Anthropologisch Flashcards
Wann entstand der moderne Mensch, der von uns anatomisch kaum zu unterscheiden ist ?
200.000 Jahre
Was waren die entscheidenden Veränderungen im Lauf der letzten Millionen Jahre, die uns Menschen kennzeichnen ?
Aufrechter Gang (Bipedie)
Veränderungen im Kauapparat
Gehirnvergrößerung
Sprachentwicklung
Kulturelle Evolution
The biological evolution of humans was accompanied by a cultural evolution, marked by three phases in prehistoric times:
Paleolithic (old stone age, ~3.3mya-10kya)
Mesolithic (middle stone age, ~20kya-5kya)
Neolithic (new stone age, ~10kya-2kya)
Evolution of Behavior
Coupled with the brain’s evolutionary development is the increasingly complex behavior exhibited by hominids:
The Modern Human Mind:
• Creating artifacts and images with symbolic meanings as a means of communication
• Using knowledge of animal habits, tools, advanced planning and communication to coordinate the hunting of large game
Natural History Intelligence:
Predict the future by understanding:
• the habits of game
• the rhythms of the seasons
• the geography of the landscape
Social Intelligence:
Group bonding behavior improves survival opportunities for members. Language allowed early humans to:
• communicate ideas
• plan survival strategies
• coordinate hunting and gathering
Technical Intelligence:
Producing and using artifacts required
an understanding of abstract ideas and physical processes:
• the fracturing behavior of stone
• best angles of striking stone
• how hard to strike a stone
• trajectory of a thrown projectile
Complex Behaviors
Enhancing the natural protection of rock shelter
Caring for the elderly
Toolmaking using bone and antler
Prolonged infant dependency
Toolmaking using flint
Making clothes from animal skins
Paleolithic Tools
The term ”Paleolithic” refers to a time period in the development of human culture that means Old Stone Age.
It spans the emergence of the first recognizable stone tools until the development of sophisticated tool kits in the Mesolithic period (Middle Stone Age) about 20-10 kya (depending on the region, e.g. 20 kya in the Levant, 12 kya in Europe).
The earliest human tool cultures date from about 3.3 mya in East Africa (Lomekwi, Kenya) and are known mostly by their stone implements.
This does not mean that the associated hominids did not use other, biodegradable materials (such as wood or bamboo): these would not preserve well
Oldowan
First Appeared: 2.6 M yrs ago
Weber, G.W., Dept of Anthropology, University of Vienna
Acheulian
First Appeared: 1.75 M yrs ago
Mousterian
First Appeared: 200 000 yrs ago
Upper Paleolithic
First Appeared: 40 000 yrs ago
Oldest Tools in Dispute (umstritten)
Cut marks from stone tools at Dikika, Ethiopia are suggested to indicate the earliest (indirect) evidence of stone tool use around 3.4 mya
(Left, McPherron S.P. et al., Nature 2010).
Tool-assisted meat-eating would accordingly start ~ 800.000 years before any other evidence found so far.
Fundamental critic is expressed:
1) “cut marks” likely random striae (trampling artefacts, left below), and
2) no actual tools were found at the site
The oldest undisputed tools (unumstritten)
Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya
Dated to 3.3 Million years ago
a) In situ core and refitting surface flake
b) Unifacial core
c) Unifacial core
d) Flakes
Less developed than the first common technology known from many sites (Oldovan), but appears 700,000 years earlier than the first Oldovan (Gona, 2.6 Million years, Ethiopia). The technology cannot be associated with the genus Homo (earliest probable appearance 2.8mya)
Use of Fire
At first, fire may have been ‘captured’ from natural sources, such as bush fires caused by lightning.
Later, humans developed techniques to create fire on demand. The earliest record of humans using fire:
Africa: 1.5 mya Koobi Fora (Kenya), 1.4 mya Chesowanja (Lake Baringo, Kenya), and 1.5-1.0 mya Swartkrans (South Africa), but dates and evidence are disputed, controlled use of fire or open air wildfire?
1.0 mya Wonderwork Cave (South Africa) earliest secure evidence for intentional fire. (Berna et al. 2012)
Israel: 750 kya in Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, good case for repetitive use of fire
(Alperson-Afil. et al. 2009)
China: 460 kya in Zhoukoudian, heavily disputed, likely not a fire place but water-laid accumulation of organic material
Weber, G.W., Dept of Anthropology, University of Vienna
With fire early humans could:
Remain active at night: People began using fire as a source of light to continue their activities after dark and inside caves.
Cooking with fire: Made the meat of the animals they killed more palatable and digestible. They learned to preserve meat by smoking it over a fire. Cooking also enabled them to add some formerly inedible plants to their diet, and makes starch more digestible and richer in energy.
Make better weapons and tools: Hunters formed spears from tree branches by burning the tips of the branches and then scraping the charred ends into a point.
Protect themselves from predators
Warm themselves
The unambiguous identification of paleolithic fire places is problematic. Good evidence for anthropogenic fire is the appearance of multiple indicators such as
ashes, charcoal burned bones chips of flintstone burned soil arranged hearths
The role of cooking in human evolution (Wrangham et al. 1999): Cooking led to an increase in hominid brain size, smaller teeth and jaws, and decrease in sexual dimorphism, all related to the appearance of Homo ergaster roughly 1.8 mya.
