DOCSLIB.ORG

Development Team

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development Team Paper No. : 14 Human Origin and Evolution Module : 03 Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Development Team Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Dr. Satwanti Kapoor (Retd Professor) Paper Coordinator Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Ms. Sangeeta Dey & Prof. A.K. Kapoor Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Prof. R.K. Pathak Content Reviewer Department of Anthropolo gy, Panjab University, Chandigarh 1 Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Anthropology Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name Human Origin and Evolution Module Name/Title Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Module Id 03 Contents: 1. Introduction 2. Human Fossil Ancestors 2.1 Ramapithecus 2.2 Australopithecines 2.2.1. Australopithecus 2.2.2. Paranthropus 2.2.3. Chronological Implications 2.3 Homo habilis 2.3.1. General Characteristics 2.3.2. Chronological Implications 2.4 Homo erectus 2.4.1. General Characteristics 2.4.2. Chronological Implications 2.5 Neanderthal Man 2.5.1. General Characteristics 2.5.2. Chronological Implications 2.6 Rhodesian Man 2.6.1. General Characteristics 2 Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Anthropology 2.6.2. Chronological Implications 2.7 Homo sapiens 2.7.1. Cro – Magnon Man 2.7.2. Grimaldi Man 2.7.3. Chancelade man Summary Learning Objectives: To describe Human fossil ancestors and their discovery. To understand the chronological problems associated with the fossils. To describe the facts related to terminology of the fossils. To know about connecting links that lead to Homo sapiens sapiens. To understand impact of evolution through the fossil study. To identify the fossils by carefully examining the general characteristics of diverse human forms and variants. 1. Introduction Terminology or the application of appropriate word expressions in specific context to the subject; Taxonomy refers to that branch of science which is concerned with systematic classification of the organisms and the Chronology is the arrangement of the events or fossils in the order of their occurrence. In the present module, the terminological, taxonomy and chronology problems of human fossil ancestors were discussed. The geological time scale starts with the formation of the earth, some 4.6 billion years ago. The first and longest span of time was the pre-Cambrian, where forms of life were small, simple and soft- bodied. The onset of Cambrian about 570 million years ago marked the rise of shelled animals in the sea. Then followed the “ages” of the fish, Amphibians and Reptiles, culminating in the domination of land by the dinosaurs, from about 200 to 65 million years ago. 3 Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Anthropology Mammals first appeared more than 200 million years ago, but were overshadowed by the reptiles. However, some 65 million years ago all the dinosaurs – as well as other groups of reptiles on land, in the sea and in the air, and certain other animal groups and many plants too – became extinct over a relatively short period. This was only one of several “mass extinctions” that have occurred through geological time. The extinction marked the beginning of the Tertiary period and the Age of Mammals. The Tertiary is divided into epochs, and development in the primate group can be traced from the fossils they left in the rocks formed during the time. The first hominids (members of our family Hominidae) crop up in the fossil record less than million years ago. Mammalian evolution covers only about 4 percent of the Earth’s entire history, and humans have been around for only 0.1 percent of the history of our planet. The quest for our ultimate origins begins with the origin of life itself. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Fossil evidence shows that small, simple organisms were living at least 3 billion years ago. A great deal of evidence supports the notion that all present day organisms are related to each other, and these forms as diverse as slime molds and elephants, oak trees and beetles, roses and humans – ultimately arose from a single common ancestor, some 3.5 billion years ago. This means that a single evolutionary tree or phylogeny, relates all organisms, living and extinct. Biologists and palaeontologists assume that life evolved from its simple beginnings through a succession of stages, as represented in the fossil record, toward the present day diversity of some 10 – 30 million species. This does not mean that today’s diversity is in some way the destiny or the end point of evolution; there has been great diversity in the past, and there may be in the future. 