Bio Anthropology Final

Paleospecies Age Geographic Distribution Date Certainty Key morphological distinction

(mya) (country or regions)
Sahelanthropus tchadensis 6-7 Toumai Chad Certain Anterior foramen magnum
Orrorin tugenensis 5.8-6.1 Tugen Hills Kenya Certain Intermediate cortical bone thickness
Ardipithecus kadabba 5.2-5.8 Middle Awash Ethiopia Certain Textbook canine mechanism
Ar. ramidus 4.4 Middle Awash Ethiopia Certain Facultative arch
Australopithecus anamensis 3.8-4.1 Kanapoi Kenya Certain Equal depressions on the tibia
plateau
Kenyanthropus platyops 3.5 West Turkana Kenya Certain Flat midface
Au. afarensis 3.0-3.7 East Africa and Chad Certain Bipedal foot- latitudinal arch and in
line first metatarsal
Au. africanus 2.5-3.0 South Africa Not certain Anterior pillars
Au. sediba 1.977 Malapa South Africa Very certain Start of forehead
Au. aethiopicus 2.6 West Turkana Ethiopia Certain Sagittal crest tallest posteriorly
Au. garhi 2.5 Middle Awash Ethiopia Certain Less of a sagittal crest
Paranthropus robustus 1.0-2.5 South Africa Not certain Strong and robust craniums with
extreme postorbital constriction
P. boisei 1.0-2.5 East Africa Not certain More extreme robust cranium and
postorbital constriction, heart shaped
foramen magnum
Homo habilis 1.7-1.8 Oldavai Gorge, Tanzania Certain Separation of parietal lines
H. rudolfensis 1.8-1.9 Koobi Fura, Kenya Certain Square dentition
H. georgicus 1.78-1.85 Dmanisi, Georgia Very certain Too much variation!
H. ergaster 700k- Koobi Fura and Oldavai Gorge Certain Barn shape w/ angulated occiput
1.78m and sagittal keel
H. erectus (including 700k-1.8m South East Asia, East Asia, East Not certain Barn shaped neural cranium and
H. javanicus, H. soloensis,
Africa, North Africa (Asian sites) thick parietals
H. pekinensis )
H. antecessor 800k-1.2m Spain, Italy- South Europe Certain Retromolar space
H. heidelbergensis 50k-700k Southern Europe- Germany, Uncertain Hypolordotic lumbar curve
Greece, Spain.
H. neanderthalensis 30k-300k Europe to Middle East Uncertain (in Mid-facial prognathism
between 14C
and Ar-Ar)
H. rhodesiensis/leakyi 125k-500k Africa- Broken Hill Zambia, Ndutu Certain Lambdoidal flattening
Tanzania
H. steinheimensis 120k-200k Western Europe- Germany and Certain Walls of neural cranium are parallel
France. Africa- Tanzania and
Morroco
Anatomically modern H. 125k-Now! Originally Africa (Klasies River), Certain The Chin
sapiens
then expand to Middle East and (genetics)
everywhere
Behaviorally modern 50k- Europe, Asia, Africa, eventually Certain Art- cave paintings and figurines
H. sapiens
present Australia and the Americas
H. floresiensis 13k-90k Liang Bua Indonesia Not certain Very large feet relative to small body
and cranium
Phylogeny:
Answer (D) for Homo floresiensis part here:

I placed H. floresiensis as a descendant of H. erectus on my phylogeny. I reached this

conclusion by considering the three defining factors of a paleospecies; time, location and
morphology, of H. floresiensis and the other paleospecies it could be related to. In the case of
H. floresiensis I believe that time is an especially important factor to consider. H. floresiensis is
dated at13k-90kya. This very recent date places H. floresiensis as alive more recently than any
other hominin paleospecies. Therefore I know that H. floresiensis must be a dead-end at the
end of a lineage. The date also gives insight as to which paleospecies may have been its most
recent ancestor. It is unlikely, if not impossible, that H. floresiensis could be the direct
descendent of an Austalopithecine. The most recent Australopithecine is Au. sediba, dated at
1.977mya. If H. floresiensis is derived from Au. sediba then we are left with an unexplainable
gap of at least 1.8m years. Therefore, I think it is much more likely that H. erectus (most recent
date of 700k) is the direct ancestor to H. floresiensis.

The morphological features of the H. floresiensis cranium also provide evidence linking it
to genus Homo and specifically H. erectus. The cranium has a present forehead, slight lower
face prognathism, and a barn shaped neural cranium with thick parietals. The teeth show
agenesis of the third molar. These traits are all very indicative of genus Homo. The barn shaped
neural cranium is a very distinctive characteristic of H. erectus sensu lato. However, the
postcranium morphology offers a contrasting view that instead links H. floresiensis to
Australopithecines. H. floresiensis had a stature under 4 ft and a femur length of 280mm. It has
a small pelvis with a wide iliac flare. These features are all very comparable to Au. afarensis
(specifically Lucys femur and the STS-14 pelvis).

I also considered geography to link H. floresiensis to H. erectus. Both of these

paleospecies were present in the Indonesian islands. The Liang Bua Caves where H.
floresiensis was discovered are very close to the H. erectus fossil sites of Trinil and Mojokerto.
Indonesia/ Java is a relatively inaccessible location, considering that it is an island. Therefore, it
is more likely that one population arrived on the islands and all later individuals were
descendants of the original population, compared to the possibility of multiple populations
arriving independently. Overall, the temporal and geographic evidence combined with the
cranium morphology outweigh the contrasting post-cranium features thus linking H. floresiensis
to H. erectus.
2. (20 points) There are many things we do not understand in hominin evolution because
we do not have the data. If you could fill one of these absences with evidence, which
one would you choose and why? What would you expect to find? What would surprise
you the most? (No alien spaceship answers! Tell me about fossils or material culture!)

I want to fill the absence of material culture/ behavior that exists in the record. I believe
that many of us view the hominin paleospecies leading up to modern Homo sapiens as animals.
We still hold an us vs them mortality when comparing ourselves to our ancestral species. This
idea plays in with the incorrect notion that evolution is directional and that a derived form is
somehow inherently better. I believe that it would be easier to distance ourselves from these
incorrect ideas if we had more evidence on the behavior and/or culture of hominin paleospecies.
This class focused mostly on paleontological morphology because that is predominantly what
the record has to offer. However, we know that morphology often has a function that affects
culture and vice versa. This is shown all over the record including canine mechanisms and intra
species fighting, dexterous hands and tool use, and sexual dimorphism and sexual division of
subsistence labor. The next step is to establish temporality in this relationship. Is the
morphology predecessing the behavior, or vice versa, or a mix of the two?

I expect to find evidence that rudimentary culture existed in hominins prior to when we
expected. Paleontologists have recently discovered stone tools dated over 3mya. For the first
time this suggests that something other than Genus Homo was capable of using tools. I believe
that this may be the first of multiple finds of early tools and culture. I expect that we will attribute
more tools to Australopithecines as well as find evidence of cultural routines like differing gender
roles or burial rituals. This will be surprising because of the implications it has on what sets us
apart as H. sapiens. We will need to accept that we are closely connected to everything that
came before us. Unfortunately, culture will never be as tangible as a nice big fossilized femur, so
some mysteries will always remain.