Please see the Hominidography if you wish to help me update this treatise, especially with the incomplete citations.
Please send any comments, questions, fan/hate mail to:
H. rudolfensis
Est. 2.5mya to 1.8mya (2)
Conjectured from a small quantity of fossils and tools, has affinities
with habilis, and maybe ergaster and erectus. (2)
Tool use is now under question, and may be removed from this creature’s
resume and assigned to the Paranthropus genus for this time period. (31)
Associated with simple Omo tool technology. (2)
Associated with catchement scavenging, congregating near locations that
offer many different needed resources, such as lake margins, stream
confluences and rock outcroppings. (2)
A very complete skull found by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972, dated 1.9 mya and
with a braincase of 750 cc has been tenatively assigned to this
species. Its leg bones were found nearby. (6)
The “Dik Dik Hominid” discovered by Tim White in 1986, dated 1.8 mya,
comes with skull, arm, leg and teeth, all closely resembling habilis,
but also similar to afarensis. (6)
H. habilis
1.6 mya to 2 mya. (14) Concurrent with A. africanus
for a time.
Larger brain than Australopithecus (800cc), omnivorous teeth and a third
molar like moderns. Rounder head, smaller face, narrower teeth, less
pronounced brow ridges, slight chin, almost hairless face. (14) Skull Casts show an enlargement of the Brocca’s
area of the brain, whis is responsible for speech in homo sapiens. (33) With long arms, short legs and Australopith-like
thigh anatomy. (2) Stood 3.7 to 4.2 feet tall.
May have had the ability to make simple, single face stone tools (Omo),
used mainly for cutting and chopping vegetables and plants and
scavenging meat. (14) This tool making ability is
now being questioned. (31)
Probably not a hunter, but lived by catchement scavenging. (2)
Morphologically too primitive to be an ancestor of ergaster or erectus.
(2) The exact attributes of habilis are disputed,
some believing that much that has been assigned to it actually are
fragments that belong to H. rudolfensis. (31)
Many fragments, jaws, teeth, cranial, hand and foot bones, etc., were
discovered by the Leakys in the early 1960’s, and giving a braincase
measurement of 660 to 680 cc. (6)
“Twiggy,” a complete (if crushed) cranium and seven teeth, with a
braincase of 590 cc, dated 1.85 mya,, was discovered by Peter Nzube in
1968. (6)
At the Omo Valley, Kenya, Australopithecus remains have been discovered
contemporaneously with H. habilis. (8)
A stone circle, the first arcitectural structure, dated 1.8 mya, could
be habilis or erecutus. (1)
H. ergaster
2 mya (15) .
Much larger brain than habilis (1000cc). More generalized skull
features than erectus; rounder head, higher cranial dome, less
protruding, lighter facial features, very slight eye ridges.
Morphologically closer to H. sapiens than erectus. (15) Its fossils were once classified as erectus. (3)
Starting in African tropical and sub tropical zones. Territory
scavenging, exploiting many locales with one or two resources each
across a wide area, and associated with Acheulean technology, typifies
ergaster’s living habits. This allowed ergaster to survive the wide,
sparce landscape of the plains and temperate, drier climates. (2)
Some ancestor to ergaster and erectus arose in Africa during the cooling
of the Middle Pliocene, approximately 2.5 to 2.0 mya. Some migrated to
Eruasian continent, taking Oldowan tools with them. (2)
Began with simple, Omo tools, progressed to Acheulean technology:
complex bi-facial tools, with more careful selection of cores and more
complicated chipping patterns that made use of the entire edge of the
tool. Early examples by 2 mya, a complete set of Acheulean tools by 1.5
mya. (2)
Good probablility that ergaster was an active hunter, as opposed to a
scavenger. (2)
The famous “Turkana Boy” discovered by Richard Leakey’s Hominid Gang in
1984, a very nearly complete skeleton of a juvenile who probably drowned
1.6 mya, is now classified as ergaster.
