# data[].attributes.headline
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 1 of 4)

# data[].attributes.subject
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 1 of 4)

# data[].attributes.body
Based on my research thus far, I believe that Neanderthals are fundamentally the same as modern humans but three small differences may have led to their extinction.

# data[].attributes.headline
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 2 of 4)

# data[].attributes.subject
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 2 of 4)

# data[].attributes.body
Neanderthals where forced to deal with weather fluctuations, and how they dealt with them may be why they died out. Unlike the Neanderthals, modern humans used specialized tools to extract a wide variety of food during warm or cold swings. In addition they possessed social chains in which they could trade resources not available in their area. This allowed them to eat no matter what the climate was. On the other hand Neanderthals relied mainly on hunting, and during harsh weather fluctuations their inability to gather small amounts of plant material may have led to there downfall.(ancient man website)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article explores the hypothesis that key human adaptations evolved in response to environmental instability. This idea was developed during research conducted by Dr. Rick Potts of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program. Natural selection was not always a matter of 'survival of the fittest' but also survival of those most adaptable to changing surroundings.

Climate Fluctuation

Paleoanthropologists - scientists who study human evolution - have proposed a variety of ideas about how environmental conditions may have stimulated important developments in human origins. Diverse species have emerged over the course of human evolution, and a suite of adaptations have accumulated over time, including upright walking, the capacity to make tools, enlargement of the brain, prolonged maturation, the emergence of complex mental and social behavior, and dependence on technology to alter the surroundings.

The period of human evolution has coincided with environmental change, including cooling, drying, and wider climate fluctuations over time. How did environmental change shape the evolution of new adaptations, the origin and extinction of early hominin species, and the emergence of our species, Homo sapiens? ('Hominin' refers to any bipedal species closely related to humans - that is, on the human divide of the evolutionary tree since human and chimpanzee ancestors branched off from a common ancestor sometime between 6 and 8 million years ago.)

How do we know Earth's climate has changed? How quickly and how much has climate changed? One important line of evidence is the record of oxygen isotopes through time. This record of δ ¹⁸ O, or oxygen stable isotopes, comes from measuring oxygen in the microscopic skeletons of foraminifera (forams, for short) that lived on the sea floor. This measure can be used as an indicator of changing temperature and glacial ice over time. There are two main trends: an overall decrease in temperature and a larger degree of climate fluctuation over time. The amount of variability in environmental conditions was greater in the later stages of human evolution than in the earlier stages.

Ten-million-year record of oxygen stable isotopes, measured in foraminifera recovered from deep-sea sediment cores, illustrates that global ocean temperature and glacial ice varied widely over the past 6 million years, the period of human evolution. The δ¹⁸O measurement is the ratio of the heavier ¹⁸O isotope and the lighter ¹⁶O, which is more easily evaporated from the ocean and sequestered in glacial ice on land. During the course of human evolution, the overall δ¹⁸O trend has been toward a cooler, glaciated world. However, the amplitude of oscillation also increased beginning around 6 Ma, and became even larger over the past 2.5 Ma. Evolution of the genus Homo and of the adaptations that typify H. sapiens were associated with the largest oscillations in global climate. Icons: (a) hominin origins, (b) habitual bipedality, (c) first stone toolmaking and eating meat/marrow from large animals, (d) onset of long-endurance mobility, (e) onset of rapid brain enlargement, (f) expansion of symbolic expression, innovation, and cultural diversity.
Organisms and Environmental Change

All organisms encounter some amount of environmental change. Some changes occur over a short time, and may be cyclical, such as daily or seasonal variations in the amount of temperature, light, and precipitation. On longer time scales, hominins experienced large-scale shifts in temperature and precipitation that, in turn, caused vast changes in vegetation - shifts from grasslands and shrub lands to woodlands and forests, and also from cold to warm climates. Hominin environments were also altered by tectonics - earthquakes and uplift, such as the rise in elevation of the Tibetan Plateau, which changed rainfall patterns in northern China and altered the topography of a wide region. Tectonic activity can change the location and size of lakes and rivers. Volcanic eruptions and forest fires also altered the availability of food, water, shelter, and other resources. Unlike seasonal or daily shifts, the effects of many of these changes lasted for many years, and were unexpected to hominins and other organisms, raising the level of instability and uncertainty in their survival conditions.

Many organisms have habitat preferences, such as particular types of vegetation (grassland versus forests), or preferred temperature and precipitation ranges. When there's a change in an animal's preferred habitat, they can either move and track their favored habitat or adapt by genetic change to the new habitat. Otherwise, they become extinct. Another possibility, though, is for the adaptability of a population to increase - that is, the potential to adjust to new and changing environments. The ability to adjust to a variety of different habitats and environments is a characteristic of humans.

Three possible outcomes of population evolution in environmental dynamics typical of the Plio-Pleistocene (left). The ability to move and track habitat change geographically (narrow lines) or to expand the degree of adaptive versatility is important for any lineage to persist. Extinction occurs if species populations have specific dietary/habitat adaptations (i.e., a narrow band of 'adaptive versatility'; highlighted bands) and cannot relocate to a favored habitat. In the hypothetical situation (right band) where adaptive versatility expands, migration and dispersal may occur independently of the timing and direction of environmental change. The evolution of adaptive versatility is the impetus behind the variability selection idea, which is explored later in this article.

Adaptation to Change

There are many ideas about the role of the environment in human evolution. Some views assume that certain adaptations, such as upright walking or tool-making, were associated with drier habitat and the spread of grasslands, an idea often known as the savanna hypothesis. According to this long-held view, many important human adaptations arose in the African savanna or were influenced by the environmental pressure of an expanding dry grassland.

If key human adaptations evolved in response to selection pressure by a specific environment, we would expect those adaptations to be especially suited to that habitat. Hominin fossils would be found in those environments and not present in diverse types of habitat.

The Variability Selection Hypothesis

A different hypothesis is that the key events in human evolution were shaped not by any single type of habitat (e.g., grassland) or environmental trend (e.g., drying) but rather by environmental instability. This idea, developed by Dr. Rick Potts of the Human Origins Program, is called variability selection. This hypothesis calls attention to the variability observed in all environmental records and to the fact that the genus Homo was not limited to a single type of environment. Over the course of human evolution, human ancestors increased their ability to cope with changing habitats rather than specializing on a single type of environment. How did hominins evolve the ability to respond to shifting surroundings and new environmental conditions?
Over time (from left to right), new adaptations may evolve during periods of (A) relatively stable environment; (B) directional or progressive change, such as from wet to dry; or (C) highly variable habitat, as predicted by the variability selection hypothesis.
One way organisms can cope with environmental fluctuation is through genetic adaptation, where several alleles, or different versions of genes, are present in the population at different frequencies. As conditions change, natural selection favors one allele or genetic variant over another. Genes that can facilitate a range of different forms under different environments (phenotypic plasticity) can also help an organism adapt to changing conditions.

Another response to environmental change is to evolve structures and behaviors that can be used to cope with different environments. The selection of these structures and behaviors as a result of environmental instability is known as variability selection. This hypothesis differs from those based on consistent environmental trends. Environmental change in an overall direction leads to specializations for those specific conditions. But if the environment becomes highly variable, specializations for particular environments would be less advantageous than structures and behaviors that enable coping with changing and unpredictable conditions. Variability selection refers to the benefits conferred by variations in behavior that help organisms survive change. To test the variability selection hypothesis, and to compare it with habitat-specific hypotheses, Potts examined the hominin fossil record and the records of environmental change during the time of human evolution.

If environmental instability was the key factor favoring human adaptations, new adaptations would be expected to occur during periods of increased environmental variability, and these adaptations would have improved the ability of early human ancestors to deal with habitat change and environmental diversity.

Overall, the hominin fossil record and the environmental record show that hominins evolved during an environmentally variable time. Higher variability occurred as changes in seasonality produced large-scale environmental fluctuations over periods that often lasted tens of thousands of years. The variability selection hypothesis implies that human traits evolved over time because they enabled human ancestors to adjust to environmental uncertainty and change. The hypothesis addresses the matter of how, exactly, adaptability can evolve over time.

Ancient Hominins Were Found in Diverse Habitats

Ancient hominin remains have been found in a variety of different habitats. While some hominins, such as Orrorin tugenensis and Ardipithecus ramidus have been found in wooded habitats, others such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis were found associated with diverse types of vegetation within a small geographic area. Reconstructions of the ancient habitat of Ardipithecus ramidus at two different Ethiopian sites suggest that this species occupied both wooded areas (the Aramis site) and wooded grasslands in which grazing animals predominated (the Gona site). Australopithecus anamensis has been found at Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya, in association with another type of mosaic - an open savanna with low trees and shrubs, but with both grasslands and gallery forests nearby.

