Early Upper Paleolithic Man and Late Middle Paleolithic Tools

Abstract

The appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Europe, the Near East, and Africa must represent either an in situ evolution of Neandertals or a migration. Those who suggest the latter claim a sudden replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern Homo sapiens. However, the “evidence” actually cited claims only the sudden replacement of Middle by Upper Paleolithic industries. We criticize the migration explanation on two grounds. (1) There is no “sudden replacement” of Middle Paleolithic by Upper Paleolithic industries, but rather a gradual change in the frequencies of already present tools. Numerous sites in these areas exhibit transitional industries. (2) Concomitantly, there is no morphological evidence indicating a “sudden replacement” of hominids. There is no absolute association between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Upper Paleolithic industries. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that early anatomically modern Homo sapiens is a late Middle Paleolithic local phenomenon.

Forelimb to Hindlimb Shape Covariance in Extant Hominoids and Fossil Hominins

“…Statistical differences between early AMH and current H. sapiens have been noted in previous cranial studies (e.g., Tub on et al, 1997;Pearson, 2008;Gunz et al, 2009) and are qualitatively more robust than current modern humans (Keith, 1925). This cranial robusticity is mirrored in the postcrania and often postulated to be the result of differences in activity patterns over time (Brose and Wolpoff, 1971;Stock, 2006). Thus, the unique pattern of covariance in the Omo (Kibish) 1 ulna could be related to statistical differences correlated with a more robust and muscular forearm.…”

The Middle Paleolithic of the East Mediterranean Levant

“…Functional morphological analyses of these and other human fossils suggested the evolution of Neandertals into early modern humans reflected increased social and cultural buffering of environmental stresses (Smith, 1983;Trinkaus, 1983). Changes in the record of Levantine MP lithic industry and settlement patterns were thought to parallel this inferred transition modern behavior (Binford, 1968;Brose and Wolpoff, 1970;Jelinek, 1981). By the early 1980s, the Levant was generally regarded as providing the strongest evidence for an evolutionary transition between Neandertals and early modern humans (Brace, 1995;Trinkaus, 1986;Wolpoff, 1980, p. 304).…”

“…Whereas previous archaeological models sought correlates for the presumed phylogenetic evolutionary relationship between Levantine Neandertals and early modern humans (e.g., Binford, 1968Binford, , 1970Brose and Wolpoff, 1970;Clark and Lindly, 1989;Jelinek, 1982a,b;Smith, 1983;Trinkaus, 1984;Wolpoff and Caspari, 1997), recent models have focused on these hominids' possible coevolutionary relationships (e.g. Henry, 1995a;Kaufman, 1999;Rak, 1993;Shea, 2003a).…”

Post-Pleistocene diachronic change in East Asian facial skeletons: the size, shape and volume of the orbits

“…Preferential preservation and ease of measurement have resulted in most of the previous studies of post-Pleistocene change concentrating on tooth size (Bailit and Friedlaender, 1966;Brace and Mahler, 1971;Brose and Wolpoff, 1971;Le Blanc and Black, 1974;Frayer, 1977;Calcagno, 1986;Macchiarelli and Bondioli, 1986;Smith et al, 1986;Brace et al, 1987;Formicola, 1987). Where samples are sexed, and dimensions unaffected by wear are recorded, the evidence for directional reduction in posterior tooth size after 10,000 years BP is clear.…”