H. erectus
2 mya (2) to 400 th.ya (3)
Larger brain and body than habilis. Sister species to H. ergaster, very
similar in physiology and form, but not as smart. Brain case of about
1000 cc, fully upright and bipedal. Differences include a longer skull,
low forhead, thick cranial bones, large projecting brow ridges, and a
heavier face than sapiens. (2) As tall as modern
humans. (3)
Found in tropical Africa, but mainly in Asia, Indonesia and points
inbetween. (2)
Cooling due to glaciation during Middle Miocene probably prompted to
migration of erectus or her immediate ancestor to Eurasian continent,
possibly related to migration of six bovid species following forest
recession, through Saudi Arabia tropical and sub-tropical zones and into
south central China, and across land bridge to Java. Later moved into
temperate zones in Western Asia at end of ice age, approximatly 1,4 mya.
(2)
Asian erectus is associated with Omo and early Oldowan stone
technologies, but nothing near as complex as Acheulean or developed
Oldowan. (2)
Lived by catchement scavenging, which may have helped spread species
across Eurasia. (2)
In Chokoutien Cave, “Dragon Bone Cave”, China, erectus remains have been
found, dated to 500 tya, including bone remains, evidence of fire, omo-
type tools. (8)
In the River Solo, Java, the remains of the first “Java Man” were
discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891. (8)
H. antecessor
1.0 mya (2) to 800 tya (16)
Relatively modern (sapiens-like) face, less protruberant than ergaster
or heidelbergensis. Other cranium features, lower jaw and teeth are
more similar to ergaster than to sapiens or heidelbergensis. Braincase
capacity 1000cc. (16)
Lived in Europe and Northern Africa when climate was similar to today’s,
in oak, pine and beech forest. (16)
Associated with core-flake tools (Omo variety). (2)
Probably the last or closest common ancestor to sapiens and
heidelbergensis. (16) Perhaps arose in Africa and
migrated to Europe, spawning heidelbergensis, while relatives left
behind gave rise to sapiens in Africa. (2)
At La Sima de los Huesos, near Atapuerca, in Northern Spain, the species
was identified by the remains of at least six individuals (dated 800
tya) found deep in a cave that may once have had another entrance. The
bodies may have been deposited there in ritual burial. (16)
Elementary core-flake technology found at Isernia La Pineta, Italy, and
dated to 800tya, could be assigned to antecessor. (2)
Some tools and hominid fragments, including skull and limb pieces, have
been dated to 1 mya at Orce, south central Spain, in 1996. (2)
H. heidelbergensis
600 tya (2)
Tall as or taller than modern humans. Pre-cursors to Neandertals, with
robust physiques, big noses, no chins, heavy brows, and various
braincase sizes. (17)
Some kinds of bi-facial stone tools, Acheulean. (2)
Wear on teeth shows use of bite as “third hand” while using tools. (18)
Capable of group hunting large game. (18) Scrape
marks on bones, indicating defleshing, may be sign of cannibalism.
Hints of knowlege of mortality; bodies dumped at Atapuerca in ritual?
(17)
Probable ancestor to H. neandertalensis, but not H. sapiens. (17)
Heidelberg, Germany, site of cave where “Mauer Jaw” was found in 1908:
it was originally attributed to erectus, and, later, true Neandertals.
(8)
In Petralona, Greece, in 1960, villiagers discovered remains that have
been etimated to be from 250 to 500 tya. Once classified with archaic
Homo, it has erectus/ergaster and Neandertal characteristics. (6)
H. neandertalensis
230 tya to 29 tya (13? & 18)
Larger bodies, more stocky and barrel chested than sapiens and
heidelbergensis. (18) Distinct inner ear bones,
farther from sapiens than even apes. (19) Their
brains were on average larger than modern humans (18)
, though brain case impressions show a lack of frontal lobes. (20) Also characterised by the occipital bun at the
base of the brain in classic Neandertals. (18)
Ranging from Europe to the Middle East, in ice age and, later in their
existence, temperate climates; also found in Asia and Northern Africa.