At Kanapoi, research by Dr. Jonathan Wynn on paleosols and pedogenic carbonates demonstrates the presence of these varied habitats at the time when Australopithecus anamensis inhabited the area. Other members of Au. anamensis at Allia Bay encountered a different environment. The fossil animals represent several different habitats including open floodplains, gallery forests, and dry bushlands. Isotopic studies done by Dr. Margaret Schoeninger and her colleagues indicate that most of the Allia Bay vegetation consisted of woody plants such as trees and shrubs (known as C ₃ vegetation). Australopithecus anamensis at Allia Bay was thus associated with a mosaic environment, including woodlands near the ancestral Omo River and open savanna further away.
Two different types of environment - dense woodlands and open bushland - occurred in the same areas of East Africa during the period of human evolution. Climate fluctuation altered the proportion of these habitats, and thus led to repeated changes only in population density and variable conditions of natural selection.
Two Legs, Long Arms; Moving Around in Diverse Habitats

By about 4 million years ago, the genus Australopithecus had evolved a skeletal form that enabled adjustment to changes in moisture and vegetation. The best current example of adaptability in Australopithecus is apparent in the skeleton known as Lucy, which represents Au. afarensis. Lucy's 3.18-million-year-old skeleton has a humanlike hip bone and knee joints coupled with long apelike arms, longer grasping fingers than in humans, and flexible feet for walking or climbing. This combination of features, which appears to have characterized Australopithecus for nearly 2 million years and possibly older hominins, afforded an ability to move around in diverse habitats by changing the degree of reliance on terrestrial walking and arboreal climbing. This flexibility may also have characterized earlier hominins such as Ardipithecus ramidus.

Stone Toolmaking: Gaining Access to Diverse Foods

The first known stone tools date to around 3.3 million years ago. Making and using stone tools also conferred versatility in how hominin toolmakers interacted with and adjusted to their surroundings.

Simple toolmaking by stone-on-stone fracturing of rock conferred a selective advantage in that these hominin toolmakers possessed sharp flakes for cutting and hammerstones that were useful in pounding and crushing foods. Basic stone tools thus greatly enhanced the functions of teeth in a way that allowed access to an enormous variety of foods. These foods included meat from large animals, which was sliced from carcasses using sharp edges of flakes. Bones were broken open using stones to access the marrow inside. Other tools could be used to grind plants or to sharpen sticks to dig for tubers. Tool use would have made it easier for hominins to obtain food from a variety of different sources. Tool use would have widened the diet of hominins. Meat, in particular, is a food that was obtainable in equivalent ways, with similar nutritional value, in virtually any type of habitat that early humans encountered.

Although making simple toolmaking may have developed originally in one type of environment, the carrying of stone tools over considerable distances - and becoming reliant on stone technology - may have arisen due to the benefits of altering the diet as environments changed. The oldest known stone technology - called Oldowan toolmaking - involved carrying rock over several kilometers and is found associated with a variety of ancient habitats. Redistributing stone and other resources, such as parts of animal carcasses, by transporting them may have helped hominins cope with variable habitats.

The Expanding World of Early Homo

As predicted by the variability selection hypothesis, hominins were not found solely in one kind of habitat, but rather in a variety. A major signal of the ability to tolerate different environments was the dispersal of the genus early Homo beyond Africa into Asian environments. After 1.9 million years ago, the genus Homo is found in a variety of locations in Asia, including some that are relatively far north.

Early evidence of the diversity of Homo erectus environments in Asia includes the following sites:

Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia, 1.85 to 1.78 Million years ago. This site has grasslands surrounded by mountains with forests. Hominins had access to lava as a raw material for tools.

Yuanmou, China, 1.7 Million years ago. This site, located near an ancient lake, had a mixture of habitats with grasslands, bushlands and forests.

Nihewan Basin, China, 1.66 Million years ago. The Nihewan sites were also near a lake. Hominin toolmakers experienced many changes in vegetation over time, with habitats ranging from forests to grasslands. This region may have been much more arid than others, and temperatures changed seasonally between warm and cold.

Java, 1.66 Ma: Hominins here encountered grasslands, rivers and marine coastal environments in a tropical latitude setting.

In these locations, hominin groups encountered distinctly different environments, different plants and animals and foods, and different climatic conditions - a very wide range of temperature and strong variations in aridity and monsoonal rains.

Hominins Persisted Through Environmental Change

Environmental instability may have been a factor not only in shaping adaptations but also in contributing to the extinction of some lineages. Environmental variability associated with the extinction of large mammal species has been proposed for the southern Kenya region. Sediments, stone artifacts, and animal faunal at the site of Olorgesailie span most of the past 1.2 million years. Numerous environmental shifts are recorded in the Olorgesailie deposits. The ancient lake level and its chemistry, for example, changed frequently, and sometimes the lake dried up, leaving small wetlands and streams as the main source of water in the basin. Volcanic eruptions also blanketed the landscape in ash, killing off grass and reshaping the properties of the ecosystem.
An example of a hillside of sediments in the Olorgesailie region. The hillside, which represents about 10,000 years of time with a volcanic ash at its base dated around 1 million years ago, shows evidence of strong environmental shifts. Inset: Layers of sediments show the fluctuation between dry and wet environments and a time when volcanic ash covered the ancient landscape.
Dr. Rick Potts studied the pattern of climatic turnover in the fauna and the occurrence of archeological sites at Olorgesailie and another site in southern Kenya, and found that several large mammal species that had previously dominated the fauna of this region went extinct between about 700,000 and 300,000 years ago, during a period of repeated environmental instability. These species were replaced by modern relatives, which tended to be smaller in body size and not as specialized in diet or habitat.

For example, the zebra Equus oldowayensis had large and tall teeth specialized for eating grass. Its last known appearance in the fossil record of southern Kenya is between 780,000 and 600,000 years ago; it was replaced by Equus grevyi, which can graze (feed on grass) as well as browse (feed on leaves and other high-growing vegetation). The fossil baboon Theropithecus oswaldi, which weighed over 58 kg (over 127.6 pounds), lived on the ground exclusively; it had very large teeth and consumed grass. It also went extinct between 780,000 and 600,000 years ago. Its extant relative, Papio anubis, is omnivorous and moves easily on the ground and in trees. Two other large-bodied animals that specialized in eating grass, the elephant Elephas recki and the ancient pig Metridiochoerus, were also replaced by related species that were smaller and had more versatile diets ( Loxodonta africana and Phacochoerus aethiopicus). The aquatic specialist Hippopotamus gorgops was replaced by the living hippopotamus, which is capable of traversing long distances between water bodies.

The replacement of the specialized species by closely related animals that possessed more flexible adaptations during a time of wide fluctuation in climate was a key piece of initial evidence that led to the variability selection hypothesis. Although Acheulean toolmaking hominins were able to cope with changing habitats throughout much of the Olorgesailie record, the Acheulean way of life disappeared from the region sometime between 500,000 and 300,000 years ago, perhaps also a casualty of strong environmental uncertainty and changing circumstances.

Encephalization and Adaptability
Brain enlargement during human evolution has been dramatic. During the first four million years of human evolution, brain size increased very slowly. Encephalization, or the evolutionary enlargement of the brain relative to body size, was especially pronounced over the past 800,000 years, coinciding with the period of strongest climate fluctuation worldwide. Larger brains allowed hominins to process and store information, to plan ahead, and to solve abstract problems. A large brain able to produce versatile solutions to new and diverse survival challenges was, according to the variability selection hypothesis, favored with an increase in the range of environments hominins confronted over time and space.
New Tools for Many Different Purposes

After 400,000 years ago, hominins found new ways of coping with the environment by creating a variety of different tools. In some parts of Africa, a shift occurred in which a technology dominated by large cutting tools was replaced by smaller, more diverse toolkits. Technological innovations began to appear in the Middle Stone Age in Africa, with some early examples dating prior to 280,000 years ago. Some of the new tools provided ways for hominins to access food in new ways. Points were hafted, or attached to handles such as spear or arrow shafts, and were later used as part of projectile weapons, which allowed hominins to hunt fast and dangerous prey without approaching as closely. Barbed points were used to spear fish. Barbed points made from bone were found at the site of Katanda, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, along with the remains of huge catfish. Grindstones were used to process plant foods. Other tools were used to make clothing which would have been important for hominins in cold environments.

