OUT OF EUROPE?

 

NOTES ON HOMINISATION: EUROPEAN VIEWPOINT, HUNGARIAN VIEWPOINT?

OR: WHAT WAS RUDAPITHECUS, WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT WILL BE?

 

B. Lukács

 

President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Committee of HAS

 

CRIP RMKI, H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

 

Rudapithecus hungaricus: ubi es?

Hungarian Rudaape: whither hast thou gone?

Magyar Rudamajom: hová lettél?

Uhorská Rudaopica: kam si zmiznúla?

 

 

            Hungary had an unfortunate enough history in XXth century, so her possibilities for Big Science were moderate. The country was crushed in both World Wars, and her currency was declared non-convertible in the Great Crisis, in 1931. Travels, therefore, became difficult, and expeditions even more.

            For a while this was not extraordinary. The Great Crisis was world-wide, and then came the Great War. However in 1948 Hungary decided (?) to choose the economy of community property & autarchy (by other, simpler, words, became a Soviet satellite state). So the currency remained non-convertible, passport policy became rigid. and from the middle of the 60's the GDP ceased to follow those of Western or even Southern Europe. Good scientists of a poor, closed country will have some problems in international competition.

            Hominisation seemed first a project not hopeless for Hungarians. At the turn of centuries Europe was the most important area of hominisation. Neanderthals were first found in Germany, and later Dordogne, Provence, France was full of sapiens and Neanderthal sites. Even in mid-XXth century the Pre-sapiens Theory of Vallois ( see [1] and citations therein) seemed viable. In this theory the True Man, Homo sapiens, lurked and developed for aeons in some remote nook at the Far West, while primitive and beastly Neanderthal Men roamed most Europe. Then he came out of the cozy nook and took Earth. This picture was supported by the late start of anthropology in Asia & Africa, and also by the unavoidable misinterpretation of Castelperronian Culture, of which now we know that it was one of the Upper Palaeolithe cultures of Neanderthals, but which was taken automatically first a sapiens culture.

            Asian and African anthropologists saw the problem differently, but they were few enough. Dubois found Java Man, the Pithecanthropus, in 1894, and his find gradually became more and more accepted, which then provoked the Piltdown [2] forgery as a European answer. However the South African finds starting in 1925 [3] were definitely earlier than anything known then, and afterwards Europe was secondary. So for studying Hominisation the researcher had to go to Indonesia or South Africa, hopelessly expensive between World Wars, and also politically impossible up to cca. 1975.

                But Hungarians can effectively pray (or work?) for smaller kinds of miracles. In mid-60's Homo erectus became unearthed in Vértesszöllôs, Hungary [4] (now it seems rather H. antecessor); and in 1968 Miocene Apeman Rudapithecus hungaricus came forward at the old miner town Rudabánya. At Rudabánya Primates bones showed up from 1965, but it seems best to refer to [5].

            With this, Hominisation became investigable for Hungarian scientists with moderate and inconvertible Hungarian currency and a passport automatically valid only for neighbouring other Soviet satellite states. In a relatively short time they identified 4 Primates genuses (and a fifth without name), of which 2 was in or near to human ancestry.

                Then gradually the currency became more and more convertible and Western boundaries more and more open. In this process the number of genera went down to 2+1, and especially Genuine Hungarian Rudapithecus hungaricus became a mere Carpathian Basin variety of Dryopithecus brancoi. That in itself can be considered simply Globalisation. But during these years also Rudapithecus' place in hominisation changed to and fro.

            Recently Begun & Kordos [6], [7], [8], [9], together with others, seem to believe that Europe has a unique role in Hominisation.

            I will return later to the details. However briefly recapitulating Begun, he now believes that there was a time (say, between 17 & 10 Mya, or in MN5-9) when Africa was more or less without the ancestors of Homo, while they were represented in Europe; and he believes that "...the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia, and not Africa" [6].

            We have discussed the European role in hominisation in 1993. It happened in a Volume of a rather small conference (Bérczi Sz., Lukács B. & Török K.: The Carpathian Basin in Hominization. In: Carpathian Basin: Evolutionary Stages. Proc. 4th Symp. of the Evolution of Matter Subcommittee of the Scientific Committee of Natural Evolution of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, eds. Lukács B. & al., p. 68, KFKI, Budapest, 1993, KFKI-1993-21), and now I think, it is proper to show the paper to a wider audience. Of course, it is a paper of 11 years old, and at some points we would write it now differently. However the main goal of the paper was then to follow the changes of the Rudapithecus picture until 1993; so look at it in this way.

