1. Homo naledi or Australopithecus naledi ?
Splendid Excavation,
Poor Interpretation?
Anthropocentric Anthropology
Marc Verhaegen &
Stephen Munro
1 March 2016

2. Anthropocentric claims Lee Berger et al. 2015
4 claims justification
* naledi = Homo : humanlike feet
* distance-runner : ‘human feet = bipedal’
* tool-maker : long thumbs
* buried dead in caves : ‘only possibility’

3. Are fossil-hunters biased to discover “human ancestors”?

4. Anthropo-centric Paleo-Anthropology
Piltdown hoax
Taung fossil
‘Ramapithecus’
Lucy
Ardipithecus
naledi
...
all were called “human ancestors”.
And at least 2 fossil sites are called The Cradle of Humankind :
East-African fossil-hunters think Lucy was a human ancestor (Rift),
South-African paleo-anthropologists think Taung was our ancestor.
human child Taung child bonobo child

5. Endurance-running = obsolete fantasy
Many Paleo-Anthropologists still assume
ape  human
= forest  plain
= quadru- bipedal.
Every locomotor feature in a hominid fossil that resembles humans more than apes (plantar arch, low pelvis, valgus knees, long legs etc.) is interpreted as ‘bipedal’, ‘upright’, ‘running’...
and this fossil is called ‘a human ancestor’
= logical error = unscientific anthropocentrism,
e.g. Bramble & Lieberman embraced the endurance running idea, but considered only climbing & running (i.e. forest vs. savanna), not wading & diving, although e.g. very long legs are more typical of wading (flamingo) than of running (ostrich).
Yet on the cover of Nature, Science... we find uncritically
‘Born to Run’ – ‘Savannahstan’ – ‘le Singe Coureur’ etc.

6. from The original econiche of the genus Homo: Open Plain or Waterside?
M Verhaegen, S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser 2007
p in SI Muñoz ed. Ecology Research Progress. Nova NY
google original econiche Homo

7. Open Plains & Savanna ideas
In 1925, Dart found Taung in what he thought was then dry veld.
In 1985, Partridge proved this wrong, but the idea remained: it was ‘obvious’:
Fact 1 Primates forest quadrupedal furred
Fact 2 Humans ground bipedal naked tools smart
Ergo ‘Since / After we left the forest, we became bipedal ... naked ...’
This ‘explained’ everything:
‘bipedal = tool use = big brain’
‘bipedal on savanna = less sun-beams’
‘naked on savanna = sweating better to cool big brain’
‘SC fat on savanna = against cold nights’ etc.etc. Just-so Stories
BUT
savanna baboons have thicker fur,
run more often horizontally than forest baboons. Baboon Paradox
Forest chimps use more tools.
Overheated furseals on land sweat abundantly.
Biggest brains are seen in (semi)aquatic mammals. Etc.

8. naledi = Homo ? From 4- to bipedal?
Most naledi features are australopith-like or/and bonobo-like.
Berger et al. assume humans had ape ancestors, hence they confuse ‘primitive’ & ‘apelike’, and ‘derived’ & ‘humanlike’, and they assume ‘humanlike feet = bipedal = distance-running’.
In fact, both extant chimps & humans are derived – in different directions – from their LCA
(this Last Common Ancestor probably generally resembled
bonobos more than humans).

9. naledi = Homo ? Berger et al.’s reasoning is mostly based on naledi’s
more humanlike feet, e.g. long adducted big-toes.
They think
quadrupedal chimps have abducted big toes,
but bipedal humans have adducted big toes,
therefore
adducted big toes evolved ‘for’ bipedality
(= distance running, Berger says).
This logical fallacy confuses because & since
(post hoc ergo propter hoc).
They also assume
‘chimp = primitive’
‘human = derived’
but anatomical & embryological data suggest Pan & Gorilla had more vertical ancestors (who, we argue, waded bipedally & climbed arms overhead).