Regional Exchange and Social Networks
Over the past 300,000 years or so, the direct ancestors of living humans developed the capacity to create new and diverse tools. Archeological discoveries show that wider social networks began to arise, enabling the transfer of stone material over long distances. Symbolic artifacts connoting complex language and the ability to plan are also evident in the archeological record of the Middle Stone Age of Africa. These findings indicate an improved capacity to adjust to new environments. Most of the past 350,000 years in East Africa was a time of strong climate oscillation. The timeline at the bottom of the image is 280,000 to 40,000 years ago (right to left). This figure is based on an analysis by archeologists Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks.
Trading between groups to obtain materials and to cement alliances is a hallmark of modern human behavior. Larger brains and symbolic ability facilitated more complex social interactions. By 130,000 years ago, hominins were exchanging materials over distances of over 300 km. The social bonds that were forged by exchanging materials between groups may have been critical for survival during times of environmental change when one group relied on the resources or territories of a distant group. Modern foragers use social ties to mitigate the effects of famines and droughts. The exchange of gifts maintains relationships between groups, which may be called upon when one group needs to live at another's camp or waterhole, a capacity that proved especially beneficial during times of environmental change and resource uncertainty.

Communication and Symbols
Engraved ocher plaque from Blombos Cave, Republic of South Africa; about 77,000-75,000 years old
Evidence of the human capacity for communication using symbols is apparent in the archeological record back to at least 250,000 years old, and probably older. The use of color, incised symbols, decorative objects, and language are part of this capacity for communication. Symbolic communication may be linked with information storage. Language is an essential part of modern human communication. Language makes it possible to convey complex ideas to others. Communication of ideas and circumstances via language would have made survival in a changing world much easier. However, there is no fossil evidence for words and grammar that are the direct hallmarks of human language.

Preserved pieces of pigment are one of the earliest forms of symbolic communication. Ocher and manganese can be used to color objects and skin. Other symbolic objects such as jewelry, personal adornments, and art convey information about the owner's social status, group membership, age or sex. Paintings and drawings were also used to represent the natural world. Use of symbols is ultimately connected to the human ability to plan, record information, and imagine.

Neanderthals Endured Climatic Oscillations, Too!

Neanderthal populations ( Homo neanderthalensis) in Europe endured many environmental changes, including large shifts in climate between glacial and interglacial conditions, while living in a habitat that was colder overall than settings where most other hominin species lived. Some of the environmental shifts they endured involved rapid swings between cold and warm climate.

The Neanderthals were able to adjust their behavior to fit the circumstances. During cold, glacial periods, they focused on hunting reindeer, which are cold-adapted animals. During warmer, interglacial periods, they hunted red deer. During extreme cold periods, they shifted their range southwards toward warmer environments.

Neanderthals and modern humans had different ways of dealing with environmental fluctuation and the survival challenges it posed. Modern humans, Homo sapiens, had specialized tools to extract a variety of dietary resources. They also had broad social networks as shown by the exchange of goods over a long distance. They used symbols as a means of communicating and storing information. Neanderthals did not make tools that were as specialized as those of modern humans who moved from Africa into Europe sometime around 46,000 years ago. The Neanderthals usually did not exchange materials over so wide a distance as Homo sapiens. They occasionally produced symbolic artifacts. Despite many climatic fluctuations, modern humans were able to expand their range over Europe and Asia, and into new areas such as Australia and the Americas. Neanderthals went extinct. This evidence suggests that adaptability to varying environments was one of the key differences between these two evolutionary cousins.
During the time when Neanderthals evolved in Europe, global climate fluctuated dramatically between warm and cold. The highlighted area on the right side of the graph represents the last 200,000 years.
Conclusions

Overall, the evidence shows that hominins were able to adapt to changing environments to different degrees. The genus Homo, to which our species belongs, had the capacity to adjust to a variety of environmental conditions, and Homo sapiens is especially able to cope with a broad range of climatic conditions, hot and cold environments, arid and moist ones, and with all kinds of varying vegetation. We use resources from a vast variety of plants and animals and use many specialized tools. We have many social contacts and means of exchanging resources and information to help us survive in a constantly changing world.
The idea that the major adaptations in our evolutionary history arose in response to environmental variability and shifting selection pressures (variability selection) leads to a new understanding of human evolution. The figure above illustrates how the emergence of human characteristics from 6 million years ago to present conferred benefits that improved the ability of our ancestors to survive unpredictable and novel environments. Ma = million years ago; ka = thousand year ago.
Humans today represent the one species that has survived from the diversity of hominin species. Despite their very close relationship with our species, and despite the fact that all of them possessed some combination of features that characterize humans today, these earlier species and their ways of life are now extinct. The question ahead is how well our sources of resilience as a species will succeed as our alterations of the landscape, atmosphere, and water interact with the tendency of Earth's environment to shift all on its own. This is an 'experiment' just now unfolding, one that has never occurred before. The intensity of environmental change seems likely to create entirely new survival challenges for the lone hominin species on the planet, and many other organisms as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article explores the hypothesis that key human adaptations evolved in response to environmental instability. This idea was developed during research conducted by Dr. Rick Potts of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program. Natural selection was not always a matter of 'survival of the fittest' but also survival of those most adaptable to changing surroundings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 3 of 4)

# data[].attributes.subject
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 3 of 4)

# data[].attributes.body
Another one of the main differences between modern Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalis was the fact that the Neanderthals didn't settle in new places. In the late Paleolithic period Neanderthals had only really colonized in coastal modern Europe and central Asia, while modern humans had been to every Continent except Antarctica. As a result of this widespread colonization, modern humans would not easily be wiped out by natural disasters. On the other hand neanderthals were vulnerable to extinction.(Paleo Projectables)

# data[].attributes.headline
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 4 of 4)

# data[].attributes.subject
Homo Sapien Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalis Comparison Finn Jasmann (Slide 4 of 4)

# data[].attributes.body
My final reason that the Neanderthals went extinct is that they didn't make permanent shelters. At that time humans where settling and learning to farm and use mud bricks to build permanent dwelling, but Neanderthals where still constantly moving. The advantages of permanent housing much outweigh the pro's of nomadic living. One of these is the ability to farm, which allows for constant food supply. Another reason permanent living is better than its nomadic counterpart is protection from weather and wild animals, which flimsy tents can't provide. This i probably the main reason Neanderthals couldn't stay alive. (HA-AW)

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the early humans adapt to different environments? (Quinn M, Max S, Heejun s, and Ethan G). 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the early humans adapt to different environments? (Quinn M, Max S, Heejun s, and Ethan G). 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
Based on these details, the homo sapiens had survived with these resilient and inventive techniques for an extremely long time. However, there were still other species that were less resilient and not as significant as the homo sapiens who were also able to adapt to their environments and survive up until today.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the early humans adapt to different environments? (Quinn M, Max S, Heejun s, and Ethan G). 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the early humans adapt to different environments? (Quinn M, Max S, Heejun s, and Ethan G). 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
They survived by making permanent shelters to store food, and water. The early humans used furry animal skins, and made shelters made from the natural resources to adapt to their environment.. (Source: Word document HA-AW)

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the early humans adapt to different environments? (Quinn M, Max S, Heejun s, and Ethan G). 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the early humans adapt to different environments? (Quinn M, Max S, Heejun s, and Ethan G). 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
The early humans adapted by making tools. But as the years, and centuries progressed the tools became more efficient and sophisticated. In the beginning of early man, they used big clunky tools, but after time it became smaller, more efficient, and sharper. They also made drawings, and art to communicate to each other.  (Source: Dr. Rick Potts video, Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History)

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the anatomy of the Homo sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Angel Song, Karen Martinez-Post 1 of 5

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the anatomy of the Homo sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Angel Song, Karen Martinez-Post 1 of 5

# data[].attributes.body
The main reason why the Homo Sapiens were able to survive was because they had social skills and adapting skills. They were able to adapt to their environments so that it would be easy to live. The Homo Sapiens shared information and resources with one another and were able to make tools and inventions better than it was before. The Neanderthals did not socially interact with one another and so went extinct.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Angel Song, Karen Martinez-Detail 1 Post 2 of 5

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Angel Song, Karen Martinez-Detail 1 Post 2 of 5

# data[].attributes.body
One significant change in the Homo Sapiens’ anatomical functions compared to the Neanderthals were changes in the skull size and the skeleton minus the skull. This evidence suggests that the Homo Sapiens’ brain size differed from the Neanderthals. Also, the Homo Sapiens had a smaller skeleton and brain than the Neanderthals. The skeleton of Homo Sapiens is very light because of the relations from the earlier species and due to deficiency of getting used to the freezing weather. This skeleton is called a postcranial skeleton, which caused Homo Sapiens to have short limbs, along with a large width of rib cages and hips. As a result, having a postcranial skeleton is mainly because of the sudden change from warmer weather to cold weather. This gives evidence that Homo Sapiens lived in tropical atmospheres before relocating to other places worldwide because of their weak bones in their postcranial skeleton. They could adapt to their environment, so they could quickly adapt as the world changed.
Sources: 6.1.2.--Paleolithic People: Adapting to Change, Visual Aids
becominghuman.org (see link below)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The latest chapter of human evolution begins with the emergence of Homo sapiens. The anatomy of Homo sapiens is unique among hominin species and appears first in East Africa, dating to roughly 160 thousand years ago (ka). These unique features-including changes in the skull and postcranial skeleton (skeleton minus skull)-suggest changes in brain size and architecture and an adaptation to tropical environments. These anatomical changes are linked to cognitive and behavioral changes that are equally unique among hominin species. In particular, the archaeological evidence of behaviors thought to be unique to Homo sapiens, which appear first in Africa around 170 ka, highlight the importance of symbolism, complex cognitive behaviors, and a broad subsistence strategy (the strategy used to procure food). The evolution of Homo sapiens is vitally important to defining our species in the broader context of human evolution and also has key to understanding the human condition, past and present.

