Post on 13-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
ANG 6930Proseminar in
Anthropology IIA: Bioanthropology
Day 5
ANG 6930
Prof. Connie J. Mulligan
Department of Anthropology
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
This week• Hominoid to hominin
• Dating the ape-human split• Australopiths• Early hominin subsistence and social organization• Origins of genus Homo• Homo erectus• Neanderthals and other archaic humans
• Reading– The Human Species, Chpts 9 (Primate origins and evolution), 10 (Beginnings of
human evolution), 11 (Origin/evolution of genus Homo)
– Course packet• “A new kind of ancestor: Ardipithecus unveiled”, Science, 326:36-40.• “Candidate human ancestor from South Africa sparks praise and debate”, Science• Klein RG. 2009. Darwin and the recent African origin of modern humans. PNAS 106:16007-
16009.• “New statistical model moves human evolution back three million years” ScienceDaily,
11/9/2010.• Teaford MR and Ungar PS. 2000. Diet and the evolution of the earliest human ancestors. PNAS
97:13506-13511.• Conroy GC. 2002. Speciosity in the early Homo lineage: Too many, too few, or just about right?
Journal of Human Evolution 43:759-766.• Premo LS and Hublin J-J. 2009. Culture, population structure, and low genetic diversity in
Pleistocene hominins. PNAS 106:33-37.• Hublin JJ. 2009. The origin of Neanderthals. PNAS 106:16022-16027.• “Tales of a prehistoric human genome” Science 2009, 323:866-871.• Optional– Noonan JP. Neanderthal genomics and the evolution of modern humans.
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Next week• Origin of modern humans/Human biodiversity and race
• Homo floresiensis• Anatomically modern Homo sapiens• African replacement or multiregional evolution?• Global patterns of human genetic variation• Anthropological critique of race
• Reading– The Human Species, Chpts 12 (Origin of modern humans), 13 (Human
variation), 14 (Genetics, history and ancestry)
– Course packet• Tattersall I. 2009. Human origins: Out of Africa. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 106:16018-16021.• Powledge TM. 2006. What is the Hobbit? PLoS Biology. 4:2186-2189.• Scheinfeldt L et al. 2010. Working toward a synthesis of archaeological,
linguistic, and genetic data for inferring African population history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:8931-8938.
• Serre D and Pääbo S. 2004. Evidence for gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Research 14:1679-1685.
• Haak W. 2008. Ancient DNA, strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age. PNAS. 105:18226-18231.
• “On the origin of art and symbolism” Science 2009, 323:709-711.
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Hominoid to Hominin
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Overview
• Origin of hominins in late Miocene– Ardipithecus– Orrorin– Sahelanthropus
• Plio-pleistocene hominin adaptive radiation– Australopithecus– Paranthropus– Kenyanthropus
• Hominin phylogenies
• Evolution of bipedalism
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Overview of hominid evolution
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Climate change in late Miocene/PlioceneHominids evolved ~6 mill yrs ago
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Late Miocene to Early Pliocene• Apes flourished in Miocene, but most genera became extinct
• Falling temperatures changed climate in African tropics– Rain fall declined, became more seasonal– Tropical forests shrank; woodlands, grasslands expanded
• Ecological pressures led to evolution of first hominids about 6-8 mya
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
What makes a hominid?• Human uniqueness long defined in terms of
brain evolution
• Now clear that bipedalism predates big brains by several million years
• Bipedalism associated with morphological changes
• Dietary changes associated with new habitats, also reflected in different chewing apparatus
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Shared, derived traits of hominids
• Habitual bipedalism
• Chewing apparatus– Wide parabolic dental arcade– Thick enamel– Reduced canines– Larger molars in relation to other teeth
• Much larger brains relative to body size
• Slow development with long juvenile period
• Elaborate, highly variable material and symbolic culture, transmitted in part through spoken language
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Major discoveries of hominidsMainly South Africa and East Africa
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
New discoveries of hominids 5-7 mya
• (Ardipithecus ramidus– 1992– Middle Awash in Ethiopia– Previously thought to be older than 5
mya, now 4.4 mya)
• Orrorin tugenensis– 2001– Tugen Hills in Kenya
• Sahelanthropus tchadensis– 2002– Toros-Menalla in Chad
• Ardipithecus kadabba– 2004– Middle Awash in Ethiopia
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
• Discovered in 2002 by Michel Brunet and colleagues
• New dental and mandibular specimens reported in 2005
• Estimated 6-7 mya in Chad, not securely dated– Fits with humans if older human-
chimp divergence is used
• Unique mix of humanlike and apelike features– Relatively flat face and massive
brow ridge– Small brain, primitive teeth, back
