The Laetoli footprints provide a clear snapshot of an early hominin bipedal gait that probably involved a limb posture that was slightly but significantly different from our own, and these data support the hypothesis that important evolutionary changes to hominin bipedalism occurred within the past 3.66 Myr. 1. Background
What is the earliest evidence of bipedalism?
The 3.6 million year old hominin footprints at Laetoli, Tanzania represent the earliest direct evidence of hominin bipedalism. Determining the kinematics of Laetoli hominins will allow us to understand whether selection acted to decrease energy costs of bipedalism by 3.6 Ma.
How long is the Laetoli footprint trail?
The entire footprint trail is almost 27 m (88 ft) long and includes impressions of about 70 early human footprints. 3.6 million years ago in Laetoli, Tanzania, three early humans walked through wet volcanic ash.
What are the Laetoli hominin footprints?
The Laetoli hominin footprints are arranged in two 27.5 meter (89 foot) long trails, created in moist volcanic ash which later hardened because of desiccation and chemical change.
What is Laetoli?
Updated July 03, 2019. Laetoli is the name of an archaeological site in northern Tanzania, where the footprints of three hominins--ancient human ancestors and most likely Australopithecus afarensis--were preserved in the ash fall of a volcanic eruption some 3.63-3.85 million years ago.
Which characteristics of bipedalism can be observed in the Laetoli footprints?
Analysis of the Laetoli footprints indicated the characteristics of obligate bipedalism: pronounced heel strike from deep impressions, lateral transmission of force from the heel to the base of the lateral metatarsal, a well-developed medial longitudinal arch, adducted big toe, and a deep impression for the big toe ...
What is the significance of the footprints found at Laetoli?
Bipedal trackways discovered in 1978 at Laetoli site G, Tanzania and dated to 3.66 million years ago are widely accepted as the oldest unequivocal evidence of obligate bipedalism in the human lineage1,2,3.
Is it possible to determine when bipedalism evolved by looking only at the Laetoli footprint?
However, it is not possible to determine when bipedalism first evolved based on the Laetoli footprints alone. By examining other fossil evidence, scientists have looked for evidence of bipedalism before and after the time of the footprints to pinpoint the origin of this anatomical adaptation.
What is the evidence from Laetoli that early hominins were walking Bipedally?
footprintsSummary: The oldest unequivocal evidence of upright walking in the human lineage are footprints discovered at Laetoli, Tanzania in 1978, by paleontologist Mary Leakey and her team. The bipedal trackways date to 3.7 million years ago.
What was found at the site of Laetoli And what does this find tell us about human ancestors?
Laetoli is a well-known palaeontological locality in northern Tanzania whose outstanding record includes the earliest hominin footprints in the world (3.66 million years old), discovered in 1978 at Site G and attributed to Australopithecus afarensis.
In what ways do the Laetoli prints indicate a walker who was very human like in its adaptations?
The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does.
What are the Laetoli footprints quizlet?
The Laetoli footprints were most likely made by Australopithecus afarensis, an early human whose fossils were found in the same sediment layer. The entire footprint trail is almost 27 m (88 ft) long and includes impressions of about 70 early human footprints.
What evidence suggests that human ancestors walked upright before they evolved large brains?
erectus (collectively called australopithecines) helped convince anthropologists that walking upright came before big brains in the evolution of humans. This was demonstrated most impressively in 1974 with the finding of Lucy, a nearly complete australopithecine skeleton.
What is an advantage of bipedalism over Quadrupedalism quizlet?
What is an advantage of bipedalism over quadrupedalism? increased ability to see greater distances.
What was significant about the Laetoli site in Tanzania quizlet?
What was significant about the Laetoli site in Tanzania? It was where the earliest human ancestors were found 7 million years ago. It was the site where the earliest biped was excavated in 1978.
What was significant about the Laetoli site in Tanzania quizlet?
What was significant about the Laetoli site in Tanzania? It was where the earliest human ancestors were found 7 million years ago. It was the site where the earliest biped was excavated in 1978.
What are the Laetoli footprints quizlet?
The Laetoli footprints were most likely made by Australopithecus afarensis, an early human whose fossils were found in the same sediment layer. The entire footprint trail is almost 27 m (88 ft) long and includes impressions of about 70 early human footprints.
What other footprints were captured in the cement at Laetoli?
