Category Archives: Acheulean

The Denisovans were not alone

H. heidelbergensis from Atapuerca
Cranium 5 “Miguelón”
(CC by José Manuel Benito)
About half an hour ago, somewhat cryptic comments in this blog and my email woke me up, more abruptly than I would have desired maybe, to a new game-breaking finding: researchers have sequenced the mtDNA of a 400,000 years old Homo heidelbergensis from Atapuerca (Iberian Peninsula, Europe) and it was not at all like most would have expected.
Mathhias Mayer et al., A mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos. Nature 2013. Pay per viewLINK [doi:10.1038/nature12788]


Excavations of a complex of caves in the Sierra de Atapuerca in northern Spain have unearthed hominin fossils that range in age from the early Pleistocene to the Holocene1. One of these sites, the ‘Sima de los Huesos’ (‘pit of bones’), has yielded the world’s largest assemblage of Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils2, 3, consisting of at least 28 individuals4 dated to over 300,000 years ago5. The skeletal remains share a number of morphological features with fossils classified as Homo heidelbergensis and also display distinct Neanderthal-derived traits6, 7, 8. Here we determine an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos and show that it is closely related to the lineage leading to mitochondrial genomes of Denisovans9, 10, an eastern Eurasian sister group to Neanderthals. Our results pave the way for DNA research on hominins from the Middle Pleistocene.

The key figure is this one, which phylogenetically relates the newly sequenced mtDNA with the known Homo ones:

Figure 4: Bayesian phylogenetic tree of hominin mitochondrial relationships based on the Sima de los Huesos mtDNA sequence determined using the inclusive filtering criteria.
All nodes connecting the denoted hominin groups are supported with posterior probability of 1. The tree was rooted using chimpanzee and bonobo mtDNA genomes. The scale bar denotes substitutions per site.

It has been argued by all sides (myself included) that the H. heidelbergensis of Atapuerca and other European locations are ancestral to Neanderthals. Some say that also to H. sapiens, while others argue that ours is a wholly distinct line, derived from H. rhodesiensis, and yet others claim that H. rhodesiensis is not different from H. heidelbergensis in spite of being older and rooted, it seems, in South Africa.
The clear evidence for migrations out of Africa, before our species, is limited to two periods: (1) the c. 1.8 Ma old migration of H. erectus/georgicus with Olduwayan technology (mode 1, “choppers”), and (2) the c. 1 Ma old migration of H. ergaster/antecessor (sometimes also confusingly called H. erectus) with Acheulean technology (mode 2, typically “hand axes”). Archaeological evidence for later migrations does not exist.
See: Late human evolution maps at Leherensuge.
So we could well ask, if H. heidelbergensis is not ancestral to Neanderthals, then where do Neanderthals come from?
It must be answered that we do not know yet if H. heidelbergensis is or not ancestral to Neanderthals or in what degree it is. The mitochodrial (maternal) lineage may well be misleading in this sense. Denisovans themselves were much more related to Neanderthals via autosomal (nuclear) DNA than the mtDNA, so it may also be the case with European Heidelbergensis.
In fact it is still possible that these individuals represent some sort of admixture between older and newer layers of human expansion. But there is no clear answer yet. What is clear is that no Neanderthals have these mitochondrial sequences but others closer to those of H. sapiens – and this is the most puzzling part in fact. 
But one thing is clear: the World is much bigger than just Europe, and that was also the case back in Paleolithic times. Our answer may well lay under the sands of some tropical desert, the waters of the sea or whatever other place in Asia or Africa.
Even if we’d find the “missing link”, so to say, we might not be able to discern it as such without genetic sequencing and that is often not even possible at all. However this pioneer research, as well as its precursors on a bear also from Atapuerca and a 700,000 years old horse (the true record of ancient DNA recovery), give us some hope of getting an improved, even if sometimes perplexing, understanding of the complexity of the human adventure.

