Anthropology.net

Carol Ward1, William Kimbel, and Donald Johanson have published a paper in Science on the arch seen in a newly discovered fourth metatarsal of Australopithecus afarensis (AL 333-160). A lot of the popular press are publishing misleading headlines that this proves bipedalism in australopithecines. No, we’ve known they were bipedal — we just didn’t have a true idea as to what extent they were bipedal. So a find like this helps investigate the degree of bipedalism.

AL 333-160 left fourth metatarsal in dorsal, lateral, medial, plantar, and proximal views.

How does this tell us how bipedal A. afarensis were?

) Box plots of angular relations of the proximal and distal metatarsal ends to the diaphysis in chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and AL 333-160.

If you’ve ever had the pleasure of visiting a podiatrist, you’d know flat feet are not conducive to bipedalism. The two-way arch helps support upright walking and distribute recoil force. Other great apes like, chimps and gorillas have flatter feet than us. The authors of this paper confirmed this by comparing the fourth metatarsal of chimps, gorillas, and humans to AL 333-160.

On all their comparisons, AL 333-160 fell within range of humans. There were some occasions where there’s a lot of gray area which I’ll address later. Nonetheless, to the right you can see the best comparison, in my opinion, which the comparison of the arch of the diaphysis of the bone between the two species. You can have a look at the rest of the figures here.

The problem I am seeing here is that this metatarsal is not Lucy’s (AL 288-1). AL 333 is designated to fossils from the site where the “First Family” came from and not the same  locality as AL 288. Nonetheless, they are not the same individual. Kimbel is quoted in the BBC News, saying,

“Lucy’s spine has the double curve that our own spine does,” Professor Kimbel said.

“Her hips functioned much as human hips do in providing balance to the body with each step, which in a biped of course means that you’re actually standing on only one leg at a time during striding.

“The knees likewise in Lucy’s species are drawn underneath the body such that the thighbone, or femur, angles inwards to the knees from the hip-joints – as in humans.

“And now we can say that the foot, too, joins these other anatomical regions in pointing towards a fundamentally human-like form of locomotion in this ancient human ancestor.”

This is a flawed association to make; a form of what I would call confounding bias. We don’t have Lucy’s 4th metatarsal to see what it looks like and unfortunately we don’t have the rest of the this specimens skeleton to say it looked like Lucy’s. In fact, we have very little australopithecine appendicular and skeletons other than AL 288-1 (most notable are AL 129-1 and STS 14). So how can Kimbel say that the foot joins other anatomical regions when we don’t know what the other regions really looked like?

See, the n of this sample is 1. Looking at the intervals in the figures, especially Fig 3 & 4, there a a significant amount of variation in humans and chimpanzees that overlap. Chimps aren’t bipedal but we are. So imagine you are a paleoanthropologist way in the future looking at one metatarsal of a now-current then-ancient chimpanzee way and comparing it to a humans — surely you could make the same conclusion as these three have. And herein lies the big issue with sensationalism… as is the problem often in paleoanthropology, we just don’t have many comparative samples but people want definitive conclusions.

Ward, C., Kimbel, W., & Johanson, D. (2011). Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis Science, 331 (6018), 750-753 DOI: 10.1126/science.1201463

Very rarely is an entire family group of hominins buried and fossilized at the same time. It is even rarer for paleoanthropologists to discover such an assemblage. Fortunately for science but unfortunately for the hominins, caves occasionally collapsed on entire social groups.

Map of El Sidrón

At a site known as El Sidrón in Spain, excavations have been ongoing since 2000. To date, 12 Neandertals have been discovered in a context that points to a single geological event, circa 49,000 years ago. A group of 12 Neandertals is consistent with previous estimates of around 10 individuals per group.  At least six adults, three adolescents and four younger individuals were buried at once, most likely during a storm. The cold conditions of the cave system and immediate burial of the remains not only preserved the bones well, but were also ideal for DNA.

The remains were sexed based on both morphology and DNA analysis. After sex was determined, anthropologists identified the different Neandertal lineages based on mitochondrial DNA. Several of the adults were found to be male, and the other three female. It was discovered that all three males belong to the same matrilineal group, while each respective female has a different haplotype. When compared to modern Europeans, the authors noted that there is significantly less genetic diversity within the mitochondrial genome.

