Alison S. Brooks

111 Pages·2000·2.36 MB·English

Sally McBrearty The revolution that wasn’t: a new
DepartmentofAnthropology, interpretation of the origin of modern
UniversityofConnecticut, human behavior
Storrs,Connecticut06269,
U.S.A.E-mail:
Proponents of the model known as the ‘‘human revolution’’ claim
[email protected]
that modern human behaviors arose suddenly, and nearly simul-
taneously,throughouttheOldWorldca.40–50ka.Thisfundamental
Alison S. Brooks
behavioralshiftispurportedtosignalacognitiveadvance,apossible
DepartmentofAnthropology, reorganization of the brain, and the origin of language. Because the
GeorgeWashington earliestmodernhumanfossils,Homosapienssensustricto,arefoundin
University,Washington, AfricaandtheadjacentregionoftheLevantat>100ka,the‘‘human
DC20052,U.S.A.E-mail: revolution’’ model creates a time lag between the appearance of
[email protected] anatomical modernity and perceived behavioral modernity, and
createstheimpressionthattheearliestmodernAfricanswerebehav-
Received3June1999 iorally primitive. This view of events stems from a profound Euro-
Revisionreceived16June centric bias and a failure to appreciate the depth and breadth of the
2000andaccepted26July African archaeological record. In fact, many of the components of
2000 the ‘‘human revolution’’ claimed to appear at 40–50ka are found in
the African Middle Stone Age tens of thousands of years earlier.
Keywords:OriginofHomo Thesefeaturesincludebladeandmicrolithictechnology,bonetools,
sapiens,modernbehavior, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, the use of aquatic
MiddleStoneAge,African resources, long distance trade, systematic processing and use of
archaeology,Middle pigment,andartanddecoration.Theseitemsdonotoccursuddenly
Pleistocene. togetheraspredictedbythe‘‘humanrevolution’’model,butatsites
that are widely separated in space and time. This suggests a gradual
assemblingofthepackageofmodernhumanbehaviorsinAfrica,and
itslaterexporttootherregionsoftheOldWorld.TheAfricanMiddle
and early Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record is fairly continuous
andinitcanberecognizedanumberofprobablydistinctspeciesthat
provideplausibleancestorsforH.sapiens.TheappearanceofMiddle
StoneAgetechnologyandthefirstsignsofmodernbehaviorcoincide
withtheappearanceoffossilsthathavebeenattributedtoH.helmei,
suggesting the behavior of H. helmei is distinct from that of earlier
hominid species and quite similar to that of modern people. If on
anatomicalandbehavioralgroundsH.helmeiissunkintoH.sapiens,
the origin of our species is linked with the appearance of Middle
StoneAgetechnologyat250–300ka.
(cid:1)2000AcademicPress
JournalofHumanEvolution(2000)39,453–563
doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0435
Availableonlineathttp://www.idealibrary.comon
Introduction and background 2000; Diamond, 1992; Mellars, 1995,
1996; Nobel & Davidson, 1991; Tattersall,
The human revolution in Europe 1995; Bar-Yosef, 1998). The ‘‘human
For at least the past 15 years, most recon- revolution’’ model proposes a dramatic
structions of later human evolutionary alteration in human behavior at the Middle
history have featured a relatively brief and PaleolithictoUpperPaleolithictransitionat
dramatic shift known as the ‘‘human revol- about 40ka. This behavioral breakthrough
ution’’ (Binford, 1985, 1989; Mellars & is thought by some to correspond to
Stringer, 1989; Klein, 1989a, 1994, 1995, increased cognitive sophistication, the
0047–2484/00/110453+111$35.00/0 (cid:1)2000AcademicPress
454 .   . . 
manipulation of symbols, and the origin of two great European wars, and the trend
language (e.g., White, 1982; Mellars & in archaeology in the second half of the
Stringer, 1989; Diamond, 1992; Byers, twentieth century has been the study of
1994;Mithen,1994,1996;Klein,1995;but local sequences and the application of
see Kay et al., 1998). We believe that the modelsofculturalevolution(Otte&Keeley,
model of the ‘‘human revolution’’ is fatally 1990).
