Thesis (Ph. D.)--Rutgers University, 2009. / "Graduate Program in Anthropology." Includes bibliographical references (p. 292-305).

The origin and diversification of great apes and humans is among the most researched and debated series of events in the evolutionary history of the Primates. A fundamental part of understanding these events involves reconstructing paleoenvironmental and paleogeographic patterns in the Eurasian Miocene; a time period and geographic expanse rich in evidence of lineage origins and dispersals of numerous mammalian lineages, including apes. Traditionally, the geographic origin of the African ape and human lineage is considered to have occurred in Africa, however, an alternative hypothesis favouring a Eurasian origin has been proposed. This hypothesis suggests that that after an initial dispersal from Africa to Eurasia at ~17Ma and subsequent radiation from Spain to China, fossil apes disperse back to Africa at least once and found the African ape and human lineage in the late Miocene. The purpose of this study is to test the Eurasian origin hypothesis through the analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of distribution, in situ evolution, interprovincial and intercontinental dispersals of Eurasian terrestrial mammals in response to environmental factors. Using the NOW and Paleobiology databases, together with data collected through survey and excavation of middle and late Miocene vertebrate localities in Hungary and Romania, taphonomic bias and sampling completeness of Eurasian faunas are assessed. Previous bioprovincial zonations of Europe and Western Asia are evaluated and modified based on statistical analysis of Eurasian faunas and consideration of geophysical, climatic and eustatic events. Within these bioprovinces, occurrences of in situ evolution and directionality of dispersals of land mammals are used as a framework to address and evaluate these same processes in Eurasian apes. The results of this analysis support previous hypotheses regarding first occurrences and phyletic relations among Eurasian apes and propose new ideas regarding the relations of these taxa to previously known and newly discovered late Miocene African apes. Together with analysis of environmental data, Eurasian mammals support the hypothesis that the descendant of a Eurasian ape dispersed to Africa in the early late Miocene (top of MN7/8 or base of MN9), however the question of whether this taxon founded the African ape and human lineage remains equivocal.

The origin and diversification of great apes and humans is among the most researched and debated series of events in the evolutionary history of the Primates. A fundamental part of understanding these events involves reconstructing paleoenvironmental and paleogeographic patterns in the Eurasian Miocene; a time period and geographic expanse rich in evidence of lineage origins and dispersals of numerous mammalian lineages, including apes. Traditionally, the geographic origin of the African ape and human lineage is considered to have occurred in Africa, however, an alternative hypothesis favouring a Eurasian origin has been proposed. This hypothesis suggests that that after an initial dispersal from Africa to Eurasia at ~17Ma and subsequent radiation from Spain to China, fossil apes disperse back to Africa at least once and found the African ape and human lineage in the late Miocene. The purpose of this study is to test the Eurasian origin hypothesis through the analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of distribution, in situ evolution, interprovincial and intercontinental dispersals of Eurasian terrestrial mammals in response to environmental factors. Using the NOW and Paleobiology databases, together with data collected through survey and excavation of middle and late Miocene vertebrate localities in Hungary and Romania, taphonomic bias and sampling completeness of Eurasian faunas are assessed. Previous bioprovincial zonations of Europe and Western Asia are evaluated and modified based on statistical analysis of Eurasian faunas and consideration of geophysical, climatic and eustatic events. Within these bioprovinces, occurrences of in situ evolution and directionality of dispersals of land mammals are used as a framework to address and evaluate these same processes in Eurasian apes. The results of this analysis support previous hypotheses regarding first occurrences and phyletic relations among Eurasian apes and propose new ideas regarding the relations of these taxa to previously known and newly discovered late Miocene African apes. Together with analysis of environmental data, Eurasian mammals support the hypothesis that the descendant of a Eurasian ape dispersed to Africa in the early late Miocene (top of MN7/8 or base of MN9), however the question of whether this taxon founded the African ape and human lineage remains equivocal.

Recently, the number of hominin genera has increased dramatically. Prior to the announcement of Ardipithecus, only two genera were used by paleoanthropologists: Australopithecus and Homo. Presently, up to eight hominin genera are used: Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Praeanthropus, Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus and Homo. Unlike species concepts, the genus category has not received wide critical examination. To investigate the use of the genus category in paleoanthropology, a comparative framework drawing on morphometric data from a large number of catarrhines is developed. Cranial variables include 36 standard linear measurements from representatives of catarrhine genera across the major tribes/families. This study seeks to assess whether too few or too many hominin genera have been recognized compared with extant catarrhines. Moreover, two published hypotheses about the use of Homo are examined: 1) Wood & Collard's (1999) proposal to transfer Homo habilis/rudolfensis to Australopithecus; and 2) Goodman et al's (1998) classification of both humans and chimpanzees in Homo. To analyze these cranial variables and a number of shape indices calculated from them, as well as to assess competing hypotheses, univariate, bivariate and multivariate statistical approaches are used. The results allow the identification of a set of variables and shape indices which distinguish genera across the catarrhines. Importantly, body size seems to be the major separator of catarrhine genera, reinforcing the idea that they occupy discrete adaptive zones. Moreover, differences between these genera mostly represent contrasts in the size of the neuroversus the viscerocranium. When applied to hominins, a picture emerges which distinguishes them from extant catarrhines: cranial shape rather than size is the major component distinguishing them; this suggests that extinct hominins occupied similar habitats and adaptive zones; variability in size and shape within hominin genera is much lower than extant catarrhines; and the major differences seen in shape among hominins are the result of encephalization in Homo. It is concluded here that both Wood & Collard's (1999) and Goodman et al.'s (1998) proposals appear to be premature. Moreover, while the earliest hominins may be too finely split at the genus level, the evidence for distinction of Australopithecus and Paranthropus is solid.

The science of human origins, known formally as ‘paleoanthropology’, was effectively born in the fierce late nineteenth century debate as to the human status of Neanderthal. Critical social theory on ‘scientism’ has generated a wealth of research on the ways the various human sciences contribute to the structuring and organizing of social relations. This includes Foucault’s well-known genealogical studies of clinical medicine, which have provided sociologists with crucial insight into how classifying and ordering practices actually create ‘Man’ in the way they operate as a field – or “technology” – of power (Foucault 1970). However, as yet there has been very little produced by sociologists interested in the impacts of science on society with regards to paleoanthropology specifically. This is especially surprising considering that Neanderthal, the quintessential ‘missing link’ and the hub of paleoanthropology’s speculative and explanatory universe, clearly occupies a central place in the socio-historical emergence of ‘humanness’ as an ontological category. Moving forward from the basic observation that the original 1856 discovery of fossilized Neanderthal remains in a cave in Germany’s Neander Valley generally coincided with the end of the colonial period, my dissertation seeks to fill a void in sociology via a genealogical study of paleoanthropological science. Drawing largely upon the insight of Foucault but also that of Saïd, I undertake a discourse analysis of the early debates surrounding Neanderthal with an aim toward shedding light upon the ways in which Neanderthal propagated or concealed certain anxieties, particularly as they relate to biological kinships. This is then applied to an exploration of how the debates surrounding Neanderthal were in turn pivotal to the emergence of today’s prevailing paleoanthropological models of human origins. The profound ontological and epistemological tensions embodied by these models, I argue, wholly reflect the inherently ambiguous nature of the missing link as both concept and metaphor. The result is that missing links, because of the discursive field in which they function, are a powerful source of normativity and stratification. / Thesis (Ph.D, Sociology) -- Queen's University, 2014-02-04 12:53:52.631

Recently, the number of hominin genera has increased dramatically. Prior to the announcement of Ardipithecus, only two genera were used by paleoanthropologists: Australopithecus and Homo. Presently, up to eight hominin genera are used: Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Praeanthropus, Kenyanthropus, Paranthropus and Homo. Unlike species concepts, the genus category has not received wide critical examination. To investigate the use of the genus category in paleoanthropology, a comparative framework drawing on morphometric data from a large number of catarrhines is developed. Cranial variables include 36 standard linear measurements from representatives of catarrhine genera across the major tribes/families. This study seeks to assess whether too few or too many hominin genera have been recognized compared with extant catarrhines. Moreover, two published hypotheses about the use of Homo are examined: 1) Wood & Collard's (1999) proposal to transfer Homo habilis/rudolfensis to Australopithecus; and 2) Goodman et al's (1998) classification of both humans and chimpanzees in Homo. To analyze these cranial variables and a number of shape indices calculated from them, as well as to assess competing hypotheses, univariate, bivariate and multivariate statistical approaches are used. The results allow the identification of a set of variables and shape indices which distinguish genera across the catarrhines. Importantly, body size seems to be the major separator of catarrhine genera, reinforcing the idea that they occupy discrete adaptive zones. Moreover, differences between these genera mostly represent contrasts in the size of the neuroversus the viscerocranium. When applied to hominins, a picture emerges which distinguishes them from extant catarrhines: cranial shape rather than size is the major component distinguishing them; this suggests that extinct hominins occupied similar habitats and adaptive zones; variability in size and shape within hominin genera is much lower than extant catarrhines; and the major differences seen in shape among hominins are the result of encephalization in Homo. It is concluded here that both Wood & Collard's (1999) and Goodman et al.'s (1998) proposals appear to be premature. Moreover, while the earliest hominins may be too finely split at the genus level, the evidence for distinction of Australopithecus and Paranthropus is solid.

abstract: This dissertation is an historical analysis of the science of human origins, paleoanthropology, examining the intersection of science and culture around fossil human ancestors (hominins) over the last century and a half. Focusing on fossils as scientific objects, this work examines three controversial fossils from the science’s history asking, how do fossils formulate, challenge, and reconfigure notions of what it means to be human? The introduction reviews the historiography of paleoanthropology and the gaps that exist in the literature. Chapter two examines the first case study, the type specimen of Homo neanderthalensis, known as the Feldhofer Neanderthal, providing a biography of the object from its discovery in Germany in 1856 until its species designation in 1864. Chapter three briefly links the Neanderthal’s story in time and space to the next fossil’s story. Chapter four picks up the story of paleoanthropology in 1924 in South Africa, with the discovery and initial analysis of a specimen nicknamed the Taungs Baby, which was labeled a new hominin species, Australopithecus africanus. Chapter five is another brief chapter connecting the Taungs Baby story in time and space to the final specimen examined in this work at the end of the century. Chapter six examines the final case study, a specimen discovered in 2003 in Indonesia, designated a new species named Homo floresiensis and nicknamed the Hobbit. Through comparing contrasting, and connecting the stories of these three specimens, three major conclusions emerge about the field. First, the fossils themselves play an important role in knowledge production about the hominin past. Second, scientific practice shaped both interpretations of fossils and larger questions of what it means to be human. Third, the scientific practice is itself shaped by local culture, which continually interacts with attempts to establish a global perspective about the human past. The perspective gleaned through the eyes of these three fossils therefore reveals the way shifting, rather than eternally true, claims are embedded in culture and intertwined with the perspectives of the humans conducting the science. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology 2020

2006 Dozier Award Winner / Agent-based models can provide paleoanthropologists with a view of behavioral dynamics and site formation processes as they unfold in digital caricatures of past societies and paleoenvironments. This paper argues that the agent-based methodology has the most to offer when used to conduct controlled, repeatable experiments within the context of behavioral laboratories. To illustrate the potential of this decidedly heuristic approach, I provide a case study of a simple agent-based model currently being used to investigate the evolution of Plio-Pleistocene hominin food sharing in East Africa. The results of this null model demonstrate that certain levels of ecological patchiness can facilitate the evolution of even simple food sharing strategies among equally simple hominin foragers. More generally, they demonstrate the potential that agent-based models possess for helping historical scientists act as their own informants as to what could have happened in the past.

There is variation in Neandertal permanent dentition in both the size and shape of first molars. Ecogeography as well as chronology would be expected to account for at least some of the variation observed. Occlusal outlines of maxillary and mandibular first molar casts from European Neandertals, (Spy 1, Scladina 4A-4, Engis 2, l’Hortus 2, 4, 5, and 8, La Quina H5, Malarnaud 1) were generated through photostereomicroscopy and non-landmark smooth tracing methods, and occlusal areas, buccolingual breadths and mesiolingual lengths were measured by calibrated Motic 3.0MP microscope cameras. Principal component (PC) scores of elliptical Fourier harmonic descriptors were calculated using SHAPE v1.3, yielding a total of 76 and 67 PC scores for mandibular and maxillary data respectively. Of the maxillary outlines analyzed, a strong correlation exists between PC1 (58.4% of variance) and occlusal area, explaining size influence. On PC1, the smallest (Engis 2), is followed by Scladina 4A-A, Hortus 8, La Quina 5 and Spy 1. On PC2 (23% of variance), Scladina 4A-A is an outlier. On PC3 (12.6%), Hortus 8 is separated from the others whereas Scladina 4A-A is difficult to classify. PC4 accounts for 5.8% of the variance and separates Spy 1 from La Quina 5. Spy 1 appears as distinct on PC1, PC3, and PC4 while Scladina 4A-A is relatively distinct on all axes. In a cluster analysis of PC scores Spy 1 and La Quina 5 are linked by the shortest distance and joined secondarily to Hortus 8, whereas Scladina 4A-A and Engis 2 are relatively distinct from the others. Mandibular results indicate that Malarnaud is distinct on PC1 (40% of variance) and again on PC2 (27%), while La Quina 5 appears as slightly distinct on PC3 (14%), though grouped with Engis 2, while Hortus 2 and 4 group together this axis as well as PC1. PC4 (12%) again separates Malarnaud, and presents Hortus 5 as an outlier. Overall, chronology correlates better than geography to the variance observed in occlusal first molar shape in these European Neandertals, with some inconsistencies most likely due to individual biological variability. This study demonstrates a new method to compute the elliptical Fourier descriptors of molar occlusal outlines, and applies these to explain variation in these Neandertals with respect to ecogeographic and chronological situation.

Sterkfontein West Pit, dated to 1.7-1.9 Ma, has yielded a number of fossils that are difficult to classify, such as StW 252, which comprises cranial bone fragments, and a full set of robust maxillary anterior and posterior teeth. The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether dental measurements of StW 252 more closely align with those of Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus robustus, Homo sapiens or the African apes. For M1 and M2, StW 252 is distinct from the comparative samples, and is particularly large buccolingually for M1 and mesiodistally for M2, partly resembling the dimensions of A. africanus, whereas for M3, StW 252 is mesiodistally and buccolingually large. Canonical scores axes show StW 252 as extreme in terms of size and polarized from A. robustus in terms of shape. StW 252 is distinct from both A. africanus and A. robustus, indicating an additional hominin taxon may be represented at Sterkfontein West Pit.