DOCSLIB.ORG

Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's in a Name? | Learn Science at Scitable

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's in a Name? | Learn Science at Scitable 1/27/2020 Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's In A Name? | Learn Science at Scitable This page has been archived and is no longer updated price drop price drop price drop price drop price drop Clarks India HUMAN FOSSIL RECORD | Lead Editor: Holly Dunsworth Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's In A Name? By: Kieran P. McNulty (Evolutionary Anthropology Lab, University of Minnesota) © 2016 Nature Education Citation: McNulty, K. P. (2016) Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's In A Name? Nature Education Knowledge 7(1):2 At the most basic level, human evolution is articulated through classifications of, and evolutionary relationships among, hominin species. This article presents a basic taxonomy and phylogeny of hominins, but also further explores the factors that confound systematics in human evolution. Aa Aa Aa The practice of biological classification appeared early in the evolution of life: Is this safe to eat/not safe to eat? Is that a predator/not a predator? Are these potential mates/not potential mates? It is in our nature, then, to classify our surroundings. Within the context of biology this practice takes on special importance, as scientists from many biological disciplines work toward a single classification system that incorporates all organisms that have ever lived. Both the practice and the product of this grand biological classification are called taxonomy. The most widely used taxonomic system was formalized by Carolus Linnaeus and comprises a simple nested hierarchy wherein similar organisms group together at one taxonomic rank, and those groups cluster into successively broader groups at higher ranks. Figure 1 shows a taxonomy of human ancestors and their extant African ape relatives. This nested hierarchy allows different degrees of similarity to be represented at different ranks. Note, however, that Linnaean taxonomy predates modern evolutionary theory; whereas Linnaeus organized living organisms according to different levels of similarity, it was Darwin and others who explained these differing degrees of similarity through common ancestry. The more closely related two groups are, the more similarities they are likely to share. The series of evolutionary relationships among a group of organisms is termed phylogeny. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/hominin-taxonomy-and-phylogeny-what-s-in-142102877/ 1/8 1/27/2020 Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's In A Name? | Learn Science at Scitable Figure 1: Taxonomy for human ancestors. Linnaean ranks are listed across the top, with vertical lines to indicate the indentation of corresponding taxon names; ranks and taxa are also correlated by color. Ranks above the genus level include the proper taxon name (always starting with a capital letter) as well as the common name in parentheses. Hence, to refer to the group of African apes and humans, one could say either the Homininae or the hominines. The genus and species names (commonly called the "scientific name") are always written in italics, and the genus starts with a capital letter whereas the species is always lowercase. Note that the species name is never written alone, and thus each species is preceded by an abbreviation for its genus. Although nearly all workers recognize the close relationship between Homo and Pan, to the exclusion of Gorilla, there is not yet a broadly used taxonomic rank to demarcate this association. Courtesy of Kieran P. McNulty The Relationship Between Taxonomy and Phylogeny It is commonly understood that taxonomy should reflect phylogeny - organisms should be grouped according to their evolutionary history, their relatedness. This makes intuitive sense because common ancestry is the only factor that unites four billion years of life on Earth. This connection between taxonomy and phylogeny means that new discoveries or other data that change our understanding of evolutionary history often result in the shuffling of taxa and of taxonomic names. An excellent example of this shuffling is the change in usage of the term "hominid." Traditionally, only human ancestors were placed in the family Hominidae (and thereby referred to as hominids). This reflected a view that humans are substantially different from the great apes, which were placed in the Family Pongidae (pongids) (Figure 2a). However, overwhelming genetic evidence has since demonstrated that humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are much more closely related to each other than to the orangutan (e.g., Sarich, 1971; Caccone & Powell, 1989; Ruvolo, 1994). Thus, there is no genetic support for grouping the great apes together in a distinct group from humans. For this reason, many researchers now place all species of great ape and human within a single