DOCSLIB.ORG

Re-Interpreting the Evidence for Bipedality in Homo Floresiensis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Re-Interpreting the Evidence for Bipedality in Homo Floresiensis Research Letters South African Journal of Science 103, September/October 2007 409 bipedalism’, and, on this basis, concluded that Homo habilis Re-interpreting the evidence should be excluded from the genus. More recent analyses of the approximately 6-million-year-old Orrorin tugenensis fossils have, for bipedality in Homo however, found this species’ femur to be morphologically more floresiensis like that of modern humans than australopithecines,4 which led Pickford et al.5 to conclude that Orrorin was a habitual biped. If this deduction is correct, the story of the evolution of bipedalism ‡ Maria B. Blaszczyk* and Christopher L. Vaughan* and its place in classificatory schemes is likely to change. The unveiling in October 2004 of the remains of a pygmy-sized hominin recovered from a cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia, has sparked an intense series of debates, and the issue of how to 6–9 The unveiling in October 2004 of the remains of a pygmy-sized classify the specimen is one of the major controversies. In 10 hominin recovered from a cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia, describing the skeleton, catalogued as LB1, Brown et al. diag- sparked an intense series of debates within the palaeoanthro- nosed it to be a new species of Homo, and thus gave it the name pology community. The discoverers diagnosed it to be a new Homo floresiensis. Although many experts support the taxonomic species of Homo, which they called Homo floresiensis, and they decision of Brown and his colleagues, others have challenged 8 interpreted the postcranial morphology as being ‘consistent with their interpretation and offered alternative theories. These human-like obligate bipedalism’. We have examined the morphology include the view that the primitive characteristics of LB1’s anat- with the aim of determining whether biomechanical evidence omy suggest an ancestor such as Homo habilis, or that it might 6 supports the claim that this hominin—known as LB1—was indeed perhaps be an offshoot of Australopithecus. habitually bipedal. LB1’s innominate bone differs from that of So what led Brown and colleagues to place LB1 in the genus modern humans through the marked lateral flaring of the ilium, Homo? Although they acknowledged that the LB1 skeleton while her femur has a small head and a relatively long neck. showed a mosaic of primitive and derived traits, and were Although these features are also found in australopithecines and impressed by the characteristics LB1 shared with early hominins are commonly regarded as ‘primitive’ traits, we concluded that such as the australopithecines, they concluded that ‘the facial none would have prevented her from exhibiting an efficient, bipedal and dental proportions, postcranial anatomy consistent with gait. Having established that LB1 walked on two legs, we employed human-like obligate bipedalism, and a masticatory apparatus the principle of dynamic similarity to speculate how she might have most similar in relative size and function to modern humans all 10 walked. Assuming the gait of LB1 was dynamically similar to that of support assignment to the genus Homo.’ The recreation of the 11 modern Homo sapiens, we used known dimensionless parameters, LB1 skeleton in the illustrative pose in National Geographic is cer- together with her leg length (0.55 m), to estimate her fundamental tainly suggestive of a bipedal gait (see Fig. 1). The interpretation of gait parameters: step length = 0.45 m, step frequency = 2.48 the postcranial morphology as being ‘consistent with human- steps/second and speed = 1.11 m/s. Our review has provided like obligate bipedalism’ is thus one of the major pillars upon 10 insights regarding the way in which LB1 and her fellow diminutive which the claim by Brown et al. rests. hominins walked about the island of Flores over 18 000 years ago. Features of the postcranial skeleton of Homo floresiensis The recovery of the LB1 skeleton took place during an archaeo- logical excavation at Liang Bua, Flores, in September 2003.12 The Introduction recovered elements of the postcranial skeleton included a fairly One of the key traits that separate hominins from all other complete right leg and left innominate bone of the pelvis and primates is the habitual use of a bipedal gait. Humans are the less complete left leg, hands and feet. The vertebral column, only extant species in the hominin group, and our bipedality is sacrum, scapulae, clavicles and ribs were represented only by the most distinctive adaptation from our closest living relatives, fragments, while the arms were reported more recently.13 1, 2 the anthropoid apes. This single characteristic is seen to be Describing the postcranial elements, Brown et al.10 noted that, such a defining feature that skeletal adaptations to bipedalism ‘in common with all bipedal hominins, the iliac blade is short and are frequently used to identify our extinct hominin ancestors wide.’ That is where their discussion of LB1’s bipedality began and relatives, and attempts at classification of these extinct and ended. They went on to describe the marked lateral flare species are often made on the basis of these adaptations. Wood of the ilium, whose blade would have projected more laterally and Collard,3 for example, have proposed that the fossil relative to the plane of the acetabulum than in modern humans hominins be divided into two groups on the basis of locomotor (Fig. 2), before going on to discuss the anatomy of the femur inferences that have been made from their postcranial morphol- (Fig. 3). They asserted that the femur’s overall anatomy was ogies. The first group displayed a form of terrestrial bipedalism most consistent with the broad range of variation found in Homo combined with an ability to climb proficiently, thus employing a sapiens, with, for example, strong development of the inter- mixed strategy, and include Praeanthropus, Australopithecus, and trochanteric crest as is characteristically found in our species.10 Homo habilis. The second group, consisting of Homo erectus, Homo However, they also described the biomechanical neck length of ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis, was com- the femur (55.5 mm) as being long relative to the femoral head mitted to modern human-like terrestrial bipedalism, with a very diameter (31.5 mm), a feature of the australopithecines and early 3 limited arboreal facility. Wood and Collard furthermore argued Homo (Table 1). They noted that several indices of femoral size that a fossil species should be included in the Homo genus only if and shape—the relationship between femoral head size and it met the criteria of ‘a postcranial skeleton whose functional midshaft circumference (66 mm), and femoral length (280 mm) morphology is consistent with modern human-like obligate and sub-trochanteric shaft size (525 mm2)—fell within the chimpanzee and australopithecine range of variation.10,14 Their *Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory 7925, South Africa. description of the tibia showed that the relationship between the ‡Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email protected] midshaft cross section (347 mm2) and the length of the tibia 410 South African Journal of Science 103, September/October 2007 Research Letters 100 locomotor behaviours. Apes are, however, largely arboreal and thus the basic mechanical conditions of climbing in trees can be related to their skeletal anatomy.1 The most obvious require- ment for a bipedal gait is an upright posture, which in turn requires that the centre of mass (CoM) of the body remain directly over the rectangular area formed by the supporting feet. This explains, for example, why chimpanzees, when walk- ing bipedally, do so with a bent-hip/bent-knee (BHBK) gait.16 A BHBK gait is fatiguing if significant distances are walked,17 whereas the ‘stiff-legged’ gait of humans allows for an effective exchange of gravitational potential and kinetic energy, which minimizes energy consumption.18,19 Morphological features that allow extension of the lower limb joints during locomotion, such as the lumbar lordosis, are consequently seen to be indicators of a bipedal gait. The ape pelvis displays several features common to other quadrupeds, such as ischial corpora that are elongated, and ilial 50 cm blades that lie mostly in the coronal plane.20 The ape’s long ischium is adapted to power the hip in extension by giving the hamstrings a long moment arm, while the lengthened ilium provides gluteus medius and minimus with great fibre length, which is mechanically advantageous for quadrupedal locomo- tion and during climbing.1 In contrast, the human pelvis is short, squat and basin-shaped. The human ilium is unique among primates by virtue of the fact that it is wider than it is high,15 thus eliminating any restrictive contact between the ilia and the lower lumbar vertebrae20 and facilitating bipedal posture. Another exclusively human feature is the greater sciatic notch on the sacral margin of the ilium, created by retroflexion of the ilium, and resulting in a far greater angle between the ilium and the ischium than that seen in apes. This allows the trunk to be held upright without compromising the biomechanical relation- ship between the ischium and the femur.15 0 Differences in the morphology of the femur in humans and apes include the degree of obliquity of the femoral shaft, its Fig. 1. The recovered bones of Homo floresiensis have been assembled in this mediolateral curvature and cortical thickness, and the relative locomotor pose by an artist, clearly suggesting that LB1 displayed a human-like size of the femoral condyles. The latter three parameters reflect bipedal gait. This figure has been redrawn from the original colour illustration in National Geographic.11 the difference in weight transfer during quadrupedal versus bipedal locomotion.15 In humans the knee joint is closer to the (235 mm) was in the chimpanzee range of variation, and distinct mid-line of the body, and placement of the feet facilitates a from Homo.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Homo Erectus Infancy and Childhood the Turning Point in the Evolution of Behavioral Development in Hominids
