Human evolution, the process by which humans evolved on Earth from now-extinct primates. Zoologically, humans are Homo sapiens, an upright culture-bearing species that lives on land and first evolved in Africa about 315,000 years ago. We are now the only living member of what many zoologists call the human tribe, Hominini, but there is abundant fossil evidence indicating that we were preceded by other hominins, such as Ardipithecus, by millions of years, Australopithecus and others species.
Homo and that our species is also related to at least one other member of our genus, H. He lived at the same time as Neanderthalensis (Neanderthals). Furthermore, we and our predecessors have always shared Earth with other apelike primates, from today’s gorillas to the extinct Dryopithecus. That we and extinct hominins are related in some way and that we and apes, both living and extinct, are also related in some way is accepted by anthropologists and biologists everywhere.
However, the precise nature of our evolutionary relationships has been the subject of debate and research since the great British naturalist Charles Darwin published his great books On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Origin of Man (1871). Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted, that “humans descended from the apes,” and modern scientists would view such a claim as a futile simplification, as they would any popular belief.
it is the “missing link” between humans and apes. However, in theory, there is a common ancestor that existed millions of years ago. This ancestral species does not form a “missing link” with the lineage, but rather a node for divergence in different lineages. This ancient primate has not been identified and may never be known for sure, as fossil relationships are unclear even within the more recent human lineage.
paleoecology and ethology
In fact, the human “family tree” could best be described as a “family shrub”, within which it is impossible to link an entire time series of species to Homo sapiens, with which experts agree. The main resource for detailing the path of human evolution will always be fossil specimens. Indeed, the fossil deposits of Africa and Eurasia indicate that, unlike today, more than one species in our family lived at the same time for most of human history.
The nature of specific species and fossil specimens can be accurately described, such as where they were found and when they lived; But the question of how species lived and why they became extinct or evolved into other species can only be addressed by formulating scientifically informed scenarios. These scenarios are based on contextual information obtained from the areas where the fossils were collected.
In formulating such scenarios and completing the human family bush, researchers must consult a wide and diverse range of fossils and must use sophisticated excavation methods and records, geochemical dating techniques, and other specialized fields such as genetics, ecology, and the data. Being Employed. Paleoecology and ethology (animal behavior): in short, all the tools of the multidisciplinary science of the Paleolithic. This article looks at the broad trajectory of human tribes that led to the development of modern tool-based.
And symbolically structured human culture in the Miocene epoch (23 million to 5.3 million years ago [Maya]) millions of years ago. Only tens of thousands of years ago, during the geologically recent Pleistocene epoch (approximately 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago). Special attention is paid to the fossil evidence of this history and to the main models of evolution that have gained greater credibility in the scientific community.
See the Evolution article for a full explanation of evolutionary theory, including its main advocates before and after Darwin. , its stimulation of both resistance and acceptance in society, and the scientific tools used to examine the theory and test its validity. In general, the root of the human family shrub is believed to be found in apelike species from the Middle Miocene epoch (about 16-11.6 million years) or the late Miocene (11.6-5.3 million of years).
Genetic data based on molecular clock estimates support a late Miocene lineage. Several Miocene Eurasian and African primates have been championed as possible ancestors of the earliest hominids, arriving on the scene during the Pliocene epoch (5.3-2.6 million years ago). Although there is no consensus among experts, suggested primates include Kenyapithecus, Gryphopithecus, Dryopithecus, Graecopithecus (Auranopithecus), Samburupithecus, Sahelanthropus, and Aurorin.
Kenyapithecus lived in Kenya and Gryphopithecus lived in Central Europe and Turkey between 16 and 14 million years old. Dryopithecus is best known in western and central Europe, where it lived from 13 to possibly 8 million years. Graecopithecus lived in northern and southern Greece for around 9 million years, around the same time as Samburupithecus in northern Kenya. Sahelanthropus inhabited Chad between 7 and 6 million years ago. Ororin was from central Kenya 6 million years ago.
Of these, the most likely ancestors of great apes and humans may have been kenyapithecus or gryphopithecus. In evolutionary models that emphasize Eurasian species, some consider graecopithecus to be ancestral only to the human lineage, which includes australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Homo, while others consider the possibility that Graecopithecus was the largest of the Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos). . close to the lineage. ) and gorillas too. In the older model, Dryopithecus is the ancestor of Pan and the gorilla.
On the other hand, others would have Dryopithecus for Pan and Australopithecus in the form of Homo, Graecopithecus ancestral to the gorilla. This morphology-based model reflects the results of some molecular studies, which show that chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans are more closely related to each other than to gorillas; Oranges (Pongo) are more distant relatives.
development of bipedalism
In a phylogenetic model that emphasizes Miocene African species, Samburupithecus is the ancestor of Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Aurorin, and Aurorin gives rise to Au. afarensis, the ancestor of Homo. The Miocene epoch was characterized by major global climatic changes that led to more seasonal conditions north of the equator with increasingly cold winters. In the late Miocene, in many areas inhabited by simian primates, broadleaf evergreen forests were replaced by open forests, thickets, meadows, and mosaic habitats.
Sometimes with dense forests bordering lakes, rivers, and streams. Such diverse environments inspired new adaptations involving locomotion in many types of animals, including primates. In addition, there were antelopes, wild boars, monkeys, giraffes, elephants, and a greater number of other animals to scavenge and perhaps kill the hominid adventurers. But big cats, dogs, and hyenas also thrived in the new environment; Not only did they provide meat for the scavenging hominids.
They also competed and probably hunted them. In any case, our ancestors were not strict or heavy carnivores. Instead, primates that have large premolars and molars with thick enamel have suggested a diet that is based on tough, abrasive vegetation, including seeds, stems, nuts, fruits, leaves, and tubers. The behavior and morphology associated with locomotion also responded to changes in the terrestrial life of the plantations.
The development of bipedalism allowed hominins to establish new habitats in forests, closed forests, open forests, and even more open areas over a period of at least 4.5 million years. In fact, restricted terrestrial bipedalism (i.e., the ability and need to walk only on the lower extremities) is the defining characteristic required for classification in the human tribe, Homininae.
Bipedalism is not unique to humans, although ours is a special form. While most other bipedal mammals jump or walk, we keep going. H. sapiens is the only mammal specially adapted to bipedal stride. Unlike most other orders of mammals, primates have dominant locomotion in the hind limbs. Consequently, human bipedalism is a natural evolution of the original arboreal primate body plan, in which the hind limbs are used to propel forward and it is common to sit upright during feeding and resting.
The first changes to an upright posture were probably more related to standing, stretching and sitting than prolonged periods of walking and running. Humans stand with their hip and knee joints fully extended so that their thighs are aligned with their respective leg bones to form a continuous vertical spine. To walk, the person simply leans forward slightly and then keeps the center of mass displaced, which is located within the pelvis.
The large muscles of the human lower extremities power our movements and allow a person to sit up and get up from a sitting position. Body mass is transferred through the pelvis, thighs, and feet to the heels, balls of the feet, and toes. Significantly less muscular effort is exerted to stand. In reality, our large glutes, front thigh, and calf muscles are hardly used when we stand up. Rather than muscle contraction.
The human bipedal posture relies more on the way the joints are built and the strategically placed ligaments that hold the joints in position. Fortunately for paleoanthropologists, some bones show dramatic clues to how a particular hominin propelled itself, and adaptations to restrict terrestrial bipedalism led to notable anatomical differences between hominins and great apes. These differences are easily recognized in fossils, particularly in the pelvis and lower extremities.
