A History of Agriculture in India v1.c11.s2: Hominization
A History of Agriculture in India v1.c11.s2
- Language
- English
Hominization
v1.c11.s2.1
What are the changes involved in the process of the development of man, also called *hominization*? Jelinek thus sums them up: "One characteristic is the straightening up of the body, gaining an erect posture, so that changes occurred in the spine, the pelvis, and the long-bones of the limbs. Hands and feet changed considerably. The structure of the sole of the foot changed, and developed a double vault. The facial skeleton became more flattened. The brain and the brain-case grew larger. One of the most important characteristics which accompanies the develoment of man is the rounded, or parabolic, form of the dental arcade and the hard palate.”²
v1.c11.s2.2
The development of man was also determined by climatic and marked environmental changes. Tropical forests were replaced by steppes (grassland), and this seems to have been the point at which man began to adopt an erect posture. The ancestors of man, the herbivorous great apes, had to change their feeding habits to include meat because vegetation had become sparse. Besides, meat provides more concentrated protein diet. Hunting speeded up the development of the upright posture of the body, stimulated the growth of the brain, and strengthened all other functions. The ancestor of man developed into an omnivorous creature. Man’s ancestors were neither fast enough nor strong enough to overpower hunting animals easily or to catch up with them. They had to be cunning and use stones and clubs to kill animals. The hand became an important instrument, and the activities of the brain were stimulated.
v1.c11.s2.3
Ramapithecus, the earliest-known Hominid. Pilgrim (1910) established the species *Dryopithecus punjabicus* on the basis of the rami of a mandible recovered from the Chinji beds of the Salt Range, Pakistan.
v1.c11.s2.4
Lewis (1934) reported a new genus *Ramapithecus* and proposed two species of this taxon. The name *Ramapithecus brevirostris* was assigned to the type consisting of a right maxilla and premaxilla, the alveolus of the canine, the root of I² and the alveolus of I¹, found 400 metres east of Chakrana which is situated about 6·5 kilometres east of the village of Haritalynagar in Himachal Pradesh. The other species, *Ramapithecus hariensis*, was assigned to the type consisting of a “fragment” of the right maxilla containing the first and second molars. This was found about 400 metres east of the village of Haritalynagar in Himachal Pradesh. The reconstruction of the skull of *Ramapithecus* is shown in Fig. 18.
v1.c11.s2.5
² Jelinek, J. *The Evolution of Man* pp. 45, 46
v1.c11.s2.6
In 1960, Simons checked these finds and came to the conclusion that the lower jaw described by Pilgrim to be that of *Dryopithecus punjabicus* did not belong to *Dryopithecus*. He included *Dryopithecus punjabicus* and *Ramapithecus brevirostris* under the name *Ramapithecus punjabicus*.
v1.c11.s2.7
In 1961, Leaky discovered two pieces of an upper jaw from Ternan in South-West Kenya, Africa, which he named *Kenyapithecus wickeri*. Later studies showed that *Kenyapithecus* was a different form of *Ramapithecus*, and it was renamed *Ramapithecus wickeri*.
v1.c11.s2.8
Fig. 18. Reconstruction of the skull of Ramapithecus (After Jelinek)
v1.c11.s2.9
Another *Ramapithecus* discovery, i.e. two single molars, was made in China, at a place called Leiyan. It is referable to *Ramapithecus punjabicus*. *Ramapithecus* finds have also been reported from the Swavian Alps of Europe.