flawed. Modern humans and modern In terms of developments in world pre-
human behaviors arose first in Africa, and history, however, Western Europe is a
we examine the African record to reveal a remote cul de sac with a somewhat anom-
different picture of the nature of events. alousprehistoricrecord.Weargueherethat
Theconceptofa‘‘humanrevolution’’and models derived from the unique record of
the periodization of Stone Age prehistory European prehistory do not explain events
have their roots in the nineteeth-century in Africa where the origin of modern people
probings of the Western European archaeo- actually occurred. In the Holocene, western
logical record. The first paleolithic classifi- Europe experienced a series of incursions
catory schemes were based on the Western from the less peripheral portions of the Old
European large mammal succession (Lartet World. Each arrival of a wave of invaders
& Christy, 1865–1875; Lyell, 1868), and and alien technology induced a fairly
these authors emphasized the wide techno- sudden, rapid cultural turnover. These
logical gulf separating the l’age du renne disruptive episodes are reflected in the
(Upper Paleolithic) from the earlier phases European archaeological record as dis-
(Lartet & Christy, 1865–1875:25). By the continuities that punctuate industrial
1920s the concept of an Upper Paleolithic periods of relatively long duration. They
distinguished by the appearance of engrav- have been sometimes described as ‘‘revol-
ing, sculpture, painting, beads, and worked utions,’’ such as the ‘‘neolithic revolution’’
bone tools had become current. A tripartite of Childe (1936, 1942).
division into Lower, Middle and Upper Recent paleoclimatic data and refined
Paleolithicbaseduponstonetooltechnology chronologies have supported the early sug-
(De Mortillet, 1900; Obermeier, 1924; gestion of Howell (1951) that regions of
Burkitt,1921,1928,1933;Kendrick,1925; Pleistocene Europe were repeatedly isolated
Menghin, 1931) echoed the three-age sys- by ice and mountain barriers, so that its
tems of Thomsen (1837) and Worsaae hominid populations were periodically
(1849) that partitioned the total prehistoric reduced or even eliminated (Howell, 1952;
recordintoagesofStone,Bronze,andIron. Gamble, 1986, 1994; Jochim, 1987;
TheLower,MiddleandUpperPaleolithic Hublin, 1998a). Moreover, it has become
divisions of the western European record increasingly clear that the Neanderthals
havecontinuedtodominatediscourseinthe werereplacedbymodernhumansinEurope
field, despite problems in the application of within too short a period for the former to
these divisions to sequences in Eastern and have evolved into the latter (Mellars,
Southern Europe (Morselli, 1926:292). 1998a,b, 1999, Bocquet-Appel & Demars,
None of these temporal divisions was 2000). Thus, the ‘‘revolutionary’’ nature of
intended as an evolutionary scheme, but the European Upper Paleolithic is most
rather they were thought to reflect repeated probably due to discontinuity in the
invasions by outsiders with new ideas. archaeologicalrecordratherthantothesort
Perhaps not surprisingly, a picture of ofrapidcultural,cognitive,and/orbiological
Europeconqueredbyinvaderswithsuperior transformation that has been argued by
technology had little appeal in the light of proponents of the ‘‘human revolution.’’
   ’ 455
The earliest modern Europeans were The fossil evidence for an African origin
Africans formodernhumansisrobust.Itisclearthat
modern humans (H. sapiens sensu stricto)
WhoweretheearliestmodernEuropeans?It were certainly present in Africa by 130ka
is becoming increasingly difficult to deny (Day&Stringer,1982; Deacon,1989),and
that they were Africans. Although the perhaps as early as 190ka if specimens
‘‘mitochondrial Eve’’ hypothesis, first such as Singa are considered modern
articulated by Cann et al. (1987), has been (McDermott et al., 1996; Stringer, 1996).
