2345ÿ670ÿ8ÿ9

ÿ ÿ ÿ
 ÿ

ÿÿ3  ÿ
3ÿ
ÿ
5
ÿ58ÿ2345ÿ670ÿ
3  ÿ58ÿ2345ÿ6703!!3"7"7ÿ
ÿ8ÿ677ÿ
ÿ
#ÿÿ#ÿ!$ ÿ ÿ#ÿ3  %ÿ&
ÿ#ÿÿ 'ÿÿ#ÿ(
 ÿ ÿÿ
#ÿ#ÿ$ %ÿ
ÿ
3  ÿ)*ÿ
6%ÿ3 'ÿ +ÿ'ÿ,ÿ#ÿ,' ÿ(
 ÿ ÿ-
ÿ.77ÿ'ÿ$#%ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"7/"ÿ
01ÿ345674ÿ80904:07;<=:>:9:?@Aÿ6;Bÿ06CBÿ07DÿBE:>41ÿ
F1ÿ36BEGBBÿH:C676I0;6:7ÿ
E1ÿJ<0;ÿD:ÿ@:GÿG7D4=B;07DÿF@ÿK654L0@Bÿ07DÿMNONÿQRSTUVQÿQRSTUVQWÿ
ÿ
ÿ
3  ÿ)**ÿ
"%ÿÿ3 'ÿ#ÿ,' ÿ(
 ÿ ÿ-
ÿ".7ÿ'ÿ$#%ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ67/"ÿ
01ÿJ=6;4ÿB<:=;ÿ7:;4Bÿ:7ÿ;<4ÿ5:99:L67?ÿ
61ÿ X;=0;6?=0><@ÿ
661ÿ Y0C0>6;<4EGBÿ
ÿ
Z%ÿÿ3 'ÿ +ÿ'ÿ,ÿ#ÿ,' ÿ(
 ÿ ÿ-
ÿ6.7ÿ'ÿ$#%ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ./"ÿ
61ÿ [\:9G;6:7ÿ07Dÿ[];67E;6:7ÿ:5ÿ^GB;=09:>6;<4EGBÿ
661ÿ _:C>0=6B:7ÿF4;L447ÿ̀407D4=;<09ÿC07ÿ07DÿMNONÿQRSTUVQÿ
6661ÿ a\4=\64Lÿ:5ÿ9654ÿ<6B;:=@ÿ07DÿF6:9:?@ÿ:5ÿMNONÿUbUcdeQÿ
ÿ
3  ÿ)***ÿ
0%ÿÿ3 'ÿ#ÿ,' ÿ(
 ÿ ÿ#ÿ-
ÿ".7ÿ'ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ67/ZfZ7ÿ
01ÿ36BEGBBÿ̀:=C0ÿ\4=;6E096B1ÿ
F1ÿ345674ÿ:B;4:C4;=@1ÿ34BE=6F4ÿ67ÿF=645ÿg4CG=1ÿ
E1ÿ36BEGBBÿ67ÿF=645ÿD6554=47;ÿC40BG=4C47;Bÿ:7ÿG970ÿ07Dÿ=0D6GB1ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ

0ÿ
 AJAY-9971313179

ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE (2020-2021)

BANC-104: HUMAN ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions
given in the Assignments. These Sample Answers/Solutions are prepared by Private
Teacher/Tutors/Authors for the help and guidance of the student to get an idea of how he/she can
answer the Questions given the Assignments. We do not claim 100% accuracy of these sample
answers as these are based on the knowledge and capability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample
answers may be seen as the Guide/Help for the reference to prepare the answers of the Questions

9
given in the assignment. As these solutions and answers are prepared by the private teacher/tutor so
the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied. Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though

17
every care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/Solutions. Please consult your own
Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a Particular Answer and for up-to-date and exact information, data
and solution. Student should must read and refer the official study material provided by the
university.

