Term
| Basic cranial structure of the robust australopithecines (4) |
|
Definition
| Giant crests, Very prognathic, Big browridge, Face “dished” |
|
|
Term
| The functional implications of the basic cranial structure of the robust australopithecines |
|
Definition
| Used to believe it was so heavily built because of nut grinding. The sr/ca ratio suggests it was more like a carnivore. They may have been adapting to eating more difficult things |
|
|
Term
| How does A. aethiopicus seem to form a link between A. afarensis and the later robust australopithecines? |
|
Definition
| The brain size is very small, at 410 cc, and parts of the skull, particularly the hind portions, are very primitive, most resembling afarensis. Other characteristics, like the massiveness of the face, jaws and single tooth found, and the largest sagittal crest in any known hominid, are more reminiscent of A. boisei |
|
|
Term
| Why is Australopithecus boisei sometimes referred to as “hyper-robust?” |
|
Definition
| It was similar to robustus, but the face and cheek teeth were even more massive, some molars being up to 2 cm across. |
|
|
Term
| Briefly describe the stable isotope studies that have been carried out on the robust australopithecines. How have the results encouraged scientists to modify their characterization of robust australopithecine dietary patterns? |
|
Definition
| Used to believe it was so heavily built because of nut grinding. The sr/ca ratio suggests it was more like a carnivore. They may have been adapting to eating more difficult things |
|
|
Term
| Why do you think the robust australopithecines went extinct? Support your answer with evidence |
|
Definition
| Cooling event with a greater variability in the environment |
|
|
Term
| Review the major characteristics of Australopithecus sediba. |
|
Definition
- 420 cc
- Not heavily built
- Forward projecting nose
- Smaller teeth |
|
|
Term
| Australopithecus sediba. Where might this species fit in the hominin evolutionary picture? |
|
Definition
| - Link between early homo and africanus? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. Habilis existed between 2.4 and 1.5 million years ago. It is very similar to australopithecines in many ways. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller. |
|
|
Term
| Describe Homo rudolfensis |
|
Definition
There is only one really good fossil of this Homo rudolfensis: KNM-ER 1470, from Koobi Fora in the Lake Turkana basin, Kenya. It has one really critical feature: a braincase size of 775 cubic centimeters, which is considerably above the upper end of H. habilis braincase size. At least one other braincase from the same region also shows such a large cranial capacity.
Originally considered to be H. habilis, the ways in which H. rudolfensis differs is in its larger braincase, longer face, and larger molar and premolar teeth. Due to the last two features, though, some scientists still wonder whether this ‘species’ might better be considered an Australopithecus, although one with a large brain! |
|
|
Term
| Evidence for non human tool use. |
|
Definition
Chimps use tools like:
Leaf sponges
Leaf cushions
Branches as weapons
Termite fishing
Nut cracking |
|
|
Term
| Describe Oldowan technology |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| What are some of the things that Mary Leakey described as oldowan tools |
|
Definition
• Manuports
• Cobbles, hammerstones
• Cores, flakes
• Polyhedrons, discoids
• Spheroids
• Choppers
• Flakes
• Scrapers |
|
|
Term
| Technological requirements of oldowan tools |
|
Definition
• Had to understand fracture properties of rock: conchoidal fracture, platform selection, proper angles.
• Also had to select proper raw material. |
|
|
Term
| Some things oldowan tools show us |
|
Definition
• Variability often to do with raw material
• No mental images
• Edge wear, polish: used on wood, to cut meat, break bones, scrape hides, cut grass. Flakes and “core tools” used.
• Flake types: predominantly right-handed |
|
|
Term
| How have Oldowan sites been interpreted in terms of hominin behavior? |
|
Definition
FLK Zinj at Olduvai, 1.8-1.9 mya
Thought to be a “living floor.”
315 square meters, bordered paleolake
60,000 bones, 2500 stone artifacts; 3500 large mammal, 16000 small animal
Cutmarks and gnaw marks.
How were these bones accumulated? (Hominin, carnivore, geological processes) |
|
|
Term
| Review the cranial traits of homo erectus |
|
Definition
•800-1300cc, mostly…
•Earliest large bony nose
•Zygomatics receding, face less robust
•Long, low, thick vault
•Supraorbital torus; also nuchal and sagittal
•Zygomatics sweep back; broad nose
•Incisors relatively large; molars large for genus
•Still no chin
•Molars decrease, incisors increase, nuchal area expands
•Skull long and low
•Cranial bones thick
•Nuchal torus, sag. keel |
|
|
Term
| Review the post cranial traits of homo erectus |
|
Definition
Postcrania ~modern, very robust
•Average height: 5’7”
Barrel-shaped torso
•Humanlike spine
•Upper limb: modern
•Pelvis: flared > modern people; small birth canal
•Lower limb: basically modern
Limb bones very thick, robust |
|
|
Term
| Be able to describe the impact of the Dmanisi site on the scientific consensus about the first major hominin migration out of Africa (timing and identity of migrants). |
|
Definition
| A site in Russia (Dmanisi) may be as old as 1.6 million years. There also are some crudely made artifacts found in Pakistan that have been tentatively dated as 2.0 million years old. These dates place the migration out of Africa at an early stage of Homo erectus evolution. At this stage, one must question whether these early dates are valid and we must recognize they fly in the face of traditional interpretations that place the migration out of Africa much later. |
|
|
Term
| Review the characteristics of the Acheulean, and be able to describe how it differs from the Oldowan. |
|
Definition
•1.6-0.2 mya
•Second phase of Lower Palaeolithic
•Africa, Near East, Europe, far East
•Bifacial tools main addition
•More retouched flake tools also
•Soft-hammer percussion
•There are also non-biface industries at the same time. |
|
|
Term
| Some Acheulean-age sites lack bifaces. What is the geographic distribution of such sites? |
|
Definition
In Europe, these are called Clactonian
In Asia, chopper-chopping tool industries |
|
|
Term
| Some Acheulean-age sites lack bifaces. How have they been explained? |
|
Definition
– Environment: habitat specific
– Loss of technology
– Multiple migrations |
|
|
Term
| Review the evidence for Homo erectus culture |
|
Definition
•Hunting
•Acheulean, Clactonian/Oldowan
•Chose best raw materials; greater range of stone types exploited
•Use of fire
•Schoeningen throwing spears 400 kya\
•Structures?: Terra Amata
•Elephant hunting, Torralba and Ambrona
•Cannibalism has been suggested from possible cutmarks on crania, absence of faces and basicrania |
|
|
Term
| Be able to describe the two main models for modern human origins |
|
Definition
| continuity vs replacement |
|
|
Term
| Hypothesis for extinction of A. robustus |
|
Definition
| but it may be that their diet was so specialized that it could not adapt quickly enough to climatic events associated with that time period |
|
|
Term
| Difference between oldowan and nonhuman tools |
|
Definition
| they rarely carry their "artifacts" more than a few yards. In contrast, the Koobi Fora and Olduvai hominids carried flakes and cores over considerable distances, up to 8 miles (13 km). This behavior represents a simple form of curation, retaining tools for future use rather than just utilizing convenient stones, as chimpanzees do. |
|
|