of skull very apelike• No postcranial fossils known• Could be hominoid, not hominid
Toumaï
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Orrorin tugenensis
• Announced in 2001 by Senut and Pickford
• 6 mya at Tugen Hills in Kenya
• No cranial fossils recovered– Keep controversy alive (could be
ardipithecus)
• Mixture of apelike-humanlike– Incisors, canines, premolars,
arm and fingers like chimpanzees
– Thick enamel, femur humanlike
• Bipedalism inferred from femur anatomy
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Ardipithecus kadabba
• 1st designated as subspecies, then promoted to full species in 2004
• Even older - 5.8 – 5.2 Ma• Ethiopia (Middle Awash)• Similar to Sahelanthropus in
mix of features• Slightly smaller Canine• Wooded habitat
Yohannes Haile-Selassie
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Ardipithecus ramidusFirst identified and named in 1994 – thought to be older than 5 mya
15 years to excavate >100 fragments and reassemble them, e.g. >1000 hours on skull (Gen Suwa) – 4.4 mya
Nature 371: 306-312 (1994)
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Ardipithecus ramidus – “ARDI”• 4.4 mya• Discovered in Middle Awash
– Aramis (Ethiopia)• Most complete skeleton
older than Lucy• Not Homo and not
Australopithecus• Similarities to
Sahelanthropus– Very early stage of human
evolution
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Unexpected anatomy
White, Gibbons (2009) A new kind of ancestor: Ardipithecus unveiled. Science
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
White, Gibbons (2009) A new kind of ancestor: Ardipithecus unveiled. Science
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Significance of late Miocene hominids• Pushes back fossil record of hominids by 2-3 million
years– Until early 1990s, earliest hominids were < 4 mya
– Now appears that multiple, diverse hominids may date to late Miocene
• Forces rethinking of bipedalism– Early hominids appear to have inhabited forested
environments, not open savannas
– Challenges some scenarios for adaptive value of bipedalism
• Having hand free to use tools doesn’t seem important since bipedalism predates tool use by 3.5 my
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Diversification of hominids
• Hominid lineage proliferated 4–2 mya, likely with multiple species living in Africa at a time
• Taxonomic classification of these hominids hotly contested– Lumpers and splitters– Linear and bushy family trees
• Bernard Wood and Mark Collard advocate three genera– Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Australopithecus
• Debate about how many species belong to genus
• Two major points of disagreement– Robust australopithecines– Early Homo
• Wood and Collard’s scheme narrows definition of Australopithecus and of Homo
• Taxonomic debates reflect limitations of data, philosophical differences, and politics
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Primitive and later hominids
• Primitive hominids– Australopithecus anamensis– Australopithecus afarensis– Kenyanthropus platyops
• Later hominids– Paranthropus or robust Australopithecus– Australopithecus africanus– Australopithecus garhi– Australopithecus habilis, A. rudolfensis
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Australopithecus anamensis
• Earliest species of genus to be found• Dated to 4.2-3.8 mya near Lake Turkana in
Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995, 1998)
• Bipedalism inferred from knee and ankle joints– Thick enamel and smaller canines– Arm bone suggests primitive arboreal
adaptations– Dental arcade and chin chimpanzee-like
• Primitive characters suggest A. anamensis may be ancestral to later australopithecines
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Australopithecus afarensis• Most well-known australopithecine =
Lucy– Most complete skeleton (40%)
• Dates to 3.5-2.3 mya in East Africa (Don Johanson, 1970s)
• Bipedalism– Shape of pelvis, femur, foot, Laetoli footprints– May not have been fully modern gait
• Derived characters intermediate between humans and chimps– Dental arcade– Canines– Premolar cusps
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Laetoli footprints
• Formed and preserved by a chance combination of events -- a volcanic eruption, a rainstorm, and another ashfall– Tanzania
• Two individuals, possibly three– Fainter of two clear trails is unbalanced,
individual possibly burdened on one side w/ an infant?
• A. afarensis– No other hominid near this age, 3.6 mya
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Kenyanthropus platyops
• Dated to 3.5-3.2 mya on western side of Lake Turkana (Leakey et al. 2001)
• Mosaic of features– Small ear hole (like early
Australopithecus)– Thick enamel (like later
Australopithecus)– Relatively flat face (like later
hominids)– Apart from brain size, is similar to
Homo rudolfensis
KNM-WT 40000
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Robust hominids• Robust early hominids have crania
and teeth specialized for heavy chewing– Sagittal crest– Flared zygomatic arches– Massive mandibles and molars
• Debate over proper genus (Australopithecus or Paranthropus)
– Paranthropus aethiopicus– Paranthropus robustus– Paranthropus boisei
KNM-ER 17000
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Who became Homo?