v1.c11.s2.10
Simons and Pilbeam (1965) gave the following generic diagnosis of *Ramapithecus*, pointing out the main features in which it differs from *Australopithecus* and *Dryopithecus*:
v1.c11.s2.11
"Slightly smaller overall size (except *Proconsul africanus*, which they renamed *Dryopithecus africanus*), shallower mandible, less complex patterns of tooth crenulation, little or no evidence of cingula or Carabellis' cusps and shorter face. Incisors and canines reduced in relation to cheek-tooth size when compared to *Dryopithecus* but not as markedly as in *Australopithecus*; incisor procumbancy intermediate. Differs from *Dryopithecus* and other apes in showing more widely spaced and much lower molar cusps, so that the central or occlusal fovea of the molars covers more of the crown surface of the tooth (even so these features show some variability in *Ramapithecus* and *Dryopithecus* as well as in modern *Homo* and *Pan*); sides of the upper molars, particularly, are more vertical; also differs from *Dryopithecus* in showing a larger and lower canine fossa, an arched palate, arcuate tooth row and a much shorter rostrum."³
v1.c11.s2.12
³ Chopra, S.R.K. Presidential Address, Anthropology and Archaeology, Indian Science Congress, Nagpur, 1974
v1.c11.s2.13
The facial and dental morphology of *Ramapithecus* shows distinct hominid characteristics. Goodall observes: "The principal human characteristics Fig. 19. A group of rhesus monkeys, Mughal, A.D. 1596 of the teeth of *Ramapithecus* are the small size and the lack of prominence of the canines, the broad flat molars showing interstitial wear, and relatively small incisors. These characters are in striking contrast to the teeth of the contemporary dryopithecine apes with their huge, overlapping canines, large shovel-shaped incisors and a distinctive wear pattern.
v1.c11.s2.15
Fig. 20. Principal deposits of fossil man in Africa. (i) Transvaal Sites: *Australopithecus africanus* and *Australopithecus robustus*, about 2 million years old; Dart, 1924, and Broom, 1936; (ii) Olduvai Gorge: *Australopithecus boisei* (1959) and *Homo habilis* (1961), both 1.8 million years old; Louis and Mary Leakey; (iii) the lower Omo River: early hominids, ranging from 1 million to 4 million years old; Howell and Coppens, 1969; (iv) Lake Turkana: *Homo* skull, 2 million to 3 million years old (1972), and 1.5-million-year-old *Homo erectus* skull (1975); Richard Leakey; (v) Laetolil; 3.35- to 3.75-million-year-old *Homo* jaw-bones and teeth; Mary Leakey, 1974-75; and (vi) Hadar: "Lucy", 3-million-year-old *Australopithecus* skeleton, and *Homo* "family"; Johanson and Taieb, 1974-75
v1.c11.s2.16
"The lower face indicates that the jaws did not protrude to form the muzzle, as in the apes, but were flattened, as in Australopithecines, particularly the robust forms. The facio-dental complex shown by *Ramapithecus* suggests that it was a ground feeder, dependent for survival on such food items as grasses, seeds, rhizomes, bulbs and fleshy plants—quite a different menu from the fruit diet of the dryopithecines.
v1.c11.s2.17
"From the evidence provided by fossil seeds and the remains of other mammals of the Nagri Formation of the Siwalik area, it seems that *Ramapithecus* lived in a region of mixed forest interspersed with open areas around lakes and water-courses."⁴
v1.c11.s2.18
⁴ Goodall, V. *The Quest for Man*, p. 102
v1.c11.s2.19
We have no knowledge of the rest of the body of *Ramapithecus*. Nothing is known about its skull, brain-size, and its hands and feet. It is not known whether it stood upright. Circumstantial evidence, however, suggests that *Ramapithecus punjabicus* might have been a partial biped.
v1.c11.s2.20
As regards its age, Khatri states that *Ramapithecus punjabicus* lived in India from the upper Miocene to the early Pliocene, 14 to 8 million years ago. The question is which of the finds of *Ramapithecus*, Indian or East African, is older? Goodall observes, "The African species at about 14 million years is slightly older than the Indian form at 12 million years." Edey states, "Leakey's Fort Ternan find locates *Ramapithecus* in East Africa at least two million years before it appeared in India—and, most important, in a country where Australopithecines of great age are beginning to turn up. It seems most sensible to continue to argue the case for Africa as the breeding ground of man. *Ramapithecus* populations may well have radiated out from Africa—to India and perhaps to other places—over a period of several million years. But this is no guarantee that they went on to produce hominid descendants in those places. Until fossil evidence confirms that they did, it seems more logical to assume that early hominid evolution was confined to the place where the fossils are: Africa."⁵
v1.c11.s2.21
⁵ Edey, M.A. *The Emergence of Man, The Missing Link*, p. 52