Many of the unique features of Homo sapiens are found in the skull. Brain size estimates suggest that the brain of Homo sapiens was larger than in other hominin species. The average cranial capacity of Homo sapiens is roughly 1300 cubic centimeters, making the brains of this species absolutely smaller than those of Homo neanderthalensis. However, due to its gracile (small and lightly built) postcranial skeleton (see below), the brain of H. sapiens was larger relative to body size than that of H. neanderthalensis. The skull itself is much taller than earlier hominin species and the skull is therefore much shorter (from front to back) in relation to its height. The widest point of the Homo sapiens skull is toward the top of the skull and the sides of the skull are nearly vertical. Together with the extreme height of the skull, these features give the Homo sapiens skull a house-shaped (i.e., pentagon with straight walls) appearance when viewed from behind. The skull of Homo sapiens also generally lacks evidence of being strongly built (e.g., it lacks the large browridges and bony prominences seen in Homo neanderthalensis and Homo heidelbergensis). However, the earliest representatives of the species maintain a fairly rugged appearance. For instance, the browridges of early H. sapiens are fairly large, but differ in shape from those of H. neanderthalensis and H. heidelbergensis. The face of Homo sapiens is much smaller than those of earlier hominin species. In addition the face is "tucked under" the braincase-i.e., the face is located entirely below (rather than in front of) the front part of the brain. The face of this species also bears a deep indentation (the canine fossa) below each of the orbits. The teeth and mandible (lower jaw) are smaller than in earlier species and the mandible bears a prominent mental prominence (chin), which is not seen in any other hominin species.

Other unique features of the Homo sapiens skeleton are found in the postcranial skeleton. The postcranial skeleton is very lightly built relative to earlier species and lacks the adaptations to cold environments found in Homo neanderthalensis -e.g., thick, shortened limb bones and wide rib cages and hips. These features of the postcranial skeleton are thought to reflect the fact that Homo sapiens evolved in tropical, African environments before migrating across the globe. In these tropical environments, long and lean body proportions were favored because they maximized surface area (and therefore maximizing heat dissipation) while maintaining the same body mass.

Perhaps the most intriguing features found in Homo sapiens are behavioral traits. These traits, which can be discerned from the archaeological record, represent behavioral strategies that are not seen in any other hominin species. For instance, Homo sapiens is the first hominin species to hunt a large range of prey animals. Unlike earlier species, Homo sapiens developed hunting strategies that allowed them to hunt large, medium, and small mammals, as well as fish and shellfish. The stone tools that were made by Homo sapiens reflect this broader range of prey. In particular, Homo sapiens produced tools that ranged greatly in size and included very small artifacts used for hunting smaller game. The stone tools were also more diverse, reflecting a subsistence strategy that included many different types of animals of varying sizes. In Europe, lithic assemblages (the total sample of lithic artifacts from a particular site) associated with Homo sapiens also include blades (long, narrow artifacts defined as being at least twice as long as they are wide), an artifact rarely seen in lithic assemblages associated with Homo neanderthalensis. In addition, Homo sapiens was the first species to frequently produce tools made from bone and developed new technologies for making composite tools (tools that comprise different parts that are combined to form a tool). Homo sapiens ranged much longer distances to acquire raw materials for making stone tools than earlier species; this is often used as evidence that individual Homo sapiens had much larger ranges than other species. It is important to note that at some sites in western Asia, Homo sapiens are also found associated with tools that are typical of those made by Neandertals in Europe and in western Asia.

Other archaeological evidence strongly suggests that Homo sapiens was the first species to exhibit widespread use of symbolic behavior. For example, early Homo sapiens produced cave art, statues, shell beads, incised ochre, pendants, and figurines. While some authors contend that these items are also found at some Homo neanderthalensis sites, this opinion is contended and, at most, these items are found in much lower abundance at H. neanderthalensis sites. These traits suggest that Homo sapiens had a greater capacity for abstract, symbolic thinking than any earlier species. Based on the anatomy of the upper part of the vertebral column and associated structures, it is also highly likely that Homo sapiens was the first species that was capable of spoken language, but the evidence in support of this claim is scant.

The archaeological indicators of the modern behaviors associated with Homo sapiens do not show up at the same time across the range of the species. The first good evidence for these modern behaviors comes from Africa, starting over 150 ka. Different aspects of these behaviors showed up in a piecemeal fashion in Africa between 150 and 40 ka, when many of these features show up in concert at African Homo sapiens sites. In Europe, all of these features seem to appear at the same time. This is likely due to the fact that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and did not spread into Europe until almost 100 thousand years later. This hypothesis, however, is contended (see below).

The evolutionary relationship of Homo sapiens to other hominin species is very controversial. Most scientists believe that Homo sapiens evolved from populations of H omo heidelbergensis in Africa between 150 and 200 ka. Following this evolution, the species spread throughout Africa, replacing local populations of H. heidelbergensis. Around 40-50 ka, Homo sapiens are thought to have migrated out of Africa replacing all populations of Homo neanderthalensis in Europe and Homo heidelbergensis elsewhere. The evidence for this position comes from both the fossil record and from studies of modern DNA. As mentioned above, the earliest undisputed fossil remains of Homo sapiens have been found in Africa, strongly suggesting that it was on this continent that the species first evolved. Genetic studies demonstrate that modern African populations are much more diverse and older than populations in other parts of the world. This evidence strongly suggest that Homo sapiens have been evolving longer in Africa than in other parts of the world, which, in turn, suggests that the origin of the species occurred in Africa and subsequently spread throughout the world. Adherents to this position (the so-called "Out of Africa/Replacement Model") generally consider that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were separate species and that little to no interbreeding occurred when the species encountered each other in Europe.

A minority of scholars maintains, instead, that H. neanderthalensis is a subspecies of Homo sapiens. According to this viewpoint (the so-called "Multiregional Model"), populations of "archaic" Homo sapiens (including Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis) evolved into Homo sapiens in each region of the Old World. These scientists believe that all archaic populations were connected by gene flow (the sharing of genetic material due to interbreeding) from at least one million years ago onward. Thus, to these workers, although interbreeding was more frequent between populations within a region than between them, all of these populations represent a single, evolving species. This situation permitted the evolution of certain regional characteristics that distinguished populations in different regions, while still allowing universally favorable traits to spread across regions by gene flow. Scholars that adhere to this position point to purported anatomical continuity in all of the regions of the world from one million years ago to the present. For example, these authors claim that traits reminiscent of Homo neanderthalensis can be found in modern Europeans. Supporters of this idea believe that interbreeding between Homo neanderthalensis and H omo sapiens was more widespread than is traditionally accepted and that Homo neanderthalensis made an important genetic contribution to living Homo sapiens.

Recent genetic research demonstrates there could be an intermediate position between these two strongly held ideas. This research, which was the result of the complete sequencing of the Homo neanderthalensis genome, suggests that that interbreeding between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens was rare, but larger than previously thought. Specifically, this research shows that the rate of interbreeding was between 1 and 4 percent. That is, between 1 and 4 percent of Homo sapiens breeding was with Neanderthals. This finding corroborates the ideas espoused by many scientists working in the field that neither of the two traditional models adequately represents the complexity of the interaction between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. That is, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were able to interbreed, but interbreeding was rather rare. Whether the amount of interbreeding constitutes the fact that Homo neanderthalensis made an important genetic contribution to living Homo sapiens is, more or less, a semantic matter, depending on how one defines an "important" genetic contribution. In light of this , questions about whether or not Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis are different species or not is rather unimportant as it depends on how one chooses to define species-i.e., by the ability/inability to interbreed or by how evolutionarily distinct these two groups were.

