According to the research, humans interfere with four species of extinct hominids: while modern Homo sapiens was displaced from Africa and the rest of the world, they found and interfered with at least four different hominid species, the University of Adelaide, According to a new Australian research.
Surprisingly, of these hominids, only Neanderthals and Denisovans are currently known; Other names have been discontinued and found only as traces of DNA that survive in several modern populations. Reconstruction of Homo florescensis, a species of extinct hominids that lived 74,000 and 18,000 years ago at the bottom of the Indonesian island.
Each of us takes us to the genetic traces of the events of these previous mixtures, DRS. João Teixeira is co-author of an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. These archaic groups were very broad and genetically diverse, and survive in each of us. Its history is an integral part of how we form “For example, approximately 2% of all current populations show Neanderthal ancestry, which means that Neanderthal’s mixing with the ancestors of modern humans occurred shortly after leaving Africa., Probably between 50,000 and 55,000 years ago. Middle East. “
But as the ancestors of modern humans traveled further, they found themselves in the East and mixed with at least four other groups of archaic humans. Dr. Teixeira announced that the island of Southeast Asia was already a crowded place.
Which we call modern humans, who arrived in the region 50,000 years ago. “At least three other archaic human groups have occupied the region, and the ancestors of modern humans were assimilated before the extinction of archaic humans.”
In his new research, Drs. Teixeira and his colleague, Professor Alan Cooper, analyzed genetic, archaeological and fossil evidence, as well as additional information on reconstructed migration routes and records of fossil vegetation.
The scientists discovered that there was a mixed phenomenon among modern humans and a group around South Asia, which they called the extinct hominid 1 (E1). Other Christian islands originated with Denisovans in Southeast Asia and the Philippines, and with another group, called extinct hominid 2 (EH2) in Floors, Indonesia.
Approximate trajectory (yellow and red arrow) of the movement of anatomically modern humans across the island of Southeast Asia about 50,000 years ago: populations of modern predators with genetic data are shown in red and populations grown in black are shown in color.
The predicted genomic content of EH1 (purple), Denisovan (red), EH2 (brown) and non-parasitic (gray) is shown in the pie chart as the relative proportions observed in the Australian-Papuans (complete circles).
All populations with large amounts of Denisovan genomic material are located east of the Wallace line; The incidence of independent introversion with Denisovan groups has been estimated separately for the Australian ISA population: Papua, Philippines (red class 2) and for the Philippines (red class 4).
The signal for a different introduction with an unknown hominin in flowers recorded in genomic data of the current population remains less secure (brown circle 5); The exact location of introverted events 2, 4 and 5 is currently unknown. “We knew that history outside of Africa was not simple, but it seems to be more complex than we thought.”
Arctic human species found in a cave of 14,000-year-old red bone antelopes: an archaic species of the Chinese genus Homo, which for a long time was believed extinct, possibly already 14,000 years ago, among the remains of a thigh bone. The people of Red Deer Cave of China. Artists rebuilding Red Deer Cave.
Peter Scouton image. A 14,000-year-old bone head, a partial female, was found in 1989 in Maludong (Red Deer Cave), Yunnan, southwest China, with fossilized remains of mysterious dark-skinned people. According to a study published in the journal PLoS One. Early bone and bone erections h. Hillis looks like a woman.
Like the primitive Homo habilis species, Maludong’s thigh bone is very small, with the professor, co-author, at the Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archeology in China. “The axis is narrow, the outer layer (or layer) of the axis is very thin; Shaft walls are reinforced (or with buttocks) in areas of high stress.
The neck of the femur is long; And for the primary flexor muscle of the hip (lower trochanter), the muscular insertion is very large and strongly forward. “With an estimated body mass of about 50 kg, the Maladong person was much smaller according to the human standards of Premier and Ice Age.
There is a possibility that clues about the dominant species with modern humans are found in continental Asia in advance, but the University of New South Wales Dr. Darren Cornow said the case should be made slowly with more bone discoveries.
Main co-author of the study. The scientists said their discovery is controversial because until now, it was thought that the most important younger humans in continental Eurasia (Neanderthals and Denisovans) had died anatomically shortly after the modern monkey, 40,000 years ago. Sapiens entered the region.
When the same team announced the discovery of the remains of the people of Red Deer Cave in 2012, it divided the scientific community. At that time, the scientists speculated that the bones may represent a new unknown species, or perhaps the population of early and early-looking modern humans, who inhabited the region more than 100,000 years ago.
“We first published our findings about the bones of the skull because we thought they would be the most revealing, but we were surprised by our study of the thigh bone, which showed that it is much more primitive than the skull.”
The moment of human development describes where Maludong’s femur probably fits. The new discovery once again points to at least a few Maludong bones that represent a dominant mysterious species.
The team suggested in another recent PLoS ONE article that Longlin Cave’s skull in China is possibly a hybrid between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and an unknown archaic group, possibly presented by Maludong to Femur.
The researchers said: “The Maludong fossil is possibly a specimen of archaic populations that lived in a biologically complex area of southwest China until about 14,000 years ago.” The professor said: The unique climate due to the elevation of the Tibetan plateau and the climate of southwest China has possibly provided a refuge for human diversity.