Problem: There is no good evidence for fire use in that time, the significant reduction of teeth and jaws happened later, well documented fire places appear ~ 400-300 kya
Good evidence for repeated use of a central hearth at Qesem Cave / Israel 300kya
Two superimposed use cycles Very large 4m2
In the center of the cave used by a large group
Associated with butchered animal remains and dense flint assemblages
Paleolithic Tool use
It is impossible to tell with certainty what a tool recovered from an archaeological site was used for. By studying how similar tools have been used by recent 'stone age' societies, it is possible to guess at their likely function. People using only stone-based technology were still in existence well into the first half of the 20th century. Anthropologists studying these primitive cultures gathered insights into how our ancestors may have lived. Faustkeil Hackmesser Bohrer Abschlag zum Schneiden Schaber gezahntes Werkzeug Speerspitze
Tool making methods
A variety of stone tool manufacturing methods have been used through- out the history of tool making. Some of these methods (particularly hard hammer and soft hammer percussion) were probably combined with other methods in the manufacturing process.
“Stone tool school” – knowledge transfer documented at Qesem Cave (Assaf et al. 2015)
Basic forms are:
Flakes: chipped from the core, less than twice as
long as it is wide
Blades: chipped from the core, twice as long as it is wide
Core: Older technologies used the core as tool (choppers, hand axes), later technologies used the flakes and blades.
Strike and pressure create typical patterns on a stone tool.
Bulb of percussion: The swollen area on a surface caused by the force of the strike, the primary feature that identifies the ventral (surface attached to the core) and proximal surface of a flake or blade artefact.
Wallner lines: wave-like continuation of the impacting impulse, located ventrally, indicating the direction of the strike
Radial lines: radial to the point of impact, ventral
Retouch: intentional flaking that modifies an artefact after detachment from the core. Involves a series of contiguous small flake scars located on the perimeter of the tool used to sharpen, thin, shape, blunt, or otherwise modify the artefact.
Die Tool making Methoden
Tool making methods included:
Hard Hammer Percussion:
(Oldowan and Acheulian)
Hammer stone
Flake about to be chipped off from core
Tool partly completed as the core is ‘worked’
Levallois Method:
(Mousterian)
Tool is removed as a single large flake
Hammer stone
Core from which the large flake is struck
Soft Hammer Percussion:
(Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic)
Soft hammer made of bone
Core is being struck to remove flakes
Punch Blade Method:
(Upper Paleolithic)
Hammer stone
Antler or bone punch
Core
Anvil stone
Blades and waste flakes
Pressure Flaking:
(Solutrean industry of the Upper Paleolithic)
Antler
Small, carefully controlled flakes are chipped off from the blade
Oldowan Tool Culture
Main Appearance: 2.6 mya (Gona) - 1.4 mya (Olduvai)
Associated Hominids: Au. garhi? H. habilis
H. rudolfensis H. ergaster
P. boisei?
These tools were simple river-worn pebbles that were crudely fashioned with only a few flakes being removed. Technological stasis between 2.6-1.7 mya (Stout et al. 2010 JHE).
Very difficult to attribute to species, but appear probably prior to genus Homo.
These tools typically had flakes knocked from several angles to produce a core with a cutting edge (e.g. chopper, discoid, polyhedron). Although the cores may have been used as tools, it is known that the sharp flakes were also useful in cutting.
These cutmarks on bovid bones shall document that hominids (Au. garhi) acquired meat and marrow 2.5 mya. No tools were actually found.
The site of the second earlierst tools 2.6 mya in Gona) is only 96 km to the north.
First sign of behavioural change towards lithic technology and enhanced carnivory.
Choppers:
Flakes removed from 1 side only
Proto-Biface:
Flakes removed from 2 sides
Core
Polyhedron (Core) und Discoid:
Flakes removed from all sides
Acheulian Tool Culture
Main Appearance: 1.7 mya (W Turkana) - 0.2 mya (Europa)
Associated Hominids: H. ergaster/erectus H. heidelbergensis
These tools were typically ‘tear drop’ in shape and were carefully crafted with a slight bulge on each broad surface (called a ‘bi-face’).
They ranged greatly in their size, one type is called ‘hand axe’ although it is not clearly understood how they were used.
They differ markedly from the earlier pebble tools in that there appears to be a standard “design” and each tool is manufactured using a great many more blows to remove flakes.
Most successful product ever, produced for ~ 1.5 mya
Handaxe refinement through time.
Upper row – dorsal view Lower row – ventral view.
From left to right, two each are shown from Konso (Ethiopia)
KGA6-A1 (∼1.75 Ma)
KGA4-A2 (∼1.6 Ma)
KGA12-A1 (∼1.25 Ma)
KGA20 (∼0.85 Ma)
In each pair of handaxes from the respective sites, near-unifacial (left) and more extensively bifacial (right) examples are shown (except KGA20). The temporal refinement implies enhanced function through time.
