Fossil Hominins

From Ardipithecus to Homo

Fossil Hominins: General Trends Toward Homo Sapiens

Large

bulbous cranium Short face compared to ape Vertical carriage of head Hands and Forelimbs Adapted to Tool Making and Use Bipedal Structure of Postcranial Skeleton

Model of Human Evolution: Ardipithicus to Australopithecines

Ardipithecus

ramidus to Australopithecines Australopithecus afarensis to A. africanus: Gracile Australopithecines Paranthropus robustus and boisei: Robust AustralopithecinesDead end? A. africanus to Homo habilis: Rise of tool manufacture?

Model of Human Evolution: Homo habilis to Sapients

H.

habilis to H. erectus: Global spread; increased tool assemblage H. erectus to H. sapiens: Tool specialization and population explosion H. neanderthalensis: Dead end? Homo sapiens: (Future) End of the Line?

Fossil Trends: Encephalization (Cranial Capacity Increase)

Ardipithecus

ramidus: ca. 300-350 cc. Australopithecus. afarensis: 390-500 cc; av. 440 cc A. africanus: 435-530 cc; av. 450 cc A./P robustus: 520 cc, one specimen A.P. boisei: 500-530 cc; av. 515 cc.

Ardipithecus ramidis: The Rooted Ground Floor Ape

Ardi: Ground Floor (Afar) Rama: Root Pithecus: ape Date: 4.4 million years ago (mya) Location: Middle Awash River Valley, NE Ethiopia Size: 120 cm (4 ft.) Weight (est.) 50 kg (110 lb.); heavier than Lucy

Ardipithecus ramidus: Reconstructed Features

Cranial capacity: 300-350 cc. Teeth: apelike with reduced canines; probably omnivore and/or fruit-eater Significant prognathism (projection of lower face) Feet: opposable toe with no arches Quadrupedal in trees Faculative biped on the ground: could walk short distances.

Ardipithecus Ramidus: Overview

Australopithecines and Homo: Overview

Homo habilis to Homo sapiens

H.

habilis: 500-800 cc; av. 680 cc. H. erectus: 750-1250 cc; av. 1000 cc Neanderthal: 1300-1750 cc. av: 1450 H. (s.) sapiens: 900-2350 cc. av. 1400

Fossil Trends: Forelimbs and Hands

Shortened

forelimb Hands (manipulation, not locomotion) Enlarged thumb Straight, noncurved finger Enhanced finger sensitivity

Fossil Hominins: General Trends--Bipedalism

S-shaped

vertebrae (backbone) Short, wide, bowl-shaped pelvis Femoral head (ball of femur at pelvis) angled and strengthened Lengthened hindlimb Angle of knee: femur slopes to pelvis Platform (arched) structure of foot Nonopposable big toe; toes not curved

Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Us (Homo sapiens)

Note the Following: Shorter (36) Longer arms Curved fingers Shorter lower legs Greater prognathism Sloped forehead Smaller cranial capacity What are the Similarities? Hint: its all related to bipedalism

Bipedalism: A. afarensis and H. sapiens compared, Fine Points

When We Became Bipedal (According to Gary Larson)

Hey! Look! No hands! (Does he look like Lucy to you. . .?)

Gracile and Robust Australopithecines

For A. africanus (top), note: Somewhat rounder skull No Sagittal crest Prognathous jaw For Paranthropus boisei, note: Sagittal crest (ate a lot of veggies) Massive lower jaw (mandible) Flatter face Massive cheek bones (zygomatic arch)

Summary of Australopithecines
Cranial

capacity increased marginally All australopithecines had Sloping foreheads Prominent brow ridges Prognathous lower face and jaws Bipedal postcranial skeletons Robust forms probably were dead ends Graciles likely evolved toward Homo.