What is clear from the European fossil record is the anatomy characteristic of Homo neanderthalensis disappeared rather rapidly between 50 and 30 ka and that this disappearance coincides with the migration of Homo sapiens into Europe from Africa. Thus, questions about what exactly caused that disappearance are crucially important and stridently contended. There is no evidence of warfare in Europe (or elsewhere) at this time. Therefore, the notion that Homo sapiens actively exterminated Homo neanderthalensis is difficult to maintain. Many scholars believe that the sophisticated symbolic and cognitive capabilities of Homo sapiens combined with their adaptation for hunting a large range of diverse prey allowed them to outcompete Homo neanderthalensis. This point of view is particularly relevant in light of the dramatically shifting climate that was witnessed in Europe around the time that Homo sapiens arrived. That is, Homo sapiens' broad subsistence strategy and ability to cognitively adapt to difficult environments may have allowed them to spread quickly and widely during times when the climate shifted dramatically. Homo neanderthalensis, on the other hand, may have had difficulty dealing with these drastic shifts in climate, due to their focus on hunting large game animals. Other researchers suggest Homo sapiens had a demographic, rather than a technological, edge on Homo neanderthalensis. These scholars suggest Homo sapiens maintained larger and more numerous populations and that, over time, the sheer numbers of Homo sapiens simply swamped out Homo neanderthalensis populations, which are thought to be smaller, more spread out, and less numerous. Of course, it is very possible that both of these factors (i.e., technology and demography) acted in concert, resulting in the disappearance of the Neanderthals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest chapter of human evolution begins with the emergence of Homo sapiens. The anatomy of Homo sapiens is unique among hominin species and appears first in East Africa, dating to roughly 160 thousand years ago (ka). These unique features-including changes in the skull and postcranial skeleton (skeleton minus skull)-suggest changes in brain size and architecture and an adaptation to tropical environments.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Detail 2 (Karen & Angel)

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Detail 2 (Karen & Angel)

# data[].attributes.body
Source: HA-AW Chapter 3 (pg.27-29)

The Homo Sapiens weren’t able to hunt big animals like the Neanderthals. Their frail body did not support the big movements used in hunting those animals. The Homo Sapiens had the ability to adapt to new environments when the Neanderthals did not. The Homo Sapiens decided to live a different way. For example, they realized that not everything had to depend on hunting, they could gather and harvest, too. Because they adapted to meet their bodily circumstances, they were able to figure out new things and stay alive without going extinct like the Neanderthals.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Angel Song, Karen Martinez-Detail 3 Post 4 of 5

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Angel Song, Karen Martinez-Detail 3 Post 4 of 5

# data[].attributes.body
Homo Sapiens and the Neanderthals' bodily structures were different, so the Homo Sapiens had to figure out another way than the Neanderthals to survive. The Neanderthals' bodies were muscular and strong, whereas the Homo Sapiens had long limbs and had tiny muscles. The Neanderthals were good at hunting big animals because their body was formed (being muscular would help hunt big animals). However, the Homo Sapiens weren't able to hunt big animals like the Neanderthals, because their body wasn't fit for it. So the Homo Sapiens adapted to their circumstances and developed excellent social skills to share knowledge with other people to make it easy to survive. Studies show that the Homo Sapiens had a larger cerebellum compared to the Neanderthals. The cerebellum is a part of the brain that controls social relationships, planning skills, adapting skills, etc. Because the Homo Sapiens evolved to have a bigger cerebellum than the Neanderthals, some people say that that might have been why Homo Sapiens survived when the Neanderthals did not. Sources: Quartz (see link below)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Neanderthals may have survived if they evolved to look out for each other like we humans did.

Physically, there doesn't seem to have been much of a difference between us and our evolutionary cousins. Aside from being a little stockier than early humans, Neanderthals ( Homo neanderthalensis) had features that were were more or less the same size as our ancestors (Homo sapiens). However, tiny structural distinctions in our skulls may have given humans an unbeatable advantage.

A new scientific analysis shows that human skulls are shaped in a way that suggests they encased brains with slightly larger cerebellums than Neanderthals. The cerebellum is a brain region associated with activities like planning, adapting to new environments, switching between tasks, and building social relationships. The advantage conferred by slightly improved capacity for these abilities may have been what set early humans apart from Neanderthals, and what ultimately paved the way for our survival and their downfall.

"The study clearly demonstrated that innate morphological differences in the brain structure actually existed between the two species," says Naomichi Ogihara, a biological anthropologist at Keio University and a co-author of the paper announcing the findings, published today (April 26) in the journal Scientific Reports.

Ogihara and his colleagues obtained magnetic resonance images of the brains of 1,185 contemporary human volunteers, and used them to come up with an average size and distribution for about 25 different brain regions. This sample gave them an idea of modern human brain composition, and how the organ fits into a modern human skull.

Next, they attempted to figure out how the modern human skull differed from early human and Neanderthal skulls-and, by proxy, how the modern human brain different from early human and Neanderthal brains. The scientists used computer imaging to create 3D models of four Neanderthal brains and four early human brains, ranging from 32,000 to 135,000 years old. Then, they took the distributions of the modern human brain and applied it to fit into these eight reconstructions. There were some differences between modern and early humans, but what really stood out to the researchers was the significant difference in proportionate size between the cerebellums of early humans and Neanderthals.

To figure out what it meant for early humans to have proportionally bigger cerebellums than Neanderthals, the researchers then analyzed 1,095 more brain scans of additional volunteers to compare the size of their cerebellums to abilities like language processing, memory, and task-switching speed. They found that, in these modern humans, a slightly larger cerebellum was correlated to improvements in these skills. That led the team to think the same logic could be applied to early humans compared to Neanderthals.

This isn't as definitive a finding as would be research derived from an actual fossilized Neanderthal brain (which has never been found). Nevertheless, the models can at least suggest that different brain structures put Neanderthals at some kind of disadvantage.

It may not have been the only factor leading to their extinction. We know, for example, that Neanderthals were at least somewhat intelligent and social, from evidence of their music, jewelry, and kissing (or at least shared meals). Whatever advantage Homo sapiens had over Homo neanderthalensis was likely subtle. Larger cerebellums, the recent study argues, could have given our human ancestors the ability to figure out how to adapt to changing environments, how to hunt different types of food, and how to protect themselves a little better. Neanderthals could probably keep up with us to an extent, but when it comes to survival every extra advantage matters.
Correction: This article originally stated that this research appeared in Nature. It actually appeared in Scientific Reports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homo sapiens may have outlasted Neanderthals because they evolved to be social

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Neanderthals may have survived if they evolved to look out for each other like we humans did. Physically, there doesn't seem to have been much of a difference between us and our evolutionary cousins. Aside from being a little stockier than early humans, Neanderthals ( Homo neanderthalensis) had features that were were more or less the same size as our ancestors (Homo sapiens).

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Detail 4 (Karen & Angel)

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the anatomy of the Homo Sapiens differ from the Neanderthals? Detail 4 (Karen & Angel)

# data[].attributes.body
Source: IMPACT-California Social Studies Textbook

The Homo Sapiens acquired the social skills and language skills to properly communicate with others. They soon were able to make better tools and learn from each other. Homo Sapiens continued to develop skills and advance tools. From comparing tools from the past times to the Homo sapiens tools, they became more refined and specialized. Even while the amount resources grew and developed, they continuously made new tools. These tools varied from stone tools, fish hooks, bows and arrows, spears, and sewing needles. Making tools and innovating them, created a method of communication skills. These skills were important because now they were able to defend, look for food, and hunt together. They cooperated with one another, and that gave them an advantage.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  1 of 4. *

# data[].attributes.subject
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  1 of 4. *

# data[].attributes.body
Just like human species grew stronger and better over time so did our tools.  Since homo sapiens' brains developed faster than others, they experimented and made the best tools for staying alive as compared to any other type of ancient human.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  2  of 4. *

# data[].attributes.subject
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  2  of 4. *

# data[].attributes.body
As an example, Homo Sapiens, unlike other homo species, “carved objects out of jade and made some weapons out of metal.” World Book.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  3  of 4. *

# data[].attributes.subject
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  3  of 4. *

# data[].attributes.body
“Homo Sapiens could develop more sophisticated tools and inventions and learn from one another.  They could also pass what they learned from one generation to the next.” Our history textbooks (pg 10).  This shows how homo species could pass down their knowledge.  It also proves how homo sapiens had the most developed brains.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  4  of 4. *

# data[].attributes.subject
How did tools help homo sapiens survive longer than any other form of early man? (Noah Sorgen, Cassidy Goldyn, Andrew Jeon, Julian Son.) Slide  4  of 4. *

