Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Becoming human > Lecture 8 > Flashcards

Lecture 8 Flashcards

1
Q

Homo habilis age

A

~2.4-1.4mya (most ~1.8mya)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Homo habilis location

A

East Africa:
* Tanzania: Olduvai Gorge
* Ethiopia: Shungura Formation, Omo region; Hadar Formation
* Kenya: Koobi Fora/Lake Turkana

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Homo habilis specimens

A
  • Jaw fragments, skull parts, hand, foot and leg bones
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Homo habilis body size

A
  • Male ~37kg, 1.31m tall
  • Female ~32kg, 1m tall
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Homo habilis brain size

A

~500-650cm3 (slight enlargement?)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Homo habilis teeth

A
  • Smaller teeth and jaw than afarensis but similar diet?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Homo habilis bipedal

A
  • But still has relatively long arms compared to legs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Homo habilis tool maker

A
  • Relatively secure associations of fossil remains with Oldowan tools
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Homo habilis paleoenvironment

A
  • Lived in both open and wooded environments at different sites
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Homo habilis controversy

A
  • Ancestral to H. ergaster?
  • Is it a valid taxon or a collection of derived bits of Australopithecines and
    primitive bits of other Homo species?
  • If valid, is does it really belong in Homo or in Australopithecus?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Homo rudolfensis age

A
  • ~1.9mya
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Homo rudolfensis location

A
  • East Africa: Kenya, Lake Turkana
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Homo rudolfensis specimens

A
  • Skull, face, jawbones
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Homo rudolfensis body size

A

Unknown

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Homo rudolfensis brain size

A

~700-850cm3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Homo rudolfensis face

A
  • Less prognathism than habilis
  • Rounder cranium than habilis
  • (though at least one reconstruction
    found it to look a bit more primitive
    than this!)
17
Q

Homo rudolfensis teeth

A
  • Extremely large teeth compared to
    Homo habilis
18
Q

Homo rudolfensis controversy

A
  • Too large a difference from Homo
    habilis to be sexual dimorphism?
  • Should we consider it an
    australopithecine?
19
Q

Tool use: who made tools?

A
  • Once thought to have been Homo
    habilis: ‘handy man’
  • But date to 2.4-2.3mya i.e. after the now
    earliest tools!
  • Now many australopithecines and
    even paranthropines are in the frame
20
Q

Problems with identifying which species used tools

A

Associations between fossils and
tools/cutmarked bones
* At many sites more than one fossil species
is attested to!

Hand bone evidence
* The vast majority of hand bones (some
could be foot bones) from this time period
are not securely linked to species!

21
Q

Problems with archaeologically identify tools

A
  • Are they actually stone tools, i.e. produced anthropogenically, rather than by natural processes?
  • How good is the association? I.e. how close together are the fossils and tools found?
  • What produced the association? Actual behaviour, or taphonomic effects? Does an association genuinely
    demonstrate that the hominin represented used the stone tools found?
  • Are marks found on fossil bones genuinely anthropogenic?
  • When evidence of stone tool use is not associated with a fossil hominin, is there any way of telling which species was
    involved?
22
Q

Problems with palaeoanthropologically identifying tools

A
  • Hand bones are small and fragile and aren’t always preserved recovered
  • Not particularly ‘diagnostic’, i.e. can be difficult to assign to individual species with certainty
  • Shows potential for stone tool use: but assumes that precision grip and stone tool use are always associated, i.e. that
    precision grip is an adaptation for/selected by stone tool use and not for something else, later exapted by stone tool
    use!
23
Q

Precision grip in humans

A

Human hand:
* Short, straight fingers
* Long, stout thumb
* Broad fingertips

24
Q

Precision grip in chimps

A

Chimpanzee hand:
* Short, curved fingers
* Short thumb
* Weakly developed palm and
forearm muscles
* Narrow fingertips
* Wrist locks for stable knuckle-walking

25
Q

Australopithecus afarensis use of tools?

A
  • Dikika, Ethiopia, c. 3.3mya
  • No actual stone tools found
  • Bones with cutmarks
  • Microscopic analysis shows the marks are
    ‘v-shaped’ so likely to come from stone
    tools but controversial!
  • Some cutmarks suggested accessing
    marrow
  • If true, does confirm access to meat and
    protein
  • Predated expectations (i.e Homo!) by
    800,000yrs
26
Q

Kenyanthropus platyops use of tool?