New Acheulean date in Europe: 800,000 to one million years ago

St. Acheul’s namesake biface
(CC by Didier Descouens)
A new date obtained in the Catalan site of Boella confirms very old presence of Acheulean stone technology (and therefore, inferred, of Homo ergaster, common ancestor of Neanderthals and our species) in SW Europe, up to one million years ago.
In 2009 it was also reported comparably old dates for this key techno-culture in SE Iberia, specifically c. 780,000 BP in Zamborino (Andalusia) and 900,000 BP in Cueva Negra (Murcia). So this date should not be any surprise, however it confirms the overall scenario for a very old Acheulean in the Iberian peninsula.
Acheulean technology, usually associated with H. ergaster, appeared first in Africa c. 1.6 Ma ago, and spread to Palestine c. 1.4 Ma ago, with South Asian and Iberian sites following in antiquity (surely both older than 800,000 BP).

Source: CEICS.


Million years old human remains from Eritrea

Fragments of a human skull dated to some one million years ago have been found at Muhuli Amo, Eritrea. They are probably correlated with a previous finding of hundreds of Acheulean tools. 

The skull fragments found

Sources: The Archaeology Network, Pileta, Noticias de Prehistoria[es].


Technological revolution in African Acheulean some 800,000 years ago

Well, maybe the title is a bit of a hype but something like that seems to be the most relevant finding on the Acheulean of Konso (SNPP region, Ethiopia): that the technique stood the same for a million years and then, some 800,000 years ago, became more refined in which was apparently one of the first technological leaps of archaic Humankind. Specifically it is the edges of the handaxes (the archetypal Acheulean finding, which may have been more a knife of sorts than a true axe) which became more refined and apt for its cutting purpose.
Yoyas Beyene et al., The characteristics and chronology of the earliest Acheulean at Konso, Ethiopia. PNAS 2013. Open accessLINK [doi:10.1073/pnas.1221285110]
The Acheulean technological tradition, characterized by a large (>10 cm) flake-based component, represents a significant technological advance over the Oldowan. Although stone tool assemblages attributed to the Acheulean have been reported from as early as circa 1.6–1.75 Ma, the characteristics of these earliest occurrences and comparisons with later assemblages have not been reported in detail. Here, we provide a newly established chronometric calibration for the Acheulean assemblages of the Konso Formation, southern Ethiopia, which span the time period ∼1.75 to <1.0 Ma. The earliest Konso Acheulean is chronologically indistinguishable from the assemblage recently published as the world’s earliest with an age of ∼1.75 Ma at Kokiselei, west of Lake Turkana, Kenya. This Konso assemblage is characterized by a combination of large picks and crude bifaces/unifaces made predominantly on large flake blanks. An increase in the number of flake scars was observed within the Konso Formation handaxe assemblages through time, but this was less so with picks. The Konso evidence suggests that both picks and handaxes were essential components of the Acheulean from its initial stages and that the two probably differed in function. The temporal refinement seen, especially in the handaxe forms at Konso, implies enhanced function through time, perhaps in processing carcasses with long and stable cutting edges. The documentation of the earliest Acheulean at ∼1.75 Ma in both northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia suggests that behavioral novelties were being established in a regional scale at that time, paralleling the emergence of Homo erectus-like hominid morphology.

Fig. 4. Handaxe refinement through time. Upper, dorsal; Lower, ventral.
From left to right, two each are shown from KGA6-A1 (∼1.75 Ma), KGA4-A2 (∼1.6 Ma), KGA12-A1 (∼1.25 Ma), and KGA20 (∼0.85 Ma). In each pair of handaxes from the respective sites, near-unifacial (left) and more extensively bifacial (right) examples are shown (except with the KGA20 handaxes, which are both well worked bifacially).

I am a bit intrigued by the all-covering work style of the last handaxes, which remind somewhat to the later MSA technology, which belongs already to Homo sapiens. Our species may have also evolved in that very area of the Nile Basin, with the oldest specimen known being from nearby Omo River.