revised in light of criticism (Templeton, ModernhumansdonotappearinEuropeor
1992;Hedgesetal.,1992;Ayala,1995),and Central Asia before ca.40ka; earliest dates
populationsizeandstructurehaveeffectson for the Levant range between ca.80ka and
the distribution of genetic characters that 120ka (Day, 1969, 1972; Day & Springer,
were not taken into account in early recon- 1982, 1991; Stringer, 1989, 1992;
structions (Harpending et al., 1993, 1998; McBrearty, 1990b; Stringer et al., 1989;
Sherry et al., 1994; Relethford, 1995; Bra¨uer,1984a,b,1989;Stringer&Andrews,
Relethford & Harpending, 1995), genetic 1988; Valladas et al., 1988; Gru¨n &
dataeitherdirectlysupportorareconsistent Stringer, 1991; Miller et al., 1991; Foley &
with an African origin for modern humans Lahr, 1992; Mercier et al., 1993; Deacon,
(Wainscoat et al., 1986; Cann, 1988; 1993b; Brooks et al., 1993a,b; Stringer,
Stringer & Andrews, 1988; Vigilant et al., 1993a; Schwarcz, 1994; Straus, 1994;
1991; Stoneking, 1993; Stoneking et al., Bar-Yosef, 1994, 1995a, 1998; but see
1993; Relethford & Harpending, 1994; Howells, 1989). Recent evidence suggests
Ayala, 1995; Nei, 1995; Goldstein, 1995; that modern humans were present in
Tishkoff et al., 1996; Ruvolo, 1996, 1997; Australia as early as 62ka (Stringer, 1999;
Irish,1998;Pfeiffer,1998;Zietkiweiczetal., Thorne et al., 1999).
1997; Pritchard et al., 1999; Quintana- Althoughsome,notably Bra¨uer(1984a,b,
Murci, 1999; Relethford & Jorde, 1999; 1989),favorascenarioinvolvingsomeinter-
Tishkoff et al., 2000; see Relethford, 1998 breeding among Neanderthal and modern
and Jorde et al., 1998 for recent reviews). human populations, the successful extrac-
As Howell (1994:306) observes, ‘‘The tion and analysis of fragmentary mito-
phylogenetic roots of modern humans are chondrial DNA (mtDNA) from both the
demonstrably in the Middle Pleistocene. Neanderthal type fossil (Krings et al., 1997,
The distribution of those antecedent 1999) and additional material from the
populations appear to lie outside of western northern Caucasus (Ovchinnikov et al.,
and eastern Eurasia, and more probably 2000) appears to remove the Neanderthals
centered broadly on Africa.’’1 frommodernhumanancestry.Bodypropor-
tions of early European H. sapiens fossils
1. The Middle to Late Pleistocene boundary is the suggestatropicaladaptationandsupportan
beginning of the last interglacial, at approximately African origin (Holliday & Trinkaus, 1991;
130ka;thebaseoftheMiddlePleistoceneistheshift Ruff, 1994; Pearson, 1997, 2000; Holliday,
from reversed to normal magnetic polarity at the
Matuyama–Brunhes boundary, dated to about 780ka 1997, 1998, 2000). A single migration or
(Butzer&Isaac,1975;Imbrie&Imbrie,1980;Berger population bottleneck was originally envis-
et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987; Shackleton et al.,
agedinthe‘‘AfricanEvehypothesis’’(Cann
1990; Deino & Potts, 1990; Cande & Kent, 1992;
Baksietal.,1992;Tauxeetal.,1992).Furtherevidence et al., 1987), but a succession of population
mayconfirmrecentsuggestions(Schneideretal.,1992; dispersals, subsequent isolation induced by
Singer&Pringle,1996;Houetal.,2000)thattheage
climatic events and local adaptation may
of this geomagnetic polarity reversal be revised to
ca.790ka. better account for the complexity of the
456 .   . . 