A
  • Artefacts from Lomekwe 3, Kenya but
    not directly associated with any fossil
    hominins
  • Securely dated to 3.3mya: Homo
    habilis not around till 2.34mya
  • Only species in region at the time
    (that we know of!) is Kenyanthropus
  • Basalt and quartz raw material, found
    near sites: well suited to knapping but
    don’t naturally flake

Core and flake technology
* Single striking platform
* Mixture of hammer-and-anvil technique (cf Kanzi) and
freehand percussion
* Lots of errors and failed strikes apparent i.e. not very skilled?

27
Q

Australopithecus garhi use of tools?

A
  • No tools found but evidence for bone
    processing at Herto Bouri, Ethiopia,
    2.5mya
  • Bovids, hippo, ancient cattle bones all
    cracked for access to marrow
  • A handful of simple stone tools have
    been recovered from the vicinity but
    association with fossils uncertain
28
Q

Australopithecus sediba use of tools?

A
  • Malapa, South Africa, 1.97mya
  • No stone tools, but they are found at other nearby sites
  • Almost complete right hand and wrist of adult female allows detailed study
  • Long thumbs, short fingers: adaptation to precision gripping?
  • but thumb length falls outside modern human range
  • Morphology suggests thumb muscles adapted to forceful flexion: morphological features associated with stone tool production?
  • Fossils suggest this is a primitive trait, i.e. tool use goes back quite far
  • Arguably more ‘modern’ than those of Homo habilis?!
  • Did precision grip/human-like hand evolve more than once? Convergent evolution?
29
Q

Paranthropus robustus/Paranthropines
use of tools?

A

Modified bones known from many South African sites (e. g. Swartkrans; Sterkfontein)
* ‘Osteodontokeratic’ industry!
* Then dismissed as taphonomic effects
* Then re-accepted as ‘digging tools’ for digging underground storage
organs and other vegetation
* NOW thought to relate to termite fishing?

  • Swartkrans, South Africa: 22 hand fossils, c1.8mya
  • Hand morphology suggests precision grip (derived feature more
    like Homo than other primates)

Associated tools (stone and bone) probably used for foraging insects/vegetation rather than obtaining animal protein
* Small brain, large (molar) teeth and reduced arboreality supports this?
* Swartkrans: 23,000 animal bones found, 85 showed evidence of
anthropogenic damage

30
Q

Paranthropus boisei use of tools?

A
  • Remains of this species (OH 5) found on same
    level as stone tools at FLK I in Olduvai Gorge
  • In fact, the original interpretation was that the tools
    were made by OH 5

Later discovery of Homo habilis, also associated
with Oldowan stone tools, at three other localities
in Olduvai
* H. habilis ‘looked’ more plausible as a toolmaker due
to bigger brain and ‘more modern’ hand bones
* P. boisei still posited as possible tool-maker but
considered more likely an ‘intruder’ or even ‘a victim’
on a H. habilis ‘living site’

Evidence?
Hand bones definitively belonging to P. boisei are
lacking:
* Swartkrans member 1 bones probably P. robustus (about
95% of other remains from this site are!) and these suggest
a modern human-like precision gri

31
Q

Tool summary- Homo habilis

A
  • Securely identified fossil hominin remains closely associated with clearly anthropogenic stone tools
  • Still clearly a tool maker but probably not the only one!
  • Earliest known tools now pre-date Homo habilis (~2.4mya)
32
Q

Tool summary- Kenyanthropus platyops

A
  • Lomekwe 3, Kenya, 3.3mya.
  • Securely dated stone tools but not actually associated with K. platyops: in the frame because this species was the only one around in the region at the
    time!
33
Q

Tool summary- Australopithecus afarensis

A
  • Dikika, Ethiopia, >3.3mya
  • Animal bones with probable cutmarks associated with remains of A.afarensis but no actual stone tools
34
Q

Tool summary- Australopithecus garhi

A
  • Herto Bouri, Ethiopia, 2.5mya
  • Evidence for animal bone processing but no stone tools
  • A. garhi present at this time nearby
35
Q

Tool summary- Paranthropus robustus

A
  • Microwear evidence from probable tools found associated with fossil hominin remains
  • Analysis of hand bones suggests tool use possible
36
Q

Tool summary- Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus sediba

A
  • Analysis of hand bones suggests tools use possible
  • But no actual finds either of tools or damaged fossil animal bones associated with remains of these hominins
37
Q

Tool summary-

A

Becoming human (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions