Evidence of advanced culture in H. erectus is less abundant though still impressive. The sophistication of the Acheulean tool industry, including bifacial hand axes and choppers directly associated with H. erectus (e.g., Semaw et al. 2020), certainly suggests human cognition, as these tools are worked on two sides and have fairly consistent forms over time and space (Lycett and Gowlett 2008). Their manufacture involves the deliberate envisioning of the end product in order to modify the stones accordingly. Evidence of controlled fire is at best indirect. For example, in Swartkrans Cave in South Africa, three main sedimentary units Members 1-3 (with Member 1 being the oldest) contain stone tools throughout, but physical remains of H. erectus appear only in Members 1-2, while burned animal bones are found only in Member 3 (Brain and Sillen 1988). Likewise, at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in northern Israel, Acheulean tools characteristic of H. erectus are found alongside evidence of fire use (Alperson-Afil et al. 2007), cooked fish (Zohar et al. 2022), and even percussive use of stones to open nuts (Goren-Inbar et al. 2002), but the physical remains of H. erectus have not been reported. Most famously, the fire evidence associated with H. erectus at Zhoukoudian, China has been challenged since 1998 by researchers claiming that the evidence may not even be fire remnants (see Zhong et al. 2014 for a recent discussion). Additional evidence of burning has been reported from numerous sites associated with H. erectus, including burned bone and physical change in minerals requiring heat. At present, the evidence for fire use by H. erectus is suggestive, but not definitive. Evidence for complex dispersal of H. erectus is primarily their transcontinental distribution across Africa and Eurasia. Generally, this dispersal did not require crossing open water (Derricourt 2005), but a Russian expedition to the island of Soqotra off the tip of the horn of Africa uncovered hundreds of Oldowan tools of the type presumably made by H. erectus (Zhukhov 2014). Although Soqotra is approximately 240 km from Africa and 350 km from the Arabian peninsula, Zhukov (2014) expressed confidence that the toolmakers reached Soqotra by a land bridge during glacial maximum, but Culek (2013) indicated that Soqotra was separated from continental Africa by at least 60 km even at glacial maximum. Though undated, the stone tools were found in a stratigraphic section covering at least two meters of sediment, indicating that the individuals who made them occupied the island for some time and were more likely representatives of a population living on the island rather than lone castaways from an accidental dispersal. Thus, the most plausible explanation for the Soqotran lithics would be the intentional settlement of the island by crossing at least 60 km of open ocean. Although physical remains of H. erectus have not been reported on Soqotra, the presence of their tools implies a considerable sea faring and possibly even exploratory ability, since they could not see either Soqotra or the nearer island of Abd al-Kuri from the African mainland. Evidence of artistic expression in H. erectus is limited. At the classic H. erectus site of Trinil, Java, Indonesia, an extensive collection of modified shells has been reported, including shells with bore holes and one shell with geometric scratch markings (Joordens et al. 2015). Though we must guard against anthropomorphizing, we also admit that this shell’s modifications are plausibly artistic in nature. Remains of ochre have been reported from two African sites that could plausibly be linked to H. erectus: Baringo, Kenya and Twin Rivers, Zambia (McBrearty and Brooks 2000). Evidence of care for the elderly or wounded and intentional burial is generally lacking in H. erectus. Overall, H. erectus displays a number of complex behaviors, so we conclude that the evidence of human cognition in H. erectus is very likely. Homo floresiensis is a name given to diminutive, hominin skeletal remains found in the cave of Liang Bua on the island of Flores in Indonesia. In an earlier review, Wise (2005) argued that the discovery of H. floresiensis on this isolated island strongly suggested sea-faring ability of the original hominin colonizers of Flores. By considering this putative sea-faring ability with the reported evidence of a hearth and abundant stone tools associated with the H. floresiensis remains (Morwood et al. 2005), Wise concluded that Homo floresiensis must have been human, in a manner very similar to the categories of evidence we are considering here. Since this initial discovery was published, important new evidence has been discovered and published that calls for a re-evaluation of the Liang Bua archaeology. In particular, further excavations in the cave revealed that the stratigraphy was more complex than the original researchers understood (Sutikna et al. 2016). This discovery prompted the researchers to change their conventional dating estimate for the Homo floresiensis bones from <30,000 yrs ago to 100,000-60,000 yrs ago (Sutikna et al. 2016). Most recently, a paper from Madison (2023) revealed many details of excavations at Liang Bua prior to the discovery of H. floresiensis. According to Madison (2023), the details of these earlier excavations, including the discovery of multiple skeletons at Liang Bua, exist as unpublished reports in a local Indonesian language. These reports call for a more careful assessment of the evidence of stone tools and hearths at Liang Bua. Are they confidently associated with Homo floresiensis, or could they be remains of other hominins, such as Homo sapiens? In a subsequent paper, Sutikna et al. (2018) clarified the stone tool record in light of the new understanding of Liang Bua’s stratigraphy. They confirmed that the abundant stone tools from the cave (>10,000 tools) could be segregated into two groups. The earlier group of tools, from the lower sediments in the cave, were found to be quite similar across their stratigraphic range and to differ substantially from the most recent tools found in more shallow sediments above them. Sutikna et al. (2018) interpreted this record as a replacement of the original hominins (H. floresiensis) by more technologically advanced H. sapiens settlers. The earlier tool group consists of relatively simple tools that closely resemble Oldowan tools from Africa (Moore and Brumm 2008). Other stone tools very similar to the tools of Liang Bua have been found in the Soa Basin on Flores (Brumm et al. 2006), along with similarly diminutive hominin teeth at Mata Menge (which is located in the Soa Basin; van den Bergh et al. 2016). When these evidences are considered more broadly than just Liang Bua, there does appear to be reason to accept H. floresiensis or a H. floresiensis-like hominin as the source of the Oldowan-type stone tools in both of these localities. Evidence of hearths, originally attributed to H. floresiensis, is now believed to be associated only with the later type of stone tools and hence cannot be unequivocally associated with H. floresiensis (Morley et al. 2017). Consequently, we here must modify Wise’s (2005) judgment by omitting the evidence of fire. Thus, our assessment of ROSS, BRUMMEL, AND WOOD Human History: From Adam to Abraham 2023 ICC 70
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=