LSA 1043

Topik 3

Homo Sapiens-Sapiens

Phuket

Homo Sapiens

Broken Hill, Zambia

Comparison

Homo Sapiens and

Homo Erektus

Comparison

Ardipithecus Ramidus

Tim White described the Ardipithecus

ramidus in 1994, after he found the first
remains in Ethiopia in 1992(1). These
fossils have been estimated to be about 5.8
million years old(2). Whole skeletons have
not been found, but cranial bones as well
as molars were recovered. These remains
have greatly helped in reconstructing the
living habits of these primitive beings(1).
The teeth are very primitive in appearance
(as can be seen in the picture to the right),
which led the scientists to believe that
these people were the first of the humankind to branch from the chimpanzees(3).
Based off of other fossil remains found
with the Ardipithecus ramidus, it is also
believed that they inhabited woodyforested areas(4).
Dijumpai 1992. berusia 5.8 juta th dahulu,
gigi yang ditemui bersifat primitif,
dipercayai jenis manusia pertama daripada
cabang cimpanze, tinggal di kawasan
hutan berpokok.

Australopithecus Anamensis

The Australopithecus anamensis continued to hold

some primitive characteristics, but also began to
possess some human characteristics as well. The skull
continued to be exceptionally primitive, while the body
was beginning to become more human-like(1). The
humorous bone in the arm was especially human-like.
A large tibia bone found also lead to the conclusion
that this species walked on two feet(2). Although this
species was bipedal, it was also believed to spend
much of its time in trees as well. The teeth were also
much different than in the Ardipithecus ramidus. The
postcanine teeth were found to be larger and the
enamel was thicker than in previous remains found
(lower mandible jaw on right)(3). Clashing opinions
have arisen on the differences between the
Australopithecus anamensis and the Australopithecus
afarensis. A positive difference will not be declared
until more remains are uncovered on this species.
Meneruskan ciri-ciri primitif tetapi dah ada sedikit ciriciri manusia. Tengkorak masih primitif tetapi badan
mula berubah seperti manusia terutama bahagian
tangan, tulang tibia yang lebar-berjalan dua kaki tetapi
masih banyak masa di atas pokok. Giginya berbeza dgn
A.Ramidus-lebih besar. Masih banyak pertikaian.

This particular species is special for the almost

complete 3.2 million-year old skeleton found by
Donald Johanson in 1973(1). The skeleton's
name is "Lucy," (picture to the right) and has
been very important in helping us understand the
people of the past. The skull still closely
resembles primate ancestors, but the teeth are
larger and the casing around the brain is slightly
smaller, which shows more human-like
characteristics(2). The fingers and toes of this
species were also longer and curved more than
the modern humans, which suggests that these
people climbed trees for food as well as
protection(3). The pelvis bones and leg bones in
particular are also much more similar to modern
day humans than chimpanzees. Males were
generally larger than females and ranged from
about 107 cm (3'6" ) to 152 cm (5'0" )(4).
Besides fruit, this species is also thought to have
eaten a small amount of meat as well. This meat
may have resulted from the finding of a previous
killing or possible killing out of defense(5).

The Australopithecus africanus held many

similarities to Australopithecus afarensis, but
evolved to have some differences as well. One
of the best-known skulls discovered was found
by Raymond Dart in 1925. The skull is often
called the Taung Child for Dart found it in Taung
South Africa(1). The brain was a little larger
than previous remains, but still not thought to be
capable of speech(2). The majority of the brain
was preserved by natural limestone which
formed an endocast and enabled paleontologists
to study it(3). The teeth were also different from
the previous species. The canine teeth were
smaller as the molars grew to be slightly larger.
These characteristics combined with the wear
found on the recovered teeth lead scientists and
anthropologists to believe that the
Australopithecus africanus ate mostly foliage
and fruit(4). The teeth and jaw formation are still
far from the modern human's bone structure, but
they are more similar to the modern human than
the chimps at this point(5). The body structure
still remained small and only slightly built(1).

The species name "robustus" was chosen

to describe the skull, jaw, and teeth, which
were much more dense and thicker than
what was seen in previous species(1).
There were also many more ridges and
crests located on the skull(2). Its front
teeth were smaller, but the molars in the
back were larger than previous species(3).
This trend is continually seen throughout
the human evolution cycle. These dental
characteristic hint that their diet consisted
of tough foods that required a lot of
grinding and chewing from those lower
molars(3). A new advancement in the
Australopithecus robustus was the
presence of a "sagittal crest". This is a
ridge that runs from front to back on top of
the skull in which muscles are attached(3).
These muscles aid in moving the jaw so
that chewing is possible. As more muscle
is formed more powerful chewing is
possible.

