temperate climates in North Africa and Europe, and the extreme cold
conditions of China and Northern Europe. Such a wide distribution brought about
physical variations among the different erectus species. The erectus ability to adapt
to these diverse climatic conditions arose from some significant physiological
changes (since H. habilis) and the acquisition of crucial cultural traits.
H. erectus possessed a bigger brain (average cranial capacity being 1,000 cc) and
a bigger body than habilis. While the average height of erectus species was between
5 and 6 feet, its weight ranged between 40 and 75 kg and resembled a strongly built
version of H. habilis. Its skull was long and low with a bony bump behind, a slop-
ing forehead, thick brow ridges, big projecting jaws, smaller teeth than habilis, and
strong neck muscles at the back of the neck, which joined the rear bump of the head
stopping the head from sagging forward particularly while running. But perhaps
even more significant than these physiological features were the well-developed
Broca’s area and more advanced vocal tract facilitating articulate speech, which had
significant social and economic consequences for further human evolution.
The ability of the erectus species to colonise different habitats and climates
largely resulted from improved tool technology, big game hunting, efficient use of
fire, and improved building methods, which put them much ahead of former homi-
nids. Their tool culture broadly termed ‘Acheulean culture’, based on the findings
of a large number of erectus tools at St Acheul in Northern France, was a marked
improvement over habilis tools. The most prominent tool of erectus species was the
hand axe, which was a multipurpose hunting and meat-processing tool. They also
fashioned a wide range of flake tools and choppers. Unlike habilis tools, these were
standardised (made on a similar pattern), suggesting an articulate speech necessary
to pass on the technology to the same or the next generation. A well-developed
speech also helped the erectus species in better cooperation, enabling them to hunt
big animals such as horses, rhinoceros, boars, and bisons. The opportunistic use of
fire by erectus not only assured protection against extreme cold climates and carni-
vores but also enabled them to add to their diet those foods uneatable (when raw)
till now. An improved communication skill, besides facilitating big game hunting,
also helped in gathering activities, storage of food, and shelter-building activities.
Such significant advances achieved by the erectus species indicate that cultural
attributes became a major determining factor in the future of human evolution.
H. erectus became extinct around 400,000 years ago and prepared the way for the
evolution of a more advanced human species termed H. sapiens.
Homo heidelbergensis
H. heidelbergensis or ‘Heidelberg Man’ lived from 600,000 to 200,000 ya. The fos-
sil findings of this species are spread across the world from East, North, and South
Africa to Europe (particularly Germany, Spain, and England). The species name
comes from the largest number of findings from Mauer, southeast of Heidelberg in
Germany. While some consider this species as the last common ancestor to both
Neanderthals and modern humans, others consider it as ancestors to Neanderthals
alone, terming it as an exclusive European species. They are considered the earli-
est colonisers of Europe. Its height ranged between 5 and 6 feet, weight ranged
between 50 and 70 kg, and average cranial capacity is about 1250 cc. It had strong
neck muscles and a flat face with strong brow ridges.
The tool kits of this species show a variety of hand axes, points, and other flake
tools with the Middle Palaeolithic–prepared core technology. Since heidelbergen-
sis lived in the harsh and cold climate of Europe with plenty of animal resources,
they used a variety of specialised tools such as wooden spears to hunt carnivores,
bison, deer, rhinoceroses, and horses. Considering that this species had to compete
with other predator species, it is argued that H. heidelbergensis made tools for spe-
cific functions and kept them for longer usage. While the manufacture of standard-
ised tools does indicate an articulate speech among this species, not much evidence
of their social activities has been found except an unused hand axe made from pink
quartzite found in Spain, which is considered a ritual object.
Homo neanderthalensis
The Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) emerged during 135,000–125,000
years ago. Fossils of this species have been found mainly in Europe and Eurasia,
the earliest being the deposits at Neander Valley (‘thal’ or ‘tal’ means valley in
German) near Dusseldorf in West Germany. Neanderthal fossils have also been
found in other parts of Europe such as France, Yugoslavia, Italy, Belgium, Britain,
Spain, and Czechoslovakia, in Russia, and in Southwest Asia, Africa, and Central
Asia. The fossils belong to different time periods of the existence of the Neander-
thals during 135,000–35,000 years ago. Since the later fossils suggest anatomical
variations in the same species, a distinction has been made between archaic and
advanced Neanderthals. Neanderthals were robustly built humans with an average

height of 5.5 feet and a weight of about 70 kg. They had large, thick, and long skulls
with a bigger brain than that of modern humans averaging about 1500 cc. They had
sloping foreheads with brow ridges, distinct cheekbones, large noses either flat or
bulbous, and chinless projecting jaws. These features termed as ‘classical’, how-
ever, were mainly confined to Western Europe, particularly in the Dordogne area
of Southwest France, whereas later Neanderthal fossils found from Shanidar caves
in Iraq and Mount Carmel and Qafzeh caves in Israel show considerable variation.
Although more archaic than modern humans, Neanderthals possessed many
cultural traits akin to modern humans. Since the Neanderthals inhabited the earth
during the last phase of the Ice Age, their reliance on meat increased to survive
the harsh winter climates. Their short and stocky body is also considered to have
adapted to winter climates. Their tool culture, known as Mousterian culture (from
the finds at Le Moustier rock shelter in Southwest France), was an improvement
over the Acheulean chopper and hand-axe industries. The use of a variety of tools
from flakes made Neanderthals expert and opportunistic hunters. Animal bones
found near their habitation areas (cave, rock shelters, and open camps) suggest that
they killed such large animals as bison, cave bears, horses, reindeer, wild cattle,
and other woolly mammoths. They also caught birds by using snares and fish with
the help of composite tools (tools made of more than one component, for example,
a point, a shaft, and a binding to secure the head to the shaft to make it a spear).
Needless to mention here that such diverse hunting activities required careful plan-
ning and greater cooperation than before.
Another significant cultural aspect attributed to Neanderthal species is their
ability to make fire by striking sparks from iron pyrites. This was even more sig-
nificant than the use of natural fire by the erectus species as they could now light
fire instead of making opportunistic use of the natural forest fire. The choice of
their settlement – caves, rock shelters, and open encampments – enabled them not
only to survive in different climatic conditions but also to exploit diverse economic
resources offered by nature due to varying climatic conditions of the last Ice Age.
Neanderthals are also said to have possessed abstract thoughts like the notion of
‘life after death’ as reflected in the careful burial of the dead along with grave goods
like stone tools, stone pillows, flowers, and roasted joints of meat. Earliest signs of
religious beliefs and rituals, art forms (although debatable), and social awareness
(like compassion) are also seen as a part of the cultural practices of the Neander-
thals. A further elaboration of these aspects of Neanderthal existence in the next
section on Palaeolithic cultures would make it clear that what is termed as ‘culture’
became more visible and more significant than biological features in the further
human evolutionary process. Regarding the language and speech capabilities of the
Neanderthals, however, it has been argued by scholars like Brian Fagan (2010) and
some others that they did not possess a well-developed language. The basis of this
argument is the fact that the Neanderthal culture remained unchanged throughout
the period of their existence whereas language, by promoting the exchange of ideas
and a complex thought process, becomes a major catalyst for change.
The Neanderthals became extinct about 30,000 years ago. The reason behind the
extinction of Neanderthals and the emergence of fully modern humans is an issue of
much debate among scholars. The evidence from Western Europe has indicated that
the Neanderthals disappeared soon after the arrival of the first species of Homo sapi-
ens whereas those from West Asia suggest that they disappeared after a long period
of cohabitation with the latter. This has led to a belief among some that Neanderthals
were wiped out by the emergent fully modern man who had evolved somewhere
else, while others point out that either they interbred with the other contemporary
Homo sapiens species or they themselves evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens. But,
despite the debate, there is near unanimity among the scholars on two important
aspects. Firstly, the disappearance of Neanderthals was not sudden and secondly
they definitely contributed a small share in the gene pool of modern humans.
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens (‘wise man’) branched out of H. erectus line of descent, but there
is no unanimity among scholars regarding the time period of this transition. While
some have considered the period of transition about 400,000 years ago, others have
given a much later time of 200,000 years ago. The earliest fossils of archaic Homo
sapiens, found from Atapuerca in Spain, have been dated 300,000 years ago and
are considered as intermediate between H. erectus and Neanderthals to distinguish
them from modern humans. In view of limited fossil evidence, our knowledge
about H. sapiens is largely dependent on the fossil records related to Neanderthal
species and cultural developments associated with them.
As indicated earlier, the emergence of H. sapiens has been a highly debatable issue
among paleoanthropologists (those engaged in the study of human origin). The present
debate can be classified into three major hypotheses: (a) ‘Out of Africa’ or ‘African
Origin’ or ‘Total Replacement’ model; (b) ‘Multiregional Evolution’ or ‘continuity’
model; and (c) ‘Intermediate’ or ‘Assimilation’ model. These theories have developed
at different points in time depending on the quantity and quality of fossil records found
in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Recent archaeological discoveries supported by a more
scientific study involving molecular biology have further contributed to this debate.
The ‘African Origin’ model hypothesises that fully modern humans evolved
first and only in Africa and that too only a few hundred thousand years ago. Once
they evolved as anatomically modern humans, H. sapiens sapiens travelled out of
Africa to explore and colonise other parts of the world, replacing all other homi-
nid forms with little or no genetic interchange with other older forms. This model
thus assumes a single source of the origin of modern humans. The ‘Multiregional
Evolution’ model, on the other hand, refutes the notion that modern human origin
occurred only in Africa and argues that human population throughout the Old World
(Africa, Asia, and Europe) evolved independently first into archaic H. sapiens and
then to fully modern humans. According to this model, between 2 and 1 Mya, a
generic Homo ancestor of ours spread out across the warmer latitudes of Africa, the
Middle East, Asia, and perhaps Southern Europe. Although there was divergence
due to local and differential environments, across the whole range of the genus
Homo, they were evolving towards H. sapiens, as a result of gene flow through
mating and mutation that connected all human groups to some extent. Since all of
them were hunters and foragers, they all emerged in the past 30,000 years as one
species – H. sapiens sapiens even though some of them evolved into fully mod-
ern humans earlier than the others and had physical differences that distinguish
modern Europeans, Asians, and Africans. The ‘Intermediate’ or ‘Assimilation’
model accepts an African origin for modern humans but rejects the notion of total
replacement or migration of Africans as the mechanism for the evolution of modern
humans. Instead, this model suggests genetic hybridisation, gene flow, and regional
pattern of evolution as factors leading to the evolution of H. sapiens sapiens. Thus,
modern humans in some places (like Asia) could be largely ‘African’ in genetic
terms but show some regional genetic continuity over the past million years.
Until recently, the ‘Multiregional Evolution’ model had assumed wide accept-
ance mainly on account of the largest number of fossil findings of early and later H.
sapiens from Western Europe and Southwest Asia, suggesting at least two points of
origin of H. sapiens. The anatomical variation between the European Neanderthals
(archaic) and Neanderthals of Southwest Asia (more modern) provided further evi-
dence to support the multiregional model. However, more recent research based on
the biochemical evolutionary record, contained within human gene (DNA analysis),
have strengthened the case for an African origin of modern humans. An investiga-
tion of the pattern of genetic variation among modern humans supports the African
origin of H. sapiens. For the purpose of such an investigation, modern researchers
like Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson (1987) have particularly used mitochondrial DNA
(mt DNA) as a tool for arriving at mutation rates. The mitochondrial DNA is passed
on only through females or maternal lines and does not get diluted by paternal DNA.
Thus, it proved to be an effective tool for establishing a reliable link between pre-
sent and ancestral populations. A study by Cann et al. of 182 women from Africa,
Europe, Asia, Australia, and New Guinea has suggested that differences among them
were very small and that all material lineages can be traced back to a single female
ancestor (nicknamed ‘mitochondrial Eve’) or a very small group that lived in Africa
200,000 years ago. The study also suggests that this small population migrated to
the rest of the world with little or no inter-breeding with the existing archaic H.
sapiens. Similar research undertaken by F. Cruciani et al. (2011) has suggested a
most common male ancestor (nicknamed ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’), also living in
Africa about 144,000 years ago. Like the mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosomes can
be passed only through paternally – from father to son and, like the study of mito-
chondrial DNA, mutations of Y-chromosomes can also be calibrated and dated to
reveal a reconstruction of ancestral Y-chromosomal DNA sequences.
Scholars like J. G. D. Clark (1977) and Brian Fagan (2010) argue that these molec-
ular biological studies, though yet to be refined, show a greater likelihood that the
modern gene pool (of H. sapiens) originated in one nuclear region (Africa) from
where it spread very rapidly than that modern human evolved independently from
archaic forms in each of the main regions of the Old World. Further conclusions from
the same study that Africans display more diverse types of mitochondrial DNA than
other present-day populations suggest that they had more time to develop such muta-
tions. This study, along with the database of normal DNA (known as nuclear DNA),
which involves blood groups and enzymes, has also suggested that there was a pri-
mary split between Africans and non-Africans and then a later one between Eurasians
and Southwest Asians. The African origin studies have also demolished the earlier
notion of Europe being the cradle of modern humans and Africa being backwater.
H. sapiens emerged from the early and later H. sapiens showing anatomi-
cally archaic and modern physiological features, respectively. Archaic H. sapiens
emerged about 200,000 years ago, whereas anatomically modern species of the
same genus started evolving about 100,000 years ago. Prominent among the fos-
sils of this species are the ones that have been found at Omo Valley in Ethiopia by
Richard Leakey dated 195,000 years ago, a skull found at Broken Hill (Kabwe) in
Zambia dated 110,000 years ago, and those found at Qafzeh in Israel dated about
92,000 years ago (for details of the recent fossil findings of hominin species, see
Box 1.2). Here, it must be pointed out that the designation of archaic or modern to
these fossils is largely based on the structure of the skull and does not imply major
cultural differences. Prior to the emergence of H. sapiens, these variant species of
H. sapiens displayed a high level of cultural adaptability.
BOX 1.2 RECENT FINDINGS OF HOMININ SPECIES
1. Australopithecus sediba (‘Southern Ape from the Spring’) – the fossil in the
form of two partial skeletons of a female and a juvenile male was discovered
in 2008 at Malapa in South Africa by Lee Berger. A. sediba is known to have
lived from 1.9 to 1.8 Mya. This species shared physical characteristics with
both Australopithecines and Homo having features like small body and brain
size (400–450 cc), long upper limbs, a modest brow ridge, a pronounced
lower jaw and small molars and premolars, upright walking, and sexual
dimorphism like modern humans. This species is said to be a link between
Australopithecines and Homo.
2. Homo georgicus (‘Georgian Man’) – A collection of fossils of this species
was found between 1991 and 2005 in the Dmanisi fossil site in Georgia. The
species is dated around 1.8 Mya. With smaller arms and bones and a smaller
cranial capacity (600–770 cc), its physical structure was found to be like
early African Homo. Thus, in 2002 it was described as a new species. But its
facial and jaw similarity with Homo erectus made this species controversial,
and a reassessment in 2006 placed this species in the category of European
H. erectus. Its finding represents the earliest hominin population outside
Africa and is significant for the study of early hominin migration.
3. Homo antecessor (‘Pioneer Man’) – Fossil findings of teeth, jaw, skeletal,