13
Assignment –I
Q1. Answer any two of the following questions in about 500 words each.
(a) Define Palaeoanthropology, its aims and scope.
13
Ans.
97
-9
AY

Paleoanthropology is commonly considered as the study of human fossils and a descriptive and
broadly narrative discipline that is dominated by poorly researched and media-friendly “findings”
that cause changing views on the process of human evolution. Today’s paleoanthropology or human
palentology is a sub discipline of evolutionary biology that aims to describe, analyze, and interpret
the process of human evolution mainly through a vast set of inductive approaches and deductive
AJ

hypothesis testing. The palaeoanthropological approach helps to reconstruct our evolutionary history
from the recovery and analysis of any relevant fossil evidence. Current palaeoanthropological
research does not only ask what our forerunners looked like and when, where, and how they evolved
but also specifically asks, for example, why humans evolved while other primate species died out. In
paleoanthropology-as in other life sciences with a chronological perspective-the experiment is the
historical process of nature itself (Henke and Tattersall, 2007).
AIM: Paleoanthropology is the study of human evolution and that of our closest living relatives, the
other primates. Humans, of course are primates and paleoanthropologists recognize the importance
of understanding primate evolution as a necessary condition in understanding human evolution. This
is the reason primate evolution is most commonly considered a part of paleoanthropology as opposed
to the larger field of vertebrate paleontology. Paleoanthropology also includes a variety of other fields
that contributes to the study of various areas like human evolution and variation. These include
 AJAY-9971313179

primate biology, systematics, ecology, genetics and geology. And of course, since
paleoanthropologists are interested in the behavior of fossil humans, and since many of these humans
left material evidence of their behaviour in the fossil record, the analysis of this record. Paleolithic
archeology is also a major part of paleoanthropology. Because the material evidence of the behavior
of fossil humans is so ubiquitous, while it is essentially non-existent in other animals,
paleoanthropology is unique among the historical sciences (Begun, 2013).
SCOPE OF PALEOANTHROPOLOGY
To adequately understand human bio-cultural evolution, we need a broad base of information.
Paleoanthropologists recover and interpret all the clues left by early hominins. It is a diverse
multidisciplinary pursuit that seeks to reconstruct every possible bit of information concerning the
dating, anatomy, behaviour, and ecology of our hominin ancestors. In the past few decades, the study
of early hominins has marshaled the specialized skills of many different kinds of scientists. This

9
growing and exciting adventure includes, but is not limited to, geologists, vertebrate paleontologists,
archeologists, physical anthropologists and paleoecologists.

17
Geologists, usually working with other paleoanthropologists, do the initial survey to locate potential
early hominin sites. Many sophisticated techniques can contribute to this search, including aerial and
satellite photography. Vertebrate paleontologists are also involved in this early survey work, for they
can help find geological beds containing faunal remains where conditions are favorable for the
preservation of bone from such species as ancient pigs or baboons, conditions may also be favorable

13
for the preservation of hominin fossils. Paleontologists can also (through comparison with known
faunal sequences) give quick and approximate ages of fossil sites in the field without having to wait
for the expensive and time-consuming chronometric analyses.
Once identified, fossil beds likely to contain hominin finds become the focus for further extensive
13
surveying. For some sites, generally those postdating 2.6 mya (the age of the oldest identified human
artifacts), archaeologists take over in the search for hominin material traces. We don’t necessarily
have to find remains of early hominins themselves to know that they consistently occupied a
particular area. Such material clues as artifacts inform us directly about early hominin activities.
97

Modifying rocks according to a consistent plan or simply carrying them around from one place to
another over fairly long distances (in a manner not easily explained by natural means, like steam or
glaciers is characteristic of no other animal but hominins (Jurmain et al., 2011).
Palaeoanthropology being an offshoot of anthropology and archaeology focuses on the reconstructing
-9

the modern human on evolutionary lines working on biological indicators e.g.petrified skeletal
remains, bone fragments, footprints and cultural information as stone tools, artifacts, and settlement
localities. With such broad spectrum of this branch, palaeoanthropology is broadly of significance in
AY

educating about our past and that of nature and economic applications.
(b) Discuss Hominization
Ans. During Miocene epoch, the global climatic changes lead to the cold environment on the earth
which induced open terrestrial biomes and reduction of tropical forest. Over time, the size of tropical
forest decreased and broke up into mosaic where patches of forest were interspersed with savannah
AJ

grassland. As forest shrank, the traditional ape food available on trees became scarce. In response to
these ecological change primates came down from the trees and inhabited the terrestrial ecosystem
(Havilandet al., 2011). They used to spend more time on the ground. This necessitated foraging food
on the ground such as seeds, grasses, roots and others. Eventually they became adapted to exposed
terrestrial environment. In due course of time evolution lead to biped locomotion, large brain size,
tool making behaviour, development of language and culture, which are significant in defining what
makes a hominid a hominid. These evolutionary processes which lead to the development of human
characteristics distinguished from primates are known as hominization. Thus, hominization could be
understood as a multidimensional morphogenesis arising from the interplay of ecological, cerebral,
socio-cultural and genetic factors. The process of hominization was intensified by the prolonged
infancy and childhood which demand affective ties between generation and associated potential for
cultural learning (Wulf, 2012). Now, we humans or Homo sapiens are a culture-bearing, upright-