10. Fossil-hunters often find
Fossil-hunters often find ‘human ancestors’, virtually never ‘chimp ancestors’.
Of 6 extant species of African hominoids (= hominids: 1 bonobo, 2 common chimp, 1 human & 2 gorilla spp),
5 species have 0 or 1 fossils !?
1 species has 1000s of fossils !?
= statistically impossible, unless there’s an enormous bias in fossilisation chances between human & ape ancestors.
E.African paleoanthropologists say Lucy = our ancestor, S.African fossil-hunters believe Taung = human ancestor.
!!! Anthropo-centrism
Anthropo-, geo-, ego-centrisms... have always hindered scientific progress
(not questioning own view – thinking that humans are unlike other animals).

11. - human branch : fossils+++ - chimp, gorilla 0 or 1 fossils ?? 0
Fossil hominid skulls :
African apes & humans
‘Vertical spine = bipedal
= human ancestor’ ??
- human branch : fossils+++
- chimp, gorilla
0 or 1 fossils ?? 0
Curiously,
+- all fossil skulls are placed in the Homo branch,
+- none in the Pan or Gorilla branches ...
0 ?? s of fossils ??
of so-called
‘human ancestors’

12. We have ancestors, but do fossils have descendants
We have ancestors, but do fossils have descendants? Hominid fossils are no direct human ancestors :
Hominid fossils are more or less distant relatives (shorter or longer side-branches) of the lines leading to extant hominids Pan, Homo & Gorilla.

13. Could naledi evolve into Homo?
although naledi had e.g.
larger frontal sinuses?
smaller anterior teeth
harder diet > bonobo?
ape-sized brain
flat skull
larger cheekteeth
M3 longest (last molar)
calorie-poor diet?
...
Bonobo (bio)logical view
Pan?
Could naledi evolve into
Homo?
Berger et al.’s
Human anthropocentrism

14. We don’t descend from chimps : both humans & chimps derived from the same LCA ~5 Ma.
H–P LCA ~5 Ma?
Homo 0 Ma Pan
As we go back in time, towards the Homo–Pan LCA,
- Pan fossils show more Homo-like features,
- Homo fossils show more Pan-like features
(though humans are generally more derived than bonobos).
IOW, generally (mosaic evolution!), we can expect that
Homo-like features in Pan & fossil relatives are primitive,
Pan-like features in Homo & fossil relatives are primitive.

15. apith- Large brain like human chimp chimp-like human-like
≠ primitive ≠ derived
Small brain
Small canines
Thick enamel
apith Large brain
like human
chimp
Large canines
Thin enamel
Logical view
Taung
child
2½ Ma
Traditional view
-R.Dart ...
-L.Berger ...
human
child
0 Ma
young
chimp
0 Ma

16. Human-like features in naledi are primitive, not derived ?
1. naledi had rel. small front teeth
Great apes have rel.smaller canines than monkeys (OWM).
Many Miocene hominoids had smaller canines,
e.g. ‘Ramapithecus’ (now female Sivapithecus) was considered a
human ancestor because of its small canines (anthropocentrism).
2. naledi had no very long arm–hand–fingers
Apes evolved longer arm–hand in parallel //.
Gibbons // orangs have rel. longer upper extremities
than chimps. Chimps, longer than humans & gorillas.
Curved hand-bones = vertical climbing.
3. naledi had flat human-like feet
Prenatal chimps have feet more resembling ours :
C.S.Coon : ‘… its great toe points forward ...
Only as it approaches its birth does its foot acquire the appearance of a hand.’
Not cursorial : naledi’s foot was more Penguin- than Ostrich-like (= the only bird with toe loss).
No broad heel-bone (appeared much later in Homo).
Grebe (diving bird) = the only bird with full plantigrady.
Penguin foot Ostrich

17. Lemur, galago, squirrel-monkey. have rel
Lemur, galago, squirrel-monkey... have rel. longest thumbs, but don’t make tools.
Largest thumb
= seal
Primate
thumb loss = derived,
long thumb = primitive?
Long
thumbs
Human hand + rel.long thumb = primitive for primates,
but our hand is rel. broad :
for climbing?? tool-making??
swimming? surface-feeding?