These results strongly imply that Neandertals exhibited patrilocal mating behavior. Females were the ones who would have changed family groups, not males. This type of insight into an extinct species is unique, thanks to the quality of DNA preservation available at El Sidrón.

Another interesting point of discussion in the study relates to Neandertal interbirth interval. One of the females was linked by DNA to two of the younger individuals, approximately several years apart in age. If the anthropologists are correct about the relationship, this puts the interbirth interval for Homo neanderthalensis at a value similar to hunter-gatherer groups today. This data, if replicated with other Neandertal individuals, could eventually dispel differential reproduction as a potential cause for Neandertal disappearance.

Knowing about Neandertal group dynamics could provide crucial clues as to why they went extinct. Future analysis of the remains recovered at El Sidrón will no doubt give more insights into our closest extinct relatives, and perhaps even why Homo sapiens flourished and Neandertals declined.

By Matthew Magnani

Lalueza-Fox, C., et al. (2011). “Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behavior among Neandertal groups.” PNAS . January 4, vol. 108 no. 1 250-253.

Hans-Peter Uerpmann of the University of Tubingen has lead a team excavating the Jebel Faya site in the United Arab Emirates, right near the Straits of Hormuz. They’ve found 125,000 year old stone tools that look like early modern human tools from East Africa around the same time. They’ve published their findings in today’s Science, under the title, “The Southern Route “Out of Africa”: Evidence for an Early Expansion of Modern Humans into Arabia.”

The current understanding is what we know as anatomically modern humans (AMH) originated in Africa about 250,000 years ago. The oldest Home sapiens, known as H. sapiens idaltu, was found to be 160,000 years old, found at the Middle Awash site in Ethiopia. Then between 80k-100k years ago, modern humans began appearing in the middle east, as remains from sites like the Qafzeh cave in Israel have yielded. Most agree that AMH stayed in Africa and about 140,000 years ago they began migrating out. There was an exception, a colonization remained or failed in Israel about 100,000 years ago.

One of the hand axes from Jebel Faya, UAE (Photograph courtesy Science/AAAS)

These hand axes, pictured above, show a pattern of flaking distinct from that made by Neandertals and also dissimilar to those by ~100,000 year old Israeli tools. They are two sided and very similar to stone tools seen only in early Africa.

What this means is early humans left Africa 20,000 years earlier than thought. Just how did they do it? 130,000 years ago, there was a window of climate change. They figured this out by using luminescence dating to determine the age of sand grains buried with the stone tools. Luminescence dating is a technique that measures naturally occurring radiation stored in the sand. The data showed that 130,000 years ago, the Arabian Peninsula was relatively more warm which caused more rainfall, turning it into a series of lush habitable land. During this period the southern Red Sea’s levels dropped and was only 2.5 miles or 4 km wide. This offered a brief window of time for humans to easily cross the sea and cross the Peninsula to opposing sites like Jebel Faya.

Does this study tell us that modern humans left Africa, into Arabia and out from there? It is most certainly a possibility. However, these axes could be of an abandoned migration like the site in Israel I’ve mentioned. I say that because no genetic clade, be it from mitochondrial, Y-chromosome, or somatic genome, shows an earlier divergence of modern humans from Africa earlier than 60,000 years ago. At the very minimum a find like this tells us humans left Africa a bit sooner than we thought, but does not really tell us that these were the humans that helped seed the Eurasia.

Armitage, S., Jasim, S., Marks, A., Parker, A., Usik, V., & Uerpmann, H. (2011). The Southern Route “Out of Africa”: Evidence for an Early Expansion of Modern Humans into Arabia Science, 331 (6016), 453-456 DOI: 10.1126/science.1199113

Neandertals have long been touted as a species with “hyperarctic” adaptations. Their stout proportions and shortened distal limb segments are often explained to conserve heat. Similarly, the Neandertal cranium is traditionally said to be cold adapted. An article released on December 22^nd in the Journal of Human Evolution challenges these traditional notions, specifically those about Neandertal nasal adaptations.