family, Hominidae - making them all proper "hominids" (Figure 2b). https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/hominin-taxonomy-and-phylogeny-what-s-in-142102877/ 2/8 1/27/2020 Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's In A Name? | Learn Science at Scitable Figure 2: Changing phylogeny of the apes and implications for taxonomy. (a) A traditional phylogeny of modern apes, where orangutans (Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees (Pan) were thought to be very closely related. In this scheme the lesser apes, gibbons and siamangs (Hylobates), are put into their own family of hylobatids; great apes are grouped together in the Pongidae (pongids), and only the human lineage was included in the Family Hominidae, the hominids. (b) This is a modern understanding of ape phylogeny, where the great apes no longer represent a distinct group from humans. Here, there is no support for a separate Family Pongidae and therefore great apes and their ancestors are grouped within the Family Hominidae. For this reason, the term "hominid" is now typically applied to all great ape and human species not merely the lineage of humans. Courtesy of Kieran P. McNulty Such taxonomic changes have downstream effects as well: African apes and humans are now distinguished from orangutans at the subfamily rank Homininae (hominines), and the human lineage is separated at an even lower rank of Tribe Hominini. Thus, the common term for the lineage of fossil and modern humans is "hominin." Furthermore, the traditional term "australopithecine," which grouped Australopithecus and Paranthropus in the subfamily Australopithecinae, becomes invalid under this revised taxonomy; in the context of Linnaean taxonomy, one cannot nestle a higher- ranked subfamily (Australopithecine) within a lower-ranked tribe (Hominini) (see Figure 1). On one hand, this change in terminology over the years illustrates the proper advancement of science, whereby new evidence about evolutionary history helps to refine our taxonomic models. However, the necessary linguistic shift has been slow to gain acceptance among some researchers. As well, the popularity of terms like “hominid” and “australopithecine,” which seeped into public awareness in the 1960s-70s, means these terms will likely persist in their traditional meanings for communicating with the public. Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny One model of hominin evolution is illustrated by the phylogeny in Figure 3, presented here as a vehicle for discussion rather than a robust hypothesis. An obvious point of contention is the status of the earliest hominins, known from only small isolated samples; relationships both among these species and to the later hominins are not yet resolved. And, while other branches of the human evolutionary tree are vigorously debated in the literature, the usual signposts of phylogenetic uncertainty (e.g., dashed lines, alternate branches, question marks) have been omitted from Figure 3 for simplicity. Instead, a few of these issues are highlighted below, specifically in the context of taxonomic and phylogenic obstacles: ancestry, variation, and biological complexity. Figure 3: A phylogeny of hominin species. Approximate geological age ranges are included for each. Black lines indicate a phylogenetic connection, though these relationships are proposed primarily for discussion and are not well-tested hypotheses. Several species are left unconnected https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/hominin-taxonomy-and-phylogeny-what-s-in-142102877/ 3/8 1/27/2020 Hominin Taxonomy and Phylogeny: What's In A Name? | Learn Science at Scitable due to the many possible ways in which they might related to the other species. The box highlights a section of the phylogeny that is used in Figure 3. Courtesy of Kieran P. McNulty Australopithecus and the problem of ancestry Five species of Australopithecus are recognized here, though new discoveries are likely to add to this number. There is good evidence that A. anamensis and A. afarensis represent evolution within a broad lineage (Kimbel et al., 2006), but other relationships in the genus are not well understood. It may be that the genus is an amalgamation of stem species that are not closely related (see below), though they seem to share a common adaptive grade. Most researchers would agree that both Paranthropus and Homo evolved from some Australopithecus-like ancestor(s), though which is still contentious. This idea of ancestry, however, presents difficulties for our efforts to match taxonomy to phylogeny. For example, if the phylogeny in Figure 3 were correct, then A. africanus and its descendants would be more closely related to the genus Homo than other species of Australopithecus; likewise, A. garhi would be more closely related to Paranthropus. How, then, can our taxonomy be made to reflect these evolutionary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Paleoanthropology Society Meeting Abstracts, Memphis, Tn, 17-18 April 2012