2. Human Fossil Ancestors The course of human phylogeny or the human biological evolution like other mammals can be followed only from the fossil records. Though the fossil records are fragmentary, the paleoanthropologists have been able to piece them together and draw them an almost complete phylogeny of primates and of modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens. The early stages of human biological diversity can only be studies by comparative anatomy of fossils and also by comparative biochemistry of present day humans, apes and other primates. Information on the later stages in human 4 Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Anthropology evolution are based on artifacts that include stone tools, pottery, fire – hearths and the fossils of other animals along with human fossils. https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEw jP2oij_sPTAhUBrI8KHW74BywQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.portal.gsi.gov.in%2 Fpls%2Fportal%2Furl%2Fpage%2FGSI_STATIC%2FGSI_STAT_GEOLOGY_LIFE_AGES &psig=AFQjCNFsx3p8DjiWKjA4dY2wrzEn5hpFdw&ust=1493360154025061 The fossils of pre-human and ancestral human forms are obtained from widely diverse regions of Africa, Asia and Europe which indicates that man’s centre of origin was probably in Asia and Africa. More precisely human must have been originated from central Asia because the oldest known fossils have been obtained from Asia, China, Java and India (Siwalik hills); the number of domesticated animals and plants is maximum in Asia; A number of migrations of animals have occurred in the past from Asia; Asian culture appears to be the oldest culture; the climatic conditions in Asia and nearby places were most conductive for human evolution and rich fossil beds are discovered from rift valley in East Africa, where Hominid fossils have been found. These areas are – Olduvai Gorge, Lake Victoria and Lake Natrona in Tanzania and Lake Turkana in Kenya. Through the fossils records, it can deduced 5 Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Anthropology that the last and most important hominid from Miocene is Ramapithecus and through evolutionary processes it evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens of modern times. 2.1. Ramapithecus The last and most important hominid from Miocene is Ramapithecus. It is accepted by many scholars to be the first true hominid. Ramapithecus dates back to the tie period between 14 – 10 million years ago. It was discovered and christened as the Rama’s ape by Edward Lewis in the year 1934. The specimen was later analyzed by Simons in the year 1964. Simons gave the name Ramapithecus punjabicus to this find, which was a long time thought to be the highest evolved form in the Hominid evolution, belonging to the ape group of Dryopithecus. The fossils of Ramapithecus (Primarily teeth and jaw) come from two areas: the Siwalik Hills in India and Fort Ternan in Kenya. Other specimens have been discovered from Turkey, Hungary and Greece. The Ramapithecus fossils roughly date back to periods between 14 and 9 million years ago. The ecological setting of Fort Ternan and the Siwalik Hill fossils is that of a forest woodland environment. The Greek fossils, being younger, are that of a drier, savanna like environment. The hominid features of Ramapithecus include reduced and vertically implanted incisors, and canines, little or no diastema, flattened and thick enamelled premolars and molars that appear to be adapted for heavy chewing and processing of heavy food stuffs. Moreover, the placements of chewing muscles indicated an increased chewing pressure brought to bear on the food being eaten. These features, sufficiently different from the earlier Miocene fossils, indicate Ramapithecus direction to hominid line – perhaps the first hominid. Ramapithecus specimens very strongly suggest the exploitation of a new dietary source – most likely seeds, nuts and grasses – that indicate a shift from the softer forest fruits and vegetables relied upon by apes. This dietary shift is rather clearly associated with the climatic changes in the later part of Miocene that led to an increase in open grasslands and the decrease in the forest habitat of apes. There is a greater probability that this hominid form apparently was moving into a new ecological niche; it was beginning to exploit a more open ground environment similar to that inhabited by later hominids. 