We are interested here in the early pre-history of man and the development of a sophisticated technology of tools, and the parallel development of culture - especially beliefs in magic and awareness of death and its implications. We are trying to find some clues to help us answer the question as to "What is man?", rather than simply saying that man is Homo sapiens. And possibly, does what is important in our idea of man also apply to any other species?
Homo habilis and Australopithecus garhi are the first species to be clearly associated with tool technology, whilst Homo neanderthalensis as well as Homo sapiens clearly demonstrate burial ceremonies. This section ends with Cro-Magnon man, who was culturally and technologically as sophisticated as most people living today and perhaps, on average, had a higher native intelligence.
Homo habilis had a brain case size of 700 cc. The earliest stone tools so far found are 2.4 M years old from the Omo valley in Africa, and are usually attributed to Homo habilis, though the 2.5 M year old species Australopithecus garhi is also associated with tool use. A. garhi is a possible link between A. afarensis and Homo habilis.
Homo erectus originated about 1.8 million years ago and survived longest in Asia (to 40 or 50 thousand years ago [Smithsonian]) and possibly co-existed with Homo sapiens there, although in other parts of the world Homo erectus disappears 200 to 300,000 years ago. Brain size 900 to 1100 cc. Peking Man (from Dragon Bone Hill, near the town of Zhoukoudian in China) and the first early human fossil found outside Europe (from the Solo River, in Java) are now all classed as Homo erectus. Homo erectus used the advanced technology of Acheulean stone tools, as also did Homo heidelbergensis. There is some dispute about whether Homo heidelbergensis should be a separate species, or is really a type of Homo erectus.
Homo heidelbergensis, the first species of man with a brain size (1200 cc) in the range of modern man. Lived from 500,000 years ago to 200,000 years ago. Associated with technologies such as the Acheulean stone tool technology (a lower paleolithic, or lower old stone age technology). In Europe superseded Homo erectus and was in turn superseded by Neanderthals.
Homo neanderthalensis, who emerged as a distinct species of man around 250,000 years ago and flourished in Europe and the Middle East in the middle old stone age (middle paleolithic) before dying out 30,000 years ago. Brain size 1450 cc is larger than modern humans. They were replaced (or displaced) by the Cro-Magnon culture of Homo sapiens, but whether they were killed, driven out, or simply out-competed so that they became extinct as conditions changed, or even if they interbred, is not known. There is still debate as to whether Neanderthals were a separate species or a sub-species of Homo sapiens (i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthalis). They had a sophisticated technology, as shown by the many stone tools they left behind, named as the Mousterian technology (identifier of the middle paleolithic), which towards the end show signs of influence from Homo sapiens. And they buried their dead, from at least 70,000 years ago, sometimes painting the bones with red ochre, and left things with their dead, all of which suggests that they had a sophisticated culture, ritual, and awareness of the implications of death. It has been said that there are other reasons for burying the dead [Rance], e.g. to avoid the attention of predators, but a lot of effort is involved in digging a grave and the last place one would bury someone if trying to avoid predators is in the family cave! The simplest explanation is that the person was important to someone and they took pains to provide a last resting place. Before burials, there is evidence that Neanderthals "cached" their dead in caves or shafts [Pettit]. Indeed it is only after H. sapiens start to bury their dead that Neanderthals do. Possibly this is behaviour the Neanderthals learned from H. sapiens, or possibly they arrived at this ritual separately. Either way though, it is evidence that Neanderthals had rituals associated with the dead.
Remains of these diminutive people, the so-called "Hobbits", were found in 2004 on the island of Flores in Indonesia. They survived until at least 12,000 years ago, and the fact that memories of them survive in the tales of modern Flores islanders suggests they may have survived longer. Evolved from Homo erectus and presumably they or their H. erectus forebears arrived on Flores by boat, which was previously thought to have been beyond the intellectual ability of H. erectus.
Homo sapiens emerged as a species about 100,000 years ago in Africa. Currently exemplified by smaller brain sizes (1200 to 1400 cc, on average 1350 cc) and less robust physiques than Homo neanderthalensis. But modern humans are also less robust and have smaller brain sizes than our new stone age ancestors, as the brain size for Cro-Magnon man was 1590 to 1660 cc [Custance], slightly larger than H. neanderthalensis. Homo sapiens spread out from Africa across all the continents except Antarctica, probably in many small migrations where they would end up living alongside other species of man. There is evidence that as early as 90,000 years ago Homo sapiens were being buried (Qafzeh Cave, Israel), whilst the earliest date for a burial ceremony is 62,000 years b.p. (+/- 6000 years) near Lake Mungo, Australia, where Mungo Man was covered in red ochre. Around 40,000 years ago there was a marked increase in the sophistication of technology (e.g. Aurignacian stone tools in Europe). It appears that in Europe the early Homo sapiens of the Aurignacian culture and Neanderthals disappeared at the same time, a time of rapid climate change from a wooded countryside to steppes, to be replaced by the Gravettian technology and steppe culture of Cro-Magnon man about 35,000 years ago (start of the upper paleolithic, or upper old stone age). With Cro-Magnon man there is extensive evidence of culture, with magnificent rock paintings and carvings surviving. Although there is debate about when people migrated out of Africa, it is clear that our origin was in Africa - we are all Africans.
