Hi,

Are you asking if there are any hypotheses explaining how Neandertal and modern human diverged or something more global ?

Neandertal appears in Europe from an aboriginal European population corresponding in its broad sense to an European Homo erectus (call H. heildebergensis). Hence, there is not clear cut between anté neandertal populations and neanderthal ones. We observe that individual gets more and more neandertal characters during time. It is the accretion model. Modern human evolves from an aboriginal African population (East Africa).

Neandertal disappearance are still under debate, but see Voisin 2006 (attached with this answer)

Sorry I thought it was possible to add a file. See Voisin 2006 paper entitled "Speciation by distance and temporal overlap: a new way of understanding Neanderthal evolution" available on my profile.

Best

Thanks Jean-Luc. I have to read it in the library but from the abstract I understand that there is no explanation as to WHY the evolution actually took place or what was the environmental stressor and how was the N better adapted to the new environment. It could be that the paper attributes everything to drift but I have to read the paper itself.

Dear Miki,

First I want you to know what has made our species so special in the animal world.

Before to give you my explanation, I first googled about “What made humans human”?, because I still cannot believe that I’m the only man in the world who can provide a satisfying answer. But still we meet the series of speculative answers, such as: bigger brains, long living, cooking (Wrangham), running. The major question hereby is of course: what made our species so special that our ancestors got bigger brains, became long-living, started with cooking (so losing their instinctive fear for fire), and so on.

Where is the simple solution: developing names for the things?

Because all those scientists have not yet the right idea of 1. what we mean by names for things and 2. what disposing of names for things does with an animal.

Ad 1. All group animals dispose of their specific means of communication (without it they couldn’t be group animals anyhow). But all animal calls, cries, squeals, and more emotional expressions and warnings belong to the ‘stimulus-response’ sphere. The food-cries’ of the chimpanzees they only produce at seeing fruit. They even have s special food-cry for [meat]. But the can produce this cry only at seeing meat; they cannot produce it consciously at thinking on meat or craving for it. Our earliest ancestors were apes also. How they learned to make names for things consciously? By imitating with their hands what they had in mind. How this ability emerged? Therefore I had to speculate a ‘just-so-story’. But that’s not a shame. The astronomers had to speculate their ‘Big Bang”, to be able to explain all cosmic phenomena thereafter. So is my ‘big bang’-story: speculative but explaining everything thereafter, such as our linguisticness, our domesticating the fire, our religiousness, and all other characteristics and events. It is too long to explain it here, go to my website www.humanosophy,org and there I explain it point by point.

Ad 2. Imagine for now that first Australopithic ape-men group wherein the first names for things emerged. I find it more convenient to give this first group a name. Frans de Waal says they most have looked like the contemporary bonobos, so let we name them ANBOS (ancestor bonobos). What did disposing of names for the things with those animals?

a. it created a feeling of distance between the namer and the named thing, between subject and object. The ANBOS began to objectivate the things of their environment

b. having a name for the saber-toothed tiger gives you a feeling of having a ‘grip’ on it, a feeling of power over it. Names are a violation of a person’s integrity (in tribal communities one cannot ‘name’ an adult with his name, one has to circumscribe a person; Jews are not allowed to ‘name’ their god). It was this feeling of power over the fire that did then lose the instinctive fear for it and to start to use it

c. it enabled the ANBOS to transfer knowledge, acquired in one generation, to the next; knowledge could be stacked up

d. it enabled the ANBOS to brainstorm; two know more than one, and with a whole group you van tackle big problems; each’ individual intelligence can become part of the common consulting (this is the power of democracy, compared to despotism)

e. The ANBOS could plot; together with their using if fire they turned from afraid little bands op ape-men into the terror, the ‘hooligans’, of the savanna.

What do you think, Miki? I think no scientist will object to these five characteristics of the disposing of names for things. If they internalize them, they will realize that these characteristics made our species so special in the animal world.

Now over to your question: explaining the Early Humans. On my website you read what was the effect of disposing of the fire did with the ANBOS: they could spend the nights on the ground, protected from the predators by the camp fire. Much more hours were added to their days: nightly hours, only usable for communication. In relatively short time their proto-language evolved into real language – on my website I explain how. With the better food by cooking (Wrangham) they became larger and more human-like, they evolved to Early Humans.

So far my explanation of the Early Human evolution. When you want also learn their transition into AMHs (Anatomic Modern Humans, or outmoded named H.sapiens), I hear from you.

Here follows a formulation of the American Museum of National History in New York, that I found googling “what made humans human?”

While some other species can solve problems and communicate with each other, only humans use symbols to re-create the world mentally and dream up endless new realities. Although humans have not lost their selfish motivations, symbolic thought has opened our minds to spirituality and a shared sense of empathy and morality. (Am. Museum of Nat. History NY)

Not bad at all. But where can we read how humans came to use symbols? Where is the human origins story of the Museum, that provide them (and us) with this insight?

As long as we cannot provide this story, the field is free for the creationists, such as

…defining what characteristics separate man from the animals that closely resemble him, such as chimpanzees and gorillas, still has not been completely resolved by secular science. (Institute for Creation Research)

Frans and Christina many thanks. I know Green et al. 2010. As far as I remember It doesn't propose a hypothesis regarding WHY the world needed another species., Maybe your answers can help me focus the question a little bit more. Does anybody knows of a hypothesis that was published concerning the environmental pressure that led to the evolution of spience and neandertal?. for early humans, the formation of large areas of savanna or rapid changes in weather were suggested but I couldn't find any such hypothesis concerning later spiecies.

Frans regarding calling names and its effects on humans you may want to look up Jhon Zarzen and Primitivism

Dear Miki,

Concerning Neandertal evolution one explanation could be genetic drift. The ante-neanderthal populations may have evolved into neandertal not because of adaptations but just because of the genetic drift. The first populations were characterized by very low density, which may have been promoting such phenomenon. This genetic drift is coherent with my hypothesis of speciation by distance.

PS : I have found how to add a publication to my answer. Thus I have attached my paper about Neandertals and speciation by distance.

Best

Jean-Luc

Chapter Speciation by distance and temporal overlap: a new approach ...

Thanks for the paper. These books are an anti-science device. I wonder if increase in brain size, which I believe is derived in Neandertals can happen by drift. It seems too costly.

Jean-Luc Hi

I have read the paper and found it very interesting and convincing. To my mind some of the variation between Near Eastern and European Neandertals can still be explained by adaptations to different environments. You cite a paper by Trinkaus "The evolutionary origins of the Neanderthals or, why were there Neanderthals?" so I guess he does deal with the subject but again it is locked in a book that doesn't exist in our library.

Hi Miki

I am pleased you found my paper interesting and convincing. I agree with you that all neandertal traits would not be explain by genetic drift. Some traits must be adaptive, but it is not always easy to differentiate traits origin. Moreover, it is possible that some traits which appeared by genetic drift could at least be useful.

I have scanned the paper you ask. It is attached below.

Jan-Luc I don't know how to thank you for the Trinkaus paper. It was of great help. As I understand it he doesn't really propose a hypothesis but says that such hypothesis will have to explain the Neandertal's carnio-facial biology. I am writing a research proposal and wanted to state that no one has proposed a hypothesis for why either H. sapiens or H. neanderthalensis evolved. I find it hard to believe, especially regarding the increase in brain size where no argument exist regarding the derived status. I feel more confident in making this statement now at least regarding the Neandertal.

Hi Miki,

Don't worry, you may help me one day :). Let me know about your research proposal.

Best

Jean-Luc

Hi Jean-Luc

Yes I have some idea for a paper that you might be helpful with. Lets see what my professors say about it. They usually like to look inside for help. I am just a lowly doctoral candidate.

Best

Miki

Miki

The attached chapter from a recent book for which I am the co-author doesn't answer why there should be neanderthals in the first place, but does address some of the issues regarding what differentiates them in the European area and why the neanderthals died out as a deme.

Dwight Read

Dwight Hi

Many thanks for the chapter. It seems to me that the extinction of the Neandertal must be one of the most researched subject in Paleoanthropology, probably because it help us define ourselves (the winners). I have started reading the chapter and your angle seems to be an interesting addition to the discussion. As you say yourself the question of why we needed to be so smart and organised in the first place, as far as I can see, has not been dealt with by researchers.

One hypothesis that I now remember is the social complexity hypothesis. I tend not to agree with it as our brain size has gone down during the last 20k years at the same time that social complexity exploded.