fossil record and the genetic composition of rather than by genetic processes, the most
presenthumanpopulations(Howells,1976, likely scenario would be an accretionary
1989,1993;Boazetal.,1982;Foley&Lahr, process, a gradual accumulation of modern
1992; Lahr & Foley, 1994, 1998; Ambrose, behaviors in the African archaeological
1998b). record (cf. Allsworth-Jones, 1993). This
Itcanbededucedfromthearchaeological change need not be unidirectional or con-
evidence that on a continent-wide scale the fined to a single location. Rather, we might
African record differs markedly from that expect innovative behaviors to appear at
of Europe in its degree of population con- different times and in different regions, and
tinuity. While parts of Africa, such as the due to low population densities we might
Sahara or the interior of the Cape Province expect the transmission of new ideas to be
of South Africa, do appear to have experi- sporadic.
enced interruptions in human settle- As early as the 1920s it was clear that the
ment during glacial maxima (Deacon & African archaeological record could not be
Thackeray, 1984; Williams, 1984; Butzer, accommodated within the European Paleo-
1988b; Brooks & Robertshaw, 1990; lithic model. A separate scheme of Earlier,
Mitchell, 1990), climatic reconstructions Middle and Later Stone Ages (ESA, MSA,
suggest that the contiguous expanse of and LSA) was devised for Stone Age Africa
steppe,savannaandwoodlandbiomesavail- (Goodwin & van Riet Lowe, 1929) to
ableforhumanoccupation,especiallyinthe emphasize its distinctiveness from the
tropicalregionsofthecontinent,wasalways Lower, Middle, and Upper Paleolithic of
substantially larger than the comparable Europe.TheESA,MSAandLSAwerefirst
regions in Europe. Perhaps as a result, defined on technological grounds on the
hominid populations in Africa, while prob- basis of material from South Africa
ably widely dispersed, appear to have (Goodwin, 1928; Goodwin & van Riet
been consistently larger (Relethford & Lowe, 1929). The terms were formally
Harpending, 1995; Jorde et al., 1998; endorsed by the Panafrican Congress of
Relethford & Jorde, 1999; Tishkoff et al., 1955(Clark,1957a:xxxiii).TheESAasitis
2000). nowunderstoodincludesboththeOldowan
and the Acheulian; the MSA encompasses
flake and blade tool industries which often
Revolution or evolution? The African
include prepared cores and points; and the
data
LSA is characterized by microlithic tech-
How might the archaeological signature of nology. The MSA was distinguished by the
continuousevolutionarychangebeexpected presence of prepared core technology and,
todifferfromthatofabruptreplacement?If atmostsites,unifacialand/orbifacialprojec-
theentirehumanspeciesexperiencedasim- tile points, and by the absence of handaxes
ultaneous, punctuated, genetically encoded and microliths, hallmarks of the Acheulian
event, such as the development of modern and LSA respectively.
capacities for language (Klein, 1995; Before 1972, in the absence of accurate
Diamond, 1992), one would expect the chronometric dates, a radiocarbon date of
transition to modern human behavior to be 60ka from Acheulian levels at Kalambo
abrupt, in Africa as well as in Europe and Falls, Zambia (Clark, 1969) was not
Asia. On the other hand, if aspects of recognized as infinite. This frequently cited
modernhumancultureinAfricaweredevel- datewasparticularlyinfluentialinestablish-
oped by hominids using existing cognitive ing the impression of a short chronology
capabilities and transmitted by cultural for Africa. The MSA, at <60ka, was
   ’ 457
considered the temporal equivalent of the quently retired (Bishop & Clark, 1967:
Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Therefore the 987), when a mixture of different occu-
discovery of anatomically modern human pation levels was found to have occurred
remains associated with MSA artefacts at during excavation at the ‘‘Second Inter-
the South African sites of Border Cave mediate’’ type site of Magosi (Wayland &
and Klasies River occasioned no surprise.2 Burkitt, 1932; Clark, 1957b; Hole, 1959;
The degree of regional differentiation, the Cole, 1967). Yet anachronisms, as well as
ubiquitous presence of blades and blade long periods of transition between stages,
cores, and the sophistication of projectile remain as problems (Vishnyatsky, 1994).