Of course that there are hundreds of thousands of years in between and of course that the peculiar orography of the Rift Valley is susceptible of offering archaeological findings from old much more easily than other areas but still…

Other sources: Pileta, NBC News.

Update: much more than just the edges but a whole technological paradigm change:

I was not really appreciating the whole extent of the technological revolution implicit in these changes. I just took note (reading too fast, too many things to do) of the edge refinement but Va_Highlander has correctly called my attention on that it was a much more ample and complex change in the whole technology of stone flaking and not just the edges, maybe even a whole jump in our mental capacities:

In contradistinction to the >1.2-Ma assemblages, the younger ∼0.85-Ma Konso Acheulean is characterized by considerably refined handaxes. Some of these handaxes are refined to the extent that they would qualify as approaching “three-dimensional symmetry” (i.e., symmetric not only in plan view but also in cross-section form) (Fig. 4 and Fig. S2). Some suggest that manufacturing 3D symmetric tools is possible only with advanced mental imaging capacities and that such tools might have emerged in association with advanced spatial and navigational cognition, perhaps related to an enhanced mode of hunting adaptation. It has been pointed out that purposeful thinning of large bifacial tools is technologically difficult, even in modern human ethnographic settings. In modern humans, acquisition and transmission of such skills occur within a complex social context that enables sustained motivation during long-term (>5 y) practice and learning.

In light of the above information, it is of interest that our metric analysis shows that there may be a fundamental difference between the handaxe technologies of >1.2 and ∼0.85 Ma. Whereas refinement of handaxe shape did occur from ∼1.6 to ∼1.2 Ma, this refinement did not result in tool thinning and advanced 3D symmetry.


The spears of Homo rhodesiensis

When I saw this image:
… I immediately discarded the news item. I said to myself: if those Canadian researchers can’t reproduce a proper way to haft a Paleolithic spear, how can they know anything on the matter? Also I only occasionally comment on pre-Sapiens species and the paper is pay-per-view… so I had all the excuses not to comment. 
But in the end the report may be relevant even if the hafting techniques illustrated in that image are so totally wrong that it makes me angry (you don’t tie a knife’s edge, the points seem to be actually shaped so the wood goes around the base…)
Jane Wilkins et al., Evidence for Early Hafted Hunting Technology. Science 2012. Pay per view ··> LINK [doi:10.1126/science.1227608]


Hafting stone points to spears was an important advance in weaponry for early humans. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that ~500,000-year-old stone points from the archaeological site of Kathu Pan 1 (KP1), South Africa, functioned as spear tips. KP1 points exhibit fracture types diagnostic of impact. Modification near the base of some points is consistent with hafting. Experimental and metric data indicate that the points could function well as spear tips. Shape analysis demonstrates that the smaller retouched points are as symmetrical as larger retouched points, which fits expectations for spear tips. The distribution of edge damage is similar to that in an experimental sample of spear tips and is inconsistent with expectations for cutting or scraping tools. Thus, early humans were manufacturing hafted multicomponent tools ~200,000 years earlier than previously thought.

Raw examples of the points under discussion:

While these 500 millenniaold spears are not directly related to any hominin species, the general context almost necessarily implies that it must be Homo rhodesiensis, which is generally considered the immediate ancestor of Homo sapiens.
See for reference: Late human evolution maps (at my old blog Leherensuge), where I summarize the known paleoanthropology of the evolution of Homo spp. towards our kin and that of Neanderthals.
In synthesis: Homo rhodesiensis lived in Southern and Eastern Africa between c. 800,000 years ago (Saldanha Bay, South Africa) and the eve of our species c. 200,000 years ago (Omo, Ethiopia). Some of the late specimens (Lake Eyasi, Tanzania c. 240,000) are suspect of having transitional features towards us.
Direct sources: Noticias de Prehistoria[es], Eureka Alert.