Dear Miki Ben-Dor,

I find your question amazing. >>>why either H.sapiens or H.neanderthalensis evolved?

Dear Frans Couwenbergh

Thanks for your remarks. What if I rephrase the question as: "What environmental pressure caused the particular adaptation of increased brain size in humans from 900cc in H. erectus to 1500cc in H. sapiens"?

@Miki

Most people (students and researchers are people too) are interested in the question "What made us humans? What made our species so special in the animal world?" - for myself it is even my only subject of study.

In the 30 years or so long study I have learned to reject brain size as a means to arrive at clean answers. For me brains are in a way similar to muscles: the more you use them, they are the greater. It is the behavior which causes bigger brains, not the other way around. So our study has to be concentrated on the behavior. Which behavior made our earliest ancestors leave behind the animal world and to go on their way to become humans? (And to develope in passing larger brains?)

The conventional interest in brain size is due to the fact that brain pans relatively often are being found fossilized, and that the contents can so pleasant easily be measured in ccs. For me it is a sort of a relapse in the 19th century phrenology or craniometry. Waist of time imo.

@Frans

May be I need few more years in this business to understand your point of view. The question here is indeed in the line of "what made us human" (sapiens in this case). Change attracts scientific attention. We have two connected species one following the other chronologically. To me the question of why the change occurred (or what made the change occur) is a basic scientific question. Whether the clue to the reason for change is in the size of the brain is another question. A valid question in my opinion is what created the need for such a large "muscle".

@Miki

>>>The question here is indeed in the line of "what made us human" (sapiens in this case).

Thanks Frans. I did manage to read some. Change in fauna is indeed a possibility. Nice portraite.

The interesting question is: Why did the evolution of our (mainly) African ancestors diverge from that of the Neanderthals in a way that resulted in the replacement of the Neanderthals by Africans? That it is a cognitive divergence is suggested by the observation that 100,000 years ago when Neanderthals and moderns met in the Levant, the material culture of the two groups was of similar complexity. But when the moderns replaced the Neanderthals in Europe 40,000 years ago, they had a far superior toolkit, cave painting, and all the rest. It is unlikely that tropical climates are generally more favorable than cold or harsh climates to the evolution of higher intelligence. The evolution of modern humans over the last 40,000 years gives absolutely no hint that this may be so, and some people believe that the opposite is the case. I believe the key is a difference in population size. According to one estimate, the population density of Neanderthals in Europe was only one tenth of that of the Cromagnons who followed them. At their cognitive level, the Neanderthals must have been less efficient than the Cromagnons at extracting the local food resources. The Neanderthal genomes sequenced so far suggest low genetic diversity, and there are indications of inbreeding. There must have been frequent extinctions of local Neanderthal populations in Ice Age Europe and Siberia, reducing total genetic diversity. My conclusion: Neanderthals were handicapped by low population size, low genetic diversity, and a shortage of favorable new mutations for natural selection to act on.

Thanks Gerhard

Actually I am writing a paper about Neandertal extinction so have read quite a bit about the subject. I think you are right about the limited genetic diversity. My paper deals with the initial environmental stress that the Neandertal were ill equipped to adapt to..

@Gerhard,

>>>It is unlikely that tropical climates are generally more favorable than cold or harsh climates to the evolution of higher intelligence.

Thanks Frans. Sounds plausible.

What explains the evolution of H.neand. & H.sapiens?

A simple biological approach can explain a lot IMO.

Both Hn & Hs had archaic Homo ancestors, who show brain enlargement, flat & long skull, very heavy bones, projecting nose, head-spine-legs in 1 line, intercontinental dispersal etc. All these characteristics are typically seen in littoral mammals e.g. early Cetacea (pakicetids). All archaic Homo fossils are found in association with edible & sometimes marine shellfish (Munro 2010): when H.erectus & relatives colonized different continents (e.g. Mojokerto 1.8 Ma, Flores >800 ka), they apparently simply followed the rivers & coasts, where their diet included waterside & shallow water foods (cf stone tool use) incl.stranded whales & carcasses of drowned herbivores etc.

Hn fossils are found at coasts (Med.Sea, Gibraltar etc.) & more often near rivers, often oxbow lakes or beaver ponds + cattails, waterlilies etc. Hn had an even larger brain than He (Hn>Hs>>He), a very projecting nose & mid-face (Hn>He>>Hs), but less heavy bones (He>Hn>Hs), which suggests that Hn more & more ventured inland along rivers (initially seasonally? following salmon or so?).

Hs (Herto & Omo

I have proposed a theory that the evolution of modern H. sapiens involved the evolution of an innate ability to engage in creative scientific reasoning. The art of tracking may well be the origin of science. Science may have evolved more than a hundred thousand years ago with the evolution of modern hunter-gatherers. My book "The Origin of Science" can be downloaded at http://www.cybertracker.org/science/books or https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Louis_Liebenberg/publications/

Thanks Marc

It is nice to see that an "outside" theory like the "Aquatic Ape" is receiving serious attention. I am not sure however that the fact that " All archaic Homo fossils are found in association with edible & sometimes marine shellfish (Munro 2010), if indeed true, lend strong support to the theory. To my knowledge most archaeological sites do not contain marine shellfish or fish bones but do contain large animals' bones. Proximity of archaeological sites to lakes and rivers is easily explained by the need of humans to consume water on a daily basis and for that and for other reasons, movement along seashores and rivers is expected in pristine landscapes. Still, the question remains, if H. erectus was clever enough to survive for such a long period, say on marine resources, why a larger brain (Hs and Hn) was needed to survive in later periods.

Hi Miki

Your question, if H. erectus was clever enough to survive for such a long period, why a larger brain (Hs and Hn) was needed to survive in later periods. The driver for a larger brain would have been population pressure together with periods of climate change resulting in environmental change. In particular, the evolution of H. erectus and H. sapiens coincided with periods of extreme drought in Africa. The need to survive changing environments provided selective pressure for higher intelligence.

My theory is that H. erectus practiced systematic tracking, while H. sapiens practiced speculative tracking. The evolution of speculative tracking required creative hypothetico-deductive reasoning, which resulted in the origin of scientific thinking. This is what made H. sapiens different from H. erectus. The evolution of scientific thinking would also have involved the co-evolution of complex language, art and complex social relations.

Louis I agree with you and I loved your book "The art of tracking and the origin of science". I think too many researchers write about archaic hunters and gatherers but have no idea what it really means to hunt down animals on a consistent basis. Your book should be a part of any bibliography of paleoanthropology.

Thanks Miki. Yes, I agree that a lot of assumptions about prehistoric hunting underestimates the cognitive abilities required to track down animals. Have a look at my new book "The Origin of Science" (2013). I have added a lot of new evidence from the last 20 years (since my 1990 book) and believe I can now make a much more substantial case for my theory. You can download a free copy of my book.

Hi Miki, AFAIK all archaic Homo fossils are found in association with shellfish, see refs below. Note I said "archaic" (meaning platycephaly etc.) & "shellfish" (not fish). Fish bone fossils are not easy to find (fragile etc.), but isotopic data suggest it was sapiens rather than archaic Homo who had more fish & (water?)fowl in their diet (Richards cs 2001 PNAS). Archaic Homo on their journey around the globe probably dived regularly (pachyostotic skulls are exclusively seen in littoral animals - no reason why erectus must be an exception), they probably collected shellfish (stone tool use) but didn't fish presumably: they were probably too slow & heavy. Malacology (on shellfish) is usu.neglected in archaeol.studies, but the recent work of Stephen Munro shows that virtually all archaic Homo fossils (i.e. not australopiths, sapiens etc.) are found in association with edible shellfish, google "econiche Homo" & more specifically S.Munro 2010 "Molluscs as ecological indicators in palaeoanthropological contexts" PhD thesis Austr.Nat.Univ.Canberra & our joint papers in 2011 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods" HOMO J.compar.hum.Biol.62:237-247 & "Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?" :82-105 in M.Vaneechoutte cs eds 2011 "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy: Waterside Hypotheses of Human Evolution" eBook Bentham Sci.Publ.

You ask "if H. erectus was clever enough to survive for such a long period, say on marine resources, why a larger brain (Hs and Hn) was needed to survive in later periods?"

- The period was not necessarily "long", we don't know how for how long they frequently dived, e.g. they might have been more diving during glacials & more wading during interglacials, or v.v.?

- Marine resources: no doubt: pachyostosis, and how else did they reach Flores (>18 km overseas)? or spread as far as Indonesia, the Cape & England?

