DOCSLIB.ORG

Australopithecus Afarensis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Australopithecus Afarensis Paleoanthropology The study of human origins and evolution, focuses on the tiny fraction of geologic time during which humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. Some Common Misconceptions • Human ancestors were chimpanzees – Chimpanzees and humans represent two divergent branches of the hominoid tree that evolved from a common ancestor that was neither a chimpanzee nor a human. Some Common Misconceptions • Human evolution is like a ladder with a series of steps leading directly from an ancestral hominoid to Homo sapiens. •At times in hominid history, several different human species coexisted. •Human phylogeny is more like a multibranched bush than a ladder, our species being the tip of the only twig that still lives. 0 Paranthropus Homo ? robustus ergaster 0.5 Paranthropus boisei 1.0 Homo 1.5 Australopithecus sapiens africanus Homo 2.0 Australopithecus neanderthalensis afarensis 2.5 Homo 3.0 Australopithecus erectus anamensis 3.5 Homo habilis 4.0 Kenyanthropus platyops 4.5 Ardipithecus 5.0 ramidus 5.5 6.0 Orrorin tugenensis 6.5 Sahelanthropus tchadensis 7.0 D.3.6: State that, at various stages in hominid evolution, several species may have coexisted. Hominid Evolution: the current view A modern view of human evolution maintains that it has occurred as a series of adaptive Megadonts radiations. African apes Early Bipedal Apes Time (millions (millions of years) Time Diversity Hominid Evolution: the current view The 1st radiation: is that of the early bipedal apes – including the gracile Australopithecines. Megadonts African apes Early Bipedal Apes Time (millions (millions of years) Time Diversity Hominid Evolution: the current view The 2nd radiation: involved the robust Australopithecines, a group of species that exploited low-grade vegetable food Megadonts sources (nuts, root tubers and seeds) African apes resulting in species Early Bipedal with very large teeth Apes (megadont). (millions of years) Time Diversity Hominid Evolution: the current view 3rd radiation: is genus Homo, developing a larger brain, diversifying, and Megadonts dispersing from Africa to other African apes Early parts of the Old Bipedal Apes World. (millions of years) Time Diversity Hominid Evolution: the current view 4th radiation: does not involve any major evolutionary Megadonts divergence, but reflects the African apes dispersal of Early Bipedal modern humans Apes worldwide. (millions of years) Time Diversity Genus Homo Neanderthals became extinct Modern humans Hominid about 35,000 arose 150,000 to Holocene years ago 100,000 years ago 0 Homo Homo sapiens Evolution neanderthalensis 0.5 Many human Robust Australopithecines 'prototypes' exist regionally Archaic A greatly Homo sapiens 1 simplified Pleistocene Split by some into depiction of Homo erectus and Homo ergaster Homo erectus Paranthropus hominid Paranthropus robustus 2 boisei Split by some into evolution. Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis Homo habilis (1470 skull) Paranthropus aethiopicus Uncertainty as to whether present Million beforeyears Australopithecus A. africanus was a direct 3 ? africanus human ancestor A. afarensis ('Lucy') is the earliest currently known human ancestor Pliocene Australopithecus A second sub-species afarensis (A.r. kadabba) 5.2-5.8 mya Possible hominid 4 near hominid/ape split at 6.0 mya ? Genus Homo ? ? Australopithecus Genus Australopithecus anamensis Orrorin Genus Paranthropus Ardipithecus tugenensis ramidus ramidus 6.0 mya 5 The Hominid Fossils *We will only discuss a small selection of hominid fossils. There are others that time does not allow us to include. There are 7 species of hominid for which we need to be familiar… Ardipithicus ramidus Date 4.4-5.8 mya Brain Size 300-350 cc Height c. 1.22 m Physique Possibly bipedal forest dweller. Little else known. Skull shape Foramen magnum more forward than apes Teeth and Teeth intermediate jaws between earlier apes and later hominids. Reduced canine teeth. Smaller, narrow molars; thinner jaw. Distribution Eastern Africa Reading: Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found Reading: Meet the new human family (Ardi section…) Australopithecines are divided into two groups Learn about us first! A. africanus A. boisei Gracile, small boned ape-like forms Robust, ape-like forms (A. africanus, A. afarensis) (A. boisei, A. robustus) RADIATION #1 RADIATION #2 Australopithecus afarensis Date 3.9-2.5 mya Brain Size 400-500 cc Height 1.07 – 1.52 m Physique