# data[].attributes.body
"Over time, early people made better, more complex tools." Our history textbooks (pg 16).  Homo sapiens developed tools that were stronger and better to keep them alive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Were earlier forms of humans smarter than modern humans or not? (Hannah Cho, Connor Evans, Avery Choi, Olivia Hong) 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Were earlier forms of humans smarter than modern humans or not? (Hannah Cho, Connor Evans, Avery Choi, Olivia Hong) 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
Earlier forms of humans were not smarter than modern humans because in the textbook on page 10, there is a graph of each species, their skull, and their ability. Homo sapiens are the most advanced according to the graph. They have advanced languages, has ability to learn and remember, can imagine and plan, and has the ability to adapt to different climates. Homo sapiens evolved to be smarter and because of that, they survived the longest. Homo Sapiens advanced in their capability to adapt to their climates. Thus, they survived longer than other forms of humans. (textbook page 10)

# data[].attributes.headline
Were earlier forms of humans smarter than modern humans or not? (Hannah Cho, Connor Evans, Avery Choi, Olivia Hong) 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Were earlier forms of humans smarter than modern humans or not? (Hannah Cho, Connor Evans, Avery Choi, Olivia Hong) 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
Earlier forms of humans were not smarter than modern humans because they didn't have very advanced tools or clothing, and later on, as they evolved, they got stronger tools, better clothing, and created clothing. and as they evolved more and more, they got more advanced and smarter, which makes Homo sapiens the smartest.  (textbook page 16-17)

# data[].attributes.headline
Were earlier forms of humans smarter than modern humans or not? (Hannah Cho, Connor Evans, Avery Choi, Olivia Hong) 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Were earlier forms of humans smarter than modern humans or not? (Hannah Cho, Connor Evans, Avery Choi, Olivia Hong) 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
Earlier forms of humans were not smarter than modern humans because when they evolved, it changed their abilities, characteristics, their growth, and development. As their parents gave them genetic characteristics, overtime, these changes became common throughout population. That affected  their overall way of life, like what they eat, how they grow, and where they can live. That's how human evolution took place, and people got smarter as they evolved. (Ms. Miller's website: Smithsonian national museum of natural history: https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution)

# data[].attributes.headline
 What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien? By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.  Post 1/5.

# data[].attributes.subject
 What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien? By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.  Post 1/5.

# data[].attributes.body
Daily life for Homo Sapiens was very similar to modern life  in  certain ways but it was much more difficult than our life is today.

# data[].attributes.headline
  What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien? By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.   Post 2/5

# data[].attributes.subject
  What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien? By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.   Post 2/5

# data[].attributes.body
When Homo Sapiens woke up they got to hunting immediately. Both men and women would hunt, gather, and take care of children. They would do this until it got dark or it was time for dinner.
Source: History.com
(https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/stone-age)

# data[].attributes.headline
What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien?By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.   Post 3/5

# data[].attributes.subject
What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien?By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.   Post 3/5

# data[].attributes.body
The Homo Sapiens walked upright with 2 feet like us, allowing them to move similar to how we move today. They used fire and advanced tools to help them hunt and cook.
Source: History textbook, Chapter 1, pg. 9 of World  History and Geography.

# data[].attributes.headline
What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien? By: Shepard K. and Jordan D. Post 4/5

# data[].attributes.subject
What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien? By: Shepard K. and Jordan D. Post 4/5

# data[].attributes.body
At night when the homo sapiens ate dinner they ate many different kinds of food. They would also always cook the food that they ate. After they ate dinner they would meet up with friends and family to dance, tell stories, and play games. After that they would go to sleep awaiting the next day.
Source: History.com
(https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/stone-age)

# data[].attributes.headline
What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien?By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.   Post 5/5

# data[].attributes.subject
What was daily life like for the average Homo Sapien?By: Shepard K. and Jordan D.   Post 5/5

# data[].attributes.body
From what we know, Homo Sapiens had very similar brain and body sizes to modern humans. They had advanced languages and tools to help them survive. The Homo Sapiens adapted very well and were able to handle different temperatures. The Homo Sapiens were very good at adapting to their surroundings which helped them survive.
Source: History textbook, Chapter 1, pg. 10 of World History and Geography.

# data[].attributes.headline
What purpose did ancient tools pose and is there a possibility that there may have been extremely developed even long ago?(Evan M, Evan Y, Roy Y, Jessie C) 1/3

# data[].attributes.subject
What purpose did ancient tools pose and is there a possibility that there may have been extremely developed even long ago?(Evan M, Evan Y, Roy Y, Jessie C) 1/3

# data[].attributes.body
Some ancient tools are hammer stones, spears, hand axes, and sharp stones. These tools were all used for hunting, pounding, and crushing, giving access to new foods, such as nuts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Tools, New Foods

Dawn of technology
By 2.6 million years ago
Early humans in East Africa used hammerstones to strike stone cores and produce sharp flakes. For more than 2 million years, early humans used these tools to cut, pound, crush, and access new foods-including meat from large animals.

How Do We Know This Zebra Was Food?

Stone tool marks on this zebra bone look like those made during butchery experiments. Scientists have made experimental stone tools and used them to butcher modern animals. There is a strong similarity between the marks their tools made and the marks on fossil animal bones, indicating that early humans used stone tools to butcher animals by at least 2.6 million years ago.

Handaxes came in handy
Beginning 1.7 million years ago
Around this time, toolmakers began to strike huge flakes off stone cores. They shaped the large flakes into handaxes by striking smaller flakes all around the edges. These multipurpose tools dominated early human technology for more than a million years. Ancient handaxes have been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Learn more about them and other Early Stone Age tools.

Handaxe Makers Cope with Catastrophe

Smithsonian scientists and their Chinese colleagues found these handaxes in the same sediment layer with tektites, small rocks that formed during a meteor impact 803,000 years ago.

Since the handaxes and tektites were in the same layer, both are the same age. Early humans must have moved into the area right after the impact. They may have made the handaxes from rocks that were exposed when forests burned.

A huge meteor impact occurred in the atmosphere near China 803,000 years ago and the shock caused earth rocks to melt and explode, forming tektites. Widespread forest fires followed. Shortly after, humans moved into the barren landscape and scavenged for resources.

What's cooking?
By 790,000 years ago
Control of fire provided a new tool with several uses-including cooking, which led to a fundamental change in the early human diet. Cooking released nutrients in foods and made them easier to digest. It also rid some plants of poisons.

The earliest hearths are at least 790,000 years old. Some researchers think cooking may reach back more than 1.5 million years.

Hunting Large Animals

By at least 500,000 years ago, early humans were making wooden spears and using them to kill large animals.

Early humans butchered large animals as long as 2.6 million years ago. But they may have scavenged the kills from lions and other predators. The early humans who made this spear were hunting large animals, probably on a regular basis.

Reducing the risk

Hunting large animals was a risky business. Long spears like this one were thrust into an animal, enabling our ancestors to hunt from a somewhat safer distance than was possible with earlier weapons. Three wooden spears like the 400,000-year-old one illustrated here were found at Schöningen, Germany, along with stone tools and the butchered remains of more than 10 horses.

Oldest evidence of hunting

The semicircular wound on this fragment of a horse shoulder blade was made by a weapon such as a spear, indicating it was killed by early humans. Other horse bones from the same site have butchery marks from stone tools.

Explosion of technology
By 100,000 years ago
Eventually new kinds of tools replaced stone handaxes. Some were small or made of several parts. Some were made of bone, ivory, or antler. Over the past 100,000 years, as modern humans spread around the world, the pace of technological change accelerated-leading to today's extraordinary diversity of specialized tools.

Making clothing

Awls and perforators were probably invented in Africa and carried to colder climates, where they were used to pierce holes in clothing. Later, humans used bone and ivory needles to sew warm, closely fitted garments.

Carving and shaping

Burins are specialized stone flakes with sharp, chisel-like tips. Humans used them to work bone, antler, ivory, and wood and to carve designs and images on the surfaces of these materials.

Fishing

More than 70,000 years ago, humans in Central Africa used some of the earliest barbed points to spear huge prehistoric catfish weighing as much as 68 kg (150 lbs.), enough to feed 80 people for two days. Later, humans used harpoons to hunt large, fast marine mammals.

Hunting fast and dangerous prey

Spear-throwers provided leverage for hurling spears and darts greater distances with more speed and accuracy and with less chance of injury from prey. Stone or bone points, attached to spears or darts, enabled humans to exploit fast-moving prey like birds and large, dangerous prey like mammoths.

Storing things

Early humans may have made bags from skin long ago. By around 26,000 years ago, they were weaving plant fibers to make cords and perhaps baskets. About 20,000 years ago, in China, they began making pottery.