- Larger brain "needed"? We don't know, we can only say that CC was Hn>Hs>>He, and that very larger brains are seen in many (semi)aquatic mammals: DHA? iodine? & other brain-specific nutrients at the water(side)?

I think we can see our evolution as follows: early hominids (ape ancestors incl.australopiths etc.) were swamp forest & wetland dwellers, but when during Ice Ages the sea level dropped, vast continental shelves around the Ind.Ocean (tree-poor? shellfish-rich?) became availabe for dextrous Homo (poor fossilisation, however, 100 m below sea-level today, except e.g. Mojokerto, Sangiran: tectonic uplift?). Slow & shallow diving was at some time part of their food collection. Shellfish consumption probably required more tools & dexterity (cf sea otter), which might have led to more wading, e.g. following migrating fishes, collecting cattails at the waterside, butchering carcasses of drowened ungulates etc. Possibly the richer & varied foods (DHA etc.) led to larger brains, and as soon as they could make composite or distance weapons (spears, harpoons), their diet could shift from shellfish to fish & from diving to wading. Essentially we still walk on terra firma like we waded in shallow water: very long & stretched legs, basicranial flexion, high skull vaults, flat faces etc.

See my 2013 paper "The aquatic ape evolves: common miscon¬ceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" Hum.Evol.28:237-266 [email protected], or the proceedings in Hum.Evol. on Peter Rhys Evans' symposium (with David Attenborough & Don Johanson) in May 2013 on human waterside evolution.

Louis, you say: "My theory is that H.erectus practiced systematic tracking, while H.sapiens practiced speculative tracking." I have to disagree with this: biologically, erectus was a semi-aquatic species, they rarely walked on terra firma, let alone ran: they were much too heavy, had dorso-ventrally flatted femora, very broad bodies & pelvises (iliac flaring facilitated femoral abduction, but hindered walking & a fortiori running), plantigrady etc.: the opposite of cursorial mammals. They didn't live in Africa alone, but spread to Asia & Europe, no doubt along coasts & rivers. If some of them lived in savannas, it was at the waterways there.

For a detailed critique of the "endurance running" ideas, please google "econiche Homo" table 4. Tracking animals was much too dangerous for heavy creatures such as archaic Homo, it was incomparably more likely they simply collected all sorts of waterside & shallow aquatic foods, incl.carcasses of stranded whales (as found in Angola c 1 Ma) or drowned ungulates. Traces of waterlilies have been found in neandertal dental plaque, and traces of cattails on their stone tools. Waterside carcass butchering was probably older than 1 or 2 Ma, but active hunting is very very recent: we are still very afraid of wolves, bears, lions: Beowolf, Gilgamesh, Little Red Riding-hood.

Hi Marc, Thank you for your chapter on the original econiche. I enjoyed reading it, but I am still not convinced by your theory. Hunter-gatherers are distinguished by the fact that they evolved the creative ability to exploit a wide variety of ecological niches, which would no doubt have included aquatic environments. But I am not convinced that an aquatic environment was the main contributing factor that resulted in the evolution of the human brain.

My main questions are the following:

(1) You “strongly suggest that early Homo evolved at the water’s edge (whether in savannahs or elsewhere) where resources essential for brain growth were both abundant and easily procurable by a thick-enameled tool-using omnivorous hominid.”

If resources were “easily procurable” what would have been the selective pressure for higher intelligence? Why did Homo evolve a larger brain if they did not need it? Access to the nutritional requirements of a larger brain does not necessarily result in higher intelligence.

(2) You say that “the waterside models are based primarily on comparisons with other animals.”

What makes humans unique is that we are so different from other animals. This is why we evolved an intelligence that is unique. Models comparing humans with other animals cannot explain why we are so different from other animals. The success of persistence hunting is that it allowed humans to evolve the unique ability to run in extreme heat, which prey animals simply cannot endure.

(3) Environmental change and selection for higher intelligence

I do not see the aquatic environment as posing the survival challenges selecting for higher intelligence. As you point out, resources are “easily procurable.” Rather, my theory proposes the opposite extreme – not the general Savannah environment, but extreme arid Savannah, such as the southern Kalahari dune fields and central Kalahari grasslands and arid Savannah. The evolution of both H. erectus and H. sapiens coincided with extreme Mega-drought conditions in Africa. These extreme Mega-droughts may have been the drivers that provided selective pressure for increasingly sophisticated tracking skills, which required higher levels of intelligence, leading to the origins of scientific thinking with the evolution of H. sapiens.

It is very likely that some hominin populations survived near water where resources were easily procurable. But I would argue that it is the populations who adapted to extremely arid Savannah environments who, through natural selection, evolved a larger brain and higher intelligence to deal with the more challenging survival requirements.

(4) You say “we are still very afraid of wolves, bears, lions.”

For hunter-gathers lions do not pose a significant threat. I have tracked numerous lions on foot (when I mentor trackers) and usually lions tend to avoid contact when approached by humans on foot. Even when a lioness with cubs charges you, you hold your ground and shout at her to chase her away. I have tracked and chased away lion with Kalahari Bushmen armed only with throwing sticks and spears.

On the other hand, I would argue that crocodiles present a far greater risk to an aquatic ape than lions do on the open Savannah. Personally, I have no problem walking into lions. I am far more wary of crocodiles at the water’s edge, and I will never go wading or swimming in a river or dam inhabited by crocodiles.

Louis thanks I downloaded the new book and will read it.

Marc this is a lot of new stuff and I need some time to follow all the references. It makes sense that Hs ability to obtain marine resources 40KY in Europe gave him an edge over Hn but it seems that a smaller brain was not a deterrent in this activity. It is quite clear though that Hn was not a large consumer of marine resources (Richards 2009). In any event I understand that you do not claim that Hs needed larger brain to replace diving (He) by wading (Hs) so it seems, if I understood you correctly, that the original question still remains.

Hi Miki, I didn't say Hs' ability to obtain marine resources gave him an edge over Hn, it's perhaps rather the contrary: whereas Hn's diet was isotopically intermediate between those of wolves & mammoths (Richards cs 2000 PNAS), Hs' diet in Europe probably contained more fish & fowl (Richards cs 2001 PNAS). That Hn is found in coastal (e.g. Gibraltar & Medit.coasts) as well as riverside environments suggests that they seasonally ventured inland along the rivers (following migrating fishes??), but Hs 40 ka might have followed the Danube-Rhine & other rivers rather than the coasts.

Hn (pachyostosis, ear exostoses, platycephaly, flat femora etc.) parttime dived for food, whereas Hs (thinner bones, high skull vault, basi-cranial flexion, very long & straight legs etc.) seems to have reduced or abandoned diving & waded a lot more, presumably using composite & distance weapons (spears etc.).

There are numerous possible explanations for brain size in Hn & Hs, but no, I didn't claim that Hs needed larger brain to replace Hn.

Hi Louis, some answers between brackets (--mv):

(1) You “strongly suggest that early Homo evolved at the water’s edge (whether in savannahs or elsewhere) where resources essential for brain growth were both abundant and easily procurable by a thick-enameled tool-using omnivorous hominid.” If resources were “easily procurable” what would have been the selective pressure for higher intelligence? Why did Homo evolve a larger brain if they did not need it? Access to the nutritional requirements of a larger brain does not necessarily result in higher intelligence. (I have nothing to say on "intelligence" (biological meaning??), but brain size (EQ etc.) has a strong correlation to (semi)aquatic foods, e.g. see the work of Stephen Cunnane, Michael Crawford etc.--mv)

(2) You say that “the waterside models are based primarily on comparisons with other animals.”