• General agreement that the robust australopithecines became extinct ~1 mya and did not give rise to modern humans
• Who did?– Three major candidates
• Australopithecus africanus• Australopithecus garhi• Australopithecus sebida
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Australopithecus africanus• First known australopithecine (Dart
1925)
• Dated to 3-2.2 mya in South Africa
• More apelike physique than A. afarensis– Arms longer than legs – arboreality
– Some adaptations for heavy chewing
• Probably like other australopiths, matured rapidly like chimpanzees
• One candidate for immediate ancestor to Homo
Taung Child
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Australopithecus garhi• Dated to around 2.5 mya in East Africa
(Asfaw et al. 1999)
• Small brains like A. afarensis and A. africanus
• Very prognathic face, larger teeth, sagittal crest
• Some evidence that made stone tools and used to cut meat from bones, extract marrow
• Other candidate for immediate ancestor to Homo
BOU-VP-12/130
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Known dates for hominid species
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Hominid phylogenies
Gibbons, Ann. 2002. "In Search of the First Hominids." Science 295:1214-1219.
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Science online extras
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Hominid to Homo
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Genus Homo
• Increased brain size
• Reduction in size of face and teeth
• Increased reliance on cultural adaptations
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Evolution of brain size
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Brain size in fossil hominids
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Proposed species of Homo
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Homo erectus
• “upright walking human”• Appeared in Africa 1.7-1.8 mya
– Possibly as young as 50kya = co-existence w/ moderns
• First hominid to migrate out of Africa into temperate parts of Eurasia 1.8 Ma – 500 kya
• Primitive cranial traits include large brow ridges, postorbital constriction, flat cranial vault
• Derived traits include less prognathism, higher skull vault, smaller teeth, larger brain, modern limb proportions
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
H. erectus/ergaster sites
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
KNM-WT 15000
• Most complete H erectus skeleton
• “Turkana boy”• ~ 12 years of age• Evidence of modern limb
proportions• Tall• Large brain• Appears to be juvenile,
not adolescent
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Origins of stone tools• Earliest evidence for intentionally modified stone tools is 2.5
mya in East Africa
• Earliest stone tools in South Africa ~ 2 mya
• Bone tools appear 2-1 mya at Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania) and in South Africa
• Oldowan tool technology
– H habilis and H rudolfensis
• Acheulean tool technology
– H erectus
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Oldowan tool industry
• Mode 1 technology
• Simple tools made from rounded stones, flaked to produce sharp edge
• Variable form
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Importance of Oldowan hominids
• Plausible candidates for link between early apelike hominids and later hominids
• Studying Oldowan archaeological sites yields insight in processes shaping human evolution
• Combining archaeology, ethnography, and biological anthropology informs understanding of transition to modern humans
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Oldowan hominids relied on hunting and extractive foraging
• Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth (Indiana)
• Experimental studies of Oldowan tool use
• Flakes, not cores, may be most important tools
• Useful for many functions, including butchering
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Bone tools used to dig up bulbs, tubers, excavate termite mounds
Swartkrans
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Archaeological evidence for meat eating
• Oldowan sites at Olduvai Gorge littered with fossilized animal bone from many species
• Taphonomic studies suggest most fossils not accumulated by natural processes
• Taphonomic studies also show evidence that Oldowan hominids processed carcasses
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Taphonomy shows hominids used Oldowan tools to process carcasses
Cut marks made by carnivore teeth Cut marks made by stone tools
Electron micrographs of 1.8 mya fossil bones from Olduvai Gorge
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Hunters or scavengers?• Controversy over whether Oldowan hominids
were hunters or scavengers• Comparative perspective
– Most large mammalian carnivores practice both hunting and scavening
– No mammalian carnivore subsists entirely by scavenging
• Taphonomic studies provide evidence of both hunting and scavenging– Cut marks on meaty limb bones not usually left to
scavengers
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Types of Food Resources
• Collected foods are simply collected and eaten (e.g., ripe fruit or leaves)
• Extracted foods must be processed (e.g., fruits in hard shells, tubers, or termites)
• Hunted foods must be caught or trapped (e.g., vertebrate prey)
Vary in amount of knowledge and skill required to obtain
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Chimpanzee and Human Foraging Patterns
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Contemporary foraging patterns
• Contemporary human foragers get most calories from extracted or hunted resources
• Provide high nutritional quality, but require difficult and time-consuming skills– Aché men reach peak hunting efficiency at age 35– Hadza women achieve maximum efficiency in root
acquisition at 35-40 years old
• Shapes human life history and division of labor
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Hunting and foraging favors food sharing and division of labor
• In contemporary foragers, extensive food sharing and sexual division of labor
• Division of labor– Difficult skills require time to learn – Child care more compatible with
gathering
• Meat eating favors food sharing
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Sexual division of labor in contemporary foragers
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Neanderthals
• Neander Valley• H sapiens neanderthalensis or
H neanderthalensis– Closest to modern humans other
than Cro Magnon
• Lived throughout Europe and the Middle East, 150-28 kya– Overlapped with modern humans
in space and time
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
The Neander Valley, east of Dusseldorf in Germany, was the location for the discovery of Neandertal 1, the original Neandertal type specimen, in 1856, during the removal of deposits from the Kleine Feldhofer Grotte.