point technology in the African MSA were A fairly abrupt MSA–LSA transition is
considered comparable to the European apparent in the Mediterranean zones at the
Upper Paleolithic. However, bone tools, art northern and southern margins of Africa.
objects and beads were sparse when com- This seems consistent with the significant
pared to the European Upper Paleolithic, documented gaps in the settlement history
particularly the late Upper Paleolithic. ofbothregions(Closeetal.,1990;Wendorf
Therarityofelementsregardedascritical etal.,1990, 1993a; Mitchell,1990; Deacon
to modern human culture in the MSA & Thackeray, 1984; Klein, 1989b: 307).
served as grounds for regarding Africa as a However, at rock shelter sites in tropical
‘‘culturalbackwater,’’theplacethatinitially Africa with relatively continuous occu-
gave rise to humanity, but failed to nurture pationalrecords,suchasMumba,Tanzania
its later development (e.g., Butzer, 1971; (Mehlman, 1979, 1989), Matupi, D. R.
cf. Clark, 1975). In the later 1970s, new Congo (van Noten, 1977) and White
dating techniques and more accurate Paintings, Botswana (Robbins & Murphy,
climatic correlations pushed back the age of 1998;Robbinsetal.,underreview)thereisa
theMSAwellbeyond100ka.TheMSAwas gradual transition from MSA to LSA tech-
recognizedasthetemporalequivalentofthe nology over as much as 30ka. Mehlman
EuropeanMiddlePaleolithic,nottheUpper (1991) has urged the development of new
Paleolithic.Attentionfocusedonthehuman paradigms to accommodate the lack of a
fossilsassociatedwiththeMSA,whichwere punctuated event.
now thought to be anomalously modern Because of the late, sudden, and nearly
in appearance. The fact that many MSA simultaneous appearance in Europe of mod-
artefacts recalled the Upper Paleolithic of ern humans and complex behavior, archae-
Europe in both form and technology was ologists working in Africa have sought a
forgotten. similar ‘‘human revolution’’ there. The fully
The use of a classifactory scheme developed signature of modern human
designed for Africa did not entirely remove behavior, including planning, sophisticated
ambiguity, as many industries displayed technology and resource use, and symbolic
characteristics of two different stages and behavior in the form of decorative art is
could not be assigned to one of the three clearly present in the African LSA. As a re-
divisions. Long transitional periods or sult, the MSA–LSA transition has been con-
‘‘Intermediates’’wereaddedtothetripartite flated with the Middle to Upper Paleolithic
ESA–MSA–LSA scheme at the 1955 andtheemergenceofmodernhumanbehav-
Panafrican Congress (Clark, 1957a: xxxiii), ior. Consequently the earliest anatomically
but the ‘‘Intermediate’’ concept was subse- modern humans, which occur in MSA con-
texts,arenotacceptedasfully‘‘human’’.
2.ThenameKlasiesRiverratherthanKlasiesRiver
We suggest that the expectation of a
Mouth or KRM is adopted here to conform with the
recentusageofHilaryDeaconandhisteam. ‘‘human revolution’’ in Africa is ultimately
458 .   . . 
a misapplication of a European model. thegenusHomowhencomparedtothemore
Further, we reject the idea of a time lag derived state in the Neanderthals (Rak,
between anatomical and behavioral change 1993).
in Africa, such as that proposed by Klein Specimens formerly attributed to
(1992, 1994, 1995, 1998). There was no ‘‘archaic’’ H. sapiens exhibit a number of
‘‘human revolution’’ in Africa. Rather, in plesiomorphic traits, including long low
this paper we present data from the human crania, large brow ridges, large, prognathic
fossil and archaeological records to show faceswithlargeteeth,andthelackofachin.
that novel features accrued stepwise. The chief justification for the inclusion of
Distinct elements of the social, economic, these fossils in our species has been their
and subsistence bases changed at different large brain sizes, though brain size is in part
rates and appeared at different times and a function of body mass, known to be quite
places. We describe evidence from the large among these hominids (Grine et al.,
AfricanMSAtosupportthecontentionthat 1995; Ruff et al., 1997; Kappelman, 1997).