Posted by on November 16, 2012 in Acheulean, Africa, Homo rhodesiensis, Middle Paleolithic


Acheulean use of fire confirmed

That is what Francesco Berna and colleagues argue in a new paper:
The findings are dated to at least one million years ago and correspond to the Acheulean period, characterized by bifacial axes and generally attributed to Homo erectus or H. ergaster.
Partly charred bone from Wonderwerk
As the authors explain, previous claims of fire use in this period in East Africa,  the Levant or China have been plagued with controversy. In most cases the controversy stems from the relatively low resolution of the research and the possibility of the fires being natural occurrences. In the case of Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, what was once claimed as product of fire ended being sedimentary deposits. 
This research actually continues the findings of Peter B. Beaumont last year, who claimed (JSTOR, pay-per-view) that the South African cave hosted evidence of fire dated to c. 1.7 Ma.
The evidence included charred vegetal remains and animal bones, these last not completely calcinated, meaning that combustion was under 700 °C. Also remains of ironstone brought intently to the cave and worked in situ (main material of artifacts) show signs of manipulation under heat above 500 °C.
Apparently the fires were produced almost exclusively with light materials such as dry grasses and leaves. While it is not impossible that they might have used wood and then the evidence got lost, the data from bones indicates combustion under 700 °C, what is compatible with fire produced with lighter materials exclusively.
See also: Boston University’s site, BU Today.

Echoes from the past (Sep 9)

My deepest apologies to readers of this blog but I’m not really dedicated these last weeks and I’m not really sure when I’ll be able to take back. Whatever the case, here goes a review of what has caught my attention in the last eight days:
Iberian (or Tartessian) scripts in the Iruña-Veleia grafitti? That is what prolific researcher Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, with Diego Rey on this occasion, claims at an online manuscript ··> Iberian scripts/graffiti in Iruña-Veleia (PDF, in English), found via Ostraka Euskalduna[eu].
The finding adds credibility to the collection as a whole because, in order to falsify so many different things so well, Eliseo Gil must not have been some sort of evil genius but a true god. 

Key piece where an unmistakable Tartessian sign transcribed as either BE, R or RI
For background on this issue see category: Iruña-Veleia at my old blog Leherensuge or at this very blog.
The Djive Babe Neanderthal-made flute is a true flute and there is no carnivore accident in its design, shows new research (PPV)  ··> Neanderfollia[cat].
Indeed: it has been reconstructed and music was produced with it, only the most stubborn could deny it was a true flute:

Claims of ‘oldest Acheulean hoard (left, 1.76 Ma old) come 8 years too late, as John Hawks explains: if you can read French, you’re eight years ahead of Nature.
Anyhow, for those who can’t read French… the most hyped journal ever has a free access article for you ··> Nature, also at SD.
Woolly rhinos are a well known feature of Ice Age Eurasia but how did they evolve? Apparently they did so in the cold highlands of the Tibetan Plateau ··> Science News.
Neolítico de la Península Ibérica blog[es] discusses a new paper on the changes on seafood between Late Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic in Cantabria: in the transition to Epipaleolithic, the cold water species are replaced by those of warmer waters but no change in size is appreciated among those cold water mollusks that survive the changes. However with the arrival of Neolithic their size decreases notably, suggesting overexploitation by humans ··> Neolítico de la Península Ibérica: Recursos marinos en la prehistoria cantábrica[es] (it includes a lot of images from the paper, labeled in English).
Celtic British town bigger than thought as suburbs come to light ··> The Guardian.
Claims of admixture with archaics also in Africa… but they make no sense whatsoever  (35 Ka ago? C’mon!) and have no real evidence behind, just the finding of rare alleles being common in certain populations, what is absolutely normal and is known as founder effect ··> SD.
Illustration of founder effect (from WP) with just two alleles:

International Conference In the wake of the Basque whalers in Bilbao, Basque Country. Schedule and other information at this PDF.