Although we are bipeds, our pelvis is oriented like a quadruped primate. Early bipedal hominids assumed the upright trunk posture by bending the spine upward, especially in the lower back (lumbar region). To transfer the mass of the entire upper body to the lower extremities and move the muscles so that one could walk without the assistance of the upper extremities and without moving from side to side, changes were needed in the pelvis.
Especially in the iliac. . (larger size). en), blade-shaped bones on each side), ischia (the bulge on which the body rests when seated), and the sacrum (a wedge-shaped bone formed by the fusion of the vertebrae). Hominid hipbones have smaller ilia with larger regions that articulate with a shorter and wider sacrum. In contrast, the hip bones of great apes have a long ilium with short sacral joint areas, and the sacrum of great apes is long and narrow.
longer hind limbs
The human pelvis is unique among primates in that the iliac bones fold forward so that the inner surfaces face each other, rather than lining up sideways, as in apes and other quadrupeds. Curved iliacs place certain gluteal muscles on the side of the hip joint, where they stabilize the pelvis when the foot swings forward during a step. This special mechanism allows us to move smoothly, with only slight oscillations of the pelvis and without sudden movements from side to side of the upper body.
Humans have shorter hamstrings (and longer lower limbs), facilitating quick actions of the hamstring muscles, which extend the femur at the hip joint, while great apes have longer hamstrings (and longer hind limbs). shorts), giving them a powerful hip extension for climbing. until. Tree. Specifically, a human thigh bone is long and has a very large, rounded head and a short, round neck; A prominent lateral ridge on the knee presses on the groove in which the patella is located.
The femurs are farther apart at the hips than the knees and are bent toward the midline to keep the knees together. This angle allows anthropologists to diagnose bipedalism, even though the fossil is just the knee end of a femur. On the other hand, the femurs of quadruped great apes do not bend toward the knees and the femoral shaft lacks a telltale tilt.
Human feet are different from those of apes and monkeys. This is not surprising, because in humans the legs must support and propel the entire body on their own, rather than sharing the load with the front legs. In humans, the heel is very strong and the big toe is permanently aligned with the four smaller lateral toes. Unlike other primate feet, which have a movable midfoot, the human foot has (if not necessary) a stable arch to provide strength. Consequently, human footprints are unique and easily distinguished from those of other animals.
the back of the skull
3.5 million years ago at least one species of hominin, Au. afarensis was a skilled walker. In addition to the physical evidence from this era, there is also a 27.5-meter (90-foot) track built by three men calmly walking on wet volcanic ash in Laetoli, northern Tanzania. In all observable characteristics of foot shape and tread pattern, they are strikingly similar to barefoot people living in the tropics today. However, although the Letoli hominin’s legs appear to be surprisingly human, it should not be assumed that other parts of their bodies are similar to ours.
Fragmented femoral remains of a six-million-year-old Aurorin tugenensis in Kenya indicate to some experts that they were also bipedal. R. ramidus (5.8–4.4 million years), Aramis, a primate from central Ethiopia and one of two fossil species of Ardipithecus, was also bipedal. The evidence in this case comes from the foramen magnum, the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord enters. In Ardipithecus, this opening is similar to ours because it is located in the center and not at the back of the skull.
A rearward-facing foramen magnum indicates a stooped posture, while a downward-facing hole holds the skull above the spine. Other features suggesting bipedalism in Ardipithecus include an enlarged tarsal area on each foot and, later, a pelvic structure with muscle-to-bone attachment sites compared to bipedal hominids. Also, Au’s leg bone. anamnesis (4.2 to 3.9 million years) from northern Kenya attests to his bipedalism.
All hominids that lived in the time of the Laetoli footprint makers were likely bipedal when on land, but some of them (including some young species) exhibit characteristics that advocate regular arboreal climbing, perhaps. predator. Haider in northern Ethiopia A. afarensis (3.8-2.9 million years). They include various parts of the locomotor skeleton that reveal a bipedal habit: short iliac, wide and thick sacrum, and femoral angles, among other characteristics.
At the same time, smaller females with curved fingers and toes, posterior ilia, and long upper limbs, as well as their rib cage configuration, indicate that they can easily climb and maneuver trees. Bahrelgazali (3.5–3.0 million years old) from central Chad and Kyanthropus platyops (3.5 million years old) from northern Kenya are represented in their entirety by teeth and skull and jaw fragments of which no can infer positional behavior.
australopithecus and paranthropus
South Africa A. Parts of the locomotor skeletons of later hominins such as africanus (3.3-2.4 Mya) and Paranthropus robustus (1.8-1.5 Mya) found in A. are not markedly different from afarensis. Little is known of the locomotor skeleton of P. boisei from East Africa (2.2–1.3 million years), but there is no reason to believe that it was different from other Paranthropus species. A 2.5-million-year-old site in Bauri, central Ethiopia, produces hand and foot bones that are contemporaneous with the craniodental remains of A. The femur elongates relative to the humerus, as in H. sapiens, but, at Unlike the human forelimb.
The fossil specimen is relatively tall. Thus, at least one hominin species by 2.5 million years ago had developed the long femur of stride-walking bipeds, although it retained long forelimbs such as the arboreally active Australopithecus and Paranthropus. H. habilis (2.0-1.5 million years old), better known from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, shows smaller teeth and a larger brain, but has longer upper limbs (especially the forearm), short femurs, curved fingers, and other chimpanzees.
Characteristics that indicate a combination of plantation and terrestrial adaptation. Because of these similarities, some researchers consider H. habilis in the Australopithecus genus to be Au. habilis NS. heidelbergensis (600,000 to 200,000 years ago, or 600 to 200 did) and the Neanderthal pelvis (200 to 30 yes) showed some features of H. pelvis de sapiens reminiscent of Australopithecus. The pelvis is wide, with the ilia projecting outward.
H. ergaster or H. erectus
The femoral neck is also relatively long. These characteristics are related to the stabilization of the pelvis in robust bipedal hominids. NS. heidelbergensis and Neanderthals can accommodate a wider birth canal. This feature is important because they may have had remarkably large brains (around 1,200 g [2.65 lb] and 1,400 g [3.09 lb]) compared to earlier hominins, a trait that the embryo reflected in the shape of the skull. Unfortunately, the evolution of the foot structure in early Homo, ie A. afarensis and Neanderthals, is practically unspecified by skeletal evidence.
However the oldest traces of the contemporary foot ceremony have been found in Ilaret, Kenya. These prints have been dated to between 1.51 and 1.53 million years, and their size and depth suggest that they were made by H. ergaster or H. erectus. Therefore, it is safe to assume that around 1.53 million years ago the typical human locomotor system and associated cooling system were originally established. Later changes in the size of the pelvis may be related to the passage of large-brained babies.
principles of binomialism
There are many theories that try to explain why humans are bipedal, but none are completely satisfactory. The speed increase can be ruled out immediately because humans are not very fast runners. Because bipedalism leaves the hands free, some scientists, including Darwin, linked it to the use of tools, specifically tools for defense and hunting, that is, weapons. This theory is problematic given that the earliest stone artifacts date back only 3.3 million years, long after hominids became bipedal, so it is required to assume that earlier tools were made of wood or other perishable materials.
evolution of hominid bipedalism
20th-century theories proposed a wide range of other factors that may have driven the evolution of hominid bipedalism, vigilance in tall grass, carrying objects, wading for aquatic food, and avoiding shoreline predators. the savannah after migratory and energy conservation (bipedalism uses less than four times the energy). Also, if the first bipeds were regularly exposed to direct tropical afternoon sunlight, they would benefit from standing in two ways: less body surface area would be exposed to harmful sunlight, and there would be relief in fresh air above the ground.