(18)
Like H. heidelbergensis, they used their front teeth to hold objects
while working with tools. (18) They employed
Mousterian technology, a style of stone tool industry characterised by
flakes chipped into points (triangles), burins (chisels), borers (for
soft materials), and drills (for hard items) (13) .
They had no fine points or blades. This technology would remain largely
unchanged over most of their tenure on Earth. (3)
Known to have used wooden spears but not for throwing, only stabbing and
thrusting. (18) Chatelperonian style stone tools
came about coincident with the arrival of modern sapiens to Neandertal’s
territories (40 tya), and were the result of their borrowing from the
Aurignacean toolkit. The presence of jewelry made of antler and bone
indicates attempts by moderns to trade with Neandertals. (19) A flute has been discovered associated with
Neandertal remains dating 43tya to 67 tya. It matches the seven note
diatonic scale of modern human music. (34)
They were social, hunter-gatherer people, living in bands of twenty to
forty, practicing cooperative hunting and caring for their sick and
wounded. Many individual specimines show signs of massive and multiple
injuries to the upper body. They probably also had a language
capability. Scrape marks on some skeletal remains made by stone tools
could be signs of cannibalism or ceremony for the dead. A Neandertal
grave in Shandar, Iraq contained the remains of four individuals, a man,
two women and an infant, and the pollen of spring flowers. (18) Other graves have been discovered with animal
horns, flowers and red ochre. (3) The only known
“art” object attributable to neandertals is a single carved and polished
baby mamoth tooth, veined with red ochre, found in Hungary and dated 80
to 100 tya. (18)
In the Neander Valley, Germany, a limestone cave containing remains and
some tools discovered in 1856 gave the species its name. In that year
Professor D. Schaaffhausen of Bonn studied them and declared that they
were from a “wild northern tribe,” older than the Celts. This conclusion
was totally rejected by the leading naturalists of the day. The
reamins’ significance would not be recognized for about fifty years. (3)
In Krapin, Yugoslavia, about eighty individuals were discovered around
the turn of the century, confirming their uniqueness and non-sapiens
morphology. Some had intentionaly scraped and broken large bones
indicating possible cannibalism. The remains are dated 130 tya (18 , 8)
At Shandar, Iraq is a neandertal living and burial site, the graves
containing pollen grains and the remains of very old and healed wounded
people (100 tya). A second occupation of the cave occured around 50
tya. (18)
H. sapiens - “Early Moderns”
200 tya to ? (2)
The first sapiens were not anatomicaly similar to modern sapiens. (22) Largest braincase (1200 cc to 1400cc) relative to
body size, other than moderns. (3, 18) Capable of language, symbolism, other abstract
concepts. (?) Slighter body build than neandertalensis. (18)
Evolved in Africa. (2)
They evidenced fine, detailed toolmaking at their emergence, judging
from barbed bone harpoons discovered in Zaire dated to 200 tya, but
widespread tool use was limited to the more primitive mousterian style
until the advent of Aurignacian technology around 40 tya. (2)
H. sapiens - Cro-Magnon
50 tya to present (2)
Anatomically similar to modern humans.
