The mournful ape: Conflating expression and AUTHOR: Meaning in the mortuary behaviour of Homo naledi

South African Journal of Science

Volumn 111, Issue 11-12, 2015, Pages

  Randolph Quinney, Patrick S ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Body disposal; Dinaledi Chamber; Rising Star; Taphonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948975953     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19967489     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17159/sajs.2015/a0131     Document Type: Note

References (42)

1. Randolph-Quinney PS. A new star rising: Biology and mortuary behaviour of Homo naledi. S Afr J Sci. 2015;111(9/ 10), Art. #a0122, 4 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/a0122
2. Berger LR, Hawks J, De Ruiter DJ, Churchill SE, Schmid P, Delezene LK, et al. Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa. eLife. 2015;4, e09560, 35 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09560
3. Dirks PHGM, Berger LR, Roberts EM, Kramers JD, Hawks J, Randolph-Quinney PS, et al. Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the D inaledi Chamber, South Africa. eLife. 2015;4, e09561, 37 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09561
4. Kivell TL, Deane AS, Tocheri MW, Orr CM, Schmid P, Hawks J, et al. The hand of Homo naledi. Nat Commun. 2015;6, Art. #8431, 9 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9431
5. Harcourt-Smith WEH, Throckmorton Z, Congdon KA, Zipfel B, Deane AS, Drapeau MSM, et al. T he foot of Homo naledi. Nat Commun. 2015;6, Art. #8432, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9432
6. Hawks J. Homo naledi fossil discovery a triumph for open access and education. The Conversa tion. 2015 September 28. Available from: https://theconversation.com/homo-naledi-fossil-discovery-A-triumph-for-open-Access-And-education-47726.
7. Stringer C. The many mysteries of Homo naledi. eLife. 2015;4, e10627. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10627
8. Berger LR, De Ruiter DJ, Churchill SE, Schmid P, Carlson KJ, Dirks PHGM, et al. Australopithecus sediba: A new species of Homo-like australopith from South Africa. Science. 2010;328(5975):195-20 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1184944
9. Curnoe D. Did 'Rising Star ' shine too bright? The Conversation. 2015 September 15. Available from: https://theconversation.com/did-rising-star-shine-too-bright-47501.
10. Pohle A. Will a new species change everything we thought we knew about human history? Boston.com. 2015 September 12. Available from: http://www.boston.com/news/science/2015/0 9/12/will-new-species-change-everything-thought-knew-About-human-history/3EdQluQFmChYNfDhm6ze9I/story.html.
11. Newton S. The cave of Homo naledi, or a textbook example of how to do science. National Center for Science Educ ation Blog. 2015 October 20. Available from: http://ncse.com/blog/2015/10/cave-homo-naledi-textbook-example-how-to-do-science-0016693.
12. Von Mirbach J. Homo naledi: Scientific sensation or just a big show? DW.com. 2015 September 14. Available from: http://dw.com/p/1GVtx
13. Schwartz JH. Why the Homo naledi discovery may not be quite what it seems. Newsweek. 2015 September 10. Ava ilable from: http://europe.newsweek.com/why-homo-naledi-discovery-may-not-be-quite-what-it-seems-332804.
14. Hawks J. Is Homo naledi just a primitive version of Homo erectus? John Hawks Weblog. 2015 September 19. Available from: http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/naledi/homo-naledi-homo-erectus-2015.html
15. White TD Physical anthropology at the millennium Am J Phys Anthropol 2000; 113: 287-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1096-8644(200011)113:3287::AID-AJPA13.0.CO;2-8
16. Martin G. Bones of contention: Why Cal paleo expert is so skeptical that Homo naledi is new species. California Magazine. 20 15 October 01. Available from: http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2015-10-05/bones-contention-why-cal-paleo-expert-so-skeptical-homo.
17. De Waal F. Who apes whom? The New York Times. 2015 September 15;Opinon pages. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/opinion/who-Apes-whom.html?-r=1.
18. Randolph-Quinney P, Mallett X, Black SM. Forensic anthropology. In: Jamieson A, Moenss ens A, editors. Wiley encylopedia of forensic science. London: John Wiley and Son; 2009. p. 152-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470061589.fsa058
19. Bristow J, Simms Z, Randolph-Quinney PS. Taphonomy. In: Ferguson E, editor. Forensic anthropology 2000-2010. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2011. p. 279-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b10727-10
20. Keierleber JA, Bohan TL. Ten years after Daubert: The status of the states. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50(5):1154-1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/JFS2004241
21. Christensen AM. The impact of Daubert: Implications for testimony and research in fo rensic anthropology (and the use of frontal sinuses in personal identification). J Forensic Sci. 2004;49(3):427-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/JFS2003185
22. Grivas CR, Komar DA. Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: Implications for forensic anthropology. J Forensic Sci. 2008;53(4):771-776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.200 8.00771.x
23. Saks MJ, Faigman DL. Expert evidence after Daubert. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2005;1:105-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115907
24. Risinge r DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif Law Rev. 2002;90(1):1-56. http://dx.doi.o rg/10.2307/3481305
25. Trigger BG. A history of archaeological thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
26. Hodder I. Reading the past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
27. Gamble C. The palaeolithic societies of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999.
28. Andrews P. Experiments in taphonomy. J Archaeol Sci. 1995;22:147-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1995.0016
29. Beherensmeyer AK, Kidwell SM, Gastaldo RA. Taphonomy and paleobiology. Palaeobiology. 2000;26(4):103-14 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2000)26[103:TAP]2.0.CO;2
30. Behrensmeyer AK. Taphonomy's contributions to palaeobiology. Palaeobiology. 1985;11:105-119.
31. Efremov JA. Taphonomy: A new branch of palaeontology. Pan Am Geol. 1940;74:81-93.
32. Fernández-Lopez SR. Taphonomic alteration and evolutionary taphonomy. J Taphonomy. 2006;4(3):111-142.
33. Lyman RL. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139878302
34. Haglund WD, Sorg MH. Introduction to forensic taphonomy. In: Haglund WD, Sorg MH, editors. Forensic taphonomy: The postmortem fate of human remains. London: CRC Press; 1997. p. 1-13.
35. Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL, Ousley SD, Symes SA. New perspectives in forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008;47(suppl):33-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20948
36. Quinney PS. Paradigms lost: Changing interpretations of hominid behavioural patterns since ODK. In: Rowley-Conwy P, editor. Animal bones, human societies. Oxford: Oxbow Press; 2000. p. 12-19.
37. L yman RL. The concept of equifinality in taphonomy. J Taphonomy. 2004;2(1):15-26.
38. Bar-Oz G, Munro ND. Beyond cautionary tales: A multivariate taphonomic approach for resolving equifinality in zooarchaeological studies. J Taphonomy. 2004;2(4):201-220.
39. Marean CW, Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Pickering TR. Skeletal element equifinality in zooarchaeology begins with method: The evolution and status of the 'Shaft Critique' . J Taphonomy. 2004;2(2):69-98.
40. Munro ND, Bar-Oz G. Debating Issues of equifinality in ungulate skeletal part studies. J Taphonomy. 2004;2(1):1-13.
41. L'Abbé EN, Symes SA, Pokines JT, Cabo LL, Stull KE, Kuo S, et al. Evidence of fatal skeletal injuries on Malapa Hominins 1 and 2. Scientific Reports. 2015;5, Art. #1512 0, 11 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep15120
42. Pettitt P. The palaeolithic origins of human burial. London: Routledge; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232444.013.0022