Wooden artefacts:
Yew “spear”, ~ 400 kya, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, UK. Not clear if it is a thrusting spear or another kind of tool. (Müller-Beck 2008 CH Beck)
8 throwing spears, ~ 300 kya, Schöningen, Germany. Oldest completely preserved hunting weapon. Were covered quickly by mud, thus the organic material preserved. (Thieme 1997, Nature)
Mousterian Tool Culture
Main Appearance: 250 kya – 40kya (Eurasia)
Associated Hominid:
H. neanderthalensis
H. sapiens
More refined tool culture than the
typical Acheulian tool culture, less handaxes until they disappear, tools become smaller, the diversity becomes larger, sharp knifes and points
Flint became a preferred material to produce stone tools because of the
very predictable way in which it would chip when struck with another hard object (much finer workmanship was possible). The climate became colder, preparation of clothing requires sharp edges.
The Levallois tool making method involved preparing a core and striking off a large oval flake which was then retouched on one surface only.
The Levallois technique of flint-knapping
Side scraper
from Le Moustier, FranceFlint, length 9cm
Handaxe
from Le Moustier, FranceFlint, length 8.5cm
Levallois point
from Le Moustier, FranceFlint, length 6cm
The scraper made by the Levallois flake method is retouched on one surface
Neanderthal Culture
There was occasional burial of their dead by Neanderthals in Europe and the Levant (e.g., Saint-Cesaire, Kebara, Amud, Dederiyeh, Shanidar, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Le Moustier, La Ferrassie, La Grotte du Regourdou, Teshik-Tash). However, burials were less elaborate than those of modern humans. Due to insufficient excavation methods, ritual burial is disputed and some argue for natural deposition (Gargett 1999 JHE).
Other authors see evidence in the following arguments:
The grave is usually characterized by certain items found buried with the body (burnt animal bones, stone tools or “flowers”).
The position and orientation of the body are also found consis- tently the same (aligned east-west with legs curled up).
Beerdigt:
Animal bones, red ochre and horns buried with the body
Position and orientation of the body with legs pulled up as if sleeping
Flowers
Stone pillow
Stone Tools
A flute-like piece of a cave bear femur with two holes has been found at an archaic hunting camp in Slovenia (Divje Babe, dated 43 kya). The holes are likely intentional and not carnivore bites.
This would suggest advanced Neanderthal behaviour producing music. However, no hominin bones are present. Thus the association with Neanderthals or modern humans remains unclear.
Whether or not the Neanderthals possessed artistic ability also refers to personal ornaments such as perforated shells, bones, and teeth.
This 42 kya-old flute made of bird- bone (swan) is one of the earliest instruments (Highham et al. 2012) providing unambiguous evidence of music (Geißenklösterle, Germany). It is associated with Aurignacien (modern humans) culture.
Upper Paleolithic Culture
Main Appearance: 45 kya – 10 kya Associated Hominids: H. sapiens
There was a rather sudden increase in the sophistication of tool making about 45 - 40 kya.
Anatomically modern humans, and probably the last of the Neanderthals, produced flint tools of much finer workmanship using a technique called punch blade, in which long, thin flakes are removed and shaped into a large number of different tool types.
European sub-cultures (traditions) include the Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, and Magdalenian.
Other material such as bone, ivory, and antler became increasingly utilized to produce very fine tools such as needles, and also personal ornaments and figurines.
Punch Blade Method:
Hammer stone
Antler or bone punch
Core
Anvil stone
Blades and waste flakes
Problem of transitional culture
Mousterian
Aurignacian
Uluzzian
Section of the Palaeolithic sequence of Grotta del Cavallo.
a. The entire stratigraphic section of Cavallo Cave, after Palma di Cesnola 1966;
b. Detail of the section showing only the late Mousterian and UP layers;
c. The section photograph illustrates the clear distinction between the very dark Uluzzian deposits from the lighter- coloured sediments of the later UP layers at the site.
Throwing sticks were a major development in the arsenal of the paleolithic hunter.
They drastically increased the ballistic range of the spear and tipped the balance in favor of the hunter.
Bone needles and harpoons appear as well.
Hunting Big Game
The ability to hunt and kill large game (such as woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros) was a triumph of human innovation requiring:
Well developed technology to make effective weapons
Cooperative behavior to plan and coordinate a hunt An understanding of the habits and
behavior of prey animals (e.g. migration paths) A knowledge of the local landscape
to effect an ambush
An understanding of physical laws in order to use weapons (e.g. gravity on the trajectory of a thrown spear)
Bringing down a woolly mammoth required a coordinated attack and cunning.
They may have used pit falls (traps) to immobilize their quarry before they closed in for the kill.
Paleolithic Art
Modern humans underwent a cultural explosion about 45 kya giving rise to prehistoric art and new kinds of tools.
The stimulus was probably a need to represent in some lasting way, ideas concerned with the unknown:
Death
Hunting success
Fertility of women
Lion man of the Hohlenstein Stadel, Germany (30 cm high) carved out of mammoth ivory about 40 kya.
Early examples of rock art are found in southern France, northern Spain (here Altamira, ~16 kya), and Australia
Painting of a warlock dressed in animal skins (15 kya) on a cave wall in the Pyrenees Mountains
Cueva de El Castillo, Spain (about 39 kya).