and cranial remains of about 8–12 individuals at Atapuerca in Northern Spain
during 1994–1997 has led to the declaration of a new species H. antecessor,
which may possibly be the first West European hominin. It lived from 1.2
Mya to 500,000 ya. It had more robust teeth than modern humans and had
a cranial capacity of about 1000 cc. However, the absence of hand axes and
the finding of small tools prepared from locally available raw materials such
as hammerstones and core tools near the fossil remains have been associated
with the Old Palaeolithic Oldowan technology. From the butchered hominin
bones, evidence of cannibalism has also been attributed to this species.
4. Homo floresiensis (‘Flores Man’) – In 2003, a team of Indonesian and Aus-
tralian archaeologists discovered fossils of a tiny hominin from Liang Bua
cave on Flores Island (Indonesia) and named it H. floresiensis. The species is
reported to have lived between 95,000 and 12,000 ya and is supposedly the
last hominin species to have become extinct. It had a short stature (female
height being about 3 and half feet), a weight of about 25 kg, and very small
average brain size of 400 cc. Though of small size, the shape of the brain
was found to be like a H. species. Thus, some anthropologists described
them as Homo species having pathological disorders. However, recent
research has considered this as a separate species and their tiny size has
been described as resulting from island dwarfism as Flores Island was iso-
lated for a long time after separation from Australia and Asia. The tool types
have been associated with Lower Palaeolithic (Oldowan) tool technology.
The earliest evidence of modern H. sapiens comes from the findings at a rock
shelter named Cro-Magnon near Les Eyzies village in Southwestern France. The
Cro-Magnon man evolved around 40,000 years ago and is said to be the white
ancestors of today’s Europeans. The Cro-Magnon species, with a height ranging
between 5.6 and 5.8 feet, was taller and had thinner bones and less rugged features
than the Neanderthals who may have co-existed with the former for at least up to
5,000 or 10,000 years. Compared to the Neanderthals, the Cro-Magnon head was
relatively tall (for skull comparisons of Homo species, see Image 1.2) but small
with a more rounded brain case containing a slightly smaller brain of 1400 cc
average capacity. Besides these, other significant physiological changes were an
upright forehead, not forward-jutting but a straight face, only slight brow ridges,
smaller nose and jaws, more crowded teeth, and a well-developed chin.
In cultural terms too, the H. sapiens displayed remarkable variety and improve-
ment over that of the Neanderthals. The versatile tool technology of this species
enabled them to survive the extreme climatic variations of the last phase of the last
Ice Age that began about 116,000 years ago. They colonised all the continents of
the Old and the New World (America and Australia) except Antarctica. To effec-
tively exploit the vegetation and food resources in different climatic conditions in
these continents at different points of time, the early H. sapiens made extensive use
of stones, bones, antlers, and wood to manufacture tools with a new technology of
making blades, thus giving rise to distinct cultures such as Perogordian/Chattelp-
eronian, Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, and Magdalenian.
Along with innovations in tool technology, the period of early H. sapiens has
been termed as one of ‘cultural explosion’ by scholars like Steven Mithen (1996).
This term has been used in the context of several developments such as increased
economic specialisation, the development of fully articulate speech, the restructur-
ing of social relations between various groups, and, above all, the development
of art as means of expression and communication. The technique and the new
behavioural pattern of the early H. sapiens transformed the human way of life
and brought about explosive population growth. Endowed with superior intellec-
tual capabilities, they pushed earlier human species into extinction. Grahame Clark
(1977) has remarked that one can assume from their art and the complexity of their
technology that the mentality of the Cro-Magnon man could hardly have differed
from the existing human races. The racial differences among modern humans were
mainly an outcome of genetic variations linked with the widespread colonisation
of new territories towards the end of the Pleistocene period and particular climatic
conditions in these areas.
A Skull Comparison (Reconstructed) of Homo Species
Homo habilis (brain size 650 cc)
Homo ergaster (brain size 750 cc)
Homo erectus (brain size 1000 cc)
Homo neanderthalensis (brain size 1500 cc)
Homo sapiens (brain size 1400 cc)

From the above description, it is clear that there was a close interrelationship
between biological endowments and cultural achievements of the evolving spe-
cies. Bipedalism or an erect posture, for example, was a response to the thinning
of forests in the savannah region and the consequent need to cross over from there
to the forested lands, which facilitated the acquisition of culture. Bipedalism led
to freeing hands from locomotion and made them available for, first, tool use and
ultimately for tool manufacturing. At the same time, an erect posture had reduced
the tree-climbing abilities of the hominids and had therefore exposed them to dan-
gers from the wild animals. Under these circumstances, only those hominid groups
survived who were capable of intelligent use of tools and weapons. These activities
precipitated the development of the brain. Brain development was also facilitated
by changes in the architecture of the skull due to the shortening of teeth, which
led to lighter jaws, enabling the braincase to expand to house a larger size brain.
The shortening of the teeth itself was due to dietary changes among early human
species reducing the role of big teeth, which was a cultural attribute. At the level
of human social relations too, we see an interconnection between biological and
cultural traits. The narrowing of the birth canal among female hominid species
(a direct outcome of bipedalism) led to the delivery of babies much before their
brain development. The longer dependence of the baby on the mother accounted
for greater social bondage between the two. Last but not least, the acquisition of
language resulted from some crucial changes in the brain structure providing for
sound-producing abilities of the hominids. This directly impacted the nature of
tools manufactured by early humans, bringing about more uniformity and techno-
logical advancement, besides promoting better social cooperation in hunting and
foraging activities. But having mentioned these, we must at the same time concede
that by the time of the evolution of advanced hominids, the biological features of
the human species were taken over by their cultural developments.
Palaeolithic Cultures
The previous section included a brief analysis of the biological and cultural evolu-
tion of humans and the interrelationship between the two. The present section will
include a detailed description of the cultural attributes of various human species
(from H. habilis to H. sapiens sapiens) during what is known as the Palaeolithic
age. Although culture can be and has been defined in several manners, the most
accepted definition of the term among anthropologists is that culture is a sum total
of the learned behaviour of man which evolves out of the need to adapt within
a given environment. More than any other hominid group, this definition quite
appropriately fits into the cultural life of the early Homo species including early
modern humans who had to survive in varying climatic conditions in the process of
their colonisation of different continents of the Old and New World.
Human cultural progression is invariably linked with technological progress.
The use of terms like Stone Age, Copper Age, and Iron Age to describe various
human social formations is also an attempt to divide human cultural accomplish-