2
 AJAY-9971313179

walking species that lives on the ground and evolved between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago
(Encyclopedia Britannica).
BIPEDALISM
Of all extant primates, humans are the only obligate bipeds (Harcourt-Smith and Aiello, 2004). The
erect bipedal posture we possess have been evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor (Richmond et
al., 2001). Though some of the primates can assume bipedal posture but only for a short duration that
is when peering over tall grass or carrying objects in the hands. Chimpanzee and Gorilla are capable
of much longer periods of bipedality but when on the ground they are normally quadrupedal and in
knuckle walking stance. True bipedalism is represented only by humans (Swindler, 1996). Over the
last several million years of evolution, these characteristic have developed independently at different
rates. These patterns, in which physiological and behavioural systems evolve at different rates is
called mosaic evolution (Jurmain et al., 2014).

9
Bipedalism in humans is the outcome of a large number of adaptive musculoskeletal traits which
completely transformed human lineage. Such adaptive traits have resulted from long term

17
modifications in the vertebral column, the pelvis, the lower limb and the foot.
Evidences for Bipedalism: The fundamental distinction between us and our closest relatives is not
our language, not our culture, not own technology. It is that we stand upright, with our lower limbs
for support and locomotion and our upper limbs free from those functions”, said Richard E. Leakey, a
palaeontologist. History of Human Evolution Paleoanthropologists mark the divergence between

13
apes and hominids with the adaptation of bipedalism five to six million years ago. However, the
process of becoming a fully efficient biped took much longer and was not complete until Homo
erectus at 1.8 million years ago (Friedman, 2006). Hominid footprints preserved in the ash fall of a
volcanic eruption some 3.5-3.8 million years ago (during Pliocene period) at Laetoli site in northern
13
Tanzania represent the earliest evidence of bipedalism in human evolution. These footprints were
discovered by Mary Leakey in the late 1970s and are believed to be the imprints of Australopithecus
afarensis, the earliest known hominid group (evolutionary lineage that also includes our species
Homo sapiens; Jurmainet al., 2014).
97

Anatomical Changes: Have you ever noticed the movement of your limbs when you walk? We
maintain the balance on one leg when the other leg swings. Both feet are simultaneously on the
ground only about 25 per cent of the time and this figure becomes even smaller as speed of the
locomotion increases. Thus, maintaining a stable center of balance during upright walking
-9

necessitated many drastic structural and functional changes particularly in the limbs and pelvis.
a) Shortening and broadening of pelvis and stabilization of weight transmission
b) Repositioning of foramen magnum forward, the opening at the base of skull from which spinal
AY

cord emerges.
c) Addition of curves (backward-thoracic, forward-lumbar) in spinal cord to transmit the weight of
the upper body to hips in upper in an upright position.
d) Lengthening of hind limb and large bicondylar angle.
e) Structural changes in foot
AJ

OPPOSABLE THUMB AND MANUAL DEXTERITY

A diminutive thumb with long and curved fingers is typical characteristics of a primate hand (Midlo,
1934). In contrast, the human hand has an opposable thumb combined with fingers that have
shortened and straightened. Although apes also share the trait of opposability of thumb but it is only
the ability of humans to grip objects firmly in order to manipulate them (Marzke and Marzke, 2000).
Human thumb also displays a greater degree of mobility in comparison to other primates which
makes it unique and distinctive (Young, 2003).
The discovery of fossil hand bones assigned to a 1.8-million-year-old specimen human ancestor
Homo habilis at Olduvai Gorge in the early 60’s, has put forth a general agreement that the
anatomical reconstruction of the hand during human evolution was somehow linked with tool
behaviour. This approach is consistent with evidence that early hominid bipedal behaviour would
have ‘freed the hands’ for greater use of tools (Young, 2003).

