Anthropology Final

Front 1

What is a Hominid?

Back 1

Any taxon that we place in a taxonomic family Hominidae.

Front 2

What are two traits that characterize Hominidae?

Back 2

1. Evidence of bipedality
2. Reduced canine size

Front 3

Which species is the earliest Hominid?

Back 3

1. Sahelanthropus tchadensis
2. Orrorin tugenensis
3. Aridipithecus ramidus
4. Australopithecus anamensis

Front 4

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Back 4

6-7 MYA hominid status based on reduced canine size and forwardly positioned foramen magnum

Front 5

Orrorin tugenesis

Back 5

6 MYA hominid status based on anatomy of thigh bone

Front 6

Aridipithecus ramidus

Back 6

5.8-4.4 MYA hominid status based on reduced canine size

Front 7

Australopithecus anamensis

Back 7

4.2-3.9 MYA hominid status based on evidence of bipedality

Front 8

Early hominid fossil bearing sites

Back 8

1. East and North Central Africa
2. Republic of South Africa

Front 9

Early hominid fossisl bearing sites

1. East and North Central Africa

Back 9

a. all sites are open air
b. sites dated by potassium-argon; paleomagnetism; biostratigraphy
c. some famous sites: Hadar, Ethiopia; Lake Turkana, Kenya; Olduvai Gourge, Tanzania

Front 10

Early hominid fossil bearing site

2. Republic of South Africa

Back 10

a. sites are in limestone caves
b. sites dates by biostratigraphy
c. famous sites: Taung, Republic of South Africa

Front 11

Relative Brain Capacity

Back 11

brain weight/(11.22 x body weight^0.76).

Front 12

A few theories of the origin of bipedality

Back 12

1. Increase the range of vision

2. Free the hands to carry Oldowan tools

3. Free the hands to carry digging implements

4. Free the hands to harvest small fruits

5. Free the hands to carry food - Provisioning Theory (proposed by C. Owen Lovejoy)

Front 13

A few theories on the origin of bipedality

1. Increase the range of vision

Back 13

a. scan the savanna for predators and/or food resources
b. Problem - Why are baboons not bipedal? Bipedalism is a slow mode of locomotion to escape from predators.

Front 14

A few theories on the origin of bipedality

2. Free the hands to carry Oldowan tools

Back 14

a. Problem - Earlies Oldowan tools are 2.6 MYA; earlies evidence of bipedality is 4.2-3.9 MYA.

Front 15

A few theories on the origin of bipedality

3. Free the hands to carry digging implements

Back 15

a. Perhaps early hominids used sticks or bones to dig up roots and tubers. These foods may have led to selection for large molars with thick enamel; the sticks/bones could have been used for predator defense.

b. Problem - Earliest evidence of digging implements is less that 2 MYA; earliest evidence of bipedality is 4.2-3.9 MYA.

Front 16

A few theories on the originof bipedality

4. Free the hands to harvest small fruits

Back 16

a. Based on analogy with chimps. chimps are bipedal when they forage small fruits from bushes and short trees. With a bipedal stance, chimps can harvest food and eat simultaneously. Chimps maintain a bipedal stance in "shuffling" from one feeding site to another nearby feeding site.

b. Problem - Early hominids and Chimp differ in dental anatomy and, by inference, differ in diet.

Front 17

A few theories on the origin of bipedality

5. Free the hand to carry food - Provisioning Theory (proposed by C. Owen Lovejoy)

Back 17

a. Selective advantage of bipedality was related to reproductive biology. Chimp females begin reproducing about age 10, and have an interbirth interval of 5.6 years; human females begin reproducing about age 16, and have an interbirth interval of 2.5 years. Early hominid females may have had a short interbirth interval, more similar to humans than chimps. A consequence of the short interbirth interval is that early hominid females had multiple dependent offspring

b. Paternal assistance was necessary to ensure survival of offspring. Males foraged for food at different sites from that of females and juveniles. The different feeding areas minimized competition for food between the sexes.

c. Males carried food to share with females and juveniles. The selective advantage of bipedality was to enabl males to carrying food. A male "provisioned" only his mate and his offspring. A male knew who his offspring were because early hominds were monogamous.

d. Problem - (1) no evidence in the fossil record to ascertain interbirth interval; (2) Australopithecus afarensis was markedly sexually dimophic in body size. Amoung modern primeates, such as sexual dimorphism is associated with polygny, not monogamy. (However, A. afarensis is essentially monomorphic in canine size.)