Mary Leakey was the first person to find this type of species in 1959.
Most of these remains have been found spread over East Africa(1).
The Australopithecus robustus and the Australopithecus boisei are
very similar to each other and are thought to have descended from
the Australopithecus aethiopicus.
aethiopicus. Other scientists believe that the
Australopithecus robustus evolved from Australopithecus africanus
instead(2). The distinct characteristics of this species are its very
large teeth as well as its thickened skull. This find was very
important in the history of paleontology for it cleared up many
questions on Milford Wilpoff's hypothesis called the "Single Species
Hypothesis". This idea states that every niche in nature can only
support one species. When more than one species occupies a specific
niche competition arises until one species completely overpowers the
other(3). Wilpoff believed that if different hominids came into
contact with each other in the wild they would naturally start to act
like each other; therefore, not be able to occupy the same niche. The
results of this situation would vary where either one of the species
would be overpowered, or new species would not be able to evolve
due to the competition. In response to this hypothesis it was believed
that single sexual dimorphism occurred, with Australopithecus
robustus being the male sex and Australopithecus africanus being
the female sex. When both a male and female Australopithecus
boisei were discovered from the same location in the same time
period it proved that it was a separate species and put Wilpoff's
hypothesis into question(1). One distinct difference that set the
Australopithecus boisei apart from previous species was its massive
jaws. The teeth in the back were very large as compared to its front
canines, which were quite small. The surfaces of these back teeth
were also very worn, which gave clues that this species ate coarse
food and used these large back teeth to grind. With such large jaws
one would think that the jaw region would protrude, but actually it
was tucked in. This formation provided a very powerful vertical
bite(3) not seen before.

The genus Homo followed the Australopithecus, where a

great amount of brain expansion was observed(1). The
believed tool making capabilities of this particular
species is the reasoning behind its species name of
"habilis,"
habilis," which means "handy man." Specific
characteristics of this species continue to be quite vague
for many different traits make up this broad group. One
problem that is still present with this classification is if
the species Homo habilis is too vague to classify as only
one species. Bernard Wood believes that the Homo
habilis species should be broken up into two different
groups: Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis.
rudolfensis. People who
oppose this argument question what environment
processes were occurring to cause these changes(1).
Some general characteristics of the homo habilis are the
back teeth, which on average are smaller than the teeth
found in the Australopithecus boisei (picture to the right).
The brain, on the other hand, is much larger(Hominid).
This species was still relatively short with the average
male height being around 5' tall and weighing about 100
pounds(2). One brain cast also shows a bulge in Brocca's
area, which is essential for speech; therefore, the Homo
habilis may have been capable of speech at this point in
time(3). The hand grip is also thought to be very precise
and the length of the fingers shortened slightly, which
supports the idea of tool making among this species(4).

Homo erectus remains have been found in both Africa

and Asia, which make it the most widely spread hominid
species of that time. The first remains to be discovered
were found in Indonesia in 1893. These remains are
referred to as "Java Man"(1). The brain of this species
has continued to become larger from past fossils found,
which fit the trend that we have observed. The forehead
also became much flatter and the cranium became
lower(2). The face also shortened along with the bones in
the arms(3). The height increased largely in this species,
as some remains were calculated to be taller than 5'5"(2),
which is more than a foot taller than remains of the
Homo habilis.
habilis. The fossils found have also been very
robust, which shows the strength of this species, which
aided in hunting as well(4). Not only is this species
important in the evolutionary timeline for its more
modern physical characteristics, but this species also
introduced new behavioral characteristics as well. This
was the first species thought to be able to control fire and
to eat meat on a regular basis through hunting. The need
for hunting is thought to have contributed to the increase
in height found in this species. Evolution occurs to better
adapt to ones environment, and height aided them in
hunting for animals; therefore, is thought to have
occurred in this species.

Homo Sapiens Archaic

Homo sapiens (archaic) are also known as Homo

heidelbergensis.
heidelbergensis. Remains from this space have been
found in a variety of places starting from Germany to
Bodo, Africa, and even in Jinniushan, Asia (1). Their
brain size increased and their skull encasing also became
more rounded than the skull of the Homo erectus(2).
erectus(2). The
skeleton and teeth are generally less thick and dense, but
there are still large brow ridges present(3). They also had
a much steeper forehead than previous species, which
hints that the brain itself had more emphasis on the
forebrain (1). This is a very interesting observation for
this sector of the brain is responsible for planning and
reasoning, movements of limbs, speech, as well as social
conduct, which modern day humans are much more
advanced in (1).
The social life of the Homo sapien (archaic) is still quite
vague for not many clues have been found at this point.
The advancement of tools was seen, especially the
presence of the hand axe(4). Weapons were also found,
which shows that the hunting style of life was more
prevalent, and meat was a higher percent of their diet.
Hopefully, more clues will show up as additional remains
are found.