There are many theories that try to explain why humans are bipeds, but none are completely satisfactory. Increased speed can be quickly ruled out since humans are not very fast runners. Because bipedalism leaves the hands free, some scientists, including Darwin, linked it to the use of tools, specifically tools for defense and hunting, that is, weapons. This theory is problematic because stone artifacts are limited to only 3.3mai, until hominids become bipeds, which requires assuming that earlier tools were made of wood or other corroded materials.
Twentieth century theories have proposed a wide range of other factors that can induce the development of hominid bipedalism: moving objects, wading aquatic food and avoiding shoreline predators, Standing cautiously in tall grass, posing for expatriates or other sexual acts, following the migrant.
Swarm in the savannah and conserve energy (bipedalism consumes less energy than quadrangularism). Also, if the first bipeds were regularly exposed to the tropical afternoon sunlight, they would benefit from standing in two ways: the lower body surface would be exposed to harmful rays and they would be exposed to There will be relief in the cold air over the I usually.
Some scientists believe that terrestrial, perhaps even porous, quadruped prebiped primates, such as modern chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. On the contrary, it is also possible that the first habitual walkers were already prepared for the terrestrial dipole, with adaptations to run bipedal between branches and hooves, with the upper part standing upright for the forehead, and Climbing of vertical trunks and bullets .
This scenario is suggested by Gibbons’ studio, who regularly participates in these tree activities and practically never chooses to go to the forest floor, but if forced to land, he runs every two years. . Gibbons have relatively long and powerful lower limbs, the same lumbar vertebrae as humans (great apes are shorter), and chests of humanoid configuration.
When walking on the ground, the ribbons stand out compared to chimpanzees, which are sometimes binomial. Also, they emit less energy running on the ground when they bivalently run along branches or climb abruptly. Therefore, adopting a bipartisan posture with full extension of the lower extremities would not be a great challenge, since all apes have this capacity, although there would have been some changes in the bones, joints and ligaments of the lower extremities.
The foot could have undergone the most dramatic change, from a prehensile limb to a heel-supported propeller. The pillars that are placed in the elongated lower extremities will favor the development of a humanized structure of the hip, knee and leg to maintain a larger size and protruding branches in forests, thick forest ridges and other relatively open habitats in continuous and persistent lower extremities. By consuming their crop, the beepedal villagers can often squat, leading to strong heels and choosing between heel and forelegs for weight distribution, and between legs closely. Squats and repeated increases will increase the development of the hamstrings, buttocks, and anterior thigh muscles (such as the hip and knee extensors), which are important for athletic bipolarism. Stretching up will opt for lower toes and an arched foot. Refinement of the terrestrial biped complex probably did not occur until the hominids became less dependent on trees for daytime shelter and other activities and began to walk extensively over long distances and possibly for longer periods. .
Simply increasing body size will increase locomotive efficiency, as larger animals can more effectively use the elastic energy of tendons and muscles, and they also make less progress to cover a given distance than a small animal. Let’s take it. Actually, H.W. Rudolphensis (2.4–1.6 mya), H. ergaster (1.9–1.7 mya), and later Homo species, including H. sapiens (around 315 kya), are especially heavier than Osteopopithecus and Paranthropus. ; However, one Homo species, H. Naledi (the oldest known fossil, dated 335–200 kya) was comparable in size and weight.
Homo species have fewer differences in size between the sexes than many other primates, largely because the females have grown. The average size (71–51 kg [90–1212 lb]) in Australopithecus and male parathropus (40–4 kg [108108–101 lb]) is equivalent to the male chimpanzee (79 kg). Female size (30–33, 32–34, and 71 kg, respectively) showed that there were more sex differences (sexual dimorphism) among these housewives than chimpanzees. H. Rudolfensis (60 vs 51 kg [132 vs 112 lb]) and H. Comparison of sexual dimorphism in ergaster (66 vs 56 kg [123 vs 123 lb]) h. Sapiens (58 against 49 kg [128 against 128] is ready. 108 pounds]).
H. Rudolfensis and H. Ergaster (1.9–1.5 mya) have tall females of modern human configuration and internal knee structure, such as H. Dreams. Both structures are very different from chimpanzees and are primates that climb at least some small trees. This would also have been the time when the specific morphology of the human calf muscle (triceps sura) developed. Unlike great apes, it is very soft, making it easy to function as an energy-conserving spring when walking and running.
The unique epidermal and respiratory systems of H. sapiens can also be developed in conjunction with regular trekking, sprinting, and endurance running, as a paternal homo managed to establish himself in open tropical and subtropical environments. Our skull has a rich concentration of sweat glands (apes have few or no), which helps cool the head, especially the brain, at high temperatures and during vigorous activity. Postcranially, our sparse, highly vascularized and highly sensitive hairy skin is deeply endowed with sweat glands, the abundant secretions of which cool a wide surface by evaporation.
The distribution of the sweat glands is especially strategic to cool us down while running: there is a higher concentration of sweat glands on the front surfaces of the torso and extremities, against which air passes when moving. As a result, unlike furry quads, we don’t have to hold pants to avoid excess heat. Furthermore, unlike quadruple chests, such humans are relieved of the stress of bearing body weight, which is necessarily accompanied by exhalation in the quadruple walking. We can then change our breathing patterns by moving at different speeds, thus controlling energy expenditure.
H. Ergster (1.9–1.5 myna), an African species, is the first documented hominid in human thoracic form. (This species has been classified by some paleoanthropologists as an African subgroup of H. erectus.) The Neanderthal bust (H. neanderthalensis) is also essentially H. Similar to sapiens, but none of the other Homo species is known.
