Homo erectus
Africa and Beyond
Overview
•	Dating:  ~ 1.9 mya to 200,000 BP
•	Major Anatomical Changes:
•	Enlarged cranial capacity
•	Attains effective modern size and post-cranial body form.
•	Substantial degree of variation.
•	Major radiation of species out of Africa and into Europe and Asia
•	Major Changes in Technology, Subsistence, and Organization
Interesting ‘Cultural Developments’ Associated with H. erectus
•	Use of Fire
•	Cannibalism
•	Extensive Head trauma

General Morphology
•	Cranium:
•	Capacity:  750-1300 cc (mean 930 cc)
•	Flattening of cranial vault
•	No Sagittal Crest
•	Face:
•	Large heavy brow ridges
•	Post-orbital constriction
•	Still more prognathic than H. sapiens
•	Broad, flat nasal bones
•	Mandible:
•	No chin
•	Heavily constructed and muscled
•	Dentition:
•	Teeth larger than H. sapiens
•	Modern dental arcade appearance
•	Marked reduction of posterior dention (compared to Australopithecines)
•	Post-Cranial Attributes:
•	Similar appearance to modern humans but some interesting differences
•	Stature:
•	 Long legged, tall, 
•	Turkana boy 5.3’ at age 11, predicted adult stature of 6’.
•	Spine:  6 lumbar vertebrae rather than 5!
•	A. africanus has 6
•	African great Apes, 3 or 4
•	Pelvis:  Small birth canal diameter
•	Growth patterns of modern neonates and relatively helpless infants already in place 1.6 mya
Turkana Boy
Global Distribution of H. erectus
Early History
•	Asia:
•	Trinil Beds (central Java) [1891]
•	Skull cap, femur (with anomaly)
•	Initially termed Pithecanthropus
•	Dated ~ 1.8 - .6 mya
•	Finds in secondary deposit
•	Zhoukoudian (China)
•	Finds from more than 40 individuals
•	Dated ~ 500,000 - 350,000 BP
•	Primary contexts: animal remains, non-hand axe based tool assemblage, fire, possible cannibalism?
Peking Man
Early History
•	Europe and Near East
•	Prior to WW2, Heidelberg Jaw was only H. erectus fossil outside Asia (~ 600,000 BP)
•	Dmanisi (Georgia) 1.7 mya >  1.2<mya
•	East Africa
•	Olduvai Gorge: Upper Bed II (1.4 - 1.2 mya)
•	Nariokotome III (near Lake Turkana) (1.6 mya)
•	Near complete skeleton of young boy
•	East Turkana  1.8 mya
•	Kobi Fora  1.75 mya
H. ergaster- Koobi Fora KMN ER 3733
H. erectus vs. H. ergaster vs. H. sapiens
•	Three Competing Models
•	H. erectus as a single, world wide species, originating in Africa and broadly ancestral to modern humans
•	Fossils represent multiple species, including a Far Eastern group with no significant role in modern human ancestry
•	No such thing as H. erectus, rather anatomically diverse, or polytipic, group of H. sapiens

H. erectus and Bifacial tool traditions
What is the relationship?

A Series of Distinct Issues
•	The spread of H. erectus out of Africa
•	The spread of stone tool industries
•	Pebble tool Industries
•	Bifacial tool Industries
•	The spread of a new subsistence emphasis
•	Cooperative big game hunting
Dating of Biface Industries in Africa and the Near East
•	Olduvai Gorge [Tanzania]: Bed II (1.5 mya)
•	Konso Gardula [Ethiopia]:  (1.5 mya) 
•	 Ubeidiya [Israel]:  (~1.4 mya)
•	Overlays small assemblage of Oldowan type lithics
•	Claims for local development from Pebble tools to Biface industry
•	Sterkfontein [South Africa]: Member 5 (~ 1.5 mya)
The Spread of Biface Industries
•	H. erectus appears ~ 400,000 yrs before first documented bifacial Tool Industry.
•	By 1.4 mya, bifacial Tool Industries throughout Rift region of eastern Africa
•	H. erectus spreads into and occupies Asia and Europe by 1 mya, but bifacial tool industries are not known:
•	In Europe, until about 0.7 mya
•	In Asia, limited to South Asia only!
Handaxe and Chopper Complexes
The Spread of Stone Tool Industries
•	Series of European Sites dated between    1.0 - 0.7 mya with only Pebble tool assemblages.
•	Le Vallonnet (France) > .91 mya
•	Korolevo VIII (Ukraine) .85 - .78 mya
•	Monte Poggiolo (Italy) > .78 mya
•	Kärlich Bb (Germany) < .78 mya
•	Gran Dolina 4 (Spain)  < .78
•	Prezletice (Czech Republic)  .64 - .59 mya
The Spread of Stone Tool Industries
•	Earliest European Biface Industries only found between 0.7 and 0.6 mya
•	Carrière Carpentier (France) 0.69 mya
•	Notarchirico F (Italy) > 0.64 mya
•	Boxgrove (England) ~ 0.45 mya

Accounting for the Dispersal of H. Erectus
Issues of Ecology and Technology

Bifurcation of Pebble and Biface Technologies in Africa
•	Technological evolution from Pebble to Biface Industries.
•	Gradual development
•	Wide spread dispersal of Biface technology along length of Rift system ~ 1.5-1.4 mya
•	Co-existence of Pebble and Biface tool industries in Africa from 1.5 - 1.0 mya
•	Technological Features of Biface industries:
•	Standardization in knapping methods and tool production
•	Longer production chain for individual tools, and longer and more complex use life for tools
•	Tools transported over wider areas
•	Changes reflect more efficient use of materials, activities over wider areas and advanced planning
•	Could differences in technologies reflect distinct strategies for exploiting the landscape? (Carbonell et al 1998)
•	Pebble Industries: strategies founded on mobility without real control of the ecological potential of the environment
•	Biface Industries: regular exploitation of larger areas and with greater control of resources, including availability and location of food and water and the regular control of other resources

Bifurcation of Pebble and Biface Technologies in Africa and Beyond
•	Given these incompatible techno-subsistence strategies:
•	Pebble Industries would be forced to exploit regions at the margin, or beyond, the territories exploited by Biface Industries
•	Pebble Industries would be most likely to colonize new territories
•	Pebble Industries would arrive full-blown and without competition during early spread into Europe and Asia

The Spread of Biface Industries to Europe
•	Occurs at approximately 0.5 mya
•	I.e., roughly 1 million years after its first appearance in Africa, and 0.5 mya after the spread of H. erectus with Pebble Industries
•	Does not correspond to a period of major faunal dispersals
•	Widespread geographical occurrence by 0.4 mya
•	Not a local evolution from European Pebble Industries
•	Secondary expansion of Biface Industries as a result of population infilling and saturation in Rift system
•	Biface-related subsistence strategies retain a competitive advantage vis-à-vis Pebble Industries strategies.
•	As a result, Biface Industries gradually dominate.
Problems with the Carbonell et al Model
•	Capabilities for advanced planning, etc., are a function of H. erectus, not a particular technological system.
•	More active subsistence/territorial system without handaxes (e.g. Asia).
•	While development of specifically Acheulean Industry is not a deterministic development from Pebble tools, more complex and standardized industries are an expected development.