The cave paintings of Cro-Magnon and other early man and sculptures [Palomar College], most notably the abundant Venus figurines, were probably of religious or magical importance, rather than being prized for their artistic properties. The paintings, being deep in complex cave systems, would not have been easy to visit and were probably sympathetic or imitative magic to do with hunting, as they mainly show animals. The Venus figurines, of well-rounded, usually pregnant women, are probably ritual objects symbolizing fertility
Sympathetic magic is the term used to describe the links between symbols or icons and the things they describe, and is based on the belief that like affects like (the alternative form of magic is called contagious magic, where things which have been in contact with the target are used to cast spells on them). Sticking pins into a doll is using sympathetic magic. A shaman is the term used for a magician in hunter-gatherer societies. Modern day shamans enter a trance in order to predict the future or cast a spell. They commonly describe their experience as taking a journey in which they must succeed in overcoming difficulties in order to reach their own spirit helpers, who then aid them with the magic.
We now differentiate between ritual and magic, in that ritual does not necessarily work, it only increases the likelihood of a wished for event happening, whilst magic should work every time, unless of course the practitioner has made a mistake or a counter-spell has been cast! Also, magic is supposed to work directly on the target, whereas ritual is used to intercede with some spiritual being. The idea here of course is that magic came first, to be followed by ritual as a pre-cursor to religion when magic did not always work. However, for our ancestors, magic, ritual, religion and indeed their everyday world, would all have been connected at a very deep level and trying to differentiate them would not make any sense. The basic conclusion is that religion was being followed in Europe at least 30,000 years ago with Cro-Magnon man, and possibly earlier with H. neanderthalensis or the Aurignacian culture of H. sapiens, and 62,000 years ago in Australia with Mungo Man.
The accepted version is that Clovis man from North Asia settled in America 13,000 years b.p. by way of the land bridge over what is now the Bering Sea. Clovis people are associated with the Clovis point to their stone tools, i.e. fluted tools with parallel or slightly convex sides and a concave base [Baker], which are found in North and Central America and have been dated to between 15,000 and 9,000 b.p. However, there is new evidence for people being in America at least as early as 50,000 years b.p. And there is other evidence that an earlier people, possibly an Australian or Polynesian race, were displaced by the Clovis people. Possibly the last survivors of this original people were the Pericues tribe of Baja California, who became extinct in the 18th century. This idea is politically controversial, as it could undermine Native American claims to land taken from them by Europeans, if it can be shown that they displaced an earlier people in their turn.
Dates for the arrival of modern man given variously as 50,000 to 60,000 years b.p. Since Mungo Man is 62,000 years b.p. these seem conservative estimates.
We may tend to dismiss the technological achievements of early people, but these hunter-gatherers had very sophisticated equipment. For example, Oetzi the Ice Man, who lived in the Copper Age, between the Neolithic/New Stone Age and the Bronze Age, in the Alps in Europe, had clothing which was more sophisticated than that of climbers in the Alps in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and which wasn't matched until the widespread use of synthetic fibres in the second half of the 20th century. However, we should also be careful about thinking of "the Noble Savage" [Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1712 - 1778] and of such people living in an era of innocence and harmony. Oetzi was probably murdered, possibly by people he knew. People then would have been as devious and cunning, and as friendly and open, as they are now. They had a more frequent exposure to violence, and could probably exhibit a ferocity which would surprise us, but otherwise they would be much as we are.
We belong to the Kingdom of Animals according to the Linnaen classification scheme. But what makes man different from other animals, or are we different? The commonly held belief is that it is our intelligence, our spirituality, our tool-making ability, and our speech, which makes us different (the list lengthens when it is discovered that another species has an ability already on the list). It is, I think, evident that we are similar to other late species of man (H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, and H. floresiensis). We can also look at other species, and see their use of tools, etc. and what they make of death, and we will see that other species too have an awareness of loss at the death of others. But what is different between humans and other creatures (those we are aware of), is not only do we think, but we think about thinking. This is a qualitative difference between us and other creatures, but there seems no identifiable, qualitative difference in brain structure, composition or size that we can tie this difference to. Presumably sometime ago our ancestors' brains crossed some boundary whereupon they achieved a new functionality. Custance [quoting A. N. Whitehead] suggests that 900 cc is the 'Cerebral Rubicon' for humans, though the idea seems to be from Sir Arthur Keith who gives 750 cc.
The human genome project has shown [National Health Museum] that we have < 25,000 genes (far fewer than expected), which some say effectively kills the idea that who we are is determined by our genes, there are simply too few genes to do that! However, you should base your beliefs on something other than a scientific theory, as theories can and do change (see scientific method and free will). It is also estimated that our genome is 95% the same and our non-junk DNA is 98.6% identical to that of the common Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), whilst our genome is 98% the same as that of the Bonobo (Pan paniscus), our closest living relative today with whom our last common ancestor lived 6 M years ago, whilst we retain 90% of the non-junk DNA of the Fugu fish (second vertebrate genome to be sequenced after man's), with which our last common ancestor lived 400 M years ago.
Mankind today has no sub-species. Attempts to classify people by their appearance are misleading, as there is far more genetic variation in a people than between the averages of different cultures [Cavalli-Sforza]. Statistical significance is tricky [1], imagine the entire population of the world removed to Antarctica, where a random selection of people is made who are settled in England, and a further random selection made of people who are then settled in Scotland. Although there would be measurable differences between averages of the two populations, the differences would not be statistically significant (i.e. they would be meaningless) since people were randomly chosen from the same original population. But even if differences between populations are statistically significant it does not necessarily follow that the results are meaningful (e.g. one population may on average be 5 cm taller than another, but whether that is important is another matter). Although differences in populations can evolve within relatively few generations (e.g. ~100), these differences disappear with equal rapidity when conditions change. Races of people (i.e. peoples) should be defined by their cultures, rather than biologically, and of course people in one culture will mix their genes with people in other cultures given the slightest chance!
1. Typically you might accept a result as statistically significant if there was =< 5% probability (p =< 0.05) of the difference between two populations occurring by chance.Return to start