Horse from Vogelherd, Germany (15 cm high) made of ivory, about 32 kya.
Venus from Willendorf, Austria
(11 cm high) carved out of limestone about ~30 kya.
Chauvet cave paintings, France (about 32 kya, but recently disputed).
Venus from Lespugue, France (15 cm high) made of mammoth ivory, about 25 kya.
Cave Paintings:
One of the most famous examples of Paleolithic art is found in the caves at Lascaux in the Dordogne Valley, France.
Lascaux caves contain some of the finest art, dating back to somewhere between 17 - 15 kya.
A horse depicted with possible spears being thrown at it. Note the geometric symbol above the horse (its meaning is unknown).
An aurochs (a now extinct, giant ox) is painted over earlier images of reindeer.
Spiritual Thinking
There are several hundred caves in southern France and Spain that were used by early humans.
Some of these caves contain rock paintings made by Cro-Magnon shaman
The shaman would use even the relief of the cave walls for the actual presentation of the motif (switching between the worlds).
Rouffignac cave has some 10 km of passages (map below), with the most accessible cave paintings some 750m underground ( Mitte Frankreich)
Mesolithic Cultures
Mesolithic Period: Middle Stone Age First Appeared: 20-10 000 years ago
Foraging and fishing economy Characterized by:
the use of small stone tools (called microliths)
a broad-based hunting and gathering economy (including foraging for seeds from wild cereal grasses).
Sickles used to cut the grasses to gather their seeds
Neolithic Cultures
Neolithic Period: New Stone Age First Appeared: 11.5 kya in the
Middle East
Plant cultivation and animal domestication
The Neolithic culture is usually associated with the beginnings of agriculture, pottery and permanent settlements in the Old World.
This shift away from a hunter- gatherer economy, to one which could provide surplus food, meant greater population densities could be achieved and allowed for the development of artisans
Neolithic Excavation Kit
Sickles used to cut the grasses to gather their seeds
Quern used to grind cereal seeds
The Beginning of Agriculture
Farming began in different parts of the world at different times:
Earliest evidence is found in the so-called ‘fertile crescent’ running from Egypt to the Persian Gulf about 10 000 years ago.
By about 7 000 years ago, agriculture became established in China.
This was followed by Mesoamerica (Guatemala, Honduras and southern Mexico) about 5 000 years ago
South America
Lima beans, potatoes, squash, beans, and pumpkins
8 000 years ago
Fertile Crescent
Barley, wheat, emmer, einkorn, lentils, peas, sheep, goats, cattle10 000 years ago
North China
Rice and millet
7 000 years ago
Southeast Asia
Rice, bananas, sugar cane, tea, citrus fruits, coconuts, yam, millet, soya beans, taro, pigs > 4 000 years ago
Africa
Millets, sorghum, groundnuts, yams, dates, coffee, and melons
> 4 000 years ago
Mesoamerica
Beans, maize, peppers, squash, gourds, cotton, guinea-pigs, llamas 8 000 years ago
Domestication of Animals
Numerous animals have been domesticated by humans over the last 10 000 years in many parts of the world:
Domesticated Animal
Wild Ancestor
Region of Origin
Date (Years ago)
Dog
Wolf
many places?
33 000
Goat
Bezoar goat
Iraq
10 000
Sheep
Asiatic mouflon
Iran, Iraq, Levant
11 000
Cattle
Aurochs
Southwest Asia
8 500
Pig
Boar
Anatolia
9 000
Domestic fowl
Red jungle fowl
Indus Valley
4 000
Horse
Wild horse
Southern Ukraine
6 000
Arabian camel
Wild camel
Southern Arabia
5 000
Bactrian camel
Wild camel
Iran
4 500
Llama
Guanaco
Andean plateau
6 000
Water buffalo
Indian wild buffalo
Indus Valley
4 500
Ass
Wild ass
Northeast Africa
5 500
Bronze Age Cultures
Copper Usage: 9 000 years ago in South-east Turkey native copper was worked by cold- hammering
6 600 years ago saw the first smelting of copper
Bronze Age: 5 000 years ago saw the first bronze created by smelting an alloy of tin and copper
Bronze was used to make implements, vessels and weapons, although stone implements continued to be used.
Pottery (beakers) made from fired clay pots became valuable storage vessels.
What is Evolution?
Evolution is the change of inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations
Microevolution describes the small-scale changes within gene pools over generations.
Macroevolution is the term used to describe large scale changes in form, as viewed in the fossil record, involving whole groups of species and genera.
The complete genome of an individual represents the individual genotype which encodes all inherited traits and is passed down from one generation to the next one.
The expression of an individual’s genes results in a particular phenotype (the sum of observable traits).
The environment is influencing this expression, and at the same time providing the test bed for the phenotype’s success.
Many individuals form a population, representing different genotypes and phenotypes.
The genes of individuals can change over time because mutations (modifications of nucleotide sequences) produce gene variants (alleles).
Genes (including those mutations) are transferred to descendants. They are recombined during sexual reproduction. Diversity is thus created in populations.
Genetic diversity and excess production is the substrate on which evolution can prosper.
Populations evolve, not individuals!
