Early Hominids

The hominids, humans and the extinct species that are in our lineage but not in the
lineage leading to the modern apes, are characterized by a suite of features that
distinguish them from the earlier primates, and from modern primates as well. These
characteristics include:
Bipedalism
Increased cranial capacity (larger brains)
Changes in dentition
Greater reliance on culture
Not all of these characteristics appear in the earliest hominids, although they do
characterize the family as a whole. Some of the earliest hominids retain many primitive
characteristics in common with their primate ancestors. However, these early hominids
show the defining characteristic of all hominids, bipedalism.
Bipedalism
The earliest hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is represented by few fossil remains, so little
is known of it. However, we can determine that it exhibited bipedal locomotion. The
dentition seems quite primitive, retaining characteristics of the earlier hominoids. We
currently have no evidence of its cranial capacity. The evidence of bipedalism is what
securely places Ardipithecus ramidus in the hominid family.
In the last lesson, we saw how skeletal anatomy can show us how a fossil animal walked.
What evidence do we have that the early hominids were bipedal, and can we tell if they
walked just as modern humans? The picture accompanying this lesson (download it now
if you havent yet) shows us how. The picture is from Human Origins: The Fossil
Record, 3rd edition by Clark Spencer Larsen, Robert M. Matter, and Daniel L. Gebo.
1998 Waveland Press. It compares the lower limb anatomy of the modern human,
modern chimpanzee, and Australopithecus afarensis. The human and australopithecine
legs and pelvis show remarkable similarity. Notice the angle if which the femur (thigh
bone meets the tibia (the shin bone) at the knee. Notice also the shape of the pelvis. It is
not exactly like the human pelvis, but is much more similar to it than to the quadrupedal
chimpanzee.
You can see how this stance affects bipedal locomotion yourself. Stand as you normally
do and pick up one leg. You can feel yourself shift your weight slightly to compensate,
but you will probably not fall over. Now, stand with your legs spread out about shoulder
width, as the chimpanzee does in the picture youve downloaded. Now when you pick up
one leg, you must make a big adjustment to avoid falling over.
The earliest australopithecines had skeletal features that clearly indicate they were bipeds.
But they also retained some primitive features, suggesting that they were probably more
comfortable climbing trees than modern humans are. They had curved finger bones, like
living chimpanzees do. We know that this allows chimpanzees to be better tree climbers

than modern humans, so we can infer that australopithecines were good tree climbers,
too. These early australopithecines were capable of bipedalism, but their locomotion was
not as limited as ours is now.
Stone Tools
Fossil remains of hominids are not the only evidence of how our ancestors lived.
Beginning with the genus Homo, and perhaps a bit earlier, evidence shows that hominids
were beginning to make and use stone tools. Studying these tools provides valuable
information about the kinds of activities these early hominids pursued.
How does one tell a broken rock from one modified by hominids? This question is not
always easy to answer. High-energy phenomena such as waterfalls or fast-moving rivers
can fracture rock in the same way hominids do. One important clue to determining if a
rock is an artifact (hominid made/modified object) or a geofact (Naturally fractured
rock) is context. If the stone in question comes from deposits created by fast-moving
water, then it is probably a geofact. If the rock is found at a lake margin in fine-grained
sediments, then it is probably not a product of natural flaking.
Another way to distinguish artifacts from geofacts if by looking at the patterning of flake
scars. Geofacts usually exhibit random flaking patterns. Artifacts, by contrast, usually
have some type of regular patterning in their flake scars. For example, a core with
several flakes removed right next to each other is probably an artifact. Natural flaking
rarely produces such an ordered pattern. Finally, we find clues by association. If a flaked
piece occurs in a site with broken and cut-marked animal bones and hominid fossils, it is
probably an artifact.
Is it a site?
One source of error is in trying to determine what is a site, and how artifacts and fossils
that are found together relate to one another. In the case of hominids, when we find prey
species with evidence of hominid activity, can we tell whether the hominid had anything
to do with the death of the animal in question?
Taphonomy is the study of the various processes that objects undergo in the course of
becoming part of the fossil and archaeological records. It is very important in all
archaeological sites, but particularly in old ones.
If we find hominid bones, stone tools, and leopard bones, all at the same site, how can we
tell if the hominid killed and ate the leopard? We need to look for evidence of tool marks
on the bones of the leopard. Tool marks are quite distinct from tooth marks or naturally
occurring marks on a bone. Next, we would need to look for carnivore toothmarks on the
bone. Perhaps the leopard was killed and eaten by another carnivore in an area that was
later inhabited by hominids.
If there are no indications of either carnivore or hominid tool use, maybe the animal just
died and was buried along with the hominid in a mud slide. Other factors to consider
would be, are there a number of artifacts in the area? Are there a number of dead

hominids in the area? Is there evidence of water activity that could have washed the
hominid and leopard remains to the site?
A number of factors can affect a site prior to its becoming buried. Water, carnivores, and
hominids can all bring items into and out of a site. Looking at patterns of remains,
skeletal, tool, and natural, can help decode what happened many years ago.
Archaeologists have studied what happens to animal bones in Africa after a carnivore
kills an animal. The killer is not the only one who has access to the remains. After the
killers have finished, scavengers come in, both large and small. By plotting the location
of bones after the scavengers are finished, we can get a good idea of what natural animal
remains would look like.
Early studies of sites at Olduvai Gorge and Lake Turkana (see map in the accompanying
slides for this lesson for locations of these sites) suggested that these were "home bases"
of the Homo habilis remains found there. There were tools and bones with cutmarks on
them. The home base had a number of implications: food sharing; bringing food back to
the camp; protection and caring for the elderly, the infirm and infants. It also had
implications of long-term continuity between the behavior of humans and early hominids.
Taphonomic studies of modern hyena (scavenger) bone collections showed striking
resemblances to the collections at Olduvai Gorge and Lake Turkana. There were cut
marks on bones, but also tooth marks. It seems more likely that this was a kill site, a
place for carnivores and hominids to both kill and be killed by each other. The home
base hypothesis no longer was the best explanation.
Questions in Human Evolution Research
Scholars who specialize in the study of human evolution often come up with different
interpretations of the same data. This usually happens when there is very little data to
begin with, or when the data come from new sources that have not been completely
analyzed or understood.
One of the areas of ongoing controversy in the field of human evolution concerns the
placement of Neanderthals in our family tree. The basic question concerns whether or
not Neanderthals are directly ancestral to us (are they in the grandparent category) or
are they a side branch (more like an aunt or uncle). The evidence for both sides is sparse,
and what evidence there is can often be interpreted in either way.
The book addresses this concept a bit, but I want you to read more about it. The PBS
series Nova made a wonderful video several years ago entitled Neanderthals on Trial. I
want you to visit the companion website for it which can be found at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/
This page has four links that you will need to look at. These will give you the
background for understanding the debate about the placement of Neanderthals. If this is
a subject that greatly interests you, sign up for ANTH 3301 Human Origins and you can
study more about this and related topics!