6 Terminological, taxonomic and chronological problems of fossils Anthropology Ramapithecus is also the most likely candidate for the ancestry of later hominids because of its presence in an area where the next hominids – the Australopithecus - have been found. The possible adaptation that Ramapithecus made to open – ground living include an increased degree of hand and finger preparation of food, perhaps more frequent use of tools in such preparation, a tendency towards upright posture and bipedal locomotion for movement with a wide field of vision through the tall grasses on the open plain, possibly longer periods of growth and development, and perhaps, even a more frequent inclusion of meat in the diet. None of these adaptations can be clearly demonstrated because of lack of fossil evidences, but what we do know is that these adaptations were clearly present by the time the next phase of hominid evolution – the Australopithecus – had began.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H. Erectus 1  H
    Today in Astronomy 106: apes to modern humans Meet the hominids. Brains, diet and toolmaking: going where natural selection fears to tread. Genetic diversity in Africa, the Saharan bottleneck, and the spread of humanity. Selections from The Dawn of Man, The spread of in 2001: A Space Odyssey, by languages. Stanley Kubrick (1968). 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 1 Monkeys to hominids Once bipedal hominids began to Evans 2002 appear in newly-drier East Africa, many gene mutations were naturally selected which accelerated the differences between them and the apes. Distinct process from steady rate of increased difference in junk DNA. Most evident in parts of genes called human accelerated regions (HARs), of which 55 have been noted. 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 2 Monkeys to hominids (continued) HARs were discovered in 2006 by Katie Pollard (UCSF), as one of the first huge achievements +2 of the new science of genomics. HAR1, chromosome 20, for example: • Present in reptiles onward. • Base-pair difference between chimpanzees and chickens: 2. • Base-pair difference +18 between chimpanzees and humans: 18. 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 3 6 Africa’s Hominidae Ardepithecus 5 All bipedal and tail-less: Ardepithecus: several species 4 known mostly by femurs. Australopithecus Australopithecus afarensis (or Paranthropus) (e.g. Lucy), africanus, 3 Myr robustus, bosei. Evolved ago toward bigger teeth. 2 Homo Homo rudolfensis, habilis/ergaster, erectus, 1 heidelbergensis, neanderthalensis, 0 sapiens. Evolved toward bigger brains. Genetic difference (schematic) 13 June 2011 Astronomy 106, Summer 2011 4 6 Evolution of diet 5 As they walked from tree to tree, hominids gradually were selected for eating more than 4 fruit and leave, this also allowed A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Evolutionary Calendar - Evolution in a Year)I------1 January • December F------{( March ) ( June September
    The Human Evolutionary Calendar - Evolution in a Year)I---------1 January • December f-------{( March ) ( June September SahelanthropusTchadensi Australopithecus sediba Homo rh odes iensis Ardipithecus ramidus 7,000,000 - 6,000,000 yrs. 2,000,000 - , ,750,000 yrs. 300,000 -125,000 yrs. 3,200,000 • 4,300,000 yrs. Homo rudolfensis Orrorin tugenensis 1,900,000 - 1.750,000 yrs. Homo pekin ensi s 6, 100,000 - 5,BOO,Oci:l yrs. 700,000 - 500,000 yrs. Australopit ec us anamensis 4,200,00 - 3,900,000 yrs. Ardipithecus kadabba 5,750,000 - 5,200,000 yrs. Ho m o Ergaster 1,900,000 - 1,3,000,000 yrs. Homo heidelberge nsis 700,000 • 200,000 yrs. Australopithecus afarensis Homo erectus 3,900,000 - 2,900,000 yrs. 1,800,000 • 250,000 yrs. Ho mo antecessor Australopithecus africa nus Ho mo habilis 1,000,000 -700,000 yrs. 3,800,000 - 3,000,000 yrs. 2,350,000 - 1,450,000 yrs. Ho m o g eorgicus Kenya nthropus platyo ps 1,800,000- 1.3000,000 yrs. 3,500,000 - 3,200,000 yrs. Ho m o nea nderthalensis 200,000 · 28,000 yrs. Paranthropus bo ise i Paranthropus aethiopicu 2,275,000- 1,250,000 yrs. De nisova ho minins 2,650,000 - 2,300,000 yrs. 200,000 - 30,000 yrs. Paranthropus robustus/crass iden s Australopithecus garhi 1,750,000- 1,200,000 yrs. 2,750,000 - 2.400,000 yrs. Red Deer Cave Peo ple ?- 11,000yrs. Ho mo sa piens sapien s 200~ Ho m o fl o res iensis 100,000 • 13,000 yrs.