Through evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection
neutral evolution
gene drift and gene shift bottleneck effect founder effects
the frequency of alleles will change in a population.
Those gene combinations that lead to phenotypes featuring reproductive success in a given environment will prevail.
Distinct species appear once the differences between populations are large enough so that they are reproductively isolated from each other.
Entropy in thermodynamics is a measure of disorder or randomness. A demonstrative example is an ice-cube in a glass of lukewarm whisky. It will melt and the water-whisky mix will take up a balanced temperature. The order of ice- crystals is lost as well as the fine taste of the whisky, but chaos has increased.
Entropy in information theory is a measure for the information density stored, Information is a measure for the uncertainty eliminated
Negentropy is the opposite of entropy, it is the increase of information or order
(E. Schrödinger, 1944, Austrian physicist).
Living systems are taking up negentropy and store it. For this purpose, they consume energy.
Organisms store information and evolution accmulates it in more complex organisms. Evolution thus expends energy and converts it into information.
Since the sun is the only energy source available (except nuclear power), the degree of information density we can achieve is depending on how much of this energy we can make available
Evolutionary is nothing else than change over time.
Organisms are complex systems reacting to environmental factors.
Since the environment always changes (e.g. climate, tectonics, landscape, …), we cannot assume that living systems remain unchanged through time.
The only way to interrupt this natural process would be to stop reproduction, which means extinction.
Forces Operating in Evolution
Various “forces” or phenomena have a part to play in the evolutionary process:
At the molecular level:
Point mutations (single base modification)
Control of gene expression (synthesis of a functional gene product, e.g. proteins)
Rate of protein synthesis
At the chromosomal level:
Crossing over (exchange between maternal and paternal chromosome fractions during meiosis)
Block mutations (mutations affecting whole segments of a chomosome)
Polyploidy (more than two paired sets of chromosomes)
Aneuploidy (an extra or missing chromosome, e.g. 45 or 47, trisomy 21)
Independent assortment (alleles separate when gametes are formed)
At the organism level:
Environmental modification
of phenotype
Selection pressures Reproductive success ‘Fitness’ of the phenotype
At the population level: Genetic drift (random sampling) and population size Natural selection altering gene frequencies Mate choice (intersexual selection) Intraspecific and intrasexual competition Immigration/emigration (gene flow) Founder effect Population bottlenecks
At the species level:
Geographical barriers
Reproductive isolation
(prezygotic and postzygotic)
Selection pressures Interspecific competition
What is Science?
Science is the process of discovery.
Its explanations must come from observations that can be repeated and confirmed by other researchers.
Science does not invoke supernatural forces to explain natural phenomena.
Science rests on a few principles: A real universe exists independent of
perception.
This universe behaves according to certain predictable laws.
These laws are knowable through observation and testing.
Hypothese -> Experiment -> Daten -> conclusion
Creationists
Creationism is the belief in a single creative force in the universe.
In its extreme form, creationists believe that the earth and every living form were created in 6 days, the earth is very young (Ussher 23. Oct. 4004 BC), and all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve (Book of Genesis, Old Testament).
Creationists do not believe in evolution. Their critic focuses on dating methods, the existence of fossil forms (they should be products of Noah’s flood), and the absence of links in the fossil record. Some hardliners refuse teaching of evolution in schools.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a modern adaptation of creationism, it claims that evolutionary theory cannot fully explain the diversity of life (irreducible complexity), some supernatural force is necessary.
Evidence for Evolution
Evolutionary theory is supported by a wealth of observations and experiments.
Although biologists do not always agree on the mechanisms by which populations evolve, the
fact that evolution has taken place is well documented.
Evidence for evolution comes from many sources:
Paleontology: The identification, interpretation and dating of fossils gives us the most direct evidence of evolution.
Embryology and evolutionary developmental biology: The study of embryonic development in different organisms and its genetic control.
Comparative anatomy: The study of the morphology of different species.
Biogeography: The study of geographic distributions can indicate where species may have originally arisen.
Artificial selection: Selective breeding of plants and animals has shown that the phenotypic characteristics of species can change over generations as particular traits are selected in offspring.
Biochemistry: Similarities and differences in the biochemical make-up of organisms can closely parallel similarities and differences in appearance.
Molecular genetics: Sequencing of DNA and proteins indicates the degree
of relatedness between organisms.
Biogeographical Evidence
General principles for the dispersal and distribution of land animals are:
Closely related animals in different geographic areas probably had no barrier to dispersal in the past.
The most effective barrier to dispersal in land animals is sea (as when sea levels change).
Oceanic islands often have species that are similar to, but distinct from, those on neighboring continents. The occurrence of these species suggests that they evolved in isolation differently to their ancestors on the mainland.
The Americas play no role in hominin evolution until very recently
Speciation
Folie 12 vo 2
Extinction
Most species that have ever lived are now extinct.
Entire lineages that were once dominant have now disappeared or have dwindled in numbers as other radiations have flourished.
Often, the extinction of one group has allowed another to undergo extensive radiation into free niches
Radiations may follow extinctions but are rarely the cause of them
Evolution of the Human Brain
Cognitive capacity is not just a function of brain size: relative brain size appears to be more important (brain size compared to body size).