3
 AJAY-9971313179

During the prolonged period of evolution, the hand underwent profound changes that adapted it for
grasping objects in a manner that allows gripping with strength sufficient to withstand a violent
impact and precise control of release. Napier identified them as ‘power’ and ‘precision’ grips. In the
power grip, the object may be held in a clamp formed by the partly flexed fingers and the palm where
counter pressure being applied by the thumb lying more or less in the plane of the palm while in the
precision grip, the object may be pinched between the flexor aspects of the fingers and the opposing
thumb (Napier, 1956).
(c) What do you understand by Lifeways of Homo sapiens sapiens?
Ans. Homo sapiens sapiens is estimated to have emerged from Africa between 200,000 and 130,000
years ago, thereby displacing other hominids in the rest of the world. Around approximately 60,000
years ago Africa remained home to modern humans, while other hominids, particularly Homo
erectus and Neanderthals, were in Asia and Europe, respectively. Quite gradually, small groups

9
migrated out of Africa to nearby continents suitable for human habitation after climate changes. Early
human societies in sub-Saharan Africa relied on foraging for much of their subsistence, living off the

17
available flora and fauna of the region. The adaptability of these early societies allowed them to
exploit different sources of food and develop different tool kits to allow them extract resources from
the environment terms of hunting, food processing, and the manufacture of implements from stone
and other raw materials. Some early human communities developed portions of the landscape to
accommodate sedentary lifeways centered on agriculture. Through the use of fire as a way to clear

13
brush and forests, thereby establishing dominion over the land, these early settlements developed
farmland and grazing fields. Early art work found in the region depicts a variety of foraging and
hunting activities, as these remained the primary mode of human sustenance. During the Neolithic,
agricultural surpluses allowed for the establishment of craft specialization outside of agriculture, the
13
development of political structures, and the creation of more complex belief systems. Through this
process human domesticated both plants and animals, selecting both seeds and breeds that illustrated
desirable characteristics and ensured survival and adaptability to human needs. The clearing of fields
and forests continued along a more systematic course of landscape development as settlements
97

increased in size and density. Livestock was maintained as an integral source of sustenance and was
provided with food and protection from predators (Andrea & Neel, 2011).
The lifeways of prehistoric communities worldwide between 10,000 and 4000 BCE can be broadly
classified into two groups: hunting-gathering and farming. This distinction places food acquisition as
-9

the major force in human activity, not least because it underpins most aspects of social activity as well
as facilitates trade and structures the division of labour. Hunting and gathering were the most
AY

widespread means of food acquisition circa 10,000 BCE. Paleolithic people worldwide used wood and
stone tools for hunting, but as the last ice age ended, tool kits altered. Innovations included increased
tool diversity and the production of microliths (i.e., small scrapers, blades, and points that would
have been crafted in wood). In some regions there was also an increase in tools made from antler and
bone. In Europe such innovations appear to have been a response to a changing environment, notably
AJ

a shift from relatively open habitats to early interglacial forests, and have led archaeologists to
describe the culture as Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age, which lasted until circa 5000 BCE. In the Near
East this stage is not represented, and the Paleolithic gave way to the Neolithic or New Stone Age,
which is associated with the inception of agriculture. Mesolithic cultures comprise the Maglemosian
in northern Europe, the Beuronian in central Europe, the Epigravettian in the Mediterranean zone,
and the Sauveterrian in Western Europe. Neolithic people were also hunter-gatherers who began to
adopt a more sedentary lifeway as farming became established. Neolithic people also practiced
rituals, as evidenced by human figurines and plastered skull found at some sites. The early farmers
did not have pottery and belong to a period circa 8500 to 7500 BCE that is known as the pre-pottery
Neolithic. It is distinguished from the earlier Natufian period by a more varied stone tool assemblage,

4
 AJAY-9971313179

including an increased range of pounding and grinding tools. Pottery making dates from 7500 BCE
and marks the establishment of a new technology in the region. Settlements continued to grow and
diversify as agriculture expanded. By 5000 BCE new technologies were developing, namely metal
smelting, that initially involved the exploitation of copper ores, which gave rise to the Copper Age
and the Bronze Ages, and later iron ores. Jewelry made from stone, clay, bone and shell and later
from metals was also produced. Such technologies broadened the range of goods for trade and reflect
the increasing sophistication of societies in which craft specialization occurred. Agriculture thus
allowed a proportion of society to engage in activities other than food acquisition. From the Fertile
Crescent agriculture spread into Europe, Asia and Africa where it became a major cause of
environmental change and especially of deforestation. Neolithic Revolution brought marked change
in lifeways from the stage of hunting and gathering to food production (i.e. plant cultivation and

9
animal husbandry). The emergence of agriculture as sustained subsistence was neither accidental nor
purely intentional. Instead, it resulted from the dynamic interplay of various factors, both external

