Fig 4 - uploaded by Tony Chevalier
Content may be subject to copyright.
A. afarensis (AL 288-1), H. sapiens et P. troglodytes, épiphyse proximale en vue postérieure. La fosse trochantérique et, l'insertion de l'obturateur interne et des jumeaux des A. afarensis se développent en « huit », celle de l'Homme présente deux insertions séparées et celle des chimpanzés présente une cavité large et profonde. Dessiné par Olivia Cuadra. A. afarensis (AL 288-1), H. sapiens and P. troglodytes posterior view of the proximal epiphysis. The trochanteric fossa with the internal obturator and the gemelli of A. afarensis develops in an "eight" shape, that of Man presents two separate insertions and that of chimpanzees presents a wide and deep cavity. Drawing by Olivia Cuadra.
Source publication
Although much research has been carried out on Australopithecus afarensis locomotion, no consensus has yet been reached. Our new critic study on femoral material brings to the fore a strictly bipedal behaviour within this taxon. Our results are based on the pertinence of human anatomical characteristics among A. afarensis and on the absence of char...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... afarensis s'éloignent du morphe Pan développant une fosse unique large et très profonde. Comme chez l'Homme moderne la fossette inférieure est plus développée que la fossette supérieure avec en revanche, un rapprochement plus important des insertions du muscle obturateur externe et des muscles interne, et jumeaux, rotateurs de la cuisse en dehors (Fig. 4). (Fig. 3). Cette zone prend une forme rectangulaire suivant un axe vertical. Sur AL 129-1c et AL 128-1 cette zone est profonde, longée antérieurement par un relief moyen du petit fes- sier. Sur AL 288-1, l'ensemble, insertion du petit fessier et zone « intermédiaire », paraît aplati. Le relief de l'insertion du petit fessier se confond ...
Context 2
... de l'insertion du vaste latéral ? Notons que cette caractéristique s'observe sur le spécimen ER 1472, classé parmi les premiers repré- sentants du genre Homo ( Tardieu, 1983 ;Wood, 1992 ;Chevalier, 2004) ou les Homo ergas- ter-Homo erectus au sens large (Day, 1973 ;Mc Henry et Corruccini, 1976 ;Corruccini et Mc Henry, 1978 ;Kennedy, 1983 Fig. 4. A. afarensis (AL 288-1), H. sapiens and P. troglodytes posterior view of the proximal epiphysis. The trochanteric fossa with the internal obturator and the gemelli of A. afarensis develops in an "eight" shape, that of Man presents two separate insertions and that of chimpanzees presents a wide and deep cavity. Drawing by Olivia ...
Similar publications
Among the drivers and constraints on the evolution of complex hominin culture that have been proposed throughout the years, demographic factors have been particularly persistent, and they have recently again come to gain traction in the literature in the shape of the so-called treadmill model. The treadmill model connects cultural complexity to gro...
Among the drivers and constraints on the evolution of complex hominin culture that have been proposed throughout the years, demographic factors have been particularly persistent, and they have recently again come to gain traction in the literature in the shape of the so-called treadmill model. The treadmill model connects cultural complexity to gro...
Citations
... It is a possibility that this throwing activity could have contributed to a progressive adoption of a stable standing position, favouring bipedality adopted by early hominins. The use of these archaic implements was probably in the range of hominins like Australopithecus with partial bipedality (Ward, 2002;Chevalier, 2006); so, this phase could have started several million years ago. ...
Prehistoric wooden projectiles likely have a complex evolutionary story in a similar way to stone tools, depending on their functions, and the cognitive and physical capabilities of hominins who used them. The technologies of some ancient projectiles (e.g., spears, arrows) can be studied more directly because they were equipped with stone points which survive archaeologically, but other implements made entirely of wood are extremely rare archaeological finds and need an indirect study of their ethnological diversity to try to shed light on their evolution. The evolution of throwing sticks is often restricted to the invention of boomerangs which, as returning objects, have fascinated Europeans, particularly since the early 19th century colonisation of Australia. However, the innovation of returning boomerangs is probably relatively recent, compared to their entire technological evolution. The resulting technological diversity of forms through time is reflected in the different morphological types of ethnological throwing sticks found on the Australian continent but is also present in other parts of the world. A scheme of evolution for throwing sticks is proposed here, according to the technology that can be observed on numerous ethnological objects studied in museum collections, and experience gained from throwing replicas, which allow us to distinguish different development phases for these projectiles.
https://exarc.net/issue-2024-2/ea/scheme-evolution-throwing-sticks
... Hay que considerar que el dimorfismo sexual puede influir en esta conducta, en los simios actuales los machos pasan más tiempo sobre el suelo que en los árboles, esto se hace posible también para A. afarensis que presentaba claramente dimorfismo sexual asociado a la masa, aunque la estructura dentaria de ambos sexos era similar. Sin embargo es claro que cualquier interpretación sobre la conducta postural y de desplazamiento de estos organismos está sujeta a discusión, en base a estudios sobre material femoral es posible también pensar en una estricta conducta bípeda para este taxón, creyendo que no solamente por no presentar un morfo humano debiera haber presentado desplazamiento arbóreo en algún grado (Plavcan et al., 2005; Chevalier, 2006). de Pilbeam 1981. ...