ments based on particular technical stages. The term ‘Palaeolithic’ is a combination
of the Greek words ‘paleos’ (old) and ‘lithos’ (stone), thus derivatively mean-
ing ‘old stone age’. Likewise, Neolithic refers to ‘new stone age’ representing a
marked improvement in the stone technology, whereas Mesolithic is a period now
considered as intermediate between the old and the new stone ages. Based on tool
technology and the level of socio-economic development, the Palaeolithic Age
has been classified into (a) Lower Palaeolithic (roughly dated between 2.5 Mya
to 300,000 years ago), (b) Middle Palaeolithic (between 300,000 years ago and
about 35,000 years ago), and (c) Upper Palaeolithic (between 35,000 years ago and
12,000 years ago). Although this classification may not fit all the regions of early
human colonisation, it has been found to be an appropriate marker of the techno-
logical achievements of the early human species. Hence, the present section will
be devoted largely to the description of tool technology and partly to other cultural
traits of the above human species during these phases of the Palaeolithic.
Lower Palaeolithic
The earliest group of human tool-making cultures has been termed Lower Pal-
aeolithic cultures. Tool making began with the emergence of Homo habilis about
2.5 Mya even though Australopithecus robustus and boisei may have made use
of naturally available stone or wooden tools. The bigger brain size of H. habilis
has been considered by Richard Leakey (1994) as the key factor facilitating the
manufacture of tools. Besides a larger brain, highly specialised hands and a bipedal
posture also played an important role in the tool-making exercise. A broader diet
of this species, in comparison to that of the Australopithecines species, which
included meat, was an additional factor. The label of ‘handy person’ associated
with H. habilis basically relates to their tool-making abilities. Tools made by H.
habilis have been found from Gona in Ethiopia dated 2.6 Mya, Koobi Fora area of
East Turkana (Kenya) dated 1.8 Mya, and Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania) dated about
1.75 Mya. Since a large number of hominid and animal bones, along with a huge
pile-up of artefacts, have been found from Olduvai and most of our knowledge of
the material culture of earliest Homo species also comes from this site, the earliest
Palaeolithic culture has been termed, by Mary Leakey (the founder of the site) and
others, as the ‘Oldowan culture’.
The tools found at Olduvai and other sites in East and North Africa are simple
stone tools made from pebbles or lava cobbles. The pebble was first struck with
a heavier stone near its natural edges to remove flakes and subsequent blows on
the ridges formed near the earlier flakes to produce several tools, which have been
identified as choppers, scrapers, burins, and hammer stones. The studies of Mary
Leakey (1979) and Nicholas Toth (1994) suggest that these tools were extremely
crude and their classification into distinct tool types is difficult because their manu-
facture was not based on any standardised pattern, unlike the later tools of the
Lower Palaeolithic period. The H. habilis tool technology has been categorised as
‘core’ technology where the core (pebble) was itself turned into a tool by the pre-
viously described flaking method. However, Nicholas Toth’s research has shown
that even though simple and fashioned out of practical requirements, these tools
required careful selection of the raw material (for proper flaking), a high degree
of motor skills, and coordination of different parts of the body (eyes, limbs, and
fingers) to exercise precise control over the force and direction of the blows to the
stone, as well as a certain measure of conceptualisation (mental image) before it
could be given a definite shape. Recent studies have suggested that the habilis spe-
cies consciously used igneous rocks and quartz pebbles as raw materials to fashion
their tools according to their requirement and had a good understanding of the flak-
ing properties of the stone.
The Oldowan culture is dated between 2.6 and 1.5 Mya, and for a long time it
was believed that this culture represented a static technology without any distin-
guishable change during its existence. However, additional archaeological discov-
eries and more scientific analysis of the tools have suggested that this technology
was simple but effective and became more complex in the later periods. These tools
were used to procure and process plant and animal foods. Recent studies of the
Oldowan tools have suggested butchering and cutting meat, sawing and scraping
wood, cutting soft plants, breaking nuts, digging roots, and extracting bone mar-
row from the carcasses of animals, as the possible usages of such tools as choppers,
scrapers, burins, and hammer stones. Based on the microscopic study of the bones
found at Olduvai and considering the simplicity and size of these tools, it has been
argued that though a meat eater, H. habilis could not have been an expert hunter
and possibly could have been able to kill only such small animals as antelopes.
Thus, from the nature of discovered tools, H. habilis appears as an opportunistic
scavenger and a plant forager. The absence of any predetermined design on a large
number of habilis tools, found from several sites in East and North Africa, also
indicates that this species had not yet developed an articulate speech, which was
crucial for passing on information to the present and the next generation. Apart
from stones, the habilis species could frequently have made use of bone and wood,
which were easily available.
Regarding the social organisation of the earliest human species, it has been
argued that in the savannah environment of East Africa, the habilis species could
not have been able to compete with other animals without better social coopera-
tion and successful reproduction. However, the evidence of social cooperation is
limited to archaeological evidence from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge in the form
of clusters of bones of both big (like hippopotamus) and small (mainly antelope)
animals. Some scholars like Louis Leakey (1980) have argued that these were ‘cen-
tral place’ or ‘home base’ of the habilis species where they slept, manufactured
tools, and butchered dead animals brought to this place from some distance. This
notion assumed that H. habilis was an accomplished hunter and gatherer. But the
recent microscopic studies of these tools, controlled experimentation and other
sophisticated research methods have ruled this out. It is now suggested that these
were not ‘home bases’ but transitory camps where the human groups butchered
dead animals with tools carried from a distance further away or manufacturing
them on the site itself due to abundant supplies of tool-making stones in the area.
However, scholars do agree that these transitory camps may have preceded the
‘central places’ of the later hunter-gatherer societies.
H. habilis primarily lived in the savannah interspersed with forested areas of
tropical Africa where both games and predators were plentiful. Competing for
natural resources with other animals and the need for protection must have forced
them to live in groups and near-water resources (like the shallow lake at Olduvai)
where animals routinely appeared for drinking water. The larger brain size of the
habilis also helped in the further evolution of their social intelligence. According
to a rough estimate, H. habilis flourished in larger groups of about 80–85 to 65–70
Australopithecines. Living in larger groups, besides providing security, facilitated
efficient foraging, and sharing of plant and other food resources, individually or in
pairs. This had far-reaching consequences for humans in terms of prolonged mor-
tality and increased reproduction.
The emergence of H. erectus around 1.64 Mya brought about some significant
changes in the Lower Palaeolithic tool technology. As mentioned in the previous
section, the erectus species did not remain confined to Africa but radiated to Europe
and Asia and followed different adaptive strategies to survive in these diverse cli-
matic conditions. Although erectus tool technology did not fundamentally differ
from that of the habilis, it displayed more complexity and diversity, making the
former an expert hunter and gatherer. The tools of H. erectus have been found not
only in East and North Africa but also in Central Europe (France and Hungary),
Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, and Malaya), China (Beijing), and
Northwestern part (Soan Valley) of India. These tools were standardised and were
found to be made according to a repeated pattern. This suggests that tools of this
period were made with a predetermined design indicating articulate speech, pool-
ing of experience, transfer of knowledge, and a higher level of intelligence on the
part of the erectus species. With the emergence of this species hunting became well
established and it along with foraging became the basis of their economy.
The tool technology practiced by the erectus species is also classified under
the ‘core’ technology but was more complex and advanced than those of the early
Lower Palaeolithic period. The most distinctive tool of this period was the hand
axe. The discovery of large numbers of hand axes along with other artefacts at
St Acheul in Northern France has led scholars to term the erectus tool culture as
Acheulean culture. Acheulean hand axes have been found in different shapes and
sizes ranging from crude tear-drop-shaped forms to a refined bi-facial form. It was
made from a larger core (stone) where the core itself was carefully trimmed with
hammer blows to get the desired shape. Scholars are in broad agreement that the
hand axe was a multi-purpose tool for cutting meat and skinning prey, digging
up roots, and working on wood. Some scholars like Eileen O’Brien (1981) have
argued that if thrown like a Discuss, the pointed side of the hand axe could work
like a weapon to hit an object or animal with great force. Thus, it could be used for
both hunting prey and defending oneself. The popularity of this tool can be gauged
from the fact that originating in Africa, it reached Asia and Europe and continued
to be used till about 150,000 years ago. Robert J. Wenke and Deborah Olszewski
(1985) are of the opinion that the Acheulean hand axe may not seem like a marvel-
lous bit of technological advancement but had several features that seem to reflect
human intellectual evolution. It required more processing, that is, a more actual
step of manufacturing and was also more standardised in proportion than earlier
tools. The manufacture of hand axes also indicates that H. erectus had a geometri-
cally accurate sense of proportion imposed accurately on stone.
Besides hand axes, the erectus species also fashioned choppers, cleavers, bola
stones, and a few small flake tools such as side scrapers, knives, and bores for skin-
ning, working on wood, and other purposes. In Southeast Asia, hand axes have not
been found in significant numbers. Here choppers dominated the tool types that
reflect greater human concentration on plant foods in the warmer and more veg-
etated zone than on meat. In East Asia, such tools were used to work on bamboo,
which was available in plenty and which could itself be turned into such small
tools as sharp knives and spears, besides being used for making containers, ropes,
and dwellings. In the Asian zone, tools like drills, gravers, points, and choppers
were as efficient as hand axes in the West, in exploiting plant and small animal
resources. Similarly at Clacton in Southeast England, tree leaf–shaped stone tools
were manufactured for working on wood. This 200,000-year-old culture known as
Clactonian culture (based on the site Clacton-on-sea in Essex England) has also
provided evidence of a wooden spear tip, which was used as either a stabbing spear
or a digging stick. Another noteworthy tool culture contemporary with H. erectus
was the Levalloisian culture named after Levallois-Perret, a suburb of Paris in
France where round tools in the shape of an inverted tortoise shell were made from
a core by carefully trimming them to produce points and scrapers. The Clacto-
nian and Levalloisian techniques became more complex in the Middle Palaeolithic
period under the Neanderthals.
The diverse tool kits of H. erectus, having a predetermined shape and stand-
ardised pattern, represented improved communication and a high degree of social
interaction. This promoted other cultural developments too. Better social coop-
eration facilitated big game hunting, definite evidence of which has come from
Torralba and Ambrona, northeast of Madrid (Spain) dated between 400,000 and
200,000 years ago. These sites have yielded elephant tusks and bones, along with
those of rhinoceros, wild ox, stags, and horses. It has been postulated that, by using
fire, these animals would have been driven towards swamps and then killed. Evi-
dence of big game hunting has also come from Schoningen (Germany) dated about
400,000 years ago and Boxgrove site (Southern England) dated 500,000 years ago
where bones of large mammals such as rhinoceros, bison, dear, horse, and bear
have been found. Such findings suggest that H. erectus was an expert big game
hunter having an efficient knowledge of the terrain along with that of the raw mate-
rials, besides possessing the mental ability to manufacture effective hunting weap-
ons. They also had precise knowledge of the place where and when the animals
gathered, that is, cliffs and water holes, during the summer, autumn, winter, or
spring seasons.
Another significant cultural development in the Lower Palaeolithic period
coinciding with the existence of erectus species was the opportunistic use of
natural fire. The use of fire was an important adaptive strategy with far-reaching
consequences for future human evolution. The fire was used for warmth in
extremely cold climatic conditions, to protect from predators and to hunt big and
small animals, and most importantly for cooking. The use of fire for cooking was
of supreme importance in the sense that hitherto inedible plants and vegetables
could now be added to the human diet as roasting them in fire helped to neutralise
toxins present in them. Some have suggested that possibly H. erectus knew how
to conserve fire by using the smouldering tree stumps (fire caused by lightning
strikes) to kindle flames to light dry grass or bushes. The earliest evidence of
the use of fire has been found in Swartkrans in South Africa and Chesowanya
in Kenya’s Rift Valley dated 1.6 Mya, in the form of hearth-like arrangement of
stone artefacts, fragmentory bones, and baked clay. Another more recent evidence
of the same comes from Zhoukoudian caves, west of Beijing in China, where
charred Chinese hackleberry seeds, along with other plants such as walnut, hazel-
nut, and pine, have been found along with many hearths and ash layers. These
have been dated between 500,000 and 250,000 years ago. Although scholars have
debated over the issue of fire being used to cook meat, there is also a broad agree-
ment among them, based on evidence from this and other sites, that H. erectus
was an expert hunter.
The settlement pattern of H. erectus varied from region to region depending
upon the climatic condition but was always close to water sources such as a spring,
an artesian well, a lake, or a river or near the beach. Water was necessary along
with the presence of prey, which converged to drink water near these sources. In
addition, these water bodies were also important sources of raw materials such as
stones and pebbles to manufacture tools. In different regions of erectus colonisa-
tion, human settlements or camps were set up keeping in consideration climatic
conditions and protection from predators. These included open-air, rock shelters,
or cave settlements. Thus, while in the temperate climate of Africa, erectus lived in
open camps; in the cold climate of Europe and China, they preferred rock shelters
or settlements deep inside the cave.
The absence of Homo erectus burials and rituals has led scholars to suggest that
while this human species was capable of articulating speech and hence displayed
better social cooperation in hunting and other community activities like gathering
and setting up camps, its smaller brain size (1000 cc) meant that they may have
lacked the mental capabilities to generalise and symbolise their experiences unlike
later human species. In addition, their language skills may have been quite limited
unlike modern humans, who are capable of taking out a variety of sounds due to the
particular positioning of the larynx in the speech-producing area.
Middle Palaeolithic
The Middle Palaeolithic period saw the emergence of H. sapiens, both archaic
and advanced. Among the latter, the most prominent in terms of cultural acquisi-
tions were the Neanderthals. Neanderthals lived from 135,000 years ago to about
35,000 years ago. They had to adapt to warmer climatic conditions immediately
preceding the last Ice Age that began about 118,000 years ago and when big games
were in abundance. Further, sea coasts, streams, and rivers provided additional
aquatic food resources in the form of fish and water mammals such as whales,
sharks, and seals. The exploitation of such resources required modification in the
existing tool technology of the Lower Palaeolithic. A larger brain size of the Nean-
derthals along with other physical attributes facilitated this process.
The Middle Palaeolithic tool technology is identified with the Mousterian cul-
ture attributed to the Neanderthals. The name has been derived from the Nean-
derthal site of Le Moustier rock shelter situated in Southwest France where large
deposits of tools associated with this species have been found. However, this tech-
nology should not only be associated with Neanderthals as the H. sapiens that
emerged prior to them around 200,000 years ago had already begun to fabricate
tools of different shapes for various purposes that later became standardised and
became part of the tool culture of different H. sapiens groups. Prominent among
the pre-Mousterian culture was the Tayacian culture, which was spread across the
Mediterranean France and Italy. It was characterised by small-sized tools made
from pebbles or other stones by the process of trimming.
The Mousterian tool culture represented an important technological innovation
where several flakes were taken out of a prepared core through the Levallois tech-
nique to manufacture a number of small tools and weapons. Thus, Mousterian tool
technology has been termed as ‘flake’ technology, which was distinct from the
Oldowan and Acheulean ‘core’ technology, where the core itself was trimmed into
the shape of a tool. The Neanderthals developed upon the already-existing Leval-
lois technique to prepare the core by giving it a particular shape to predetermine
the shape of the flake that was to be removed. Such a core is generally referred to
as a tortoise core as it resembles a tortoise shell. Through this technique, several
flakes, blades, or triangular points could be taken out from a single core. Since this
was a complex method and required careful planning prior to taking out the flakes,
this is considered a technological advancement over the earlier tool technology.
Most of the Mousterian and other middle Palaeolithic tools were made out of flakes
The flakes were trimmed from the edges to produce a wide range of side scrapers,
points, backed-knives, tiny saws, and bores.
Another remarkable feature of the Middle Palaeolithic tool technology was the
great diversity of tool kits. French archaeologist, Francois Bordes, has identified
60–63 Mousterian tool types dated between 90,000 and 40,000 years ago, while
excavating the Combe Grenal cave in Perigord (France). The Mousterian tool
types have also been found in other parts of Europe, North Africa, and Southwest
Asia. The tools could be used for killing, cutting up, and skinning prey and also
for making wooden tools and clothing. Evidence shows that Neanderthals were
skilled hunters and killed such large games as bison, cave bears, horses, woolly
rhinoceros, wild cattle, and reindeer. Hunting of bigger animals was organised in
groups. It is quite possible that individual animal was separated from the herd and
brought down. Favourable geographical terrain like watering places, gorges, or
narrow mouths of valleys were used by the Neanderthals to hunt animals. With the
use of composite tools, large animals could be killed at close quarters while swift-
moving animals could be brought down by a javelin-like hunting weapon. With the
help of available tools, animal fur, bones, and sinews were also utilised for making
cloth, tents (in open encampments), and snares to catch birds. The first evidence of
river and sea fishing also comes from the Middle Palaeolithic period. Thus, it can
be said that Neanderthals were opportunistic hunters using every possible oppor-
tunity to hunt a variety of animals. Besides meat, plant food was an essential part
of their diet.
Even though there is a lot of debate on precisely when the mastery over fire was
achieved, traces of iron pyrites found in the Neanderthal encampments strongly
suggest that they were making fire, not simply using naturally ignited fire, by rub-
bing iron pyrites together. Numerous evidences of hearths along with burnt and
unburnt charcoal (particularly in the cave sites), heated stone artefacts, burnt bones,
and heated sediments tend to confirm this notion. Some have suggested that per-
haps the conservation and taming of fire, as much as food sharing and meat eating,
helped to forge close-knit family groups among the Neanderthals. This is evident
from their social behaviour discussed in the following paragraphs.
The social organisation of the Neanderthals was more developed than those
of habilis and erectus. A major factor contributing to this was the better linguis-
tic capabilities of Neanderthals. The manufacture of diverse tool kits and oppor-
tunistic big and small game hunting could not have been possible without a high
degree of social cooperation. Scholars also suggest a possible existence among
the Neanderthals of the sexual division of labour, where men hunted and women
gathered and cooked food. Based on the size of their dwelling units, it has been
estimated that Neanderthals must have lived in small groups of 25 or 30, which
was also ideal from the point of view of provisioning of food. The Neanderthal
settlements included caves, rock shelters, and open-air dwellings and exceeded in
number compared to those of H. eretus. In Europe, a large number of both cave
and rock shelters were used during the greater part of the year as protection against
the Arctic cold. While open encampments were used during short summer months
in the Tundra plains. Evidence from the dwelling sites also suggests that a small
group of Neanderthals also made repeated use of open sites as temporary halting
places while being away from the main group.
A significant cultural achievement of Neanderthals, indicating their highly