17
(i.e., relating to the conditions of environmental ecology) and internal (i.e., posing a challenge to
human adaptive strategies). The earliest signs of a trend toward sedentism are found in the ancient
Near East, in the context of ecological changes that affected human living conditions. In response to

13
the ecological changes, humans retreated to areas where wild grass was still available. In the
vegetational refugia, humans adapted to local ecology and exploited the food resources intensively.
The chain reaction of events during that phase of a shift from mobility to sedentism illustrates that the
impulse for that development was sparked by ecological changes that in turn induced responses of
13
human intentionally to cope with those challenges (Andrea & Neel, 2011).
Assignment –II
Q2. Answer the following questions in about 250 words each.
97

(a) Write short notes on the following

(i) Stratigraphy
Ans. It is one of the oldest and the simplest relative dating methods. Stratigraphy is a branch of
geology that is concerned with stratified soils and rocks, i.e. soils and rocks that are deposited as
-9

layers. Stratigraphy is basically the study of the sequence, composition and relationship of stratified
soils and rocks. If we go to the countryside where there are some hills, we can see different layers of
rocks which may be horizontal or inclined. Each layer can be differentiated from the other layer on
AY

account of the difference in colour, chemical composition or texture. Each layer represents a time
period when the process of deposition of sediments continued uninterrupted in one manner. The next
layer represents a change in the process of deposition. There are two fundamental principles of
stratigraphy: uniformitarianism and superposition. Uniformitarianism is a fundamental unifying
AJ

doctrine of geology, which was originally conceived by British geologist James Hutton in 1785 and
subsequently developed and explained by Sir Charles Lyell in 1830 in his ‘Principles of Geology’.
According to this principle, the geologic processes now operating to modify the Earth’s crust have
acted in the same manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that
past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today. In a nutshell the
expression, “present is key to the past”, explains uniformitarianism.
Superposition is one of the principles of stratigraphy, which is commonly utilized in a relative dating
method. The principle was first given by a Danish scientist, Nicholas Steno in 1669, who is also
considered to be the father of stratigraphy. According to this principle, the oldest layer lies at the
bottom and the youngest layer lies at the top, in undisturbed strata. He also pointed out that beds of

5
 AJAY-9971313179

sediment deposited in water initially form as horizontal (or nearly horizontal) layers. As layers
accumulate through time, older layers get buried underneath younger layers.

9
17
13
13
The layer-A that was deposited earlier lies at a lower level and is, therefore, older than the overlying
layers B to F which were deposited subsequently. Though we may not know how old each layer is
but, among the layers A to F, we can tell which one is older than the other. In this way the relative
time relationship of rock layers and the fossils or artifacts buried in them can be understood. But this
97

principle should not be applied blindly. The principle is applicable where the normal order of
superposition of the rock layers has not been disrupted by natural or human agencies. It is well
known that natural diastrophic movements can disrupt the normal order of superposition through
folding and faulting of the rock strata. As a consequence older rocks may come to lie over younger
-9

rocks. Human or animal agencies can also disturb normal order of rock layers through digging for
burials where relatively younger artifacts may come to lie at relatively older levels.
AY
AJ

(ii) Ramapithecus
Ans. Simons and Pilbeam in 1965 re-examined much of the known fossil hominoid material and a
more rigorous evolutionary scheme for the hominids was produced. Simons and Pilbeam
undoubtedly did the palaeoanthropological profession a great service in their landmark revision of
the then known hominoids. This revision, however, was based partly on a desire to stamp the
evolutionary significance on ‘Ramapithecus’ as the Miocene human ancestor. Originally discovered in
the Siwaliks of India in the 1930s, ‘Ramapithecus’ was argued by Lewis (1934, 1937) to represent the

6
 AJAY-9971313179

earliest identifiable Miocene proto-human. Simons argued on the basis of the anatomical features of
the dental complex that ‘Ramapithecus’ was a Miocene early human ancestor. Simons and Pilbeam
argued that the presence of human features such as small canine teeth, thick molar enamel, enlarged
premolar and molar dental complex and a parabolic (rounded) dental arcade placed ‘Ramapithecus’
at the stem of the human evolutionary tree (Cameron, 2004).
Geographical Distribution: For a while it looked as if Ramapithecus was a hominid genus restricted
to India. However, in 1961 Dr. Leakey reported the discovery of some fossil maxillae, parts of which
contained teeth. This material came from the Fort Ternan site in Kenya, about 40 miles east of Lake
Victoria. Leakey called his new form “Kenyaoithecus”. He designated it a hominid and most
paleontologists agree with his hominid designation. However, many disagree with his generic
designation and prefer to include the material within the genus Ramapithecus. Fossil traces of
Ramapithecus occur not only in Africa and India, but also in the coal beds of human province in