The bottom and the beginning of the fragment in the Miocene describes some global climatic changes that underlie forest areas and induce more open terrestrial biomes during the Miocene era (11.25.3 mya). These changes only intensified during the next Pliocene era (5.32.6 mya).
In Africa, primates are diverse. In Eurasia, by contrast, hominids disappeared with the start of the placina. The only descendants of late Miocene primates in Asia are Gigantopithecus blacki from the early-mid-late Pleistocene of southern China and northern Vietnam, and the oranges and gibbons of southern and southeastern Asia today.
It is reasonable to expect that the greater diversity and the changing distribution of African biomes will stimulate the life of new hominids, some of which were alive and others of which nothing. Innofar as habitat has been (may have been) based on evidence found with Plincene hominin species, which inhabit various types of biomes in eastern, central, and southern Africa. In central Ethiopia, Ar. The ramidus is associated with fauna and the crown indicates the habitat of a forest. Subsequent stays in northern Ethiopia indicate AU.
The mosaic is inhabited by the African river, the forests, the woods, the savanna and the dry bushes. Au in northern Kenya. Anamnesis lived in a dry or open forest with gallery forests in the bed of a nearby river. The northernmost and western species in central Chad, AU. Baghelghajali lives in a mosaic of wild, open biomes near a river. The mammalian fossils of Lomqui, in northern Kenya, suggest that the Canyanthropus platiops were inhabited by an area of relatively well-watered forest or closed forest or along the forest edge between them.
The 3.5 million-year-old Letoli housewives’ habitat in northern Tanzania was certainly a mosaic of open grasslands and tighter forests. This area may be wetter than it is now. No permanent water source has been identified for the Latoli region during the Pliocene. Later in the Pliocene, AU. Garhi was active on a grassy plain in central Ethiopia.
The Vas de Au model. Fauna-based stress-blocked wood conditions in two of Africa’s major South African caves: Sterkfontein and Muckungsang, either near grass or dry forests with subtropical forest. H. in Olduvai Gorge, northern Tanzania. Abelis and P. During Boisey’s tenure, the climate changed from dry to dry again and became wet before the long dry period that began two million years ago. Samples of these two hominids from Olduvai come mainly from the shores of an old saline and alkaline lake.
Kobi Forba, in northern Kenya, h. The samples of habilis have been found higher in the lake margin deposits, while P. The banks of rivers and lakes similar to Boisei are similar in sediment. Fossil pollen indicates that the highland forest was nearby and that the lake had green areas and dense forests and shrubby areas.
In Konso, southern Ethiopia, p. Boisey lived in a meadow. Elsewhere in East Africa, p. Aethiopicus was associated with closed habitats. Q. The South African Strangus Caves (Swartkrans, Chromrai and Drimol) are associated with habitats and even habitats, but may not reflect their actual preference.
One of the most profound effects of the change in the Pliocene habitat was to honor the biped passages that conserve energy at the time that Homo species were stationed outside of Africa and Eurasia. Soon after Homo evolved in Africa, some species spawned biomes in Eurasia and then tropical and subtropical biomes in South and Southeast Asia.
This was followed by a return migration to Africa, probably in the form of 1.a-0.94. This Homo hemispherical extension is associated with the expansion of the stone toolkit, an increase in the size of the brain, and a decrease in the size of the jaw and teeth, all of which is the subject of the next section.
Tools, hands and specialties in the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Refinement in hand structure: Primates are word of mouth feeders that selectively hold and hold items by hand before throwing them away. Without tools, emerging housewives would have relied on the versatility and strength of their hands to collect food and only their teeth and jaws to process it.
Unless they used equipment to transport equipment such as animal fur bags, they would need a reliable source of water nearby, and would also like the type and quantity of items transported across their range. It used to be limited. In addition to transporting goods and water, animal skins have a more obvious use in protecting them from the night cold, rain and intense sunlight.
Sharp stones, even small scales, would be a boon to the first housewives, who learned to collect and make skins, meat, sticks, and other plant material to cut them. The stones will help remove hard fruits and nuts, bones for the marrow, and skulls for the brain. There must have been a period when the earliest hominids naturally used stone and other objects as tools and weapons, as some wild chimpanzees do today.
Before hominids controlled fire and built strong ground shelters or effectively built rescue caves and rock shelters, they built tree platforms for daily activities and dinner. It can be Raw materials, stone hammers, cutting tools and defense sticks and stones can be stored in trees that are used repeatedly. Hand rocks, sticks, and long poles provide a formidable defense against sticks, spears, or other missiles, especially when used with the support of a tree platform.
About 3.3 million years ago, some hominins were building and using simple stone artifacts in East Africa. The tools, primitive hammers, anvils, and cutting tools, predate the appearance of the oldest confirmed Homo specimens for nearly 1 million years, and paleontologists speculate that they were built by members of the Ostralopiticus or Kenyanarthropus, who later The area was inhabited.
Because the earliest stone artifacts were so simple to build, and because today’s chimpanzees, wild bird monkeys, and capuchins can apply stones, logs, vines, and sticks to extract a nourishing bite from a protective shield, one I wouldn’t expect early homine tool makers to have modern hand structures. Display And excellent engine control.
However, the unique structure of the human hand is easily explained by a long history of production and use of increasingly complex toolkits and other artifacts. A three-fold increase in brain size between Pliocene and H. sapiens hominins is a more difficult hypothesis to support specific advances in artifact creation, as will be discussed later in this section.
