"When modern humans
fight hand to hand, the face is usually the primary target," said Carrier.
"What we found was that the bones that suffer the highest rates of
fracture in fights are the same parts of the skull that exhibited the greatest
increase in robusticity. These bones also show the greatest difference between
males and females in australopiths and humans. In other words, male and female
faces are different because the parts of the skull that break in fights are
bigger in males."The debate over the dark side of human nature can be
traced back to the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that
before civilisation humans were "noble savages".
Recent studies and evidence
from ancient ape-like bipeds suggests that the present human face evolved to
minimise damage caused by fighting.
Scientists scrutinized the bone
structure of australopiths, ape-like bipeds living 4m to 5m years ago which
predated the modern human primate HOMO. They discovered that the Australopith’s
faces and jaws were most resistive in just those areas most likely to receive a
blow from a fist.
US lead researcher Dr David
Carrier, from the University of Utah, said the australopiths had hand
proportions that allowed the formation of a fist, in effect turning the hand
into a club.
"If indeed the evolution
of our hand proportions was associated with selection for fighting behaviour
you might expect the primary target, the face, to have undergone evolution to
better protect it from injury when punched."
The study, published in the
Journal Biological Reviews builds on previous work indicating that violence
played a greater role in human evolution than many experts would like to admit.
Carrier, a biologist, has
investigated the short legs of great apes, the bipedal posture of humans and
the hand proportions of hominins, or early human species. He argues that these
traits evolved, to a large extent, around the need to fight.
The ideology that civilization corrupted the human race and made us violent has strong proof in social science, but however the facts did not fit in the theory.
Dr Carrier added: "The
hypothesis that our early ancestors were aggressive could be falsified if we
found that the anatomical characters that distinguish us from other primates
did not improve fighting ability.
"What our research has
been showing is that many of the anatomical characters of great apes and our
ancestors, the early hominins (such as bipedal posture, the proportions of our
hands and the shape of our faces) do, in fact, improve fighting
performance."
Co-author Dr Michael Morgan,
a University of Utah physician, said: "I think our science is sound and
fills some long-standing gaps in the existing theories of why the
musculoskeletal structures of our faces developed the way they did.
"Our research is about
peace. We seek to explore, understand, and confront humankind's violent and
aggressive tendencies.
0 responses:
Post a Comment