Interesting paper on cutmark evidence from Olduvai, further substantiating early access to animal carcasses by tool-wielding Early Pleistocene hominins. @SciReports nature.com/articles/s4159… Cutmark evidence on animal bones from Olduvai Gorge, from Do
The paper's discussion raises lots of reasons why the anatomy of early Homo supports the idea that they were competent hunters. On this I don't disagree, but I think that focusing on "early Homo" here is misleading for several reasons.
First, "early Homo" fossils overlap substantially in anatomy with Australopithecus and Paranthropus. So much that we cannot always tell them apart (including long-standing arguments about well-known and not-so-fragmentary fossils).
Today, essentially all the features that are supposed to indicate "endurance running" in Homo erectus are also present in one or another fossil of Australopithecus or Paranthropus. These hominins all overlapped a lot in their movement patterns.
Second, we don't know which hominin populations made tools or cutmarks on bones. Tools predate H. erectus by at least 1.3 million years; cutmarks by at least 500,000 years. Australopithecus and Paranthropus had hands capable of toolmaking.
I've talked to a lot of archaeologists who argue that we should assume that Homo made any stone tools unless we can demonstrate Homo was absent. Not a good assumption in my opinion. All living great apes have extractive foraging, chimpanzees very extensively use tools, alter wood
Third, carbon stable isotopes and dental microwear just don't show much evidence for dietary differences between "early Homo", Au. africanus, and P. robustus. P. boisei is very different from any, but the others overlap in similar habitats.
These hominins are *all* different from chimpanzees in stable isotopes and microwear. Chimpanzees rely a lot on faunivory, taking in up to 10% of calories in meat, more in insects, and sometimes hunt using tools.
It's way past time to stop talking about how meat-eating made Australopithecus into Homo. We should be working to understand meat-eating (and insect-eating!) in all hominins.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Hawks

John Hawks Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @johnhawks

25 Jun
So, Homo longi. It's such a good name. Dragon people. And an amazing skull discovery. Adds to our knowledge of the Middle Pleistocene in China. But it's sad that the name is not going to stay. cell.com/the-innovation… Harbin skull viewed from the front. Photo by Wei Gao, from T
The boring reason why we can't use the Homo longi name is technical. The research puts the Harbin skull together with the Dali skull, and Xinzhi Wu gave that the name Homo sapiens daliensis more than 40 years ago. So IF there's a species, it has to be H. daliensis. Phylogenetic morphology analysis of Harbin skull, showing it
In case you wonder how close Harbin looks to Dali, here is Harbin on the left and Dali (which has some crushing to the maxilla) on the right. As Weidenreich might have said, they resemble each other as closely as one egg resembles another. Harbin skull (left) compared with Dali skull (right)
Read 13 tweets
24 Jun
The new report of fossil material from Nesher Ramla, Israel, claims a "previously unknown archaic Homo population" some 140,000 years ago. It's a big claim in an area where most scientists have thought that early modern humans and Neandertals interacted. science.sciencemag.org/content/372/65… Mandible from Nesher Ramla. From Hershkovitz et al. 2021 htt
Looking at the morphology of the mandible NR-2, it falls within the variation of fossils attributed to Neandertals, and is similar to Krapina, which is around the same age, and Sima, which are early Neandertals. This seems like a basic early Neandertal jaw. PC plot showing position of Nesher Ramla 2 next to Neanderta
The other fossil NR-1 is a complete right parietal bone and fragments of the left parietal. The analysis of shape places is near late Neandertals and early Neandertals, but a bit less "barrel-shaped", thereby similar to generalized H. erectus and African Middle Pleistocene Homo. PC plot of Nesher Ramla 1 parietal bone showing its position
Read 11 tweets
23 Jun
Today, I'm reflecting on how this reporter was betrayed by her @nytimes editors. The reporting turned up so many newsworthy ledes, and instead they let it tailspin into a tuna Zoomer fluff story that spreads basic science misinformation. nytimes.com/2021/06/19/sty…
@nytimes For instance, "a handful" of commercial food testing labs refused to take the @nytimes samples. They all said (accurately!!) that the technology wouldn't give an answer. Why is this not the lede in a story that is really about the challenges in sourcing food ingredients?
@nytimes We have just gone through a year in which PCR testing has been a major news story. Understanding what it is, its strengths and limits, why it was so hard to get right, is pretty important. COVID testing brought down a President. So why does this story fumble PCR so badly?
Read 8 tweets
19 May
Classic paper: "Biology and Body Size in Human Evolution: Statistical Inference Misapplied" Richard Smith (1996, Current Anthropology) works through examples to show how mistaken ideas about extinct species can arise through estimation of body mass. doi.org/10.1086/204505
"[A]s of today, many inferences about fossil hominids are being made on the basis of body mass alone, and the range of uncertainty is being mostly ignored." This problem remains 25 years later.
"Finally it must be reemphasized that all of this discussion does not apply only to body mass. With the growing interest in life-history, the potential misuse of traits such as molar eruption age, sex dimorphism, and cranial capacity is clearly on the horizon."
Read 4 tweets
19 May
"A new dating program using the isochron method for burial dating has established an absolute age of 2.22 ± 0.09 Ma for a large portion of the Lower Bank, containing the earliest Oldowan stone tools and fossils of Paranthropus robustus in South Africa." doi.org/10.1016/j.jhev… SKW 12 maxilla, from Kaszyc...
If this date is accurate, it places a good Oldowan assemblage into a temporal context where it's not clear Homo was present at all. These are Paranthropus or Australopithecus tools. Swartkrans quartz cores fro...
Only 2 fossils from Swartkrans Lower Bank can be excluded from Paranthropus: an isolated molar fragment and a juvenile mandible fragment, SKX 21204. The unerupted premolars of this otherwise super fragmented specimen are interesting. SAHRIS image of SKX 21204 m...
Read 9 tweets
7 May
Anthropologists of the 1990s often did pygmy marmoset-to-gorilla regressions across primates to "predict" all kinds of things about extinct hominins. We don't teach this anymore, but the resulting myths are tenacious. One of those is "Dunbar's number". royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
The idea was that brain size limits the number of social relationships you can have. Dunbar took a cross-primate regression of group size and brain size, and plotted humans. He surmised that the human brain should max out at around 150 social relationships. This isn't right.
Psychologists ran with this idea, trying to find all kinds of ways that 150 might make sense. But people are pretty variable in how they apportion their social lives. That didn't stop Silicon Valley types from encoding "Dunbar's number" into their social media worldview.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(