The characteristics of human hands are easily distinguishable from those of great apes, and underline our sophisticated manipulation skills. The most complex adaptation of the human hand involves the thumb, in which a single, completely independent muscle (flexor pollicis longus) gives this figure remarkable pinching force and grasping force.
The fingers are wide and equipped with highly sensitive leather pads. The proportional length of the thumb and other fingers gives us an opposite thumb with the exact tip, between its tip and each end of the other fingers.
A specialized saddle joint and associated ligaments at the base of the thumb facilitate refined rotation. Special joint configurations at the base of the fifth, fourth and second fingers facilitate precise thumb-to-nose grip.
The asymmetry of the head of the second and fifth palm bones induces the rotation of the fingers expressed during the opposition of the thumb. Finally, many modifications of the small muscles of the hand are associated with fine control of the thumb and fingers.
Ouch. Efrensis is the oldest hominid species for which there are enough fossil hand bones to assess manipulation skills. They were able to hold sticks and stones firmly for vigorous hitting and throwing, but lacked a fully developed, partially cylindrical workforce with flexible fingers and thumbs applied between the palm. It will allow placing objects. Australopithecus has insufficient samples to assess fine manipulation, but there is no reason to believe that they were less capable than modern chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and other apes have remarkable grip accuracy, despite the fact that the tip of the thumb must be pressed against the edge of the index finger and cannot be safely applied to any finger.
H. from Olduvai Gorge, Northern Tanzania The bones of the hand for a 1.8 million-year-old habilis specimen include facilities related to the use of the equipment. Instruments found in Olduvai along with other parts of East Africa, as well as H. They are also found associated with Abelis.
The tips of the thumb and fingers were flat, and there is evidence of strong flexor pollicis longus muscle and a joint at the base of the thumb. The bones of the hand are, of course, P. from Swartcrans, South Africa. Assigned to Robus or Homo, confirm that approximately 1. my maya had highly developed thumbs and flat fingers on one or more species of hominin.
Evidence from the 2.8–2.5 billion year old cave bone deposit at Sterkfontein, South Africa may be evidence that A. africanus’s hands were somewhat more advanced for the use of stone tools, but no artwork with them it is received. . The small Stercontin deposit (2.0–1.5 mya) contains stone artifacts and remains of a Homo species.
Due to the absence of fossils, it is not possible to trace some refinements in the structure of the hand known as H. Rudolfensis, h. During the ergogester days (1.9–1.5 mya) tools must have evolved along with innovations in manufacturing and use. H. Erectus (1.7–0.2 maya), as well as h. Antivirals (1.0–0.8 mya) and H. Heidelbergensis (600–200 km). Only prehistoric and modern h. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis is fully represented by the skeleton of the hand.
Increased brain size
There are more fossil heads available than hands, it is easy to increase the size of the brain in parallel with the Paleolithic period (c. 3.3 million to 10,000 years of rich artifact records), popularly known as the Ancient Stone Age. It is said that. The Paleolithic preceded the Middle Stone Age, or the Mesolithic period.
This nomenclature sometimes causes confusion, as the Paleolithic itself is divided into early, middle, and late (or higher) periods. Hominid follows the refinements in brain extension device technology so closely that some scholars ignore other factors that may have contributed to the increase in brain size, such as social complexity, feeding strategies, symbolic communication, and other cultural media. Whether or not behavioral skills are left. Some archaeological footprints.
After complete humanization, the brain has continued to expand. A. Afferentis (435 grams [0.96 lb]), a. Garhi (445 grams [0.98 lb]), a. African (450 grams [0.99 lb]), p. Estimated average Boise brain mass (515 grams [1.13 lb). ]), And p. Strongus (525 g [1.16 lb]) are close to chimpanzees (395 g [0.87 lb]) and gorillas (490 g [1.08 lb]). The average brain mass of H. sapiens is 1,350 grams (2.97 lb). Increase h. Habilis (600 grams [1.32 lb]) seems to have started with it, which is also notable for its small body. H. large in Africa. Rudolfensis (735 grams [1.62 lb]) and especially H. The trend in brain growth continued with ergaster (850 grams [1.87 lb]).
Hominid cranial capacity: development of relative cranial capacity and dentition pattern in selected hominids. However, one must be extremely cautious when describing increased cognitive abilities. Relative to the estimated body mass, h. You actually enabled h. Rudolfensis and H.
It is “smarter” than the aerogaster. Neanderthals present modern humans with a similar explanatory challenge. Neanderthals had larger brains than previous Homo species, which were actually rivals to modern humans. However, relative to body mass, Neanderthals are physically less intelligent than modern humans.
Brain size did not change from 1.8 to 0.6 Mye relative to Homo. After 600 kya it increased until about 35,000 years ago, when it began to decrease. Globally, the average body size is also 35,000 years ago. Sapiens had little in common when economically advanced people began to grow, while less privileged people did not.
Overall, there was a period of stagnation and expansion in stone tool technology during the Paleolithic, but due to variations over time and between locations, as well as the possibility of plant material being used instead of stone, technically the brain It is impossible to add size to the complexity and fully human cognitive abilities.
Furthermore, in many cases it is impossible to ensure that hominid species exist that command the paleolithic industry even when associated skeletal remains are present at the site. The discovery of a specific human specimen, in 2004 in a limestone cave on Floss Island, Indonesia, H. underscores the unreliability of brain size in estimating cognitive ability and the ability to survive in challenging environments.