Una perspectiva de la evolucion humana y como la inteligencia podria haber sido desarrollada (In Spanish).
... Les caractéristiques fémorales des Au. afarensis (Tableau 1) habituellement mises en avant concernent majoritairement l'articulation fémoro-pelvienne [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] et l'articulation du genou [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Notons également l'attention particulière portée à l'obliquité de la diaphyse [2,7,17,14,23], de rares discussions sur les insertions musculaires de la portion proximale de la diaphyse [11] ainsi que de nombreuses références aux proportions corporelles dont Jungers [24]. ...
... Tête de petite taille voir [13] Longueur importante du col [6,11,12] Faible angle collo-diaphysaire [11,12] Mince épaisseur corticale supérieure [9, 10] Présence du sillon de l'obturateur externe [7,11] Saillie parfois marquée de la ligne intertrochantérique [7,8] Faible hauteur du grand trochanter [11] Développement important de l'insertion pour le gluteus maximus [11] Obliquité de la diaphyse [2,7,14,17,23] Forme rectangulaire de l'éphyse distale [15,17] Dominance du contact tibial/patellaire pour l'épiphyse distale [22] Proéminence de la lèvre latérale de la trochlée [8,14,16,18,19,22] Forme aplatie et ellipsoïde du condyle latéral [14,20,22] Fosse du tendon poplitée alignée sur l'axe de la diaphyse [21] Indice huméro-fémoral intermédiaire entre Homme et grands singes [24] pilastre est associé à la linea aspera l'une des zones d'insertions primordiales de la diaphyse, qui est en relation avec l'activité du quadriceps. L'une des seules références au pilastre et/ou à la linea aspera de AL 333- 61 ...
... afarensis ou Australopithecus sp., [48]), AL 228-1, 288-1 ou AL 129-1a. Effectivement, le diamètre médio-latéral (en mm) à midiaphyse (29) est nettement supérieur à celui de KNM ER 16002 (20) [48], AL228-1 (19,9 sur moulage), AL 288-1 (21,9) Morphologie AL 333-61 ( Fig. 3) a été précédemment décrit comme ayant une linea aspera proéminente (terme peu adéquat) et projetée et une diaphyse présentant un contour triangulaire au niveau de la section proximale naturelle [7]. Le pilastre est évalué à 105,2 d'après les valeurs des diamètres dans la publication originale [7]. ...
The Pliocene femoral diaphysis AL 333-61, from
Hadar (Ethiopia), attributed to Australopithecus afarensis
found in a stratigraphic level estimated to be 3.2 million
years old, has only been briefly described in previous studies,
with no consideration given to its biomechanical or
cross-sectional properties. Our new and exhaustive analyses
show an overall morphology similar to Homo. AL 333-61
has a real linea aspera and a high pilastric index compared to
Early and Mid Pleistocene Homo. Moreover, hypertrophy is
notable, even though the cross-sectional properties have
been scaled to biomechanical length only, and not to biomechanical
length and body mass as is usually done. AL 333-
61 is singular because it is similar to Early and Mid Pleistocene
hominins in some features but similar to Neanderthals
and Middle Palaeolithic Modern Humans in others. Biomechanically,
it shows the same typical levels of loading as
those observed in Homo. Possibilities for interpreting the
loading patterns are limited due to the lack of information
about the body proportions of AL333-61, but its internal and
external morphology suggests that it may have belonged to
an individual that was an obligate biped. However, two other
hypotheses can be put forward to explain this Homo-like
morphology. Particular body proportions and/or activities
that are unusual, for environmental reasons, in this type
of population could also account for the Homo-like femoral morphology of
an individual initially adapted to bipedalism and treedwelling.
But none of these three hypotheses can be given
more weight than the others due to the lack of exhaustive
biomechanical studies of this rare Pliocene diaphysis.
The main goal of this paper is to present an overview of hypotheses concerning early Homo specimens and to discuss the definition of the genus Homo in the light of recent discoveries. For some authors, all the specimens attributed to early Homo belong to one unique species. For others, this group (Homo habilis sensu lato) is heterogeneous and could be splitted into two groups: H. habilis and Homo rudolfensis. Some researchers have also proposed to put the species habilis and rudolfensis into the genera Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus. Therefore, two scenarios concerning first humans seem to emerge. An emergence of the genus Homo, as early as 2.8 Ma, with Homo sp. specimens and the species H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, another at 1.9 Ma with Homo ergaster. According to the recent archaeological and paleoanthropological discoveries, these criteria often considered to be crucial for the definition of the genus Homo, as the cranial capacity, the humanlike manipulative abilities, the habitual erect posture and bipedal gait, the language ability and the capacity to make tools are now obsolete.