evolved thinking, came from their careful disposal/burial of the dead. Burials pro-
vide the most important and trustworthy archaeological evidence to analyse the
spiritual life of pre-historic humans and social divisions if any. Mousterian sites
have revealed the earliest burial traditions (dated between 100,000 and 40,000 years
ago) of the human species. Neanderthals did not simply abandon the dead but bur-
ied them under the dug-up earth with stone pillows and other grave goods such as
flint tools, burnt bones, flowers, and roasted meat. Most of the Neanderthal burials
have been found in caves or rock shelters in Europe, Southwest Asia, and Eurasia.
Such ritual burials suggest that Neanderthals had begun to think about the phenom-
enon of death or ‘life after death’, which reflects a much higher level of thinking
and imagination. While most of these are single burials, evidence of group burial
comes from the rock shelters of La Ferrassie in Southwest France where two adult
Neanderthals have been buried close together alongside four children. Scholars
like Karel Volch (1994) have opined that the first evidence of family grouping can
be seen from here. A Shanidar cave burial in the Zagros Mountains of Iraq provides
evidence of social consciousness and compassion among the Neanderthals. Here, a
30–40-year-old man, half blind and with a crippled right arm and right leg (much
before his death), has been found buried. Since such a person could not have been
economically useful for the group, his long survival reflects the care and support
extended to him by his social group.
Neanderthals have also been associated with ritual cannibalism. A broken human
skull to get at the brain found in Moula-Guercy in France lends credence to this
hypothesis. In some places, horns of a goat and bear skull kept in a ring have been
linked with the goat and bear cult. However, it is a debatable issue among scholars.
Evidence of rudimentary art forms such as bone amulets, scratched pebbles, and
tools and lumps of red iron oxide (to paint the body before burial or on the tools)
have also at times been associated with the Neanderthals. Although some scholars
point out that these evidences can hardly be termed a work of art, it can safely be
concluded that the Neanderthals had reached a much higher level of intellectual
capacity and imagination than their predecessors.
Upper Palaeolithic
The Upper Palaeolithic period saw the emergence of H. sapiens (modern man).
This period also coincided with the last phase of the Ice Age, which witnessed
reduced temperature in Europe, Asia, as well as Africa. Since this was the final part
of the last glaciation (termed as Wurm or Weischel glaciation), there were frequent
climatic variations between colder and warmer seasons of varying intensities.
The climatic changes and the resultant geographical formations led to the growth
of different cultural traditions of the early H. sapiens sapiens. A well-developed
brain along with some crucial physiological changes in the shape of the thorax and
release of upper extremities, allowing rotatory movement in the shoulder joint; a
perfect bipedal motion due to modifications in the pelvis bone to take up the body
weight and final shaping of the hand, allowing throwing of objects with great force
and accuracy and enabling humans to produce most delicate objects, turned the
Upper Palaeolithic period into one of accelerated evolution for humanity. It was
a period when the pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies reached the peak of their
development largely due to their technological progress. This was accompanied by
a high degree of spiritual and artistic achievement.
The Cro-Magnon man developed different cultures with distinctive adaptive
strategies. After extensive research by the French pre-historian Henri Breuil on
Upper Palaeolithic cultures in Western Europe, different cultures of early mod-
ern humans have been identified as Chatelperronean/Perigordian, Aurignacian,
Gravettian, Solultrean and Magdalenian. Almost all of these cultures have been
found concentrated in France and Spain and covered a time period between 35,000
and 11,000 years ago. These cultures have differed from each other very slightly
depending upon their immediate geographical conditions. Among them, however,
the Aurignacian, Solultrean, and Magdalenian have been considered as crucial for
a proper understanding of Upper Palaeolithic cultures.
The Upper Palaeolithic tool technology, although did not fundamentally differ
from that of the Middle Palaeolithic, was marked by some crucial innovations in
taking out stone blades, that were then reshaped into a variety of tools. In addition,
there was also an extension in raw materials used for the manufacture of tools.
Apart from stones, others like wood, bone, ivory, and antler (reindeer horn) were
now increasingly used for this purpose. The tool technology of this period has
been termed as ‘blade’ technology. To take out stone blades, the tool-maker used a
stone, bone, wood, or antler hammer to strike a bone or antler punch resting on one
edge of the prepared core of a cylindrical shape. This indirect percussion technique
enabled the splitting off of long, flat, narrow, and sharp-edged flakes or blades. This
was then delicately trimmed by pressing a pointed stick against the blade edge to
snap off tiny flakes. This method is known as pressure flaking.
Scholars such as Bohuslav Klima (1994), Brian Fagan (2010), and others have
argued that an important advantage of blade technology over the previous flake
technology was the more economical use of the raw material. This was important in
environments where raw materials may have been harder to find. Further, the blade
technology with a portable core proved to be extremely efficient for late Ice Age
hunter-gatherers who exploited resources over large territories.
Following the above technique, the Cro-Magnon man made a variety of finely
crafted tools like knives, scrapers, saws, points, bores, and most importantly a fine-
edged graving tool called burin. Burin was used to manufacture sharp-edged bone,
antler, and ivory tools such as eyed needles, fishhooks, harpoons, handles of com-
posite tools, and spear throwers.
The use of diverse bone and antler points greatly enhanced the hunting effective-
ness of the Upper Palaeolithic men. The use of spear throwers after 20,000 years
ago proved to be particularly effective as it doubled the distance over which a
hunter could hurl his spear. Thus, now the Cro-Magnon man could kill not only
prey at a close range but also those at a distance. This has led B. Klima (1994) to
comment that humans had ‘empirically detected some laws of mechanics’. Com-
posite tools made of stone blades fixed with ivory or antler handle also came to be
increasingly used. With the help of these tools, the Upper Palaeolithic men were
able to hunt large numbers of bison, horses, reindeer, and mountain goats as well
as mammoths, woolly rhinoceros, and the wild ox. Fish hooks and harpoons were
used to exploit aquatic resources like fish and sea mammals.
The diversity of Upper Palaeolithic tools also hints towards specialisation in
tool making, as it is possible to distinguish hunting weapons (spear-heads and
arrow-heads) from tools for processing prey (knives and scrapers), implements for
working on wood (notches and chisels), and bones (burins and becks). Besides its
functional features, the tools became more stylised and aesthetically improved as
reflected in regular and symmetrical tools. Gradual refinement of the tools led to
these assuming microlithic dimensions, which reached its peak during the subse-
quent Mesolithic period.
The Upper Palaeolithic cultures of Europe (as mentioned earlier) developed dif-
ferent tools according to their environments and the available food resources, but
essentially they followed the same blade technology. The Chatelperronean/Perig-
ordian culture, named after a site Chatelperron in Southwest France (roughly dated
40,000–35,000 years ago), was known for such tools as burin, knives, and chisels
made from elongated flakes. They also fashioned a number of bone tools. Some
consider their tool technology as an extension of Mousterian culture, whereas oth-
ers are of the opinion that this was the earliest H. sapiens sapiens culture. This
was followed by the Aurignacian culture, named after a French site Aurignac
(dated between 36,000 and 30,000 years ago), which is likewise famous for mak-
ing small blades with parallel edges and such stone tools as scrapers, bores, and
burin. Aurignacians also shaped bone tools as utensils or hunting weapons. The
Gravettian culture (dated between 28,000 and 23,000 years ago), named after the
French site of Gravette, developed around the Chatelperronean region covering
France and Spain. However, the Gravettian tool technology represented a slightly
different technique of shaping tools than the Chatelperronean or Aurignacian, par-
ticularly with respect to hunting weapons. They made a large number of projec-
tile points known as ‘Gravette points’ of thin blades sharpened by steep retouch
or pressure flaking. They also manufactured burins and blunted back knives. The
Solultrean culture (dated 25,000–18,000 years ago), named after the Le Solutre
deposit in Burgundy (France), developed in the coldest phase of the last Ice Age.
It was known for the manufacture of several shaped points, the most popular being
the leaf points. These were joined to the wooden rods to make a spear-like weapon.
Further refinement of tools can be seen in the Magdalenian culture (dated 18,000–
11,000 years ago), which developed out of the Gravettian culture in the southern
region of France. Magdalenians fashioned tools like hooked rods, which were used
as spear throwers, harpoons (fishing equipment), and microlithic projectile points,
which later perhaps led to the invention of arrow. This culture is also marked by
an increase in the number of composite tools such as wooden shafts with harpoon
heads or blatelets. The Magdalenian culture is also known as the ‘golden age’ of
bone tools, which were often decorated. Thus technologically speaking, Magdale-
nian culture was the most advanced of the Upper Palaeolithic cultures.
A well-developed articulate speech of the H. sapiens sapiens, as reflected in
their regular and symmetrical tools, had important consequences in the field of
social interaction, cooperation, and settlement pattern. The Upper Palaeolithic peo-
ple made hunting their chief subsistence strategy, which was practised in a more
advanced manner than before. They specialised in hunting large herbivores, herds
of which moved with reliable regularity. With new types of tools, prey could be
killed from long distances too. In addition, the Cro-Magnon man had mastered all
tricks of hunting such as direct attack, deceiving the animals by observing their
behavioural characteristics, laying traps and snares, and driving prey into ravines,
over cliffs, or into swamps. With the help of specialised tools, fish and other aquatic
mammals were also included in their diet along with a variety of plant foods. Such
a variety of food resources and efficient exploitation of these must have had major
implications for population growth.
As for their settlement pattern, the evidence from almost 90% of the sites sug-
gests that Upper Palaeolithic men tended to choose their settlement sites close to
plentiful water supply and places of animal presence such as river confluences,
animal paths, and watering places. Many caves have been found facing south
to receive sunshine and protection from cold northerly winds. Most of the open
encampments have indicated a tent-like structure, sheltered with a wooden frame-
work covered by animal skins. Mammoth bones, reindeer antlers, wood, earth,
and stone were other alternative building materials. The dwellings were of differ-
ent shapes (oval, kidney, circular, or irregular) and dimensions (small for winter
months and very big during the summers). Some sites in Southern France were
occupied for a major part of the year even though Upper Palaeolithic men are con-
sidered to be highly mobile in general. This indicates a high concentration of food
resources in such settlements. Some scholars have suggested that perhaps towards
the end of the Palaeolithic period, some feeling of close relation to a given region
and a tendency towards semi-permanent or permanent settlement may have devel-
oped. Most of these dwellings have been found with hearths inside or outside of
them, and the distribution of ash around these suggests that food (including meat)
was regularly cooked.
Regarding the size of the Upper Palaeolithic social group, evidence from
Gravettian culture suggests that they lived in five or six independent shelters in
close proximity to each other. Assuming that each household contained 20 mem-
bers (according to the size of the dwellings), the typical social community has
been estimated to consist of 100 or 120 members. Such a community could have
been sustained for a longer period of time at a particular place with adequate food
supply, made possible by advanced tool technology. The Magdalenian culture,
considered to be the most advanced among the Upper Palaeolithic cultures, may
have witnessed a larger social group and a tendency towards sedentism or semi-
permanent settlement. It has been hypothesised that this type of settlement could
have brought about social changes leading to the growth of a person with authority
that would have organised communal hunts; distribution of food; as well as regu-
lating the interaction with extended kin groups and other neighbouring groups or
bands living in the same ecological zone. From this, one can also envisage greater
interaction between communities on such occasions as common rituals, exchange
of goods (like seashells, bracelets, exotic raw materials), as well as mating partners
and framing of rules of such interaction by a person or persons of authority. While
in the absence of definitive evidence, such assumptions can be treated as mere
conjectures, scholars like Paul Mellars (1991) have argued that such social changes
were inevitable in a large group of hunter-gatherers inhabiting a relatively small
territory at a particular site for a longer period of time.
The evidence of religious beliefs and rituals among the Upper Palaeolithic men
has been deduced from numerous decorative objects and ornaments discovered
from several sites. Depending upon their shape and likely function they were
put to, these have been classified as pendants, necklaces, broaches, headbands,
bracelets, rings, and so on. On the basis of ethnographic studies of modern-day
hunter-gatherers, these decorative items have been associated with the worship of
some higher supernatural force. These objects were supposed to mediate between
humans and their environment, both of which were imagined to be inhabited and
directed by some invisible supernatural power. Human beings amongst themselves
tried to find an intermediary who was supposed to gain favour of the supernatural
powers by means of magic, rituals, or sorcery such as shamanism. Similarly red
pigment coating on the corpses indicates their belief in ‘life after death’, the red
colour of the pigment representing blood and hence an attempt to restore the life
of the dead.
As for the burial customs of the Upper Palaeolithic humans, very few of them
have been found in the Magdalenian sites. This has led some to assume that only
prominent persons were given ritual burial, leading to the notion of hierarchy in
society. However, a large number of Upper Palaeolithic burials (dated between
30,000 and 25,000 years ago) have been excavated from Eastern Europe (par-
ticularly from the open sites of Moravia and Russia), which has cast doubts over
the notion of social hierarchy having developed in this period. The mass burial at
Moravia and Russia shows such burial goods as mammoth skulls, animal bones,
and blade tools along with human skeletons. At places, corpses have been found
covered with large quantities of red ochre and wearing necklaces of fox teeth and
small ivory pendants. The evidence of grave goods such as ivory bracelets and
beads, for both older men’s and children’s burial, further refutes the social differ-
entiation hypotheses.
Thus, to conclude, it can be said that the Upper Palaeolithic was a period when
the genus homo reached its present form and developed an advanced economy,
leading to better utilisation of natural resources. Their economy was of a non-