Beginning in Sub Saharran Africa and a temperate climate, they would
eventually adapt to all extreems of heat and cold. (23) They ranged from Northern Africa to Southern Asia
and across Europe. They took advantage of the lowered sea levels and
connections via land to migrate across the Bering Land Bridge beginning
around 20 to 10 tya. (22) Others suggest that they
might have crossed via a Greenland-Nova Scotia route, over ice, land and
with small sea vessels across short distances. The first North American
immigrants were caucasoid, and were later replaced by Asian tribes who
were the ancestors of modern Native Americans. (24)
Cro magnon’s tools are described as the Aurignation technology;
characterised by bone and antler tools, such as spear tips (the first)
and harpoons. They also used animal traps, and bow and arrow. (22) They invented hafts and handles for their knives,
securing their blades with bitumen, a kind of tar, as long ago as 40
tya. (25) Other improvements included the invention
of the atlatl, a large bone or piece of wood with a hooked grove used
for adding distance and speed to spears. They also invented more
sophisticated spear points, such as those that detatch after striking
and cause greater damage to prey. (26)
They also began the marking of time with the lunar phases, recording
them with marks on a piece of bone, antler or stone. Some of these
“calendars” contained a record of as many as 24 lunations. (27)
In the relatively recent past, tool industries diversified. The
Gravettian industry (25 to 15 tya), characterized by ivory tools such as
backed blades, is associated with mammoth hunters. One type of brief
industry was Solutrean, occuring from 18 to 15 tya and limited to
Southwest France and Spain. It is characterized by unique and finely
crafted “laurel leaf” blades, made with a pressure technique requiring a
great skill. The industry is associated with horse hunters. The
Magdalenian Culture (15 to 10 tya) produced the widest variety of tools;
bone needles, harpoons, microliths (small blades 1-3 cm.). This was a
culture of reindeer hunting. When the glaciers receeded, the culture
and the industry disipated. (13) The tool industry
of the Clovis Culture in North America (11 to 8 tya) is notable for its
remarkable similarity to Solutrean. Some suggest that the Solutrean
culture migrated to North America around 10 to 15 tya. (24)
Cro Magnon people lived in tents and other man-made shelters in groups
of several families. They were nomadic hunter gatherers, had elaborate
rituals for hunting, birth and death. (22) Multiple
burials become more common. From 35 to 10 tya there was no statistical
trend in differentiation by sex or age in burials. They included
special grave goods, as opposed to everyday, utilitarian objects,
suggesting a very increased ritualization of death and burial. Symbolic
representation by personal adornment in burial becomes more common.
(28) They were the first confirmed to have domesticated animals,
starting by about 15 tya (22) (though ancient
sapiens may have domesticated the dog as much as 200 tya (29) ).
They were the first to leave extensive works of art, such as cave
paintings and carved figures of animals and pregnant women. Huge caves
lavishly decorated with murals depicting animals of the time were at
first rejected as fake for being too sophisticated. Then they were
dismissed as being primitive, categorised as hunting, fertility or
other types of sypathetic magic. Re-evaluations have put these great
works of art in a more prominent place in art history. They show
evidence of motifs, of following their own stylistic tradition, of
“impressionist”-like style, perspective, and innovative use of the
natural relief in the caves. Also possible, considering the new
concepts of time reckoning practiced by Cro magnon, are abstract
representations of the passage of time, such as spring plants in bloom,
or pregnant bison that might represent summer. (30)
Aside from pregnant women and other goddess worship iconography (35) , representations of people, “anthropomorphs,” are
very few, and never show the accuracy or detail of the other animals.
Humans are represented in simple outlines without features, sometimes
with “masks”, often without regard to proportion, distorted and
isolated. (30)
At Grottes des Enfants, France are found four burials with red ocher,
and associated with Aurignacian tools. (8)
At Lascaux, France, are the famous caves of upper Paleolithic cave art,
dated to 17 tya. Due to moisture damage, they have been closed to
tourists since 1963, but since 1984 people have beed able to walk
through a man-made recreation that took five painstaking years to make,
situated about two hundred yards from the actual site. (3)
Kennewick Man found in 1996 on the banks of the Columbia River in
Washington, U.S., dated to 9600 years ago, is at the center of a furious
political debate between anthropologists, who want to study the nearly
complete skeleton, and the leaders of a coalition of five Columbia River
basin American Indian tribes, who claim the remains as theirs by law
(though it is older than the tribes), and who want to reinter it. It is
now in the posession of the US Army Corps of Engineers, awaiting the
decision of the US District Court, and could go to the US Supreme Court.
(24)