3.6 million years ago, a volcano now called Sadiman puffed out a cloud of ash that blanketed the surrounding area. A light rain then turned the ash into a sort of cement that recorded thousands of tracks of antelopes, rhinos, guinea fowl, and monkeys, as well as the footprints of our ancestors.
How are Laetoli footprints compared to modern humans?
Because the Laetoli G1 sample consisted of five footprints, a resampling procedure was followed in which five walking footprints were sampled from any one subject in the modern human comparative dataset, and their z -coordinates were averaged to generate a mean walking footprint for that individual. The Mahalanobis distance was then calculated between that sampled mean and the mean footprint from the remainder of the human comparative sample (including all subjects except for the one that was randomly sampled), using the human between-subject covariance matrix. This procedure was repeated for 10 000 iterations (subjects were sampled with replacement, the footprints of a sampled subject were sampled without replacement) to generate a distribution of Mahalanobis distances expected to be sampled from a larger population of modern human footprints.
What is the Laetoli footprint?
The Laetoli footprints, which are morphologically distinct from those of modern humans ( figure 2 ), show lower bgPC scores than the footprints of modern humans ( figure 3 b ), and therefore point to a bipedal gait that involved a more flexed lower limb posture at foot strike than is typically observed in modern humans. This direct evidence of a bipedal gait that involved relatively more flexed lower limbs concurs with certain inferences derived from Australopithecus skeletal fossils. It has been suggested that the pelvic morphology of A.L. 288-1 (i.e. ‘Lucy’), an A. afarensis partial skeleton from Hadar, Ethiopia, would have affected the orientation of the lesser gluteal muscles in a way that would have compromised balance and stability if that individual were to have walked bipedally with an extended hip joint like humans do [ 6 ]. Based on this and other aspects of post-cranial anatomy, those authors proposed that the A.L. 288-1 individual, and other members of A. afarensis, may have instead accommodated such an anatomy by walking bipedally like modern chimpanzees, with a bent-hip–bent-knee (BHBK) gait.
What is the evolution of hominin bipedalism?
Ultimately, these results support the hypothesis that the evolution of hominin bipedalism was a process [ 47] during which slightly but significantly different gait kinematics, kinetics and morphology evolved in different hominin taxa. Regardless of the environmental and evolutionary circumstances that may have surrounded the Laetoli trackmakers, direct evidence from the Laetoli footprints suggests that the Pliocene hominins at Laetoli (probably but not certainly A. afarensis) employed a form of bipedalism that was well developed but not equivalent to that seen in modern humans today. While the post-cranial anatomy required for a well-developed bipedal gait may have emerged at an earlier date and persisted for a long time [ 7 ], it remains to be seen when, how and why the specific biomechanics of modern human bipedalism evolved.
What are the functional implications of Laetoli tracks?
In sum, the functional implications of the Laetoli tracks are consistent with previous interpretations of distinctive anatomy in Australopithecus and provide an emerging picture, based on direct records of locomotor behaviour, of a form of bipedalism in early hominins that differed from that of modern humans. We acknowledge that there are limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from our experimental approach (electronic supplementary material, note S3). But, based on our data, it appears that relative to the specific pattern of gait seen in modern humans today, the Laetoli footprints show evidence of a distinct gait that involved relatively greater limb flexion at touchdown and potentially a less arched foot. These differences were almost certainly not as dramatic as those that distinguish the bipedal gaits of modern humans and modern chimpanzees, but nonetheless they may have had critical wide-ranging effects on the palaeobiology of the Laetoli hominins.
How are chimpanzee footprints similar to humans?
A set of experiments analogous to the human footprint experiments were performed with two chimpanzees in the Primate Locomotion Laboratory at Stony Brook University, in accordance with the policies of the Stony Brook University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Chimpanzees were trained through positive reinforcement to walk bipedally at their preferred speeds across a trackway containing a sample of the same sediment used in the human experiments. Substrate conditions (compaction and hydration levels) were adjusted such that the chimpanzees produced footprints of similar depths to those created in the human experiments, which were in turn similar to the Laetoli prints (average chimpanzee print depth = 1.07 cm, average human print depth = 1.09 cm, average Laetoli print depth = 1.57 cm). After each trial, the footprints they created were photographed in a way that allowed for three-dimensional models to be rendered using the same methods described above. Chimpanzee footprints made during bipedal walking ( n1 = 24 and n2 = 21 for the two individuals) were also scaled and oriented, and depths at the same 14 functionally relevant points on each print were measured and rescaled by unity-based normalization, following the same procedures described for the human experiments. Kinematic analyses were not conducted in this particular set of chimpanzee experiments, due to logistical constraints and because bipedal hind limb kinematics of these two chimpanzees are already known from other studies [ 24 ].
