Homo Erectus

Body size is one of the most important determinants of the biology of a species, as it correlates with life history, energetic expenditure, diet, thermoregulation, and home range size, among other factors. Although the evolution of body size within the genus Homo is an important issue, the most influential large-scale studies have been performed over 20 years ago, with a recent interest in this issue only in the last few years. In the meantime, the widely accepted interpretation that there was a major shift in body size with the origin of Homo ergaster/erectus when compared Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, and australopithecines has come under criticism. Recent analyses have demonstrated that body size within early Homo is spatially and temporally variable, only showing significant increase in the Koobi Fora region after 1.7 Mya (Will & Stock, 2015). Broad temporal analyses of body size have highlighted the significant increase in body mass during the late Middle and Late Pleistocene (Ruff, 1997), and that brain size increases correspond closely with body mass increases throughout the Pleistocene (Grabowski, 2016). Even though new body size data is now accumulating rapidly for various parts of the hominin record (Arsuaga et al., 2015; Grabowski et al., 2015;  Will & Stock, 2015), no study comparable to the scope of Ruff et al. (1997) has since been performed.
In this paper we investigate taxonomic, spatial and temporal variation in two components of body size within the genus Homo: body mass and stature. We combine size estimates of hominin fossils from our own studies with other published data, resulting in the largest sample for a single study so far (n=319). The body size estimates cover roughly four million years (4.1 Mya – 11 ka) and derive from African, European and Asian specimens, including several genera and species of hominins. This data set allows for a detailed assessment of body size evolution within the genus Homo and relative to earlier hominins.
Analyses of the body size estimates demonstrate that: a) the origins of the genus Homo are characterized by a significant increase in body size compared to australopithecines and paranthropines, but also feature abundant spatial and temporal variation within an enlarged size range; b) members of Homo erectus/ergaster are marked by a diversification in body mass and stature rather than directional increase; c) a consistent and universal increase in body size is only established in Middle Pleistocene hominins (e.g. Sima de los Huesos, Atapuerca; Homo heidelbergensis), Neanderthals and modern humans after ca. 0.5 Mya; d) selection against smaller body mass and stature occurred in the late Early and Middle Pleistocene, and; e) there are no simple latitudinal trends in the variation of body size estimates within Middle and Late Pleistocene Homo in Europe. These results have implications for studies concerned with human dispersal and encephalization, and more generally for how we interpret the evolution and biology of our genus. In light of the above, rather than focusing exclusively on species means and unidirectional models, perspectives that emphasize spatio-temporal variability and phenotypic plasticity might be more fruitful frameworks for interpreting the evolution of body size in our genus.

"Since its first description in 2004, Homo floresiensis has been attributed to a species of its own, a descendant of H. erectus or another early hominid, a pathological form of H. sapiens, or a
dwarfed H. sapiens related to the Neolithic inhabitants of Flores. In this contribution, we apply a geometric morphometric analysis to the skull of H. floresiensis (LB1) and compare it with skulls of normal H. sapiens, insular H. sapiens (Minatogawa Man and Neolithic skulls from Flores), pathological H. sapiens
(microcephalics), Asian H. erectus (Sangiran 17), H. habilis (KNM ER 1813), and Australopithecus africanus (Sts 5). Our analysis includes specimens that were highlighted by other authors to prove their conclusions. The geometric morphometric analysis separates H. floresiensis from all H. sapiens,
including the pathological and insular forms. It is not possible to separate H. floresiensis from H. erectus. Australopithecus falls separately from all other skulls. The Neolithic skulls from Flores fall within the range of modern humans and are not related to LB1. The microcephalic skulls fall within the range of modern humans, as well as the skulls of the Neolithic small people of Flores. The cranial shape of H. floresiensis is close to that of H. erectus and not to that of any H. sapiens. Apart from cranial shape, some features of H. floresiensis are not unique but are shared with other insular taxa, such as the relatively large teeth (shared with Early Neolithic humans of Sardinia), and changed limb proportions (shared with Minatogawa Man)."

We have all asked ourselves when art first appeared; when humans first drew, painted, engraved, or sculpted forms in order to transmit concepts and ideas different from their formal materiality. It is not easy to answer that question because the information is based on archaeological evidence (with the limitations that this implies in terms of the object and the contextualization of its chronology and use) and modern conditioning factors about the understanding of the objects. The first consideration is obvious: what is art? To discuss this would be to enter an unending debate. To avoid that, as it is not the objective of this book, it is preferable to express our position directly. Art is a tangible creation through which the author, either an individual or a representative of a society, potentially transmits an idea or concept which goes (or may go) beyond formal materialization; a “formal vehicle” that a person or a group endows with a particular meaning. Therefore, it is a formal constructed graphic language, perceived and understood by the members of the human group that created it and which may also possess a potential meaning beyond the “precise moment” of its creation and thus possess a sense of timelessness. It should also be added that art is not necessarily associated with beauty. The current state of discussion of this topic in our discipline has demonstrated that aspect of beauty forms part of the “vehicle” of the meaning that the forms generate in the observer and interpreter of the graphic creation. This is to say that with a greater perception of beauty (something that pleases the eye and, by extension, the “spirit” of the observer), there is great ease of comprehension and/or acceptance of
the message. The study of the origins of art, or graphic languages, is not simple as we do not possess all the evidence that would enable a precise conclusion. However, archaeology, with the material evidence that has reached us and which it has succeeded in discovering, is endeavoring to seek the origins. It is a constant and intense search in which scientific debate is not out of place.

The Sangiran Dome is the primary stratigraphic window for the Solo Basin, a coastal feature on the Pliocene–Pleistocene Sunda subcontinent south margin. In the Dome, the Lower Lahar unit (LLU) is a lahar-type debris flow overlying near-shore marine sediments. The event that emplaced the LLU likely originated from sector collapse on a neighboring volcanic edifice. Freshwater mollusc fossils in the LLU indicate that swamps or shallow lakes lay between the edifice and the current Dome area. 40Ar/39Ar analyses on hornblende separates from six pumice lenses suggest that the LLU was deposited as early as 1.90±0.02 Ma. The event resulting in deposition of the LLU transformed late Pliocene near-shore marine environments into estuarine and marsh settings. Shortly thereafter, glacioeustatic sea level falls completed the local transition to fully terrestrial environments that attracted Homo erectus to southernmost Sunda in the Early Pleistocene.

... This question is still debated among the authors, but the convergent point of view brings new light on the multi-regionalism hypothesis within Homo. This Asian point of view sheds light on the older European evidence of human inhabitants. Article Outline. ...