productive character based on efficient hunting and foraging. Their needs did not
require any interference with nature (food production). They exploited the availa-
ble natural resources without having to enlarge their needs. The available resources
and their effective exploitation provided them with enough leisure time to produce
excellent works of art (discussed in the following section), which is representative
of a very high degree of imagination and intellectual growth on the part of the H.
sapiens sapiens.
Palaeolithic Art
Besides technological advancement, the other significant human cultural accom-
plishment in the Palaeolithic age was the development of art. The discovery of
various art forms attributed to H. sapiens sapiens reflects the intellectual evolu-
tion of the human mind particularly with regard to the power of imagination and
their ability to associate themselves with their natural surroundings. The Upper
Palaeolithic sites provide the earliest and most definite evidence of true art forms.
The supposed earliest evidence of art from the Mousterian findings, in the form
of scratched pebbles and bones, has been dismissed by modern art historians. It
is only from the Upper Palaeolithic sites that we get evidence of representational
forms of art. These art forms developed between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago and
appeared simultaneously in several regions of Cro-Magnon habitation. But it is
nowhere as pronounced as in Europe. The Upper Palaeolithic art, scholars believe,
began evolving in Eastern Europe (Hungary and Yugoslavia); it then spread to
Southwest Asia, reaching its climax in Western Europe. Evidence of this art form
has also been found in Siberia and Africa.
The works of art executed by the Upper Palaeolithic artists have been found
on stone, antler, bone, clay, ivory, and wood. This art form was first discovered in
1875 by a Spanish citizen, Marcellino de Sautuola, from the caves of Altamira in
Spain. Later, Henri Breuil (1979) and others did extensive research on these art
forms. Based on these studies, the Upper Palaeolithic art has been classified into
three categories: (a) engravings of animals and people on portable stone, bone, ant-
ler, and ivory objects (termed as ‘mobiliary art’), (b) stone, clay, or ivory sculptures
of humans (especially women) and anthropomorphic (part human part animal) fig-
ures, and (c) murals (wall paintings), engravings, bas relief (a method of carving in
which the design is slightly raised from the surface), and ceiling and floor paintings
in ochre, manganese, and charcoal in rock shelters or caves. According to Brian
Fagan’s (2010) estimate, nearly 200 caves bearing wall paintings, engravings, and
bas-relief sculptures are known from Southwest Europe, mainly France and Spain,
and nearly 10,000 sculpted and engraved art objects have been found in Upper
Palaeolithic sites across Europe and Siberia.
Until recently, there was a general impression among scholars that the upper Pal-
aeolithic art evolved over a period of time from simple beginnings to magnificent
polychrome (painted in different colours) paintings at Altamira in Northern Spain