Light build. Bipedal. Some apelike features: relatively long arms, curved fingers, sexual dimorphism* Skull shape Apelike face, low forehead, bony brow ridge, flat nose, no chin Teeth and Canines smaller than apes, jaws larger than humans. Jaw shape half way between an ape and human * Some researchers claim such differences in height suggest two separate species, not sexual Distribution Eastern Africa dimorphism. Jaw shape half way Sexual dimorphism between V-shape of in the canine teeth ape's and U-shape (a primitive trait) of human jaw Shoulder joint that is orientated Chest (thorax) towards the head is funnel- shaped Relatively long arms compared to legs Wrist has high mobility Finger bones Relatively are curved short legs Ankle joint is Toes are long highly mobile and curved Redrawn from a photograph by © David L. Brill 1985 Australopithecus afarensis Small brain (410cc) Low forehead Brow ridge Large, dish- shaped face Wide midface Flat nose Big, ape-like Little of the skull is incisor behind the foramen Diastema magnum (gap) Large, thickly Canines larger enameled molars than in humans A Modern Human Skull (for comparison) Australopithecus africanus Date 3.0-2.3 mya Brain Size 400-500 cc Height 1.1 – 1.4 m Physique Light build. Probably long arms, more „human‟ features, probably less sexual dimorphism than A. afarensis Skull shape Brow ridges less prominent; higher forehead and shorter face. Teeth and Teeth and jaws much jaws larger than in humans; shape of jaw fully parabolic as in humans; canine teeth further reduced Distribution Southern Africa Australopithecus africanus Small brain (450cc) same size as gorilla's but organization is No sagittal crest different from an ape's Brow ridge Low facial angle Lower face protrudes forward into a snout Very large molars compared with (prognathism) modern humans (not shown here) A Modern Human Skull (for comparison) Australopithecines are divided into two groups Now learn about us (even if IB doesn‟t care about us!) A. africanus A. boisei Gracile, small boned ape-like forms Robust, ape-like forms (A. africanus, A. afarensis) (A. boisei, A. robustus) RADIATION #1 RADIATION #2 A. robustus A. boisei A. aethiopicus Australopithecus robustus (AKA Paranthropus) Date 2.2 – 1.5 mya Brain Size 530 cc Height 1.1 – 1.3 m Physique Heavy build. Relatively long arms. Moderate sexual dimorphism. Skull shape Long, broad, flat face. Crest on top of skull. Moderate facial buttressing. Teeth and jaws Thick jaw, small incisors and canines. Large molars. Distribution Southern Africa A. robustus Very prominent sagittal crest for the attachment of powerful jaw muscles Small brain (530cc) Heavy brow ridge Part of the rear and top of this skull is missing Low facial angle Massive zygomatic arch and cheek bones Little of the skull is behind the foramen magnum Small incisors (missing in this specimen) Massive molars with thick enamel are well worn suggesting a tough A Modern Human Skull vegetarian diet (for comparison) Genus Homo Homo habilis Homo neanderthalensis Homo ergaster Homo erectus Archaic Homo sapiens Homo sapiens Homo habilis Date 2 – 1.6 mya Brain Size 500-800 cc Height 1.0 – 1.5 m Physique Robust but “human” skeleton Skull shape Small face with developed nose Teeth and Narrow molars. jaws Distribution Eastern and Southern Africa Homo habilis Bigger brain Rounded cranium with no sagittal crest (650-680cc) Bulge in the Broca's area Brow ridge of the brain for speech production Smaller, narrower face than the australopithecines Flat nose Projecting jaw More of the skull is behind (prognathism) the foramen magnum Tooth row displays a Jaw is less massive than modern curve, with in the australopithecines narrow molars A Modern Human Skull (for comparison) Homo erectus Date 1.8 – 0.3 mya Brain Size 750 - 1250 cc Height 1.3 – 1.5 m Physique Robust but “human” skeleton Skull shape Flat, thick skull with sagittal “keel” and large brow ridge Teeth and Smaller teeth than H. jaws habilis Distribution Africa, Asia, Indonesia and possibly Europe Homo erectus Bulge in the Broca's Bigger brain Long, flattened cranium with a area of the brain for Earliest: 750cc distinctive keel along the top speech production Latest: 1250cc Bulge in Wernicke's Shelving area of the brain for forehead speech recognition Thick brow ridge Flat face Occipital lobe Projecting (bun-like swelling) jaw Attachment for strong neck muscles to stop the head from sagging forward Teeth are smaller than A Modern Human Skull H. habilis, but more No chin (for comparison) massive than our own In Europe, H. erectus gave rise to the Neanderthals Homo neanderthalensis Date 150,000 – 30,000 ya Brain Size 1250 – 1750 cc Height 1.5 – 1.7 m Physique Robust but “human” skeleton, adapted for cold. Skull shape Reduced brow ridge, midface projection, long low skull Teeth and Similar to H. sapiens, jaws larger jaw Distribution Europe and western Asia Key 30,000 years ago Atlantic Ocean 30,000–35,000 years ago 35,000 years ago Original discovery Approximate range of Neanderthals Europe Neander Valley Black Sea Mediterranean Sea Africa Homo neanderthalensis Large brain (1600cc) Low, long cranium Larger
