Homo sapiens

Introduction and Objectives:

We are members of the species Homo sapiens, which means wise human. Modern humans
and our most recent ancestors, generally referred to as Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens
(AMHS), differ from all other hominins in our suite of complex language and culture. AMHS
appeared by 100,000 years ago in Africa, and were found in all parts of the Old World by 35,000
years ago. Precisely where and when they originated is a major subject of debate among
paleoanthropologists.
Archaic Homo sapiens (archaics) differed from us morphologically and behaviorally.
Archaic H. sapiens lived from about 500,000 to 35,000 years ago in most parts of the Old World.
Neandertals were one well-known group of archaic Homo sapiens that lived in Europe and the
Middle East from about 150,000 to 35,000 years ago. We know the most about them, because the
fossil record in Europe is more complete than for any other region at this time. Unfortunately,
there are few fossils from other areas dated to this period.
In this lab, we will learn which characteristics define archaic Homo sapiens, particularly
Neandertals, and which are unique to Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens. We will learn about
the anatomy and behavior of archaic and early AMHS. We will also explore the evidence for and
against two models of modern human origins.
General laboratory objectives:
Students will:
1. gain hands-on laboratory experience with casts of archaic and early modern Homo sapiens
fossils;
2. learn to identify anatomical and behavioral characteristics of archaic and modern Homo
sapiens;
3. learn the characteristics of models of modern human origins and some of their predictions;
4. learn how climate affects hominin body proportions and facial structures;
5. learn how knowledge of timing can affect the interpretation of fossil forms and their
relationships.
Mathematics objectives:
Students will:
1. understand the concept of quantitative and qualitative differences among groups;
2. measure and analyze data on limb proportions of Neandertals and present-day humans.

last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 2

BACKGROUND
The earliest Homo sapiens evolved from H. erectus about 500,000 years ago. These earliest
members of our species are often referred to as archaic H. sapiens. They had similar cranial
capacities, and despite the retention of some primitive features, were essentially like us. Archaic
Homo sapiens inhabited the entire Old World from Africa to Europe to China to Indonesia.
Archaic H. sapiens lived until about 35,000 years ago, when H. sapiens took on a modern
appearance, and adopted many modern behaviors.
In Europe, one population of archaic H. sapiens became morphologically distinct from the
others by 150,000 years ago. This population is referred to as Neandertals, named for the
Neander Valley in Germany, where the first recognized Neandertal fossil was found in 1856.
Most of what we know about archaic humans is about Neandertals, because it just so happens
that Europe and the Middle East have the most abundant fossil records at this time.
Comparatively little is known about hominins in other regions during the reign of the
Neandertals. So, in this lab, our study of archaic H. sapiens will be concentrated on Neandertals.
In many ways, Neandertals are just like other archaic H. sapiens. However, there is a suite of
characteristics found in Neandertals, and in no other population before or since. Most of these
characteristics are found in all Neandertal individuals, although every single Neandertal
individual does not display every single Neandertal characteristic. These characteristics are also
not found commonly in any other population, though they may occur occasionally. Differences
between Neandertals and other humans are quantitative, not qualitative. In other words, they
tend to be differences in the frequencies of particular traits, not the absolute presence or absence.
The fate of Neandertals, and of other groups of archaic H. sapiens, is hotly debated by
paleoanthropologists. Where did modern humans come from? Where did Neandertals go? Did
Neandertals go extinct entirely, replaced by modern humans coming out of Africa? Or did
Neandertals and other archaics interbreed with fully modern humans? If the two populations did
interbreed, to what extent? How often did they even meet each other on the Pleistocene landscape
and what were their interactions like? Hostile or peaceful? How would they have communicated?
Prior to around 2010, your instructors and textbooks would have presented two mutually
exclusive models of human origins for your introductory course work: the Out of Africa model
and the Multiregional Evolution model. The Multiregional Evolution model proposes that
archaic H. sapiens evolved gradually into AMHS everywhere as part of one large population.
Although we have fossil records only in isolated regions, and so have windows into isolated
pockets of the past (such as Africa, China, Java, and Europe), hominins must have occupied
everywhere in between. The Out of Africa model, on the other hand, suggests that the transition
to AMHS occurred in Africa only, and that AMHS then spread out of Africa replacing dead-end
populations of archaic humans living in other parts of the world (such as Neandertals). This
model implies that H. erectus/archaic H. sapiens everywhere outside of Africa went extinct, and
were not ancestral to people living today.
In the past, these two models were equally plausible in many ways, and different lines of
evidence, often from different geographic areas, appeared to support different models. However,
more recent research, particularly recent genetic studies, indicate that the most likely scenario is
a combination of the two models. For example, it seems clear that AMHS did evolve in Africa.
Yet recent studies of the Neandertal genome seem to indicate that archaic populations interbred
with modern ones, at least at a low level. The most interesting conversations about modern
human origins are no longer focusing on which model is correct, but on how much contact,
genetic and otherwise, there was between the two human populations.
last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 3