    PALEOANTHROPOLOGY SOCIETY MEETING ABSTRACTS, MEMPHIS, TN, 17-18 APRIL 2012 Paleolithic Foragers of the Hrazdan Gorge, Armenia Daniel Adler, Anthropology, University of Connecticut, USA B. Yeritsyan, Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography, ARMENIA K. Wilkinson, Archaeology, Winchester University, UNITED KINGDOM R. Pinhasi, Archaeology, UC Cork, IRELAND B. Gasparyan, Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography, ARMENIA For more than a century numerous archaeological sites attributed to the Middle Paleolithic have been investigated in the Southern Caucasus, but to date few have been excavated, analyzed, or dated using modern techniques. Thus only a handful of sites provide the contextual data necessary to address evolutionary questions regarding regional hominin adaptations and life-ways. This talk will consider current archaeological research in the Southern Caucasus, specifically that being conducted in the Republic of Armenia. While the relative frequency of well-studied Middle Paleolithic sites in the Southern Caucasus is low, those considered in this talk, Nor Geghi 1 (late Middle Pleistocene) and Lusakert Cave 1 (Upper Pleistocene), span a variety of environmental, temporal, and cultural contexts that provide fragmentary glimpses into what were complex and evolving patterns of subsistence, settlement, and mobility over the last ~200,000 years. While a sample of two sites is too small to attempt a serious reconstruction of Middle Paleolithic life-ways across such a vast and environmentally diverse region, the sites
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Foods and the Dietary Ecology of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans
    Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2014) 1e11 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Plant foods and the dietary ecology of Neanderthals and early modern humans Amanda G. Henry a,*, Alison S. Brooks b, Dolores R. Piperno c,d a Plant Foods in Hominin Dietary Ecology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103 Leipzig, Germany b Department of Anthropology, Center for Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, The George Washington University, 2110 G St NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA c Program in Human Ecology and Archaeobiology, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20013- 7012, USA d Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Box 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancon, Panama article info abstract Article history: One of the most important challenges in anthropology is understanding the disappearance of Nean- Received 3 February 2012 derthals. Previous research suggests that Neanderthals had a narrower diet than early modern humans, Accepted 22 December 2013 in part because they lacked various social and technological advances that lead to greater dietary variety, Available online xxx such as a sexual division of labor and the use of complex projectile weapons. The wider diet of early modern humans would have provided more calories and nutrients, increasing fertility, decreasing Keywords: mortality and supporting large population sizes, allowing them to out-compete Neanderthals. However, Phytolith this model for Neanderthal dietary behavior is based on analysis of animal remains, stable isotopes, and Starch grain Microfossil other methods that provide evidence only of animal food in the diet.
    [Show full text]
  • What's in a Neanderthal
    WHAT’S IN A NEANDERTHAL: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Taylorlyn Stephan Oberlin College Dept. of Anthropology Advised by Prof. Amy Margaris TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Abstract – pg. 3 II. Introduction – pg. 3-4 III. Historical Background – pg. 4-5 a. Fig. 1 – pg. 5 IV. Methods – pg. 5-8 a. Figs. 2 and 3 – pg. 6 V. Genomic Definitions – pg. 8-9 VI. Site Introduction – pg. 9-10 a. Fig 4 – pg. 10 VII. El Sidron – pg. 10-14 a. Table – pg. 10-12 b. Figs. 5-7 – pg. 12 c. Figs. 8 and 9 – pg. 13 VIII. Mezmaiskaya – pg. 14-18 a. Table – pg. 14-16 b. Figs. 10 and 11 – pg. 16 IX. Shanidar – pg. 18-22 a. Table – pg. 19-20 b. Figs. 12 and 13 – pg.21 X. Vindija – pg. 22-28 a. Table – pg. 23-25 b. Fig. 14 – pg. 25 c. Figs. 15-18 – pg. 26 XI. The Neanderthal Genome Project – pg. 28-32 a. Table – pg. 29 b. Fig. 19 – pg. 29 c. Figs. 20 and 21 – pg. 30 XII. Discussion – pg. 32- 36 XIII. Conclusion – pg. 36-38 XIV. Bibliography – pg. 38-42 2 ABSTRACT In this analysis, I seek to understand how three separate lines of evidence – skeletal morphology, archaeology, and genomics – are used separately and in tandem to produce taxonomic classifications in Neanderthal and paleoanthropological research more generally. To do so, I have selected four sites as case studies: El Sidrón Cave, Mezmaiskaya Cave, Shanidar Cave, and Vindija Cave. El Sidrón, Mezmaiskaya, and Vindija all have detailed archaeological records and have yielded Neanderthal DNA.