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hands-On Human Evolution: a Laboratory Based Approach
    Hands-on Human Evolution: A Laboratory Based Approach Developed by Margarita Hernandez Center for Precollegiate Education and Training Author: Margarita Hernandez Curriculum Team: Julie Bokor, Sven Engling A huge thank you to….. Contents: 4. Author’s note 5. Introduction 6. Tips about the curriculum 8. Lesson Summaries 9. Lesson Sequencing Guide 10. Vocabulary 11. Next Generation Sunshine State Standards- Science 12. Background information 13. Lessons 122. Resources 123. Content Assessment 129. Content Area Expert Evaluation 131. Teacher Feedback Form 134. Student Feedback Form Lesson 1: Hominid Evolution Lab 19. Lesson 1 . Student Lab Pages . Student Lab Key . Human Evolution Phylogeny . Lab Station Numbers . Skeletal Pictures Lesson 2: Chromosomal Comparison Lab 48. Lesson 2 . Student Activity Pages . Student Lab Key Lesson 3: Naledi Jigsaw 77. Lesson 3 Author’s note Introduction Page The validity and importance of the theory of biological evolution runs strong throughout the topic of biology. Evolution serves as a foundation to many biological concepts by tying together the different tenants of biology, like ecology, anatomy, genetics, zoology, and taxonomy. It is for this reason that evolution plays a prominent role in the state and national standards and deserves thorough coverage in a classroom. A prime example of evolution can be seen in our own ancestral history, and this unit provides students with an excellent opportunity to consider the multiple lines of evidence that support hominid evolution. By allowing students the chance to uncover the supporting evidence for evolution themselves, they discover the ways the theory of evolution is supported by multiple sources. It is our hope that the opportunity to handle our ancestors’ bone casts and examine real molecular data, in an inquiry based environment, will pique the interest of students, ultimately leading them to conclude that the evidence they have gathered thoroughly supports the theory of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Skeleton Male Or Female? the Pelvis Tells the Story
    Activity: Is the Skeleton Male or Female? The pelvis tells the story. Distinct features adapted for childbearing distinguish adult females from males. Other bones and the skull also have features that can indicate sex, though less reliably. In young children, these sex-related features are less obvious and more difficult to interpret. Subtle sex differences are detectable in younger skeletons, but they become more defined following puberty and sexual maturation. What are the differences? Compare the two illustrations below in Figure 1. Female Pelvic Bones Male Pelvic Bones Broader sciatic notch Narrower sciatic notch Raised auricular surface Flat auricular surface Figure 1. Female and male pelvic bones. (Source: Smithsonian Institution, illustrated by Diana Marques) Figure 2. Pelvic bone of the skeleton in the cellar. (Source: Smithsonian Institution) Skull (Cranium and Mandible) Male Skulls Generally larger than female Larger projections behind the Larger brow ridges, with sloping, ears (mastoid processes) less rounded forehead Square chin with a more vertical Greater definition of muscle (acute) angle of the jaw attachment areas on the back of the head Figure 3. Male skulls. (Source: Smithsonian Institution, illustrated by Diana Marques) Female Skulls Smoother bone surfaces where Smaller projections behind the muscles attach ears (mastoid processes) Less pronounced brow ridges, Chin more pointed, with a larger, with more vertical forehead obtuse angle of the jaw Sharp upper margins of the eye orbits Figure 4. Female skulls. (Source: Smithsonian Institution, illustrated by Diana Marques) What Do You Think? Comparing the skull from the cellar in Figure 5 (below) with the illustrated male and female skulls in Figures 3 and 4, write Male or Female to note the sex depicted by each feature.
