Abstract
We develop a framework to differentiate the technological niches of co-existing hominin species by reviewing some theoretical biases influential in thinking about techno-behaviours of extinct hominins, such as a teleological bias in discussing technological evolution. We suggest that some stone-tool classification systems underestimate technological variability, while overestimating the complexity of the behaviours most commonly represented. To model the likely technological niches of extinct populations, we combine ecological principles (i.e. competitive exclusion) with physical anthropology and the archaeological record. We test the framework by applying it to the co-existence of Homo naledi and Homo sapiens during the late Middle Pleistocene in southern Africa. Based on our analysis, we suggest that tool use was probably not an essential part of H. naledi’s niche, but that technology occasionally provided caloric benefits. In contrast, tool use was a structural part of the H. sapiens way of life. We provide reasoning for our interpretation that the latter population is associated with more sophisticated reduction strategies and the development of prepared core technology. The method also has applicability to cases such as the co-existence of different toolmakers during the Earlier Stone Age (ESA) in East Africa and the co-existence of Neanderthals and H. sapiens in Eurasia.
Highlights
Throughout the Pleistocene hominin species frequently co-existed (Wood and Boyle 2016)
By explicitly considering the fitness benefits of stone tool use in combination with the ecological context and the specific anatomical features of different hominins, we suggest that the archaeological record can be more productively associated with different species
We suggest there were three decisive differentiating factors: 1. H. sapiens concentrated on the more open facets of the landscape while H. naledi was likely present in more mosaic areas; 2
Summary
Throughout the Pleistocene hominin species frequently co-existed (Wood and Boyle 2016) This poses an archaeological dilemma: As all members of the genus Homo are assumed to occupy a technologically-assisted niche, how do we tie archaeological remains to specific hominin species in situations of co-existence? Especially when they occur sympatrically, insight into their techno-behaviours is required (Shea 2003; Susman 1994; Tocheri et al 2008) With this contribution, we explore how archaeology can deal with the co-occurrence of different hominins. Non-human primates and other animals occasionally use tools, the human niche differs from theirs as it fully depends on technology (Shea 2017), and in hunter-gatherer societies, technology pervades all aspects of life and varies from simple tools to large installations
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.