both human anatomy and human behavior Recent discussions of later hominid phy-
were intermittently transformed from an logeny (e.g., Stringer, 1993b, 1994, 1995,
archaic to a more modern pattern over a 1996; Lahr & Foley, 1994; Foley & Lahr,
period of more than 200,000 years. 1997;Rightmire,1998)haverecognizedthe
distinctiveness of non-Neanderthal Middle
Pleistocene hominids and have resurrected
The hominid fossil record
the taxon H. heidelbergensis Schoetensack,
Until recently, most reconstructions of later 1908 for them, but we question the
human phylogeny recognized only one attribution of the African material to this
species after H. erectus. Grade-based taxon.
schemes commonly divided H. sapiens into Paradoxically, H. sapiens Linnaeus, 1758
twovariants,‘‘archaic’’H.sapiensand‘‘ana- lacksasatisfactorydefinition.Howell(1978:
tomically modern’’ H. sapiens (H. sapiens 201) observed over 20 years ago,
sensu stricto). The Neanderthals were then
‘‘The extensive relevant literature reveals an
sometimes distinguished from other
unexpected lack of concern with the bio-
‘‘archaic’’ H. sapiens at the subspecific logical distinctiveness of a now-dominant
level as H. sapiens neanderthalensis (e.g., mammalianspecies’’,
Campbell, 1964). We concur with such and the situation is virtually unchanged
authors as Tattersall (1986, 1992), Kimbel today. The anatomy of H. sapiens is charac-
(1991), Harrison (1993), Rak (1993) and terized by a high round cranium, a chin, a
Stringer(1994,1996)thattherearegrounds small orthognathic face, as well as reduced
fordistinguishing‘‘archaic’’from‘‘modern’’ masticatory apparatus and brow ridges. It
H. sapiens at the species level, and thus has been argued that most of these features
we regard the appearance of ‘‘modern’’ H. can be explained by greater flexion in the
sapiens as a speciation event. Here, we treat basicranium of H. sapiens (Lieberman,
the Neanderthals as the distinct species H. 1998b; Spoor et al., 1999).
neandertalensis King, 1864, and use the Because early fossils of H. sapiens dating
name H. sapiens to refer only to H. sapiens to 130ka, and perhaps as early as 190ka,
senus stricto. The use of the ‘‘anatomically are found in Africa (Gru¨n et al., 1990;
modern’’ label for H. sapiens sensu stricto is Deacon, 1989, 1993b; Day & Stringer,
notonlyunnecessarybutalsomisleading,as 1982; McDermottetal.,1996),itisreason-
many of the cranial features used to dis- able to seek evidence for the processes lead-
tinguish H. sapiens are in fact primitive for ing to the origin of H. sapiens in the African
   ’ 459
record of the Middle Pleistocene (Howell, works(Bra¨uer,1984a,b,1989;Smith,1985,
1994). Although often described as 1993; Clark, 1988; Klein, 1989b, 1994;
‘‘scrappy’’ or insubstantial, the African Stringer, 1993a). Data in Table 1 roughly
hominid fossil sample from this time period followDay’stripartiteconstruct,thoughthis
numbersseveraldozenindividuals(Table1, should not be construed as an endorsement
Figure 1). While the circumstances of for anagenesis or a grade-based taxonomy.
recovery for some of the specimens are far Both the ascription of fossils to group and
from ideal, this is unfortunately true for the attachment of taxonomic labels are
many fossil discoveries, and in fact a fair problematic, and Group 1 specimens
number of the African specimens were probably belong to several different species
recovered by controlled excavation (e.g., (e.g., H. louisleakeyi, H. rhodesiensis).