Some scientists believe that prebipod primates were terrestrial quadrupeds, perhaps even knuckleheads like modern chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. Conversely, it is also possible that previous habitual walkers were already well prepared for terrestrial bipedalism, adaptations for bipedal walking between branches and branches, standing to move upwards and vertical trees. From climbing on logs and vines. This scenario is suggested by the Gibbons study, who regularly engage in these planting activities and choose to virtually never move to the forest floor.
But if forced to step on the ground, they walk bipeds. Gibbons have relatively long and powerful lower limbs, the same number of lumbar vertebrae as humans (less in great apes), and a chest of a humanoid configuration. When walking on land, gibbons are stiffer than chimps, which are sometimes bipedal. In addition, they spend less energy walking on the ground than running bipeds along branches or climbing vertically.
the humanoid structure of the hips
Adopting a bipedal posture with full extension of the lower extremities would not have been a great challenge, since all apes have this ability, although there would have been some changes in the bones, joints and ligaments of the lower extremities. The foot may have undergone the most dramatic transformation, from a forelimb to a helix resting on the heel.
The increase in size and the frequent and sustained stay in the extended lower extremities for the hanging branches in forests, thickets, forest edges and other relatively open habitats would have favored the development of the humanoid structure of the hips, knees and feet. While consuming their harvest, bipedal gatherers were often able to squat, choosing between feet widely spaced for a stronger forward heel and for weight distribution between the heel and index finger.
Sitting and getting up frequently will increase the development of the hamstrings, buttocks, and anterior thigh muscles (such as hip and knee extensors), which are important for athletic bipedalism. Pulling up will result in short toes and arched foot pick. The refinement of the terrestrial bipedal complex likely did not occur until hominids became less dependent on trees for shelter and other activities during the day and began to move widely and perhaps to walk long distances seasonally.
later Homo species
Simply increasing body size will increase locomotive efficiency, as larger animals can use the elastic energy of tendons and muscles more effectively, and take fewer steps to cover a given distance than a smaller animal . In fact, later Homo species, including H. rudolfensis (2.4-1.6 Mya), H. ergaster (1.9-1.7 Mya), and H. sapiens (approximately 315 Kya), are much longer and heavier than Australopithecus and Paranthropus; However, one species of Homo, H. naledi (the oldest known fossil, dated 335-200), was comparable in size and weight.
There is less size difference between the sexes in Homo species than in many other primates, mainly because the females have gotten larger. The average size of male Australopithecus (41-51 kg [90-112 lb]) and Paranthropus (40-49 kg [88-108 lb]) is comparable to that of male chimpanzees (49 kg). The size of the females (30-33, 32-34 and 41 kg, respectively) indicates that these hominids had greater differences between the sexes (sexual dimorphism) than the chimpanzees. H. rudolfensis (60 vs. 51 kg [132 vs. 112 lb]) and H. ergaster (66 vs. 56 kg [145 vs. 123 lb]) in H. sapiens (58 vs. 49 kg [128 vs. 128 versus]). 108 pounds]).
NS. rudolfensis and H. ergaster (1.9-1.5 million years old) had a long femur of modern human configuration and H. sapiens has an internal knee structure; Both structures are different from chimpanzees and at least some small tree-climbing primates. This may also be the time when the typical morphology of the human calf muscle (triceps surae) developed. Unlike great apes, it is much more flexible, making it easier to function as an energy-conserving spring when walking and running.
humans are free
NS. sapiens may also have evolved alongside regular walking, sprinting, and endurance as ancestral Homo took hold in open tropical and subtropical environments. Our skulls contain a rich concentration of sweat glands (apes have few or none), which help cool the head, especially the brain, in high temperatures and during vigorous activity. At the postcranial level, our sparsely hairy, highly sensitive and abundantly vascularized skin is rich in sweat glands.
The abundant secretion of which cools a large surface area by evaporation. The distribution of sweat glands to cool us while we run is particularly strategic, the front surfaces of the torso and extremities have higher concentrations of sweat glands, against which the air passes when running. As a result, unlike furry quadrupeds, we don’t have to stop to pant to avoid overheating. Also, unlike quadrupeds, humans are free from the stress of supporting their body weight, essentially coupled with exhalation when quadruped walking.
We can then change our breathing patterns by moving at different speeds, thereby controlling energy expenditure. H. ergaster (1.9–1.5 million years old), an African species, is the oldest documented hominin with a human breast size. (This species is classified by some paleoanthropologists as an African subgroup of H. erectus). The thorax of Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis) is also essentially H. sapiens, but no other species of Homo are known.
The Background and Early Miocene section describes some of the global climate changes that reduced forest areas and led to more open terrestrial biomes during the late Miocene epoch (11.2–5.3 Mya). These changes only intensified during the late Pliocene epoch (5.3-2.6 million years). In Africa, primates are diverse. In Eurasia, by contrast, hominids disappeared in the early Pliocene. The only descendants of primates from the late Miocene in Asia are the Gigantopithecus blacki from the early-mid-late Pleistocene of southern China and northern Vietnam, and the orangutans and gibbons of present-day southern and southeast Asia.
It is reasonable to expect that the increasing diversity and changing distribution of the African biome inspired new forms of hominin life, some of which survived and some of which did not. Based on the evidence found with Pliocene hominid species in regards to habitats, hominids lived in a variety of biomes in eastern, central, and southern Africa. In central Ethiopia, Ar. ramidus is associated with fauna and floral remains indicate a wooded habitat.
Later the remains point to Au, in northern Ethiopia. afarensis inhabits a mosaic of riparian forests, lowland forests, savannas, and dry scrub. Au in northern Kenya. anamensis lived in dry open forests or scrublands with gallery forest along a nearby river. The northernmost and westernmost species in central Chad, Au. Bahrelgazali lived in a mosaic of open and wooden biomes near a river. Mammal fossils from Lomequi in northern Kenya indicate that Kyanthropus platiops lived in a relatively well-watered area of forest or in a closed forest or on the edge of the forest between them.
Starkfontein and Makapansgut
The 3.5-million-year-old Laetoli hominid habitat in northern Tanzania was possibly a mosaic of open grasslands and more closed forests. The area may have been wetter than it is now. No permanent water source has been identified for the Laetoli region during the Pliocene. Later in the Pliocene, Au. The Ghari was active on wide grassy plains bordering a lake in central Ethiopia. Au housing models. africanus, based on the fauna of two major cave sites in South Africa – Starkfontein and Makapansgut – emphasizes closed canopy forest conditions.
Either dry forest or subtropical forest with nearby grasslands. During the holding of H. habilis and P. Boisei in the Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania, the climate changed from humid to dry and again humid before a long dry period that began two million years ago. The specimens of these two Olduvai hominins come mainly from the shores of an ancient saline and alkaline lake. In Kobi Fora, northern Kenya, H. habilis has been found more in lake margin deposits.