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

The Homo sapiens neanderthalensis were present during

the end of the Ice Age, and were very adapted to living in
this cold environment (1). They were short in stature
averaging about 5'5" and had short arms and legs(2). This
condensed body shape helped to conserve heat. They also
had an amazing projection in their nasal cavity thought to
have provided more surface area for mucus to warm the
cold frigid air before entering their bodies (3). Their brain
was larger than modern humans, but it was longer and
not as rounded(2). Bones of this species were also very
robust as well as muscular. These characteristics were
first thought to be signs that they were hard-working, but
these same characteristics were also found in children;
therefore, it is now believed this was a genetic trait
instead (3).
Socially, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis were also
thought to be more advanced than species of the past. An
increased number of tool remains have been found,
including the first to have pointed tips. The burial of the
deceased was also a trend found in various grounds for
the first time(4). Pollen remains were found with many of
the bodies, which hints that flowers may have been
buried along with the bodies; however, these pollen
fragments could also be due to rodents and other
scavengers as they visited the dead bodies. It can not be
said for sure if they believe in an afterlife, but it is quite
possible.

The Homo sapiens (modern), also known as

Homo sapiens sapiens, are the most advanced of
all the Hominid species. Archaic traits disappear
as their brain becomes more round and their
forehead much steeper. Their eyebrow ridges are
much smaller than in the past, and the chin is
also much more prominent(1). Over the past
100,000 years, trends can still be seen in a
decrease in molar size as well as a decrease in
robustness(1). Tools also became much more
detailed as they were made out of ivory, bones,
antlers, and wood. There is evidence of big game
hunting as buffalo remains have been found with
these fossils. These people were also capable of
building advanced shelters using wooly
mammoth fur and various animal bones and
wood to support the bottom. Artwork has also
been found on cave walls and animal bones (2).
Many pictures include animals such as horses
and deer. Many transitions have taken place for
the Hominid species to go from Ardipithecus
ramidus to Homo sapiens Sapiens of today.

Time line

The Evolution ?

Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Ardipithecus ramidus
Ardipithecus ramidus is the earliest hominid found so
far and was discovered in Aramis, in the Middle
Awash region of Ethiopia in 1994 by Tim White and
his two colleagues, Gen Suwa and Berhane Asfaw.
Ardipithecus ramidus translates literally as "ground
man-root" and is thought to be 4.4 to 4.5 million
years old. Originally it was named as a member of the
Australopithecine family, but it was later decided that
this species differed too much from other
australopithecines and was not an ancestor.

Cont.

17 different specimens were found with many bones

present. These specimens included part of a child's
mandible, some isolated teeth, a fragment of basicranium, and three bones of a left arm of a single
individual. On the right an image is shown of the upper
right third molar which they found on the site.
However, it cannot be told whether this member of the
hominid family was bipedal as all hip-bones and
femurs were missing. If this was the case, then this
pushes bipedal walking back even further. The origin
of bipedal walking is shown in the following figure and
as can be clearly seen, it is not sure whether bipedal
walking can be attributed to A. ramidus.

Cont.

The dentition of Ardipithecus ramidus is more

primitive (more apelike) than that seen in
Australopithecus afarensis, with narrower
molar teeth capped with thin enamel, unlike the
condition in all other known hominines; the
canines are larger, but not as large as in living
apes. The arm exhibits both apelike and nonapelike features, from which, White and his
colleagues concluded that the mode of
locomotion cannot confidently be determined.

In an unusual move, seven months after their initial publication in Nature,

White and his colleagues published a note in the same journal changing the
genus name to Ardipithecus (ardi means "ground floor" in the Afar language).
The authors noted that Ardipithecus was probably the sister taxon of
Australopithecus; in other words, both species derived from an as yet unknown
common ancestor. No substantive reason was given for the change, but many
observers believe that it may be based on an early analysis of a partial skeleton
of ramidus that was discovered at the end of 1994. Highly fragmented and
encased in a matrix, the skeleton will take a long time to prepare and analyse
fully, but preliminary indications are that it might reveal a more primitive,
chimplike morphology - hence the change of genus name. However, even
though the possibility has been raised that ramidus might even be an ape, it is
fairly sure that it is a hominid, as the very earliest hominines were expected to
be apelike (or even possibly chimplike) in many ways such as dentition
anyway. It has thus been decided that Ardipithecus ramidus was not a direct
ancestor to later hominids.
Reference: White, TD, et al. New discoveries of Australopithecus at Maka in
Ethiopia. Nature 1994; 371: p. 306-312.

Australopithecus anamensis

This hominine species was discovered in 1994 by

Maeve Leakey in Kanapoi and Allia Bay, situated in
North Kenya. It was named Australopithecus
anamensis from "anam" meaning "lake" in the local
Turkana language. The fossils (9 from Kanapoi and
12 from Allia Bay) include upper and lower jaws,
cranial fragments, and the upper and lower parts of a
leg bone (tibia). In addition to this, the collection
includes a fragment of humerus that was found 30
years ago at the same site at Kanapoi

Cont

The Kanapoi fossils have been dated at 4.2 million years and
those at Allia Bay at 3.9 million years. The dentition is less
apelike than in Ardipithecus ramidus, having thick enamel on
the molar teeth but relatively large canines. The tibia implies
that anamensis was larger than ramidus and afarensis, with an
estimated weight of 46 to 55 kilograms; its humanlike
anatomy implies that anamensis was bipedal in posture and
locomotion. Although distinct from Australopithecus
afarensis, its discoveres claim that Australopithecus
anamensis resembles the Laetoli fossils more than those found
in Hadar. The discovery of this species pushed bipedal
walking back half a million years. Facially this species
resembles afarensis a lot, it is very apelike.