    [Show full text]
  • Abri Du Maras, France)
    Quaternary Science Reviews 82 (2013) 23e40 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary Science Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quascirev Impossible Neanderthals? Making string, throwing projectiles and catching small game during Marine Isotope Stage 4 (Abri du Maras, France) Bruce L. Hardy a,*, Marie-Hélène Moncel b, Camille Daujeard b, Paul Fernandes c, Philippe Béarez d, Emmanuel Desclaux e, Maria Gema Chacon Navarro b,f, Simon Puaud b, Rosalia Gallotti g a Dept. of Anthropology, Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022, USA b Département de Préhistoire, UMR 7194, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France c Paléotime, Villars de Lans, France d Département d’écologie et gestion de la biodiversité, UMR 7209, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France e Laboratoire de Préhistoire du Lazaret, Nice, France f IPHES (Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social), Tarragona, Spain g Université Bordeaux 1, UMR 5199 PACEA-PPP, Talence, France article info abstract Article history: Neanderthal behavior is often described in one of two contradictory ways: 1) Neanderthals were Received 10 June 2013 behaviorally inflexible and specialized in large game hunting or 2) Neanderthals exhibited a wide range Received in revised form of behaviors and exploited a wide range of resources including plants and small, fast game. Using stone 26 September 2013 tool residue analysis with supporting information from zooarchaeology, we provide evidence that at the Accepted 27 September 2013 Abri du Maras, Ardèche, France, Neanderthals were behaviorally flexible at the beginning of MIS 4. Here, Available online 26 October 2013 Neanderthals exploited a wide range of resources including large mammals, fish, ducks, raptors, rabbits, mushrooms, plants, and wood.
    [Show full text]
  • [Supplementary Material] Engraved
    [Supplementary material] Engraved bones from the archaic hominin site of Lingjing, Henan Province Zhanyang Li1,2, Luc Doyon1,3, Hao Li4,5, Qiang Wang1, Zhongqiang Zhang1, Qingpo Zhao1,2 & Francesco d’Errico3,6,* 1 Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, 27 Shanda Nanlu, Hongjialou District, Jinan 250100, China 2 Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 9 3rd Street North, LongHai Road, Guancheng District, Zhenzhou 450000, China 3 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR 5199—PACEA, Université de Bordeaux, Bât. B18, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS 50023, 33615 Pessac CEDEX, France 4 Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 142 Xizhimenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100044, China 5 CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, 142 Xizhimenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100044, China 6 SFF Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapienCE), University of Bergen, Øysteinsgate 3, Postboks 7805, 5020, Bergen, Norway * Author for correspondence (Email: [email protected]) 1 OSM 1. Early engravings from Africa and Eurasia Table S1. Early engravings from Europe, Asia and Africa (modified from Majkić et al. 2018a, 2018b). Archaeological Cultural Country Continent Material Age (kya) Reference site attribution Apollo 11 Namibia Africa Bone MSA 71 (Vogelsang et al. 2010) South Ochre; (Henshilwood et al. 2002; Blombos Africa MSA 100–75 Africa Bone 2009) South (d’Errico et al. 2012b; Border Cave Africa Bone ELSA 44–42 Africa d’Errico et al. 2018) South Diepkloof Africa OES MSA 65–55 (Texier et al. 2010) Africa South Klasies River Africa Ochre MSA 100–85 (d’Errico et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins
    BOOK REVIEW published: 28 May 2021 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702361 Book Review: Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins Petar Gabric´ * Institute for German Linguistics, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg an der Lahn, Germany Keywords: language evolution, Neanderthals, Paleolithic, Neanderthal language, cognitive archaeology A Book Review on Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins Rudolf Botha (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2020, 209 pages, ISBN (hardback): 978-1- 108-49132-7 Recently, we have witnessed an explosion of studies and discussions claiming that Neanderthals engaged in a range of “symbolic” behaviors, including personal ornament use (Radovciˇ c´ et al., 2015), funerary practices (Balzeau et al., 2020), visual arts (Hoffmann et al., 2018), body aesthetics (Roebroeks et al., 2012), etc. In Paleolithic archaeology, it has become mainstream to axiomatically infer from these putative behaviors that Neanderthals engaged in symbol use and that Neanderthals thus possessed some form of language. Rudolf Botha’s bombastic title Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins provides a detailed and very critical overview of the archaeological hypotheses and speculations about Neanderthal language. Because language does not fossilize, eventual linguistic abilities of extinct hominins have to be inferred from indirect evidence. In the first two chapters, Botha introduces this “windows approach” to language evolution and proposes three conditions that should be met for window inferences to be sound. The inferences and conclusions must be pertinent—the phenomenon referred to (i.e., language) should be accurately identified, properly grounded in data about Edited and reviewed by: the window phenomenon, and warranted—the inferential step from the window phenomenon Antonio Benítez-Burraco, to language evolution should be justified.
    [Show full text]
  • Neanderthal Behavioral Modernity and Symbolic Capabilities
    Field Notes: A Journal of Collegiate Anthropology Volume 7 Article 5 2015 Neanderthal Behavioral Modernity and Symbolic Capabilities Liam McGill Harvard University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/fieldnotes Recommended Citation McGill, Liam (2015) "Neanderthal Behavioral Modernity and Symbolic Capabilities," Field Notes: A Journal of Collegiate Anthropology: Vol. 7 , Article 5. Available at: https://dc.uwm.edu/fieldnotes/vol7/iss1/5 This Current Debate is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Field Notes: A Journal of Collegiate Anthropology by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neanderthal Behavioral Modernity and Symbolic Capabilities Liam McGill Harvard University, Harvard College Abstract: In recent years, the distinction between anatomically modern hu- mans (AMHs) and Neanderthals has come into question in light of genetic evidence that suggests they interbred. Some claim that this distinction can be maintained by delineating anatomical, developmental, and behavioral differ- ences between the two species. This paper examines the body of evidence for and against behavioral modernity in Neanderthals by using their capacity for symbolic thought as a proxy for modern behavioral capabilities. Evidence for colorant usage, personal ornamentation, symbolic etchings, and interactions between AMHs and Neanderthals supports the hypothesis that Neanderthals were capable of symbolic thought and thus possessed a behavioral modernity similar to that of early AMHs. The emergence of these behaviors seems to be closely tied to cultural/demographic explanations rather than genetic/ cognitive explanations and suggests promising opportunities for future re- search.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf Barsky, D., De Lombera-Hermida, A., Carbonell, E
    Ecosistemas 27(1): 77-86 [Enero-Abril 2018] Doi.: 10.7818/ECOS.1440 Artículo publicado en Open Access bajo los términos AEET de Creative Commons attribution Non Comercial License 3.0. eREVIScTA CoIENTÍFsICA DiEs ECOLtOGeÍA Y MmEDIO AaMBIENs TE ASOCIACIÓN ESPAÑOLA MONOGRÁFICO: Paleoecología, analizando la cuarta dimensión ISSN 1697-2473 / Open access DE ECOLOGÍA TERRESTRE de la biodiversidad disponible en www.revistaecosistemas.net Cada cosa en su lugar. Neandertales y modelos de ocupación en la plataforma interfluvial Manzanares-Jarama a lo largo del Pleistoceno superior C. Torres 1, *, J. Baena 1 (1) Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Campus Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid * Autor de correspondencia: C. Torres Navas [[email