TY - JOUR
T1 - Craniofacial biomechanics and functional and dietary inferences in hominin paleontology
AU - Grine, Frederick E.
AU - Judex, Stefan
AU - Daegling, David J.
AU - Ozcivici, Engin
AU - Ungar, Peter S.
AU - Teaford, Mark F.
AU - Sponheimer, Matt
AU - Scott, Jessica
AU - Scott, Robert S.
AU - Walker, Alan
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank K. Baab, B. Demes, G. Ferguson, J. Fleagle, C. Gilbert, W. Jungers, S. Larson, M. O'Neill, M. Ravosa, J. Rossie, J.T. Stern, Jr., R.L. Susman for discussion and comments on this manuscript. We are grateful to S. Leigh, the associate editor and the reviewers for their cogent suggestions. The remarks of all have improved this contribution. We thank the Transvaal Museum (Northern Flagship Institution), Pretoria, and the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, for permission to examine and mold the hominin fossil teeth in their collections. PSU acknowledges support of NSF SBR 9804882 and SBR 0315157.
PY - 2010/4
Y1 - 2010/4
N2 - Finite element analysis (FEA) is a potentially powerful tool by which the mechanical behaviors of different skeletal and dental designs can be investigated, and, as such, has become increasingly popular for biomechanical modeling and inferring the behavior of extinct organisms. However, the use of FEA to extrapolate from characterization of the mechanical environment to questions of trophic or ecological adaptation in a fossil taxon is both challenging and perilous. Here, we consider the problems and prospects of FEA applications in paleoanthropology, and provide a critical examination of one such study of the trophic adaptations of Australopithecus africanus. This particular FEA is evaluated with regard to 1) the nature of the A. africanus cranial composite, 2) model validation, 3) decisions made with respect to model parameters, 4) adequacy of data presentation, and 5) interpretation of the results. Each suggests that the results reflect methodological decisions as much as any underlying biological significance. Notwithstanding these issues, this model yields predictions that follow from the posited emphasis on premolar use by A. africanus. These predictions are tested with data from the paleontological record, including a phylogenetically-informed consideration of relative premolar size, and postcanine microwear fabrics and antemortem enamel chipping. In each instance, the data fail to conform to predictions from the model. This model thus serves to emphasize the need for caution in the application of FEA in paleoanthropological enquiry. Theoretical models can be instrumental in the construction of testable hypotheses; but ultimately, the studies that serve to test these hypotheses - rather than data from the models - should remain the source of information pertaining to hominin paleobiology and evolution.
AB - Finite element analysis (FEA) is a potentially powerful tool by which the mechanical behaviors of different skeletal and dental designs can be investigated, and, as such, has become increasingly popular for biomechanical modeling and inferring the behavior of extinct organisms. However, the use of FEA to extrapolate from characterization of the mechanical environment to questions of trophic or ecological adaptation in a fossil taxon is both challenging and perilous. Here, we consider the problems and prospects of FEA applications in paleoanthropology, and provide a critical examination of one such study of the trophic adaptations of Australopithecus africanus. This particular FEA is evaluated with regard to 1) the nature of the A. africanus cranial composite, 2) model validation, 3) decisions made with respect to model parameters, 4) adequacy of data presentation, and 5) interpretation of the results. Each suggests that the results reflect methodological decisions as much as any underlying biological significance. Notwithstanding these issues, this model yields predictions that follow from the posited emphasis on premolar use by A. africanus. These predictions are tested with data from the paleontological record, including a phylogenetically-informed consideration of relative premolar size, and postcanine microwear fabrics and antemortem enamel chipping. In each instance, the data fail to conform to predictions from the model. This model thus serves to emphasize the need for caution in the application of FEA in paleoanthropological enquiry. Theoretical models can be instrumental in the construction of testable hypotheses; but ultimately, the studies that serve to test these hypotheses - rather than data from the models - should remain the source of information pertaining to hominin paleobiology and evolution.
KW - Adaptation
KW - Australopithecus africanus
KW - Biomechanics
KW - Diet
KW - Enamel chipping
KW - Finite element analysis
KW - Finite element model
KW - Microwear texture analysis
KW - Molar
KW - Phylogenetic constraint
KW - Premolar
KW - Validation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952951562&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952951562&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.12.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.12.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 20227747
AN - SCOPUS:77952951562
SN - 0047-2484
VL - 58
SP - 293
EP - 308
JO - Journal of Human Evolution
JF - Journal of Human Evolution
IS - 4
ER -