Cont

It was found along the East African Rift valley

and due to the dating of this hominine species,
Australopithecus anamensis could possibly be
an ancestor to "Lucy" and counterparts.
Reference: Leakey, MG, et al. New fourmillion-year-old hominid species from
Kanapoi and Allia Bay, Kenya. Nature 1995;
376: p. 565-571

Cont

Australopithecus afarensis

Until recently, the earliest known hominine for which

sufficient diagnostic anatomical evidence was available was
Australopithecus afarensis, fossils of which have been found
in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Kenya, and most of which date
between 2.9 and 3.9 million years. New finds of fossils as old
or older than A. afarensis have been made in Ethiopia, Kenya,
and Chad. These speciments, which are sufficiently different
from A. afarensis to have been named a new species, include
the following: Ardipithecus ramidus from Ethiopia, dated at
4.4 million years; Australopithecus anamensis from Kenya,
with an age range of 4.2 to 3.9 million years; and
Australopithecus bahrelghazali from Chad, with an age
estimate of 3 to 3.5 million years.

Cont

The first afarensis fossils were found in the mid

1970s. Their initial interpretation was controversial
and remains so today, albeit to a lesser degree. While
many anthropologists accept that the multitude of
fossil specimens that have been attributed to afarensis
do indeed represent a single, sexually dimorphic
species, others believe that the fossils belong to two,
and perhaps more, species. For a long time afarensis
was assumed to have represented the founding
species of the hominine clade and the ancestor of all
later species.

Cont

The Ethiopian hominine fossils were first found in the

mid-1970s in the Hadar region of that country, by an
international team led by Donald Johanson, of the
Institute of Human Origins, Berkeley, and Maurice
Taieb, a French paleontologist. The many hundreds of
fosils recovered included mostly cranial and dental
specimens (but no complete cranium) and postcranial
elements. The most spectacular of these finds was the
partial skeleton named "Lucy"; in addition, remains of
13 individuals were found at a single site and were
subsequently dubbed the First Family. It was clear
from the start that some of the homninines were small
while others were large.

Work continued in the region until the early

1980s, but was then suspended for almost a
decade. Recent prospecting in Hadar by
Johanson and his colleagues at IHO, and in the
nearby Middle Awash region by Tim White, or
the University of California at Berkeley, has
yielded many more fossils specimens,
including the first complete cranium, details of
which were published in 1993 and 1994.

In addition to the fossils, a 30-yard-long humanlike

footprint trail of three bipedal individuals was
unearthed, which had been made (presumably by
Laetoli hominines) some 3.6 million years ago in a
newly deposited layer of volcanic ash. The trail
provides one of the more haunting relics of human
prehistory, recording a few moments in the lives of
three individuals, one of whom stopped briefly,
turned to look eastward (possibly at the still-erupting
distant volcano), and then continued onward.

Johanson and White described A. afarensis as being

much more primitive than other known hominies,
with a strongly apelike appearance above the neck
and a stronly humanlike form below the neck; as
having extreme sexual dimorphism in body size
(males larger than females); and as being ancestral to
all later hominines.
This table shows the main morphological differences
between the two main members of the so-called
"gracile" Australopithecine family; Australopithecus
afarensis and Australopithecus africanus.

Cont

A. afarensisA. africanusHeight1.0 - 1.5 metres1.1 - 1.4

metresWeight30 - 70 kg30 - 60 kgCranial Volume400 - 500
cc400 - 500 ccKnown Date4.0 - 2.5 million years ago3.0 - 2.5
million years agoDistributionEastern AfricaSouthern
AfricaPhysiqueLight build; some ape-like featuresLight build;
probably relatively long arms; more "human" featuresSkull
formLow, flat forehead; projecting face; prominent brow
ridgesHigher forehead; shorter face; brow ridges less
prominentJaws/TeethRelatively large incisors and canines; gap
between upper incisors and canines; moderate-sized
molarsSmall incisor-like canines; no gap between upper
incisors and canines; larger molarsSexual DimorphismMarked
to moderateProbably less than A. afarensis
Reference: Johanson, DC, White, TD. A systematic assessment
of early African hominids. Science 1979; 203, p. 321-330.

An Australian anatomist at the University of the

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, named
Raymond Dart, discovered the first australopithecine
in November 1924 and published his interpretation of
it in the journal Nature in February 1925. The fossil
was that of an immature apelike individual and was
found at a lime quarry at Taung, southwest of
Johannesburg. The fossil existed of the face, part of
the cranium, the complete lower jaw and a brain
endocast, formed when sand inside the skull hardened
to rock, recording the shape of the brain.

