14 Transition to Apes/ Difference between Pongid and Hominid

Dr. Arpita Mandal

Contents of this unit

Introduction

2. Socioecology

3.Interpretation of origin of human behavior o From fossil records

4. From contemporary nonhuman primates

5. Tracing human behavior from archaeological records

6. Origin of language

7. Behavior and human origins

8. Increased geographic range

9. Social organization

10. Conclusion

11. Summary

Learning objectives

To understand the origins of human behavior
To understand the origins of social organisation
To delineate the different approaches to study ancient human behavior and socialization

Introduction

The legacy of our human evolutionary past has been one of unparalleled evolutionary success, due to remarkable behavioral adaptability born of our expanded brains. The legacy we leave for the future will depend on how well we choose to adapt to the predicament we have brought upon this planet.

It has often been argued that Homo sapiens were capable of being modern, and it simply took 70,000 years to bring about their technological and social skills needed to emerge as modern humans..”Humans have had the capacity for space travel, or designing computers, for several thousand years—nothing about us has really changed,” said Richard Potts, Director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. (1998). According to Potts, the key factor in modern human evolution has been the adaptability to environmental conditions. As far back as 400,000years, humans had the capability to adapt themselves to their changing environment. They were able to innovate methods of adaptation fast. .There is a lesser known theory which states that, there was a dramatic change in the function of the human brain specific to areas of memory or language skills about 50,000 years ago. Thus it can be believed that, humans were able to innovate faster and much better and this could have been the reason behind their migration to various places out of Africa. According to Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford University, there was revolutionary changes in human behavior as back as 2.5 and 1.8 million years ago. There were unique events that suggest that increased brain size was not a gradual process but greater intelligence was naturally selected.

Socioecology

Like other animals, Primates spend their lives solving the very basic problems of finding food, avoiding predators, finding mates and (especially for females) rearing offspring. As anatomical features evolved in response to selective pressures imposed by the environment, similarly behaviors also evolved to meet these demands. Thus, behaviors can be seen as adaptive responses that provide the most fundamental necessities of life, and their evolution has been the result of the complex interactions of numerous factors. Scientists who study behavior in free –ranging primates do so within an ecological framework, focusing on the relationship between aspects of social behavior and the natural environment, an approach called socioecology.

Therefore, to understand the functioning of one component such as the social structure of a given species, it is necessary to determine its relationship with numerous environmental factors, including:

Diet: quantity and quality of different kinds of foods ( caloric value, digestive energy required, net value to the animal )Distribution of food and water resources ( dense, scattered, clumps or seasonal availability)
Body size
Distribution and types of predator
Distribution of sleeping sites
Activity patterns ( nocturnal, diurnal)
Relationships with other species, both primate and nonprimate
Impact of human activities

Observations on primate behavior in the wild have documented, as Yerkes (1927) foresaw, the role of social, as well as genetic transmission of behavior. Some argued ( e.g Cavalli Sforza 1982, Boyd and Richerson 1985, Durham 1992), a Darwinian framework for models of cultural evolution. It is essentially an expanded view of Darwin’s evolution based on inclusive fitness and models for direct phenotypic transmission of behavioral traits. This expanded view of evolutionary processes and the capacities of an ancestral primate species provide a sufficient basis for modeling the emergence of the culturally framed forms of social organization that characterizes modern Homo sapiens. The transition to the forms of social organization that characterize human societies also involved a fundamental shift to evolution, driven by the transmission of conceptual systems underlying social organization rather than transmittal of individual traits .The barrier represents the difficulty in maintaining a coherent form of social organization in the face of an evolutionary trend towards increased individuation of behavior as exemplified in the transition from the cercopithecines (Old World monkeys) to the apes. This increased individuation led to the potential reduction in the coherency of social organization that was resolved among the pongids either through reduction of the size of social units or through partial solutions to the problem of maintaining social coherency in the face of extensive individualization. A more complete resolution of the conflict between individuation and social coherency depended upon a shift away from social organization arising from a genetic/individual learning/ individual-interaction foundation to social organization constructed around a conceptual system for interaction that transcended individual fitness as the primary basis for evolutionary change.