Australopithecus and Homo ComparedFrontal View

Left: A. africanus Right: H. habilis Note: Different Cranial Capacities Brow Ridge Size

Australopithecus and Homo ComparedSide View

Top: A. africanus Bottom: H. habilis Compare: Mass of Jaws Size of Crania Prognathism

Postorbital Constriction

Left: Homo erectus Right: Australopithecus africanus Note the narrower constriction of A. africanuss postorbital constriction than that of H. erectus

Homo habilis: The First Known Toolmaker

Note the following: Face is much flatter Reduced brow ridge (supraorbital torus) Larger cranial capacity (680 cc.) Toolmaking Technique Hammerstone used to strike A core (lump of stone) to knap A Flake (stone chip) Note: Stone has to be crystalline (so it will fracture predictably)

Homo habilis According to Gary Larson

Australopithecines and Homo Compared I

Cranial

capacity Australopithecines: 400-530 cc Homo: 500-2300 Maximum braincase width Australopithecines: low on skull Homo: near top Postorbital constriction Australopithecines: marked Homo: moderate to slight

Australopithecines and Homo Compared II

Supraorbital

torus (brow ridge) Australopithecines: large to moderate Homo: large to slight Zygomatic arch Australopithecines: large, flaring Homo: small, not flaring

Australopithecines and Homo Compared III

Facial size relative to brain case Australopithecines: large Homo: small Jaw A: Massive and prognathic; no chin H: Not massive Prognathism slight to nonexistent; Chin present in sapients Molars and premolars Australopithecines: large; afarensis with diastema Homo: small

Australopithecines and Homo Habilis Compared: Skulls

General

trends Encephalization: Cranial capacity increases Dentition: Cheek teeth are reduced Sagittal Crest (where chewing muscles attach) A./P. robustus and boisei: pronounced A. africanus: sagittal keel or absent H. habilis: absent

Australopithecines and Homo Habilis Compared: Skull/Face

Braincase

A./P.

robustus/boisei: less rounded A. africanus: more rounded H. habilis: most rounded of the three Zygomatic arch A./P. robustus/boisei: very pronounced A. africanus: less pronounced H. habilis: far less pronounced than the australopithecines

Homo habilis: Hands and Feet

Hands Curvature of finger bones are apelike, indicate powerful grip (arboreal) Indications of greater manipulative skill Larger blood supply to hand than earlier hominids Evidence of greater nerve supply Feet: existing fragments indicate modern form: Remains lacked toes

Tool Traditions: Oldowan

Named

after Olduvai Gorge Among the finds at Olduvai: Side chopper, a core tool Several flake tools, including End scraper Side scraper Burin Utilized flakes of unknown function Belongs to Lower Paleolithic

Manufacturing Choppers
Procedure

Knapper

strikes a spherical piece of stone Flake falls off opposite side Tool flipped over and procedure repeated Several blows create a cutting edge Requirements reflect Intelligence Planning and foreknowledge of design Knowledge of breakage pattern of rock Hand-eye coordination

Oldowan Tradition

End chopper Heavy duty scraper Flake scraper Spheroid Hammerstone Chopper Horn core tool or digger

Homo habilis and Homo erectus

Compared

to H. habilis, H erectus had: Larger brain (1000 cc vs 680 cc average) Forehead flatter, less sloping More rounded occipital torus endocasts indicate hemispheric asymmetry Homo erectus and Homo sapiens

Homo erectus or ergaster

Note: Apelike but larger cranium Postcranial Skeleton Vertebrae: S Shaped Ribcage: Not funnel shaped, now like ours Pelvis: Bowl shaped Angle of Thighbone

Homo erectus and Homo Sapiens: Cranium (Braincase)

Forehead

(Frontal) H. erectus: sloping; low and flat H. sapiens: vertical, indicating frontal lobe Supraorbital torus (brow ridge) H. erectus: prominent--extending as a bar H. sapiens: slight or absent Occipital torus: H. erectus: present H. sapiens: slight or absent

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens: Cranium and Face

Sagittal

keel H. erectus: present; vestige of crest? H. sapiens: slight or absent Postorbital constriction H. erectus: pronounced H. sapiens: slight or nonexistent

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens: Facial Skeleton

Facial

skeletion H. erectus: Relatively large, with large orbits and nasal opening H. sapiens: Relatively small, with small orbits and nasal opening Prognathism (jutting jaw) H. erectus: Pronounced H. sapiens: minimal or nonexistent

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens skulls

Compare: Brow ridges (supraorbital tori) Prognathism Constriction behind eye sockets (postorbital constriction) Presence versus absence of chin

Tool Traditions: Acheulean

Named

after St. Acheul Characteristics of Acheulean handaxe Bifacial: both sides knapped Symmetrical in breadth Shaped to a point on one end The edge is thin and sharp Broad end is curved, but edge is still sharp Part of Lower Paleolithic

Acheulean Axe as Swiss Army Knife; Abbevillean variation

Swiss

Army Rock? Sharp tip: used for piercing Thin edge: used for cutting (hide or meat off bone) Broad end: used for chopping or scraping Abbevillean Variation: Bifacial, like the Acheulean Not quite so symmetrical Olduvai specimen: transitional type?