            Now comes the old paper as I was able to find it on a 51/4" floppy, partially deteriorated. I corrected the data errors, translated the file from 4.0 MSDOS WORD into Word for Windows, and corrected trivial mistypes, nothing else. Also, originally the Figures were real pictures on paper. I was unable to reproduce 2, where I will indicate where you can find something similar; for the other 6 they are now reproduced more or less. I inserted some Notes in a special font to denote points I am going to comment below. Except for these, the text is original, between lines of asterisks *****. References are numbered separately in this part. So it comes.

 

 

**************************************************************

THE CARPATHIAN BASIN IN THE HOMINIZATION

 

Sz. Bérczi1, B. Lukács2 & K. Török3

 

1 Dept. of General Technics, R. Eötvös University, H-1088 Rákóczi út 5., Budapest, Hungary

 

2 Central Research Institute for Physics RMKI, H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary

 

3 Dept. of Petrology & Geochemistry, R. Eötvös University, H-1088, Múzeum krt. 4/a, Budapest, Hungary

 

ABSTRACT

            The possible rôles of the Rudabánya Primates (and specially that of Rudapithecus hungaricus) in the hominization process are discussed.

 

1. ON THE RUDABÁNYA PRIMATES FOSSILS

            From 1969 upwards fossils of 3 different Primates were found in Pliocene (lower Pannonian, cca. at -10 My) layers at Rudabánya. (See Fig. 1.) In that time the local climate was subtropical and the site was on the shore of the Pannonian Lake. The species are Rudapithecus hungaricus, Bodvapithecus altipalatus and Pliopithecus (=Anapithecus) hernyáki. Of course, genus names are possible subjects of later reclassificationNote A. The most "human" is Rudapithecus, and, contrary to fossils of most Primates, fragments of his skull and limb bones are known too, besides the usual teeth and mandible fragments. Therefore for him locomotion, cerebral structure &c. can be reconstructed with some probability. It seems that his brain volume was 2/3 of the recent chimpanzee, and a knee bone suggests bipedalism.

            So Rudapithecus hungaricus seems to be either a very advanced proto-ape or a good prehuman. Had he an important rôle in hominization? Or, equivalently, was the Carpathian Basin an important site of hominization? As we shall see, the answer is nontrivial.

 

 

Fig. 1: The Carpathian Basin and Rudabánya at the time of the formation of the Rudabánya Primates layer. {This Figure never existed in digital form. Fig. 1b of Kordos L. & Begun D. R., J. Human Evol. 40, 17 (2001) is roughly similar.}

 

2. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

            The Rudapithecus hungaricus was a definite entity. However even with correct and full reconstruction his position in the hominization process depends on theories about the evolution of the whole Primates ordo. Rudapithecus in himself is not enough to determine his position.

            In the time of Rudapithecus (~-10 My)Note B the Carpathians already existed. The Basin was open only partially to the south (see Fig. 1). So then the Basin may have been the northernmost extension of the tropical and subtropical world.

            There are 3 Rudabánya Primates, as told above. So something should be told about the other two too.

 

3. ON TAXONOMY

            The traditional taxonomy of Ordo Primates was elaborated first from the many living Primates, and then fossils were incorporated into the system. Note that full living organisms must have greater weight  in determining the kinship than separated teeth. The traditional system is shown on Fig. 2, after Koenigswald (1960), and we do not question it. It is another question, which fossil or even which organism belongs to which taxonomic unit.

 

 

 

Genus

x

x

x

x

Austra-lopith.

Homo

Gigant.

Pan

Go-ril

Pongo

x

x

x

Subfa-mily

x

x

x

x

Australopithecinae

Homininae

Gigantopithecinae

Pong.

Ponginae

Pongin

Procon

Hylob.

x

Family

x

x

x

Parapithecidae

Hominidae

Hom.

Pong.

Ponginidae

Pon-gin

Pong.

x

x

x

Superfamily

x

Ceboidea

Oreopith.

Hom.

Hom.

Hom.

Hom.

Hominoidea

Hom.

Hom

Hom

Hom

Cercopith.

Sub-ordo

Prosimii

An-thr.

Anthr

Anthr.

Anthr.