The Neandertal nasal apparatus has conventionally been cited as cold adapted mainly because of the enlarged sinuses. The authors of this article, among them Chris Stringer, cite evidence that larger sinuses are not in fact typical of cold weather mammalian species.

Through observation of human populations and studies on other mammals, cold weather is more highly correlated with smaller sinuses. That is, animals from more northerly locations typically have smaller sinus cavities. As an example taken from lab studies, rats raised in colder conditions also show smaller sinus cavities.

But are Neandertal sinuses even large, as is typically maintained? The authors of this paper argue that there is nothing large about them. Through examination of Neandertal remains, the sizes of the frontal and maxillary sinuses actually fell within the range of Homo sapiens from temperate climates.

The Forbes’ Quarry Neandertal (left) and H. sapiens skulls. Frontal sinus in purple, maxillary sinus in red. Photo from Rae et al., 2010.

This study is very suggestive that Neandertal nasal anatomy is not due to cold weather adaptation. To be cold weather adapted, the sinuses would be smaller and not larger, as many anthropologists have maintained since the first remains were discovered. Not only are the sinuses not small, they are not large- which speaks to a larger problem. How many other basic assumptions do we take as fact just because they have been around for so long?

If not cold weather, what could have caused the differences in facial anatomy between H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens? The authors of this paper do not offer many answers, but offer a couple of possibilities. Differences in masticatory stress (utilizing teeth as a tool, for example), or genetic drift are two potential reasons discussed.

This paper may be taking another step in overturning traditional understanding of Neandertals as a cold weather species. Generations of anthropologists have passed knowing that Neandertals differed in facial anatomy due to cold weather adaptation, unsubstantiated by data.

Rae, T.C., Koppe, T., Stringer, C.B. (2010).  The Neanderthal face is not cold adapted.  The Journal of Human Evolution. Article in Press.

Image via Wikipedia

A Homo floresiensis premolar will be drilled, and DNA extracted, according to a Nature News piece passed on by Razib, John Hawks, and Dienekes. This is not the first attempt at extracting hobbit DNA, the news article explains,

“Five years ago, two teams, one from ACAD and one from the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, attempted to recover DNA from another H. floresiensis tooth excavated in 2003. Both attempts failed.

Now, a team led by Christina Adler, a geneticist at ACAD, has found that standard sampling procedures could be responsible for the failure to get DNA from the hobbit and some other ancient specimens.”

I’ve been out of the loop for a couple years and have lost track on the advances made in ancient DNA studies. I do remember there was a big hub-bub regarding contamination from excavators and degradation of DNA. Maybe some of the new techniques overcomes these problems.

The lead, Adler, recently published a paper on the advances, titled, “Survival and recovery of DNA from ancient teeth and bones.” Again, I don’t have time to read it and give you a summary because I am studying for my board exams. It seems like the paper advises extracting DNA from the cementum of teeth which has way more DNA than the normal source of aDNA, dentin… But if you’re curious about ancient DNA sequencing, this should be an interesting read.

Nonetheless, it should be very interesting to see what comes from this attempt. I wish the team the best of luck and eagerly await the results.

Well, I feel somewhat vindicated. Remember the post where I criticized hominin cut marks from over 3 million years ago? Others have also had an eye of suspicion and have published their concerns in PNAS this week.

I was wrong in considering the croc marking differential to the cut marks. But I was not wrong in thinking they author of the original paper made the wrong conclusions. The authors of this new paper raise up an even more logical explanation, and carried out a more thorough analysis. Here’s part of their argument from the abstract,

“The Dikika research group focused its analysis on the morphology of the marks in question but failed to demonstrate, through recovery of similarly marked in situ fossils, the exact provenience of the published fossils, and failed to note occurrences of random striae on the cortices of the published fossils (incurred through incidental movement of the defleshed specimens across and/or within their abrasive encasing sediments). The occurrence of such random striae (sometimes called collectively “trampling” damage) on the two fossils provide the configurational context for rejection of the claimed butchery marks. The earliest best evidence for hominin butchery thus remains at 2.6 to 2.5 Ma, presumably associated with more derived species than A. afarensis.”