In the Nature paper published by Dart, he stated that the Taung

individual was an earlier form of human, and named it
Australopithecus africanus ("southern ape from Africa").
When a Scottish paleontologist named Robert Broom, joined
in the search for early hominid fossils with Dart, they soon
discovered other examples of australopithecine.
Australopithecus africanus appeared to be apelike in having a
protruding face and small brain, but had distinctly unapelike
dentition, including small canines and large, flat molars. A
bipedal posture was again indicated by the central position of
the foramen magnum, and by the anatomy of the spine, pelvis,
and femur.

Broom also discovered fossils which were thought to be

similar in many ways to Australopithecus africanus, but which
were more "robustly" built. The fossils exhibited larger jaws
and teeth and after discovering many more differences, Broom
decided to group these discoveries to a new species name of
Australopithecus robustus.
Dating these South African australopithecines has been a
difficult task, because their cave context is not appropriate for
radiometric dating. Ranges have been tentatively suggested for
3.5 to 2.5 million years for the gracile australopithecines and
2.0 to 1.0 million years for the robust species.

Australopithecus aethiopicus

In 1985, a cranium was found by Alan Walker at the

west side of Lake Turkana in Northern Tanzania and
was named Australopithecus aethiopicus. The
cranium was as robust as any yet known, but was 2.5
million years old. Clearly, the huge molars, flared
cheek bones, and dished face could not be the endproduct of an evolutionary line if it were present at
the origin of that supposed line. How this discovery
affects the shape of the hominie family tree remains
under discussion today.

This cranium, known locally as the "black skull", was surprising

not only because of its great age but also because it contained an
unexpected combination of anatomical characteristics. Although
the face was distinctly like that of that most robust of robust
australopithecines, Australopithecus boisei, the cranium
particularly the top and back was not: it was similar to that of
Australopithecus afarensis . Such an anatomical combination
surprised most people, and reminded us that hominine biology of
3 to 2 million years ago was more complicated than current
hypotheses have allowed.
Reference: Walker A. et al. 2.5-Myr Australopithecus boisei from
west of Lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 1986, 322: p. 517-522.

Australopithecus boisei

In 1959, Mary Leakey made the first hominine discovery in

East Africa at the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania which resembled
the robust australopithecines already found in South Africa.
After reconstructing the skull which was built up out of
hundreds of fragments, it was found that this specimen was
even more "robust" than its southern relatives. At first, it was
named Zinjanthropus boisei, but later changed to
Australopithecus boisei. There is still however a lively debate
over the genus name and this species is also often referred to
as Paranthropus boisei. A common perception is that the
robust species of australopithecine differs sufficiently from the
gracile type to warrant a different genus name.

Olduvai Gorge

Australopithecus robustus

In then 1930s, the first robust australopithecine was found

by Robert Broom , who at the time was working on new
searches with Raymond Dart the discoverer of the first
example of Australopithecus africanus . He found
specimens of early hominid fossils that were simply built
too heavily for them to be of the same type as A.
africanus. Therefore, he grouped them together and gave
them a new species name Australopithecus robustus.
There is still however a lively debate over the genus name
and this species is also often referred to as Paranthropus
robustus. A common perception is that the robust species
of australopithecine differs sufficiently from the gracile
type to warrant a different genus name.

Homo Habilis

The early discoveries of early hominid fossils were

made at Olduvai Gorge, by the Leakeys. Not long
after Mary Leakey had found Australopithecus boisei,
Louis Leakey found found fossils which he thought
were the makers of the stone tools found in the gorge.
At first he had attributed Australopithecus boisei with
the stone artifacts discovered in the gorge, but when
the hominid fossils were finally found, he
immediately realised that this was not the case.

The fossils were thought to be slightly older than

Australopithecus boisei (about 1.75 million years)
and in addition, the teeth were smaller and the brain
was calculated to be significantly larger. Louis
Leakey became convinced that these fossils were in
fact the ancestors of modern humans. It was
determined that Homo habilis (as the fossils were
named) overlapped with the robust australopithecines
for roughly 1 million years. Homo habilis means
"handy man" and was suggested to them by Raymond
Dart.

A series of anatomical characters is to be

found uniquely in Homo for example, an
increase in cranial vault height and thickness,
reduced lower facial prognathism, and
reduction in the size of premolars and molars
and the length of the molar row but what has
always stood out the most is brain size.

Homo Rudolfensis

In October 1993, an international team of

paleontologists discovered a partial hominine
mandible near Lake Malawi. The mandible was less
robust than that in australopithecines and the cheek
teeth smaller, indicating that it was closely associated
with Homo. The authors named this specimen Homo
rudolfensis, a contemporary of Homo habilis which
was found at Lake Turkana. The Malawi hominid,
together with other fauna that are characteristic of
Eastern Africa, indicate significant fauna movement
between the two regions.