    [Show full text]
  • A Description of the Geological Context, Discrete Traits, and Linear Morphometrics of the Middle Pleistocene Hominin from Dali, Shaanxi Province, China
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 150:141–157 (2013) A Description of the Geological Context, Discrete Traits, and Linear Morphometrics of the Middle Pleistocene Hominin from Dali, Shaanxi Province, China Xinzhi Wu1 and Sheela Athreya2* 1Laboratory for Human Evolution, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China 2Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 KEY WORDS Homo heidelbergensis; Homo erectus; Asia ABSTRACT In 1978, a nearly complete hominin Afro/European Middle Pleistocene Homo and align it fossil cranium was recovered from loess deposits at the with Asian H. erectus.Atthesametime,itdisplaysa site of Dali in Shaanxi Province, northwestern China. more derived morphology of the supraorbital torus and It was subsequently briefly described in both English supratoral sulcus and a thinner tympanic plate than and Chinese publications. Here we present a compre- H. erectus, a relatively long upper (lambda-inion) occi- hensive univariate and nonmetric description of the pital plane with a clear separation of inion and opis- specimen and provide comparisons with key Middle thocranion, and an absolute and relative increase in Pleistocene Homo erectus and non-erectus hominins brain size, all of which align it with African and Euro- from Eurasia and Africa. In both respects we find pean Middle Pleistocene Homo. Finally, traits such as affinities with Chinese H. erectus as well as African the form of the frontal keel and the relatively short, and European Middle Pleistocene hominins typically broad midface align Dali specifically with other referred to as Homo heidelbergensis.Specifically,the Chinese specimens from the Middle Pleistocene Dali specimen possesses a low cranial height, relatively and Late Pleistocene, including H.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Poster
    Sutural Variability in the Hominoid Anterior Cranial Fossa Robert McCarthy, Monica Kunkel, Department of Biological Sciences, Benedictine University Email contact information: [email protected]; [email protected] SAMPLE ABSTRACT Table 2. Results split by age. Table 4. Specimens used in scaling analyses. Group Age A-M434; M555 This study Combined In anthropoids, the orbital plates of frontal bone meet at a “retro-ethmoid” Species Symbol FMNH CMNH USNM % Contact S-E S-E S-E % % % frontal suture in the midline anterior cranial fossa (ACF), separating the contact/n contact/n contact/n presphenoid and mesethmoid bones. Previous research indicates that this Hylobatid 0 0 23 13.0 Hylobatid Adult 0/6 0 4/13 30.8 4/19 21.1 configuration appears variably in chimpanzees and gorillas and infrequently in modern humans, with speculation that its incidence is related to differential Juvenile 0/2 0 3/10 30.0 3/12 25.0 Orangutan 6 0 37 100.0 growth of the brain and orbits, size of the brow ridges or face, or upper facial Combined 0/9 0 7/23 30.4 7/32 21.9 prognathism. We collected qualitative and quantitative data from 164 Gorilla 3 0 4 28.6 previously-opened cranial specimens from 15 hominoid species in addition to A Orangutan Adult 12/12 100.0 21/21 100.0 21/21 100.0 Chimpanzee 1 0 7 57.1 qualitative observations on non-hominoid and hominin specimens in order to Juvenile 13/13 100.0 13/13 100.0 13/13 100.0 (1) document sutural variability in the primate ACF, (2) rethink the evolutionary trajectory of frontal bone contribution to the midline ACF, and Combined 26/26 100.0 34/34 100.0 34/34 34/34 Human 0 83 0 91.8 (3) create a database of ACF observations and measurements which can be Gorilla Adult 3/7 42.9 1/2 50.0 3/7 42.9 used to test hypotheses about structural relationships in the hominoid ACF.