and Lascaux in France. Scholars like David Lambert (1987), on the basis of his
study of more than 100 caves and rock shelters, had put forward the view that art
in the Upper Palaeolithic period passed through four stages of development. The
first phase (35,000–25,000 years ago) featured animals and other forms, mostly
poorly drawn on small portable objects. The second phase (25,000–19,000 years
ago) produced early cave art including handprints and engraved and painted sil-
houettes (outline portraits) of animals with curved backs. The third phase (19,000–
15,000 years ago) marked the climax of cave art as seen in lively, well-drawn
horses and cattle at Lascaux in Southwest France and relief sculptures elsewhere.
In the final phase (19,000–11,000 years ago) the emphasis shifted to portable art,
symbolic marks, and superbly painted life-like creatures in caves such as those of
Altamira and Font-de-Gaume in France. However, the recent findings in 1994 at
Grotte-de-Chauvet cave in Southeast France have challenged the prevailing notion
related to the evolution of Upper Palaeolithic art. The cave paintings at this site
have been dated, through advanced radio-carbon dating methods, between 32,000
and 22,500 years ago. It contains about 300 wall paintings of black horses, wild
oxen with twisted horns, two rhinoceros facing each other, lions, stags, bison, and
even owls along with human handprints.
The artist’s knowledge of perspective in the Grotte Chauvet paintings is exem-
plified by the overlapping heads of animals to give the effect of movement and
numbers. The artists also seem to have scraped some of the walls before painting
them to make the figures stand out better. This, along with another recent evidence
in the form of a lion-headed anthropomorphic figure, carved in ivory from Stadel
Cave in Southern Germany dated 32,000 years ago, and other animal sculptures
from the same site, presents a different picture of the simultaneous flourishing of
these art forms in different areas at different times over a period of more than
20,000 years.
Among the Upper Palaeolithic cultures of Western Europe, Aurignacian culture
provides the earliest evidence of representational art. The Vogelherd caves of Swa-
bian Jura in Southwest Germany have yielded ivory figures of humans and animals
in the round (free-standing sculptures with all sides shown). The Aurignacian rock
shelter sites of Southwest France have yielded engraved slabs bearing schematic
representations of animals along with signs, which have been interpreted as male
and female sexual symbols. Beautifully carved ivory beads have also been found
along with a flute-like instrument (made of ivory) associated with this culture. The
discovery of ivory flute suggests that music had made its beginning by this period.
However, no evidence of painting has been found related to the Aurignacians. Yet,
from the available evidence it can safely be concluded that elaborate symbolic
concepts had already made their headway by this time.
A major advancement in the field of art can be discerned from the findings of
Gravettian culture. This culture had a vast expanse ranging from Russia in the
east to Dordogne (France) in the west. The great homogeneity in the artwork of
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
stamped on the idea (that then enthused the War Office mind) of
England once more engaged in a great Continental War!
“Marlboroughs Cheap To-day!” was the kettle of fish advertised by
the Militarists!
I walked the sands of Scheveningen with General Gross von
Schwartzhoff in June, 1899. The German Emperor said he
(Schwartzhoff) was a greater than Moltke. He was the Military
German Delegate at the Hague Conference; he was designated as
Chief of the General Staff at Berlin, but he was burnt to death in
China instead. I had done him a very good turn indeed, so he
opened his heart to me. There was no German Navy then. We
were doing Fashoda; and he expatiated on the rôle of the British
Army—how the absolute supremacy of the British Navy gave it
such inordinate power far beyond its numerical strength, because
200,000 men embarked in transports, and God only knowing
where they might be put ashore, was a weapon of enormous
influence, and capable of deadly blows—occupying perhaps
Antwerp, Flushing, &c. (but, of course, he only was thinking of the
Cotentin Peninsula), or landing 90 miles from Berlin on that 14
miles of sandy beach [in Pomerania], impossible of defence
against a battle fleet sweeping with devastating shells the flat
country for miles, like a mower’s scythe—no fortifications able to
withstand projectiles of 1,450 lb.
Yes! you are so right! the average man is incapable of a wide
survey! he looks through a pinhole and only sees just a little bit
much magnified! Napoleon and Cromwell! Where are they?
* * * * *
1912.
April 29th.
Naples.
... You say to me—“Come home!”—you remind me of “personal

influence.” I know it! Three days ago I was invited to name one of
three week-ends in June to meet two very great men at a country
house—no one else. Day before yesterday Winston Churchill asks
me. Hardly a week passes without such similar pressure from most
influential quarters—“Why don’t I come home and smash and
pulverize?” Of course, they one and all exaggerate—that in ten
minutes I could “sweep the board” and so on! I know exactly what I
can do. I’ve been fighting 50 years! But I don’t want a personal
victory!
... I am going to take my body and what little money I have ... to
the United States in the near future. It would be no use my coming
home. The mischief is done!... From patriotic motives I’ve given
Winston of my very best in the replies going to him this day from
Brindisi by King’s Messenger, as regards designs and policy and
fighting measures.
* * * * *
1912.
May 15th.
... Well! as you say, every blessed thing at Weymouth [the

Fleet Inspection] absolutely dates from 1909, except the aviation,
and even that I pressed to its present condition dead against great
opposition, but I wrote so strongly that —— took the bit between
his teeth on that subject! And you ask me the question “How goes
it for the future!”
Well! Lloyd George is the real man, and so far judging from his
most intimate conversation with me, all is well!... A propos of all
this I’ve been specially invited to meet four people of importance at
a week-end meeting—no others. I was asked twice before—and
again now repeated; but I think it best to abstain. I think you will
approve of my not going. I have declined to go with W. C. in the
Admiralty Yacht.
* * * * *
1912.
May 19th.
Naples.
I have a letter from W. C. this morning that he and the Prime

Minister have decided to come direct here to Naples to spend a
few days, and a telegram has just come saying they arrive on May
23rd.... I suppose the coming Supplementary Estimates and also
types of new ships about which I am in deadly antagonism with
every living soul at the Admiralty, and one of the consequences
has been that a great Admiralty official has got the boot!!! So
Winston is right when he writes to me this morning that in all vital
points I have had my way! He adds: “The Future of the Navy rests
in the hands of men in whom your confidence is as strong as mine
... and no change of Government would carry with it any change of
policy in this respect.”
* * * * *
1912.
Kilverstone Hall,
June 30th.
Thetford
.
My plot is working exactly as forecast. By and by you’ll say it’s

the best thing I ever did. The Prime Minister and Winston would not
listen at Naples to my urgent cry “Increase your margin!” They
have got to recruit without stint and build 8 “Mastodons” instead of
4. Wait and see!
The recruiting HAS begun. The 8 will follow.
We want 8
We won’t wait.
No other course but that now in progress would have done it. I
don’t mind personal obloquy, but it’s a bit hard to undergo my
friends’ doubts of me; but the clouds will roll by.... I’ve got all my
“working bees” round me here of the Royal Commission [on Oil
and the Internal Combustion engine]. We shall stagger humanity!
1912.
July 6th.
Kilverstone Hall.
... Really all my thoughts are with my Royal Commission. I
expect you will see that the course of action will inevitably result in
what I ventured to indicate if only the Admiralty will keep their
backs to the wall of the irreducible margin required in Home
Waters. The only pity was that dear old —— said we were
sufficiently strong for two years or more, which of course is quite
true, but his saying so may prevent Lloyd George being hustled (as
he otherwise would have been). Luckily I prevented —— saying
even more of our present great preponderance—but let us hope
“All’s well that ends well.” Ian Hamilton came in most effectively
with his witnessing the armoured Cruiser “Suffolk” laden with a
Battalion of the Malta Garrison being twice torpedoed by a
submarine.
* * * * *
1912.
July 15th.
... This instant the news has come to me that there are 750
eligible and selected candidates for 60 vacancies for Boy-Artificers
in the Navy at the approaching examination! When I introduced this
scheme 8 years ago every man’s hand was against me, and the
whole weight of Trades Unionism inside the House of Commons
and out of it was organised against me.... We were dominated by
the Engineers! We had to accept Engine Room artificers for the
Navy who had been brought up on making bicycles! Now, these
boys are suckled on the marine engine! and they have knocked out
the old lot completely. Our very best Engine Room artificers now in
the Navy are these boys! Not one of my colleagues or anyone else
supported me! Do you wonder that I don’t care a d—n what anyone
says? The man you are going to see on Wednesday—how has he
recognised that we are at this moment stronger than the Triple
Alliance? The leaders of both political parties—how have they
recognised that 19 millions sterling of public money actually
allocated was saved and the re-arrangement of British Sea Power
so stealthily carried out that not a sign appeared of any remark by
either our own or by any Foreign Diplomatists, until an obscure
article in the Scientific American by Admiral Mahan stated that of a
sudden he (Mahan) had discovered that 88 per cent. of the Sea
Power of England was concentrated on Germany? But the most
ludicrous thing of all is that up to this very moment no one has
really recognised that the Dreadnought caused such a deepening
and dredging of German harbours and their approaches, and a
new Kiel Canal, as to cripple Germany up to a.d. 1915, and make
their coasts accessible, which were previously denied to our ships
because of their heavy draught for service in all the world!
* * * * *
1912.
August 2nd.
At the Defence Committee yesterday ... we had a regular set-to

with Lloyd George (supported by Harcourt and Morley chiefly)
against the provision of defence for Cromarty as a shelter
anchorage for the Fleet, and the Prime Minister adjourned the
discussion to the Cabinet as the temperature got hot! As you know,
I’ve always been “dead on” for Cromarty and hated Rosyth, which
is an unsafe anchorage—the whole Fleet in jeopardy the other day
—and there’s that beastly bridge which, if blown up, makes the
egress very risky without examination.... Also Cromarty is
strategically better than Rosyth.... Also Lloyd George had a row
about the airships—Seely’s Sub-Committee. We must have
airships.
* * * * *
1912.
August 7th.
I still hate Rosyth and fortifications and East Coast Docks and
said so the other day! but what we devise at Cromarty is for
another purpose—to fend off German Cruisers possibly by an
accident of fog or stupidity getting loose on our small craft taking
their ease or re-fuelling in Cromarty (Oil will change all this in time,
but as yet we have for years coal-fed vessels to deal with).... I’ve
got enthusiastic colleagues on the oil business! They’re all bitten!
Internal Combustion Engine Rabies!
* * * * *
1912.
September.
... What an ass I was to come home! but it was next door to
impossible to resist the pressure put on me, and then can you think
it was wise of me to plunge once more into so vast a business as
future motor Battleships? Changing the face of the Navy, and, as
Lloyd George said to me last Friday, getting the Coal of England as
my mortal enemy!
* * * * *
1912.
Sept. 14th.
This Royal Commission [on oil] is a wonder! We have our first

meeting on September 24th, and practically it is finished though it
will go on for years and years and never submit a Report! You will
love the modus operandi when some day I expound it to you!... In
the second week of December we have an illustration on the scale
of 12 inches to a foot of producing oil from coal. Twenty-five tons a
day will be produced as an example. All that is required is to treble
the retorting plant of all gas works in the United Kingdom where
there is a Mayor and Corporation, and to treble their “through put”
of coal! We get two million tons of oil that way! We only want one
million.
I addressed the Directors of the S.E. & Chatham Railway last
Tuesday, and hope I persuaded them to build a motor vessel of 24
knots between Calais and Dover, and proved to them they could
save an hour between Paris and London—the whole side of the
vessel falls down and makes a gangway on to a huge pontoon at
Calais and Dover and all the passengers march straight out
(“Every man straight before him,” like the Israelites did at Jericho,
and the walls fell down before them!) No more climbing up Mont
Blanc up a narrow precipitous gangway from the steamer to the
jetty in the rain, and an old woman blocking you with her parcels
and umbrella jammed by the stanchions, and they ask her for her
ticket and she don’t know which pocket it’s in! and the rain going
down your neck all the time! A glass roof goes over the motor
vessel—she has no funnels, and her telescopic wireless masts
wind down by a 2 h.p. motor so as not to go through the glass roof.
But all this is nothing to H.M.S. “Incomparable”—a 25 knot
battleship that will go round the whole earth without refuelling!...
The plans of her will be finished next Monday, and I wrote last night
to say I proposed in my capacity as a private British Citizen to go
over in three weeks’ time in the White Star “Adriatic” to get Borden
[the Canadian Prime Minister] to build her at Quebec. The Building
Yard put up there by Vickers is under a guarantee to build a
Dreadnought in Canada in May and the great Dreadnought Dock
left Barrow for Quebec on August 31st. No English Government
would ever make this plunge, which is why I propose going to
Canada—to that great man, Borden—and take the Vickers people
to make their bargain for building.
* * * * *
1912.
Sept. 20th.
... My idea now is to raise a syndicate to build the “Non-Pareil”!