9
China, the Jura Mountains of southern Germany, and perhaps in north-central Spain. There is also the
possibility of Ramapithecus in Greece. This latter material, which was found by German soldiers

17
during the Greek occupation in World War II, is now in the possession of Dr. G. H. R. von
Koenigswald in Holland. Since it seems likely that Ramapithecus moved freely about the world’s
savannas and forests, they may have had a rather widespread geographical distribution. This
indicates that they must have been highly adaptable and quite capable of dealing with a variety of
circumstances (Poirier, 1973).

13
The generic status (that its place in the taxonomic scheme) of Ramapithecus from India is based upon
the following characteristics, most of which Lewis noted in his 1934 description. The jaws are short,
small, and delicate. The teeth are small in comparison with pongid teeth and they approach the
hominid condition. Among the many dental features of Ramapithecus that are common to later
13
hominids but atypical of pongids, Simons (1968) notes the following: very small canines, small
premolars relative to the molars, and a P3 (first premolars) not markedly larger than P4 (second
premolar). The premolars manifest anterior, central, and posterior foveae (depression of the crown),
the occlusal (crown) surfaces of the cheek teeth are expanded, the molars are steep-sided and the
97

lingual (tongue side as opposed to the buccal, which is the cheek side) cingula (that is, raised portion
of enamel) are vertical or absent, and there is marked interstitial wear (wear between adjacent teeth),
which indicates a crowded teeth row. In addition, the dental arch is divergent (or parabolic, the
distance between the rear teeth is greater than the distance between the front teeth) while that of
-9

pongids is parallel. It is possible, from the degree of dental wear, to postulate that the delayed
maturation characteristic of modern man was already present in his early ancestors. The delay in
maturation rates is important, for the slower the growth rate, the longer the infant is dependent upon
AY

its mother. This is a basic first step for a longer period of socialization, which is a prerequisite for
culture (Poirier, 1973).
Controversy Regarding the Taxonomy of Ramapithecus: There are controversies regarding the
taxonomy of Ramapithecus and they are based on several facts. The existing understanding of
Ramapithecus is based on a little more than two dozen fragments, primarily of teeth and parts of jaw
AJ

that have been discovered since the first discovery reported in 1934 by G. Edward Lewis. The early
discovery made Lewis to make out a new form that he termed as Ramapithecus (Wolpoff, 1982).
Thereafter, a number of fossils were found from different localities and each was recognized as new
forms and were attributed a series of names such as, Kenyapithecus, Graecopithecus, Rudapithecus,
Sivapithecus, based on the geographical localities at which they were found (Conroy and Pilbeam,
1975). But, in 1965, Simon and Pilbeam analyzed the entire series and suggested that all the forms
actually consist of two species groups i.e. Sivapithecus and Rudapithecus. They considered
Sivapithecus as ape like and hence as an ape ancestor and Rudapitheicus possessing a number of
hominid- like features were thus entered as an early hominid ancestor.
In 1968, Simons noted the main alternative views concerning Ramapithecus are two. First,
Ramapithecus may be some sort of aberrant, relatively small-faced ape that is only coincidentally
morphologically like the hominids. And second, there are not now enough pieces available to judge

7
 AJAY-9971313179

conclusively whether or not Ramapithecus is a hominid. (This second difficulty is sometimes met by
calling Ramapithecus a dental hominid, referring to the fact that all we possess is dental evidence that
looks hominid.) Simons answers these qualifications in the following manner (Poirier, 1973).
Naturally, the alternative that the taxonomic relationship of known specimens of Ramapithecus is
uncertain can be considered a form of scientific caution and is a point of view which may be adopted
for other reasons as well. Nevertheless we should not overlook the fact that a primate reason for so
doing is that is the easiest course of action to take. Considering these forms intermediate requires
neither anatomical knowledge nor study of the actual materials (Simons, 1968).
The Hominid Status of Ramapithecus: Pilbeam (1972) discusses the question of the hominid status of
Ramapithecus as follows: Morphologically the Ramapithecus material suggests that it was an animal
with dental and facial features characteristic of later hominids. On scanty paleontological evidence it
can be on the line leading to Australopithecus and Homo, after this lineage split from the other