Trampling vs. Cut Marks (The image in A is courtesy of R. Blasco and J. Rosell. The images in B, D, and F are modified from McPherron et al.)

Looking back at the comment thread, I got a lot of flak. Aside from being wrong about the croc markings, I won’t deny that my post was inflammatory and incited a lot of the response. But many who know just a bit about the fossil and archaeological record, may find it extraordinary to believe australopithecines were using stone tools to extract food from flesh and bone from ‘indirect’ evidence. Of more concern was the lack of exhaustive exploration into other possibilities.

I remember as an anthropology undergrad one of my professors designed a hands-on experiment for us. If memory serves me correctly, this was for a zooarchaeology class. She acquired some beef bones from the local butcher and gave us stone tools. We were instructed to extract the marrow from the bones. We hammered the afternoon away.

Part of our assignment was to use different techniques and tools. We could cut, saw, abrade, chisel, etc. After the mess was done we compared our extractions from prehistoric samples. This comparative approach allowed use to systematically compare how we modified the bone to how possibly prehistoric individuals modified bone.

The authors of the current PNAS paper did something similar. The hypothesized that trampling could have created similar modifications as seen on the 3.39 million year old Dikika bones. And what did they do? Well they got some bone and experimentally setup some trampling experiments. As one would expect, cut marks would have a \/ shaped incision. Incidentally, the bones from Dikika show a \_/ flat bottom morphology. The authors write,

“Ninety-six percent of experimental trampling grooves display a broad-based, open cross-section with the aforementioned shape, versus just 4% of experimental grooves inflicted by simple (i.e., unmodified) stone flakes used to cut meat from bones. In addition, curvy and sinuous groove trajectories characterize nearly 70% of experimental trampling marks,compared with just 10% of experimental cut marks created with simple flakes (11). Together, these experimental results provide a robust actualistic context to evaluate illustrated marks F, G, H2,and I on DK-55–3 as high-probability trampling damage and not stone tool cut or percussion marks…”

I wonder what happened to good science?

What happened to the scientific method?

Did we not learn how to set up experiments and carry out analysis?

How can a paper make all the way into Nature and not exhaust all the possibilities?

These are not rhetorical questions. I am seriously asking it. I honestly feel that there is something rife in paleoanthropological studies lately. I must sound like a broken record to say yet again, too often are papers published in haste and for fortune and glory… All which compromise the validity & ethical responsibility of the science.

Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Pickering TR, & Bunn HT (2010). Configurational approach to identifying the earliest hominin butchers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PMID: 21078985

Almost every biological anthropology text-book I’ve ever looked at has described the adaptations of human populations to the environments they occupy. Examples they give are the short stalky Inuit adapted to conserving heat in cold environments, the long lanky East African nomads adapted to far distant travels, and the barrel chested Peruvian and Tibetans living in low oxygen environments.

Highland Tibet

Little discussion, beyond correlating ecology and physical observation, is given to these. Actually I lie, the physiology of the barrel chested high altitude occupants is given a couple of sentences as well as an elevated oxygen binding capacity without concentrating their blood.

A paper published in Science several days ago tackles this latter issue. A group of scientists looked for unique alleles among Tibet highlanders and discovered 10 unique oxygen-processing alleles. I don’t have full access to the publication, so can’t tell if these genes encode for completely different functioning proteins or are differentially regulated at high altitudes.

All I can derive is that these genes seem to prevent polycythemia, edematous swelling of the lungs and brain, and hypertension of the pulmonary vasculature, which are all complications of high altitude living.  Two of these genes are EGLN1 and PPARA. PPARA is a peroxisome proliferation proteins that also is a leukotriene antagonist. That is interesting because in obstructive conditions like asthama, leukotrienes induce vasospasm and bronchconstriction. EGLN1 is also has an interesting role,

“it is a protein encoded by this gene catalyzes the post-translational formation of 4-hydroxyproline in hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) alpha proteins. HIF is a transcriptional complex that plays a central role in mammalian oxygen homeostasis.”