While P. boisei are equally common in river and lake margin sediments. The fossil pollen indicates that the highland forests were nearby and the lake had green areas and dense forests and shrubs. In Konso, southern Ethiopia, P. Boisei lived in a meadow. In other parts of East Africa, P. aethiopicus has been associated with closed houses. The South African cave sites (swartkran, chromadrai, and drimolene) of P. robustus are associated with open and even arid habitats, but these may not reflect your true preference for grasses.
hemispherical expansion of Homo
One of the most profound effects of the Pliocene habitat change was to respect energy-conserving bipedal progress at a time when Homo species were stationed off Africa and in Eurasia. Shortly after Homo evolved in Africa, some species entered temperate biomes in Eurasia and then subtropical and tropical biomes in South and Southeast Asia. This was followed by migration back to Africa, probably from 1.8 to 0.9 million years ago. This hemispherical expansion of Homo is associated with the expansion of the stone toolkit, an increase in the size of the brain, and a decrease in the size of the jaws and teeth, all of which are the subject of the next section.
- Tools, hands and heads in the Pliocene and Pleistocene
- refinement in the structure of the hand
Primates feed from hand to mouth that selectively break and hold objects with their hand before swallowing. Without tools, emerging hominins would have relied on the versatility and strength of their hands to gather food and only their teeth and jaws to process it. Unless they used fashion carrying devices, such as animal fur bags, they would have needed a reliable source of water nearby, and they were also limited in the types and numbers of items they could carry through their range. In addition to transporting goods and water, animal skins have a more obvious utility in protecting them from the cold at night, rain, and strong sunlight.
Sharp-edged stones, even small scales, would have been a boon to early hominins, who learned how to collect and manufacture them to cut hides, meat, sticks, and other plant materials. The stones also help to sharpen peeled and hard fruits and nuts, bones for the marrow and the scalp for the brain. There may have been a time when early hominids used natural stones and other objects as tools and weapons, as some wild chimpanzees do today.
Before hominids controlled fire and built strong shelters on the ground or effectively defended caves and rock shelters, they may have built tree platforms for daily activities and for nighttime rest. Raw materials, stone hammers, cutting tools, and sticks and stones for defense could be placed on the trees for repeated use. Hand rocks, clubs, and sticks, spears, or other long stinging missiles would make a formidable defense, especially when used from the vantage point of a tree platform.
About 3.3 million years ago, some hominins made and used simple stone artifacts in East Africa. Tools, primitive hammers, anvils and cutting tools, predate the appearance of the oldest confirmed specimens of Homo by about 1 million years, and paleontologists speculate that they were likely produced by members of Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus, living in this area then.
structure of a modern hand
Since the earliest stone artifacts were of such simple construction and given that today’s chimpanzees, orangutans, and capuchin monkeys can use stones, stems, vines, and sticks to extract nutritious morsels from protective coverings, one must hope. hominid tool makers displayed the structure of a modern hand. and excellent engine control. However, the unique structure of the human hand is easily explained by a substantial history of production and use of increasingly complex toolkits and other artifacts.
A more difficult hypothesis is to support a three-fold increase in brain size among Pliocene hominids and H. sapiens, as will be discussed later in this section. The characteristics of human hands are easily distinguished from those of great apes and are the basis for our sophisticated manipulative abilities. The most complex adaptation of the human hand involves the thumb, in which a single, completely independent muscle (the long flexor of the thumb) gives this finger remarkable pinch-and-grip strength.
The fingers are wide and equipped with very sensitive leather pads. The proportional length of the thumb and other fingers gives us an opposable thumb, with a firm and precise contact between the ends and the tips of each of the fingers. A special saddle joint and associated ligaments at the base of the thumb facilitate sophisticated rotation. Special joint configurations at the base of the fifth, fourth and second fingers facilitate precise grip of the thumb from tip to tip.
fossil hand bones
The asymmetry of the heads of the second and fifth palm bones induces articulated rotation of the fingers during opposition to the thumb. Finally, many modifications of the small muscles of the hand are associated with fine control of the thumb and fingers. NS. afarensis is the first hominin species for which there are enough fossil hand bones to assess manipulation skills. They were capable of firmly grasping sticks and stones to strike and throw vigorously.
But lacked the fully developed hand grip that would have allowed cylindrical objects to be placed between partially bent fingers and palm. In which counter pressure was applied with the thumb. There are not enough specimens to assess fine manipulation in Australopithecus, but there is no reason to believe that they were less capable than modern chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees and other apes have remarkable grasping precision, despite the fact that the tip of the thin thumb must be pressed against the edge of the index finger and cannot be safely held on either finger. Hand bones assigned to a 1.8-million-year-old H. habilis specimen from the Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania include tool-related features. afarensis is also represented.
hominid hand bones
Tools similar to those found at Olduvai were also found in H. habilis. The tips of the thumb and fingers were flat, and there is evidence of a strong flexor pollicis longus muscle and a saddle joint at the base of the thumb. Hand bones definitively assigned to P. robustus or Homo from Swartkran in South Africa confirm that one or more hominin species had highly developed thumbs and flat fingers at approximately 1.8 million years.
Hominid hand bones from a 2.8 to 2.5 million year old cave deposit at Sterkfontein, South Africa, may be evidence that A. African hands were somewhat more advanced for the use of stone tools, but have not been found artifacts with them. The smaller Sterkfontein deposits (2.0 to 1.5 million years old) contain stone artifacts and remains of a Homo species.
Due to the absence of fossils, it is not possible to trace some of the refinements in manual structure that may have evolved alongside innovations in tool-making and H. rudolfensis, H. ergaster (1.9–1.5 million years ago), and H erectus (1.7–0.2 million years), as well as H. antacear (1.0–0.8 million years) and H. heidelbergensis (600–200 kay). Only H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis are fully represented by skeletons of hands.
increase brain size
Because there are more complete fossil heads available than are available, it is easy to equate the size of the brain with a rich record of artifacts from the Paleolithic period (c. 3.3 million to 10,000 years ago), known as the Stone Age. The Paleolithic period preceded the Mesolithic Age or Mesolithic Age; This nomenclature sometimes causes confusion, as the Paleolithic itself is divided into early, middle, and late (or higher) periods.
The expansion of the hominid brain follows refinements in device technology so closely that some scholars ignore other factors that may have contributed to the increase in brain size, such as social complexity, foraging strategies, communication symbolic and other cultures. leave or have some archaeological remains.
Throughout human evolution, the brain has continued to expand. a. afarensis (435 g [0.96 lb]), A. Garhi (445 g [0.98 lb]), A. Estimated mean brain mass of P. africanus chimpanzees (450 g [0.99 lb]), P boisei (515 g [1.13 lb]) and P. robustus (525 g [1.16 lb]) (395 g [1.16 lb]). 0.87 lb]) and gorilla (490 g [1.08 lb]). The average brain mass of H. sapiens is 1,350 g (2.97 lb). Growth appears to have started with H. habilis (600 g [1.32 lb]), which is also notable for a smaller body. The brain growth trend continued in Africa with larger bodied H. rudolfensis (735 g [1.62 lb]) and especially H. ergaster (850 g [1.87 lb]).
However, great care must be taken when attributing higher cognitive abilities. Relative to estimated body mass, H. habilis is actually H. rudolfensis and H. is “smarter” than ergaster. Neanderthals versus modern humans have presented a similar interpretive challenge. Neanderthals had larger brains than previous Homo species, which actually rivaled modern humans. However, relative to body mass, Neanderthals are physically less intelligent than modern humans.