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
H. heidelbergensis sites
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Early H. sapiens sites
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Skull morphology of Homo
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Skeletal features of Neandertals and modern humans
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Taxonomic troublesNumber of Species
Relethford Minimum Current Maximum
Homo erectus Early Homo sapiensHomo erectusHomo ergaster
Archaic humans Archaic Homo sapiens
Homo antecessorHomo heidelbergensisHomo neanderthalensis
Modern humans Recent Homo sapiens Homo sapiens
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Hominid phylogenies
Milford Wolpoff G. Phillip Rightmire Richard Klein
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Molecular genetic data on the Neanderthals and implications for
gene flow with modern humans
• > 15 Neanderthal mtDNA genome sequences
• 2 Cro-Magnon mtDNA control region sequences
• 2 (low coverage) Neanderthal nuclear genome sequences
• 1 Denisova mtDNA genome sequence
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Multidimensional scaling of HVRI sequences of 60 modern Europeans (filled squares), 20 modern non-Europeans (filled circles), 4
Neanderthals (open diamonds), Lake Mungo specimen (open circle), and Paglicci specimens (open squares)
Conclusion - Modern humans clearly group w/ Cro-Magnon and show no shared ancestry with Neanderthal
Caramelli et al. 2003
Neanderthal
Cro-Magnon
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Inconsistencies between the two Neanderthal nuclear genome draft sequences
Noonan et al. 2006 Green et al. 2006
• Human-Neanderthal DNA sequence divergence time approximately 706 kya
• 0% contribution of Neanderthals to human gene pool
• Neanderthal sequence carries derived allele for 3% contribution to modern human SNPs
• Modern European-Neanderthal population split time of 325 kya
• Human-Neanderthal DNA sequence divergence time approximately 516 kya
• Significant evidence of Neanderthal-human gene flow
• Neanderthal sequence carries derived allele for 30% contribution to modern human SNPs
• Modern European-Neanderthal population split time of 35 kya
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
New in Science last week• New genomic data are settling an old argument about how our species evolved.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/331/6016/392 – Two instances of interbreeding
• w/ Neanderthal• w/ Denisova populationNew DNA data suggest not one but at least two instances of interbreeding
between archaic and modern humans, raising the question of whether Homo sapiens at that point was a distinct species
– Refutes complete replacement– Doesn’t prove classic multiregionalism– Suggests a small amount of interbreeding, presumably at the margins where invading moderns
met archaic groups, the ‘assimilation’ model
Modern humans from Africa interbred with Neandertals (pink). Then one group mixed with Denisovans (green) on the way to Melanesia.
Gibbons, Science 2011
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
New in Science last week
• The Species Problem Our ancestors are now thought to have mated with at least two kinds of archaic humans at two different times and places. Were they engaging in interspecies sex, or does the fact that they were able to produce offspring mean they were all members of the same species? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/331/6016/394– Paabo says such a discussion is a “sterile academic endeavor”– John Hawks – “They mated with each other. We'll call them the
same species”– Hublin says Mayr's concept doesn't hold up: “There are about
330 closely related species of mammals that interbreed, and at least a third of them can produce fertile hybrids.”
Mulligan, Copyright 2011 All rights reserved
Bottom line
• Most likely, some low level of interbreeding between Neanderthals (and other archaics?) with modern humans
• Evidence of this genetic contribution will be present at low frequency and patchily distributed geographically