Why were footprints excluded from comparative analysis?
Thus, this extracted shape is unfortunately not comparable with our chimpanzee and human experimental prints. Within the G1 trackway, footprints were excluded from analyses if their morphology was known to have been damaged in any way by other animals (G1-26, -36, -39) [ 26 ], by geological processes (G1-28, -30, -31, -38) [ 26] or potentially by excavation procedures (G1-37) [ 12 ]. This left a total sample of five footprints from the Laetoli G1 trackway (G1-25, -27, -33, -34, -35) which are, according to all published accounts, best preserved and therefore should provide the most accurate records of the locomotor pattern of the Pliocene hominin that produced them.
What is bipedalism in biology?
Bipedalism is a key adaptation that shaped human evolution, yet the timing and nature of its evolution remain unclear. Here we use new experimentally based approaches to investigate the locomotor mechanics preserved by the famous Pliocene hominin footprints from Laetoli, Tanzania.
What do Laetoli footprints show?
While there is some ongoing debate, most researchers believe that the Laetoli footprints show that our Australopithecine ancestors were fully bipedal, and walked in a modern manner, heel first, then toe.
How long are the Laetoli footprints?
The Laetoli hominin footprints are arranged in two 27.5 meter (89 foot) long trails, created in moist volcanic ash which later hardened because of desiccation and chemical change. Three hominin individuals are represented, called G1, G2, and G3.
Who Made the Oldest Known Hominin Footprints at Laetoli?
Laetoli Footprints - Reproduction at the Field Museum, Chicago. James St. John
How thick is the tuff in the Sadiman Volcano?
The volcanic tuff in which the footprints were made (called the Footprint Tuff or Tuff 7 at Laetoli) is a 12-15 centimeter (4.7-6 inches) thick layer of ash which fell on this region from the eruption of a nearby volcano.
Where are the footprints of the hominins?
K. Kris Hirst. Updated July 03, 2019. Laetoli is the name of an archaeological site in northern Tanzania, where the footprints of three hominins --ancient human ancestors and most likely Australopithecus afarensis --were preserved in the ash fall of a volcanic eruption some 3.63-3.85 million years ago.
What animals walked through the ash?
The hominin prints are not the only footprints preserved in the wet ashfall: animals walking through the wet ash included elephants, giraffes, rhinoceroses and a wide variety of extinct mammals. In all there are 16 sites with footprints in Laetoli, the largest of which has 18,000 footprints, representing 17 different families of animals within an area of about 800 square meters (8100 square feet).
How deep are the footprints of the acacia tree?
At the time of excavation, the footprints were buried between a few cm to 27 cm (11 in) deep . After excavation, they were reburied to preserve them, but the seeds of an acacia tree was buried within the soil and several acacias grew in the region to heights of over two meters before researchers noticed.
What is the name of the creature that made the footprints?
To continue to fit these footprints into an evolutionary scenario, it would seem that the tracks would have had to be made by a creature that was human from the waist down, but ape-like from the waist up. Evolutionary baggage, not scientific data, has forced this warped and imaginative interpretation, for which there is little or no scientific support. Extinct ape-like creatures collectively called australopiths are routinely invoked as the real Laetoli print makers, but none of these fossil forms show feet, legs, or hips the same size and shape as those of humans.
Where were the footprints found?
Something or someone supposedly walked across volcanic mud 3.66 million years ago, leaving behind footprints discovered in modern-day Laetoli, Tanzania. 1 Many who think modern humans evolved only about two million years ago have resisted interpreting these as human prints, because they are found in sediments that are "too old."
When did hominins start making tools?
The first hominins started making stone tools 3.3 million years ago. Australopitchine was the first genus of hominins that first made flaked stone tools. Evidence: 3 lines of evidence: cut marks on the bone, earlier tool finds, bone remodeling (showing how they used their hands for tools.)
How many legs do a sailor have?
their long legs, short arms, and modern feet adapted them to only walk on two legs.