Fluorescence was named
The mass of chimpanzees and small australopiths had brains compared to brains, however they produced a stone tool industry equivalent to the hominid of the early Pleistocene and at least 38 kya to about 18 kya in giant mice, dwarf elephants, and Komodo dragons .
It used to survive. If they are in fact a different species, they constitute another archaic human being (apart from H. neanderthalensis, Denisovans [known for Denisova cave relics in Russia], and probably H. erectus) of the celestial. He lived at the same time as modern humans.
Refinement in tool design: the early Paleolithic (3.3–0.2 million years) in Africa includes various industries. The first tool (hammer, anvil, and primitive cutting tool) gave way to the first handmade gluing tool and core chopper (2.5–2.1 Maya). Double-sided hand axes, blades, and picks (collectively known as bifs) appeared around 1.5 million years ago and persisted for about 200 km.
Archaeologists have discovered some improvements in technology and product during the half-million-year-old core scale industries. Although the dominant bifa industry, Aechean, was originally depicted as stable, it also shows evidence of refinement over time, resulting in remarkable skills needed to finally create elegant and symmetrical hand axes.
By Maya to H. The Erectus population lived in Eurasia, which is now Damsy, Georgia. Helicopters, cutting tools, flakes and related scrapers are reminiscent of Oldowan’s East African coincidence industry, but there is no biface between them. The brain case of the two Dmanisi specimens is smaller than that of the African H. ergaster.
The new geochemical dates for the classic hominin locations in Java indicate that H. Erectus may live in 1.5 Mayas in Southeast Asia, but no industry has been identified with them, of course. The evidence from Ubeidīya, Israel, provides evidence that the people and the Biphas had spread from Africa to 1.4 Mayans. In Europe.
The Aechalian apparatus appears at 500 kya and persists for approximately 250–150 kya; They also occur in South Asia. Sites in China (800 kya), Korea, and Japan have biffs, but they differ from Acheulean Tools. No such technology has been found in tropical Southeast Asia, where bamboo equipment has been found in sufficient numbers.
In both Africa and Eurasia, the Middle Palaeolithic was long believed to range from about 200 kya to more recently 30 kya, depending on location. While the tools of the Early Paleolithic gradually changed in space and time, the Middle Paleolithic was characterized by an explosion of local and regional variations in size and shape, and by the frequency of scales, blades, scrapers, manual propellers, and other remodeled devices.
Projectile points were emphasized in some areas, using bone and stone; Bone arrowheads over 60,000 years old have been found in Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Although they differ in time and space, the Middle Palaeolithic apparatus as a whole is characterized by a carefully crafted core from which elegant scales or blades were killed. Surprisingly, these types of equipment have been found at the Gidotta site in stratigraphic strata in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia that are around 275 kya. Additional blades up to 315 kya have been found at the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco.
Late Palaeolithic industries up to 50-10 kya include various knives and microblade equipment, especially in Europe. The people of the late Paleolithic used a variety of materials for their tools and physical ornaments, including bones, stones, wood, antlers, ivory, and shells. Stone blades were long, thin, and very effective cutting tools.
Often when they slow down, someone overcomes them by pressure, requiring fine motor coordination and control. The micro blades and other points were probably designed to produce stabbing spears. Other varied devices of the time include atlatales, harpoons, fish suits, bows, and arrows.
The people of the late Paleolithic also developed polishing and polishing techniques, with which they made beads, pendants and other artistic objects. They also made needles (probably by sewing tight clothing), hooks, and fish shells.
Teeth Size Reduction: The effect of better cutting, sharpening, and the use of fire to grind and cook equipment and techniques certainly contributed to the reduction of the size of the jaws and hominin teeth in the past 2.5 to 5 million years. But its exact relationship is impossible to do.
It is not known when hominids gained control of the fire or what species would have used it for food preparation, heat, or protection from predators. It is very difficult to determine if the fire was intentionally caused by hominids or if it occurred naturally.
For example, in a forest fire, stumps from burned trees can leave circular accumulations of charcoal residue, which can be mistaken for a stove, while campfires created by mobile hominids will leave no lasting evidence.
The concentrations of coal, burned bones, seeds and artifacts in China and France suggest that H. Erectus, h. Heidelbergensis, or both, used fire as a 460 key. Certainly some people from the Middle and Late Paleolithic controlled fire, but rats up to 100 kya are rare. If the request for fire control in South Africa is confirmed in 1.5 million years, p. Strongus or H. Ergster will be the first goalkeeper.
At first glance, the earliest hominin skulls appear more ape-like than human. Where humans have small jaws and a large brain box, great apes have a small brain box and large jaws. Furthermore, ape canine teeth are large and pointed and outnumber other teeth, while humans have relatively small, non-projecting teeth. In fact, human canines are unique in being incisors, and the lower front tooth is bicepsid. However, in apes and in many monkeys, the lower brain is uniform and the upper canine sharpens the razor blade.
In male australopithecus and paranthropus, large deep chewing muscles need their strong, deep jaws that attach to the main peaks at the crest of the brain and inflate the arches of bone on the face and sides of the skull. Over time, the posterior teeth of the parathropus grew in size as the lighters and canines shrunk. Accordingly, p. Strongus and P. Boisey have a relatively flat face and non-protective jaws.