18. Thumb length S.Almécija et al.2015 Nat.Commun.6,7717
Proconsul heseloni hand (~20 Ma) is primitive.
Australopith hand is primitive for hominids.
Great apes developed shorter thumbs:
Pongo<Pan<Gorilla<Homo.
S.Almécija et al.2015 Nat.Commun.6,7717
-hylobatids: finger, hand & thumb elongation,
-Pan // Pongo: finger & hand elongation, but thumb reduction,
-comparatively little change in Gorilla & Homo (except broadest hands)
-human & australopith high thumb-to-digits ratio required little change since the LCA: 
‘acquired convergently with other highly dexterous anthropoids’ ?? dexterous ?? Lemur, Galago etc.

19. most parsimonious. Broad tufts in naledi Long thumb Curved fingers
‘detailed sensing’= anthropocentrism
for tool-making??
Instruments require fine grip!
climbing??
swimming? surface-feeding?
Long thumb
not for climbing?
(thumb loss in suspensory spp)
tool-use = anthropocentrism? Chimp easily picks up needle.
for swimming? surface-feeding?
Curved fingers
vertical climbing, branch-hanging
but Pan evolved longer fingers.
Aquarboreal =
most parsimonious.
UW MC-5

20. naledi naledi’s foot is human-like, not derived, but primitive
Chimp big toe becomes more hand-like after birth (C.S.Coon)
naledi’s foot is human-like,
not derived, but primitive
naledi

21. Hand Foot cursorial running-feet digiti- unguli-grade
carni- herbi-vore
swimming
-hands
bear fossil pinniped sealion walrus seal
swimming
-feet
chimp naledi human

22. swimming- feet flat : Naledi Furseal Ostrich bipedal running-feet
all toe-rays
are rel. long
Naledi
Furseal
Ostrich
bipedal
running-feet
- toe loss
- central rays
long & strong
Kangaroo
Human Bonobo

23. naledi’s arch = primitive-hominid : primarily for swimming–wading
Source: Peter Schmid, Thinkstock – BBC ??
naledi’s arch = primitive-hominid : primarily for swimming–wading
(in humans, secondarily transformed into wading–walking-foot)
Robust big-toe was not for running (cursorials have robust rays 3–4)
but, as in (semi)aquatic animals, for swimming–wading?
Small ape-sized heel-bone = primitive-hominid
(human ancestors later evolved larger heel-bones).
naledi’s foot phalanges are slightly curved : climbing parttime?
(best explained by aquarborealism : fossilised in mud-stone)
Prenatal chimps have feet resembling ours & naledi’s,
with forward pointing big-toes: “only as it approaches its birth
does its foot acquire the appearance of a hand” (S.C.Coon).

24. Digital rays
longest & strongest :
-central rays in cursorials,
-outer rays in swimmers.
African ape big-toes are
‘too’ robust & ‘too’ long :
// reverting monkey-like?
- toe loss : ostrich, kangaroo, horse
- plantigrade : grebe = swimming
Kinkajou Penguin Ostrich Cheetah
Human foot: primitive-hominid?
wading? swimming? cf sealion

25. Example of. Anthropocentrism in Anthropology
Example of Anthropocentrism in Anthropology vs Comparative Evidence The foot of Homo naledi doi /ncomms Abstract Modern humans are characterized by a highly specialized ?primitive-hominid foot that reflects our obligate bipedalism ?wading–swimming bipedalism (aquarboreal origin) … The H. ?A. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like in morphology & inferred function : adducted hallux, elongated tarsus, derived ?original-hominid calcaneo-cuboid joints … indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism ?adapted for wading–swimming ... Within the context of primitive ?bonobo-like features found elsewhere in the skeleton, these findings suggest a unique ?aquarboreal locomotor repertoire for H. ?A. naledi … Comparative Evidence suggests - primates  hominoids  hominids  Homo  H.sapiens - arboreal aquarboreal littoral waterside land - climbing-foot  swimming-foot  wading-  walking-foot

26. Accumulation of naledi fossils. No other macro-fauna
Accumulation of naledi fossils. No other macro-fauna. = Deliberate Burial ???
Anthropocentric supposition
‘most plausible explanation’
but no direct evidence
Unnecessary supposition. Natural accumulation !
Mud-stone = stagnant or slow-moving water.
Ape-sized brain 400–500 cc.
Caves unchanged in 100,000s of years ??