    10 Homo erectus Infancy and Childhood The Turning Point in the Evolution of Behavioral Development in Hominids Sue Taylor Parker In man, attachment is mediated by several different sorts of behaviour of which the most obvious are crying and calling, babbling and smiling, clinging, non-nutritional sucking, and locomotion as used in approach, following and seeking. —John Bowlby, Attachment The evolution of hominid behavioral ontogeny can be recon - structed using two lines of evidence: first, comparative neontological data on the behavior and development of living hominoid species (humans and the great apes), and second, comparative paleontolog- ical and archaeological evidence associated with fossil hominids. (Although behavior rarely fossilizes, it can leave significant traces.) 1 In this chapter I focus on paleontological and neontological evi - dence relevant to modeling the evolution of the following hominid adaptations: (1) bipedal locomotion and stance; (2) tool use and tool making; (3) subsistence patterns; (4) growth and development and other life history patterns; (5) childbirth; (6) childhood and child care; and (7) cognition and cognitive development. In each case I present a cladistic model for the origins of the characters in question. 2 Specifically, I review pertinent data on the following widely recog - nized hominid genera and species: Australopithecus species (A. afarensis , A. africanus , and A. robustus [Paranthropus robustus]) , early Homo species (Australopithecus gahri , Homo habilis , and Homo rudolfensis) , and Middle Pleistocene Homo species (Homo erectus , Homo ergaster , and others), which I am calling erectines . Copyrighted Material www.sarpress.org 279 S UE TAYLOR PARKER Table 10.1 Estimated Body Weights and Geological Ages of Fossil Hominids _______________________________________________________________________ Species Geologic Age Male Weight Female Weight (MYA) (kg) (kg) _______________________________________________________________________ A.
    [Show full text]
  • Neither Chimpanzee Nor Human, Ardipithecus Reveals the Surprising Ancestry of Both Tim D
    SPECIAL FEATURE: PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE SPECIAL FEATURE: Neither chimpanzee nor human, Ardipithecus reveals the surprising ancestry of both Tim D. Whitea,1, C. Owen Lovejoyb, Berhane Asfawc, Joshua P. Carlsona, and Gen Suwad,1 aDepartment of Integrative Biology, Human Evolution Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; bDepartment of Anthropology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242–0001; cRift Valley Research Service, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; and dThe University Museum, The University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku Tokyo 113-0033, Japan Edited by Neil H. Shubin, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, and approved September 10, 2014 (received for review April 25, 2014) Australopithecus fossils were regularly interpreted during the late 20th century in a framework that used living African apes, especially chimpanzees, as proxies for the immediate ancestors of the human clade. Such projection is now largely nullified by the discovery of Ardipithecus. In the context of accumulating evidence from genetics, developmental biology, anatomy, ecology, biogeography, and geology, Ardipithecus alters perspectives on how our earliest hominid ancestors—and our closest living relatives—evolved. human evolution | Australopithecus | hominid | Ethiopia “...the stock whence two or more species have chimpanzees, can serve as adequate repre- (5). Indeed, a widely used textbook still pro- sprung, need in no respect be intermediate sentations of the ancestral past. claims that, “Overall, Au. afarensis seems very between those species.” much like a missing link between the living Background T. H. Huxley, 1860 (1) Africanapesandlaterhomininsinitsdental, ’ Darwin s human evolution scenario attemp- cranial, and skeletal morphology” (6). Charles Darwin famously suggested that ted to explain hominid tool use, bipedality, Australopithecus can no longer be legiti- Africa was humanity’s most probable birth enlarged brains, and reduced canine teeth (2).