    [Show full text]
  • K = Kenyanthropus Platyops “Kenya Man” Discovered by Meave Leaky
    K = Kenyanthropus platyops “Kenya Man” Discovered by Meave Leaky and her team in 1998 west of Lake Turkana, Kenya, and described as a new genus dating back to the middle Pliocene, 3.5 MYA. A = Australopithecus africanus STS-5 “Mrs. Ples” The discovery of this skull in 1947 in South Africa of this virtually complete skull gave additional credence to the establishment of early Hominids. Dated at 2.5 MYA. H = Homo habilis KNM-ER 1813 Discovered in 1973 by Kamoya Kimeu in Koobi Fora, Kenya. Even though it is very small, it is considered to be an adult and is dated at 1.9 MYA. E = Homo erectus “Peking Man” Discovered in China in the 1920’s, this is based on the reconstruction by Sawyer and Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History. Dated at 400-500,000 YA. (2 parts) L = Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1974 in Ethiopia. Lucy, at 3.2 million years old has been considered the first human. This is now being challenged by the discovery of Kenyanthropus described by Leaky. (2 parts) TC = Australopithecus africanus “Taung child” Discovered in 1924 in Taung, South Africa by M. de Bruyn. Raymond Dart established it as a new genus and species. Dated at 2.3 MYA. (3 parts) G = Homo ergaster “Nariokotome or Turkana boy” KNM-WT 15000 Discovered in 1984 in Nariokotome, Kenya by Richard Leaky this is the first skull dated before 100,000 years that is complete enough to get accurate measurements to determine brain size. Dated at 1.6 MYA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modern Man: a Revision of His Definition and a New Estimation of His Emergence Date
    9 International Journal of Modern Anthropology Int. J. Mod. Anthrop. 1 : 1-110 (2008) Available online at www.ata.org.tn Original Synthetic Article The modern man: a revision of his definition and a new estimation of his emergence date Hassen Chaabani Hassen Chaabani was born the 07 / 09 / 1947 in Tunis (Tunisia). He is Full Professor and research unit Director at Monastir University. He is the Founder and the President of the Tunisian Association of Anthropology. He is the Founder and the Editor in-Chef of the International Journal of Modern Anthropology. Specialist in Human Genetics, Biological Anthropology and some cultural and religious subjects, he wrote many articles and books. Laboratoire de Génétique Humaine et d'Anthropologie, Faculté de Pharmacie, 5000 Monastir, Tunisia. E.mail: [email protected] Abstract - In spite of important anthropological data stored up to date, the recent human evolution is still a subject of great controversy. Here I present a revision of the definition of modern man and an attempt to estimate the date of his emergence. The anatomical feature criterion cannot be considered as a rigorous criterion for identified modern human fossils from those of earlier Homo peoples. This identification could be carried out indirectly from analysis of cultural products and, if possible, directly by ancient DNA analysis. During the last 20,000 years period, Homo peoples have shown a first real cultural progress, which reflects their possession of the superior level of potential intellectual aptitude that marks the definition of modern man. On the basis of this definition, in agreement with several anthropological basic data, I consider that the real modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens, emerged at about 20,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Members of the Genus Homo -. EXPLORATIONS: an OPEN INVITATION to BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
    EXPLORATIONS: AN OPEN INVITATION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Editors: Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff American Anthropological Association Arlington, VA 2019 Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. ISBN – 978-1-931303-63-7 www.explorations.americananthro.org 10. Early Members of the Genus Homo Bonnie Yoshida-Levine Ph.D., Grossmont College Learning Objectives • Describe how early Pleistocene climate change influenced the evolution of the genus Homo. • Identify the characteristics that define the genus Homo. • Describe the skeletal anatomy of Homo habilis and Homo erectus based on the fossil evidence. • Assess opposing points of view about how early Homo should be classified. Describe what is known about the adaptive strategies of early members of the Homo genus, including tool technologies, diet, migration patterns, and other behavioral trends.The boy was no older than 9 when he perished by the swampy shores of the lake. After death, his slender, long-limbed body sank into the mud of the lake shallows. His bones fossilized and lay undisturbed for 1.5 million years. In the 1980s, fossil hunter Kimoya Kimeu, working on the western shore of Lake Turkana, Kenya, glimpsed a dark colored piece of bone eroding in a hillside. This small skull fragment led to the discovery of what is arguably the world’s most complete early hominin fossil—a youth identified as a member of the species Homo erectus. Now known as Nariokotome Boy, after the nearby lake village, the skeleton has provided a wealth of information about the early evolution of our own genus, Homo (see Figure 10.1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Dates of the Discovery of the First Peking Man Fossil Teeth