Brain size did not change from 1.8 to 0.6 million years relative to Homo. After about 600 Kya it increased until about 35,000 years ago, when it began to decrease. Around the world, the average body size of H. sapiens also declined from 35,000 years ago to just 35,000 years ago, when the most economically advanced began to grow while the less privileged did not.
In general, there was a period of stagnation and expansion in stone tool technology during the Paleolithic period, but, with time and variation between locations, the possibility that plant material was used instead of stone is impossible to connect the size of the brain with technology. Fully human complexity and cognitive abilities.
Furthermore, in many cases it is impossible to definitively identify the hominid species that commanded the Paleolithic industry, despite the fact that there are associated skeletal remains at the site. The unreliability of brain size in predicting cognitive ability and the ability to survive in challenging environments was discovered in 2004 in a limestone cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia by H. floresiensis highlighted by the discovery of a specimen specific human.
Small H. floresiensis had brains comparable in mass to those of chimpanzees and small australopithecines, but produced a stone tool industry comparable to that of early Pleistocene hominids and ranged from at least 38 kay to about 18 kay among giant rats. , dwarf elephants and Komodo dragons. If they are in fact a distinct species, they constitute another archaic human (besides H. neanderthalensis, Denisovans [known from Denisova cave remains in Russia], and probably H. erectus) that coexisted with modern humans as late as possible. Pleistocene.
refinement in equipment design
The Early Paleolithic period (3.3 to 0.2 million years) in Africa includes many industries. The earliest tools (hammer, anvil, and primitive cutting tools) gave way to man-made chip tools and core cutters (2.5–2.1 million years). Double-sided axes, blades, and hand picks (collectively known as bifaces) appeared around 1.5 million years ago and persisted for about 200 kilos. Archaeologists have discovered some improvements in technology and product over the half million year span of the core flake industries.
Although the main forked industry, the Achelian, has been characterized as static in origin, it also shows evidence of refinement over time, requiring remarkable skill to create the resulting elegant and symmetrical hand axes. Up to 1.8 mya H. erectus lived in Eurasia in what is now Damanisi, Georgia. The mincers, mincing tools, flakes and related scrapers are reminiscent of the Oldowan core flake industry of East Africa, but there is no dichotomy between them.
the middle paleolithic
The brains of two Damansi specimens were H. africans. smaller than the ergaster. New geochemical dates for classical hominin localities in Java indicate that H. erectus can live in Southeast Asia 1.5 million years, but no industry has been definitively identified with them. The Ubeidīya, Israel, provides evidence that people and bivalves spread from Africa in 1.4 million years. In Europe, Acheulean tools appear from what appears to be 500 and persist between 250 and 150 kay.
They also occur in South Asia. Bisectors occur at sites in China (800 kay), Korea, and Japan, but differ from Acheulean tools. No such technology has been found in tropical Southeast Asia where bamboo tools are sufficient. It was long believed that the Middle Paleolithic in both Africa and Eurasia would last from about 200 Kya to more recently 30 Kya, depending on the location. While Early Paleolithic tools gradually changed over space and time.
The Middle Paleolithic was characterized by an explosion of local and regional variations in size and shape and remodeled balusters, shovels, scrapers, hand axes. And the frequencies of other instruments were characterized. Projectile points began to be emphasized in some areas, using both bone and stone; Arrowheads of bone over 60,000 years old have been found in Sibudu Cave in South Africa.
ethiopia in stratigraphic
Although they vary by time and place, Middle Palaeolithic tools are characterized by a carefully crafted composite core from which elegant flakes or blades were obtained. In particular, tools of this type have been found at the Gademotta site in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia in stratigraphic strata extending up to about 275 kay. Additional paddles of approximately 315 kays have been found at the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco.
The Late Paleolithic 50-10 Kya industries included a variety of blade and microblade tools, especially in Europe. Late Paleolithic people used a variety of materials for their tools and body adornments, including bone, stone, wood, horn, ivory, and shell. Stone blades were long, thin, and highly effective cutting tools. Often when they become lethargic, someone corrects them by pressure flaking, which requires fine motor control and coordination.
The microblades and other points were probably designed to launch and stab spears. Other assorted instruments from this period include the atlas, harpoon, fishing clothes, and the bow and arrow. Late Paleolithic people also developed polishing and polishing techniques, from which they made beads, pendants, and other artistic objects. They also made needles (perhaps for sewing tight clothing), hooks, and springs for fishing.
reduction in tooth size
The combined effects of improved cutting, sharpening and grinding tools and techniques and the use of fire for cooking certainly contributed to a documented reduction in the size of hominin jaws and teeth over the past 2.5 to 5 million years, but it is impossible to fix them. It is not known when the hominin gained control of the fire or what species may have used it for food preparation, heat, or protection from predators.
It is very difficult to determine if the fire was intentionally generated by hominids or if it occurred naturally. For example, in a wildfire, burned tree stumps can leave circular accumulations of charcoal residue that can be mistaken for hearths, while campfires built by mobile hominins will leave no permanent evidence.
Concentrations of charcoal, burnt bones, seeds, and artifacts in China and France suggest that H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, or both, were using fire as early as 460 ka. Certainly some Middle and Late Paleolithic people controlled fire, but hearths of up to 100 Kya are rare. If South Africa’s claims about controlling fires of 1.5 million years are confirmed, P. robustus or H. ergaster will be the first to keep the fire going.
At first glance, the skulls of early hominids appear to be more ape-like than human. While humans have smaller jaws and a larger brain box, great apes have a smaller brain box and larger jaws. Also, ape canines are large and sharp and extend beyond other teeth, while human teeth are relatively small and do not protrude. In fact, humans are unique in being similar to canine rodents, and the front lower premolar tooth is bicuspid.
teeth of paranthropus
In apes and many monkeys, however, the lower premolar is unicuspid and replaces the upper canine tooth with razor sharpness. Male Australopithecus and Paranthropus had large chewing muscles attached to their deep, strong jaws by prominent ridges on the brain box and bony arches on the face and sides of the skull. Over time, the rear teeth of Paranthropus increased in size, while rodents and dogs shrunk. Consequently, P. robustus and P. boisei have relatively flat and non-protruding faces.
Australopithecus species also had larger back teeth, but their faces protruded more because the incisors and tusks were less similar to those of Paranthropus. Over time, the size of the posterior teeth a. From Anamnesis A. africanus and H. habilis, A. Afranis A. anamensis and smaller Australopithecus species. When compared to the estimated body size, the increase in tooth size over time is confirmed for Paranthropus.
Tooth wear patterns in A. afarensis indicate that it may have snatched plant foods by manually pushing them towards the front teeth. The stronger-scaled Paranthropus may have eaten tougher food than the graceful-skull Australopithecus. Also, some paleoanthropologists believe that Paranthropus was herbivore, while A. The diet of the Africans consisted of more meat. Dental morphology and wear patterns indicate that P. robustus ate hard foods and P. boisei chewed whole pods and fruits with hard covers and hard seeds, although they probably did not chew grass seeds, leaves, or amounts of bones.
Unlike Paranthropus and Australopithecus, Homo’s teeth got smaller over time. H. rudolfensis has large back teeth, even relative to estimated body size, but H. ergaster is close to the modern human condition. By the way, H. rudolfensis face H. More like Australopithecus than ergaster. One would expect this trend to be somehow related to changes in diet or food preparation techniques, but the evidence to support this link is not available in the archaeological record.
appearance of homo sapiens
Australopithecus, K. The relationships between the platypus, Paranthropus, and the direct ancestors of Homo are unknown. Due to its early date and geographic location, A. Anamnesis A. afarensis, a. Garhi, K. Platyops, and probably the East African Laetoli Pliocene hominin, A. bahrelgazali, and may be the common ancestor of A. Africans from southern Africa. A. afarensis may itself be the ancestor of P. aethiopicus, which gave rise to P. boisei in eastern Africa and P. robustus in southern Africa.