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanics of Bipedalism: an Exploration of Skeletal Morphology and Force Plate Anaylsis Erin Forse May 04, 2007 a Senior Thesis
    MECHANICS OF BIPEDALISM: AN EXPLORATION OF SKELETAL MORPHOLOGY AND FORCE PLATE ANAYLSIS ERIN FORSE MAY 04, 2007 A SENIOR THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN- LA CROSSE Abstract There are several theories on how humans learned to walk, and while these all address the adaptations needed for walking, none adequately describes how our early ancestors developed the mechanism to walk. Our earliest recognizable relatives, the australopithecines, have several variations on a theme: walking upright. There are varied changes as australopithecines approach the genus Homo. These changes occurred in the spine, legs, pelvis, and feet, and changes are also in the cranium, arms and hands, but these are features that may have occurred simultaneously with bipedalism. Several analyses of Australopithecus afarensis, specifically specimen A.L. 288-1 ("Lucy"), have shown that the skeletal changes are intermediate between apes and humans. Force plate analyses are used to determine if the gait pattern of humans resembles that of apes, and if it is a likely development pattern. The results of both these analyses will give insight into how modern humans developed bipedalism. Introduction Bipedalism is classified as movement of the post-cranial body in a vertical position, with the lower limbs shifting as an inverted pendulum, progressing forward. Simply, it is upright walking. Several theories have addressed why bipedalism evolved in hominids, with some unlikely ideas taking hold throughout the history of the issue. Other theories are more likely, but all lack the same characteristic: answering how bipedalism developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin and the Recent African Origin of Modern Humans
    EDITORIAL Darwin and the recent African origin of modern humans Richard G. Klein1 Program in Human Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 n this 200th anniversary of When Darwin and Huxley were ac- The Course of Human Evolution Charles Darwin’s birth and tive, many respected scientists sub- In the absence of fossils, Darwin could the 150th anniversary of the scribed to the now discredited idea that not have predicted the fundamental pat- publication of his monumen- human races represented variably tern of human evolution, but his evolu- Otal The Origin of Species (1859) (1), it evolved populations of Homo sapiens. tionary theory readily accommodates seems fitting to summarize Darwin’s The original Neanderthal skull had a the pattern we now recognize. Probably views on human evolution and to show conspicuous browridge, and compared the most fundamental finding is that the how far we have come since. Darwin with the skulls of modern humans, it australopithecines, who existed from at famously neglected the subject in The was decidedly long and low. At the same least 4.5 million to 2 million years ago, Origin, except near the end where he time, it had a large braincase, and Hux- were distinguished from apes primarily noted only that ‘‘light would be thrown ley regarded it as ‘‘the extreme term of by anatomical specializations for habit- on the origin of man and his history’’ by a series leading gradually from it to the ual bipedalism, and it was only after 2 the massive evidence he had compiled highest and best developed of [modern] million years ago that people began to for evolution by means of natural selec- human crania.’’ It was only in 1891 that acquire the other traits, including our tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Craniofacial Morphology of Homo Floresiensis: Description, Taxonomic
    Journal of Human Evolution 61 (2011) 644e682 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Craniofacial morphology of Homo floresiensis: Description, taxonomic affinities, and evolutionary implication Yousuke Kaifu a,b,*, Hisao Baba a, Thomas Sutikna c, Michael J. Morwood d, Daisuke Kubo b, E. Wahyu Saptomo c, Jatmiko c, Rokhus Due Awe c, Tony Djubiantono c a Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Nature and Science, 4-1-1 Amakubo, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki Prefecture Japan b Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan c National Research and Development Centre for Archaeology, Jl. Raya Condet Pejaten No 4, Jakarta 12001, Indonesia d Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia article info abstract Article history: This paper describes in detail the external morphology of LB1/1, the nearly complete and only known Received 5 October 2010 cranium of Homo floresiensis. Comparisons were made with a large sample of early groups of the genus Accepted 21 August 2011 Homo to assess primitive, derived, and unique craniofacial traits of LB1 and discuss its evolution. Prin- cipal cranial shape differences between H. floresiensis and Homo sapiens are also explored metrically. Keywords: The LB1 specimen exhibits a marked reductive trend in its facial skeleton, which is comparable to the LB1/1 H. sapiens condition and is probably associated with reduced masticatory stresses. However, LB1 is Homo erectus craniometrically different from H. sapiens showing an extremely small overall cranial size, and the Homo habilis Cranium combination of a primitive low and anteriorly narrow vault shape, a relatively prognathic face, a rounded Face oval foramen that is greatly separated anteriorly from the carotid canal/jugular foramen, and a unique, tall orbital shape.