    The Dates of the Discovery of the First Peking Man Fossil Teeth Qian WANG,LiSUN, and Jan Ove R. EBBESTAD ABSTRACT Four teeth of Peking Man from Zhoukoudian, excavated by Otto Zdansky in 1921 and 1923 and currently housed in the Museum of Evolution at Uppsala University, are among the most treasured finds in palaeoanthropology, not only because of their scientific value but also for their important historical and cultural significance. It is generally acknowledged that the first fossil evidence of Peking Man was two teeth unearthed by Zdansky during his excavations at Zhoukoudian in 1921 and 1923. However, the exact dates and details of their collection and identification have been documented inconsistently in the literature. We reexamine this matter and find that, due to incompleteness and ambiguity of early documentation of the discovery of the first Peking Man teeth, the facts surrounding their collection and identification remain uncertain. Had Zdansky documented and revealed his findings on the earliest occasion, the early history of Zhoukoudian and discoveries of first Peking Man fossils would have been more precisely known and the development of the field of palaeoanthropology in early twentieth century China would have been different. KEYWORDS: Peking Man, Zhoukoudian, tooth, Uppsala University. INTRODUCTION FOUR FOSSIL TEETH IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM PEKING MAN were excavated by palaeontologist Otto Zdansky in 1921 and 1923 from Zhoukoudian deposits. They have been housed in the Museum of Evolution at Uppsala University in Sweden ever since. These four teeth are among the most treasured finds in palaeoanthropology, not only because of their scientific value but also for their historical and cultural significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Evolution to Revolution
    Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e38546 doi: 10.3897/rio.5.e38546 Research Article Language evolution to revolution: the leap from rich-vocabulary non-recursive communication system to recursive language 70,000 years ago was associated with acquisition of a novel component of imagination, called Prefrontal Synthesis, enabled by a mutation that slowed down the prefrontal cortex maturation simultaneously in two or more children – the Romulus and Remus hypothesis Andrey Vyshedskiy ‡ ‡ Boston University, Boston, United States of America Corresponding author: Andrey Vyshedskiy ([email protected]) Reviewable v1 Received: 25 Jul 2019 | Published: 29 Jul 2019 Citation: Vyshedskiy A (2019) Language evolution to revolution: the leap from rich-vocabulary non-recursive communication system to recursive language 70,000 years ago was associated with acquisition of a novel component of imagination, called Prefrontal Synthesis, enabled by a mutation that slowed down the prefrontal cortex maturation simultaneously in two or more children – the Romulus and Remus hypothesis. Research Ideas and Outcomes 5: e38546. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.5.e38546 Abstract There is an overwhelming archeological and genetic evidence that modern speech apparatus was acquired by hominins by 600,000 years ago. On the other hand, artifacts signifying modern imagination, such as (1) composite figurative arts, (2) bone needles with an eye, (3) construction of dwellings, and (4) elaborate burials arose not earlier than © Vyshedskiy A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [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]
  • Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia
    World Heritage papers41 HEADWORLD HERITAGES 4 Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia VOLUME I In support of UNESCO’s 70th Anniversary Celebrations United Nations [ Cultural Organization Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in Eurasia Nuria Sanz, Editor General Coordinator of HEADS Programme on Human Evolution HEADS 4 VOLUME I Published in 2015 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France and the UNESCO Office in Mexico, Presidente Masaryk 526, Polanco, Miguel Hidalgo, 11550 Ciudad de Mexico, D.F., Mexico. © UNESCO 2015 ISBN 978-92-3-100107-9 This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization. Cover Photos: Top: Hohle Fels excavation. © Harry Vetter bottom (from left to right): Petroglyphs from Sikachi-Alyan rock art site.