9
hominoids. Therefore, the question of whether or not Ramapithecus is hominid depends upon where
one chooses to recognize the split of the hominids from hominid-pongid stock. This boundary is

17
likely to be arbitrary, and of the three sets of paleontological criteria used to differentiate hominids
from pongids, cranial features, dentition, and postcranial remains, only the dentition from
Ramapithecus is known. This dentition is more hominid than pongid like. It has been suggested that
perhaps Ramapithecus is simply a female representative of Dryopithecus indicus. However, Simons
and Pilbeam (1972) note that all the material indicates that D. indicus was a much larger animal than

13
Ramapithecus and their teeth were also much larger than those of Ramapithecus (Poirier, 1973).
Q3. Answer any two of the following questions in about 150 words each.
(i) Evolution and Extinction of Australopithecus
Ans. From the late Miocene through the Pliocene and into the Pleistocene-about -1 mya-the earliest
13
hominids began to evolve. These diverse hominids had increasingly specialized diets, and their
cranial morphology reflected this specialization. They experienced no appreciable change in brain
size or body size. Thus, evolution focused on mastication. A new genus of and species of hominid,
Homo habilis-having a larger brain and reduced chewing complexmade its appearance. At that time,
97

Australopithecines were diverse, evolving, and a significant presence on the African landscape. This
gracile hominid-Homo habilis likely evolved from an australopithecine, and the ancestor may have
been A. garhi. This point in human evolution is critically important because it is the earliest record of
a remarkable adaptive radiation, leading to the most prolific and widespread species of primate:
-9

which is US.
Changing Trends from Late Australopithecine to Early Homo:
1) Increase in Brain Size
AY

2. Reduction in the size of face

3. Reduction in chewing complex
AJ

8
 AJAY-9971313179

(ii) Comparison between Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens.

Ans. The physical structure of Neanderthal man resembles with Homo sapiens(True man or modern
man). But one finds some differences in physical features, too. The stature of Neanderthal man was
small. Its height varied between 5 ft to 5’5’’ ft. head was big, nose flat but pointed, shoulder flat and
head sloping downwards. Fingers were not flexible like modern man. He could not stand keeping his
neck erect. He could not walk continuously. Cranial capacity was more than modern man. But head
belonged to lower category. His brain possessed weak power of seeing and touching. Probably he
was able to speak but had not developed language. Although the scholars like Ashley and Montague
have attempted to show that Neanderthal man resembled with modern man to a great extent, but
some other scholars do not agree with this opinion. They believe that Neanderthal man possessed
physical demerits and was not similar physically to man. Previous scholars held view that
Neanderthal belonged to genus Homo but they were not true man or Homo sapiens. The believer of

9
this view had isolated Neanderthal man from Homo sapiens. According to them Neanderthal was a
semi human species. These semi human species were defeated by Homo sapiens of upper Palaeolithic

17
period. The Homo sapiens of upper Palaeolithic period had defeated them and established their
control over Europe. But recent discoveries made at Swansecombe, Steinheim and Fontechevade have
revealed the remains of such human species who belonged undoubtedly to Homo sapiens. It seems
probable that in the early period of glaciations such human species came to settle down in Europe
who resembled Homo erectus. The evidence of Heidelberg man bears testimony in this regard. Those

13
human species gave rise to Homo sapiens in lower Palaeolithic period. But when Europe met with
fourth terrible glaciation in middle Palaeolithic period, a branch of Homo sapiens were left isolated.
This branch of Homo sapiens represented Neanderthal. Due to isolation in glacial period, some
changes in physical features of their body took place. They began to appear different from Homo
13
sapiens. Thus, Neanderthal man was basically related to Homo sapiens(Pandey, 2010).
iii. Overview of life history and biology of Homo erectus
Ans. H. erectus was a large-bodied, large-brained, moderately sexually dimorphic hominin whose
ranging patterns were significantly enlarged over those of earlier hominins. The energetic costs of
97

maintaining enlarged body and brain size suggest the occurrence of a shift to a higher-quality diet,
some part of which likely included increased emphasis on meat and marrow acquisition. Maternal
costs must have been differentially larger due to both carrying and birthing large-brained neonates.
Data from extant dispersals and models of fossil dispersals suggest that increasing body size, greater
-9