    [Show full text]
  • AP Skull Measurement Guide, Laminate
    Skull Measurement Guide L – Length of the brain case: Position three rulers as shown in photograph 1 below. Ruler 1 should stand perpendicular to the table, and rest at the back of the skull. Ruler 2 should also stand perpendicular to the table, but rest on top of the skull, just behind the brow ridge. If a brow ridge is not present, align the ruler against the forehead in the same perpendicular orientation (imagine it flat against your forehead). Ruler 3 should rest on the highest point of the cranium, making sure that it is parallel with the table. Once all 3 rulers are in place, read the distance on Ruler 3 between the 2 upright rulers in mm (see photograph 2 below). Record your data in the first column labeled “L”. Skull length measurements for two different species: View from the side (left), view from the top (right). H – Height of the brain case: Without moving the 3 rulers from your measurement of Length, read the height of the skull off Ruler 1 (at the back of the skull) in mm (also see photographs below). Record your data in the first column labeled “H”. Skull height measurement: view from the side for two different species – note: upright ruler in the front of skull is removed. Skull Measurement Guide W – Width of the brain case: Position 3 rulers as shown in the photographs below. Rulers 1 and 2 should stand perpendicular to the table and flat against the skull (imagine 2 rulers flat against where the ears would be positioned).
    [Show full text]
  • Artifacts and Commingled Skeletal Remains from a Well on the Medical College of Virginia Campus: Appendices Douglas W
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Office of the President Documents VCU University Archives 6-18-2012 Artifacts and Commingled Skeletal Remains from a Well on the Medical College of Virginia Campus: Appendices Douglas W. Owsley Smithsonian Institution Karin Bruwelheide Smithsonian Institution Merry Outlaw Archaeological and Cultural Solutions Richard L. Jantz University of Tennessee-Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/arch001 Downloaded from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/arch001/5 This Research Report is brought to you for free and open access by the VCU University Archives at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Office of the President Documents by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Appendix I. Artifact Catalog C o Site Art Manf Form u Ware Material Color Remarks ID Id Tech n t Flat, everted lip, rolled in; pinched in neck; cylindrical body; slightly 44HE Mouth 001 Jar 28 Glass Colorless domed base with rough 814 Blown pontil on exterior; base dia.: 5 3/4"; 28 fragments Translucent white fabric; glossy white glaze; interior underglaze 44HE Ch Blue and Wheel- 002 Saucer 1 Porcelain cobalt blue decoration 814 Porcelain White Thrown consisting of hanging dots above diaper motif; ca. 1785-1820 Translucent white fabric; colorless glaze; interior hand painted overglaze 44HE Ch Wheel- decoration consisting of 003 Bowl 1 Porcelain Polychrome 814 Porcelain Thrown horizontal lines of black
    [Show full text]
  • The Frontal Bone As a Proxy for Sex Estimation in Humans: a Geometric
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2014 The frontal bone as a proxy for sex estimation in humans: a geometric morphometric analysis Lucy Ann Edwards Hochstein Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Hochstein, Lucy Ann Edwards, "The frontal bone as a proxy for sex estimation in humans: a geometric morphometric analysis" (2014). LSU Master's Theses. 1749. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/1749 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FRONTAL BONE AS A PROXY FOR SEX ESTIMATION IN HUMANS: A GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRIC ANALYSIS A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Anthropology in The Department of Geography and Anthropology By Lucy A. E. Hochstein B.A., George Mason University, 2009 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completing a master’s thesis was the most terrifying aspect of graduate school and I must acknowledge the people and pets that helped me on this adventure. I could not have asked for a better committee chair than Dr. Ginny Listi, who stuck by me when everything fell apart and was always willing to offer support and help me find solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Eyebrow Peak Position Redefined © 2010 the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc
    Facial Surgery Aesthetic Surgery Journal 30(3) 297 –300 Eyebrow Peak Position Redefined © 2010 The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Inc. Reprints and permission: http://www .sagepub.com/ journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1090820X10369918 Sylvia Pham; Bradon Wilhelmi, MD; and Arian Mowlavi, MD www.aestheticsurgeryjournal.com Abstract Background: The aesthetically appealing eyebrow shape has been defined by its arch, located near the junction between the medial two-thirds and lateral one-third. The position of this arch has been historically described by arbitrary anatomical landmarks that have no logical structural relationship. Moreover, selection of endoscopic brow lift incision sites that define vector of pull and fixation points have been variably described. Objectives: The authors examine the position of the deep temporal fusion line to determine whether it can act as a more accurate and functional landmark than prior anatomical landmarks for the eyebrow peak position. Methods: Eyebrows were measured in 50 subjects from the medial aspect of the eyebrow to the a) deep temporal fusion line (ridge), b) eyebrow peak (arch), c) lateral aspect of the brow, and d) lateral limbus. Pearson's correlation, descriptive statistics, and student's t test results were obtained. Results: Eyebrow measurements demonstrated that the deep temporal fusion line is the most precise indicator of brow peak position among all examined landmarks. The Pearson correlation value was strongest between brow peak and deep temporal fusion line (P = .860) and a t test confirmed this observation with no significant difference between brow peak and deep temporal fusion line. The lateral limbus and medial two-thirds lateral one- third junction more accurately predict brow peak in females, but the deep temporal fusion line is an equally reliable predictor of brow peak for males and females.
    [Show full text]
  • Windsor Mound by Karin Anderson and Michael Lindeen Edited by Karin Anderson August 30, 1990 Archaeological Resources Management
    windsor Mound by Karin Anderson and Michael Lindeen edited by Karin Anderson August 30, 1990 Archaeological Resources Management Service Ball state University -- Acknowledgements Thanks to Mike Lindeen for providing me access to his data. Thanks to Dr. Glenn of Ball state University for help with the measurements and advice. Thanks to Don Cochran for his patience and guidance. Special thanks to Jeff McCoy without whose technical assistance this would have been handwritten. Thanks to Dallas Evans and Amy Johnson for their expertise. i - Table of contents Introduction - Windsor Mound 1 Historical Background 2 Methodology 3 cranial Descriptions 5 Summary of Cranial Descriptions 16 Conclusion 17 References Cited 19 Appendix A - Blank Data Form 21 Appendix B - Cranial Measurements 27 Cranial Indices 29 Cranial Observations 32 Table 1. Sex and Age 36 Appendix C - Photographs 38 Appendix D - Ceramic Analysis 45 Illustration 46 Appendix E - Faunal Analysis 48 Appendix F - Lithic Analysis 50 ii Windsor Mound (12-R-1) is presently located in a small wooded area, surrounded by agricultural lands. It is one of the largest mounds in east-central Indiana, fifteen feet high and over 100 feet across the base (Cochran field notes on file, ARMS). Approximately one-third of this impressive and important mound remains unexcavated, to date. This report is an attempt to extract information from the Windsor materials on loan to Ball State University's Archaeological Laboratory. To this end, the human skeletal material was inventoried and measurements, observations and photographs were taken. The ceramics were inventoried, identified and illustrated where necessary. The faunal material was identified where that was possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaic Human Remains from Hualongdong, China, and Middle Pleistocene Human Continuity and Variation
    Archaic human remains from Hualongdong, China, and Middle Pleistocene human continuity and variation Xiu-Jie Wua,b, Shu-Wen Peia,b,1, Yan-Jun Caic,d,e,1, Hao-Wen Tonga,b, Qiang Lia,b, Zhe Donga,b,f,g, Jin-Chao Shengh, Ze-Tian Jinh, Dong-Dong Maa,b,f, Song Xinga,b, Xiao-Li Lii, Xing Chengc,f, Hai Chenge,j, Ignacio de la Torrek, R. Lawrence Edwardsj, Xi-Cheng Gongg, Zhi-Sheng Anc,d, Erik Trinkausl,1, and Wu Liua,b,1 aKey Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100044 Beijing, China; bCAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100044 Beijing, China; cState Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 710061 Xi’an, China; dCAS Center for Excellence in Quaternary Science and Global Change, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 710061 Xi’an, China; eInstitute of Global Environmental Change, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 710049 Xi’an, China; fUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100049 Beijing, China; gAnhui Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 230061 Hefei, China; hOffice for Cultural Relics Administration of Dongzhi County, 247200 Dongzhi, China; iBeijing Museum of Natural History, 100050 Beijing, China; jDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; kInstitute of Archaeology, University College London, WC1H 0PY London, United Kingdom; and lDepartment of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 Contributed by Erik Trinkaus, March 25, 2019 (sent for review February 12, 2019; reviewed by Sheela Athreya and Christopher J.