NS. rudolfensis as an ancestor of the last Homo species are the total size of the brain, the large body and the morphology of the lower extremities. These characteristics clearly characterize the young species of Homo in Africa and Eurasia. However, a jaw discovered in 2013 in the Lady-Geraru region of the Awash River Valley may point to a different ancestor, one that clearly belongs to the genus Homo.
The jaw provides evidence that the dental features associated with posterior Homo (such as smaller teeth and a much shorter chin) appeared 2.8 million years ago, which is the time H. rudolfensis was there long before its arrival. While some paleontologists are quick to associate this specimen with H. habilis, others are considering the possibility that it belongs to a new species of Homo.
Our lineage is unclear as the candidates are limited exclusively to Homo species. Among paleoanthropologists who call it H. erectus as a separate species, H. ergaster is often proposed as the ancestor of the Homo species from the Pleistocene epoch. NS. heidelbergensis H. Ergster, Homo erectus or H. predecessors, and none or none of them could have been the ancestors of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens. Neanderthal populations, especially represented by samples from Western Europe, were probably not the ancestors of modern humans.
Homo anteser and Homo heidelbergensis
H. naledi continues to be the subject of much debate. The oldest fossils of this species are only a few million years old; However, many of its morphological characteristics are similar to Australopithecus, which is why many paleontologists suggest that H. Naledi H. Sapiens evolved in parallel. Theorists use archaeological and structural indicators of fossil remains, genetic traits of modern people around the world, and cognitive, linguistic and technological abilities to support their models of recent human evolution.
But no theory can provide a definitive solution to this. H. How did the sapiens arise? Occur. The limitations of the empirical evidence confuse efforts to understand whether distinctive traits and lineages evolved gradually or during periods of stagnation marked by rapid change (a theory known as punctuated equilibrium). There are claims for about 20 fossil hominid species over the past six million years.
But they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, it appears that Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis) were a dead end for two ancestral species (Homo anteser and Homo heidelbergensis), which gradually grew from around 700 to 30 in Europe. NS. sapiens may have evolved similarly across a variety of species represented by African specimens, but other theorists envision a dramatic shift in cognitive ability and behavior that deserved more than a punctuation mark.
This change would have occurred in a small African population and would have been followed by a longer period of stagnation that continues to the present. Such a scenario is unprecedented, as A. afarensis was a capable biped that emerged suddenly and persisted for about a million years. There are four basic models that explain the evolution of H. sapiens between approximately 315 and 30 Kya. At one extreme is the multisectoral development or regional continuity model.
On the other, there is the African or “out of Africa” model of substitution. There are intermediate African models of hybridization and substitution and models of assimilation. All except the multiregional model assume that H. sapiens fully evolved in Africa and then spread to Eurasia and eventually the Americas and Oceania. Both replacement models argue that anatomically modern migrants replaced the resident Eurasian and Australian species of H. sapiens with little or no hybridization.
The hybridization and replacement model proposes some inbreeding with archaic indigenous populations but with relatively minor effects. Assimilation maintains a continuity between archaic and modern humans, particularly in some regions of Eurasia, where gene flow and local selective factors would also produce morphological changes. In this model, the species unity was maintained by periodic inbreeding over wide areas. Multiregionalists reject the idea that H. sapiens evolved exclusively in Africa.
Instead, they argue that discrete archaic populations of Homo evolved locally in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Throughout his tenure, both archaic and descendant populations interwoven with contemporaries from other regions. The African replacement model has gained wide acceptance primarily due to genetic data (especially mitochondrial DNA) from existing populations. This model is consistent with the understanding that modern humans cannot be classified into subspecies or races, and it assumes that all current human populations share similar abilities.
Such a tangled line of descent is not surprising, given the nomadic lifestyle that bipedalism allows. There appears to have been a gradual migration of hominin species from Africa, with the development of new species in Eurasia and sometimes migration to Africa. For example, H. ergaster may have been the first hominid to reach Eurasia. Some of their descendants may have migrated quickly to East and Southeast Asia, where they found H. gave birth to erectus. Others may have evolved to H. heidelbergensis, which was sparsely populated in Europe and later returned to Africa.
Some paleontologists claim that H. anticesare, found in an 800,000-year-old cave in Gran Dolina in the Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain, was a direct ancestor of H. neanderthalensis through H. heidelbergensis, represented by specimens up to 300,000 years. It comes from the Cima de los Huesos in the Sierra de Atapuerca. In addition, they propose that H. The predecessor, from deposits of millions of years in Eritrea, in Africa was H. sapiens direct ancestor.
Neanderthals likely evolved in Europe, at least in part, in response to cold weather conditions and then migrated to western Asia, where H. sapiens may have been found. There is no strong evidence that they have reached the African continent or that they have moved much further east in Central Asia than in Uzbekistan. Neanderthal characteristics that advocate adaptation to cold seasonal biomes include stubby torsos, short limbs (especially forearms and feet), and distinctive facial structures.
The central part of the face protrudes, the teeth point forward, the enlarged cheekbones are tilted back, and the nasal passages are large. If Neanderthals wore animal skins and other insulating materials on their head and body while active in cold weather, the larger nasal chamber would help cool the blood and warm the brain, while clothing would reduce the risk of frostbite. The nasal chamber can also retain moisture during exhalation.
Fossil specimens obtained from the Omo site in Ethiopia (dating to 195 kay) indicate that H. sapiens was present in East Africa around 200 kay. The oldest known remains, however, appear at the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco and date to 315. This evidence suggests that the species may not have arisen in East Africa or was not limited to the region. Molecular genetic data suggests that H. sapiens had gone through a population bottleneck – that is, a period when they were rare creatures.
hominid species in eurasia
Before rapidly spreading to the Old World. H. sapiens migrated to southern China between 120 Kya and 80 Kya and Europe between 45-43 Kya. They replaced indigenous hominid species in Eurasia, and then as the sea level dropped during the glacial period, adventurers went to sea in boats, around 65 to 50 Kya in Australia and the last 3000 years. During the period, the population of the marine islands occurred. Much of the evidence points to the migration of Homo sapiens to the Americas, around 14-13.3 Kya; However, some evidence suggests that this migration may have occurred 15,000 years ago.
Some of the wide variations in modern people’s physical proportions, external characteristics, and blood chemistry may reflect the biome’s adjustment in a geologically short period of time. However, molecular genetic studies suggest that the genomic differences between remote villages are much smaller than the variation within each local population. Consequently, for modern H. sapiens, caste is the only cultural construct that has no biological basis.
The origin and development of human culture – spoken language and symbolically mediated thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors – are some of the biggest unsolved puzzles in the study of human evolution. Such questions cannot be resolved with skeletal or archaeological data. Research on the behavioral and cognitive abilities of apes, monkeys, and other animals, and cognitive development in human children, provides few clues, but this information is best tracked over time.
