In this paper we analyse the ontogeny of craniofacial growth in Ardipithecus ramidus in the context of its possible social and environmental determinants. We sought to test the hypothesis that this form of early hominin evolved a specific adult craniofacial morphology via heterochronic dissociation of growth trajectories. We suggest the lack of sexual dimorphism in craniofacial morphology provides evidence for a suite of adult behavioral adaptations, and consequently an ontogeny, unlike any other species of extant ape. The lack of sexually dimorphic craniofacial morphology suggests A. ramidus males adopted reproductive strategies that did not require male on male conflict. Male investment in the maternal metabolic budget and/or paternal investment in offspring may have been reproductive strategies adopted by males. Such strategies would account for the absence of innate morphological armoury in males. Consequently, A. ramidus would have most likely had sub-adult periods of socialisation unlike that of any extant ape. We also argue that A.ramidus and chimpanzee craniofacial morphology are apomorphic, each representing a derived condition relative to that of the common ancestor, with A. ramidus developing its orthognatic condition via paedomoporhosis, and chimpanzees evolving increased prognathism via peramorphosis. In contrast we suggest cranial volume and life history trajectories may be synapomorphic traits that both species inherited and retained form a putative common ancestral condition. Our analysis also provides support for the hypothesis that an intensification of maternal care was central to the process of hominization.

No abstract

No abstract

In this article we provide evidence that evolutionary pressures altered the cranial base and the mastoid region of the temporal bone more than the calvaria in the transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens. This process seems to have resulted in the evolution of more globular skull shape – but not as a result of expansion of the brain in the parietal regions but of reduction of the cranial base and the mastoid region relative to the parietals. Consequently, we argue that expansion of the parietals seems to be unrelated to brain evolution, but is more a by-product of reduction in other regions of the skull, reduction that may be related to dietary factors. Additionally, these findings suggest that cognitive and behavioural modernity may not necessarily be dependent on brain shape. Also, it cannot be attributed to the change in brain size because H. erectus and modern human cranial capacities overlap substantially. Consequently, we suggest H. erectus possessed the full suite of cognitive adaptations characteristic of modern humans without possessing a globular skull with flared parietals. Our results also support the theory that paedomorphic morphogenesis of the skull was important in the transition from H. erectus to H. sapiens and that such changes may be related to both dietary factors and social evolution.

In this article I discuss the relationship between analytical psychology and theories of human social evolution. More specifically I look at debates in evolutionary studies and anthropology regarding the priority of matrilineal social structure in the emergence of Homo sapiens. These debates were occurring in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and they provide the context for many of the assumptions of psychoanalysis and analytical psychology. In this essay I will explore these issues in relation to analytical psychology. I will also discuss the work of anthropologist John Layard who proposed matriliny was humanity’s original form of social organisation. Interestingly, Layard’s field work had significant impact on Jung. I will also compare the work of Layard, and other theorists who adopt matrilineal theories of human social evolution, with the theories of Jordan Peterson. Peterson has developed an idiosyncratic evolutionary conception of analytical psychology, one in which he explicitly rejects the notion of matrilineal priority in human evolution. He also adopts certain assumptions about the evolutionary origins of contemporary socio-political hierarchy, assumptions I argue are not supported by data from numerous fields of scientific enquiry.