Modern humans have a brain volume
three times larger than that predicted for an average monkey or ape with our body size.
Another important factor is the organization of the brain, e.g. the development of the areas concerned with spoken language.
Several areas of the brain have undergone re-organization, while also the volume of the brain increased considerably during hominin evolution.
Changes in Brain Size
Selection pressures for increased brain size must have been considerable.
The normal human adult brain averages around 1330 cc, but extreme sizes are between 1000 and 2000 cc
Brain Volume for Hominin Species
* Note that Homo floresiensis is well outside the normal range for humans
Hominin Species
Years Ago (mya)
Average Brain Volume (ml)
Australopithecus afarensis Australopithecus africanus Paranthropus robustus Paranthropus boisei Homo rudolfensis
Homo habilis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis Homo neanderthalensis Homo floresiensis
Early Homo sapiens
3.5 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.05 0.095 0.08
440 450 520 515 700 575 800 1100 1250 1550 380* 1450
Brain Size Compared to Body Height
Brain size can be correlated to the body height of hominins.
A clear pattern emerges that indicates three distinct clusters of evolutionary development:
Australopithecines Erectines
Homo
Homo floresiensis clearly falls out side these clusters.
World Population Growth
The United States Census Bureau (USCB) estimated that the world population exceeded 7 billion on 12th March 2012.
While industrialized countries maintain or even reduce their population, some less developed countries still grow rapidly
Population Age Structure
These population pyramids show the distribution of various age groups in a population. The shape of the pyramid is indicating the reproductive capabilities and likelihood of the continuation of a population.
It shows demographic changes, for instance, the youth bulge in China around the 1960 before the one-child policy was introduced, or the male excess.
Human Evolution
in the Future
Over the next few thousand years, human evolution will be influenced by a number of new factors:
Natural selection pressures may select for beauty, intelligence, body symmetry, disease resistance, and tolerance to pollutants and electromagnetic radiation.
Genetic engineering may introduce new and possibly novel genes to add new traits.
Gene therapy may replace, remove, or turn off unwanted, perhaps harmful, genes.
Nanotechnology may provide a means to tinker with anatomy and physiology at the cellular level to repair or enhance function.
Prosthetic enhancements and implants (although not inherited) may extend human performance beyond its present, natural
range.
SETI
SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), is a group comprising government organizations, companies, and research institutes looking for evidence of intelligent life in the universe.
The skies are scanned for radio pulses and light beams which may have been sent by other intelligent life forms.
SETI run many other programs to help decode the mystery of life in the universe. These include:
Studies into the origin of life on Earth. The feasibility of life on Mars.
Development of new technologies for improved signal searching.
SETI is NOT involved with any research into:
• Alien abductions • UFOs
Primate Grades
grade: taxon united by a level of similar morphological or physiological complexity; clade: monophyletic branch of an ancestor and all its descendants
Homo sapiens is one of approximately 200 living primate species, which together constitute the order “Primates”
We, as primates, have inherited a set of anatomical and behavioral features that reflect our evolutionary history
By studying the characteristics of present-day primates,
we are able to look back
at stages in our own evolutionary development.
Primate Characteristics
Their anatomy is generally well adapted to an arboreal (tree-dwelling) lifestyle, there is a tendency to erect posture.
Pregnancy period is longer than in most mammals and nearly all primates give birth to single offspring.
Their ontogeny is extended allowing for sufficient time to learn social behaviors in groups, there is considerably parental investment.
They possess a high degree of encephalization which is involved in higher cognitive
processes
Primate Physical Features
Anatomical traits of primates:
Generalized body plan (no specialisation) providing versatility
Generalized dentition with 2I+1C+2P+3M (except New World monkeys and strepsirhines)
Basically quadruped (except humans) with great variation in locomotion
Grasping hands with opposable thumb or big toe (except some prosimians and humans)
Flattened nails instead of claws (or combinations)
Forward facing eyes with stereoscopic vision
Enclosed bony eye orbits for protection
Petrosal bulla covering the inner ear, exclusive to all primates
Weber, G.W., Dept of Anthropology, University of Vienna
Generalized body plan but various types of locomotion: Vertical clinger and leaper (Indri) Brachiator (Gibbon) Arboreal quadruped (Uakari) Terrestrial quadruped (Baboon)
Enclosed orbits and stereoscopic vision
Generalized dentition with 2I+1C+2P+3M:
The hands and feet of various primate groups:
Primate Tails
Features that distinguish primate tails: Tails present or absent
A prehensile tail can be used to grip things Furred or not furred
Long or short
Sexual Dimorphism
Gorillas exhibit marked sexual dimorphism in skull features. Female and male gorilla skulls differ from each other by:
Female skull smaller than male
Female
70-90 kg
Very small sagittal crest
Small nuchal crest
Male
150-200 kg
Large sagittal crest
Large nuchal crest
Primate Classification
The traditional classification of primates (illustrated in the table below) is based solely on physical characteristics.
A modern classification of primates (below) based also on genetic studies
(Tabellen Folie 6 VO 3)
The Evolution of Primates
The traditional view is that primates evolved during the Cenozoic after dinosaurs went extinct ~65mya. Genetic data (Chatterjee et al. 2009) provides estimates for the split of Catarrhini-Platyrrhini (43mya) and Strepsirrhini- Haplorhini (64mya).