    [Show full text]
  • Verhaegen M. the Aquatic Ape Evolves
    HUMAN EVOLUTION Vol. 28 n.3-4 (237-266) - 2013 Verhaegen M. The Aquatic Ape Evolves: Common Miscon- Study Center for Anthropology, ceptions and Unproven Assumptions About Mechelbaan 338, 2580 Putte, the So-Called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis Belgium E-mail: [email protected] While some paleo-anthropologists remain skeptical, data from diverse biological and anthropological disciplines leave little doubt that human ancestors were at some point in our past semi- aquatic: wading, swimming and/or diving in shallow waters in search of waterside or aquatic foods. However, the exact sce- nario — how, where and when these semi-aquatic adaptations happened, how profound they were, and how they fit into the KEY WORDS: human evolution, hominid fossil record — is still disputed, even among anthro- Littoral theory, Aquarboreal pologists who assume some semi-aquatic adaptations. theory, aquatic ape, AAT, Here, I argue that the most intense phase(s) of semi-aquatic Archaic Homo, Homo erectus, adaptation in human ancestry occurred when populations be- Neanderthal, bipedalism, speech longing to the genus Homo adapted to slow and shallow littoral origins, Alister Hardy, Elaine diving for sessile foods such as shellfish during part(s) of the Morgan, comparative biology, Pleistocene epoch (Ice Ages), possibly along African or South- pachyosteosclerosis. Asian coasts. Introduction The term aquatic ape gives an incorrect impression of our semi-aquatic ancestors. Better terms are in my opinion the coastal dispersal model (Munro, 2010) or the littoral theory of human evolution, but although littoral seems to be a more appropriate biologi- cal term here than aquatic, throughout this paper I will use the well-known and common- ly used term AAH as shorthand for all sorts of waterside and semi-aquatic hypotheses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Homo Floresiensis Cranium (LB1): Size, Scaling, and Early Homo Affinities
    The Homo floresiensis cranium (LB1): Size, scaling, and early Homo affinities Adam D. Gordon*, Lisa Nevell, and Bernard Wood Department of Anthropology, Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology, The George Washington University, 2110 G Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20052 Edited by David Pilbeam, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved February 8, 2008 (received for review October 22, 2007) The skeletal remains of a diminutive small-brained hominin found to endocranial size (as it scales with body size) (3, 5, 6, 11) and in Late Pleistocene cave deposits on the island of Flores, Indonesia brain component size (as they scale with endocranial size) (14), were assigned to a new species, Homo floresiensis [Brown P, et al. but, to date, no study has considered the scaling of cranial vault (2004) A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of shape and cranial size when assessing morphological similarity Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431: 1055–1061]. A dramatically different between LB1, modern humans, and fossil hominins. Because the interpretation is that this material belongs not to a novel hominin LB1 cranium is so small relative to modern humans and most taxon but to a population of small-bodied modern humans af- fossil Homo, morphological analyses must take into account how fected, or unaffected, by microcephaly. The debate has primarily cranial shape scales with cranial size because this relationship focused on the size and shape of the endocranial cavity of the type may not be isometric. However, care must be taken when doing specimen, LB1, with less attention being paid to the morphological this, because LB1 falls well outside the size range used to evidence provided by the rest of the LB1 cranium and postcranium, generate regression slopes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bipedal Hominins