    [Show full text]
  • Skull Anatomy
    Skull Anatomy Cranial Capacity (braincase size) – cranium minus the face; may or may not indicate the level of intelligence (Intelligence is determined by overall size of the organism, where it lives, and the level of brain development.) Post-orbital Construction – the narrowing of the braincase behind the eye orbits; the orbit is the eye socket Sagittal Crest – ridge on top of the cranium for attachment of chewing muscles; runs down the middle of the top of the head; seen in predators that chase and bring down prey Forehead – frontal bone (A vertical forehead indicates an expanded frontal lobe, which is used for planning, reasoning, judgement, future consequences from current actions.) Foramen Magnum – the opening in the base of the skull where the spinal cord enters (The location indicates whether an organism is bipedal or quadruped.) Brow Ridge – bony ridge over the eye orbit (This reinforces weaker bones of the face due to strong chewing muscles.) Facial Prognathism – forward projection of the jaws and teeth beyond the cheek bone (A less forward projection indicates a reduction in tooth size due to a change in diet and cooked food. Chin angle relates to this.) Chin – slopes backward without a point or forward with a pointed end Dental Arcade – shape of the teeth row when viewed from above (U-shaped or parabolic- shaped) Teeth – Incisors – for cutting Canines – for tearing Molars – for grinding Canine Diastema – gap between the upper incisors and canines, and lower canines and premolars (the diastema is either present or absent to accommodate the canine from the opposite jaw) .
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Morphological Integration in Modern Human Crania: Evaluating Hypotheses of Modularity Using Geometric Morphometrics
    PATTERNS OF MORPHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION IN MODERN HUMAN CRANIA: EVALUATING HYPOTHESES OF MODULARITY USING GEOMETRIC MORPHOMETRICS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Adam Kolatorowicz Graduate Program in Anthropology The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Jeffrey K. McKee, Advisor Paul W. Sciulli Samuel D. Stout Mark Hubbe Copyrighted by Adam Kolatorowicz 2015 ABSTRACT This project examines patterns of phenotypic integration in modern human cranial morphology using geometric morphometric methods. It is theoretically based in the functional paradigm of craniofacial growth and morphological integration. The hypotheses being addressed are: 1) cranial form is influenced by secular trends, sex, and phylogenetic history of the population and 2) integration patterns wherein the basicranium is the keystone feature best explains the relationships among in cranial modules. Geometric morphometric methods were used to collect and analyze three- dimensional coordinate data of 152 endocranial and ectocranial landmarks from 391 anatomically modern human crania. These crania are derived from temporally historic and recent groups in the United States spanning both sexes and across several ancestral groups. Landmark data were subjected to generalized Procrustes analysis and then areas of shape variation were identified via principal components analysis of shape coordinates. Discriminant function analysis and canonical variate analysis identified regions that can be used to separate groups. Temporal period, ancestry, and sex all have significant effects on mean shape. Age-at-death accounts for a small proportion of the total variation. Modern individuals have higher, narrower vaults with highly arched palates ii and historic individuals have short, wider vaults with shallower palates.
    [Show full text]