To further complicate the scenario, it is possible that today’s chimpanzees, bonobos and other anthropogenic primates have more sophisticated cognitive and behavioral abilities than some of the early hominins, as they and their ancestors had to overcome many challenges. over several million years and may have become more advanced in the process. Some researchers have inferred speech based on certain intrinsic features of the skull, for example Homo habilis, but jaw size and additional features suggest otherwise.
the homo sapiens
Still other researchers claim that due to the simplicity of their pre-Late Paleolithic art and toolkit, H. Human speech did not fully develop in early members of the sapiens. It is impossible to assess linguistic merit by looking inside an incomplete, battered, and deformed reassembled fossil skull, and in any case, the brain likely did not fit perfectly against the walls of the brain box. NS. Habilis and H. rudolfensis may indicate a general increase in cognitive abilities, manipulative abilities, or factors other than speech.
Particularly unreliable are claims that Broca’s Cap’s distinctive internal cranial impression is evidence of speech. Prominent Broca’s caps are present in some chimpanzees, but none of the apes have uttered a word, despite considerable effort being made to pronounce them. A humanoid vocal tract cannot be detected in fossils because it is composed solely of soft tissue and does not leave bony marks. Although versatile human speech is associated with a relatively spacious movable pharynx and tongue.
The absence of such features is not a compelling reason to reject some form of vocal language in ancestral hominins. It is argued that it is impossible to articulate human speech without a larynx and an expanded area above it. If this conjecture were correct, Neanderthals would also have been vocally inept and possibly Late Paleolithic Cro-Magnon-style H. sapiens would also have been cognitively quite primitive compared to the population.
Gibbons and great apes do not speak, but their throat characteristics coincide with speech, although to a lesser extent than in humans. Gibbons voices vary surprisingly in pitch and pattern, and if such sounds are divided into discrete parts with consonants, they can mimic words. The same can be said of the great apes. Orangutans, chimpanzees, and bonobos have sufficiently mobile lips and tongues. They lack the neural circuits to speak.
On the contrary, if the theory is correct that different abilities are governed by different and different types of intelligence (multiple intelligences), then most of the tool-use behavior and artistic ability must be based on neurological structures that underlie verbal ability. The supporters are fundamentally different. Human children begin to use language long before they become sophisticated device users. Similarly, speech-shaped devices can be symbolically mediated precursor forms of behavior.
Visual arts such as painting and sculpture are manifestations of spatial intelligence, mainly concentrated in areas of the brain that are related to speech. Therefore, despite the bewildering array of rock art and polished bones, antlers, ivory, stone, and shell artifacts dating from this period, the study of Paleolithic imagery and symbolism is not expected to explain the origins of the language or the problem of language proficiency.
However, if the astonishing prevalence and stylistic variability of tools, body ornaments and artistic works during the Paleolithic do not clearly point to the specific use of speech, the presence of these symbolically mediated artifacts, the oldest of which in Morocco The shells found are pearls and were made about 82,000 years ago, showing that early humans were capable of developing complex abstract and conceptual ideas.
Historically, all human groups manifest a rich language, religion, and symbolically mediated social, political, and economic systems, even in the absence of extensive material culture. The social intelligence demands of people living in environments with relatively few gadgets are similar to the demands of those who depend on complex technological devices and shelters for their comfort. As a result, Homo sapiens cannot be considered cognitively less capable than themselves, and it is impossible to tell which hominin species were “fully human” as symbol users.
Of course, carefully documented language studies of bonobos and chimpanzees in captivity suggest that they have the ability to understand and use symbols to communicate with and with humans, but using this ability in the wild remains. Perhaps the human ability to symbolically represent feelings, situations, objects, and ideas evolved before being controlled by multiple intelligences and becoming a boon for assertive communication.
Archaeological evidence indicates that, like at least some of their Pliocene predecessors, more recent hominids were probably omnivores, although the amount of meat they included in their diet and whether they obtained it from garbage, hunting, or both were approximately 200- 100 was poorly documented….cut marks on stone tools and bones at archaeological sites confirm a long history of meat consumption among the Hominini tribe, but the practice may have existed long before the invention of stone tools.
Like chimpanzees, bonobos, baboons, capuchins, and other primates, early Pliocene hominins may have killed and fragmented their vertebrate prey with just their hands and jaws rather than tools. It has not been determined to what extent hunting, garbage collection or other activities of our ancestors were coordinated through communal and symbolic communication.
There is no valid way to estimate group size and composition, as there is little evidence of movement patterns, shelters, and tombs until the late Paleolithic. Archaeological traces of man-made shelters are rarely found above 60 kay, then they become more common, especially in areas with notable bad weather climates. The first appearance and development of symbolically based spirituality are also very elusive.
Since they did not leave any indisputable morphological or archaeological traces until the innovation of writing and ritual material. However, there is evidence that Neanderthals wore jewelry and other personal jewelry some 44,000 years ago. Although some Neanderthals buried their dead, there is little evidence of a mortuary ceremony in their graves. 40 what h. The tombs of the sapiens sometimes contain grave goods.
learn from apes
Gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos are a rich resource for anthropologists, biologists, and cultural psychologists who speculate on the origins of human societies. Gorillas attract theorists who insist on male dominance and patriarchy. A typical group of gorillas consists of a silverback (an older dominant male), one or more subordinate black-backed males, adult females outnumbering males, and young of various ages. The Silverbacks are the center of the cohesive group. Chimpanzee society is also dominated by males.
chimpanzees and bonobos
Who form a stable center of the group. Chimpanzees and bonobos live in large groups of more than 100 individuals, although they feed, travel, and nest in much smaller bands that vary daily in number and composition. Chimpanzees have one apex male, followed by several others whose rank depends on which other males are present. Bonobos have stronger male-female relationships than chimpanzees, and the organizing center of bonobo social groups is based on close relationships between adult females, especially mothers.
Who often maintain strong ties to their offspring. Adult male bonobos bond with each other less closely than male chimpanzees. Because bonobos are calmer and more tolerant of social interactions and highly sexual, they are popular with those who would unleash our “killer ape” legacy. However, watchers of apes, Old World monkeys, and other mammals have documented incidents of aggression in their subjects, as well as concern for others. Both trends are deeply ingrained among higher primates.
The rise of the human nuclear family has been a particularly complex problem for Western evolutionary theorists. Like bonobos and chimpanzees, people are likely to be fundamentally the majority, although such mating behavior is highly restricted by the cultures in which individuals are born and live. In fact, theorists seeking to model the emergence of hominid societies on the basis of existing ape societies rarely address the fact that humans use a variety of kinship, social and political systems.
Including all of which they are retained and expressed. Symbolically and practically. Researchers often fail to uncover the cognitive basis for symbolic representation, manipulation, and invention in apes, citing instead forms of behavior that disrupt specific human situations. It will take many scientific disciplines and sophisticated technological endeavors, perhaps over many years, to discover the underlying nature of our mental faculties, their neurological basis, and their development over time. Apes can play an important role in this endeavor only if they are allowed to survive in their natural habitats and only if they are viewed on their own evolutionary path, not simply as a step towards the human condition.
Humans interbred with four extinct hominin species. You may never have heard of four species of Homo Species. Homo Helmei is one of many obscure species in our own genus represented by some fossils that do not fit perfectly into existing hominid species. While doing some research this week, I came across a species of hominid that I hadn’t heard of before: Homo Helmei. The name was first given in 1932 to a 259,000-year-old partial skull found in Florisabad, South Africa.