protected]] > Recibido el 15 de mayo de 2017 - Aceptado el 30 de agosto de 2017 Torres, C., Baena, J. 2018. Cada cosa en su lugar. Neandertales y modelos de ocupación en la plataforma interfluvial Manzanares-Jarama a lo largo del Pleistoceno superior. Ecosistemas 27(1): 77-86. Doi.: 10.7818/ECOS.1440 En este trabajo presentamos un estudio regional con el que pretendemos realizar una aproximación a los modelos de explotación que sobre distintos ecosistemas, emplearon los grupos humanos a lo largo del Pleistoceno superior en la región madrileña. Esta región se caracteriza no solo por pre - sentar abundantes recursos de distinta naturaleza y en especial abióticos, sino también por su variada geografía caracterizada por los contrastes ecológicos existentes entre las zonas pre-montañosas del pie de monte del Sistema Central, las zonas de cuenca de los principales ríos, los depósitos de terrazas ligados a rampas próximas a éstos, así como las plataformas interfluviales con un claro dominio de los materiales miocénicos.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review: “Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins” by Rudolf Botha
    Book review: “Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins” by Rudolf Botha Petar Gabrića a Institute for German Linguistics, Philipps University of Marburg, Pilgrimstein 16, 35032 Marburg an der Lahn, Germany, email: petar.gabric1, petar.gabric12 Word count: 1176 (excluding references) 1 @uni-marburg.de 2 @gmail.com A Book Review on Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins Rudolf Botha (Cambridge University Press), 2020, 209 pages, ISBN (hardback): 978-1-108-49132-7 Recently, we have witnessed an explosion of studies and discussions claiming that Neanderthals engaged in a range of “symbolic” behaviors, including personal ornament use (Radovčić et al. 2015), funerary practices (Balzeau et al. 2020), visual arts (Hoffmann et al. 2018), body aesthetics (Roebroeks et al. 2012), etc. In Palaeolithic archaeology, it has become mainstream to axiomatically infer from these putative behaviors that Neanderthals engaged in symbol use and that Neanderthals thus possessed some form of language. Rudolf Botha’s bombastic title Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins provides a detailed and very critical overview of the archaeological hypotheses and speculations about Neanderthal language. Because language does not fossilize, eventual linguistic abilities of extinct hominins have to be inferred from indirect evidence. In the first two chapters, Botha introduces this “windows approach” to language evolution and proposes three conditions that should be met for window inferences to be sound. The inferences and conclusions must be pertinent – the phenomenon referred to (i.e., language) should be accurately identified –, properly grounded in data about the window phenomenon, and warranted – the inferential step from the window phenomenon to language evolution should be justified.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimentation and Scientific Inference Building in the Study of Hominin Behavior Through Stone Artifact Archaeology
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2014 Experimentation and Scientific Inference Building in the Study of Hominin Behavior through Stone Artifact Archaeology Sam Chieh-Heng Lin University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons Recommended Citation Lin, Sam Chieh-Heng, "Experimentation and Scientific Inference Building in the Study of Hominin Behavior through Stone Artifact Archaeology" (2014). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1346. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1346 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1346 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Experimentation and Scientific Inference Building in the Study of Hominin Behavior through Stone Artifact Archaeology Abstract Since the beginning of prehistoric archaeology, various methods and approaches have been developed to describe and explain stone artifact variability. However, noticeably less attention has been paid to the ontological nature of stone artifacts and the adequateness of the inferential reasoning for drawing archaeological interpretations from these artifacts. This dissertation takes a scientific perspective to rethink critically the ways that current lithic approaches generate knowledge about past hominin behavior from stone artifacts through experimentation (Chapter 2), and further, to explore the use of controlled experiments and uniformitarian principles for deriving inferences. The latter is presented as two case studies about Late Pleistocene Neanderthal behavior in southwestern France (Chapter 3 & 4). Archaeological reasoning is inescapably analogical, and archaeological knowledge is bound to be established on the basis on modern observations. However, simplistic treatments of archaeological analogs often result in inferences of questionable validity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecological and Evolutionary Significance of Neanderthal Healthcare
    This is a repository copy of Living to fight another day : The ecological and evolutionary significance of Neanderthal healthcare. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/134559/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Spikins, Penny orcid.org/0000-0002-9174-5168, Needham, Andrew, Wright, Barry John Debenham orcid.org/0000-0002-8692-6001 et al. (3 more authors) (2019) Living to fight another day : The ecological and evolutionary significance of Neanderthal healthcare. Quaternary Science Reviews. pp. 98-118. ISSN 0277-3791 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.08.011 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Living to fight another day: The ecological and evolutionary significance of Neanderthal healthcare Submission to Quaternary Science Reviews Special Issue: Neanderthal Ecology and Evolution (Callname: CarrionNEANDER) *Penny Spikins1, Andrew Needham1, Barry Wright2, Calvin Dytham3, Maurizio Gatta1, Gail Hitchens1 1 PALAEO Research Centre in Human Evolution and Palaeoecology and Department of Archaeology, University of YORK, UK 2 Hull York Medical School and Department of Health Sciences, University of York, YORK, UK 3 Department of Biology, University of York, YORK, UK *Corresponding author Abstract Evidence of care for the ill and injured amongst Neanderthals, inferred through skeletal evidence for survival from severe illness and injury, is widely accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review Evol Anthrop 2011 Condemi
    Evolutionary Anthropology 20:198–200 (2011) BOOK REVIEW tus/ergaster, are ancestors of all of their H. heidelbergensis predecessors Neanderthal News: us. Why is it that the Neanderthals in showing abundant evidence of are, as Trinkaus and Shipman1 aptly controlled use of fire. Faunal remains Extinct Species put it, ‘‘images of ourselves’’? from Neanderthal sites preserve evi- Homo neanderthalensis lived in dence of a broad diet that included Exhibits Variability western Eurasia between 250-30 Ka. birds, fish, shellfish, reptiles, and Most of their habitation sites and small mammals, as well as large ter- Continuity and Discontinuity in the fossils are associated with faunas restrial mammals ranging from ga- Peopling of Europe: One Hundred and from temperate woodland and steppe zelle and ibex to aurochs, bison, rhi- Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study, habitats. The limits of their eastern nos, and mammoths. As among sites Volume 1. Edited by S. Condemi and G.- C. Weniger (2011) New York: Springer. range are unclear, with the southern- of roughly contemporaneous H. sapi- 398 pp. $139.00 (hardcover) ISBN: 978- most fossils coming from Israel and ens, there are occasional finds of 94-007-0491-6 the easternmost from Uzbekistan. mineral pigments, perforated shells, Neanderthal crania are distinct in modified bone tools, burials (some- Neanderthal Lifeways, Subsistence and featuring a divided brow-ridge, pro- times with mortuary furnishings), Technology: One Hundred and Fifty nounced mid-facial prognathism, a and occasional evidence of cannibal- Years of Neanderthal Study, Volume 2. Edited by N.J. Conard (2011) New York: projecting occipital bone, and teeth ism (inferred from cut-marks and Springer.
    [Show full text]