    INTRODUCTION Although captive chimpanzees, bonobos and other great apes have acquired some of the features of There is fairly general agreement that language is a language, including the use of symbols to denote uniquely human accomplishment. Although other objects or actions, they have not displayed species communicate in diverse ways, human anything like recursive syntax, or indeed any language has properties that stand out as special. degree of generativity beyond the occasional 4 The most obvious of these is generativity -the ability combining of symbols in pairs. To quote Pinker, to construct a potentially infinite variety of they simply don’t “get it.” This suggests that the sentences, conveying an infinite variety of common ancestor of humans and chimpanzee was meanings. Animal communication is by contrast almost certainly bereft of anything we might stereotyped and restricted to particular situations, consider to be true language. Human language and typically conveys emotional rather than must therefore have evolved its distinctive propositional information. The generativity of characteristics over the past 6 million years. Some language was noted by Descartes as one of the have claimed that this occurred in a single step, characteristics separating humans from other and recently -perhaps as recently as 170,000 years species, and has also been emphasized more ago, coincident with the emergence of our own recently by Chomsky, as in the following often- species. This is sometimes referred to as the “big quoted passage: bang” theory of language evolution. For example, Bickerton5 asserted that “… true language, via the “The unboundedness of human speech, as an emergence of syntax, was a catastrophic event, expression of limitless thought, is an entirely occurring within the first few generations of Homo different matter (from animal communication), sapiens sapiens (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Floresiensis
    Homo floresiensis CHARLES J. VELLA 2016 CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE DOCENTS GROUP DOWNLOADABLE AT WEBSITE: WWW.CHARLESJVELLAPHD.COM THANKS: L. AIELLO, D. FALK, G. HURLEY Every once in a while, there comes to light a fossil that shakes the foundation of paleoanthropology to its very core and forces us to reconsider what we thought we knew about human evolution. —Donald C. Johanson, Lucy’s Legacy This applies to Homo floresiensis Flores legend of Ebu Gogo There were legends about the existence of little people on the island of Flores, Indonesia. They were called the Ebu Gogo. The islanders describe Ebu Gogo as being about one meter tall, hairy and prone to "murmuring" to each other in some form of language. Discovery 2003 Homo floresiensis, (“the hobbit,”) found in a late Pleistocene context at the cave of Liang Bua by Michael Morwood’s group 2003: Associated with a core and flake assemblage that extended back to ca 95 ka LB1 originally dated to 38 to 13 ka; Lived there from 74 to 17 ka according to original conclusions. An arm bone provisionally assigned to H. floresiensis is about 74,000 years old 2016: new geological assessment places H. floresiensis between 100,000 and 60,000 years old. Measurements of the decay of radioactive elements in an arm bone from the partial skeleton indicate that the find dates to between 86,900 and 71,500 years ago. Until now, researchers suspected these bones were only about 18,000 years old. Later excavations that have dated more rock and sediment around the remains now suggest that hobbits were gone from the cave by 50,000 years ago, according to a study published in Nature on 30 March 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • 100,000–11,000 Years Ago 75°
    Copyrighted Material GREENLAND ICE SHEET 100,000–11,000 years ago 75° the spread of modern humans Berelekh 13,400–10,600 B ( E around the world during A ALASKA la R I ) SCANDINAVIAN n I e Bluefish Cave d N Arctic Circle G g 16,000 d ICE SHEET b G the ice age N i 25,000–10,000 r r i I d I b g e A R d Ice ) E n -fr SIBERIA a Dry Creek e l e B c All modern humans are descended from populations of ( o 35,000 Dyuktai Cvae 13,500 rri do 18,000 r Homo sapiens that lived in Africa c. 200,000 years ago. op LAURENTIDE en s ICE SHEET 1 Malaya Sya Around 60,000 years ago a small group of humans left 4 CORDILLERAN ,0 Cresswell 34,000 0 Africa and over the next 50,000 years its descendants 0 ICE SHEET – Crags 1 2 14,000 colonized all the world’s other continents except Antarctica, ,0 Wally’s Beach 0 Paviland Cave Mal’ta 0 EUROPE Mezhirich Mladecˇ in the process replacing all other human species. These 13,000–11,000 y 29,000 Denisova Cave 24,000 . 15,000 a 33,000 45,000 . Kostenki 41,000 migrations were aided by low sea levels during glaciations, Willendorf 40,000 Lascaux 41,700–39,500 which created land bridges linking islands and continents: Kennewick Cro Magnon 17,000 9,300 45° humans were able to reach most parts of the world on foot. Spirit 30,000 Cave Meadowcroft Altamira It was in this period of initial colonization of the globe that 10,600 Rockshelter 14,000 16,000 Lagar Velho Hintabayashi Tianyuan JAPAN modern racial characteristics evolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did Man Become Bipedal?