Homo rudolfensis had a flatter, broader face

and broader postcanine teeth with more
complex crowns and roots, and thicker enamel.
This species also had a larger cranium. All the
non-australopithecine speciments found at
Olduvai Gorge are known to be Homo habilis,
whereas the ones found at Lake Turkana can
be divided between Homo habilis and Homo
rudolfensis.

There is now a general agreement that two species of

Homo coexisted 2 million years ago. Although the
taxonomic distinction is based principally on cranial
and dental characters, it is useful to think of Homo
habilis as a smaller-brained creature with an archaic
postcranium, and Homo rudolfensis as larger-brained
with a more modern postcranium. Which of the two
(if either) gave rise to later Homo is still being
debated. Homo rudolfensis appears to have a good
claim based on brain size and the more modern
postcranium, but some insist that its facial and dental
anatomy disqualify it from this role.

Homo Ergaster

One of the most famous finds at

Lake Turkana, Northern Kenya , is the
cranium of an early species of Homo, known
as Australopithecus boisei. However, in the
same sedimentary layer, another cranium was
also found belonging to a species of hominid
named Homo ergaster. This hominid species is
believed to be a different geographical
population of Homo erectus.

Many aspects of Homo ergaster and Homo erectus

anatomy are, of course, similar, with the principal
differences being a higher cranial vault, thinner
cranial bone, absence of sagittal keel, and certain
cranial base characteristics in Homo ergaster. One
distinguishing feature between early Homo and
ergaster/erectus involves increased brain size
(ranging between 850 and 1100 cc, with an increase
over time), although the increase in body size actually
means that the relative brain size has increased but
little.

Other distinguishing features include a long, low

cranium (particularly in Homo erectus), the presence
of brow ridges, a shortened face, and a projecting
nasal aperture, suggesting the first appearance of the
typical human external nose with the nostrils facing
downward. The structure of the nose would permit
the condensation of moisture from exhaled air, which
would have proved beneficial in a species that
pursued an active subsistence strategy in warm, arid
habitats, such as those occupied by early Homo
ergaster.

Early Homo gave rise to a large-bodied, large-brained speices

in Africa approximately 2 million years ago, but this species is
now called Homo ergaster by many anthropologists. Homo
ergaster expanded its range beyond Africa and into Asia soon
after its origin and at least by 1.8 million years ago; it then
gave rise to Homo erectus in those areas. Homo erectus
expanded its range throughout Asia, back into Africa, and
presumably into Europe. Approximately 150,000 years ago, a
speciation event in Africa gave rise to Homo sapiens (probably
from Homo ergaster, but possibly from Homo erectus), which
then spread into the rest of the Old World, and subsequently
into Australia and the Americas.

Homo heidelbergensis

This species is often also referred to as "Archaic Homo

Sapiens". Many examples of so-called Archaic Homo sapiens
have been located, including some recent spectacular finds at
Atapuerca, in North East Spain. These remains of many
individuals include some that may be 780,000 years old.
According to some proponents of the "Out of Africa"
hypothesis, most of these speciments should be assigned to
Homo heidelbergensis, which may have been ancestral to
Neanderthals in Europe and to Homo sapiens in Africa.
However, in May 1997, the discoverers of the fossils elected to
name the fossils a new species, Homo antecessor.
Multiregionalists view this group as evidence of a transition
toward modern Homo sapiens.

The "Mauer mandible", found in 1907 and dated at

roughly 500,000 years old, combines primitive
features (robusticity) with modern features (molar
size), was given the species name Homo
heidelbergensis in 1908. Some major findings of this
species may be located at Atapuerca in Northern
Spain where one of the most spectacular dings of
recent times was made. They uncovered 1300 human
fossils remains (representing 30 individuals) dated at
300,000 years old. These specimens also display
modern and ancient features mixed, and can probably
be assigned to Homo heidelbergensis.

The main noticable features of the fossils is the more

prominent face and nose and the changes at the base
of the skull which are perhaps thought to be
associated with changes in the voice box.
Little is known so far about how this group fitted into
the hominid timeline, but it is thought to have
possibly evolved into Homo sapiens (perhaps with an
intermittent species not yet found) and Homo
neanderthalensis.

Homo neanderthalensis

Neanderthals lived roughly 150,000 to 30,000

years ago and lived in much of Europe, part of
Asia, and the Middle East. The first fossils
humans to be discovered, Neanderthals have
long been the focus of anthropological
investigation. More bones of Neanderthals are
known than for any other fossil hominine
group, including some 30 nearly complete
skeletons, so this preoccupation within the
anthropological profession is understandable.

Neanderthal anatomy represents a mixture of primitive

characters, derived characters that are shared with other
hominines, and derived characters that are unique to
Neanderthals. In general terms, this species may be described
as being robustly built, heavily muscled, and short in stature.
Evidence of the heavy musculature appears in the extremely
large muscle attachments and the bowing of the long bones.
This implies that the species was involved in daily, routine,
heavy work.
This species existed in a cold climate, at the end of the
Pleistocene Ice Age and this appears in the short forearm and
leg relative to the humerus and femur (Allen s rule which
implies that in warm-blooded species, the relative size of the
limbs decreases as temperature decreases).