Chimps Make Tools, Too

Chimpanzees in Guinea used this stone anvil and hammerstone to crack open oil palm nuts, an energy-rich food. Nut cracking is one of the most sophisticated examples of chimpanzee tool use.(Specimen courtesy of Professor Tetsuro Matsuzawa, Kyoto University Primate Research Institute, Kyoto, Japan)

Researchers in Senegal observed a chimpanzee sharpen this stick and use it to spear bush babies sleeping inside tree hollows-the first time chimpanzees were observed using tools to hunt. (Specimen courtesy of Dr. Jill Pruetz, Iowa State University, Iowa)

Chimpanzees in Guinea use specially prepared sticks like this to "fish" for ants, a high-protein food. They make holes in the side of a nest, insert the stick, and pull it out-covered with ants. (Specimen courtesy of Dr. Kathelijne Koops and Dr. William McGrew, Cambridge University, England)

Benefits and Costs of Eating Meat

Benefits

- Meat is a concentrated source of calories, protein, fat, and nutrients.

- Unlike many plants, most meat does not naturally contain toxic chemicals; so it was a relatively safe food for early humans.

- Meat is more quickly digested than plants and does not require large guts, saving energy for the brain and other organs.

Costs

- Hunting and scavenging large animals is risky and less predictable than gathering plants.

- Dangerous animals competed with early humans to obtain meat.

- Meat spoils quickly and can contain tapeworms and other parasites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 2.6 million years ago Early humans in East Africa used hammerstones to strike stone cores and produce sharp flakes. For more than 2 million years, early humans used these tools to cut, pound, crush, and access new foods-including meat from large animals. Stone tool marks on this zebra bone look like those made during butchery experiments.

# data[].attributes.headline
What purpose did ancient tools pose and is there a possibility that there may have been extremely developed even long ago? (Evan M, Evan Y, Roy Y, Jessie C) 2/3

# data[].attributes.subject
What purpose did ancient tools pose and is there a possibility that there may have been extremely developed even long ago? (Evan M, Evan Y, Roy Y, Jessie C) 2/3

# data[].attributes.body
Even millions of years ago, early man had sophisticated tools, (of their time) that were used for many different and dangerous tasks. Even thousands of years before the creation of simple tools that exist in current human civilization, people had the necessities to survive. There were tools that may seem even more sophisticated than today's tools, made more easier to use with advanced mechanics and electricity. Early humans found ways to do the same things with less resources, with almost the same level of convenience.   ("World History and Geography: Ancient Civilizations" textbook)

# data[].attributes.headline
What purpose did ancient tools pose and is there a possibility that there may have been extremely developed even long ago? (Evan M, Evan Y, Roy Y, Jessie C) 3/3 -- Summary

# data[].attributes.subject
What purpose did ancient tools pose and is there a possibility that there may have been extremely developed even long ago? (Evan M, Evan Y, Roy Y, Jessie C) 3/3 -- Summary

# data[].attributes.body
Starting from very undeveloped and simple tools, early man utilized those tools for survival. As the years progressed, technology slowly advanced, humans making and improving more and more tools so they can live a better life. They used original and simpler tools to craft better and more complicated ones, having a more sophisticated and reasonable reason to do so. We can’t fully prove that some tools were more complicated than ours today, but evidence will be provided. There are many things modern humans didn’t discover about our early ancestors. ("World History and Geography: Ancient Civilizations" textbook6, history.com, Renzulli Learning, Salem Press)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Tools, New Foods

Dawn of technology
By 2.6 million years ago
Early humans in East Africa used hammerstones to strike stone cores and produce sharp flakes. For more than 2 million years, early humans used these tools to cut, pound, crush, and access new foods-including meat from large animals.

How Do We Know This Zebra Was Food?

Stone tool marks on this zebra bone look like those made during butchery experiments. Scientists have made experimental stone tools and used them to butcher modern animals. There is a strong similarity between the marks their tools made and the marks on fossil animal bones, indicating that early humans used stone tools to butcher animals by at least 2.6 million years ago.

Handaxes came in handy
Beginning 1.7 million years ago
Around this time, toolmakers began to strike huge flakes off stone cores. They shaped the large flakes into handaxes by striking smaller flakes all around the edges. These multipurpose tools dominated early human technology for more than a million years. Ancient handaxes have been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Learn more about them and other Early Stone Age tools.

Handaxe Makers Cope with Catastrophe

Smithsonian scientists and their Chinese colleagues found these handaxes in the same sediment layer with tektites, small rocks that formed during a meteor impact 803,000 years ago.

Since the handaxes and tektites were in the same layer, both are the same age. Early humans must have moved into the area right after the impact. They may have made the handaxes from rocks that were exposed when forests burned.

A huge meteor impact occurred in the atmosphere near China 803,000 years ago and the shock caused earth rocks to melt and explode, forming tektites. Widespread forest fires followed. Shortly after, humans moved into the barren landscape and scavenged for resources.

What's cooking?
By 790,000 years ago
Control of fire provided a new tool with several uses-including cooking, which led to a fundamental change in the early human diet. Cooking released nutrients in foods and made them easier to digest. It also rid some plants of poisons.

The earliest hearths are at least 790,000 years old. Some researchers think cooking may reach back more than 1.5 million years.

Hunting Large Animals

By at least 500,000 years ago, early humans were making wooden spears and using them to kill large animals.

Early humans butchered large animals as long as 2.6 million years ago. But they may have scavenged the kills from lions and other predators. The early humans who made this spear were hunting large animals, probably on a regular basis.

Reducing the risk

Hunting large animals was a risky business. Long spears like this one were thrust into an animal, enabling our ancestors to hunt from a somewhat safer distance than was possible with earlier weapons. Three wooden spears like the 400,000-year-old one illustrated here were found at Schöningen, Germany, along with stone tools and the butchered remains of more than 10 horses.

Oldest evidence of hunting

The semicircular wound on this fragment of a horse shoulder blade was made by a weapon such as a spear, indicating it was killed by early humans. Other horse bones from the same site have butchery marks from stone tools.

Explosion of technology
By 100,000 years ago
Eventually new kinds of tools replaced stone handaxes. Some were small or made of several parts. Some were made of bone, ivory, or antler. Over the past 100,000 years, as modern humans spread around the world, the pace of technological change accelerated-leading to today's extraordinary diversity of specialized tools.

Making clothing

Awls and perforators were probably invented in Africa and carried to colder climates, where they were used to pierce holes in clothing. Later, humans used bone and ivory needles to sew warm, closely fitted garments.

Carving and shaping

Burins are specialized stone flakes with sharp, chisel-like tips. Humans used them to work bone, antler, ivory, and wood and to carve designs and images on the surfaces of these materials.

Fishing

More than 70,000 years ago, humans in Central Africa used some of the earliest barbed points to spear huge prehistoric catfish weighing as much as 68 kg (150 lbs.), enough to feed 80 people for two days. Later, humans used harpoons to hunt large, fast marine mammals.

Hunting fast and dangerous prey

Spear-throwers provided leverage for hurling spears and darts greater distances with more speed and accuracy and with less chance of injury from prey. Stone or bone points, attached to spears or darts, enabled humans to exploit fast-moving prey like birds and large, dangerous prey like mammoths.

Storing things

Early humans may have made bags from skin long ago. By around 26,000 years ago, they were weaving plant fibers to make cords and perhaps baskets. About 20,000 years ago, in China, they began making pottery.

Chimps Make Tools, Too

Chimpanzees in Guinea used this stone anvil and hammerstone to crack open oil palm nuts, an energy-rich food. Nut cracking is one of the most sophisticated examples of chimpanzee tool use.(Specimen courtesy of Professor Tetsuro Matsuzawa, Kyoto University Primate Research Institute, Kyoto, Japan)

Researchers in Senegal observed a chimpanzee sharpen this stick and use it to spear bush babies sleeping inside tree hollows-the first time chimpanzees were observed using tools to hunt. (Specimen courtesy of Dr. Jill Pruetz, Iowa State University, Iowa)

Chimpanzees in Guinea use specially prepared sticks like this to "fish" for ants, a high-protein food. They make holes in the side of a nest, insert the stick, and pull it out-covered with ants. (Specimen courtesy of Dr. Kathelijne Koops and Dr. William McGrew, Cambridge University, England)

Benefits and Costs of Eating Meat

Benefits

- Meat is a concentrated source of calories, protein, fat, and nutrients.

- Unlike many plants, most meat does not naturally contain toxic chemicals; so it was a relatively safe food for early humans.

- Meat is more quickly digested than plants and does not require large guts, saving energy for the brain and other organs.

Costs

- Hunting and scavenging large animals is risky and less predictable than gathering plants.

