Re: An alternative to ST and AAT

Gerrit Hanenburg (
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 12:45:12 GMT (Susan S. Chin) wrote:

>: JW: This morphology enables bipedalism, but is not as efficient
>: for long distance walking. In this sense, the australopithicene
>: bipedalism was less efficient than modern Hss.

>I haven't read any of the later research on Australopithecine locomotion,
>can you cite a source and some specifics for the less efficient biped claim?
>What part of the Australopithecine anatomy make them less efficient? Thanks.

Christine Berge in her paper "How did the Australopithecines walk? A
biomechanical study of the hip and thigh of Australopithecus
afarensis" (J.of Human Evol.26 (1994):259-273) concludes:"Not only did
Australopithecus have less ability to maintain hip and knee extension
during the walk,but also probably moved the pelvis and lower limb
differently. It seems that the australopithecine walk differed
significantly from that of humans,involving a sort of waddling
gait,with large rotatory movements of the pelvis and shoulders around
the vertebral column. Such a walk,likely required a greater energetic
cost than does human bipedalism."