Homo sapiens

Population movements such as the colonisation of the

Americas have occurred many times in human prehistory, and
they inevitably muddy what might otherwise be a clear
relationship between body shape and climate, and its change
through time. One important example relates to the issue of the
origin of modern humans. Many anthropologists believe that
anatomically modern Homo sapiens evolved from a small
population in Africa 200,000 years ago, and then spread into
the rest of the Old World, reaching western Europe only
35,000 years ago. This is known as the "Out of Africa"
hypothesis. However, if this was true, the African origin of
anatomically modern humans would be reflected in their body
and limb proportions. Indeed, such populations do show this
trend, as these tall, long-limbed people entered lands located at
a latitude more conducive to wide bodies and short limbs.

Homo Sapiens di Asia Tenggara

Bukti-bukti terawal tentang kewujudan

manusia Homo Sapiens di Asia Tenggara ialah
40,000 BP.
Contohnya tengkorak kepala kanak-kanak di
Gua Niah.
Umumnya semua populasi manusia
mempunyai ciri-ciri perbezaan rangka tulan.
Kecenderungan kesamaan tengkoraktengkorak tertentu adalah satu kebarangkalian.

Sebelum pendudukan bangsa Mongoloid IndoMalaysia, Asia Tenggara telah dihuni oleh populasi
Australo-Melanesia.
Bangsa Mongoloid Indo-Malaysia ini berasal dari
kawasan utara.
Walau bagaimanapun berdasarkan kepada rangka
manusia tidak ada bukti penggantian secara tegas.
Oleh itu mungkin berlakunya perkahwinan campuran
dan evolusi setempat.

Penggantian Erektus kepada Sapiens

Pakar paleoantropologi percaya bahawa H.Erektus

telah menurunkan beberapa ciri morfologi pada kadar
yang berbeza-beza kepada orang Monggoloid dan
Australo-melanesia sekarang.
Contoh sarjana yang memegang teori ini ialah
Weidenreich (1946) dan coon (1962).
Menurut Coon, suatu spesis yang terpecah menjadi
ras-ras yang secara geografisnya mendiami wilayah
tertentu dapat berevolusi menurunkan spesis baru jika
ia tetap mampu mempertahankan ciri ras
geografisnya

Peralihan dari Australo-Melanesoid

ke Monggoloid
Bukti-bukti rangka dan tengkorak
1. Penemuan tengkorak-tengkorak di Liujiang di
Guangxi dan Ziyang di Sichuan berusia
Pleistosen Akhir kira-kira 35,000 BP.
:Tengkorak di Liujiang menggambarkannya
sebagai Monggoloid dengan beberapa ciri
Australo-Melanesia.
: Bukti evolusi Australoid di wilayah garis
lintang adalah sedikit berbending di China.

Cont
Antara tapak di Asia Tenggara ialah:
Gua Niah
Gua Cha
Gua Tabon dan beberapa tapak timbunan sampah
kerang di Indonesia dan Tanah Melayu.
Contoh bukti yang paling baik ialah di Gua Niah
kerana ditemui rangkaian rangka-rangka yang
mempunyai pentarikhan.

Cont
Tengkorak Dalam 40,000 BP
b)
Pengebumian terlipat, duduk dan tidak lengkap
14,000-3500 BP
c)
Pengebumian pepanjang (terlentang) dalam keranda
atau dibalut tikar 4000-2000BP
Analisis terhadap tengkorak dalam dilakukan oleh
Brothwell (1960) dan menyatakan bahawa ciri-ciri
morfologinya mirip dengan orang Tasmania
sekarang (variasi Aistralo-melanesia)
a)

Cont

Koenigswald dalam kajiannya terhadap

rangka-rangka terlipat menyatakan bahawa
keadaan gigi mereka adalah berciri
melanesoid.
Kesimpulan untuk tapak Niah mereka bukan
daripada kelompok Monggoloid Selatan

Cont

Gua Tabon dan sekitarnya di Palawan

: Ditemui 2 rangka manusia sebuah tulang dahi dan
rahang bawah dari Tabon (20,000 dan 22,000 BP)
: Menurut Macintosh tulang rahang bawah itu
mempunyai persamaan dengan rahang penduduk Asli
Australia.
: Sisa rangka dalam tempayan berusia selepas 3000
BP, kesemuanya bercirikan monggoloid seperti pada
bentuk gigi serinya.

Cont

Kesimpulannya sama ada di Niah atau Tabon

menunjukkan bahawa wilayah ini telah dihuni
oleh Australo-Melanesia sebelum Monggoloid
Selatan semenjak 3000 BP.

