Bipedalism is one of the criteria that paleoanthropologists use in order to interpret the fossil record and to determine if a specimen belongs to the human lineage. In the context of such interpretations, bipedalism is considered to be a unique characteristic of this lineage that also marks its origin. This conception has largely remained unchallenged over the last decades, in spite of fossil discoveries that led to the emergence of bipedalism in the human lineage being shifted back by several millions (...) of years. In this paper, I analyze the uses of this criterion in paleoanthropology and demonstrate that interpretative biases (such as underdetermined inferences and circular reasoning) are at play in interpretations of hominin remains. By discussing Darwin’s hypotheses about the evolution of bipedalism, I identify major theoretical issues that need to be addressed in the current debates on hominin evolution. First, the assumption that “man alone has become a biped” (Darwin in The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, John Murray, London, 1871) is analyzed in the light of recent empirical data. Three major issues are discussed: the definition of “man”, i.e. “human”, the uniqueness of human bipedalism, and the equivocal meaning of being a “biped”. Then, I highlight some of Darwin’s remarks that may be helpful for current debates in paleoanthropology, regarding natural selection in locomotor evolution, as well as taxonomic and phylogenetic significance of functional features. Finally, I analyze two examples of how fossil discoverers referred to Darwin in the recent years and discuss his role as an intellectual support. (shrink)

Bipedalism is one of the criteria that paleoanthropologists use in order to interpret the fossil record and to determine if a specimen belongs to the human lineage. In the context of such interpretations, bipedalism is considered to be a unique characteristic of this lineage that also marks its origin. This conception has largely remained unchallenged over the last decades, in spite of fossil discoveries that led to the emergence of bipedalism in the human lineage being shifted back by several millions (...) of years. In this paper, I analyze the uses of this criterion in paleoanthropology and demonstrate that interpretative biases are at play in interpretations of hominin remains. By discussing Darwin’s hypotheses about the evolution of bipedalism, I identify major theoretical issues that need to be addressed in the current debates on hominin evolution. First, the assumption that “man alone has become a biped” is analyzed in the light of recent empirical data. Three major issues are discussed: the definition of “man”, i.e. “human”, the uniqueness of human bipedalism, and the equivocal meaning of being a “biped”. Then, I highlight some of Darwin’s remarks that may be helpful for current debates in paleoanthropology, regarding natural selection in locomotor evolution, as well as taxonomic and phylogenetic significance of functional features. Finally, I analyze two examples of how fossil discoverers referred to Darwin in the recent years and discuss his role as an intellectual support. (shrink)

« La différence anthropologique n’est pas l’exclusivité d’une philosophie toujours attachée à l’exception humaine, dont la biologie de l’évolution se serait affranchie en faisant de l’humain un animal comme les autres. La paléoanthropologie, qui étudie l’évolution humaine à partir de ses traces fossiles, reste partagée entre l’anti-anthropocentrisme impliqué par son ancrage dans l’évolutionnisme, et l’anthropocentrisme inhérent à son objet d’étude : confrontée à la question de ce qui fait l’unicité de « l’humain », aux différents niveaux taxinomiques de l’espèce Homo (...) sapiens, du genre Homo et de la tribu des Hominini, cette discipline mobilise des critères de définition de l’humain, nécessaires à l’interprétation des fossiles. Or la paléoanthropologie, précisément parce qu’elle est travaillée par cette injonction contradictoire, fournit à la philosophie des ressources pour penser l’humain en dehors des dualismes opposant la nature et la culture ou l’humain et l’animal. Nous nous intéresserons en particulier à la manière dont la diversité humaine du passé invite à renouveler des conceptions de l’humain qui ne reposent plus seulement sur l’identification de « propres de l’homme », mais aussi sur la confrontation à l’altérité d’autres humanités. ». (shrink)

La paléontologie a connu au cours du XXe siècle une « révolution paléobiologique » (Sepkoski et Ruse, 2009), en se constituant comme science théorique et intégrée à la biologie de l’évolution. Si l’histoire de la paléoanthropologie reflète un tournant similaire, la révolution paléobiologique reste, à plusieurs égards, inachevée dans cette discipline. Cet article analyse les causes de cet inachèvement, en identifiant des limites empiriques, relatives aux particularités du registre fossile de la paléoanthropologie, mais aussi des limites épistémologiques, rapportées à différentes (...) conceptions de la paléobiologie en jeu dans cette discipline. Nous montrons enfin qu’il est nécessaire de prendre en considération la spécificité anthropologique de la discipline pour apprécier la particularité du tournant paléobiologique dans le champ de l’évolution humaine. (shrink)