Advertisement

Human Evolution

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 135–147 | Cite as

The adoption of bipedalism by the hominids: A new hypothesis

  • F. C. Fifer
Article

Abstract

The hypothesis is advanced that the habitual adoption of the bipedal stance and of bipedal locomotion in the hominids arose from the development of a defence mechanism, namely, the throwing of stones. It is argued that for stone-throwing to become an effective weapon, modifications to the whole post-cranial skeleton and musculature, as well as to the central nervous system are required; including the development of a low centre of gravity and a «launching platform» of relatively high mass. It is represented that hominids, from the earliest Australopithecines to modern man, exhibit modifications to the post-cranial structures that are more consonant with this hypothesis than with the interpretation that the modifications were directed initially and principally towards bipedalism. Such an interpretation is shown to create several anomalies which disappear when viewed in the context of the stated hypothesis.

The importance of the hypothesis for the evolution of Homo and especially for his brain and higher thought processes is commented upon.

Key words

hominids bipedalism evolution throwing defence brain 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauer H. R., 1977.Chimpanzee bipedal locomotion in the Gombe National Park, East Africa. Primates, 18(4): 913–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bielicki T., 1984.Evolution of the intensity of feedbacks between physical and cultural evolution from man's emergence to present times. UNESCO Expert meeting on the Biological Aspects of Race, Moscow, 12–18 August 1964 (manuscript quoted by Tobias, P. V., 1982.q.v.).Google Scholar
  3. Butynski T. M., 1982.Vertebrate predations by Primates: A review of Hunting Patterns and Prey. Journal of Human Evolution, 11: 421–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calvin W. H., 1982.Did throwing stones shape hominid brain evolution? Ethology and Sociobiology, 3: 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrier D. R., 1984.The energetic paradox of human running and hominid evolution. Current Anthropology 25(4): 483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dart R. A., 1950.Voluntary muscle in the human body. The double spiral arrangement. British Journal of Physical Medicine, 13: 265–268.Google Scholar
  7. Darwin C., 1871.Descent of Man (2nd Edition, 1913, London, John Murray).Google Scholar
  8. Day M. H. &Napier J. R., 1964.Hominid fossils from Bed I, Olduvai Gorge, Tanganyika. Fossil foot bones. Nature, 201: 967–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day M. H., 1986.Bipedalism: pressures, origins and modes. In: Major topics in primate and human evolution (ed. Wood, B., Lawrence, M., Andrews, P.), Cambridge University Press, 188–202.Google Scholar
  10. Duchenne G. B. A., 1867.Physiologie des Mouvements (cited by Robinson, J. T., 1972q.v.).Google Scholar
  11. Fleagle J. C., Stern Jr J. T., Jungers W. L., Susman R. L., Vangor A. K. &Wells, J. P., 1981.Climbing: A Biomechanical Link with Brachiation and with Bipedalism. Symposium of the Zoological Society, London, 48: 359–375.Google Scholar
  12. Goodall J. van Lawick, 1964.Tool using and aimed throwing in a community of free-living chimpanzees. Nature, No. 4926: 1264–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goslin B. R. &Charteris J., 1982.The human elbow and knee: Functional relationships and phylogenetic considerations. Human Biology, 54: 491–500.Google Scholar
  14. Hurov J. R., 1982.Surface electromyography of superficial back muscles in human children. Functions during vertical climbing and suspension and implications for the evolution of hominid bipedalism. Journal of Human Evolution, 11: 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kortlandt A., 1980.How might early hominids have defended themselves against large predators and food competitors? Journal of Human Evolution, 9: 2, 79–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lovejoy C. D., Kingsbury G., Heiple, K. G. &Burstein A. H., 1973.The gait of Australopithecus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 38: 757–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lovejoy C. O., 1981.The Origin of Man. Science, 211: 4480, 341–350.Google Scholar
  18. New York Times, September 9th 1974 (cited in The Complete Book of Baseball, ed. Brown, G., 1980, New York, Arno Press).Google Scholar
  19. Poirier F. E., 1977.Fossil evidence — the Human, Evolutionary Journey. Saint Louis, C. V. Mosby.Google Scholar
  20. Prost J. H., 1980.Origin of bipedalism. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 52: 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson J. T., 1972.Early hominid posture and locomotion. Chicago/London, Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Robinson J. T., Freedman L. Y., Sigmon B. A., 1972.Some aspects of human bipedality. Journal of Human Evolution, 1: 361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rose M. D., 1984.A hominine hip bone, KMN-ER 3228, from East Turkana, Kenya. American Journal Physical Anthropology, 63: 371–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stern Jr. J. &Susman R., 1983. The locomotor anatomy ofAustralopithecus afarensis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60(3): 279–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tobias P. V., 1982.Man the tottering biped. New South Wales Committee in Postgraduate Medical Education, University of New South Wales.Google Scholar
  26. Washburn S. L. &Howell F. C. 1960. Human evolution and culture. In: Evolution after Darwin (editor Tax, E.), 2, Chicago, Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Weiner J. S., 1973.Charles Darwin's Descent of Man—after 100 years. In: Human Evolution (ed. Day, M. H.), Symposium of the Society for the Study of Human Biology, 11: 1–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Editrice II Sedicesimo 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. C. Fifer
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological SciencesRoehampton Institute of Higher EducationLondonU.K.

Personalised recommendations