- Dangerous animals competed with early humans to obtain meat.

- Meat spoils quickly and can contain tapeworms and other parasites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 2.6 million years ago Early humans in East Africa used hammerstones to strike stone cores and produce sharp flakes. For more than 2 million years, early humans used these tools to cut, pound, crush, and access new foods-including meat from large animals. Stone tool marks on this zebra bone look like those made during butchery experiments.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the Homo Sapiens communicate and what languages did they use? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the Homo Sapiens communicate and what languages did they use? 

# data[].attributes.body
Group 6: Zora Chou, Olivia Reed, Kate Martinez, & Lauren Park

Main Topic: The communication that the Homo Sapiens used while living and the language they used.

1 out of 5

# data[].attributes.headline
How Homo Sapiens communicated while trying to get food. (Group 6)

# data[].attributes.subject
How Homo Sapiens communicated while trying to get food. (Group 6)

# data[].attributes.body
Having the ability to communicate is almost one of the most necessary keys to survival. Without communication I doubt we could survive. However, the big question is how did Homo Sapiens communicate. After reading sources we gathered some information. When early men constantly gave signs to communicate over time they recognized these signs of grunts, screams, whines, etc. For an example when an Early man sees deers he would grunt. People would constantly make these noises too give out signs. Over time hunters soon learned to acknowledge warning signs for bad weather and such. Soon they grunt too symbolize bad weather and deers coming.

Source: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/language-evolve.htm

3 out of 5

# data[].attributes.headline
How the Homo Sapiens communicated overall. (Group 6)

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Homo Sapiens communicated overall. (Group 6)

# data[].attributes.body
They developed bigger brains and adapted better to their surroundings.  Homo Sapiens also had developed languages called the Proto-sinaitic alphabet or script. The languages that they spoke were more advanced than the other species. Homo Sapiens were able to learn and remember events and more. That’s why they were able to have better developed languages. Being able to communicate and think in a group is a skill that the other species didn’t have. Homo Sapiens also had the ability to imagine and plan they could think and cooperate well together. They were more creative than the other species. Passing down education and ways to make tools from generation to generation they had less difficulties with surviving. Acting as one large group, they hunted and defended themselves with more efficiency. They were also flexible and therefore adapted better. Today Homo Sapiens or Modern humans are the only hominin that are still surviving. Gestures, sounds, and drawings were vastly important as a use to Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens grew a large transformation over time. When it came to homo Sapiens ability to think and understand it had evolved a lot as well as their ways to think and remember. Homo Sapiens expertise to speak enhanced. They cultivated the ability to plan and use clues for strategic problems. They obtained the use of social skills needed for a group to think and act as one. These new developments have impacted the ability to adapt to different climates.

Source:
Impact California Social Studies Textbook

2 out of 5

# data[].attributes.body
The homo sapiens created the first cave drawings  and the first tortoise shell symbol drawings to communicate. They soon created the first Chinese symbols on tortoise shells and on small rocks.
4 out of 5
Group 6

# data[].attributes.headline
How the Homo Sapiens communicated on written sources (Group 6)

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Homo Sapiens communicated on written sources (Group 6)

# data[].attributes.body
While Homo Sapiens had communicated written sources had also been a large part in their environment. We find these sources of information by marks of ancient tombs, old calendars, and maps. Mostly surrounding something with any clue or something written on. These resources gave the ability for historians to make predictions of the past.

Source:

MAD - Chapter 3

5 out of 5

# data[].attributes.headline
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 1 of 4

# data[].attributes.subject
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 1 of 4

# data[].attributes.body
We figured out that women existed and that they played very important roles in the Stone Age, such as hunter-gatherers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 2 of 4

# data[].attributes.subject
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 2 of 4

# data[].attributes.body
Women played a major role in past societies, including gathering, doing chores, some hunting, and more.In addition, the population would have died out without women, because they are a necessity in reproducing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 3 of 4  

# data[].attributes.subject
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 3 of 4  

# data[].attributes.body
Lucy was found by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray on November 24, 1974, at the site of Hadar in Ethiopia. They spotted a right proximal ulna, forearm bone, skull bone, then a femur, some ribs, a pelvis, and the lower jaw. This identified quickly as a hominid. While they celebrated, they called her Lucy after the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds”. Evidence suggests that the Hadar material, as well as fossils from elsewhere in East Africa from the same time period, belong to a single, sexually dimorphic species known as Australopithecus afarensis. At Hadar, the size difference is very clear, the males are larger and the females are smaller. Lucy clearly fits into the smaller group, making it evident that she is a female.

# data[].attributes.headline
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 3 of 4 

# data[].attributes.subject
Did Women Help the Homo Sapiens Sapiens Survive?(Freya Bikel, Dailyn Plummer, Ashlyn Kim, Nola Lew) Post 3 of 4 

# data[].attributes.body
Women gathered most of the food in the Paleolithic era. Some of the things they gathered were plants, nuts, berries, seeds, and many other things. The women cooked the food the men hunted, they made their clothes out of animal furs, made accessories with bones, and took care of the children.

# data[].attributes.headline
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 1/4*

# data[].attributes.subject
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 1/4*

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: Early humans created cave art to record the group’s history in hunting or exploring, show their beliefs and religion, and to honor the animals they ate.

# data[].attributes.headline
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 2/4*

# data[].attributes.subject
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 2/4*

# data[].attributes.body
The ancient people used the pigment by grinding and rubbing a colored rock, and then making it into a fine colored powder and adding animal fat to it to create paint. They used their hands and sticks to apply it to the cave walls. (Later on, humans used animal hair instead of twigs and their body parts.) Colors were symbols by which they identified themselves and their group. The paintings such as the ones in the Lascaux caves are believed by scientists that they were finished about 20,000 years ago and took thousands of years to make colors and paint them.

Citation(s): Textbook- pg.19

Ancient Pigments | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

# data[].attributes.headline
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 3/4*

# data[].attributes.subject
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 3/4*

# data[].attributes.body
One stone plaque was carried into Apollo 11 Rock Shelter in Namibia where it was discovered in 1969 (When the first spacecraft - Apollo 11 - landed on the moon). Radiocarbon and other dating methods say that the cave layer that contained this plaque is between 60,000 and 40,000 years old.

Citation(s) Apollo 11 Plaque

# data[].attributes.headline
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 4/4*

# data[].attributes.subject
How and why did the Early humans create cave art and what were those symbols for? (Kelly J., Norah U., Reed K., and April K.)  Slide 4/4*

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why early humans used cave art is still unknown. Experts think the cave art was drawn to symbolize the importance of their beliefs and religions. They also believed that the cave art was used to “record the group’s history in hunting.” It was also used to mark symbols with which they identified themselves and their group as. With pigments, our ancestors marked objects to draw stories or to honor the animals for the food that they hunted and killed to eat.

Citation(s)Textbook- pg 18-19

# data[].attributes.headline
Why did the skull and facial features of early men change over time? (Ariana, Euna, Kaylee, Kailyn) 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Why did the skull and facial features of early men change over time? (Ariana, Euna, Kaylee, Kailyn) 1 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
The skull and facial features of early man changed as they learned and developed different skills and techniques, which caused their brain to grow larger  over time.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why did the skull and facial features of early men change over time? (Ariana, Euna, Kailyn, Kaylee) 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Why did the skull and facial features of early men change over time? (Ariana, Euna, Kailyn, Kaylee) 2 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
The Australopithecus Afaransis had a large unbalanced head. The Homo Habilis had a slightly more defined head then the A. Afaransis. The Homo Erectus developed a very similar skull compared to the modern brain, with a thicker skull and broader nose. In the end, Homo Sapiens Sapiens developed a large brain, bony ridges above the eyes, broad noses, and big, powerful chests. We found this information in Ms. Miller's History website (The Five Stages of Early Men.pptx)

# data[].attributes.headline
Why did skull and facial features of early men change over time? (Ariana, Euna, Kailyn, Kaylee) 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.subject
Why did skull and facial features of early men change over time? (Ariana, Euna, Kailyn, Kaylee) 3 of 3

# data[].attributes.body
Homo Sapiens were able to survive longer because they were able to learn new skills and techniques over time. By learning new language skills , learning from experiences, and being able to learn and remember things, they were able to carry that skill over to modern days, learning better and clearer. We got this from the textbook.

# data[].attributes.headline
How and why brain size increased - Julian Gerber and John Joo 

# data[].attributes.subject
How and why brain size increased - Julian Gerber and John Joo 

# data[].attributes.body
Human brain size increased during climate change. The more the brain size increases, the more early humans can interact with each other and their environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Encountering various environments and different continents led to an increase in body size, which then caused increased brain size.