LABORATORY EXERCISES
Station 1: Neandertals and AMHS mandibles
Several distinctive features of Neandertals are related to tooth use. Some of these features are
seen on the mandible. On the majority of Neandertal fossils, although not on the casts here at
MU, the upper and lower anterior teeth (incisors and canines) are heavily worn down. Less wear
is evident on the posterior teeth. This wear pattern is somewhat apparent on the cast of the Amud
mandible. Look at it, and notice the amount of enamel missing from the incisors as compared
with the molars.
This unusual pattern of tooth wear may not be related to diet. Rather, it appears that
Neandertals were using their anterior teeth as tools of some type, to hold objects or strip things
between the teeth. Although we do not know exactly what they were doing, their morphology
and tooth wear tells us that the anterior teeth were used heavily. Not only are Neandertal anterior
teeth typically heavily worn, their mandibles also show other differences from AMHS.
At this station, you have mandibles from:
Spy (pronounced spee) (Neandertal from Belgium)
Modern human
and skulls from:
Le Moustier (Neandertal from France)
Modern human
1. Compare the size of the anterior teeth in the Le Moustier and the modern human crania. Such
size differences are most apparent on upper teeth. Which are larger?

2. How does this size difference alter the shape of the entire row of mandibular teeth, as seen in
superior view? Dental arcade differences are best seen with lower teeth. You can draw
pictures if you like, or use words to answer.

last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 4

3. Now, look at the mandibles directly from the side. Which mandible has more space between
the third molar and ascending ramus in this view? One may look as if you could set a pencil
in the space between the last molars and ramus.

This space is referred to as the retromolar gap. The size of the retromolar gap is an
indication of how far forward in the jaw the teeth are set. The difference between Neandertals
and AMHS is that AMHS have smaller anterior teeth, and all their teeth are set further back in
the jaw than are those of Neandertals. Having the teeth set further forward in the skull and
mandible increases their effectiveness as tools. Shifting the teeth back into the jaw results in one
of the most obvious characteristics of the modern human mandible.
4. What are some of the differences between the Neandertal and modern human mandibles?
Pay special attention to the front of the mandible under the incisors.

Station 2: The Neandertal face

Neandertal faces are highly distinctive. Although you might not recognize them as members
of another species if you saw one sitting at a restaurant in Columbia, Neandertals had a
characteristic appearance (see the model up front). Compare the Neandertal to the AMHS, and
note any differences in the characteristics listed below.
At this station you have:
La Chapelle aux Saints (France), a Neandertal
Cro Magnon (France), AMHS
Modern human
1. Size of the nasal aperture (nose opening)

last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 5

2. Projection of the nose (which would stick out further, roughly)

3. Angle of the cheekbone (looking down from superior view do they face the side or front?)
You can draw a picture if youd like.