What makes humans unique is that we are so different from other animals. This is why we evolved an intelligence that is unique. Models comparing humans with other animals cannot explain why we are so different from other animals. The success of persistence hunting is that it allowed humans to evolve the unique ability to run in extreme heat, which prey animals simply cannot endure. (The semi-aquatic=comparative model nicely explains why human are different from otherprimates & have lerger brains. Persistent (="endurance"?) hunting is a newly developed habit in a few remote inland populations in E-Africa: it was impossible in H.erectus, google "econiche Homo" table 4.--mv)

(3) Environmental change and selection for higher intelligence. I do not see the aquatic environment as posing the survival challenges selecting for higher intelligence. As you point out, resources are “easily procurable.” Rather, my theory proposes the opposite extreme – not the general Savannah environment, but extreme arid Savannah, such as the southern Kalahari dune fields and central Kalahari grasslands and arid Savannah. The evolution of both H.erectus and H.sapiens coincided with extreme Mega-drought conditions in Africa. These extreme Mega-droughts may have been the drivers that provided selective pressure for increasingly sophisticated tracking skills, which required higher levels of intelligence, leading to the origins of scientific thinking with the evolution of H.sapiens. It is very likely that some hominin populations survived near water where resources were easily procurable. But I would argue that it is the populations who adapted to extremely arid Savannah environments who, through natural selection, evolved a larger brain and higher intelligence to deal with the more challenging survival requirements. (There's no scientific evidence for open plain ideas such as tracking or running. Dart's savanna idea is based on the misconception that the Taung child lived in the "veldt", but Partidge has shown that Taung lived in well-wooded & well-watered regions. Our poor olfaction contradicts good tracking skills.--mv)

(4) You say “we are still very afraid of wolves, bears, lions.” For hunter-gathers lions do not pose a significant threat. I have tracked numerous lions on foot (when I mentor trackers) and usually lions tend to avoid contact when approached by humans on foot. Even when a lioness with cubs charges you, you hold your ground and shout at her to chase her away. I have tracked and chased away lion with Kalahari Bushmen armed only with throwing sticks and spears. On the other hand, I would argue that crocodiles present a far greater risk to an aquatic ape than lions do on the open Savannah. Personally, I have no problem walking into lions. I am far more wary of crocodiles at the water’s edge, and I will never go wading or swimming in a river or dam inhabited by crocodiles. (I don't claim our ancestors were "aquatic apes", and I see no reason why there should have been crocodiles where our littoral ancestors lived, please google "misconceptions Verhaegen". OTOH, the stories of Gilgamesh, Beowulf etc suggest that wolves, lions & bears were very dangerous until historical times, although perhaps not for you, Louis.--mv)

Marc regarding Crawford I must say that the notion that we need a large external supply of DHA/EPA doesn't make sens to me. AFAIK babies of vegans who don't consume a milligram of DHA/EPA also have large brains and I personally know a son of a vegan couple who remained vegan for the 50 years of his life and makes a living giving lectures and running a successful MD clinic.

Yes, Miki, I've made the same remark, but semi-aquatic ancestors explain better

- why so many people try to go on vacation to the beach every year (not only for DHA but also for iodine etc.),

- why adulthood was probably attained sooner in Hn than Hs (our ancestors generally needed more years to get enough DHA to build a large brain),

- why Hs brains are slightly smaller than Hn's.

I think a lot of brain-specific nutrients make large brains more likely.

In any case, a coastal dispersal is proven by lots of other evidence (google "econiche Homo" or "misconceptions Verhaegen"), and that DHA is plentiful present in brain tissue doesn't make a littoral past less likely.

Marc rivers and seashores are easier to navigate, traverse and to survive given a wild landscape and the need to drink water daily (all rivers lead to the sea). The Hn brain was not larger if you take into account their higher weight and there is no agreement regarding shorter period to adulthood for Hn. Most archaeological sites contain bones primarily of ADULT animals that are more difficult to hunt and point to hunting already by early humans. Given the dominance of animal bones in archaeological sites it doesn't make sense to me that they obtained most of their food by diving and then went hunting to complete their meal with a little meat.

Hi Miki, He & Hn had heavier bones, flatter & rel.longer skulls, ear exostoses, broader bodies, flatter femora etc than Hs, all these traits are typical of shallow water mammals. This fits nicely with everything else we know, incl.fossil & archeological data. There's no evidence Hn (let alone He) ever hunted away from the water. Ungulates are less mobile in mud, very shallow water or between reeds, and I don't exclude they might have killed them now & then, but bones & stones conserve extraordinarily well, so that the archeological evidence strongly biased towards animal food instead of plant food, yet we know Hn tools had traces of cattails & Hn dental plaque had traces of waterlilies. The Gibraltar & numerous Medit.coastal Hn fossils suggest that Hn seasonally wandered along rivers, possibly after migrating fish, but also collecting cattails & waterlilies & drowned ungulate carcasses along the rivers. At the coasts, they dived a lot, we know, but this was also possible in wetlands & oxbow lakes. The flat skulls & femora, heavy skeletons & ear exostoses etc show that Hn like all other animals with those traits regularly dived, not only at the coasts I guess, but also inland.

Marc how do you explain the fact that most present era HG ethnographic record includes hunting as a primary food obtaining activity and almost none of these groups dived or wadded in order to obtain food?

Marc take 400-200 kya Kessem Cave, 15 km from my house, in the hills, not close to rivers or lakes or sea. Teeth of post He, pre Hs. Full of adult fallow deer bones with cut marks and fires with bones and stone tools with use marks and not a single evidence of marine sourced food. There are numerous archaeological sites like Kessem Cave, most certainly more than sites with evidence of marine sourced food consumption. Yes humans did consume fish and shell fish but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was universal, quite the contrary. Theories are important but for the time being I am not convinced that the aquatic ape theory have a lot of merit. This doesn't mean it is not worth pursuing of course.

Miki, I see no contradiction, many innovations came from the Middle-East. Thin skull-caps (biologically indicating: no littoral diving) are almost 200 ka in Herto & Omo, but it's well possible that elsewhere there were enough technological innovations (composite & distance weapons?) to stop diving much earlier than 200 ka. Caves indicate rivers, of course, although perhaps not any more today. In any case, all this does not contradict that early-Pleistocene archaic Homo dispersed along the coasts, as proven by their anatomy: pachyostosis, flat skulls, flat femora, projecting nostrils, brain expansion, intercontinental dispersal, Pleistocene coastal archeological sites from Indonesia to Angola to England (in spite of higher sea-levels) etc. 1.8 Ma they had already reached Mojokerto, Aïn-Hanech & Dmanisi: this suggests that with the earliest glacial sea-level lowerings (2.6 Ma?), dextrous hominids colonised the continental shelves (now under sea-level except in Indonesia etc.), collecting all sorts of foods incl.shellfish, and gradually they learned to dive for sessile foods (as proved by their anatomy: platycephaly, ear exostoses, pachyostosis, platymeria), but this does not contradict - to the contrary! - that later in the Pleistocene their technological innovations (cf tool use for opening shells) and/or larger brains (DHA, iodine) helped them to find new food sources. When they began to use fire (side-effect of stone manufacture?) a lot of other food sources might have become possible, incl.those mentioned by you. We should not underestimate the possible technological skills of prehistoric people, in spite of absence of evidence.

Please note I'm not speaking about aquatic apes! To the contrary, read my 2013 paper in Hum.Evol.28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis", or google

-misinterpretations Verhaegen

-econiche Homo

As exciting as the discussion is, I wonder why it foregrounded archaeological sites from Europe concerning development from He to Hs.

Shouldn't a hypothesis about what led to the development from Hn to Hs rely on archaeological findings in Africa (not only but mainly)? When Hs arrived in Europe, his anatomical and morphological development was already “finished”, wasn't it? So, I think, it is difficult to take a European environment and life style into account for selective pressures building the modern human, especially given the different climate conditions. If one looked instead to Africa, one should be possible to look deeper in the past being more closer to an “origin”.

Or am I not up to date and there is no consensus for Out-of-Africa II anymore? (Was I behind the moon?)

I see the point, that humans might lived more aquatic in the past. But I am not sure whether this was (early) enough for the speciation of Hs.

Sven I totally agree that the reasons for the speciation He to Hs should be found outside Europe. A little unconventional but I will not rule out the Levant as a "cull de sac" 400 kya for that event or process. See my one and only paper for details on the hypothesis. Both the Zuttiyeh skull and teeth from Qesem Cave show evidence of "post He" human around 400 kya in the Levant. See "Cultural and Biological Transformations in the Middle Pleistocene Levant: A View from Qesem Cave, Israel" by A. Gopher and R. Barkai for a summary.

Marc there is very little to say about a hypothesis that relies on archaeological evidence that is presently unreachable under water or, like fish bones, doesn't preserve well. It can not be discarded so I guess it will remain as an interesting hypothesis. It is more or less the same for the "Cooking Hypothesis" that relies on the fact that (supposedly) fires in open spaces don't preserve well to claim that fire was habitually used for cooking 2 Mya.

Hi Sven, yes, when Hs reached Europe, they were not very different from us today, I guess.

I rely in the first place on the anatomical evidence: we see archaic skulls (platycephaly, pachyostosis etc.) from c 1.8 Ma throughout the rest of the Pleistocene (typical of slow & shallow diving mammals). We see thin & high-vaulted skulls (Hs = no more diving) after c 200 ka (Herto & Omo in E.Africa), but since fossil data are incomplete, modern Hs might have been older.

Hn skulls are less thick than He skulls, suggesting less diving and/or more fresh- than salt water, but the long & low skulls (+ ear exostoses, flat femora etc.) leave little doubt that, as all other mammals with such skulls, Hn still regularly dived (I proposed they seasonally followed the rivers inland).

IOW, Hs probably arose in Africa before 200 ka. Genetic data suggest they first split into KhoiSan & the rest (c 150 ka?), then in different African populations, and c 60 ka one group of Hs left Africa (or Africa-Arabia) to spread over the rest of the world (OoA-II consensus), presumably along coasts (estuaria?) and/or rivers (not impossibly with dugouts or reed boats or so, see "kelp route" in Americas).

When Hs reached Europe, Hn were still parttime divers according to Hn anatomy, but how much time Hn spent on land & in the water (e.g. floating huts cf Sea Gypsies or Marsh Arabs?) I don't know (although Hn & heidelberg.fossils & tools often lay in beaver ponds or oxbow lakes).

Hi everybody,

I re-read the whole (interesting) discussion, that is now is now bogged down in a repetition of moves. So I re-formulate the start-question of Miki Ben-Dor as: "There are quite few hypotheses to explain early human evolution?" The answer to this question is fundamental to his aditional question about the evolution of H,neand. and H.sapiens.

Every participant in this thread thinks that the explanation has to do with brains, with brain food (the best of it probably being found in marine animals and plants, OK) and the increase of brain size.

The problem of this approach remains that there are so many other animals that live from marine food and that even have big brains, but that we humans still are the only animals that domesticate fire, sing and dance creation stories and are (even started as a frightened group of ape-men) have become dominant in the world.

So I propose a brand new approach. I did it already with reference to my website, but apart from the fact that this is readily seen as a way of spamming, it appears not to work as inviting discussion.

My approach is that in one of those frightened groups of ape-men (perhaps on Danakil Island, Marc V.) some 5 mya arose the culture of imitating with the hands of something that had somebody in her mind. As a simple girls play.

[My favorite just-so-story is, that one day the alpha woman decided THAT way for the daily foraging route, and that her daughter realized that the group would come beyond the stand with delicious berries. And she beamed with happiness. Her two friends looked at her strangely: why this sudden euphoria? The girl racked her brain: how can I make it clear what I'm thinking? And suddenly she imitated with her hands [berry] [picking] [putting in mouth] and then blissful looking.

Again and again.

And then of a sudden the penny drops at one of her friends: she imitates the imitation! Yess!!!

And the whole day long the girls laugh and repeat the [berry]-imitation. The next day the foraging route goes another way and the other girl thinks something they will encounter that day. And again throughout the day great fun.

So I see the start of our human linguisticness as a simple girls play.

But simple or not: it was an astonishing event: for the first time in the whole history of life there was an animal that could communicate something that was not on the spot. Something that was on a far place, or even in another season.

Beside that it was a funny play, it also proved to be a useful game: enabling to communicate what one had in mind. So it became a special culture in this ape-men group. When the girls moved to another group for their partner, the took the habit along and so the culture spread over the whole tribe. Our earliest ancestors. Because generation after generation this extra means of communicating optimized and spread over the males also. Because of this extra means of communication and cooperation, this special population flourished (keeping more children in life than other ape-men tribes) and in the end this ancestral population outnumbered the other ape-men population. Let me think of a name for it. I think they looked like a sort of bipedal bonobos (because the forest of this species didn’t change for millions of years, even not during the ice ages since 2,5 mya, so the bonobos look like their ancestors of 4 mya were, and we still have the most genes in common). I name them ANBOS (Ancestor-Bonobos). OK?

Not only by number. Disposing of names for things does something with an animal.

1. It creates a feeling of distance between the namer and the named thing: between ‘subject’ and ‘object’. The ANBOS could objectivate things. One might see names for things as a parallel to the ape’s ability of throwing, creating a distance between the thrower and the enemy, but this time in the mental sphere.

2. It creates a feeling of power over the object, even – or just¬ – when you are not powerful.

3. It enabled the ANBOS to confer knowledge from one generation onto the next. Knowledge and dexterity could accumulate in ANBOS’ culture.

4. The ANBOS could plot, make plans.

5. It enabled the ANBOS to consult each other. Individual ingenuities could be stacked up: two know more than one, and as a group they could solve big problems. One hooligan may be a timid boy, but as a group, hooligans are terrifying. From timid groups of hominids the ANBOS became the ‘hooligans’ of the Pliocene savanna.

One spectacular result of the new communication sophistication, the ability to consult each other and to stack up individual ingenuities was the sophistication of tools, from which 2.6 mya the archeological evidence has been unearthed in Kada Gona. No, even earlier: the cut marks on bones from the Dikika site in Ethiopia: 3,4 mya.

But the most spectacular result comes from aspect 2.: the feeling of power over the things. It brought ANBOS to the use of fire – alone of all the species of nature.

Undoubtedly this is the second female endeavor to make our species to humans.

Of course, the use of fire gave men a more deterring weapon against the predators then only stones, and enabled them to become hunters. But I think the first fire has been made by an older woman. Why? It had to do with food. I’ll spare you my ‘just-so’ story of this.

The ‘domestication’ of the fire initiated the second ‘big step’ of the ANBOS to humanity: because of its effect on communication. Before this moment the ANBOS needed to make their nest every night high in a tree, before the arrival of the dusk. End of the daily gestured communication: doesn’t work in the dark. Their proto-language was limited to the food collecting in daytime and its distribution after arriving in the woodland for spending the night. Each had to braid her/his own nest; in the dark the only communication could be some emotional cries.

But from the time that they could spend the nights around a campfire that kept the predators away, hours were added to their days, hours which were lending itself only for communication.

I have to stop my further origin story: too long for a comment here. But you can imagine that this approach of our cultural evolution by names for things has an endless explanatory potency. I wait for your comments.

Danakil island??

Please inform, Frans: I said (Verhaegen 2013 Hum.Evol.28:237-266) that it's very unlikely that human ancestors evolved on some island: most island forms have strongly reduced brains.

Frans has suggested a "just-so" story to indicate that perhaps our ancestors started in the direction of linguistic communication  in a very simple manner: one female wants to indicate to another something that is making her euphoric.  Like many other suggested explanations, this one doesn't answer two fundamental questions.  First: Why is it that "becoming human" is unique to our ancestors when the ancestors of Pan had the same evolutionary time as did our ancestors, yet remained "clever apes" and did not become "human-like"?  Frans's just so story applies equally to Pan -- there is no reason why an ancestor to Pan could not have had exactly the same experience, yet did not.  His just-so story does not account for why the change he posits only occurred in our ancestry.  Two: His story does not account for why our ancestors did not reach stasis and evolve no further.  The individuals making up present day Pan engage in imitative behavior, and their ancestors may have done so for millions of years, yet it remains very simple imitative behavior as it has reached stasis. 

I suggest we need to focus more on what led to conditions  outside the range of  those conditions faced by the ancestors of Pan that could drive, not just a few changes, but a new mode of adaptation that was not largely played out until the appearance of modern Homo sapiens.  Frans has the right idea -- linguistic communication probably began with conditions that made it necessary to communicate, but his just-so story lacks the necessary components, namely communication about something that has either become necessary for survival or provides a substantial fitness benefit (see Read 1987).  Neither of these conditions is met by whether a female communicates that she is euphoric.  

Let me offer another just-to story, building off of what appears to be a significant difference between the grassland/savannah habitat of our early ancestors versus the more tropical, forested environments of Pan, and presumably, Pan's ancestors.  Scavenging has long been suggested as providing a substantial source of food in open grassland/savannah environments.  (I realize that there is currently a controversy over whether early sites with bones are due to hunting -- and if so by what mode -- or scavenging, but I am just offering a just-so story for sake of discussion).  While scavenging would initially have been done by the group as a whole, once female mobility began to be reduced by increasingly altricial offspring, the risks of scavenging by females would increase, pushing foraging behavior in the direction of males focusing more on scavenging and females on less risky resources.  