This skull resembled early Homo sapiens, but had many archaic features. Today, some researchers think that many African hominid fossils from this time have been identified as Homo Helmei must be mixed into species. Others call him Homo Heidelbergensis, whom some anthropologists consider the modern human and the last common ancestor of Neanderthals. And then there are those who really don’t know what to call them.
Ability to start an advantage over other hominids – Turns out I have H.W. Helmei should have known. This is mentioned once in my college human development textbook. I also described the pass. However, it is not the name of a species that is used often and it’s one of many obscure species of Homo that anthropologists don’t universally accept. These unknown members of our genus are often based on a few fossils, sometimes just one, that don’t fit perfectly into existing hominid species. Here are some examples.
(lived about 2 million to 820,000 years ago): Earlier this year, Darren Curnow of the University of New South Wales in Australia announced the possible discovery of a new species of Homo, found in China. This was the first time they had identified a new type of hominid. In 2010, he extracted fossils from the South African caves of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans and Drimolen and decided that some specimens had oddly shaped molars that were South African household organisms known as Australopithecus affricenus. He grouped strange variants in the species of him Homo Gotengensis, stating that it was possibly the oldest member of the genus Homo.
(1.8 million years ago): In 1991, anthropologists found the jaw of a hominid in the Caucasus Mountains of Damisi, Georgia. Researchers excavated hominid fossils and additional stone tools in the 1990s. The fossils resembled Homo Erectus. But in 2000, he received an unusual jaw; Its shape and size is largely h. It does not match Erectus or any other known hominin that lived about 1.8 million years ago. So the team gave Jaws a new name, Homo Georgicus. Since then, more bones than h. May be related to Georgicus, has been detected. Researchers speculate that two types of hominins may live in Georgia at the moment (PDF): H. Georgicus and H. Erectus (or something related to it).
(450,000 years ago): Only one fossil, an incomplete skull, represents the Homo Speriensis species. It is called Ceprano, Italy, where the fossil was discovered in 1994 during the construction of a road. The small, wide, and thick skull did not fit at all with other hominids of the time, such as Homo Erectus and h. Fidelbergensis, hence anthropologists give him his name.
But the Italian fossils shared some cranial features, such as the shape of the eyebrows, with hominids that lived in Africa a few thousand years ago, H. The leading researchers were likely ancestral to infer crandensis. For these African shapes. A New Australian Research. According to the research, humans interfere with four species of extinct hominids: while modern Homo Sapiens was displaced from Africa and the rest of the world, they found and interfered with at least four different hominid species.
The University of Adelaide, According to a new Australian research. Surprisingly, of these hominids, only Neanderthals and Denisovans are currently known; Other names have been discontinued and found only as traces of DNA that survive in several modern populations. Reconstruction of Homo florescensis, a species of extinct hominids that lived 74,000 and 18,000 years ago at the bottom of the Indonesian island.
Each of us takes us to the genetic traces of the events of these previous mixtures, DRS. João Teixeira is co-author of an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These archaic groups were very broad and genetically diverse, and survive in each of us. Its history is an integral part of how we form. For example, approximately 2% of all current populations show Neanderthal ancestry.
Which means that Neanderthal’s mixing with the ancestors of modern humans occurred shortly after leaving Africa. Probably between 50,000 and 55,000 years ago. Middle East. But as the ancestors of modern humans traveled further, they found themselves in the East and mixed with at least four other groups of archaic humans. Dr. Teixeira announced that the island of Southeast Asia was already a crowded place.
archaeological and fossil evidence
Which we call modern humans, who arrived in the region 50,000 years ago. “At least three other archaic human groups have occupied the region, and the ancestors of modern humans were assimilated before the extinction of archaic humans.” In his new research, Drs. Teixeira and his colleague, Professor Alan Cooper, analyzed genetic, archaeological and fossil evidence, as well as additional information on reconstructed migration routes and records of fossil vegetation.
The scientists discovered that there was a mixed phenomenon among modern humans and a group around South Asia, which they called the extinct hominid 1 (E1). Other Christian islands originated with Denisovans in Southeast Asia and the Philippines, and with another group, called extinct hominid 2 (EH2) in Floors, Indonesia.
Approximate trajectory (yellow and red arrow) of the movement of anatomically modern humans across the island of Southeast Asia about 50,000 years ago. Populations of modern predators with genetic data are shown in red and populations grown in black are shown in color. The predicted genomic content of EH1 (purple), Denisovan (red), EH2 (brown) and non-parasitic (gray) is shown in the pie chart as the relative proportions observed in the Australian-Papuans (complete circles).
All populations with large amounts of Denisovan genomic material are located east of the Wallace line; The incidence of independent introversion with Denisovan groups has been estimated separately for the Australian ISA population: Papua, Philippines (red class 2) and for the Philippines (red class 4). The signal for a different introduction with an unknown hominin in flowers recorded in genomic data of the current population remains less secure (brown circle 5).
The exact location of introverted events 2, 4 and 5 is currently unknown. “We knew that history outside of Africa was not simple, but it seems to be more complex than we thought.” The island was clearly a region of Southeast Asia.. Arctic human species found in a cave of 14,000-year-old red bone antelopes, an archaic species of the Chinese genus Homo, which for a long time was believed extinct, possibly already 14,000 years ago, among the remains of a thigh bone. The people of Red Deer Cave of China. Artists rebuilding Red Deer Cave.
homo habilis species
Peter Scouton image. A 14,000-year-old bone head, a partial female, was found in 1989 in Maludong (Red Deer Cave), Yunnan, southwest China, with fossilized remains of mysterious dark-skinned people. According to a study published in the journal PLoS One. Early bone and bone erections h. Hillis looks like a woman. Like the primitive Homo habilis species, Maludong’s thigh bone is very small, with the professor, co-author. At the Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology in China.
The axis is narrow, the outer layer (or layer) of the axis is very thin; Shaft walls are reinforced (or with buttocks) in areas of high stress. The neck of the femur is long and for the primary flexor muscle of the hip (lower trochanter. The muscular insertion is very large and strongly forward. With an estimated body mass of about 50 kg, the Maladong person was much smaller according to the human standards of Premier and Ice Age.
There is a possibility that clues about the dominant species with modern humans are found in continental Asia in advance, but the University of New South Wales Dr. Darren Cornow said the case should be made slowly with more bone discoveries. Main co-author of the study. The scientists said their discovery is controversial because until now, it was thought that the most important younger humans in continental Eurasia (Neanderthals and Denisovans) had died anatomically shortly after the modern monkey, 40,000 years ago. Sapiens entered the region.
When the same team announced the discovery of the remains of the people of Red Deer Cave in 2012, it divided the scientific community. At that time, the scientists speculated that the bones may represent a new unknown species, or perhaps the population of early and early-looking modern humans, who inhabited the region more than 100,000 years ago.
We first published our findings about the bones of the skull because we thought they would be the most revealing, but we were surprised by our study of the thigh bone, which showed that it is much more primitive than the skull. The moment of humans development describes where Maludong’s femur probably fits. The new discovery once again points to at least a few Maludong bones that represent a dominant mysterious species.
The team suggested in another recent PLoS ONE article that Longlin Cave’s skull in China is possibly a hybrid between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and an unknown archaic group, possibly presented by Maludong to Femur. The researchers said, the Maludong fossil is possibly a specimen of archaic populations that lived in a biologically complex area of southwest China until about 14,000 years ago. The professor said: The unique climate due to the elevation of the Tibetan plateau and the climate of southwest China has possibly provided a refuge for human diversity.