However, the question is open how Platyrrhines got to South America? One suggested possibility is on vegetation rafts
Another hypothesis suggests that the first primates probably evolved in the Early Jurassic ~185mya before the breakup of Pangaea and the opening of the Atlantic.
Key changes in the interpretation of the fossil record deriving from this hypothesis of an early appearance are:
Primates originated while dinosaurs still roamed the earth. This challenges the widely accepted theory that primates could not establish a foothold until the end of the Cretaceous (65 Mya) when an asteroid cleared the way by hitting the earth and wiping out dinosaurs.
An earlier origin for primates makes it very likely that continental drift played an important part in initial geographical subdivisions within primates.
The new approach supports previously disputed findings from several molecular evolutionary trees calibrated with fossil dates from better-known parts of the mammalian tree (mammal-like reptiles, horses and cetaceans), where the fossil record is much more complete.
Tectonics are an important factor in primate evolution
Tectonics are an important factor in primate evolution
The first primates appear in the fossil record, Madagascar is already separated from Africa, there is no land bridge between Africa and Asia.
Monkeys and apes diverge, a land
bridge between Africa and Asia develops.
Ancestral Primate
A primate ancestor would have had the following features:
Arboreal (tree dwelling) habit
Grasping hands and feet
Long, mobile limbs
Quadrupedal locomotion
Stereoscopic vision
Upright sitting position
Nails instead of claws on most digits
Although not considered a direct ancestor, animals similar to ancient tree shrews (like the modern species on this page) are thought to have given rise to the primates. They are tiny, weighing less than 50g
Purgatorius is a shrew-sized mammal at the end of the Cretaceous period (~65mya) found in North America. It could potentially be a common ancestor to plesiadapiformes and primates.
Altiatlasius is the oldest known true primate (Morocco) dated to ~57mya. The taxonomic affiliation of this tarsier-like animal is disputed (e.g. as plesiadapiform).
Eosimias centennicus from
China lived ~45mya. The size and shape of its teeth suggest that it could be the earliest ancestor leading to monkeys and apes.
Archicebus achilles is a nearly complete and partly articulated skeleton of a primitive haplorhine from China ~55mya.
It is supposed to be the most basal member of the tarsiiform clade and could be also the most basal haplorhine.
It shows a mosaic of anthropoid features (calcaneus and metatarsals) and tarsiiform features (skull, dentition, and parts of postcranium).
A. achilles’ body mass is estimated to 20- 30g (like pygmy mouse lemur). It is an insectivorous arboreal quadruped. The size of the orbits interestingly suggest diurnal activity.
Darwinius masillae (Ida) is a virtually complete (crushed) skeleton from the Messel pit in Germany, dated to ~47mya, and assigned to adapiforms. It is a lemur-like creature and not a link leading to anthropoids. (Seiffert et al. 2009 Nature)
The juvenile female lived in a rain forest as nail bearing arboreal quadruped of about 650- 900g body weight and ~240mm body length. Her diet consisted of fruits and leaves.
Extant Primates
Strepsirrhines are prosimians (note: tarsier are not included here) and share common features: a reliance on olfaction, nocturnality, a lack of complex social behaviour. Their incisors protrude to form a tooth comb, many have specialized clawed toes for grooming. Most are not solitary but live in pairs or social clusters.
Haplorhines include the tarsier, the only prosimian in this group. Tarsier occupy an evolutionary status intermediate between lower and higher primates. All other haplorhines are called anthropoids.
Haplorhines are guided more by vision than olfaction, have fully closed eye orbits (lacking in strepsirrhines and most other mammals), and their lower jaw is fused at the midline (in prosimians and most mammals it remains two pieces joined by cartilage). They are mostly diurnal (except tarsier and owl monkey) and live in social groups (except orangutan). The ratio of brain to body size is larger in haplorhines than in strepsirhines, their cognitive abilities are higher.
Aye-Aye (Daubentoniidae)
Strepsirrhini - Lemuroidea
Fingertier (Lemuroidea):
Wet nose (rhinarium)
Thin, elongated middle finger used to extract larvae juice from inside trees
The local people of Madagascar believe that aye-ayes are a bad omen, and kill them on sight.
Taxonomy
Daubentonia madagascariensis - the only species in group
Habitat
Primary and secondary forest, rain forest, dry forest, tree plantations, spiny desert
Diet
Animal matter, seeds, fruit, nectar, insect larvae
Locomotion
Quadrupedal
Social Structure
Solitary foraging, complex social interactions
Behavior
Nocturnal and arboreal
Distribution
Wider than previously published, but occur at lower densities. Found in eastern Madagascar
Ring-tailed Lemur (Lemuridae)
Strepsirrhini - Lemuroidea
(Katta)
Taxonomy Locomotion Lemur catta - now includes only 1 monotypic species Habitat Scrub, spiny desert, dry and gallery forest Diet 75% fruit, 20% leaves, 5% flowers as well as bark, sap and herbs Quadrupedal, terrestrial running Social Structure Multimale-multifemale social structure with 1 alpha male
Ruffed Lemur (Lemuridae)
Strepsirrhini - Lemuroidea
(Kragenlemur)
Ruffed lemurs are one of the first species to disappear after selective logging - probably because they eat large fruits from large trees, which are the first to be cut.