In other words, for the first time in the evolutionary history of primates, there would be selective pressure for the group to temporarily split up into those (mainly males) aiming for scavenged meat and those (including most females) aiming for less risky foods.  This posed a serious communication problem: how do the two groups meet up at the end of the day?  A fixed base-camp, would to it, but that already presumes a major change in foraging behavior has taken place which doesn't have a payoff until the changed foraging pattern is already in place.  In other words, a base-camp is a consequence of already having solved the problem of communicating where to meet up, not something already in place.  There are two possibilities.  One is that our ancestors never solved the communication problem -- which we know is not the case -- the other is that they began to figure out how to communicate something like: "we're going to this place to get meat; we will meet you at that place where you will be foraging".  One can imagine  this being doing initially by gestures, and pantomime and sounds.   Even if the communication initially is limited, the alternative is to either not forage or for females with infants to be exposed to greater risks; thus even if done poorly, there is already a payoff.

Further, this kind of communication does lend itself to stasis, for once started on the road to linguistic communication, the payoff of linguistic communication is not limited to the conditions that may have provided the push for it to start in the first place. 

This is not an evolutionary pathway that was open to the ancestors of Pan as foraging in wooded to tropical environments is not very effective.  

Thus this just-so story addresses the two criteria that must be met: substantial increase in fitness through a major food resource that otherwise is difficult to obtain without risk and the conditions for it to occur would not have been available to the ancestors of Pan.

in addition, I have argued that the working memory of Pan is limited to around 2 plus or minus 1 (Read 2009), which accounts for why nut-cracking is at the upper end of the cognitive abilities of Pan (nut-cracking requires that three things be kept in mind simultaneously: the anvil, the nut and the hammer stone), hence without conditions that would have an immediate payoff and become the driver for increase in the size of working memory, Pan's limited working memory cuts the ancestors of Pan off from behaviors (behaviors that are not necessary in their environment) that require a larger working memory.  The behaviors that modern-day Pan engages in are effective without any increase in working memory, whereas a shift to scavenging and stone tools based on controlled flaking would be a push for increased working memory, which then opens up a suite of behaviors that are closed to Pan and are the beginning of how culture makes us human (see Read 2012).

Correction: Should be "Further, this kind of communication does NOT lend itself to stasis..."

If your "just-so-story" is correct, Dwight, than we have to assume that our ancestors developed more complex communication as a result of new food gathering strategies that involved temporal splitting of groups and eveolved in the savanah.

The idea is appiling and makes sense, but I just want to remind you  that

a) It did likely not co eveolve with bipedalism, since this mode of locomotion likely eveolved in more forrested terrain and not in the savanah

b) There seems to be at least some temporal spilitting (over some distance) of groups of Pan troglodytes (probably you know more about that then me).

Dwight gender based devision of labor make sense and even more so if (like me) you accept hunting as early as 1.5 Mya.  The dynamic "software - hardware" relation between language and brain is also quite appealing. I however still believe that a classical evolutionary adaptation to external environmental stress can be identified to explain the brain's volume increase from  a Pan's 400 cc or so to 1500 cc Cro Magnon's and even the subsequent volume decrease to 1350 cc during the last 20 Ky. Note that this decrease in brain volume was accompanied by a significant development of language.

This recent volume reduction also poses a problem for Dunbar's "social" line of reasoning as there is little doubt that the typical human group size has grown substantially concurrently with the decreasing  brain's volume.

Miki- There was no terrestrial hunting 1.5 Ma: all archaic Homo sites are associated with edible shellfish, see S.Munro 2010 "Molluscs as Ecological Indicators in Palaeoanthropological Contexts" PhD thesis Austr.Nat.Univ.Canberra. Obviously, early-Pleistocene Homo dispersed along African, Red Sea, S-Asian & Mediterranean coasts & from there inland along the rivers (sometimes even in savannas). Biologically, archaic Homo evolved typically-littoral features: global dispersal, drastic brain expansion (DHA), pachyosteosclerosis, platycephaly, platymeria, external nose etc.: Homo simply dispersel along coasts & rivers, rather than running over dry plains (sweating water + salt, both of which are scarce in savannas). They did not systematically hunt, although they sporadically might have butchered carcasses in shallow waters or reeds, or even killed injured herbivores or so there.

A culture anthropologist who is studying KhoeSan lifestyle wrote me yesterday that the "born to run hypothesis makes no sense to me because hunter-gatherers do not run much and running down game is a very inefficient hunting strategy indeed." Forget Man the Hunter. Homo's brain enlargement (vs apes & australopiths) is simply explained by sea- & aquatic food rich in brain-specific nutrients (e.g.DHA), and possibly the subsequent decrease by la partial shift to less aquatic & more terrestrial foods.

Miki- The origin of language most parsimoniously explained a combination of early-hominoid singing skills (cf duetting gibbons) + in Homo dispersing along coasts & rivers: voluntary breathing (littoral dispersal incl. diving for seafood) + swallowing soft & slippery foods (labial, dental, palatal, uvular mouth closure cf consonants) + brain enlargement (DHA in aquatic foods).

Jens Karl- On Bipedalism: "It is often stated that human locomotion was an adaptation to running on the open plains, which is illustrated by expressions such as 'Savannahstan', 'endurance running', 'born to run', 'le singe coureur' etc., even on the cover of the most influential scientific journals. Verhaegen et al. (2007) disproved in detail all endurance running arguments (Bramble & Lieberman, 2004) that our Homo ancestors during most of the Pleistocene were adapted to running over open plains. When we analyse human locomotion into more elementary components, the running 'explanation' appears to be a just-so interpretation (cherry-picking): Bramble & Lieberman (2004) interpret every locomotor trait in humans as having evolved 'for' running, without even considering possible wading or swimming scenarios. A comparative approach shows that, for each trait, semi-aquatic scenarios provide more parsimonious explanations (google ‘econiche Homo’ table 4), and that extant human running is a secondary and conspicuously imperfect adaptation which evolved late in the human past, for instance, we run maximally 32 km/hr over short and 20 km/hr over long distances, about half as fast as typical open plain mammals." (Hum.Evol.28:237-266, 2013).

Dwight-- There was no meat scavenging, except perhaps exceptionally in shallow water or waterside environments: bones & stones preserve disproportionaly well, whereas plants & wood disappear in the archeological record. Humans are omnivores, we eat more plant food than meat, and perhaps half our food comes from the water: fish, shell-, crayfish, rice, aquaculture... Neandertals also ate a lot of plants (e.g. traces of cattails on their tools, traces of roots of grasses & water-lilies in their dental plaque) as well as fish (salmon, pike...) & shellfish & marine mammals (e.g. Gibraltar). Neandertals fossils are found all over the southern European coasts: Gibraltar, Spain, S-France, Italy, Greece... They seem to have followed the rivers seasonally inland (or better: they once a year went to the coast, just like many humans still do during their holidays - we need the iodine). Neandertals were no open plain hunters. Richards cs (2000 PNAS) found that neandertal C & N isotopes resembled those of wolves, but isotopes don't discern between animal & plant food. In fact, their data (figure) show that they also resembled mammoths in C & N isotopes. Apparently, neandertals ate about everything they could find along the rivers, beaver ponds, oxbow lakes & coasts where their fosils have been found. I have discussed this in my 2013 paper in Hum.Evol.28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis" (attached).

Jens -- My just-so story doesn't require or imply co-evolution with bipedalism.  If anything, it would require that bipedalism is already well-established; e.g., removal of parts of carcasses to another location for consumption to reduce predation risk would be done more effectively if it were done  by already bipedal Homo ancestors.  

Chimpanzees have a fusion-fission adaptation, with fission-fusion often on the scale of hours,  but this is within the context of a community and the territory exploited by that community.  The community, as a whole, seldom comes together as a whole.  Elsewhere, in my book, "How Culture Makes Us Human"  I have argued that chimpanzees had the problem of dealing with extensive, individualistic behavior, making it problematic to maintain as stable social unit even when reduced to just a few males.   One of the major changes in the lineage leading to Homo was a radical restructuring of the basis for social organization that enabled the formation of cohesive groups in the face of highly individualistic behavior.  It is in the latter context where one can see that the problem of communication comes to the fore as per my just-so story, not with the kind of fission-fusion social system we see with the chimpanzees.