As noted a half-century ago by the structural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss: “It seems as if the great apes, having broken away from a specific pattern of behavior, were unable to re-establish a norm on any new plane. The clear and precise instinctive behavior of most mammals is lost to them, but the difference is purely negative and the field that nature has abandoned remains unoccupied” (1969[1949]:8).

Evolution of biologically based cooperative patterns of behavior driven by inclusive fitness as a way to overcome the problems introduced by individuality are limited by the shallow depth of biological kin relations that can be activated among the non-human primates. Accommodation of individualized Observations on primate behavior in the wild have documented, as Yerkes (1927) foresaw, the role of social, as well as genetic transmission of behavior. Some argued ( e.g Cavalli Sforza 1982, Boyd and Richerson 1985, Durham 1992), a Darwinian framework for models of cultural evolution. It is essentially an expanded view of Darwin’s evolution based on inclusive fitness and models for direct phenotypic transmission of behavioral traits. This expanded view of evolutionary processes and the capacities of an ancestral primate species provide a sufficient basis for modeling the emergence of the culturally framed forms of social organization that characterizes modern Homo sapiens. The transition to the forms of social organization that characterize human societies also involved a fundamental shift to evolution, driven by the transmission of conceptual systems underlying social organization rather than transmittal of individual traits .The barrier represents the difficulty in maintaining a coherent form of social organization in the face of an evolutionary trend towards increased individuation of behavior as exemplified in the transition from the cercopithecines (Old World monkeys) to the apes. This increased individuation led to the potential reduction in the coherency of social organization that was resolved among the pongids either through reduction of the size of social units or through partial solutions to the problem of maintaining social coherency in the face of extensive individualization. A more complete resolution of the conflict between individuation and social coherency depended upon a shift away from social organization arising from a genetic/individual learning/ individual-interaction foundation to social organization constructed around a conceptual system for interaction that transcended individual fitness as the primary basis for evolutionary change.

Interpretation of origin of human behavior

From fossil evidences

Human behavior can sometimes be well established from fossil evidences. The cut marks on the Bodo Skull can be considered as the best example in this regard .These marks well indicate cannibalism or ritual behavior.(White,1986, 1987; Deacon & Deacon, 1999).

Similarly, information on postural or locomotion, activity levels, can be gathered from postcranial remains. There are various such materials from African Middle Pleistocene and early later Pleistocene fossil postcrania which exhibit both primitive and derived traits (Stringer, 1986; Solan & Day, 1992; Churchill et al., 1996; Pearson & Grine, 1997; Groves, 1998; McBrearty et al., 1999). The changes from robust mobility to gracile mobility marking the advent of modern anatomical features of limbs can be well documented from such fossil data. (Churchill et al., 1996; Pearson et al., 1998; Pfeiffer, 1998). This better flexibility of the limbs favoured better hunting and close encounters with prey. (Trinkaus, 1987).

Together with this fossil evidences of limbs and extremities also denote geographical adaptations , nutritional status of the populations and the like. Fossils found in the late glacial Europe had limb proportions of that of the tropical regions. This suggest that use of culture was more helpful in adaptations rather than physical adaptations. (Trinkaus, 1981; Torrence, 1983;Foley, 1987; Ruff, 1994; Holliday, 1997, 1998, 2000; Pearson, 1997). Presence of lower incidence of Harris’ lines and enamel hyperplasia suggest nutritional stress factors in the juvenile populations of the Neanderthals (Bermu´dez de Castro, 1988; Ogilvie et al., 1989; Brennan, 1991; Trinkaus, 1995) from contemporary non human primates

Because fossil and archaeological records provide limited data concerning behavior and social organization, researchers turn their attention to other sources of information to help reconstruct our past. Modern hunter-gatherers, for example serve as analogues for reconstructing how our ancestors adapted to their environment and how they may have made and used tools. Nonhuman primates are our closest phylogenetic relatives and are studied to generate information about ecological and behavioral adaptations. Comparative discussions of human and nonhuman social behavior seem particularly vulnerable to culturally loaded generalizations with the assumption that they are true of all people. Despite these constraints, a comparative approach yields useful information and is a main reason why we can deduce a fair amount of information about the social organizations and behaviors of long-extinct humans from their cultural and skeletal remains.

From the viewpoint of reconstructing human evolution, studies of the chimpanzee have generalized many suggestions concerning our ancestral behavior and social organization. Of special interest are the facts of chimpanzee intelligence, communication, sociability, and adaptability, duration of the mother-infant tie and sibling relationships, bipedalism, extent of object manipulation and tool use, heavy reliance on plant foods and some predation, and the important roles that social tradition and the environmental context have on social organization and behavior (Tanner, 1981).

Boesch-Achermann and Boesch (1994) in a study, said that, hunting behavior and meat eating also show remarkable variability. Chimpanzees of the Tai Forest cooperate in hunting colobus monkeys.

And among the same species, the ranking male of the group shares the meat with the female who killed the monkey before other males have a chance to share the meat.

One of the best known researchers on Chimpanzee is Jane Goodall, whose studies begun in 1960 in the Gombe Stream reserve, Tanzania, have added significantly to our knowledge about chimpanzees and have provided insights for the earliest stages of human evolution. Goodall however has documented a number of instances of chimpanzee tool use and manufacture. Goodall, 1964 saw chimpanzees break off grass stems or thin branches, which they poke into termite holes to get at the termites. If the probe does not fit the hole the chimpanzee shapes it until it does. Leaves are stripped away to make the tool suitable for “termite fishing”. After termites become attached to the probe , the chimpanzee runs the probe across its front teeth and eats the termites. Thus a tool used is also made.

Communication is universal among animals and includes unintentional, autonomic responses and behaviors that convey meaning. Such attributes as body posture convey information about an animal’s emotional state, e.g. a crouched position indicates a certain degree of insecurity or fear, while a purposeful striding gait implies confidence. Many intentional behaviors also serve as communication. In primates, these include a wide variety of gestures, facial expressions, and vocalizations, some of which we humans share.

Primates also use a wide array of vocalizations for communications. Some, such as the bark of a baboon or food grunt of a chimpanzee are made to inform others. primates also communicate through displays which are more complicated, frequently elaborate combinations of behaviors. Indeed, if primates are not reared within a relatively normal social context, such behaviors may not be performed appropriately because the contextual manifestations of communicatory actions are learned. But the underlying predisposition to learn and use them and the motor patterns involved in their execution are genetically influenced.

Over time, certain behaviors and motor patterns that originated in specific contexts have assumed increasing importance as communicatory signals. For example, crouching initially aided in avoiding physical attack. In addition, this behavior conveyed that the individual was fearful, submissive and nonaggressive. Thus, crouching became valuable not only for its primary function, but for its role in communication as well and natural selection increasingly favored it for this secondary role.

Evidences of past human behavior can be drawn from the archaeological remains. One such major behavior event was the disappearance of the Acheulian industry before 200 ka It was replacd by the Middle Stone Age (MSA) traditions. This was followed by the appearance of earliest modern humans about 150,000 years later, who were the makers of the Upper Palaeolithic technology. Hence, the origin of Homo sapiens coincide with the origin of the Upper Palaeolithic. The MSA tools were totally different from their Acheulian counterparts, mostly made on flakes struck from prepared cores.

Moreover these tools were hafted to wooden handles and used which suggest emergence of anatomical modernity.

The Neolithic or New Stone Age (NSA) beginning before 10,000 years ago in some areas of the world marks the most pivotal changes in human history: the shift from food gathering to food production. Like the changes from the Paleolithic to Mesolithic the transition to the NSA occurred gradually. The archaeologist V. Gordon Childe (1951) used the term “Neolithic Revolution” to describe the origin and impact of food production –plant cultivation and domestication. Neolithic now refers to the first cultural period in a given region in which the first signs of domestication are present. The Neolithic economy based on food production produced substantial changes in human lifestyles. The pace of social and cultural change increased enormously. Human populations were thus modifying the reproductive patterns of certain plants and animals to propagate certain characteristics better suited to their own needs. Gradually this process yielded plants and animals that were distinct from wild species and dependent on humans, the process that is referred as domestication. In addition to a dramatic increase in population, the Neolithic period is also marked by increasingly sophisticated material culture, social stratification, and political complexity. These trends set the stage for the emergence of states in many parts of the world.

The origin of language

The origin of fully syntactical language was again a “human revolution”.( Mellars, 1991; Noble & Davidson, 1991, 1996; Klein, 1992, 1995; Mithen, 1994, 1996). The earliest signs of language can be traced from various studies, e.g., from the study of the brain( Falk, 1980, 1990; Holloway, 1983, 1985; Deacon, 1997), the speech apparatus (e.g., Falk, 1975; Lieberman, 1975, 1984; Arensburg et al., 1990; Lieberman et al., 1992; Kay et al., 1998), stone tools (e.g., Wynn, 1979; Dibble, 1989; Toth & Schick, 1993), or primate communication (e.g., Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990; Savage- Rumbaugh & Rumbaugh,1993).The studies and observations made on the nonhuman primates contribute to a sense of continuity, rather than discontinuity between human and nonhuman primate cognitive and communicative abilities (e.g., Parker & Gibson, 1979, 1990; Gibson, 1993; Gibson & Ingold, 1993; Mellars & Gibson, 1996). As language does not fossilize, and technology provides only a certain level of insight , it can be inferred that some form of language originated early in human evolution, (Wobst, 1983; Wynn, 1985; Goren-Inbar, 1988). and a variety of languages may have arised . (Dibble, 1989; Foley, 1991b; Graves-Brown, 1994).

Behavior and human origins

There are several physical characteristics, such as adaptations for bipedal locomotion and an enlarged brain, that characterize humans and to varying degrees, our hominid ancestors. But from a structural point of view, humans are not really that unique when compared with other primates, especially the great apes.

It is the behavioral attributes that most dramatically set humans apart, and long ago culture became our strategy for coping with life’s challenges. No other primate even comes close to the human ability to modify the environment. Communication through symbolic language is yet another uniquely human trait. Several other features differentiate humans from the majority of other primates. These traits may be found in one or more other primate species, but only humans can claim them all:

Humans are bipedal.
Humans live in permanent bisexual social groups with males often bonded to females.
Humans have large brains relative to body weight and they are capable of complex learning.
Humans can think symbolically and they use language , a communication system that is symbolic in nature.
Humans have adapted culture.
Humans obtain food through some male-female division of labor.
Human females experience concealed ovulation so that they are sexually receptive throughout the year.

These traits are characteristic of all modern humans. Humans reflect their evolutionary heritage as primates and stand as one component of a biological continuum. It is this evolutionary relationship, then, that accounts for many of the behaviors we have in common with prosimians, monkeys and apes. Upper palaeolithic culture is often used as the landmark for modern human behavior. This is in much contrast to the Middle Palaeolithic culture produced by the Neanderthals (White, 1982; Clark & Lindly, 1989, 1991; Hayden, 1993; Klein, 1995; Mellars, 1995).

The following points can be considered important in characterization of modern human behavior.

Diverse variety of artifacts Arrival of blade tools
Bones used as tools and ornaments
Arrival of art, ornaments etc.
Prepared spaces for living
Practice of rituals
Various economic resources, like exploiting aquatic resources requiring specialized technology
Exploring wider geographical ranges.
Tools used by hafting
Arrival of bone tools
Efficient control of fire
Covering longer distance to procure raw material
Large game hunting requiring specialized hunting methods
Exploring quatic and vegetable resources
Use of pigments to colour
Ritual and burial objects found

The above points may at a glance reflect what Childe (1928,1950) used to define culture. In other words it can be said that modern human behavior is characterized by:

The ability to think in an abstract manner
The ability to plan things and organize strategies before acting upon them.
Innovative ways or changes in behavior, specially in economy and technology.
The ability to use symbols, both vocal and visuals to communicate with others.
The ability to observe and understand the environment and plan accordingly.
The advanced technology suggesting in depth planning.Foraging societies