Tapak Gua Cha

: merupakan sebuah tapak ceruk peneduh
: disekitarnya dihuni oleh orang Negrito
(memburu) dan Senoi (bertani)

Cont

Orang Negrito jelas memiliki ciri Australo-Melanesia

Orang Senoi memiliki kecenderungan genetik yang sama
dengan populasi berbahasa Mon-Khmer.
Sebanyak 27 buah kubur dijumpai di G.Cha pada konteks
Hoabinhian dan Neolitik.
Trefor, Brothwell dan Bullbeck sisa rangka tidak
memperlihatkan perubahan bangsa dan umumnya mempunyai
kecenderungan genetik yang sama dengan orang Melanesia
mereka adalah keturunan Orang Asli sekarang (terutama
Negrito dan Senoi)
Kesimpulan oleh Bellwood ada beberapa tingkat
penggantian populasi di T.M. tetapi tidak dapat dihuraikan
melalui tinggalan rangka dari Gua Cha.

Cont

Gua Gunung Runtuh dan Moh Khiew Cave

(Krabi)
: GGR seorang lelaki 50an dengan tangan
cacat, pengebumian melentur.
: berdasarkan kepada kulit kerang tarikhnya
ialah 11,000 BP
: Dari segi morfologinya, ia tergolong dalam
Australo-Melanesoid konteks Hoabinhian

Cont
Kesimpulan Bellwood untuk merungkai
permasalahan ini, kita kena merujuk
perkembangan di Indonesia.
Tapak Wadjak di Jawa Timur
: dijumpai 2 tengkorak pada tahun 1888 dan
1890 dari satu batu lindungan tapi telah
hancur.
: dating terhadap tulang manusia ialah 6500
BP. berusia awal holosen.

Cont

Tengkorak ini masih menimbulkan persoalan

banyak pakar menganggapnya tergolong dalam
Australo-Melanseoid dan mempunyai otak dan paras
muka yang besar.
Coon dan Jacob (1962 dan 1967) melihatnya sebagai
cenderung kepada ciri Monggoloid kerana paras
wajahnya yang datar.
Kesimpulan oleh Jacob tengkorak wadjak itu
mungkin warisan bersama Monggoloid dan AustraloMelanesia sekarang.

Cont

Sisa temuan rangka manusia di Indonesia boleh

dibahagikan kepada 3 kelompok yang kabur.
A) Sisa rangka dari beberapa tapak di Flores
bertarikh Holosen berketurunan Australo-Melanesia
B) Rangka wanita dewasa yang kecil dari Liang Toge
bertarikh 2000 SM.
C) Sisa-sisa rangka manusia berusia 2000 BP dari
Tanjung Pinang, Utara Halmahera ciri AustraloMelanesia.
Daerah Indonesia Timur dihuni oleh kelompok ciri
bilogis Melanesia yang kuat.

Cont

Di Indonesia Utara dan Barat ditemui sisa-sisa tempurung

kepala cenderung kepada ciri Australo-Melanesia tetapi
sekarang ini dihuni oleh Monggoloid Selatan.
Contohnya,
A) Sisa tengkorak bergigi besar dari Gua Lawa, Jawa Tengah.
B) 12 rangka manusia dari Sukajadi Pasar, Sumatera.
C) Sebuah tengkorak dari lapisan paling bawah di Leang
Buidane di Kepulauan Talaud.
Tiadak ada satupun drp contoh tersebut yang dapat ditarikhkan
kecuali Sukajadi Pasar yang bertarikh 9500 BP tetapi dalam
konteks yang terganggu.

Bukti-bukti penemuan Monggoloid

Selatan

Populasi ini banyak ditemui selepas 3000 BP iaitu

Zaman Neolitik Akhir dan selepasnya.
Pengenalpastiannya berdasarkan kepada bentuk gigi
serinya seperti tembilang.
Contohnya.
A) Leang Cadang, Sulawesi Selatan
B) Gili-manuk, Bali (2000 BP)
C) Leang Buidane, Talaud (millenium pertama
masihi)
Temuan-temuan itu jelas menunjukkan leluhur
kepada penduduk sekarang di kws tersebut.

Kesimpulan kecil

Populasi monggoloid selatan telah masuk ke

kepulauan Indonesia melalui Filipina jika itu
dikaitkan dengan penghijrahan penutur
Austronesia. Sebahagiannya melalui Tanah
Melayu.
Ini berlaku kerana (hipotesis) populasi
Neolitik Akhir dan Zaman besi di China telah
terdesak untuk keluar ke selatan kerana
tekanan penduduk sebelum 500 SM.

Cont

Menurut Coon (1962 dan 1966)

: Indonesia dan wilayah Asia Tenggara merupakan
daratan yang merupakan tanah air orang Australoid
yang kemudian dilanda serbuan kilat penghijrah
Monggoloid ke selatan yang dimulai sekurangkurangnya pada zaman neolitik dan memuncak pada
masa awal sejarah 2000 BP.
: penelitian terhadap rangka awal holosen di tapaktapak Hoabinhian di A.T menemui adanya susunan
yang janggal antara ciri Monggoloid dan AustraloMelanesia di Vietnam hingga ke Tanah Melayu.

SEKIAN
KHOP KUN KHAP