2
Upright Posture
but Ape-sized Brains
In the woodland
between forest and savanna
The
dark woods is not where we want to be. Fairy tales play right into
this predisposition of ours, seen even in children without experience of the
forest or the savanna. We much prefer a few trees, together with a nice
view of some water and grass – which is why waterfront property is now so
expensive.
Bonobos would not agree with us.
They live in equatorial forest, as do chimps, and they likely find wide-open
spaces somewhat threatening, just as we do deep dark forests. There are a
few places, such as Senegal in the west of Africa and Malawi to the
southeast, where chimps live in woodland settings. In a woodland, the trees
are interspersed with open areas. That’s also what you find on the fringe
of a forest, as a transition between packed trees and grassland. There are,
of course, various mixes such as tree savanna and bush savanna, but let me
simplify the real estate into forest, woodland, bushland, grassland, and
really arid desert where little grows (like the modern Sahara).
Over a period of about 5 million
years, our ancestors presumably made the transition from feeling comfortable
in the forests to being reasonably comfortable out on the savanna, where
Homo erectus
was making a living about 1.8 million years ago. You can tell something
about diet from where the fossils are found – not from how the fossil site
is today (often eroded badlands), but from the nearby bones of other species
whose habitat is known to be forest, woodland, or grassland. For most of
that 5 million year transition period, the fauna associated with hominid
bones are woodland creatures such as pigs, which root around for underground
resources that are characteristic of woodlands, not forests or grasslands.
Big
brains come along later in the game. What distinguishes the early
hominid from the great ape tends, in the eyes of the physical
anthropologists who argue about this sort of thing, to be two things: the
reduction of the canine teeth and the acquisition of upright posture.
The pelvis becomes more
bowl-shaped. Unlike chimps where the legs go straight down from the hip
joint, the hominid knees indent. The hole in the bottom of the skull (where
the spinal cord descends into the neck) moves forward, to better balance the
head atop a now-vertical spinal column. The neck muscles insert into the
skull somewhat differently. Some of those upright characteristics are now
seen in hominid fossils as early as 6-7 million years back.
That isn’t to say that they had
bipedal locomotion as we know it now. By
Homo erectus
times, they did, but there may have been five million years of transition
between the occasional upright locomotion of chimps and an efficient upright
stride. Our present bipedal locomotion is in fact more efficient than the
ape’s quadrupedal style, but I doubt that the transition was all about
“progress” as some transitional stages seem inefficient. (And Darwinian
adaptations for efficiency have to operate on immediate opportunities, not
long-term prospects.)
What
started upright posture, and why is it associated with woodland
habitats? In the old museum tableaus, early man stood upright to peer over
the tall grass and brush, all the better to spot prey and predators. While
formulated for the savanna theory (the notion that we descended from the
trees and strode out into the grasslands), it still works pretty well for
the new intermediate stage in woodland. Woodlands were surely comforting
when venturing out of the forests, as there was often a handy tree to climb,
both for escaping a lion and for nesting at night.
Scavenging is often mentioned as
part of the transition to the more serious hunting in
Homo erectus
times. And woodland is a good place to steal some meat, then run off to
climb a tree, so as to avoid conflict with late-arriving lions and hyenas.
Running fast is useful, and chimps aren’t very good at it when carrying
something. They waddle, shifting their weight ponderously, and so they tire
easily after a short burst of running.
Another reason for being upright
in the woodlands is sunshine. In a shady forest, it is hard to get
overheated. But in a woodland, most places get some sunshine for part of
the day, thanks to the openings. This means that you cast a shadow, and the
size of the shadow at midday says something about how much of a “heat hit”
you are getting from direct sunshine. Stand upright in the tropics and a
small dark pool is seen near your feet.
Grazing animals cast big shadows
but, unlike the bonobo shown here in the unnatural setting of a zoo
“savanna” at midday,
their
brains are adapted to heat stress. If our brains were subjected to the body
temperature of an eland at midday, we’d have a seizure. So one way to avoid
excess heating is to present a minimal target to the sun. If you stand up
straight, your head and shoulders take the hit, and they’re a lot smaller
than your back.