Australopithecus species also had larger teeth, but their faces were more bulky like pollination and the canines were not as low as those of paranthrops. Posterior teeth over time progressively a. A. of the anamnesis Efricanus and H. Increase in size for habilis, a. A. between small anamnesis species and Australopithecus. Compared to the estimated body size, the increase in tooth size over time is confirmed.
The tooth wear pattern in Effortensis indicates that you can manually remove plant food by removing it from the front teeth. Paranthropus with strong skulls may have eaten harder food than Australopithecus in gracie shell. Furthermore, some paleoanthropologists believe that Paranthropus was a vegetarian, while Ae. Africans had more meat in their diet. Dental morphology and wear patterns suggest that P. in South Africa. Strong has eaten hard food and Kenyan p. Boisey chewed pods and whole fruits with hard coatings and hard seeds, though he probably did not chew grass seeds, leaves, or bones.
Unlike Paranthropus and Australiaopithecus, Homo’s teeth became smaller over time. H. Rudolphensis has large posterior teeth, even relative to approximate body size, but H. The ergaster approaches the modern human condition. By the way, h. Rudolphensis’s face h. More like australopithecus than ergaster. One would expect that a change in diet or food preparation techniques is related in some way to this trend, but the evidence to support this link is not available in the archaeological record.
Appearance of Homo sapiens: Australopithecus, k. The relationships between the platypus, the parathropus, and the direct ancestors of Homo are unknown. Due to its initial date and geographic location, a. Anamnesis a. Apherensis, a. Garhi, K. The platypus may have common ancestors, and probably the Latoli Pliocene hominium from East Africa, A. from Central Africa. Bahlgazali and A. Africa of southern Africa. A. Previously P. May have been an ancestor of Aethiopicus, which in East Africa, p. P. in Boisey and South Africa. There are oaks.
H. as ancestral to later Homo species. The factors that indicate rudolfensis are the complete size of the brain, the large body and the morphology of the lower extremities. These characteristics clearly presage small species of Homo in Africa and Eurasia. However, a jaw discovered in the Lady-Geraru region of the Avash River Valley in 2013 may point to a different ancestor, who apparently belongs to the genus Homo.
The imperative provides evidence that the posterior dental characteristics associated with Homo (such as small teeth and greatly reduced chin) appeared 2.8 million years ago, as well as H. Before the arrival of Rudolfensis. While some paleontologists H.W. Others have been quick to associate the specimen with Habilis, and others are considering the possibility that it belongs to a new species of Homo.
American anthropologist Brian A. Villamare wears a replica of the Lady-Geraru jaw. The actual imperative found in Ethiopia and dating from 2.8 million -2.75 million years ago, is the oldest fossil associated with the genus Homo. Our lineage does not become clearer since the candidates are exclusively restricted to the Homo species. Among paleoanthropologists who call it h. Recognized as a separate species from Erectus, H. Ergaster is often proposed as an ancestor of the Homo species from the Pleistocene era. H. Heidelbergensis, h. Ergaster, h. Erectus or h. It can originate from investors, and any of them h. Neanderthalensis and H. Sapiens could not have ancestors. Neanderthal populations, particularly those represented by Western European specimens, were probably not ancestral to modern humans.
H. Naldei continues to be the subject of much debate. The oldest fossils of this species are only a few million years old; However, many of its morphological features resemble those of Australopithecus, and therefore many paleontologists suggest that H. Naledi H. developed in parallel with sapiens.
Theorists use fossilized remains, the genetic traits of modern people around the world, and archaeological and physiological indicators of cognitive, linguistic, and technological abilities that support their models of recent human evolution, but no theory determines this.
How did the sapiens arrive?
The limitations of empirical evidence confound attempts to find out whether specific traits and lineages have evolved slowly or in periods of stagnation due to rapid changes (a theory known as puncture equilibrium). There are claims of approximately 20 species of fossil hominids over the past six million years, but they are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
For example, it appears that the Neanderthal (H. neanderthalensis) was a dead end for two ancestral species (H. antiviral and H. heidelbergensis) that gradually changed from approximately 700 ea to 30 km in Europe. . H. Sapians can evolve similarly across a variety of species represented by African specimens, but other theorists imagine a dramatic change in cognitive ability and behavior that qualifies as a change in score.
This change would have occurred in a smaller African population and would take place after a long period of persistence today. Such a scenario is unprecedented, because a. Effrensis was a competent biped, which suddenly appeared and lasted almost 10 million years.
There are four basic models to explain the evolution of H. sapiens between approximately 315 and 30 kya. At one extreme is multidimensional development, or a regional continuity model. The second has an African or “out of Africa” replacement model. The intermediates are the African hybridization and substitution model and the assimilation model.
All but the multinational model states that H. Sapiens was developed only in Africa and then deployed in Eurasia and eventually in the USA. USA And Oceania. Both models of substitution argue that anatomically modern migrants h. It replaced the Eurasian and Australian resident species of S. sapiens, without hybridization.
The hybridization and substitution model proposes a cross between archaic native populations but with relatively minor effects. Asmita maintains a continuity between archaic and modern humans, especially in some areas of Eurasia, where gene flow and local selective factors will also produce morphological changes.
In this model, the unity of species was maintained by periodic crossings over wide areas. The wholesalers reject the idea that H. The dream was developed exclusively in Africa. Instead, they argue that the archaic Homo population developed locally in Africa, Asia, and Europe. During his tenure, both archaic and hereditary populations intervened with contemporaries from other regions.
