final Flashcards
a brief history of Australopithecus
southern ape, two well-known species: A.ramidus and Au. africanas
Australopithecus shared features
pelvis bipedal, not exactly like ours, feet look like ours but tiny
Australopithecus afarensis
Dates: 3.8-3.9 Ma and 380-550cc Location: ? Traits: megadont, suspensory arms, short femur w/valgus angle, small, human-like foot
Australipithecus afarensus bipedal how?
bent knee, bent hip, striding
Australopithecus africanas
Date: 3.3-2.1 Ma, Location: South Africa, Traits: similar to A. afarensis in primitive traits (arms) but exhibits more advanced morphology, large brain, more human-like pelvis
Paranthropus shared features
3 species, hypermegadont, small incisors, canines, dished face, sagittal crest
Difference between gracile (Australopithecus) and robust (Paranthropus) “Australopithecines
post- cranially very similar, cranially very different
Paranthropus aethiopicus
2.7-2.3 Ma, Ethipoia and Kenya, Huge sagital crest, and very prognathic
Paranthropus boisei
2.5-1.4 Ma, East Africa Ethiopia to Malawi, flexed cranium, anterior crest, 500-540cc
Paranthropus robustus
1.8-1.0 Ma, South Africa, very similar to P. boisei less robust
Australopith, Chronology and Biogeography
Adaptive radiation
rapid diversification in a lineage
Modified Savannah Hypothesis
origin of hypermtadont and expansion of tool use
How do we reconstruct diet?
teeth- 60-70% is denition, mastication system, wear patterns, isotopes
Dental anatomy and morphology (teeth)
Mastication system (levers)
Wear Patterns (enamel mircorwear)
Isotopes (C3 versus C4 vegetation)
Difference between Australopithecus and Paranthropus diets
Australopithecus: Megadont, strong mastication, more scratches (folivore), 30% C4, Paranthropus: Hypermegadont, powerful mastication, more pits ( brittle diet), 30% C4, P. boisei= mainly C4
Fallback foods and adaptation
underground storage organs- Australopth diet
the earliest evidence of stone tools and cut marks
stone tools: Lomekwi, Kenya- 3.4 Ma, cut marks: Dikika, Ethiopia- 3.4 Ma
earliest specimen of homo
2.8 Ma
The Habilines (general characteristics)
610-750cc, reduced dentition, precision grip, small body size, australopith body proportion generally, similar to australopiths, obligate biped, some arboreality, large-brained, tool making
How much variation is there within a single species?
Qualitative characteristics ( do they follow a normal mammalian pattern)
early homo (the hablines): 1470 1813
supra-orbital torus: small medium
supra-orbital sulcus: absent insipient
temporal origin: gracile marked
nuchal origin: medium medium
canine size: small small
prognathism: little avelolar
Homo Habilis
2.6-1.65 Ma, all of eastern Africa, especially Koobi Fora, and South Africa, Thumb=human like, wrist like bones=human like phlanges=curved, long arms, widely dispersed, mod. encephalization, robust cranially, precision grip (tools)
Homo rudolfensis
1.9 Ma, eastern Africa (Kenya), 2.4?, Malawi, generally lest robust, slightly bigger, large teeth and palate
The erectines
intermembral index =75, long femur, two species?
Endurance running hypothesis
Persistence running hypothesis
expensive tissue hypothesis
stone tool (lithic) hypothesis
Homo erectus ( sensu lato)
2.0 Ma-117 ka, Old world distribution, 2 species, much encephalization, long, low cranium, full facial prognathism, external nose
Hypotheses for pan- African and Eurasian dispersal of Homo erectus
Intrinsic hypotheses: large body size-no, human-like intermembral index-yes, large brain-no, tool use- no, increased meat consumption-yes
extrinsic hypotheses: escape from disease- no, normal mammalian dispersal- no, following predators- no, following prey- no, demographic pressure- yes, environmental influence- yes
Homo heidbergensis
600Ka-200Ka, location:?
Dispersal hypothesis
multiregional hypothesis
recent African origins
Homo neanderthalensis
230ka-30ka, location ?, massive face, occipital bun, huge nasal aperture(nose), swept-back zygomatics (cheekbones), no chin, heavy wear on front teeth, large body mass, low brachial and crural indices, technologies- Mousterian and Levallas technique, hunting- distribution of injuries similar to rodeo riders or agricultural workers, art? burial of dead- site layout, speech-ee
Homo floresiensis
100-60ka, Liang Bua, Flores Island, small brains, very little post-orbital constriction, slightly prognathic, no chin , stone tools?
Which hypothesis regarding H. florensis is the best supported and why
It is an island dwrad form of Homo Erectus- large animals become smaller, small animals become larger
Homo sapiens
315-(195) ka- present, rounded cranium, short face, orthognathic, vertical forehead, skull tall (top to bottom), skull short (front to back), Cranial capacity: 1200-1500cm^3, canine fossa, the pilaster on the femur
Dispersal-timing of the earliest occurrences in different regions
Africa:160 ka
Middle East:100ka
Australia: 60ka
Asia: 40-60 ka
Europe:40ka
The Americas:21ka?
What is forensics
use of scientific methods inn solving crimes and in legal settings
Discriminant Function Analysis
allows classification of unknowns
Four main biological identifiers
ancestry, sex, age, and stature
Idiosyncartic varaiton
Behavior indicators
Pathology and disease