All of these features are related to midfacial prognathism. This means that the midface
(around the nose) of Neandertals looks as if it had been pulled forward. There are two adaptive
hypotheses to explain the extreme midfacial prognathism of Neandertals. The first idea is that
since Neandertals lived in a very cold, dry-air climate, a large nose would serve to warm and
moisten air as it entered the body, so that cold air wouldnt pass right by the brain. This idea is
supported somewhat by comparison with modern populations, but not very well. The second idea
is that the large midface served as a mechanical buttress against the high forces generated by
extensive anterior tooth use in Neandertals (see station 1). You can imagine how this might work
by taking your thumb and pressing upwards on your incisors. Do you feel the stresses in your
facial bones? Whether either hypothesis, or both, is correct, Neandertal faces are distinctive.

Station 3: The Neandertal braincase

Neandertals and other archaic H. sapiens can also be distinguished from AMHS by the shape
of their braincase. Compare the Neandertal and AMHS skulls (including the modern human
skull) and note any differences in the following features. You may draw pictures or use words.
At this station you have:
Gibralter (Spain), Neandertal
Predmost (pronounced Tched-most, Czech Republic), AMHS
Modern human
1. Height of the forehead (how vertical is it? best seen in side view)

last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 6

2. Size of the brow ridges

3. Describe how the height of the forehead relates to the size of the brow ridges in these
different groups. What might be some reasons for the patterns you observe?

4. Height of the cranial vault (is it high & round or low & flat in side view?)

5. Shape of the occipital (is it continuous with the contours of the braincase, or is there an
occipital bun, which looks like a bun stuck on the back of the skull? This differs from an
occipital crest or torus, which is a wider, sharper ridge.)

6. Shape of the skull when viewed posteriorly (is it round or straight-sided?)

COMPLETE THE REST OF THIS STATION AFTER YOU COMPLETE STATION 4

Despite the differences in cranial shape you have observed, Neandertals did not have smaller
brains than AMHS. In fact, Neandertal cranial capacities were slightly larger on average than are
those of modern humans, ranging from 1250-1750 cc and averaging about 1520 cc. Modern
humans average about 1400 cc (range 1000 to 1800 cc).
last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 7

At Station 1 (brain size) in last weeks lab, Early Homo, you learned that absolute brain
size does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but that relative brain size (that is, the ratio of brain
size to body size) probably does, at least on a gross level, when comparing between species.
(You may want to look back at those pages now and remind yourself what you learned.)
Now consider the implications of the larger brain size of Neandertals, combined with their
relative body size. This week, you cannot compute numbers, but you should be able to make
general conclusions.
7. From what you observed at station 4, did Neandertals or modern humans have relatively
larger body sizes?

8. Does their cranial capacity mean that Neandertals were probably more than, less than, or
about as intelligent as we are? Explain your answer.

Station 4: Climate and body build

Neandertals were not only unique cranially, they also had distinctive postcranial skeletons,
reflecting a unique body build. Since they lived in Europe and the Middle East during glacial
times, the climate was extremely cold. Neandertals were adapted to this cold, and to keeping
their body temperatures high enough to keep warm in winter. Some of this might have been
accomplished by huddling around fires, or by draping animal skins around themselves. There is
no evidence that Neandertals wore stitched clothes, as did late humans. Still, there are two
general rules governing body build in animals that also work in humans, and explain much
about Neandertal body form.
Bergmanns Rule is a general physiological principle. It states that animals living in cold
climates should be larger than those in warmer climates. As you get larger, your volume (mass)
increases faster than your surface area. Your body is constantly producing heat through
metabolism, and this heat is lost through your skin. This is why you wear short sleeves in the
summer to radiate heat and long sleeves in the winter to keep heat in. Because of Bergmanns
rule, people with lower body masses are better able to dissipate heat than people with higher
body masses. As a result, all other things being equal, people with lower body mass tend to get
cold more easily.

last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 8

At this station are:

Femur and tibia from Spy (pronounced Spee, Belgium) (Neandertal)
A modern human femurtibia pair
1. Joint size is an indicator of overall body mass, because joints bear all of the bodys weight.
(Joint size is tightly controlled genetically, so it does not reflect fat, just build.) Which of
these individuals weighed more? Is there a big difference?

2. Bone length is related to stature. Tall people have long bones. Which of these individuals
was taller? Is there a big difference?