    Journal of Historical Archaeology & Anthropological Sciences Short Communication Open Access Why did man become bipedal? Abstract Volume 6 Issue 1 - 2021 Bipedalism in primates exists only in humans. A systematic approach was applied to Sergey Peruanskiy explain the formation of the human way of life, i.e., systems of social relations. A necessary Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Science Reviewer condition for this formation was the transition of the dominance system to the point of of the Bulletin of the Russian Philosophical Society, Russia bifurcation. This became possible due to the fact that some hominids (hominins) have mastered the skill of armed struggle with each other, which is absent in other primates. This Correspondence: Sergey Peruanskiy, Doctor of Physical and skill required freeing your hands to use the weapons of struggle. Mathematical Sciences, Science Reviewer of the Bulletin of the Russian Philosophical Society, 8-2-534 Ak. Koroleva Str. Moscow, Keywords: bipedalism, system approach, domination, armed struggle, human lifestyle 129515 Russian Federation, Email Received: December 25, 2020 | Published: September 03, 2021 Introduction hominid behavior are built, and the method is a systematic approach to studying the evolution of these models. According to the data of The problem of the origin of bipedalism occupies a special position in primatology in bands of anthropoids, the system of relationships is anthropology. According to D. Gebo, “the origin of human bipedalism dominated by: “Whether in looking for a hominid model, one selects 1 is one of the most persistent mysteries of paleoanthropology”. Russian the genetically close chimp or ecologically close baboon, one does scientist L.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Worksheet: Hall of Human Origins Virtual Tour
    Hall of Human Origins GRADES 9–12 Student Worksheet: Hall of Human Origins Virtual Tour 1. Locate the three skeletons at the entrance to the hall (Page 5). On the far left is a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), in the center is a modern human (Homo sapiens), and on the far right is an extinct species called Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis). The human and the Neanderthal share many features related to bipedalism (walking on two legs). a. Compare the human and the chimpanzee. What similarities do you see? What differences do you see? Similarities: Differences: b. Compare the human and the Neanderthal. What similarities do you see? What differences do you see? Similarities: Differences: 1 Hall of Human Origins GRADES 9–12 Student Worksheet: Hall of Human Origins Virtual Tour 2. Based on your observations, which species do you think is more closely related to modern humans (Homo sapiens)? Explain your answer. 3. Observe the Family Tree (Page 6) . You should see several skulls organized from oldest (bottom) to most recent (top). This type of tree allows scientists to demonstrate evolutionary relationships among species. Displayed here are several species of early humans (also called hominins). On the top right is the skull of a modern human (Homo sapiens). As you look from the oldest species (bottom) to the most recent species (top) what changes do you notice in the shape of the skull? 4. Observe the diorama of Australopithecus afarensis. (Page 7) You should see a male and a female walking arm in arm. This is a hominin species that existed between 4 million and 3 million years ago.
    [Show full text]