A few millionaires would suffice, and I know sufficient of them to do
it. All the drawings and designs quite ready. The one all pervading,
all absorbing thought is to get in first with motor ships before the
Germans! Owing to our apathy during the last two years they are
ahead with internal combustion engines! They have killed 15 men
in experiments with oil engines and we have not killed one! And a d
—d fool of an English politician told me the other day that he thinks
this creditable to us!
Without any doubt (I have it from an eye-witness of part of the
machinery for her at Nuremberg) a big German oil engine Cruiser
is under weigh! We must press forward.... These d—d politics are
barring the way.... “What!” (say these trembling idiots) “Another
Dreadnought Revolution!” and these boneless fools chatter with
fear like apes when they see an elephant! The imagination cannot
picture that “a greater than the Dreadnought is here!” Imagine a
silhouette presenting a target 33 per cent. less than any living or
projected Battleship! No funnels—no masts—no smoke—she
carries over 5,000 tons of oil, enough to take her round the world
without refuelling! Imagine what that means! Ten motor boats
carried on board in an armoured pit in the middle of her, where the
funnels and the boilers used to be. Two of these motor boats are
over 60 feet long and go 45 knots! and carry 21-inch Torpedoes
15
that go five miles! Imagine these let loose in a sea fight! Imagine
projectiles far over a ton weight! going over a mile or more further
than even the 13½-inch gun can carry, and that gun has rightly
staggered humanity!—Yes! that 13½-inch gun that all my
colleagues (bar one! and he is our future Nelson! [Jellicoe]) thought
me mad to force through against unanimous disapproval! and see
where we are now in consequence! We shall have 16 British
Dreadnoughts with the 13½-inch gun before the Germans have
one!!! So it will be with the “Non-Pareil”! WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE
16
HER ... I’ve worked harder over this job than in all my life before!
* * * * *
1912.
Dec. 29th.
... I’m getting sick of England and want to get back to Naples
and the sun! and the “dolce far niente!” What fools we all are to
work like we do! Till we drop!
CHAPTER XIII
AMERICANS
My very best friends are Americans. I was the Admiral in North

America, and saw “American Beauties” at Bermuda. (Those
American roses and the American women are equal!) And without
question they are the very best dancers in the world! (I suppose it’s
from so much skating!) My only son married an American lady (which
rejoiced me), and an American gentleman on the steamer
complimented me that she had come over and vanquished him
instead of his going, as the usual way is, to America to capture her! I
had such a time in America when I went over to the wedding! I never
can forget the hospitality so boundless and sincere! I really might
have spent three years in America (so I calculated) in paying visits
earnestly desired. The Reporters (25 of them) asked me when I left
what I thought of their country (I tried to dodge them, but found them
all in my cabin when I went on board!) I summed it up in the one word
I greatly admire—“HUSTLE!” and I got an adhesive label in America
which I also loved! Great Black Block letters on a crimson ground—
RUSH
You stick it on a letter or the back of a slow fool. Mr. McCrea, the
President of the Pennsylvania Railway, had his private car to take me
to Philadelphia from New York. We went 90 miles in 90 minutes, and
such a dinner! Two black gentlemen did it all. And I found my luggage
in my room when I arrived labelled:
“MR. LORD FISHER”
(How it got there so quick I can’t imagine.) I was bombed by a
photographer as we arrived late at night, and an excellent
photograph he took, but it gave me a shock! I had never been done
like that! I had the great pleasure of dining with Mr. Woodrow Wilson.
I predicted to the reporters he would be the next President for sure! I
was told I was about the first to say so—anyhow, the 25 reporters put
it down as my news!
I met several great Americans during my visit; but the loveliest
meeting I ever had was when, long before, a charming company of
American gentlemen came on July 4th to Admiralty House at
Bermuda to celebrate “Independence Day!” I got my speech in before
theirs! I said George Washington was the greatest Englishman who
ever lived! England had never been so prosperous, thanks solely to
him, as since his time and now! because he taught us how to
associate with our fellow countrymen when they went abroad and set
up house for themselves! And that George Washington was the
precursor of that magnificent conception of John Bright in his speech
of the ages when he foretold a great Commonwealth—yes a great
Federation—of all those speaking the same tongue—that tongue
which is the “business” tongue of the world—as it expresses in fewer
words than any other language what one desires to convey! And I
suppose now we have got Palestine that this Federal House of
Commons of the future will meet at Jerusalem, the capital of the lost
Ten Tribes of Israel, whom we are without doubt, for how otherwise
could ever we have so prospered when we have had such idiots to
guide us and rule us as those who gave up Heligoland, Tangier,
Curaçoa, Corfu, Delagoa Bay, Java, Sumatra, Minorca, etc., etc.? I
have been at all the places named, so am able to state from personal
knowledge that only congenital idiots could have been guilty of such
inconceivable folly as the surrender of them, and again I say: “Let us
thank God that we are the lost ten tribes of Israel!” Mr. Lloyd George,
in a famous speech long ago in the War, showed how we had been
14 times “too late!” How many more “too lates” since he made that
memorable speech? Especially what about our shipbuilding and the
German submarine menace and Rationing? (The only favoured
trades seem to be Brewing and Racing! Both so flourishing!)
The American barber on board the “Baltic” told me a good story.
He was a quaint man, clean shaved and wore black alpaca
throughout. Halfway across the Atlantic I was waiting to have my hair
cut, when a gentleman bounced in on him, kicking up a devil of a fuss
about wanting something at once! The barber, without moving a
muscle, calmed him by saying: “Are you leaving to-day, Sir?” But this
was his story. He was barber in the train from Chicago to New York
that never stops “even for a death” (so he told me) when the train
suddenly stopped at a small village and a lady got out. Mr.
Thompson, the President of the Railway, was in the train, and asked
why? The conductor showed an order signed by a great man of the
Railway to stop there. When Mr. Thompson got to New York he
asked this great man “What excuse?” and added: “I wouldn’t have
done it for my wife!” and the answer he got was: “No more would I!”
But the sequel of the story is that I told this tale at an international
cosmopolitan lunch party at Lucerne and said: “The curious thing is I
knew the man!” when Mr. Chauncey Depew wiped me out by saying
that “he knew the woman!”
This American Barber quaintly praised the Engine Driver of this
Chicago train by telling me that “he was always looking for what he
didn’t want!” and so had avoided the train going into a River by
noticing something wrong with the points!
By kind Permission of “London Opinion.”
America and the Blockade.
“Why Mr. Wilson should expect this country
to refrain from exercising a right in return for
Germany’s refraining from committing
wrongs is not very clear to the ordinary
intelligence.”—Daily Paper.
Dame Wilson (to P. C. Fisher):—“Oh,
Constable! Don’t hurt him. I’m sure he won’t
murder anyone else!”
Admiral Sampson brought his Squadron of the United States
Navy to visit me at Bermuda. I was then the Admiral in North
America. At the banquet I gave in his honour I proposed his health,
and that of the United States. He never said a word. Presently one of
his Officers went up and whispered something in his ear. I sent the
wine round, and the Admiral then got up, and made the best speech I
ever heard. All he said was: “It was a d—d fine old hen that hatched
the American Eagle!” His chaplain, after dinner, complimented me on
the Officers of my Flagship, the “Renown.” He said: “He had not
heard a single ‘swear’ from ‘Soup to Pea-nuts’”!
Lord Fisher on John Bright

(From “Bright’s House Journal”)
At a dinner held in London the other day to Mr. Josephus Daniels,
Secretary to the United States Navy, Lord Fisher made the following
speech in which he referred to a speech by Mr. John Bright:—
“Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, who was called upon also
to respond, was received with cheers, the whole company
standing up and drinking his health. He said he had no doubt it
would be pleasing to them if he spoke about America. He was
there one week. Mr. Daniels had been here about one week. He
was in America one week because his only son was married
there to the only daughter of a great Philadelphian.
* * * * *
“‘King Edward who was a kind friend to me—in fact he was
my only friend at one time’—remarked Lord Fisher,’ said to me,
“You are the best hated man in the British Empire,” and I replied,
“Yes, perhaps I am.” The King then said, “Do you know I am the
only friend you have?” I said, “Perhaps your Majesty is right, but
you have backed the winner.” Afterwards I came out on top when
I said, “Do you remember you backed the winner and now
everyone is saying what a sagacious King you are? The betting
was a thousand to one.”’
* * * * *
“But he was going to tell them about America, and some of
them would hear things they had never before heard about their
own country. When he was at Bermuda a deputation of American
citizens waited upon him on July 4th. To tell the honest truth he
had forgotten about it. He told the deputation he knew what they
had come there for. ‘You know,’ he said to them, ‘the greatest
Englishman that ever lived was George Washington. He taught
us how to rule our Colonies. He told us that freedom was the
thing to give them. Why, if it had not been for George Washington
America might have been Ireland.’ ‘I shook hands with them,’
continued Lord Fisher, ‘and they went away and said nothing
they had come to say....
“‘Now I will talk about the League of Nations. In a.d. 1910 an
American citizen wished to see me; and he said to me, taking a
paper out of his pocket, “Have you read that?” I looked at it and
saw it was a speech by John Bright, mostly in words of one
syllable—simplicity is, of course, the great thing. That speech is
really very little known on this side of the Atlantic or on the other,
but it so impressed me at the time that I have been thinking of it
ever since. John Bright said he looked forward to the time when
there would be a compulsory peace—when those who spoke
with the same tongue would form a great federation of free
nations joined together.’”
The following is an extract from the speech by Mr. John Bright. It

was delivered at Edinburgh in 1868:—
“I do not know whether it is a dream or a vision, or the
foresight of a future reality that sometimes passes across my
mind—I like to dwell upon it—but I frequently think the time may
come when the maritime nations of Europe—this renowned
country of which we are citizens, France, Prussia, resuscitated
Spain, Italy, and the United States of America—may see that
vast fleets are of no use; that they are merely menaces offered
from one country to another; and that they may come to this wise
conclusion—that they will combine at their joint expense, and
under some joint management, to supply the sea with a sufficient
sailing and armed police which may be necessary to keep the
peace on all parts of the watery surface of the globe, and that
those great instruments of war and oppression shall no longer be
upheld. This, of course, by many will be thought to be a dream or
a vision, not the foresight of what they call a statesman.”
Sir Hiram Maxim