27. Anthropo-centric, impossible & unnecessary supposition
???
Anthropo-centric, impossible
& unnecessary supposition

28. Did naledi fossilize in swamp?
Objections, e.g. prof Paul Dirks
“The cave is at an altitude of 1500 meters, on the South-African Highveld, at the upper reaches of a drainage system.”
“There are no wetlands anywhere in the area, and they probably did not exist in the past few million years in this general area.”
“Climate at the time of deposition was dry, possibly already influenced by an influx of material blown in from the Kalahari.”
There were no other macro-fauna fossils in naledi’s cave.
No shallow aquatic animal or plant spp have been described in naledi’s cave.
The accumulation of remarkably complete skeletons suggests burial?
But
The cave is less than 1500 m ASL. And large parts of S.Africa have been uplifted.
Prof Dart thought Taung (found at the edge of the Kalahari) lived in the dry veld, but Tim Partridge (e.g. 1985) showed the region then was “humid”, not dry.
Kalahari material blown in is recent? Caves are formed by rain- & groundwater. Mud is not dry: naledi fossilised in mud-stone = stagnant water.
Lowland gorillas feed in high densities in forest bais, with no other macro-fauna.
Mud = oxygen-poor = species-poor? Await detailed studies?
Dead bodies covered fast by mud? High population density cf. google gorilla bai.

29. Interpretations Comparative Evidence
Berger et al naledi
Interpretations Comparative Evidence
Homo ? Australopithecus ??
tool-maker ? chimps also make tools
distance-runner ?? aquarboreal
deliberate burial ??? natural fossilisation
‘H.naledi is most similar to specimens attributed to early Homo,
notably habilis & to a lesser extent rudolfensis & erectus’
JF Thackeray 2015 SAJS doi org/ /sajs.2015/a0124

30. dento-gnathic evidence broad molars & cheek-bones
All relevant data independently confirm Australopiths were aqu-arboreal aqu- water arbor tree
microwear
P-F.Puech : afarensis ... glossy polish is caused by wetland plant fibers.
thick enamel
durophagy (hard foods) cf. finger-otter, sea-otter... also use stone tools.
dento-gnathic evidence broad molars & cheek-bones
A.Shabel cf. durophagous Carnivora Ll.duBrul: robusts cf. panda
isotopic data N.vd.Merwe: boisei ate papyrus? (S.African apiths were more omnivorous. E.Africans, more herbivorous.)
vertical locomotion curved hand-bones = vertical climbing ‘bipedal’ = wading?
lifestyle cf. extant apes wading bipedally in hot–wet forests (Miocene = much hotter & wetter than today.)
paleo-environment next slide

31. Australopiths = water + trees
If australopiths ever lived in ‘savanna’ (as often assumed & uncritically aped), it was wet savanna:
- Pliocene australopiths ‘existed in fairly wooded, well-watered regions’,
- Pleistocene robust australopiths existed ‘in similar environs & in more open regions, but always in habitats that include wetlands’ Reed 1997 JHE 32:289
Some examples Verhaegen, Puech Hum.Evol.15:175
A.afarensis
- ‘Generally, the sediments represent lacustrine, lake margin & associated fluvial deposits related to an extensive lake that periodically filled the entire basin’ Johanson et al.1982
- ‘The bones were found in swale-like features … very likely they died & partially rotted at or very near this site … this group of hominids was buried in streamside gallery woodland’ Radosevich et al.1992
- Lucy: ‘Fossil preservation at this locality is excellent, remains of delicate items such as crocodile & turtle eggs & crab claws being found’ Johanson, Taieb 1976
A.boisei
- ‘The lake margins were generally swampy, with extensive areas of mudflats … swamp vegetation is indicated by abundant vertical roots channels & casts possibly made by some kind of reed. Fossil rhizomes of papyrus also suggest the presence of marshland & shallow water’ Conroy 1990
- Baringo: ‘The fossiliferous sediments were deposited in a lagoon … Abundant root casts suggest that the embayment was flanked by reeds, and the presence of calcareous algae indicates that the lagoon was warm & shallow. Bellamya & catfish are animals tolerant of rel. stagnant water, and such situation would also be suitable for turtles & crocodiles’ Carney et al.1971