reliance on animal food resources, and increased range size were part of an ecomorphological web of
factors that facilitated the initial hominin dispersal from Africa. Developmental rates appear to have
been somewhat faster in H. erectus than are those of modern humans, but an adolescent growth spurt
AY

cannot be rejected. Changes in growth between H. erectus and H. sapiens sapiens include
heterochronic shifts in cranial vault growth. The data support the idea that the H. sapiens vault is
neotenic relative to H. erectus, and suggest either that size increase led to changes in shape, due to the
increased efficiency of the shape of a sphere over more angular forms, or that behavioral flexibility
and juvenilization of the brain are linked phenomena in the evolution of human skull form (Antón,
AJ

2003).
Assignment –III
Q4. Answer the following questions in the about 250 words.
(a) Discuss Norma verticalis.
Ans. For the purpose of morphological study a human cranium is observed from five different
positions or normas viz., norma verticalis, norma frontalis, norma lateralis, norma occipitalis and
norma basalis. Such studies of the normas help understand the shape of a cranium from particular
views. Secondly, such study helps to observe relative contribution of different cranial bones in
structuring a particular aspect. Thirdly, different surface characters of a particular aspect of the
cranium can be studied. Finally, studies of the normas are essential, rather indispensable, in
comparative craniology with apes’ crania and also in comprehending evolutionary changes in
cranium. For example,-

9
 AJAY-9971313179

Norma verticalis study helps to understand the general contour of the skull, the eminences, the
nature of the sutures, and also the size of the skull.
i) The general outline of this aspect is oval or rounded pentagonal-the angular points are situated, two
on the frontal, two on the parietals and one on the occipital. The contour is broader behind than in
front.
ii) In this view, portions of four cranial bones are visible viz., frontal, two parietals and occipital.
iii) The area is traversed by three sutures – (a) Coronal suture, placed between the posterior border of
the frontal bone and the anterior borders of the parietal bones; (b) Sagittal suture, placed on the
median plane between the interlocking upper borders of the two parietal bones; (c) Lambdoid suture,
placed between the posterior borders of the parietal bones and superior border of the occipital bone.
iv) The sagittal suture connects the other two sutures the meeting point with the coronal suture is
termed bregma, and that with the lambdoid suture is lambda.

9
v) Temporal lines are seen to rise from anterior corners of the frontal bone, diverge progressively as
they proceed posteriorly.

17
13
13
97

(b) Define osteometry. Describe in brief Femur.

Ans. Osteometry, a branch of Anthropometry, is engaged in taking measurements of bones of human
-9

skeleton other than those of the skull. As biological anthropology intends, primarily, to study human
variation as well as evolutionary development, osteometry provides the basis of comparative
anatomy with respect to physical dimensions of the bones. Such measurements also help understand
AY

sexual dimorphism and bilateral asymmetry (in case of paired bones). Some of the measurements can
be taken directly on the bones, while some others are measured on scientific drawings of the bones.
Femur: The femur is the longest bone in the human body. The femur extends from the hip joint to the
knee joint. It consists of upper and lower ends and a shaft. The upper end has a large rounded head, a
neck and a greater and a lesser trochanter. The head of the femur projects medially into the
AJ

acetabulum of the hip bone. The lower end of the femur consists of the two condyles – the lateral and
medial condyles, which articulate with the head of the tibia (of the lower leg) and then patella
(kneecap). The shaft of the femur at the anterior side is nearly cylindrical and convex while it is
thinnest at the middle and widens more near the lower end when compared to above.
• Physiological Length: It measures the projective distance between the highest point of the
head and the tangent to the lower surface of the two condyles.
Instrument Used: Osteometric Board.
Method: The bone is placed in the Osteometric board with the condyles touching the
transverse vertical wall and the anterior surface upward. The bone will naturally lie
obliquely. Then the movable vertical piece is made to touch the head. Value of the
measurement is recorded directly from the graph paper.

10
 AJAY-9971313179

• Girth of Middle of Shaft: It measures the circumference in the middle of the shaft, measured
at the level of the sagittal/transverse mid-shaft diameter.
Instrument Used: Steel Tape.
Method: The tape is wound around the mid-shaft region, transverse to the long axis, and the
value is recorded.
• Length-Girth Index: Girth of Middle of Shaft/Physiological Length X 100.
(c) Discuss in brief different measurements on ulna and radius.
Ans.

9
17
13
13
97
-9
AY
AJ

11