|
|
Re: An alternative to ST and AAT
John Waters (jdwaters@dircon.co.uk)
17 Nov 1996 15:08:59 GMT
Gerrit Hanenburg <G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.net> wrote in
article <56n1de$1st@news.NL.net>...
> susansf@netcom.com (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."
>
> Gerrit
>
JW: Yes. This confirms the Jolly and Plog study. But
according to Susan, C. Owen Lovejoy also carried out a
biomechanical study of this species and apparently reached
an entirely different conclusion. So who are we to believe?
Is Christine Berge a qualified physical anthropologist?
And more importantly, where does that leave us regarding
Paul's original question on the matter? Don't tell me he's
been proved right once again.
John.
|