32. Conclusion : naledi’s lifestyle cf bonobo in swamp ?
Bonobo wading bipedally for waterlilies Google bonobo wading
All great apes sometimes wade or surface-swim for swamp foods
(naledi-like early hominids were predicted, e.g. in Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7, 2002).

33. Praeanthropus boisei afarensis Pan paniscus
Gorilla gorilla female aethiopicus Australopithecus africanus
East-African australopiths generally South-African australopiths
resemble Gorilla more than Pan resemble Pan more than Gorilla
(not due to size, Verhaegen 1992 Hum.Evol.7:63, 1994 ib.9:121)

34. Revision of Hominid Tree 7 Ma hominid LCA ? Sahelanthropus 6 ? Orrorin
(provisory, incomplete, schematic)
Marc Verhaegen 1994, 1996
Hum.Evol.9: , 11:35-41
7 Ma hominid LCA
? Sahelanthropus
? Orrorin
Homo–Pan LCA
4 anamensis
aquarboreal
afarensis 3
Praeanthropus Australopithecus ? naledi
aethiopicus africanus
? habilis
boisei robustus ergaster erectus
aquarboreal littoral + outside Africa 1
Gorilla Pan Homo
lowland & mountain bonobo & common neandertal & modern
0 gorillas // chimps >< humans
Fossils are no direct ancestors of extant spp.
!! Mosaic, reverse,
parallel, convergent ... evolutions.

35. Homo : coastal–riverine dispersal
Human ancestors did not run over open plains, sweating water & salt = scarce on savannas!
Pleistocene archaic Homo dispersed to different continents & islands along African & Eurasian coasts & rivers, e.g. Dmanisi, Java, Flores, Crete,
beach-combing, diving & wading bipedally for littoral, shallow-aquatic & water-side foods, rich in brain-specific nutrients, e.g. DHA in shellfish.

36. Summary : naledi Homo or Australopithecus naledi ? Tool-makers ?
Uncertain. Homo-like features in naledi are primitive : humanlike feet, small anterior dentition...
Tool-makers ?
No evidence. Small brains Extant common chimps also make tools.
Distance running ?
No. Flat feet (unlike cursorials) suggest frequent wading–swimming (as expected : mudstone).
Deliberate burial ?
Far-fetched anthropocentrism.
Were Homo or Australopithecus naledi closer relatives of Pan than of Homo ?
Paleo-environmental & comparative data suggests naledi were ‘vertical’ bipedal waders–climbers in swamp forests.
Google aquarboreal

37. Cunnane SC, Stewart KM eds 2010
Human Brain Evolution: The Influence of Freshwater and Marine Food Resources
Wiley NJ
Munro S 2010
Molluscs as Ecological Indicators in Palaeoanthropological Contexts
PhD thesis Austr Natl Univ Canberra
Puech P-F, Verhaegen M 2000
Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data
Hum Evol 15:
Rhys Evans P et al. eds 2013 & 2014
Human Evolution conference London May 2013 proceedings
Hum Evol 28 & 29 special editions    
Tobias PV 2011
Revisiting water and hominin evolution
:3-15 Vaneechoutte M et al. eds
Vaneechoutte M, Kuliukas A, Verhaegen M eds 2011
Was Man More Aquatic in the Past? Fifty Years after Alister Hardy
eBook Bentham Sci Publ  
Verhaegen M 1994
Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?
Hum Evol 9:
Verhaegen M, Puech P-F, Munro S 2002
Aquarboreal ancestors?
Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7
google aquarboreal
Verhaegen M, Munro S, Vaneechoutte M, Bender R, Oser N 2007
The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?
: Muñoz SI ed Ecology Research Progress
Nova NY
google original econiche Homo