Ndutu, Cave of Hearths, Haua Fteah, The principal unresolved issue in the
Mumba, Ngaloba, Klasies, Kapthurin post- clarificationoftheevolutionaryrelationships
cranials). For others, stratigraphic context ofthehominidsinGroup1istheenigmatic
can be reasonably inferred, despite the fact status of H. erectus. This species is believed
that they are surface finds (e.g., Kapthurin by many to have been confined to Asia
mandibles, Eyasi, Buia). (Andrews, 1984; Tattersall, 1986; Groves,
Howell (1994: 305f) has deemed the sol- 1989;Clarke,1990;Kimbel,1991;Larick&
ution of the evolutionary relationships Ciochon, 1996). Following Wood (1991,
among later Middle Pleistocene hominid 1992), some now ascribe to H. ergaster
populations one of the central problems in African fossils in the 1·5–2Ma age range
thestudyofhumanevolution,andthetaxo- formerly attributed to H. erectus. Other
nomic status of the African fossils is much authors(e.g., Rightmire,1990, 1994, 1995,
debated (e.g., Tattersall, 1986; Clarke, 1998; Bra¨uer & Mbua, 1992; Harrison,
1990; Foley, 1991a; Kimbel, 1991; 1993; Walker, 1993; Bra¨uer, 1994) regard
Stringer, 1992, 1993a, 1994, 1996; Aiello, H. erectus as a single polytypic species dis-
1993; Foley & Lahr, 1997; Lahr & Foley, tributedthroughoutmostoftheOldWorld,
1998; Rightmire, 1998). Revision of fossils and African specimens in our Group 1,
ascribed to Homo (Wood, 1991, 1992; spanning a broad range of time, continue
Wood & Collard, 1999) has resulted in a to be ascribed to this taxon (e.g., OH9,
more ‘‘bushy’’ or speciose taxonomic Kapthurin, in Wood, 1992). Attribution of
picture for our genus in the Pliocene and the African and Asian Middle Pleistocene
Early Pleistocene, but for the African material to a single species assumes an
Middle and Late Pleistocene a unilineal adequate degree of gene flow to prevent
model is often invoked. It is our belief that speciation, but the archaeological differ-
the number of African Middle and Late encesbetweentheregionssuggestlongterm
Pleistocenehominidspecieshasbeenunder- isolation (Schick, 1994; but see Hou et al.,
estimated, because behavioral and repro- 2000).
ductiveisolationmayprecedechangesinthe Group 1 in our scheme includes the
bony skeleton (Tattersall, 1986, 1992, Kabwe (Broken Hill) cranium, type speci-
1993; Rak, 1993). men of H. rhodesiensis Woodward, 1921, as
Over 25 years ago, Day (1973) suggested well as OH9. The latter specimen is usually
separating African Middle and Late referred in the literature to H. erectus, but
Pleistocene hominids into ‘‘early,’’ ‘‘inter- Louis Leakey (1961, 1963) emphatically
mediate,’’ and ‘‘modern’’ groups, and this rejected this position. He saw the origin of
grade-based practice has been followed, H. sapiens as a strictly African phenom-
explicitlyandimplicitly,inmanysubsequent enon,andregardedOH9asmorphologically
460 .   . . 