Manufacturing Acheulean Handaxes

A demanding task Symmetrical, finely shaped Dozens of flakes removed, from 25 to 75 Each flake blow must be precisely positioned Core must be turned over again and again to maintain symmetry to keep edge straight All the exterior rind (cortex) was removed

Abbevillian and Acheulean Handaxes

Left: Abbevillian. Note asymmetry, rough retouch Right: Acheulean. Note symmetry, fine retouch

Homo heidelbergensis or Archaic Homo sapiens

Left: Skull. Note heavy brow ridge, prognathism Right: Mandible. Note arc-like dental arcade, absence of diastema, absence of chin

Manufacturing Levallois Cores and Flakes

Knappers

Draw

outline of flake on stone module Strikes flake of desired shape Requires knowledge of breakage pattern of rock Prepares rock beforehand to control how rock breaks when struck Ensure right shape (e.g. cutting, perforation, piercing) is struck

Levallois Flake and Flaking Technique

Homo neanderthalensis: Skeleton

Left: Homo neanderthalensis Right: Homo sapiens Compare Relative thickness of bones Breadth of ribcages Size of skulls

Homo neanderthalensis: Cranium

Left: H. neanderthalensis: note larger cranial size, occipital bun, prognathism, brow ridge Right: H. sapiens: Note rounded cranium, presence of chin, absence of prognathism and brow ridge

Mousterian Tradition
Positively

identified with Neanderhals Le Moustier, France is a Neanderthal site Belongs to Middle Paleolithic More sophisticated than Oldowan or Acheulean, both Lower Paleolithic

Mousterian Tool Assemblage

Sample includes Scrapers, Points, and Handaxes

Upper Paleolithic: The Great Leap Forward?

Probably

begins about 50,000 BP Primary Attributes Shift from flake tools to blades Subsistence on greater range of animal and plant species Larger sites Increase of bone, antler, ivory, shell, and other materials for tools

Upper Paleolithic: Associated Attributes

Associated

Attributes Greater use of imported goods: raw materials obtainable only from great distances from inhabited sites which suggests trade More elaborate burials, with grave goods Appearance and elaborate use of symbols and works of art.

Upper Paleolithic: The Blades

Blades begin roughly 40,000 Years BP Comparative efficiency Levallois cores may produce 5 flakes Many more blades could be produced from same core--and with longer cutting edge Unlike other traditions, blade traditions are shorter lived Oldowan: from ca.2.5 m. yrs BP Acheulean: from ca 1.9 m. yrs BP

Upper Paleolithic Assemblage

Upper Paleolithic Tools (left to right): biconical bone point, Perigordian flint blade, prismatic blade core, Soluterean Willow leaf point, double-row barbed harpoon point (various sites in France)

Homo florensiensis

Small skull found in Liang Bua Cave, Flores Island, Indonesia, in 2004 Other specimens found since then Age range: 18,000 to 74,000 BP Main attributes: rounded skull, chinless mandible, hominin postcranial skeletal parts Fauna: Komodo dragons (large lizards), small elephantlike stegodons, and giant rats Artifacts: Several small stone implements of sizes appropriate to H. florensis.

Homo Floresiensis: The Controversy

Microcephalic human or separate species? Same species: absence of thyroid gland essential to growth, other features similar to sapient form. Different species: no chin, skull structure similar to H. erectus Further debate: see pp. 314-315, Park text Overall consensus: likely a separate species but not all share in that conclusion

To Sum Up: Representatives of Five Species

The species: 1. Australopithecus afarensis 2. Australopithecus africanus 3. Homo habilis 4. Homo erectus 5. Homo neanderthalensis