A comment on running and bipedalism: Regular bipedalism acts against effective arboreal-adapted locomotion (and vice-versa), thus the shift to bipedalism either had to involve conditions under which locomotion now primarily took place on the ground and so diminished capacity for arboreal locomotion was not problematic and/or conditions under which the forelimbs were now being used functionally in a way that interfered with the (at that time) current mode of locomotion and where this conflict would be  resolved  by regular bipedalism.  The former suggests it occurred with a shift to a non-forested habitat, but if bipedalism began while still in a forested environment where an arboreal adaptation was still effective, that suggests the latter would have been the driving factor.  One problem with the efficient running hypothesis as the  source of bipedalism is that it requires a locomotion pattern that initially would not be effective for extensive running to be selected for by conditions that required effective running.   In other words, going directly from arboreal locomotion to efficient running bipedalism seems to be evolutionarily problematic.

Miki -- Undoubtedly there were many factors driving the increase in cranial size, generally along the lines of conditions under which increased cognitive capacity provided a selective advantage.  The chimpanzees appear to be at a dead end with regard to (1) biologically based social organization centered around extensive fact-to-face interaction and (2) coping with increased individualization of behavior, which made social systems exponentially more complex for them as the size of social units increased (taking into account, as well, the formation of coalitions).  What our ancestral lineage initiated, at some point, was the ability to cognitively "understand" a social group from the perspective of relations among individuals, which "freed" social organization from being dependent upon extensive face-to-face  interaction.  This required a cognitive giant leap forward as would occur with an increase in  working memory capacity beyond that of the chimpanzees.  This is a case where a small quantitative increase leads to a large qualitative increase.  But driving increase in cognitive capacity was not just the social dimension.  It would have included more complex ways to relate to environmental conditions (such as my just-so story), ability to make more complex artifacts whose design required an increase in working memory (see Read and  van der Leeus 2009), changes in male-female relationships associated with changes in resource procurement, and so on.  We don't know if the decrease in cranial capacity that occurred after the demise of the neanderthals represents decrease in cognitive capacity, or just brain reorganization that did not require as large  a brain -- remember that a large brain is problematic for giving birth in Homo sapiens, hence  there is downward selective pressure for a smaller cranium as long as this does not involve loss of cognitive capacity that is required for the current mode of adaptation.  Interestingly, neanderthals had increasing cranial size and then became extinct, hence our ancestors and the neanderthals may have been in the equivalence of an "arms race" that the neanderthals lost.

Verhaegen -- The aquatic hypothesis seems to come and go, and now, I take it, is coming back in again.  Personally, I am not convinced by it, but it should definitely be on the table and it is worth keeping in mind that there may have been conditions critical to the adaptations made by our ancestors that are outside of the box, as it were.  As for the origins of linguistic communication, there needs to be both the physical apparatus for the required sound production and control of sound production and the conditions under which there would be selection for the former.  Unlike the running argument for bipedalism, it is not hard to imagine that one can begin with limited vocalization, gestures and the like as a way to initiate at least minimal communication that would then be selected for under something like my just-so story, hence it is possible that one starts without a well-develop vocalization apparatus (e.g., the equivalent of what chimpanzees can do), initiate rudimentary communication, and then selection would act upon ways to make that rudimentary communication more effective, so long as one does run into stasis.

Dwight many thanks for your contribution. This is more than I had hoped for when I posted this question. I will read your refrences. Obviously I have a hypothesis of my own but as I see it now it doesn't exlude others. Alas It will take me 2-3 years to publish as I have to complete my PHD which deals with the extinction of the Neandertal which is only  tangent  to this question. Again thanks a lot.

Read--

The "aquatic hypothesis" (more correct "littoral dispersal model" or so, see S.Munro 2010) has never been away, although I agree it has long been misinterpreted & misrepresented by ill-informed paleo-anthropologists. (1) We have paleolithic coastal sites of Homo all over the Old World: Flores, Java, the Cape, Angola (Dungo V), Eritrea, Medit.coasts, England etc. (2) All archaic Homo are found next to edible shellfish (e.g. S.Munro 2010 "Molluscs as ecological indicators in palaeoanthropological contexts" PhD thesis Austr.Nat.Univ.Canberra). (3) Typically-littoral characteristics are apparent in archaic Homo 1.8 Ma, e.g. intercontinental dispersal, pachy-osteo-sclerosis, drastic brain enlargement, external nose, platymeria (dorso-ventrally flattened femora), platycephaly (low flat long skull): apparently early-Pleistocene Homo on his coastal dispersal frequently dived for seafood (not unexpected in view of human nutritional needs, fur loss, thick fat layer, olfactory reduction, head-spine-legs in 1 line, hyoidal descent etc.). See file attached. Early-Pleistocene dispersal of archaic Homo is not outside the box: it's fully inside the biological box.

As for language origins, the situation is comparable & also rather clear biologically, e.g. 2011 M.Vaneechoutte, S.Munro & M.Verhaegen 2011 "Seafood, diving, song and speech" pp.181-9 in M.Vaneechoutte cs eds 2011 "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy" eBook Bentham Sci Publ. As Darwin & many others argued, early hominoids (c 20 Ma) had gibbon-like song. Hominoid song + coastal dispersal + (parttime) diving for seafood (voluntary breath-holding) + swallowing seafood (instead of biting) + brain enlargement (DHA) = the necessary preadaptations for human language. No need for supposing human language arose from gestures or so: the appearence of human language in coastal hominoids is fully inside the biological box.

Marc

By "come and go" I simply meant that the aquatic hypothesis has been proposed a number of times in the past  (e.g., Westenhöfer (1930's and 1940's), Hardy (1960's), Morgan (1970's) and each time has failed to gain traction.  Perhaps this time around it will gain traction.

By "outside the box" I meant "outside of the box of standard explanations," not outside "the biological box".

Preadaptations do not, by themselves, explain the origin of a new trait such as linguistic communication.  My point about "gestures" was to indicate that linguistic communication could have begun before pre adaptations such as an extended range of vocalizations were already in place.  Whether that is how linguistic communication actually began is another matter.

There's no need to suppose gestures were necessary: in human evolution, we find all ingredients for speech origins: Darwin & others already realised that gibbons have music, tone, rhythm, loud sounds, dialog (duetting). Much later, when Pleistocene dispersed globally along the coasts (coastal sites on Java, the Cape & England) their lifestyle included (parttime) diving for shellfish: shellfish contains a lot of brain-specific nutrients (e.g. DHA, cf our drastic brain expansion), diving requires breath-holding & voluntary control of breathing muscles (necessary in speech production), and swallowing (instead of biting) soft-smooth-slippery seafoods explains our small mouth opening, closed tooth-row (e.g. more incisiform canines), vaulted & smooth palate, descended tongue bone etc. (explaining why we can close our oral passage at lips, teeth, palate, uvula, so we can produce labial, dental, palatal, uvular consonants). Marc Verhaegen & Stephen Munro 2004 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach" Hum Evol 19:53-70. See our 2013 lecture + proceedings in attachment.

Sorry, I forgot 'Homo' in '... when Pleistocene Homo dispersed globally along the coasts ...'

My investment to the answer of Miki Ben-Dor’s question have been present in my articles entitled “Infections, immunity and anthropogenesis” (2007), “Bioecology of pleistocenic spurt in anthropogenesis” (2010), “Where and When Human Viral Epidemics First Emerged” (2012),. “Dating of first emergence of human epidemics” (2012), “THE HIV AGE AND LOCATION OF ORIGIN” (2013).

Thanks Sergey there is no doubt that adaptations to infections were part of human evolution. It will be interesting to see if they were among the drivers of increased brain size.

Miki

It's Verhaegen, Elisabeth, not Verhaegan, nevertheless thanks a lot. :-) I now think (comparative data) there were at least 5 preadaptations to human speech: duetting (early hominoids in tropical forests, presumably swamp forests, google 'aquarboreal') and much later (vs apes-australopiths), during Homo's early-Pleistocene coastal dispersal: breath-hold shallow diving (voluntary breathing), suction-swallowing seafoods (labial, palatal, uvular... consonants, vs biting-chewing), brain enlargement (DHA, iodine, taurine... in seafood) & 'vocal learning' (imitating 'song' of family members? to find them back more easily e.g. for provisioning?). The Pleistocene transition from more-diving to more-wading might perhaps have 'freed' not only the hands (for complex tool-use & manufacture) but also the mouth: for producing voluntary (diving) loud & variable sounds (duet) incl.consonants (soft diet)?  (I tried to attach a revised version of my PPT on speech origins, but it didn't seem to work.)