Selectedreferences Hublin,1992;Geraadsetal.,1992 Grineetal.,1995 Conroyetal.,1978;Kalbetal.,1980,1982a,b;Asfaw,1983;Clarketal.,1984;Rightmire,1996 Clarketal.,1994 Abbateetal.,1998 Cooke,1962;Mason,1962;Masonetal.,1988;Tobias,1971;Partridge,1982;Pearson&Grine,1997 Howell,1978 Cooke,1963;Mehlman,1984,1987
U
Method Associatedfauna Associatedfauna 4039Ar/Ar,associatedfauna Paleomagnetism,associatedfauna Associatedfauna Associatedfauna Extrapolationfrom14Cdates,overlying230234Th/underlyingdates,faunalcorrelation
e
dlka
nddates Date EarlyMiddlePleistocene Undated MidtolaterMidPleistocene,350 640ka–550ka 1·0Ma EarlyLatePleistocene EndMiddlePleistocene 130ka>
a
s
n
aeologicalassociatio Archaeology eyi,H.rhodesiensis) Acheulian None Acheulian cf.Oldowan Nonereported Acheulian Sangoan
h k
nHominidae,theirarc Specimen H.ergaster,H.louislea Leftfemoralshaft Femoralfragment Adultcranium,parietal,distalhumerus Adultcranium,2incisors,pelvicfragments Mandible,radius Cranialfragmentsrepresenting3–4individuals
a
Table1LaterAfric Site Group1(H.erectus, Aı¨nMaarouf(ElHajeb),Morocco BergAukas,Namibia Bodo,Ethiopia Buia,Danakil(Afar)Depression,Eritrea CaveofHearths,SouthAfrica Eyasi,Tanzania
   ’ 461
6; 6;
Selectedreferences Woodward,1921;Pycraftetal.,1928;Oakley,1957;Clark,1959;Clarketal.,1950,1968;Klein,1973,1994;SantaLuca,1978;Partridge,1982;Vrba,1982;Stringer,1986 Badaetal.,1974 Klein,1994;Rightmire,1998 Thispaper,baseduponKlein,1973,1994;Partridge,1982;Hay,197Walteretal.,1991,1992;Tamratetal.,1995;Kimbel,1995;Delson&vanCouvering,2000 Thispaper,baseduponKlein,1973,1994;Partridge,1982;Hay,197Walteretal.,1991,1992;Tamratetal.,1995;Kimbel,1995;Delson&vanCouvering,2000
a
Method Associatedfauna AsparticacidracemizationonhominidfemoralfragmentEM793 Associatedfauna(cf.OlduvaiBedsIII–IV) Associatedfauna(cf.OlduvaiBedsIII–IV).CorrelationoftopofBedIVwithMatuyamBrunhesboundary Associatedfauna(cf.OlduvaiBedsIII–IV).CorrelationofnormalpolaritypaleomagneticzoneatbaseofMasekBedswithJaramillosubchron
a
M
Date 125ka 110ka 700–400ka 780ka–1·33 1·07–1·33Ma
?
y A
olog MS
hae or
c n
Ar oa
g
n
a
S
?
ntinued Specimen Adultcranium(E686),cranial,maxillarydentalandpostcranial(humeral,pelvic,femoral,tibial)remains(cid:1)of3individuals
o
oup1C kenHill),otypeofnsis)
Table1,Gr Site Kabwe(Bro(holZambiaH.rhodesie
462 .   . . 
Selectedreferences Leakeyetal.,1969;vanNoten,1982;Howell,1982;vanNoten&Wood,1985;Wood&vanNoten,1986;Tallon,1978;Dagleyetal.,1978;Rightmire,1980;Solan&Day,1992;Wood,1992;Groves,1998 Deino&McBrearty,underreview Stearns&Thurber,1965 Saban,1975,1977;Howell,1978;Sausse,1975b Shipmanetal.,1983;Pottsetal.,1988;Potts&Deino,1995 Twiesselmann,1991 Chavaillonetal.,1974;Howell,1978;Chavaillon,1982 Mturi,1976;Rightmire,1980,1983;Clarke,1976,1990
a,
n
u
a d
Method K/Ar,associatedfpaleomagnetism 230234Th/U Associatedfauna 4039Ar/Ar Associatedfauna Associatedfauna AARonassociatemammalianbone
e
y n
rle e
an c
Date 230–780ka 500–550ka >200ka 300ka–1·0Ma 390–330ka LateMiddle/ELatePleistoce MiddlePleisto 500–600ka
y
g
o
Archaeol Undiagnostic None Undiagnostic None Acheulian cf.Acheulian
ntinued Specimen Twoadultmandibles,(KNM-BK67,8518)postcranials(ulna,talus,manusphalanges,KNM-BK63–66) Subadultcalvaria,maxillaryfragment,mandible Femoralshaft,isolatedteeth Maxillaryandmandibulardentition Cranialfragments Adultcranium
o
C
)
Table1,Group1 Site Kapthurin(BaringoKenya Ke´bibat(Rabat),Morocco Lainyamok,Kenya Loyangalani MelkaKonture´,Ethiopia Ndutu,Tanzania