Front 18

Evolution of early Homo (H. habilis)

Back 18

Geographical location: East Africa and Republic of South Africa (e.g., Lake Turkana, Kenya; Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania; Sterkfontein, Republic of South Africa
B. 2.4-1.6 MYA

Front 19

Evolution of early Homo (H. habilis)

Morphologies and significance:

Back 19

Increased cranial capacity, both absolute and relative to body weight, compared to australopithecus. Early Homo mean cranial capacity is 631 cm^3, whereas range for Australopithecus is 410 to 530 cm^3.
a. Important fossil specimen- KNM-ER 1470, with 750 cm^3 cranial capacity
b. Significance

Front 20

Morphologies and significance:

b. Significance

Back 20

b1. Early Homo is contemporaneous with Oldowan tools. Oldowan tools also called "pebble choppers." Infer that the large brained early Homo was a maker of stone tools (because later Homo also used stone tools). Earliest Oldowan tools are dated to 2.6 MYA from Ethiopia.

Front 21

2. Dental size in early Homo

Back 21

About the same as that of gracile australopithecus, but smaller than that of contemporaneous robust australopithecines

Front 22

Significance of dental size:

Back 22

Difference in dental size (and cranial size) betwen early Homo and robust austra. reflects different dietary adaptations. Robust austra may have eaten gritty, fibrous foods, whereas early homo may have been more omnivorous. Dental and cranial differences between early Homo and robust austra may illustrate Principle of Competitive Exclusion.

Front 23

3. Fully modern looking foot and thigh bones

Significance:

Back 23

Unquestioned full adaptation to bipedality.

Front 24

Variation in size and anatomy in early Homo:

Back 24

a. Perhaps two species of early Homo, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis
a1. Significance: There were at least 3 species of early hominids living in same place and same time period in East Africa: H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, and A. Boisei. This would imply a successful radiation of early bipeds. One species of early Homo would have been our ancestor, and the other went extinct.

Front 25

Lifestyle of early Homo

1. Diet

Back 25

Mammal bones show cut marks from stone tools. Implication is that the tool users were eating meat and marrow.
Was early Homo a scavenger and/or hunter? Some evidence suggests that early Homo may have been a scavenger of meat; different opinions about whether early Homo was also a hunter. Oldowan tools were hand-held tools; they were not affixed (i.e., hafted) to spears or wooden handles.

Front 26

Social Organization-

Back 26

Oldowan tools are found at same sites with mammal bones that show cut marks; two inferences based on association of stone tools and "processed" mammal bones are as follows:

Front 27

Evolution of Homo erectus and Contemporaries

Dates:

Back 27

1.8 MYA to 200,000 years ago

Front 28

Evolution of Homo erectus and Contemporaries

Where Found:

Back 28

1. Africa, 1.8 MYA, including Lake Turkana, Kenya; Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania; and Swartkrans, Republic of South Africa

2. Asia by 1.8 MYA, including Trinil, Indonesia(on the island of Java); Zhoukoudian, China; e

3. Europe by 1.75 MYA, including Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia;

4. Western Europe by 1.1 MYA, including Italy and Spain

Front 29

Evolution of Homo erectus and Contemporaries

Significane of geographical distribution

Back 29

Homo erectus likely originated in Africa, and its the first hominid to migrate from Africa: migration seems to have occurred almost at the time of this species' orgin

Front 30

Evolution of Homo erectus and Contemporaries

Social Organization and Behavior:

Back 30

1. successful hunters-and-gatherers

2. used Acheulian tools

3. probable use of fire (e.g. at Zhoukoudian, China by 500,000 YA)

4. Probable use of clothin (e.g. occupied areas with temperate climate)

5. no evidence of burial

Front 31

Evolution of Neandertals

Dates:

Back 31

130,000 to 32,000 Years Ago

Front 32

IV. Evolution of Homo heidelbergensis

Back 32

Dates: 850,000 to 200,000 YA.

Found: Africa, Europe, and perhaps Asia

Front 33

IV. Evolution of Homo heidelbergensis

Mean cranial capacity:

Back 33

1. Mean cranial capacity of 1,167 cm^3; larger than H. erectus but smaller than modern humans
a. Perhaps related to communication because there is no change in tool technology; continued use of Acheulian tools.

Front 34

IV. Evolution of Homo heidelbergensis

Decrease in molar size:

Back 34

When compared to H. erectus,

a. selection for smaller molars due to cooking of foods

Front 35

IV. Evolution of Homo heidelbergensis

Increase in incisor size:

Back 35

When compared to H. erectus,

a. Used the mouth as an auxiliary tool, such as a vise or grip.

Front 36

IV. Evolution of Homo heidelbergensis

Decrease in skeletal robustness:

Back 36

When compared to H. erectus

a. Perhaps enhanced efficiency in resource procurement (but no change in tool technology).

Front 37

Evolution of Neandertals

Where found:

Back 37

Europe and Western Asia (there are contemporaries of Neandertals(i.e, other pre-modern humans) in Africa and the remainder of Asia and the remainder of Asia during this time period, but Neandertals are restricted to Europe and Western Asia)

Front 38

Morphologies and interpretations:

1) Mean cranial capacity

Back 38

of 1,520 cm^3, which is larer than the cranial capacity of Homo hedelbergensis and larger than that of modern humans (we have a mean cranial capacity of 1,350 cm^3)

a)increased cranial capacity cay be associated with Mousterian tool industry, which is based on the prepared core technique. Alternatively, perhaps increased cranial capacity is associated with enhanced communication. Also, larger cranial capacity may simply be a function of larger body mass in Neadertals.