Because events in the prehistoric past cannot be directly observed, the anthropologists can reconstruct them only from material evidence recovered in modern times. Such reconstruction is based on analogy, whereby the identity of unknown forms is inferred from those already known. Ethnoarchaeology utilizes living populations for reconstructing our past. For example, we can gain insights from populations of modern foragers about a way of life that was a basic part of our evolutionary past. One individual to study foragers as a guide to the past was Richard Gould (1968a,1968b, 1969), who worked in the Gibson Desert of western Australia with a two family group of thirteen aborigines. These people were once among the few people in the world still making and using stone tools regularly. He and his wife observed the details of tool making, hunting, camping, composition of living floors and the aborigines’ extremely complex system of social behaviors. The Australian aborigines’ remarkable adaptation to their rather harsh desert environment includes a technology similar to that of a toolmaker of 30,000 years ago. A common tool is the “adz flake” which is thick with a fairly steep edge. It closely resembles scrapers common to many prehistoric sites.

Increased geographic range

Human populations started exploring new geographic ranges and expnding their habitats. This was possible with the improved technology leading to complex societies. (Torrence, 1983; Klein, 1989b; Davidson & Noble, 1992; Jones, 1992; Soffer, 1994; O’Connell & Allen, 1998). This can be traced back to the African MSA.As these sites are found in almost all the corners of the continent, it can well be said that there was population expansion leading to exploration of various places. Clark (1993), states that , the MSA hominids were better equipped and adapted to their new challenging and unexplored areas.

Desert and forest adaptations need special mention here. In the Sahara, Namib, Karoo, and Kalahari deserts, lie sparse Acheulian sites.

The information is much lacking due to the following facts:

Proper data from these sites are lacking,

Acheulian bifaces are found more in number in comparison to other sites and the then environmental conditions are yet to be known.

Some of the sites occupied have been dated to be the Middle Pleistocene (Miller et al., 1991, 1993) . Some studies suggest lake, and spring deposits stating a more wet environment.. (Wendorf et al., 1993a,b; Churcher et al., 1999; Nicoll et al., 1999). There were widespread habitation in Sahara during between ca. 90 ka and ca. 40 ka. There were occupations in varying habitats including marine, mountain and semi-arid desert (Marks, 1975; Williams, 1976; Clark, 1980; Debenath, 1994; Kleindienst, 2000b). Deacon (1989) suggests MSA occupations in contrast to Acheulian. Water containers were used suggesting transporting water to longer distances. However, forest adaptation was found to be completely different. Bailey et al., 1989, suggests that, human groups cannot solely depend on foraging. There has to be a source of carbohydrate production economy. The technology of the Sangoan industry may have provided the equipment necessary for a forest adaptation (Clark, 1981).

Social organization

As mentioned although, there were diverse forms of MSA tools of varying degrees. Appearance of projectile points reflects regional traditions. The use of such wide range of artifacts suggests complex social organization of the populations. Manufacturing, using and bringing in varying degrees of aerodynamic and hafting requirements bring together a lot of individuals. Hence, a good communication has to exist among the individuals (Wilmsen, 1974; Knecht, 1993). The maker, the hunter had to be close to each other (Yellen, 1977; Lee, 1979). Different individuals belonging to different ethnic groups exchanged their projectiles (Chase & Dibble, 1987). Thus dependence on each other led to complex social organizations.

Conclusion:

Behavior is a highly complex trait and must be seen not only as being influenced by specific gene products, but also as the product of interactions between genetic and environmental factors that are not yet fully elucidated. Indeed the ability to learn is ultimately based in the genome inherited by individuals of any species. Between species there is considerable variation in the limits and potentials for learning and behavioral plasticity (capacity to change in a physiological context).

A dispute arises when trying to establish the actual mechanics of behavioral evolution in complex social animals such as primates. There is a need to determine which primate behaviors have a genetic basis and how these behaviors influence reproductive success.