Anthr

Anthro-poidea

Anthr

An-thr

An-thr

An-thr

An-thr

Anthr

Ordo

Prim

Prim

Prim.

Prim.

Prim.

Prim.

Primates

Prim.

Pri

Prim

Pri

Pri

Prim.

 

x: Not detailed.

 

Fig. 2: The traditional Primates taxonomy.

 

 

            The general idea is that the forkings show forkings in evolution, i.e. that they show at least relative chronology. According to common opinion in the first half of the 80's Hominidae separated from Pongidae at cca. -20 My, well below the formation of the Rudabánya Primates layer.

            Now, what is "hominization"? Is it the formation or separation of genus Homo, or that of subfamily Homininae, or that of family Hominidae? The rôle of Rudapithecus in hominization will depend on the definition of hominization.

 

4. THE RUDABÁNYA PRIMATES IN THE TRADITIONAL SCHEME

            The traditional cladogram of the recent great apes and man is shown on Fig. 4. If it is correct together with the approximate ages, then Rudapithecus can be

            1) either in the immediate kinship of the ancestor of the African apes;

            2) or an endpoint of an extinct branch;

            3) or a member of the hominid line.

The relevant skulls are shown by Fig. 3, after Kordos (1987). As for the Bodvapithecus it seemed to be in close relation with the Ouranopithecus (=Dryopithecus) macedoniensis (Bonis & Melentis, 1980), a line leading maybe to Gigantopithecus, which latter, in some opinions, "is closer to man than any of the recent apes" (Koenigswald, 1960; Weinert, 1948). Pliopithecus herny'ki seemed to be a proto-gibbon. Fig. 5 is a suggested evolutionary scheme in 1984, compiled from the book of Kordos (1985).

 

 

 

Fig. 3: Some Hominoidea skulls, after Kordos (1987). {This Figure never existed in digital form. For some of the skulls you can use Kordos L. & Begun D. R.: Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 103, 277 (1997)}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. THE BIOCHEMICAL REVOLUTION

            However from the middle of the 70's biochemical and genetical data started to accumulate which put the time of hominidpongid (or homininpongin) separation nearer to present. It turned out that in these fundamental data chimpanzee in nearer to man than to orang. Some results are that

            1) the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and the great African apes is in the order of that for congeneric or even sibling species (Bruce & Ayala, 1978; King & Wilson, 1975, Blanc, 1984).

            2) some immunologic considerations put up the man-chimpanzee separation so high as -4 My (Sarich & Cronin, 1976; Sarich & Wilson, 1967).

            3) reconstructions are doubtful in the point whether the man-chimpanzee-gorilla separation was a trifurcation or two subsequent bifurcations (Barton & Jones, 1983; Dutrillaux, 1981). Henceforth, for definiteness' sake we accept -7 My for the human separation and -5 My for the chimpanzee-gorilla forking, but this special choice will not be relevant in any conclusion.

            The revised cladogram is Fig. 6. Note that in this case in the subfamily Ponginae only Pongo remains from the recent genera. Chimpanzee and gorilla must be transferred into family Hominidae, and probably into subfamily Homininae, a consequence seldom emphasized. What is more, if Point 1) holds then they should belong into the Homo genus (!), a point which we will not press here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            But anyway, in the new system the "human" line without apes do not appear before -7 My, well after the Rudabánya Primates layer. Then Rudapithecus can be:

            1) either the endpoint of an extinct line;

            2) or a member from around the common ancestry of

               man, chimpanzee and gorilla.

A possible evolutional tree is Fig. 7, compiled from Kordos (1987). Here Rudapithecus is the common ancestor of man and the great African apes, and a direct ancestor of the "missing link". The skulls (Fig.3) do not argue against this; but a migration back to Africa would be needed. This is complicated; but do not forget about the continuous cooling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. THE PRESENT VIEW

            Between 1987 and 1993 a major and a minor revisions happened on the last tree. First, Pliopithecus hernyáki became Anapithecus hernyáki, and by this transferred from subordo Anthropoidea into subordo Prosimii (Kordos, 1993). If so, then the third Rudabánya Primates is not a primitive gibbon but a very highward evolved lemurNote C. Second, now Kordos seems to accept the opinion that descendants of the Rudapithecus hungaricus did not migrate back to AfricaNote D. In this case the Rudapithecus line died out later in the cooling. Still, Rudapithecus may have been near to the common ancestor of African apes and us. This scheme, compiled from Kordos (1993), is Fig. 8. See also Begun (1992).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. CONCLUSIONS

            As was demonstrated, the "hominization scheme", or the definition of "hominization" is changing in the last years. The rôle of Rudapithecus in hominization cannot be determined until the notion is not redefined in a rigorous way according to the new cladograms. Still, in all scheme Rudapithecus was at least near to the line leading to us.