3. Now, compare your inferences about body weight and stature. What can you say about
Neandertal body build? Which of these people was shorter and stockier? Which was taller
and leaner?

4. Does this information fit your expectations about what Neandertals would look like based on
the climate in which they lived? Why or why not?

Allens Rule is related to Bergmanns Rule. It states that animals in cold climates should
have shorter extremities than animals in warm climates. You probably know that most of your
body heat is lost through your head, hands and feet. That is because these extremities have a lot
of surface area to radiate heat, and not much volume to produce it. The further out from the body
(distally) you move on the limb, the greater the surface area to volume ratio, and the more heat
lost. According to Allens Rule, people who evolved in colder climates are expected to have
shorter distal limb segments (such as a short tibia relative to femur length) than people in warm
climates.
last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 9

Crural index is a way to measure proportions of the lower limb. A high crural index indicates
a relatively long tibia; a low index indicates a relatively short tibia.
5. Before collecting your data, make a prediction. Should Neandertals have higher or lower
crural indices than modern humans, based on Allens Rule? Why do you think this?

To calculate crural index for your Neandertal and modern human specimen, measure:
Femur length from top of the head to the bottom of the medial condyle
Tibia length from the center of the medial condyle to the center of the distal end
Use the data to calculate: crural index =

tibia length
femur length

! 100

Specimen

femur length

tibia length

crural index

Modern human

____________

__________

___________

Neandertal

____________

__________

___________

6. Do the Neandertal data fit your prediction? Why or why not?

Station 5: Non-Neandertal fossils in the Middle East

Skhul (pronounced like school or sk-hool) and Qafzeh (pronounced kaaf-za) are two
important early Homo sapiens sites in Israel that are close to one another geographically and
temporally. At this station, you have a chance to study some fossils from Skhul and Qafzeh and
interpret where they fit in human evolutionary history. You will also use these specimens to
consider the implications of knowing the geologic ages of fossils for the interpretation of human
evolution. You will use features you have learned to evaluate in previous stations.
At this station you have the following specimens:
Skhul and Qafzeh (AMHS from Israel)
Amud (Neandertal from Israel)
Modern human
last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 10

1. Compare Skhul and Qafzeh with the Neandertal and modern human, and note any similarities
or differences in the following features:
a. Development of a mental eminence (chin) (see station 1)

b. Presence/absence of retromolar gap (see station 1)

c. Size of brow ridges

d. Size and projection of nose and midface (see station 2)

e. Height of the cranial vault (see station 3)

last updated Fall 2012

Anth 2050/2052 Lab Manual

Homo sapiens, p. 11

f. Development of an occipital bun (see station 3)

Although you have now studied their morphology, you cannot use the Skhul/Qafzeh fossils
to reconstruct the pattern of human evolution until you know how old they are, geologically. In
fact, interpretation of the evolutionary place of these fossils has changed over the years as better
dating techniques have been developed and given scientists a closer idea of how old these sites
actually are. We cannot understand the relevance of fossil specimens for understanding human
evolution without knowing their true geologic age.
Skhul and Qafzeh were originally thought to be 35,000 years old. This is exactly the time
when Neandertal fossils disappeared and anatomically modern human fossils appear in Europe
and the Middle East.
2. Given this date, how would you interpret the morphology of the Skhul/Qafzeh fossils? Were
they Neandertals or anatomically modern humans? Could they represent a transitional
population between Neandertals and AMHS? Explain your answer and make reference to the
models of human origins explained in the background section.

A twist in our understanding of these fossils came up in the late 1980s. Skhul and Qafzeh
have been re-dated using luminescence techniques. We now know that these sites are 90,000
years old, much older than previously thought, indicating that the Skhul/Qafzeh people pre-dated
the demise of Neandertals by about 55,000 years.
3. Do these new dates change your interpretations of how Skhul/Qafzeh fossils fit into human
evolution? If so, how? Could they still represent a transitional population between
Neandertals and AMHS? Now what do they tell us about human evolution? Explain your
answer and make reference to the models of human origins explained in the background
section.

last updated Fall 2012