Source:HomeExploreSearchYou

Summary

Primate behavior, like human behavior, is highly social.

- This presentation has concentrated on social behaviour, because, to some extent, it’s what’s most interesting and also what makes non human primates so like us.
- However, behaviour also include locomotion (running, jumping, walking and climbing) and specifics of foraging behaviour.
- Socio-biological principles give us the tools to objectively investigate these things, but we shouldn’t be blinded by the perfection of the method.
- Primates are very social creatures. They express themselves in social situations through a variety of behaviors, including grooming (a bonding behavior).
- Primate social groups reflect the complexity of their social relationships.
- Group structures can range from one male with several females to groups of many males and females to solitary individuals.
- Primates show both competitive and cooperative behaviors, all of which can be studied within an evolutionary context.
- Primate researchers have long been collecting evidence that nonhuman primates have culture, particularly material culture or the ability to make simple objects to alter their environments (e.g., stick tools to fish for termites).

In the end, most behavioural studies just give clues to the big picture, and the picture itself needs to be pieced together like a jigsaw. And like most of these things, it is open to interpretation too.

you can view video on Transition to Apes/ Difference between Pongid and Hominid

References

Aiello, L. and M. Collard, 2001, Our newest oldest ancestor?, Nature,410: 526-527.
Alvard, M. S., 2003, the adaptive nature of culture, Evolutionary Anthropology 12:136- 149.
Buettner-Janusch,J 2012, Evolutionary and Genetic Biology of Primates, Volume 2, Elsevier.
Call,J.,1997, Primate Cognition, Oxford University Press, USA.
Dart, R. A. (1925). Australopithecus africanus: the man-ape of South Africa. Nature, 115, 195–199
David Van R., 2013, From Primitives to Primates: A History of Ethnographic and Primatological, Sidestone Press.
Goodman, M. (1963). Man’s place in the phylogeny of the primates as reflected in serum proteins. In S. L. Washburn (ed.), Classification and human evolution (pp. 204–234). Chicago: Aldine Press.
Hawks, John (2004). “How much can cladistics tell us about early hominid relationships?”. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125 (3): 207–19. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10280.PMID 15386256.
Keith, A. (1931). New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man. London: Williams and Norgate.
Potts,R. ( 1998). Environmental Hypotheses of Hominin Evolution, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 41: 93-136.
Le Gros Clark, W. E. (1934). Early forerunners of man. Baltimore: William and Wood.
Simpson, G. G. (1945). The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 85, 1–350.
Stern, J and R. Susman, 1983, The locomotors anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis, American Journal of Physical Anthroplogy,60: 279-317.
Tappen, N.C. (1953). American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 55, No. 4, (Oct., 1953), pp. 605-607
Valkenburgh, B (2007). Déjà vu: the evolution of feeding morphologies in the Carnivora. Am Zool 47: pp. 147-163
Winterhalder ,B.( 1980) Environmental Analysis in Human Evolution and Adaptation Research Human Ecology, Vol. 8, No. 2 (135-170),
WoldieGabriel, G., 2001, Geology and paleontology of the Late Miocene Middle Awash Valley, Afar rift, Ethiopia, Nature412:175-178.
Wood, B and M.Collard, 1999, the Human Genus, Science 284:65-71.
Woodward, A. S. (1925). The fossil anthropoid ape from Taungs. Nature, 155, 235–236.

Links: Accessed on 22.3.15

anthro.dss.ucdavis.edu/people/…/1996WinterhalderEvolAnth1996.pdf Accessed on 22.3.15
luna.cas.usf.edu/~rtykot/ANT3101/primates/evolution.html Accessed on 22.3.15
origins.swau.edu/papers/man/hominid/ Accessed on 24.3.15
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588461/Tertiary…/Primates Accessed on 24.3.15
www.researchgate.net/…Transition…Hominid…/0046351e039001c19e00 Accessed on 22.3.15
www.researchgate.net/…pongids_and_hominids…/0c96051b89a18c0cff… Accessed on 22.3.15
http://www.jstor.org/stable/i227357 Accessed on 24.03.15