Overheating can also be combated
by sweating. Evaporative cooling works best with minimal body hair; sweat
that evaporates from a hair doesn’t cool the skin very much, for the same
reason that the handle of a pan doesn’t transfer very much heat to the hand
that holds it. You want the sweat to stay on bare skin, so the heat
transfer does some good in cooling the body beneath.
But the loss of body hair,
another one of those things that changed sometime between the apes and us,
has an important consequence for posture. Transporting infants is generally
accomplished in the quadrupedal monkeys and apes by the infant clinging to
the mother’s hair, so she can get around on all fours. Thus the transition
to profuse sweating likely resulted in a mother having to use an arm to hang
onto the infant, and rearrange her travel posture accordingly.
Another consequence of sweating
so much is having to stay close to drinking water. Some animals have
kidneys that are very efficient at keeping water from being lost in the
urine, but we’re profligate, wasting both water and salt and thus constantly
having to seek out such resources. It makes me think that our ancestors
were often waterhole predators, in competition with the big cats.
So the early hominid habitat was
likely a transition zone between forest and grassland, the place where we
adapted to heat stress and learned to eat a different diet. Upright posture
was likely a byproduct of such factors. What’s surprising to many of us is
that the postural rearrangement comes so early, back when the DNA dating
suggests we parted company with the ancestral chimps. And millions of years
before bigger brains developed.
Teeth
tell tales too. Besides upright posture, it is clear that something
was also going on with the teeth. You can tell whether it is an ape or a
hominid by the size of the canine teeth. Since big primate canines are
primarily for fighting, and threats to fight, smaller ones in the hominid
line suggest that something was going on that made such aggression less
important.
Was it monogamy, like the
gibbons? Probably not, because the size difference between males and
females changed in the wrong direction. At both ends of our 5 million year
long spectrum from upright apes to
Homo erectus,
one sees males that average about 15 percent larger than females, same as
modern humans. In between, however, most upright ape species so far seem to
have males that are almost twice as large as females. (Think gorillas.) In
the animal world, such sexual dimorphism is usually because the males fight,
to exclude one another from access to females, which makes for gorilla-like
harems. In that game, bigger is better. With
erectus,
the size difference becomes minor, more like
today.
I’m not sure what to make of this
puzzle. One possibility is that the hominid species with oversized males
are not actually our ancestors, that there is an undiscovered lineage
somewhere, perhaps outside the Rift Valley, which evolved without
significant changes in sexual dimorphism.
And there’s another reason to
wonder about that, because the teeth also go back and forth in that 5
million year span, becoming much larger and then much reduced. That may
have to do with what there is to eat in woodlands. The lack of all-day
shade in the open woodlands means that the sun can dry out the soil, in a
way that forest floor plants don’t experience. So woodland plants have a
lot of underground storage organs for water and building materials. We call
them bulbs, tubers, rhizomes, or just “veggies.” Even chimps that live near
woodlands have been seen digging them up in the dry season, if just for
their water. Were the chimps to eat them more regularly, the variants with
larger cheek teeth might fare better.
But what with
Homo erectus
at the end of the 5 million year transition having smaller cheek teeth, we
again have a back-and-forth situation. Maybe it is just adaptation tracking
the diet, maybe it is another sign that we’ve missed a more direct hominid
lineage to Homo, with the australopithecines and such off on the side
branches. Only more data, earned in the hot and dusty badlands, are likely
to settle the issue.
Freeing up the hands presumably
had some important effects, as Darwin speculated, but brain size sure didn’t
change much for the next few million years. So the thought processes of the
bipedal apes may have been no fancier than those of the great apes. There
might have been chimplike tool use, but it is difficult to find evidence of
making stone tools until the very end of this period, at about 2.6 million
years ago. An ape-level mentality might have sufficed for life in the
woodlands.
The
Homo
lineage is a spin-off, to use a modern term, of the lineages of the bipedal
woodland apes. It occurs about 2.4 million years ago. The bipedal apes
keep going, evolving into more heavily built vegetarians, until they die out
about a million years ago. It’s hard not to think of them as a woodland
version of the gorillas, specializing themselves into an evolutionary dead
end. That’s the usual fate of many species and it tends to be aspects of
mind – such as having the omnivore’s wide set of food-finding tactics – that
can provide the versatility needed to avoid getting trapped.