African replacement models have gained wide acceptance from existing populations mainly due to genetic data (especially mitochondrial DNA). This model is consistent with the finding that modern humans cannot be classified into subspecies or races, and argues that all current human populations share the same potential.
Such an intricate line of inheritance is not surprising given the nomadic lifestyle enabled by bipedalism. There appears to be a gradual migration of hominin species to Africa, with the development of new species in Eurasia, and sometimes migration to Africa. For example, h.
The ergaster may be the first hominid to arrive in Eurasia. Some of his descendants quickly migrated to East and Southeast Asia, where they gave H.W. She gave birth to Erectus. Others h. It may become Heidelbergensis, which was sparsely populated in Europe and then returned to Africa.
Some paleoanthropologists claim that H. found in an 800,000-year-old cave in the Sierra de Atapurca, Spain, Gran Dolina, Spain. Antwerter, h. Heidelbergensis was the direct ancestor of Heidelbergensis, which is represented by 300,000-year-old specimens. From Sima de los Housos in the Sierra de Atapurca. Furthermore, they propose that H. of a million-year-old deposit in Eritrea. Antiviral, H. in Africa. Sapiens have direct ancestors.
Neanderthals probably evolved in Europe at least in part due to cold weather conditions and then migrated to Western Asia, where they were introduced to H. in the Levant. Sapiens suffered. No skeletons have been found that have reached the African continent in the east or gone much further than Uzbekistan in Central Asia. Neanderthal features that advocate the adaptation of a seasonally indifferent biome include robust taurus, short limbs (especially the forearm and legs) and distinctive facial structures.
The face is stretched in the middle, the teeth are forward, the enlarged cheekbones are bent back, and the nostrils are voluntary. If Neanderthals were to wear animal skins and other insulating materials on their heads and bodies, which remain active in adverse weather conditions, the large nasal chambers would help cool the blood and prevent heating of the brain, while clothing would freeze over. It will reduce the risk of the nasal chamber can also conserve moisture during exhalation.
Fossil specimens (delivered at 195 kya) from the Omo site in Ethiopia indicate that anatomically modern H. sapiens were present in about 200 kya in East Africa. However, the oldest known remains appear at the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco and up to 315 kiyo. This evidence suggests that the species did not emerge in East Africa or was not limited to the region.
Molecular genetic data suggests that early H. sapiens went through a population bottleneck, a period when they were rare organisms, before rapidly spreading across the world. H. sapiens migrated between 120 kya and 80 kya in southern China and 45–43 kya in Europe.
They replaced indigenous hominin species in Eurasia, and then, as sea level plummeted during the glacial period, adventurous individuals took to the sea in water, 65-50 kya for the past 3,000 years in Australia and the islands of the sea. It had a population of Most evidence is approximately 14-14.3 k and H for migrants to America. Indicates sapiens; However, some evidence suggests that this migration may have occurred up to 15,000 years ago.
The wide variation in the physiological proportions, external characteristics, and blood chemistry of modern people may reflect adjustment of biomes at somewhat biologically shorter time intervals. However, molecular genetic studies show that the genomic difference between remote people is less than zero compared to variations within each local population. Consequently, the modern H. For Sapiens, race is a cultural construction with a biological basis.
Symbolic speech and intelligence: The origins and development of human culture (clarifying spoken language and symbolically mediated thinking, beliefs, and behavior) are among the greatest unsolved puzzles in the study of human development.
Such questions cannot be solved with skeletal or archaeological figures. Research on the cognitive and behavioral abilities of apes, monkeys, and other animals, and cognitive development in human children provides some clues, but it is better to extrapolate this information over time.
To further complicate this scenario, it may be that today’s chimpanzees, bonobos, and other anthropogenic primates have more sophisticated cognitive and behavioral skills than some early hominids, as they and their ancestors overcome many challenges.
It took several million years and perhaps became more advanced in the process. H. Some researchers have estimated speech based on some internal skull features in habilis, but the shape of the jaw and additional symptoms suggest otherwise.
However, other researchers claim that human speech was physically modernized before the Late Paleolithic due to the simplicity of its toolkit and art. The first members of the sapiens were also not fully developed.
Incomplete, battered and deformed, and in any case the mind probably did not have good manners against the walls of the mind. H. Hebilis and H. Explicit expansion of the brain in rudolfensis may mean an overall increase in cognitive abilities, manipulative abilities, or factors other than speech.
A particularly unreliable claim that Broca hat’s distinctive internal cranial footprint is evidence of speech. Large drill caps exist among some Brahmins, yet no monkey has spoken a word despite trying to speak them. A humanoid vocal tract is undesirable in fossils because it contains only soft tissue and leaves no bone earth. Although versatile human speech is largely associated with a relatively spacious pharyngeal and mobile language, the absence of such characteristics is not a compelling reason to rule out some form of vocal language in the paternal hominid. It is argued that it is impossible to express human speech without a low voice box (larynx) and an area extended above it. If this assumption were correct, Neanderthals would still be practically disqualified and possibly Cro-Magnons like the Late Paleolithic Brother. Also quite primitive cognitive compared to populations of sapiens. Gibbons and great apes do not speak, but possess throat qualities with speech, even if somewhat lower than humans. Gibbons’ calls are surprisingly diverse in tone and pattern, and if such sounds were divided into discrete parts with consonants, they could simulate words. The same is true of great apes. Orangutans, chimpanzees, and bonobos have sufficiently mobile lips and tongues; They simply lack the neural circuits for speech.