Front 39

Morphologies and interpretations:

Back 39

low, long skull with occipital "bun," which is a projection at the back of the skull

a) the different skull shape from that of modern humans may be due to differences in rate of growth of brain and skull

Front 40

Morphologies and interpretations:

3) decrease in size of molar teeth when compared to H. heidelbergensis

Back 40

selection for smaller molars due to cooking of foods

Front 41

Morphologies and interpretations:

4) increase size of incisor teeth, when compared to H. heidelbergensis

Back 41

no chin; prognathic face (i.e. face "juts" forwardly); retromolar gap; and prominent supraorbital torus.
a) these morphologies may be associated with using the mouth as an auxiliary tool, such as a vise or grip

Front 42

VI. Origins of Modern Humans

Two models to explain the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., anatomically modern humans, "amh")

Back 42

1. Regional Continuity Model (Multiregional Evolution)
2. Complete Replacement Model (Recent African Evolution)

Front 43

Regional Continuity Model

Back 43

All (or most) populations of Neandertals and their pre-modern contemporaries in other parts of the world contributed to the amh gene pool. There was a worldwide and simultaneous evolution of: (1) H. erectus into H. heidelbergensis; then (2) H. heidelbergensis into Neandertals and their pre-modern contemporaries; and then (3) Neandertals and their pre-modern contemporaries into amh. Regional evolution by natural selection and gene flow led to the gradual emergence of amh. There was no speciation event in the origin of amh. Rather, there is evolutionary continuity from H. erectus to amh.

Some of the evidence includes "regional continuity" in anatomy (i.e., distinctive African, Asian, and European anatomies) from H. erectus to H. heidelbergensis, to Neandertals and their pre-modern contemporaries, to amh.

Front 44

Complete Replacement Model:

Back 44

Amh originated by a true speciated even about 200,000 YA in Africa. Amh later migrated to Europe and Asia. Amh proved to be competitively superior to Neandertals and their pre-modern contemporaries, and amh completely replaced them (i.e., caused their extinction).

Some of the evidence includes temporal overlap of amh and Neandertals in western Asia, and differences between modern humans and Neandertals in their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).

Front 45

B. Early anatomically modern human (amh; Homo sapiens sapiens)

Back 45

Dates: fossil evidence by at least 100,000 YA

When compared with Neandertals and their pre-modern contemporaries, amh had externally protuberant chin and more rounded cranium

Front 46

Upper Paleolithic

Back 46

Began approximately 40,000 years ago

Characterized by:
(1) blade tools
(2) tolls made of bone, ivory, and antler
(3) more specialized tools (e.g., spear-thrower)
(4) more rapid change in tool types

Front 47

Morphologies of Interpretations:

Back 47

5) large nose; large facial sinuses; large thorax; high body mass; short arms and legs.
a) these morphologies are adaptatons to living in a low temperature environment (e.g. Bergmann's and Allen's Rules). As stated about, Neandertals lived in Europe and Asia during a glacial period, which began about 75,000 Years Ago.

6) Neandertals were heavily muscled individuals with thich bones. They were physically active hunters-and-gatherers.

Front 48

Morphologies of Interpretations:

D) Social Behavior

Back 48

1) assiseted disabled individuals
a) a number of individuals survived traumas to the skeletons (i.e. broken bones). These individuals mush have been cared for during their convalescence by other members of the social group.

2) Concern for the deceased
a) Neandertals are the first members of Homo to bury their dead deliberatley.

3) lived in a variety of contexts, including caves, rock overhangs, and open air sites.

4) successful hunters-and-gatherers

5) no cave painting; artwork was not common

Front 49

Generalizations:

A. General trends in evolution of Homo, from early Home (i.e. H. habilis) to Homo sapiens sapiens (amh):

Back 49

1) increase in cranial capacity

2) increase in incisor size (from early Homo to Neandertrals, but then a decrease in size of incisors to amh)

3) decrease in molar size

Front 50

Generalizations:

B) Importance of Africa in human evolution

Back 50

1) hominids originated in Africa

2) Homo originated in Africa

3)H. erectus orginiated in Africa, then migrated to Asia and Europe

4) Based on Complete Replacement Model, H. sapiens originated in Africa: H. sapiens sapiens then migrated from Africa and replaced all indienous Neandertals and other pre-modern humans

Front 51

Intriguing recent fossil find:

Back 51

Homo floresiensis

Front 52

Art includes cave paintings and portable art.

Back 52

Cave paintings consist of accurate representations of animals, stylistic representations of humans, and outlines of human hands; cave paintings may have had symbolic, magical/religious, and/or social significance. Portable art consists of engravings on tools and small sculptured figurines of animals and humans.