Dados Bibliográficos

Resumo

Recent advances in DNA and isotope analyses have allowed tentative reconstructions of dispersal strategies of Plio‐Pleistocene hominins.1, 2 Comparing their findings to dispersal patterns of some extant apes and humans suggested groups of related males and unrelated females in Neandertals indicating patrilocality2 and Pan‐like male philopatry in australopiths.1 Here we review the demographic, ethnographic, and genetic evidence of dispersal patterns in extant apes and humans and compare the results to the suggestions for Plio‐Pleistocene hominins. We find that alternative dispersal patterns, for example among gorillas or gibbons, could explain the findings of related or natal males in a confined geographic area. Based on sexual size dimorphism, we speculate that gorillas might currently be the best model for reconstructing dispersal in robust australopiths. Given that the sexual size dimorphism in other australopiths is still hotly debated, the question of which hominoid model best matches their dispersal pattern must remain unanswered. Neandertal dispersal patterns have been compared to patrilocality of modern humans. However, the latter is related to the advent of food production. Consequently, hunter‐gatherers exhibiting primarily multilocality appear to be the better comparison for Neandertals. Overall, human‐like patrilocality and Pan‐like male philopatry appear to be poor models for the reconstruction of dispersal patterns in Plio‐Pleistocene hominins. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Referências Citadas