These two genes were significantly associated with the decreased hemoglobin phenotype that is unique to this highland population.

Simonson TS, Yang Y, Huff CD, Yun H, Qin G, Witherspoon DJ, Bai Z, Lorenzo FR, Xing J, Jorde LB, Prchal JT, & Ge R (2010). Genetic Evidence for High-Altitude Adaptation in Tibet. Science (New York, N.Y.) PMID: 20466884

Every time big anthropology news has come out in the last year or so, I’m too busy and drowned under the sea of books and notes for my upcoming exams to immerse myself in it. This happened with Ardipithecus last fall, and now with the draft of the Neandertal genome coming out tomorrow, I can’t help but feel a bit left out. The complete mitochondrial Neandertal genome was released a little under 2 years ago… and now because of high throughput sequencing technology, the draft genome is now complete.

Currently, Science has put up a special section of their website dedicated to this. The news agencies are having issues with embargoes and what not, they put up articles and then take them down. But the word is out, Green and Pääbo’s project to sequence the Neandertal genome is out and there are some interesting findings:

• The comparison of 3 Neandertal samples to 5 modern human genomes showed that Neandertal genome is closer to some populations of modern humans than others
• About 10 loci had distinctly non-African hallmarks
• There’s an attributable 1-4% Neandertal ancestry to non-African modern human populations

There’s a lot more behind this all than I really have time for, unfortunately. So be sure to check out Razib, John Hawks, etc. for all the goodies.

The Journal of Experimental Biology has published an interesting paper about some unique features in sprinters: longer toes and shorter ankle joints. The only one flaw is that their sample size is limited, they only compared 12 collegiate sprinters with 12 non-athletes of the same height. Regardless, from a physical anthropological point of view, this comparative & biophysical analysis informs us what traits help humans sprint faster.

The significance of long toes and short ankle joints can be explained from a purely physics perspective. From the start of a sprint, the only way a human can accelerate is through the transfer of energy from the force of the leg muscle to pushing on the ground. The advantage of longer toes provide maximum contact with the ground just a little bit longer than shorter toes.

The ankle joint is shorter because there is an inverse relationship between tension force and distance — think torque and angular momentum. Sprinters have a 25% shorter distance between the Achilles tendon and center of rotation of the ankle. The Achilles tendon is the common attachment of the gastrocnemius and soleus muscles into the calcaneus. When contracted, these two muscles flex the knee and plantar flex the foot. With a shorter ankle joint, these muscles shorten less for the same joint rotation. If muscles shorten less, then they shorten more slowly. This facilitates them to produce greater force that more than compensates for the reduced leverage.

When these two adaptations are combined, the authors figured that the greatest acceleration is achieved when the Achilles tendon lever arm is the shortest and the toes are longest. Comparing these anatomical features to other sprinting animals, like ostriches, greyhounds and cheetahs, they authors observed that they also have feet built for sprinting with similar features.

The authors, who are not physical anthropologists, state in press releases that they think these adaptations could have had some evolutionary backing. They raised the tired hypothetical scenario where early human ancestors, now those with longer toes and shorter ankle joints, were better able to run away from the saber tooth tiger or marauding tribe and reproduce that trait. But I disagree, while there certainly is an inherited component to the size and shape of our bones, muscles, and joints, our bodies are malleable and depending on training, our bones and muscles can change!

Furthermore, the majority of humans are not sprinters, as I understand it. In fact, most of us are good at long distance motility. Our bodies are extremely inefficient at sprinting but we’re really good at staying the course! Most of us have lots of Type I muscle fibers, slow but fatigue resistant fibers. Anyways, I don’t mean to rag them on this concept, as I mentioned they aren’t physical anthropologists and they seem to only be speculating on this last point. Either way, I believe the observation they made is interesting!