When Sir Hiram Maxim—that great American—was very little
known, he came to see me when I was Captain of the Gunnery ship
at Portsmouth, bringing with him his ever-famous Maxim gun, to be
tried by me. So we went to Whale Island to practise with the gun; and
when he was ready to fire I adopted the usual practice in trying all
new guns and ordered the experimental party to get under cover; and
at that order they were supposed to go into a sort of dug-out.
Evidently old Maxim considered this an insult to his gun, and he
roared out at the top of his voice: “Britishers under cover, Yankees
out in the open!” The gun didn’t burst and it was all right; but it might
have, all the same.
Admiral Hornby the bravest of the brave, was one of the
Britishers; and he came to lunch with me, being extremely fascinated
with Hiram’s quaintness. Hiram was a delightful man in my opinion,
and I remember his telling me that if I wanted to live long and see
good days the thing was to eat Pork and Beans. I never had the
chance, till 1910, of eating them cooked à l’Américaine; and I then
agreed with Hiram Maxim—no more delicious dish in the world, but
you can’t get it in England! After lunch there were some oranges on
the table; and to my dying day I shall never forget the extraordinary
look on Sir Geoffrey Hornby’s beautiful, refined face as Hiram
reached out and grasped an orange from the centre of the table—
tore it apart, and buried his face sucking out the contents, emerging
all orange. He told us that was the way to enjoy an orange. We
neither of us were up to it!
CHAPTER XIV
SOME SPECIAL MISSIONS
I was sent as a very young Lieutenant to a little fishing village

called Heppens in Oldenburg. It is now Wilhelmshaven, chief Naval
Port of Germany. Its river, the Jahde, was then a shallow stream.
The occasion for my visit was the cession to King William of Prussia,
as he was then, of this place, Heppens, by the Grand Duke of
Oldenburg; and there I met King William, to whom I sat next but one
at lunch, and Bismarck and von Moltke and von Roon were there.
We had a very long-winded speech from the Burgomaster, and
Bismarck, whom I was standing next to, said to me in the middle of
it: “I didn’t know this was going to happen, or I would have cut him
short.” The King asked me at lunch why I had been sent, and if there
was no one else who knew about torpedoes. Well, I don’t think there
was. It was an imposing and never-to-be-forgotten sight, that lunch.
They all wore their helmets and great-coats at lunch—so mediæval
—and telegrams kept coming to Bismarck, who would get up and
draw the King aside, and then they would sit down again. Von Roon I
thought very débonnaire, and Moltke was like an old image, taciturn
and inscrutable, but he talked English as well as I did.
Years after this, Prince Adalbert’s Naval Aide-de-camp, who was
a great friend of mine, told me that on the day of mobilization in the
war with France he was sent to von Moltke with a message from
Prince Adalbert, who was King William’s brother and Head of the
Navy, to ask him whether he could see Prince Adalbert for a few
moments. To his astonishment, my friend found Moltke lying on a
sofa reading “Lady Audley’s Secret,” by Miss Braddon, and he told
him he could see the Prince for as long as he liked and whenever he
liked. The word “Mobilize” had finished all his work for the present.
On the occasion of my visit I imagined and reported what
Heppens would become, and so it did. I never can make out why I
didn’t get a German decoration. I think perhaps they thought me too
young. However, I had the honour of an empty sentry-box placed
outside the little inn where I was staying; and if I had been of higher
rank there would have been a sentry in it. The little inn was very
unpretentious, and when the landlord had carved for us he came and
sat down at table with us. Some days after, at a very exclusive
Military Club in Berlin, I met the King’s two illegitimate brothers. They
were exactly like him; also I breakfasted with the Head of the
German Mining School. I remember it, because we only had raw
herring and black bread for breakfast. He was very poor, although he
was exceeding clever, and had as his right-hand man a wonderful
chemist. So far as I know, the present German mine is nearly what it
was then, and the sea-gulls rested on the protuberances as they do
now, for I went to Kiel Bay to see them. There was a lovely hotel at
Kiel, where they treated me royally. I recommended the adoption of
these German mines, and it’s a pity we didn’t. They hold the field to
this very day. However, the First Sea Lord of that date didn’t believe
in mines or torpedoes or submarines, and I was packed off to China
in the old two-decker “Donegal,” as Commander of the China
Flagship. Long afterwards Sir Hastings Yelverton, who became First
Sea Lord, unburied my Memorandum headed “Ocean Warfare,” and
supported the views in it. It enunciated the principle of “Hit first, hit
hard, and keep on hitting,” and discoursed on Submarines and
Mines.
Reval
You are remarking to me of a charming letter written to me by the
late Emperor of Russia’s youngest sister—the Grand Duchess Olga.
She is a peculiarly sweet creature. Her nickname amongst the
Russians was “Sunshine.” Stolypin, the Prime Minister, told me that,
and he also said to me that she was a kind of life-buoy because if
you walked about with her you would not get bombed by an
anarchist. All loved her.
I made her acquaintance first at Carlsbad. On my arrival at the
hotel I found King Edward’s Equerry waiting in the hall. I had written
to tell the King, who was at Marienbad, in answer to his enquiry, as
to the day I should arrive and what time; and he came over to
Marienbad from Carlsbad. I went then and there and found him just
finishing lunch with a peculiarly charming looking young lady, who
turned out to be the Grand Duchess Olga, and her husband, the
Grand Duke of Oldenburg, from whom happily she is now divorced (I
didn’t like the look of him at all). The King, having satisfied himself
that I had had lunch, and he then smoking a cigar as big as a
capstan bar, after talking of various things which interested him, told
me that his niece, the Grand Duchess Olga, did not know anyone in
Carlsbad, and he relied on me to make her time there pleasant, so I
promptly asked her if she could waltz. She said she loved it, but she
somehow never got the step properly, whereupon I asked the King if
he had any objection to getting into the corner of the room while I
moved the table and took the rugs up to give her Imperial Highness
a lesson. He made some little difficulty at first, but eventually went
into the corner; and when the lesson began he was quite pleased
and clapped his hands and called out “Bravo!” The best waltz tune in
the world is one of Moody and Sankey’s hymns. I don’t know
whether Sankey originated the saying that he didn’t see why the
Devil should have all the good music. I don’t by that implicate that
the waltz was the devil’s; but, without any doubt, there is a good deal
of temptation in it, and when you get a good partner you cleave to
her all the evening.
This dancing lesson was an unalloyed success, so I asked her to
a dance the next night at the Savoy Hotel; and after some more
words with the King I left, and walking down the stairs to go to my
hotel, I thought to myself: “How on earth are you going to get up a
dance when you don’t know a soul in the place?” when who should I
meet but a friend of mine—a Spanish Grandee, the Marquis de Villa
Vieja, and he arranged what really turned out to be a ball, as he
knew everybody, and I having some dear American friends at
Marienbad I telegraphed them to come over and dine with the Grand
Duchess and stay the night for the ball, and they did. When the
dance had begun, and the Grand Duchess was proving quite equal
to her lesson of the day before, suddenly an apparition of
extraordinary grace and loveliness appeared at the door. Villa Vieja
took on the Grand Duchess and I welcomed the beautiful Polish
Countess and danced with her many waltzes running in spite of a
hint I received that her husband was very jealous and a renowned
duellist. Next day, by telegram from the King, I was told by His
Majesty that Isvolsky, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, was to
be asked by me to lunch on his arrival that day from St. Petersburg. I
invited him; and just as we sat down to lunch the Polish angel of the
night before came through the door and petrified Isvolsky, and the
more so as she kissed her hand to me. He never took his eyes off
her, and as she walked to her table I heard him breathe a sigh, and
say sotto voce, “Alas, in heaven no woman!” I said to him: “Monsieur
Isvolsky, pray pardon me; perhaps you did not intend it to be heard,
but if it be true what you say, it takes away much of the charm which
I had anticipated finding there.” He turned to me and said—quoting
chapter and verse in the Revelations, “There was silence in heaven.”
So when I met the Grand Duchess Olga again, when I
accompanied King Edward on that memorable visit to Reval—when,
as Prince Orloff, the Emperor’s principal aide-de-camp, said to me,
King Edward changed the atmosphere of Russian feelings towards
England from suspicion to cordial trust—there was quite an
affectionate meeting, and we danced the “Merry Widow” waltz—a
then famous stage performance—with such effect as to make the
Empress of Russia laugh. They told me she had not laughed for two
years. At the banquet preceding the dance the Grand Duchess and I,
I regret to say, made such a disturbance in our mutual jokes that
King Edward called out to me that I must try to remember that it was
not the Midshipmen’s Mess; and my dear Grand Duchess thought I
should be sent to Siberia or somewhere. We sailed at daylight, and I
got a letter from her when I arrived in England saying she had made
a point of seeing Uncle Bertie and that it was all right, I was not
going to be punished. Then she went on to describe that she had
had a very happy day (being her birthday) picnicking in the woods;

Social Formations in The Ancient World: From Evolution of Humans To The Greek Civilisation 1st Edition Rakesh Kumar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Formations in The Ancient World: From Evolution of Humans To The Greek Civilisation 1st Edition Rakesh Kumar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Formations in the Ancient World:

From Evolution of Humans to the Greek

The Social Evolution Of World Politics 1st Edition

Rome in the Ancient World From Romulus to Justinian 3rd

Twelve Caesars Images of Power from the Ancient World

Innovative Development in Micromanufacturing Processes

Tolkien Europe and Tradition From Civilisation to the

The Smithsonian History of Space Exploration From the

From Empires to Imperialism The State and the Rise of

In Search of the Classical World An Introduction to the

1 Evolution of Humans: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures 1

2 The Neolithic Cultures: Food Production and Animal

3 Bronze Age Civilisations – I: Mesopotamia and Egypt 100

4 Bronze Age Civilisations – II: Shang and Minoan 150

5 Nomadism in Central and West Asia: Advent of Iron and Its

6 Ancient Greece 218

2.1 Early Neolithic Sites of Southwest Asia 71

Environment and Human Evolution

Eon Era Period Epoch Developments

Holocene Growth of human civilisation until present day.

The Ice Age

physiological changes relate to bipedalism, an increased brain size, and related

Origin of Human-Like Species

to extreme climatic variability experienced in Africa. But exactly at what point

some consider Australopithecus afarensis as an ‘anatomic mosaic’ of apes and

BOX 1.1 DATING METHODS FOR PRE-HISTORIC

1. Potassium-argon dating – It is a radiometric method applied on volcanic

radiocarbon, scientists have recalibrated them to get correct dates using

A Skull Comparison (Reconstructed) of Australopithecines Species

A. afarensis (brain size 410 cc)

A. africanus (reconstructed, brain size 450 cc)

A. robustus (brain size 500 cc)

A. boisei (brain size 550 cc)

A. garhi (brain size 500 cc)

H. ergaster and H. erectus

advanced Neanderthals. Neanderthals were robustly built humans with an average

BOX 1.2 RECENT FINDINGS OF HOMININ SPECIES

3. Homo antecessor (‘Pioneer Man’) – Fossil findings of teeth, jaw, skeletal,

A Skull Comparison (Reconstructed) of Homo Species

Homo habilis (brain size 650 cc)

Homo ergaster (brain size 750 cc)

Homo erectus (brain size 1000 cc)

Homo neanderthalensis (brain size 1500 cc)

Homo sapiens (brain size 1400 cc)

human social formations is also an attempt to divide human cultural accomplish-

A significant cultural achievement of Neanderthals, indicating their highly

leading to better utilisation of natural resources. Their economy was of a non-

polychrome (painted in different colours) paintings at Altamira in Northern Spain

... You say to me—“Come home!”—you remind me of “personal

... Well! as you say, every blessed thing at Weymouth [the

I have a letter from W. C. this morning that he and the Prime

My plot is working exactly as forecast. By and by you’ll say it’s

At the Defence Committee yesterday ... we had a regular set-to

This Royal Commission [on oil] is a wonder! We have our first

... My idea now is to raise a syndicate to build the “Non-Pareil”!

My very best friends are Americans. I was the Admiral in North

Lord Fisher on John Bright

The following is an extract from the speech by Mr. John Bright. It

Sir Hiram Maxim

I was sent as a very young Lieutenant to a little fishing village

You might also like

1 Evolution of Humans: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures 1

3 Bronze Age Civilisations – I: Mesopotamia and Egypt 100

4 Bronze Age Civilisations – II: Shang and Minoan 150

6 Ancient Greece 218

2.1 Early Neolithic Sites of Southwest Asia 71