Taxonomy
Varecia variegata - 2 distinctive subspecies
Habitat
Only found in undisturbed primary rainforest
Diet
Fruit, seeds, leaves, nectar
Locomotion
Quadrupedal and suspensory - often hang by their feet to feed
Social Structure
Variable; 1 male - 1 female, multimale-multifemale and communities
Behavior
Diurnal and arboreal
Distribution
Eastern Madagascar
Sportive Lemur (Lepilemuridea)
Strepsirrhini - Lemuroidea
(Wieselmaki)
Taxonomy
Lepilemur hollandorum
Habitat
primary and secondary rainforests
Diet
Locomotion
Social Structure
Behavior
Nocturnal and arboreal
Distribution
NE coast of Madagascar
Galago (Galagidae)
Strepsirrhini - Lorisoidea
Bushbaby (Lorisoidea)
Chimps are reported to use spears to find and also kill bushbabies in their sleeping holes.
Taxonomy
Galago moholi (Bush Baby)
Habitat
Savannah and dry forest
Diet
Mainly insects, also fruits and seeds
Locomotion
Quadrupedal climbing and jumping
Social Structure
Both social life and solitary life
Behavior
Nocturnal and arboreal, sleep in leaf nests or tree caves
Distribution
Southern Africa from Tanzania and Angola to Namibia and South Africa
Slender Loris (Lorisidae)
Strepsirrhini - Lorisidae
Schlankloris (Beispiel)
Their exceptionally mobile joints allow the slender loris to move swiftly when alarmed.
Taxonomy
Loris tardigradus - 6 subspecies
Habitat
Tropical rain forest, dry semideciduous forest, scrub forest, swamps, montane forest up to 1850m
Diet
Insects, young leaves, shoots, flowers, hard- rind fruits, eggs, small vertebrates
Locomotion
Quadrupedal climbing
Social Structure
Solitary foraging, sometimes in pairs
Behavior
Nocturnal and arboreal
Distribution
Southern India, Sri Lanka
Philippine Tarsier (Tarsiidae)
Haplorhini - Tarsiidae
Koboldmaki
Tarsiers have the highest infant-weight- to-maternal-weight ratio of any primate that gives birth to a single infant.
Taxonomy
Tarsius syrichta - 3 subspecies
Habitat
Secondary lowland and coastal forest
Diet
Animal prey (insects, lizards). In captivity will eat live shrimp and fish in a bowl of water
Locomotion
Vertical clinging and leaping
Social Structure
Groups believed to be larger than 1 male and 1 female
New World Monkeys (Platyrrhini)
Distribution: South and Middle America
Anatomical features:
Widely separated nostrils
pointing sideways
Three premolar teeth instead of two
Small body size (0.6 – 12kg)
Quadrupedal (moves on all four limbs)
Strictly arboreal (tree dwelling)
Some have a prehensile tail, which can be used as a fifth limb
New World monkeys have flat noses with well separated, outward facing nostrils as seen on this tamarin
Golden Lion Tamarin (Callitrichidae)
Haplorhini - Ceboidea
Goldenes Löwenäffchen Dry nose (no rhinarium) The golden lion tamarin is one of the few primates to have been reintroduced to its natural habitat from captivity. Taxonomy Leontopithecus rosalia - (disputed) - until 1984 included all Leontopithecus species as subspecies Habitat Primary and secondary lowland forest from sea level to 300m Diet Animal matter, seeds, fruit, nectar, insect larvae Locomotion Quadrupedal Social Structure Variable; multimale, multifemale, or both Behavior Diurnal and arboreal Distribution Critically endangered species found in a small area in Brazil
Cotton-top Tamarin (Callitrichidae)
Haplorhini - Ceboidea
Lisztaffe
More than 30 000 cotton-top tamarins were exported from Colombia for pets and biomedical research on colon cancer, colitis, and Epstein-Barr virus during the 1960s-1970s
Taxonomy
Sanguinus oedipus - (disputed) - formerly included S. geoffroyi as a subspecies
Habitat
Secondary wet and dry forest and low vine tangles from sea level to 1500m
Diet
Fruit, seeds, gums, and animal matter including insects, mice and birds
Locomotion
Quadrupedal; some clinging and leaping
Social Structure
Multimale-multifemale
Behavior
Diurnal and arboreal
Distribution
Found in Columbia, Panama
Spider Monkey (Atelidae)
Haplorhini - Ceboidea
Klammeraffe
The spider monkey’s prehensile tail is used as a “fifth” limb when feeding.
Taxonomy
Ateles geoffroyi - 9 subspecies
Habitat
Evergreen rainforest, semideciduous forest, mangrove forest
Diet
Fruit, seeds, flowers, young leaves, buds, mature leaves, animal prey
Locomotion
Quadrupedal walking and running
Social Structure
Fission-fusion communities which divide into subgroups when resources are scarce
Behavior
Diurnal and arboreal
Distribution
Between Mexico and Panama