Knight, K. (2009). SHORT HEELS GIVE ELITE SPRINTERS THE EDGE Journal of Experimental Biology, 212 (22) DOI: 10.1242/jeb.039735

Lee, S., & Piazza, S. (2009). Built for speed: musculoskeletal structure and sprinting ability Journal of Experimental Biology, 212 (22), 3700-3707 DOI: 10.1242/jeb.031096

October 2nd 2009 Cover of Science Magazine

There’s more than 11 citations here, but the others are associated news and media covered by Science. They’ve even dedicated a special issue to it. Very impressive thorough volume of information. Now you have a some understanding why it took so long to publish… Anyways get to reading.

News Focus

Gibbons, A. (2009). A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus Unveiled Science, 326 (5949), 36-40 DOI: 10.1126/science.326_36

Gibbons, A. (2009). Habitat for Humanity Science, 326 (5949), 40-40 DOI: 10.1126/science.326_40

Gibbons, A. (2009). The View From Afar Science, 326 (5949), 41-43 DOI: 10.1126/science.326_41

Introduction & Video

Hanson, B. (2009). Light on the Origin of Man Science, 326 (5949), 60-61 DOI: 10.1126/science.326_60a

N/A (2009). Video: The Analysis of Ardipithecus ramidus–One of the Earliest Known Hominids Science, 326 (5949), 60-60 DOI: 10.1126/science.326_60b

Research Articles

White, T., Asfaw, B., Beyene, Y., Haile-Selassie, Y., Lovejoy, C., Suwa, G., & WoldeGabriel, G. (2009). Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids Science, 326 (5949), 64-64 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175802

WoldeGabriel, G., Ambrose, S., Barboni, D., Bonnefille, R., Bremond, L., Currie, B., DeGusta, D., Hart, W., Murray, A., Renne, P., Jolly-Saad, M., Stewart, K., & White, T. (2009). The Geological, Isotopic, Botanical, Invertebrate, and Lower Vertebrate Surroundings of Ardipithecus ramidus Science, 326 (5949), 65-65 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175817

Louchart, A., Wesselman, H., Blumenschine, R., Hlusko, L., Njau, J., Black, M., Asnake, M., & White, T. (2009). Taphonomic, Avian, and Small-Vertebrate Indicators of Ardipithecus ramidus Habitat Science, 326 (5949), 66-66 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175823

White, T., Ambrose, S., Suwa, G., Su, D., DeGusta, D., Bernor, R., Boisserie, J., Brunet, M., Delson, E., Frost, S., Garcia, N., Giaourtsakis, I., Haile-Selassie, Y., Howell, F., Lehmann, T., Likius, A., Pehlevan, C., Saegusa, H., Semprebon, G., Teaford, M., & Vrba, E. (2009). Macrovertebrate Paleontology and the Pliocene Habitat of Ardipithecus ramidus Science, 326 (5949), 67-67 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175822

Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., Kono, R., Kubo, D., Lovejoy, C., & White, T. (2009). The Ardipithecus ramidus Skull and Its Implications for Hominid Origins Science, 326 (5949), 68-68 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175825

Suwa, G., Kono, R., Simpson, S., Asfaw, B., Lovejoy, C., & White, T. (2009). Paleobiological Implications of the Ardipithecus ramidus Dentition Science, 326 (5949), 69-69 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175824

Lovejoy, C., Simpson, S., White, T., Asfaw, B., & Suwa, G. (2009). Careful Climbing in the Miocene: The Forelimbs of Ardipithecus ramidus and Humans Are Primitive Science, 326 (5949), 70-70 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175827

Lovejoy, C., Suwa, G., Spurlock, L., Asfaw, B., & White, T. (2009). The Pelvis and Femur of Ardipithecus ramidus: The Emergence of Upright Walking Science, 326 (5949), 71-71 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175831

Lovejoy, C., Latimer, B., Suwa, G., Asfaw, B., & White, T. (2009). Combining Prehension and Propulsion: The Foot of Ardipithecus ramidus Science, 326 (5949), 72-72 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175832

Lovejoy, C., Suwa, G., Simpson, S., Matternes, J., & White, T. (2009). The Great Divides: Ardipithecus ramidus Reveals the Postcrania of Our Last Common Ancestors with African Apes Science, 326 (5949), 73-73 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175833

Lovejoy, C. (2009). Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus Science, 326 (5949), 74-74 DOI: 10.1126/science.1175834