            However two further comments are possible even now. First, if Rudapithecus hungaricus was bipedal 10 My agoNote E, then it is worthwhile to remember that Oreopithecus bambolii was bipedal at -15 My. So bipedal locomotion seems to be an old and widespread tendency among Anthropoidea, and then the quadrupedal (but knuckle-walking) motion of gorilla and chimpanzee is possibly secondary. Second, remember that the Carpathian Basin was the nothernmost fringe of the Hominoid-roamed areas at 10 My BP, and so the ancestral Hominoidea received here the greatest challenge. The challenge may have been too strong, finally destroying them, or they may have reacted properly to the challenge but in that case here indeed there were triggers for a fast evolution towards usNote F.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

            The authors acknowledge that they wrote this contribution under the impact of the lectures of L. Kordos on the symposia of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee. Their goal was to avoid major lacunae in this Volume of the history of the Carpathian Basin.

 

REFERENCES

Barton, N. & Jones, J. S. (1983): Nature 306, 317

Begun, D. (1992): Science, 25 Sep., 1992

Blanc, M. (1984): La Recherche, 15, 654

Bonis, L. de & Melentis, J. (1980): Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris

             290, 755

Bruce, Elisabeth J. & Ayala, F. J.(1978): Nature, 276, 264

Dutrillaux, B. (1981): La Recherche 12, 1246

King, Marie-Claire & Wilson, C. A. (1975): Science 188, 107

Koenigswald, G. H. R. von (1960): Die Geschichte des Menschen.

             Springer, Berlin

Kordos, L. (1985): Az elsô ötvenmillió év. Gondolat, Budapest

Kordos, L. (1987): Term. Vil. 118, 226

Kordos, L. (1993): Term. Vil. 124, 310

Kretzoi, M. (1975): Nature 257, 578

Sarich, V. M. & Cronin, J. E. (1976): in Molecular Anthropology

             (eds. M. Goodman & R. E. Tashian), Plenum Press, New York,

             p. 14

Sarich, V. M. & Wilson, A. C. (1967): Science 158, 1200

Weinert, H. (1948): Die Riesenaffenmenschen und ihre stam-

             mengeschichtliche Bedeutung. München

 

 

**************************************************************

 

Notes from 2004:

A:         Now the difference bw. Rudapithecus & Bodvapithecus is believed to be only sexual: Rudapithecus was the female.

B:         Now the layer is put to Late MN 9, age cca. 10 - 9.7 My [10].

C:         This must have been a very transient idea. Now again Anapithecus hernyáki is near to Pliopithecus, so a catarrhyne; anything a Pliopithecus may be exactly.

D:         But see [8] from 2003; and also Note F.

E:         I heard doubts about this bipedalism about cca. 1996, in personal communications. And indeed, [11] (in Hungarian) mentions quadrupedalism, and "misjudged bones of the knee joint". However in [12] the picture (without Figure Caption) illustrating Begun's recent view shows a bipedal hominid.

F:         These last 2 sentences of the Conclusion were the message of the paper. Now [8] Begun believes in a hominisation center in Europe during MN 7-9, and then a migration to Africa during MN 11-12. There the European/Western Asian stock splits into knuckle-walking and bipedal ones. This is not too different from our picture in 1993, even if it is not identical. Of course who knows whether the hominids of Asia Minor in MN 11 were the descendants of MN 9 Carpathian Basin hominids or MN 9 Asia Minor ones.

 

            And finally: about the late Rudapithecus hungaricus. It is a shame that now we do not have an important hominid with the species name "hungaricus". (And Bodvapithecus altipalatus is simply her mate.) Now experts tell that she is simply a Dryopithecus brancoi, known from Germany & Austria, and that name had priority. And Dryopithecus is the sister taxon of Ouranopithecus [8].

            Indeed, Genus Dryopithecus is old enough: Lartet defined it in 1856 [13], and so it could go into Darwin's The Descent of Man. However Lartet's Dryopithecus was D. fontani. Koenigswald believes it in kinship with the gorilla.