How did bipedalism begin?
If A. afarensis was indeed the trackmaker, then it seems that the transition to a bipedal gait began in the forest or woodland before 3.5 mya rather than a direct reaction to the shrinking woodland reflected by the younger Ndolanya beds. I suspect, however, that the savanna hypothesis of the origins of bipedalism will remain with us for some time, the power of an evolutionary narrative sometimes being more powerful than the current state of science on the subject. Such problems plague the evolution of the horse and birds as well, the public understanding of evolution existing in a sort of intellectual quagmire that lags behind the latest research and discoveries. We should be careful, then, not to pen evolutionary “Just-so stories” for we can never known when a new fossil will come out of the ground and force us to undertake a rewrite.
What do the tracks on Laetoli tell us?
Even if we can’t have absolute certainty about the identity of the trackmakers of Laetoli at present, the tracks themselves can tell us much about the functional morphology of the creatures that walked through the volcanic ash. While the tracks are very small, the two more easily distinguishable prints being between 18 and 22 cm long, they show some remarkable characteristics that prove that the hominids were walking upright on two legs. First, there are no impressions of knuckles on the ground, indicating that these animals were not moving in the manner of modern day Chimpanzees, Gorillas, or Bonobos. More importantly, however, the big toe is brought in line with the rest of the toes at the front of the foot and does not jut out to the side as in extant great apes. The condition of the toe is not as derived as in humans or later bipedal hominids, but the difference between the Laetoli foot structure and the foot structure of living apes is remarkable. The footprints are not simply flat impressions, either; they can tell us a bit about how these animals walked. They did not shuffle or stop, but rather walked by placing the heel down and then pushing off with the front of the foot and toes (hence the move of the big toe), again proving that the tracks were made by creatures walking on two feet. Indeed, hominids were upright, obligate bipeds by 3.5 million years ago at the latest, but what sort of world did the “upright apes” inhabit?
What do the Laetolil beds eat?
The herbivorous mammalian fauna of the Upper Laetolil beds appears to consist of a combination of browsers and grazers, isotopic studies revealing that they fed on both C3 and C4 plants. There is a lot more to such studies than I can give attention to here, but C3 plants are typically indicative of woodland or forest habitats and C4 plants indicate grasslands, and the strong presence of C3 plants from Laetoli strengthens the idea that the area was a mosaic rather than exclusively savanna. The habitat would change over the next 1 million years, however, the Upper Ndolanya beds of Laetoli reflecting an overall change in proportion of habitats. While woodland was still present, it was much reduced from its expanse at 3.5 mya, the ecology of the Ndolanya beds more closely resembling what was originally hypothesized for Laetoli. This change raises an important question, however; if Laetoli did not become more like a savanna until about a million years after the hominid trackway was made, how significant was the savanna to the development of bipedalism?
What type of habitat did the Laetoli fossils show?
Reconstructing the precise diet or behavior of extinct fauna can be tricky, but in the case of Laetoli, intertwining lines of evidence seem to reflect a more wooded habitat than savanna-like one. Take the presence of Guineafowl and Francolins, for instance. Both of these types of birds belong to the Order Galliformes (pheasants and turkeys are also representative of the group) and seem to prefer a mix of open and wooded habitats. While they may forage on open ground during the day, they prefer to sleep in trees at night and are not exclusively ground birds. The presence of eggs of these birds, some fragmentary and some whole, shows that they were present at the Laetoli site and probably inhabited a niche similar to that of their modern day relatives. 3.5 million years is a long time, however, and perhaps the behaviors or habits of the ancient Galliform birds were different from their modern-day relatives, but thankfully there is even stronger evidence from the mammals present at the site for a mosaic woodland habitat.
What are the taxa found in the Upper Laetolil beds?
While it is not complete, here is at least a partial list of taxa known from the Upper Laetolil beds (the beds in which the footprints were found) from Laetoli; Carnivora; Hyenas, Lions, and the “false sabercat” Dinofelis. Primates; Baboons, Australopithecus afarensis.
What is the Savanna hypothesis?