Conversely, if the theory that different abilities are governed by different and different types of intelligence (multiple intelligence) is correct, much of the behavior and artistic ability that the tool uses is the fundamental ability. It will be based on fundamentally different neurological structures from support structures. Human children begin to use language before becoming sophisticated users of devices.
Similarly, a form of speech can have previous forms of device behavior that are symbolically mediated. Visual arts such as painting and sculpture are manifestations of spatial intelligence, which focuses primarily on speech-related areas of the brain.
Therefore, a problem of language origin or linguistic competence cannot be expected when studying paleolithic symbolism and imagination, despite periods related to rock art and polished bones, antiquities, ivory, stone, and rock artifacts.
However, if the astonishing proliferation and stylistic variability of equipment, body ornaments, and artwork during the Paleolithic period do not disproportionately point to the specific use of speech, then the presence of these symbolically measurable artifacts, most of which the earliest are the shell pearls found in Morocco. And it was created about 82,000 years ago, suggesting that the earliest humans were capable of complex conceptual and abstract thinking.
Historically, all human groups have manifested symbolically mediated language, religion, and social, political, and economic systems, even in the absence of an elaborate material culture. The demand for social intelligence from people living in environments with relatively few artifacts is similar to the demand from those who depend on complex technical equipment and shelters for their comfort.
Consequently, prehistoric H. Sapiens cannot be considered cognitively less competent than themselves, and it is impossible to affirm that the species of hominids as a symbol were “completely human”. As an example, carefully documented language studies of captive bonobos and chimpanzees show that they have the ability to understand and use symbols to communicate with and among humans, but this ability in nature use remains to be demonstrated.
Perhaps the human capacity was developed to symbolically represent emotions, situations, objects and thoughts, guided by many intelligences and before becoming a blessing for vocal communication. Archaeological evidence indicates that, like at least some of their Pliocene predecessors, the most recent hominids were likely omnivores, although the amount of meat in their diet and whether they used it to rummage, hunt, or both was around 200–100. Are they poorly documented? Stone tools and cut marks on bones at archaeological sites confirm a long history of eating meat in the tribe, but this practice could have been in practice long before stone tools were invented. Like chimpanzees, bonobos, baboons, capuchins, and other primates, early Pliocene hominins may have hunted and fragmented vertebrates with just their hands and jaws instead of tools. No limits have been established to communicate and coordinate the hunting, gathering, or other activities of our ancestors through community communication.
There is no valid way to estimate group size and structure because there is little evidence of movement patterns, shelters, and graves until the Late Paleolithic. Archaeological trails of man-made refuges rarely occur beyond 60 kya, then become more common, especially in areas that have remarkable seasonal climates.
The early appearances and developments of symbolic based spirituality are also very elusive as they left no strange morphological or archaeological traces for the discussion of scripture and ritual; However, there is evidence that Neanderthal wore jewelry and other personal ornaments approximately 44,000 years ago. Although some Neanderthals buried their dead, there is little evidence of a Morchary ceremony at their graves. The tomb of H. sapiens 40 kya sometimes contains funeral goods.
Learning from apes: Gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos are a rich resource for anthropologists, biologists, and cultural psychologists who speculate on the origins of human society. Gorillas appeal to theorists who emphasize male dominance and patriarchy. A group of specialty gorillas includes a silverback (an older dominant male), one or more subordinate blackback males, adult females who are outperforming males, and youngsters of different ages.
The silverback is the center of the Koscius group. Chimpanzee society is also dominated by men, who form a stable nucleus of the group. Chimpanzees and bonobos live in large groups of more than 100 individuals, although they feed, travel, and nest in small bands that vary daily in number and composition. The chimpanzee has a superior male, followed by several others whose range depends on which males are present.
Bonobos have stronger relationships between men and women than chimpanzees, and the organizing center for bonobo social groups is based on intimate relationships between adult women, especially mothers, who often maintain strong relationships with their children. Adult male bonobos are less attached to each other than male chimpanzees.
Because bonobos are more sober and tolerant in social relationships and highly erotic, they are popular with those who will liberate our heritage as “killer apes.” However, observers of apes, Old World monkeys, and other mammals have reported a higher incidence of aggression, as well as concern for others in their subjects. Both trends are deeply rooted among the higher primates.
The rise of the human nuclear family has been a particularly difficult problem for Western evolutionary theorists. Like bonobos and chimpanzees, people are likely fundamentally provincial, although this type of mating behavior is deeply rooted in the cultures in which individuals are born and inhabit.
In fact, theorists seeking to build models of the rise of hominid societies on the basis of existing ape societies seldom address the fact that humans make extensive use of kinship, social, sexual, and political systems. They are all created and expressed. Symbolic as well as practically.
Researchers often fail to uncover the cognitive underpinnings of symbolic representation, manipulation, and invention in apes, which reveal specific human conditions rather than forms of behavior. It will take many scientific disciplines and sophisticated technological efforts over the years to discover the underlying nature of our mental faculties.
Their neurological foundations, and their evolution over time. Monkeys can play an important role in this endeavor only when they are allowed to survive in their natural habitats and only when they are seen on their own evolutionary paths and not just to advance towards the condition.