            OK, but Lartet was French. Germans rather liked to call the European Dryopithecus D. germanicus, with surprisingly "humanoid" teeth. When Branco describes the teeth [14], he only defines them with the genus. Koenigswald shows a D. germanicus tooth which however may be (according to him) that of Paidopithex (another species of Dryopithecus? another genus?). As for only the European Dryopitheci, in the very close past the following names were used:

 

Region

Sp. Name

Iberia

crusafonti

Iberia

laietanus

Iberia

piveteaui

France

fontani

Germany

brancoi

Germany

eppelsheimensis

Germany

fontani

Germany

germanicus

Germany

rhenanus

Austria & Hungary

carinthiacus

Balkan

macedoniensis

Turkey

darwini

 

Some name pairs are equivalent, some are not; we do not necessarily know which is the actual case. An extensive Table on Internet [15] tells that: Anapithecus hernyáki is the same as Pliopithecus hernyáki. Good. But Pliopithecus brancoi is Dryopithecus brancoi. Rangwapithecus sericus/serus was originally defined by Kretzoi, the holotype is RUD 71, but since 1991 it is rather Anapithecus hernyáki according to both [7] and [15], but for the Rangwapithecus genus I would look at Dryopithecus. And our late Bodvapithecus altipalatus is Dryopithecus brancoi in [7], but D. carinthiacus in [15]. How many genera, and how many species lived at Rudabánya 10 My ago?

            And look: D. brancoi got its name from Branco describing mere teeth, indistinguishable from human teeth. And now proud Rudapithecus hungaricus is D. brancoi. Sic transit gloria Hungariae.

 

REFERENCES

 [1]       Vallois H. V.: The Fontéchevade Fossil Man. J. Amer. Phys. Anthropol. 7, 3 (1948)

 [2]       For the original publication see: Dawson Ch. & Smith-Woodward A.: Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 69, 117 (1913). The Piltdown find was in doubt from cca. 1920 and Weidenreich F. (Palaeont. Sinica 127, 273) suggests to eliminate it from any evolution tree in 1943 as "artificial combination of fragments" so forgery. In contrast, in Nature July 12, 1917 (p. 399) appeared the Note of the Royal Dublin Society which took it authentic, and Sir Arthur Keith in 1948 (A New Theory of Human Evolution, C. A. Watts & Co., London) still remained at this opinion.

 [3]       Dart R. A.: Australopithecus africanus: The Man-Ape of South Africa. Nature 115, 195 (1925)

 [4]       Vértes L.: Discovery of Homo erectus in Hungary. Antiquity, 39, 303 (1965)

 [5]       Kretzoi M.: New ramapithecines and Pliopithecus from the lower Pliocene of Rudabánya in north-eastern Hungary. Nature 257, 578 (1975)

 [6]       CBC News: European fossils "rewrite" human evolution: Canadian prof. http://www26.brinkster.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=384334743023

 [7]       Kordos L. & Begun D. R.: Primates from Rudabánya: allocation of specimens to individuals, sex and age categories. J. Human Evol. 40, 17 (2001)

 [8]       Begun D. R., Gülec E. & Geraads D.: Dispersal Patterns of Eurasian Hominoids: Implications from Turkey. DEINSEA 10, 23 (2003)

 [9]       Heizmann E. & Begun D. R.: The Oldest European Hominid. J. Human Evol. 41, 463 (2002)

[10]      Bernor R. L. & al.: Recent Advances on Multidisciplinary Research at Rudabánya..., Palaeontographia Italica 89, 3 (2002)

[11]      Kordos L.: Ősünk legteljesebb koponyája. Élet és Tudomány 1999/44

[12]      ***: Out of Europe? Geology News. Feb. 20, 2002. http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=OutOfEurope

[13]      Lartet E.: Note sur un grand singe qui se rattache au groupe des singes superieurs. C. R. Acad. Sci. 43, 219 (1856)

[14]      Branco W.: Die menschenähnlichen Zähne aus dem Bohnerz der schwäbischen Alb. Jahresber. Ver. Vaterl. Naturkunde in Württenberg 54, Stuttgart, 1898

[15]      ***: Genus/Species… www.angellis.net/Web/PDfiles/primats.pdf

 

 

 

My HomePage, with some other studies, if you are curious.