One of the most popular notions of human evolution is the “Savanna Hypothesis,” an idea that looms large in our consideration of bipedalism. Created by the discoverer of the famous Taung Skull, Raymond Dart, the gist of the savanna hypothesis is that for one reason or another (be it shrinking forests due to ecological change or more opportunities in the grasslands) our ape ancestors left the relative safety of the forest for the harsher African savannas. Faced with a hotter, harsher climate and the constant presence of large predators, our ancestors began standing up to carry tools or spot predators, bipedalism evolving as a result of the need to stand up while moving across open spaces. Such an idea seems to make sense and invokes a somewhat appealing evolutionary narrative, and it is a very difficult idea to shake. While it is a parody of the evolutionary ancestry of our species, the recent “Simpsons Evolution” intro is a good example of the savanna hypothesis and “March of Progress” mythology rolled into one*;
Where were the footprints of ancient hominids found?
In 1978, a paleoanthropological team including Mary Leakey, Richard Hay, and Tim White made a startling discovery at Laetoli, Tanzania; in a bed of volcanic ash that would later be dated to about 3.5 million years old were the footprints of ancient hominids. The preserved trackway, found to contain the footprints of three individuals ...
What are the toe depths of Laetoli prints?
The Laetoli prints have toe depths that are generally shallower than heel depths , however, the trackways were made on a very slight grade (3.12%±0.94%; see supplementary materials Text S1 ). After adjusting for this grade with the same procedures used for the experimental footprints (see supplementary materials Text S1 and above), mean toe depths for the G1 set of prints are generally equal to mean heel depths (0.11%±1.61% shallower than heels [0.00 mm±0.02 mm]), resembling weight transfer in a modern human-like extended limb gait more than a BKBH gait ( Figs. 1 and 2; Supporting Table S1 ). In fact, while Laetoli proportional toe depths fall within the range of normal human patterns, Laetoli data fall outside of the range of human proportional toe depths made during BKBH trials ( Fig. 2 ). We did not analyze the G2/3 set of footprints, since they were likely made by two individuals walking one behind the other, rendering their morphology less suitable for biomechanical determinations [9], [11], [27]. There are two other caveats that must be considered in this analysis. First, bioturbation is evident in some of the Laetoli G1 prints [23], and could impact our results. However, much of the bioturbation occurred on the rims of the prints and does not greatly impact the internal morphology of most prints [23], [24]. Second, the thickness of the substrate at Laetoli varies along the print trail [28], which may have an effect on footprint depths [19]. However, the similarity of proportional depths across the G1 trail ( Table S1) suggests that differences in substrate thickness did not impact our analysis. Finally, the Laetoli prints offer no evidence that these individuals were walking at fast speeds, since high speed walking also produces prints with much larger toe compared to heel depths for both gaits (see Table 1 ). Therefore, we conclude that the Laetoli hominins walked with an extended limb gait at speeds consistent with previous predictions (i.e., preferred or slow speeds) [8] – [10], [26], [29] – [32]. The relative toe depths of the Laetoli prints show that, by 3.6 Ma, fully extended limb bipedal gait had evolved. Thus, our results provide the earliest unequivocal evidence of human-like bipedalism in the fossil record.
What will the future of fossils do to the understanding of bipedal mechanics?
Future analyses of fossil remains, and future fossil discoveries, will no doubt improve our understanding of just how early human-like bipedal mechanics evolved , and therefore, help us determine the importance of selection for energy economy during the early evolution of bipedal walking.
What are the hominin footprints?
The 3.6 million year old hominin footprints at Laetoli, Tanzania represent the earliest direct evidence of hominin bipedalism. Determining the kinematics of Laet oli hominins will allow us to understand whether selection acted to decrease energy costs of bipedalism by 3.6 Ma.
How long did bipedalism evolve?
Thus, based on the results of this study, kinematically human-like bipedalism clearly evolved within the first three to four million years of hominin evolution. However, we are left with two possible scenarios for the origins and evolution of bipedalism.
How are Laetoli values calculated?
Laetoli values were calculated using values from topographic maps. Note that the values for Laetoli fall within the range of human normal prints but outside of the range of human BKBH prints.
How does BKBH differ from extended limb prints?
There is a significant difference in the relative depth of the toes in BKBH compared to extended limb prints ( Figs. 1 and 2; Table 1 ). BKBH footprints from humans walking at preferred speeds have toe depressions that are 76.69%±8.35% lower than the heel (calculated as toe depth as a percentage of heel depth; Table 1 ). When walking with an extended hind limb at preferred speeds, toe depressions are, on average, 22.36%±4.28% below the heel. Thus, BKBH gaits generate significantly greater toe relative to heel depths compared to extended limb gaits. Speed influences print morphology, with faster speeds leading to deeper toe depressions in both gaits, however between-gait differences are not significant ( Table 1 ). Substrate moisture content also alters footprint morphology ( Table 1 ). Wetter substrates lead to greater toe depths, regardless of gait, however, BKBH gaits have toe depths that are significantly greater than extended limb postures ( Table 1 ).
