AMHS PDF

Preview

Summary

Dr. Foley...

Description

All about AMHS Earliest AMHS: ● Huge of where the AMHS fossils end up in the fossil record - dif place and times Physical Characteristics-AMHS ● ‘No’ occipital bun ● Back of the skull is rounded ○ Hit a round object the force of the hit will go everywhere - more spherical it will diffuse the force more ● Forehead rises vertically above the eye orbits and does not slope back like AHS ○ Frontal lobe right above eyes ● Small brow ridges ● Face does not protrude much ● Strong chin present ● Less robust post-crania ○ Thinner cranial bone which allows for less weight to have to be held up ● Notice many of the features are relative’, or rather subjective ● All of these things are relative, you can find people with things that are the opposite of these things - neandertal features are still around Neanderthals vs AMHS Upper Paleolithic Tools ● Upper Paleolithic is all AMHS ● Burins : small stone tools with a sharp edge used to cut, whittle, or engrave bone. ○ Used to make needles, awls, points, knives, harpoons, art. ● But, some bone tools now known to date back to >90 kya AND even back to millions of years old ● Some cultural elements that may not preserve can be inferred. ○ E.g.: Needles = fitted clothing. Harpoons = more significant marine diet. Upper Paleolithic Tools ● Materials are transported long distances (>200 miles, in some cases), perhaps suggesting trade networks ○ You do not have to take it with you but maybe meet up with a group that meets up with a group and so on and so on and things can move this way ■ Ideas, genes, diseases, objects The Paleo Paleodiet: Upper Paleolithic Subsistence ● In many ways similar to those that preceded them. ● But, we see evidence that they hunted a larger number of species(including large herbivores, fish, birds, small mammals), including larger game, and perhaps with

more sophisticated knowledge and technology. The Paleo Paleo diet: Foraging ● AMHS excelled at extractive foraging. ○ Using energy to get energy in return ○ Not just picking up a strawberry but maybe digging in the ground or heating something up to get energy ○ Can get a more diverse variety of food ● Wild plants are smaller, less sweet, less “filling”. ● Wide diversity in diet. ○ Seasonality. ○ Processing. ● Honey and the Hadza ○ They see where the birds go and then they can find the honey Shelter ● Modern H. sapiens lived in caves and rock shelters where available. ● At Mount Carmel in Israel they shared space with AHS/Neanderthals. ● Manufactured shelter (huts made of wood, animal bone, animal hides) also existed. Such shelters exist at least as far back as 30-40 kya B.P. ○ May be coming to places again and again Cave Art ● Pech Merle Cave, Southern France ● Becomes an important part of AMHS movements all over the place ● Lots of hands ○ Could be signatures - I was here ○ Recognition of personhood and group ● Some argue just for general aesthetics ● Some argue to show events ● Cave depiction of animals can show what kinds of animals would have been around in these ecosystems as this time ● Some argue it was used for teaching demonstrations ● For semi 3Ds or on caves with multiple levels - the paintings kind of go with the texture of the stones ● These would be seen with fire - lots of shadow and flickering light ○ Maybe with the shadows and stuff it may make it look like it was moving ● Jewelry ○ Kinship purposes ○ Trading ○ Some status - not really ○ Shift towards aesthetic pleasure ○ More free time

“Venus” Figurines ● Willendorf, Austria 25kyBP ● Kostienki, Russia 20kyBP ● Dolni Vestonice, Czech Republic 25kyBP ● They are small - you can carry them with you ● Were likely representative of fertility figurines ○ Additional arguments that some have characteristics are not fertility oriented ○ May be representative of captives ● They could mean different things in different places and times - have to be careful how we are interpreting them - what is their archeological context ● There are also animal figurines ○ May be charms or good luck things ○ Religion ○ Toys ● Who may have been making all of this art ○ Children - those not feeling well - injured - pregnant ■ Evidence probs not the men that were hunting - it would mainly be women and children Was AMHS ‘Better’ Than AHS? ● AHS were successful on this planet for quite some time ● BUT, with the AMHS, we do see some evidence that they may have been better adapted to the emerging environment: ○ Have fewer skeletal injuries, or signs of disease ○ Left more archaeological sites, suggesting they lived at higher population density - using more food and more resources ○ More efficient hunting tools (atlatl) ■ Atlatl ○ Long distance running? ■ Can chase after the prey - stand at distance and hit target - and can run after it until it wears down and is a safer kill Geographic Expansion AMHS: Global takeover ● Humans became more successful and expanded into more environments ● By 50 kya humans had reached Australia, which, even with the drop in sea levels, was still separated from Asia by >60 miles of Ocean. ● Humans entered the New World by 15 kya (or earlier) across the Bering Strait land bridge or by boat along the coast of the bridge. ○ Genetic evidence definitively links Native Americans with Northeast Asians But how did AMHS get everywhere? ● Two main hypotheses: ○ (Evidence for one much stronger than for the other. )

○ Multiregionalism vs Replacement (aka Out-Of-Africa) ■ Multiregional ● Homo erectus in Africa leaving and some staying and then other leaving and going to europe, asia, australia and evolved independently ● Born out of old racial ideas of polygenesis ○ Humans arose differently ● Lots of interbreeding across archaic and modern but still regional differences ● Low chance of this but a bit better supported ■ Replacement (out of africa) ● Better supported ● Homo erectus some leave and some stay ● They still go to dif regions but there is more idk ● Complete replacement of older species ■ Argument that it is either one of the models exactly as they are Hobbit Controversy: Arguments over LB1 ● Homo floresiensis discovered in Liang Bua cave on in land of Flores in 2004. ● VERY small. ~3 ft tall and a cranial capacity of around 420 cc. ● May be as recent as 60,000 ya. (revised from earliest estimate of 18 kya) (Sutikna et al. 2016) ● HEATED debate. ○ Some argue it is a case of island dwarfism ■ Not a lot of genetic variation ■ Island animals tend to be smaller too because there are not as many resources to eat ■ Genetic drift works best in small populations ○ Is it a previously unknown offshoot of the homo species ○ Is this a modern human with some kind of pathological condition MtDNA Haplogroups ● Way to track out of Africa with mitochondrial DNA ● Can figure time depth this way too...