    [Show full text]
  • • What Defines the Genus Homo? • When Does Homo First Appear
    Last time... • What defines the genus Homo? • When does Homo first appear? Where? • How do we identify these fossils as Homo rather than Australopithecus? • How are Homo habilis different from the other hominids they are contemporaneous with? 1 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Olduwan tools • What are Olduwan tools? • How are they made? • When are they first found and with which species? 2 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Adaptive pattern • How does the adaptive pattern of early Homo differ from that of the Australopithecines? • Why was brain size selected for? • What else changes in adaptation when brain size increases? 3 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 H. habilis v. H. erectus • What makes these two species different? • When are they found in time? space? 4 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Possible Homo species Homo habilis • Sometimes the same • Homo rudolfensis • Homo ergaster Sometimes the same • Homo erectus 5 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Homo erectus • Who is Homo erectus? • Where is this species found? • In what time frame? • What are its identifying anatomies? 6 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Homo erectus lifeways • tool technologies that reflect advanced cognitive skills • Dietary shift to a more heavily meat- based diet than its predecessors 7 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Zhoukoudian 300 kya 8 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Homo floresiensis 95,000-13,000 9 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 10 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 11 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Homo antecessor / Homo erectus? Atapuerca Atapuerca 1.2 mya 800,000 12 Tuesday, May 3, 2011 Cranial capacities Cranial Capacity Africa 690-1067 Indonesia 800-1250 China 855-1225 13 Tuesday,
    [Show full text]
  • The Acheulean Handaxe Corbey, Raymond; Collard, Mark; Vaesen, Krist; Jagich, Adam
    Tilburg University The Acheulean handaxe Corbey, Raymond; Collard, Mark; Vaesen, Krist; Jagich, Adam Published in: Evolutionary Anthropology DOI: 10.1002/evan.21467 Publication date: 2016 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Corbey, R., Collard, M., Vaesen, K., & Jagich, A. (2016). The Acheulean handaxe: More like a bird’s song than a Beatles’ tune? Evolutionary Anthropology, 25(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21467 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. sep. 2021 Evolutionary Anthropology 25:6–19 (2016) ARTICLE The Acheulean Handaxe: More Like a Bird’s Song Than a Beatles’ Tune? RAYMOND CORBEY, ADAM JAGICH, KRIST VAESEN, AND MARK COLLARD The goal of this paper is to provoke debate about the nature of an iconic arti- lion square kilometers, multiple eco- fact—the Acheulean handaxe.
    [Show full text]
  • A Giant Ostrich from the Lower Pleistocene Nihewan Formation of North China, with a Review of the Fossil Ostriches of China
    diversity Review A Giant Ostrich from the Lower Pleistocene Nihewan Formation of North China, with a Review of the Fossil Ostriches of China Eric Buffetaut 1,2,* and Delphine Angst 3 1 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique—CNRS (UMR 8538), Laboratoire de Géologie de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, 24 rue Lhomond, CEDEX 05, 75231 Paris, France 2 Palaeontological Research and Education Centre, Maha Sarakham University, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand 3 School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: A large incomplete ostrich femur from the Lower Pleistocene of North China, kept at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris), is described. It was found by Father Emile Licent in 1925 in the Nihewan Formation (dated at about 1.8 Ma) of Hebei Province. On the basis of the minimum circumference of the shaft, a mass of 300 kg, twice that of a modern ostrich, was obtained. The bone is remarkably robust, more so than the femur of the more recent, Late Pleistocene, Struthio anderssoni from China, and resembles in that regard Pachystruthio Kretzoi, 1954, a genus known from the Lower Pleistocene of Hungary, Georgia and the Crimea, to which the Nihewan specimen is referred, as Pachystruthio indet. This find testifies to the wide geographical distribution Citation: Buffetaut, E.; Angst, D. A of very massive ostriches in the Early Pleistocene of Eurasia. The giant ostrich from Nihewan was Giant Ostrich from the Lower contemporaneous with the early hominins who inhabited that region in the Early Pleistocene.
    [Show full text]