Thanks Elisabeth

I must say that all the explanations presented so far lack, as I understand them, the duo of environmental stress leading to adaptation. And since brain growth was more or less a continuous phenomenon in human evolution I expect that there would be a continuous environmental stress behind it. Big brain is energetically expensive so there must be a good reason why we couldn't manage without it. Control of fire is nice to have and social ability is also nice to have but why did we and not other animals developed these capabilities. This is the reason I concentrated on the evolution of sapiens and Neandertal. The change of basic niche to hunter gatherers was complete with the appearance of the H. erectus with 900 cc brain. Why did we need additional 600 cc or so? Its nice to have sure but this is not a complete answer in terms of evolutionary theory.

Is Homo's brain growth +-continuous? It's seen in the fossil record since about 1.8 Ma, when H.erectus-like people dispersed intercontinentally (e.g. the Mojokerto child (possibly 1.8 Ma) is estimated to have had more than 800 cc as an adult). OTOH, late-Pleistocene H.sapiens had a somewhat smaller brain that earlier neandertals.

In other animals, dramatic brain expansions are typically seen in (semi)aquatics, e.g. porpoises, seals, otters etc have 2 or 3 times larger brains than equally large terrestrial relatives. There's no reason to think that humans were an exception among other animals: we developed larger brains when our early-Pleistocene ancestors followed the African & Eurasian coasts & rivers, dipersing intercontinentally. This might be due to the abundant brain-specific nutrients in aquatic & especially littoral foods: poly-unsaturated fatty acids (e.g. docohexaenoic acid DHA), taurine, iodine & other minerals etc. (work of D.Horrobin, M.Crawford, S.Cunnane etc.).

But then: humans (not-aquatic (any more?)) don't always have access to littoral foods, but we nevertheless have very large brains: how to explain that? I'd think that's one of the reasons why sapiens probably has a longer youth than earlier Homo species, why coastal people are often healthier & larger-brained than mountain people (esp.before the introduction of iodine in salt), why sapiens has a slightly smaller brain than neandertals, why many humans like to have their vacation at the coast (iodine), and why we (still?) like eating fish, seafood & coconuts?

I hope the attachment (PPT on speech origins) is clear now? Why are we different from chimps? In short: whereas Pan remained in Africa, Plio-Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally along African & Eurasian coasts & rivers, and adapted to feeding on waterside, littoral & shallow-aquatic foods. These adaptations explain many differences with Pan, e.g. they included airway control for shallow diving, which preadapted to human speech.

@ Marc

>>>Why are we different from chimps?

Frans, I hope you realise that your story is pure fantasy?

-Max Planck research has NOT shown that the "final split" (=Homo/Pan??) was a "consequence of climate cooling" and/or of "drying out": how can anyone "show" this? You can (wishfully) suppose this, but not show.

-The rest of your "answer" is equally a just-so story without evidence, and moreover totally irrelevant, e.g. what on earth had Ardip.ramidus (APANS??) to do with this?? A.ramidus bones didn't leave DNA, and we have no idea about whether ramidus was related to chimps or humans or gorillas or not to any of these.

-You even didn't read correctly what I said: "Plio-Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally along African & Eurasian coasts & rivers, and adapted to feeding on waterside, littoral & shallow-aquatic foods. These adaptations explain many differences with Pan, e.g. they included airway control for shallow diving, which preadapted to human speech."

@ Marc,

As far as we know the Pliocene hominids didn't disperse OoA. This first spread is attributed to HE and is considered to be the beginning of Pleistocene.

My linguisticness hypothesis with its just-so-story-beginning is no more “pure fantasy’ than your speech origins with its aquatic phase imo.

I go so far as to presume that my hypothesis bears more explanatory power for Miki Ben-Dor’s questions >>>Control of fire is nice to have and social ability is also nice to have but why did we and not other animals developed these capabilities. 

Frans, please read carefully what I wrote. Again: I did not use "OoA". Whether our direct ancestors (which is not the same as fossil close relatives) lived in Africa or/and Asia is unimportant for reconstructing what happened. Our reconstruction of speech origins (and a fortiori also that of human evolution) is in the first place based on comparative anatomy: these are facts (e.g. see attachment), unlike your story-telling, which "explains" everything & nothing.

Sorry, I'm studying on your powerpoint SPEECH ORIGINS and some apers of yours, so I answer later ...

:-)  Frans, spreek je Nederlands, lees dan mijn boek "In den beginne was het water" (Hadewijch A'pen 1997).

@ Marc,

We differ essentially from starting point of view. Yours is the AAHypothesis and you use all scientific evidence (in a respectable way) which reinforces your hypothesis. 

My starting point of view is a philosophic one. Also about how our human species originated , but now as a science-based alternative for the backwarded monotheist Adam-and-Eve-story. The last is still not challenged by a Western alternative creation story. Our Western societies try to function without a commonly shared creation story. Nevertheless, even as consumers in a welfare state, we are still human creatures, linguistic beings, and from our 2 million years old cultural evolution dedicated to a shared creation story to live together well. That functioning as a society without a common story is not going well, is not of your business – or is it?

My starting point of view is a social-religious one. But also as science-based as possible. We both are gratefully utilizing the hard-earned facts provided by discipline sciences such as archeology and paleo-anthropology. But our ends will never meet, I’m afraid.

Hi, Frans, yes, I'm afraid our ends will never meet. My starting-point is biological. I don't use scientific evidence to reinforce AAH ideas, but to reconstruct ape & human evolution. The biology (incl. fossil evidence) is clear: (1) Mio-Pliocene hominoids (incl. australopithecines & African ape ancestors) lived in swamp forests etc., where they frequently waded bipedally & climbed vertically, (2) early-Pleistocene Homo followed African-Eurasian coasts, where their lifestyle included frequent wading & diving for littoral foods, (3) gradually, different Homo populations ventured inland along rivers, incl. neandertals who IMO were wetland omnivores who seasonally followed the river to the coast, (4) H.sapiens reduced diving, they were waders-walkers, using distance weapons etc. This also largely answers Miki Ben-Dor's question IMO.

FYI, an update of human evolution.

It has become progressively apparent that the H.sapien has emerged from a rather bushy phylogeny, where there once was a diverse and divergent group of hominin species.  

Teasing out the precise relatedness of these hominin fossils to one another has proved to be a daunting enterprise.  The sheer diversity of the fossilized remains has complicated our understanding of H.sapien's evolution.  

There is an overall consensus of opinion that H.sapien lineage has passed through Ardipithecus to australopithecine, and on to the transitional hominins, pre-modern and finally modern Homo.  But exactly which hominins comprise this direct lineage to Homo, has been the holy grail.

The Ontogeny - Phylogeny Calcaneal Model (OPCM) (as proposed by Dr. Rothbart)

The OPCM provides a concise and straight forward roadmap in deciphering the Hominin lineage.

Calcaneal supinatus (twist pattern in the posterior aspect of the heel bone) is the marker in determining whether or not the fossilized heel bone comes from a direct descendant of h.sapiens, or not.  The calcaneus in both the H. Naledi (Recently discovered) and A. afarensis have calcaneal supinatus.  A. africanus lacks this twist in the heel bone.

This OPCM is based on my clinical research which entailed the discovery of a previously unrecognized inherited foot structure, the PreClinical Clubfoot Deformity (Structure).  The hallmark of this foot structure is the structural twist (supinatus) in the posterior aspect of the calcaneus.  This is the same structural twist found in the fossilized calcaneus of the H.naledi  but lacking in the A.africanus.   From this the OPCM would conclude that H.naledi is a direct descendant of H.sapien, A.africanus is not.

Dear Brian, I think you're confusing the terms ascendant/ancestor & descendant:

we (H.sapiens, not sapien) don't have descendants, of course.

But yes, it seems to become more probable that many of today's species may descend from different subspecies or may have admixture(s) with related subspecies, in the same way that many or most non-Africans carry some Neandertal and/or Denisova DNA.

And no, calcaneal supinatus does not define whether a fossil is a closer relative of us humans than of one of the African apes: apparently the African apes also had more bipedal ancestors, not for running over African plains, but for wading bipedally in forest swamps (and climbing vertically, arms overhead, in the branches), much like bonobos & lowland gorillas occasionally or regularly do, google e.g. "bonobo wading & "gorilla bai".

For a summary of ape & human evolution, plase see attachment.

Sorry I forgot the attachment (I used "add" instead of "add files").

Here is my unifying hypothesis Article Prey Size Decline as a Unifying Ecological Selecting Agent i...

Prey Size Decline as a Unifying Ecological Selecting Agent in Pleistocene Human Evolution