Where did hominins walk?
By 3.6 Ma, hominins at Laetoli, Tanzania walked with modern human-like hind limb biomechanics, suggesting that selection for energetically economical bipedalism occurred prior to the evolution of the genus Homo.
Background
Material and Methods
- (a) Human footprint experiments
The experiments that produced the human comparative dataset were conducted in the field at Ileret, Kenya, with 41 habitually barefoot and minimally shod modern humans (15 adult males, 14 adult females, 10 juvenile males, 2 juvenile females) producing a total of 490 footprints, of which … - (b) Chimpanzee footprint experiments
A set of experiments analogous to the human footprint experiments were performed with two chimpanzees in the Primate Locomotion Laboratory at Stony Brook University, in accordance with the policies of the Stony Brook University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Chimpa…
Results and Discussion
- The three-dimensional shapes of the Laetoli hominin footprints were quantified and compared with the shapes of a large (n = 245) sample of footprints produced by 41 habitually barefoot modern humans walking at similar speeds and in substrates of similar compliance (figure 1; electronic supplementary material, notes S1 and S2). The topography of the Laetoli footprints was found t…
Ethics
- All human subjects who participated in these experiments gave their informed consent to participate in accordance with procedures approved by The George Washington University's Institutional Review Board. All chimpanzee experiments were conducted in accordance with the policies of the Stony Brook University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
Data Accessibility
- Data related to this manuscript have been deposited with Dryad: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.rt0t0. For access to additional data and/or scripts, contact K.G.H. ([email protected]).
Authors' Contributions
- K.G.H. and B.G.R. conceived and designed the study. All authors collected the data. K.G.H. analysed the data. All authors interpreted the data and wrote the paper.
Funding
- K.G.H. was supported by the Leakey Foundation, the National Science Foundation (BCS-1232522, BCS-1128170, DGE-080163, SMA-1409612), the Wenner-Gren Foundation and the George Washington University's Research Enhancement Fund. B.D. was supported by the National Science Foundation (BCS-0935321). B.G.R. was supported by the National Science Fo…
Local Environment
Laetoli Footprint Descriptions
- The Laetoli hominin footprints are arranged in two 27.5 meter (89 foot) long trails, created in moist volcanic ash which later hardened because of desiccation and chemical change. Three homininindividuals are represented, called G1, G2, and G3. Apparently, G1 and G2 walked side by side, and G3 followed along behind, stepping on some but not all of ...
Who Made them?
- At least two sets of the footprints have been definitely linked to A. afarensis, because, like the fossils of afarensis, the Laetoli footprints do not indicate an opposable great toe. Further, the only hominin associated with Laetoli area at the time is A. afarensis. Some scholars have ventured to argue that the footprints are from an adult male and female (G2 and G3) and a child (G1); other…
The Sadiman Volcano and Laetoli
- The volcanic tuff in which the footprints were made (called the Footprint Tuff or Tuff 7 at Laetoli) is a 12-15 centimeter (4.7-6 inches) thick layer of ash which fell on this region from the eruption of a nearby volcano. The hominins and a wide variety of other animals survived the eruption--their footprints in the muddy ash prove that--but which volcano erupted has not been determined. Unt…
Preservation Issues
- At the time of excavation, the footprints were buried between a few cm to 27 cm (11 in) deep. After excavation, they were reburied to preserve them, but the seeds of an acacia tree was buried within the soil and several acacias grew in the region to heights of over two metersbefore researchers noticed. Investigation showed that although those acacia roots did disturb some of t…
Sources
- This glossary entry is a part of the About.com guide to Lower Paleolithic, and the Dictionary of Archaeology. Agnew N, and Demas M. 1998. Preserving the Laetoli foodprints. Scientific American279(44-55). Barboni D. 2014. Vegetation of Northern Tanzania during the Plio-Pleistocene: A synthesis of the paleobotanical evidences from Laetoli, Olduvai, and Peninj homi…