lpetrich

Are there any convincing examples of artwork that are convincingly attributed to Homo erectus and other such hominids/hominins? H. erectus had made the Acheulian style of tools over most or all of its existence -- but no artwork. No statuettes or cave paintings or anything like that.

Likewise, the Neanderthals, despite producing Mousterian-style stone tools, had produced only a few possible examples of artwork, mainly a few crudely-carved stones.

And certainly nothing like the Cro-Magnons, who had a much more active artistic muse, producing those famous statuettes and cave paintings and the like.

I ask this because a certain gentleman named Ed has claimed that H. erectus and H. sapiens are the same species -- and that H. erectus preferred to work in much less durable materials.

This seems very convenient -- an erectus had liked to make stone tools, but had always insisted on using some perishable material for making statuettes.

Ergaster

No--as far as I am aware, there is no evidence of anything that might reasonably be called "artwork" attributed to the hominins that might be called "erectus". In fact, there is even a decided paucity of Acheulian tools associated with Homo erectus sensu stricto.

I put it this way because it is entirely unclear just what Ed means by "erectus", and even in the professional community there is not wholesale consensus on which fossils belong to that taxonomic designation. The most generally-accepted scheme is that H. erectus comprises fossils from East and Southeast Asia dating from about 1.2 million years (or maybe 1.6 -- but these early dates are not well-confirmed) to maybe 200,000 y ago (H. erectus s.s.). The most common point of contention is whether the African fossils should be called H. erectus or H. ergaster--many professionals feel that these too should be called erectus--that there aren't enough differences to warrant a different species name. I think opinion is about evenly divided on this, and note that the fossils discovered in Georgia have been attributed to H. ergaster (well, they've actually been given a new species designation--H. georgicus, but frankly I don't think it will fly; the similarities to ergaster are too close to warrant calling the fossils something different, IMHO). Acheulian tools are associated (and liberally) with the African form, whether we call it erectus or ergaster.

IIRC, markings that might be reasonably interpreted as symbolic, or as art, appear in the fossil record some time just before 100,000 years ago, in southern Africa.

lpetrich

Thanx, Ergaster. I myself have been using Homo erectus in a broad sense, including what some split off as Homo ergaster (the early African ones). And it looks like there are no convincing examples of artwork from ergaster as well as from erectus -- at least none that I've been able to find.

lpetrich

Here is a possible artifact that's related to the whole artwork question: Designed 400,000 year old figurine?, taken from this BBC story. It looks vaguely human, but not enough to be much more than a lucky accident -- it seems like a case of pareidolia.

lpetrich

Since durable artwork before Homo sapiens (sapiens) is hard to find, I will discuss stone tools and what they may mean about the cognitive capacities of their makers. I am focusing on them because they are relatively durable, even though they give only a partial picture of their makers' toolkits.

Here is a nice article about Paleolithic tools.

I first note an interesting flub: early paleoanthropologist Raymond Dart had identified various piles of bones, teeth, and horns as collections of tools. However, these are nowadays attributed to hyenas and leopards and the like.

Aside from that, the first surviving tools are the Oldowan tools, from 2.9-2.5 million years ago to 1.5 million years ago. The tools are mostly flakes and cores (what's left behind of the original stones). The cores are not shaped much differently from the original stones, suggesting no attempt to target some other shape.

Who made them is uncertain; it was likely Homo habilis and possibly also some later australopithecine.

These were succeeded by the Acheulean tools, from 1.5/1.4 million years ago to 500/130 thousand years ago. The most notable ones are the "hand axes", which are typically flattened with some straight-line edges -- and get more flattened as we approach the present. Unlike the Oldowan tools, these have some targeted shape.

Their most likely makers were Homo erectus and perhaps some early Homo species and late australopithecines.

These were succeeded in turn by the Mousterian tools, from 300/500 thousand years ago to 30/40 thousand years ago, which are mostly flakes, but flakes with a variety of shapes. There are even regional differences in Mousterian tool mixes, perhaps showing adjustment to different circumstances.

The makers of them were Neanderthals and "archaic Homo sapiens".

And they are finally succeeded by the various Upper Paleolithic toolkits, from 30/40 thousand years onward. These have a variety of shapes and functions, and they are made from durable materials in addition to stone, like bone and horn and antler. There are also lots of decorative objects like amber and seashells and statuettes, and cave paintings start to appear.

The makers of these were our present-day species, Homo sapiens (sapiens).

The tools have a clear progression of increasing complexity over the last few million years, which suggests increasing mental capacity on the part of the tools' makers.

However, there seems to be a jump from each type of toolkit to the next; is that an artifact of toolkit classification (where does Oldowan end and Acheulian begin?), or is that real? The final one, to Upper Paleolithic tools, is very glaring -- it is a big jump over previous toolkits.

And if it is real, could this mean something like Punctuated Equilibrium, evolution in bursts with slow change in between?

MortalWombat

Here is another page about paleolithic tools and art, with pictures.

lpetrich

Thanx.

That page contains the claim that the australopithecines never made stone tools. Which is going farther than some are willing to; the later ones coexisted with Homo habilis (favorite candidate for Oldowan tools) and H. erectus (known maker of Acheulean tools). But stone tools older than H. habilis are very rare, and the near-simultaneous emergence of H. habilis and Oldowan tools may not be a coincidence.

A remarkable curiosity is that while Acheulean tools remained very similar in design over one million years and much of the Old World, Upper Paleolithic ones show much more variation over much less time:

Aurignacian: 40 - 28 thousand
Gravettian: 28 - 22 thousand
Solutrean: 22 - 19 thousand
Magdalenian: 18 - 12 thousand

This thread (check out Jesse's comments near the top of the page) refers to an interesting book: The Prehistory of the Mind, which covers what I'm discussing in this thread.