Constraining the Likely Technological Niches of Late Middle Pleistocene Hominins with Homo naledi as Case Study

Abstract

We develop a framework to differentiate the technological niches of co-existing hominin species by reviewing some theoretical biases influential in thinking about techno-behaviours of extinct hominins, such as a teleological bias in discussing technological evolution. We suggest that some stone-tool classification systems underestimate technological variability, while overestimating the complexity of the behaviours most commonly represented. To model the likely technological niches of extinct populations, we combine ecological principles (i.e. competitive exclusion) with physical anthropology and the archaeological record. We test the framework by applying it to the co-existence of Homo naledi and Homo sapiens during the late Middle Pleistocene in southern Africa. Based on our analysis, we suggest that tool use was probably not an essential part of H. naledi’s niche, but that technology occasionally provided caloric benefits. In contrast, tool use was a structural part of the H. sapiens way of life. We provide reasoning for our interpretation that the latter population is associated with more sophisticated reduction strategies and the development of prepared core technology. The method also has applicability to cases such as the co-existence of different toolmakers during the Earlier Stone Age (ESA) in East Africa and the co-existence of Neanderthals and H. sapiens in Eurasia.

Africa, the Cradle of Human Diversity

“…Wilkens and colleagues (2012) interpreted these artefacts as hafted spear tips, but questions about the relationship between the dated geological horizon and the previously curated artefacts remain (Wadley, 2013;Wurz, 2013). Similar artefacts and evidence for the use of stone-tipped spears become widespread in sub-Saharan Africa since ~300 ka (Tryon et al, 2005;Sahle et al, 2013;Lombard, 2021). Shea's (2017 discussion on differentiating between occasional, habitual and obligatory stone tool use in human evolution situates the 500-350 ka slot towards the end of the hominin habitual stone tool use phase, which started at ~1.7 million years ago.…”

Introduction to ‘Theoretical Pathways’: Thinking About Human Endeavour During the Middle Stone Age and Middle Palaeolithic

“…Lombard et al 2018;Hawks and Berger 2020). Dusseldorp and Lombard (2021) take on the challenge of investigating co-existence of Homo species. They do so by exploring the possible technological niche of H. naledi compared to that of H. sapiens, and by combining ecological principles such as competitive exclusion with the physical anthropological and archaeological records of the region.…”

A Southern African Perspective on Human Origins Research between 500 000 and 50 000 Years Ago: Current Dilemmas and Questions for the Future

“…Directly preceding this time, there is no obvious ancestral population for this hominin. Although its brain may show a structure similar to that of the Homo clade (Holloway, 2018), its cranial capacity of 465-610 cc is well below that any of its hominin contemporaries (Galway-Witham et al, 2019;Dusseldorp and Lombard, 2021). Instead, it is more akin to that of the Australopithecines who disappeared from the Cradle of Humankind >1.5 million years ago.…”

“…If their niches overlap significantly, one of the two species will go extinct locally. This principle of competitive exclusion is well-established (see discussion in Foley, 1987), and should be thoroughly explored for the potentially co-existing Homo naledi and Homo sapiens in southern Africa (Dusseldorp and Lombard, 2021). Resulting hypothetical frameworks could also be useful in a broader African context.…”

“…Fossils can sometimes answer questions about who, when and where, but apart from problems in identification and dating, they are too few to provide a comprehensive reconstruction of human evolution. Archaeology can fill many spatiotemporal occupational gaps left by the fossil record, but unless directly associated with hominin fossils, the authors of the record remain open to interpretation (e.g., see Dusseldorp and Lombard (2021) for discussion). The DNA record reveals detailed population identities/ histories, and increasingly robust time depths for genetic split scenarios between populations, but not the exact locations of such events.…”