110,311
edits
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
=== Morphological similarities === | === Morphological similarities === | ||
One of the primary defining characteristics of ''Homo erectus'' has been a skull with a thick wall, but until recently little data was present to support whether there was truly a difference between modern skulls and ''H. erectus''. In 1994 a substantial comparison was conducted to determine if cranial thickness was a true criteria for identify ''H. erectus'' fossils.<ref name=brown>.Brown, P., cranial-vault thickness in Asian Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, in: Franzen, J.L., ed., 100 Years of Pithecanthropus: The Homo Erectus Problem, Courier Forschungs Institut Senckenberg 171, pp. 33–45, 1994.</ref> The skulls of four modern ''Homo sapiens'' populations were studied; south [[Chinese]], Romano-British, aboriginal Australians, and the famous Australian [[Kow Swamp]] remains - aborigines that were dated from 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. These modern skulls were contrasted against samples of Asian ''Homo erectus'' and so-called Chinese archaic ''Homo sapiens'' by measuring seven anatomical points on the skulls. Although the cranial-vault thickness was significantly different between modern Europeans and Chinese when compared to ''Homo erectus'', the archaic ''Homo sapiens'' did not differ from ''Homo erectus'' at any of the seven anatomical points. More surprising were the contrasts between ''H. erectus'' and the modern and ancient native Australians. The Kow Swamp remains differed at only one of the seven anatomical points of the skull, and presently living Australian aborigines differed from ''Homo erectus'' in only four of the seven anatomical points on the skull.<ref name=woodmorappe>[http://creation.com/how-different-is-the-cranial-vault-thickness-of-homo-erectus-from-modern-man How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?] by John Woodmorappe, ''Journal of Creation'' 14(1):10–13, April 2000.</ref> Brown summarizes the implications of the findings: | One of the primary defining characteristics of ''Homo erectus'' has been a skull with a thick wall, but until recently little data was present to support whether there was truly a difference between modern skulls and ''H. erectus''. In 1994 a substantial comparison was conducted to determine if cranial thickness was a true criteria for identify ''H. erectus'' fossils.<ref name=brown>.Brown, P., cranial-vault thickness in Asian Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, in: Franzen, J.L., ed., 100 Years of Pithecanthropus: The Homo Erectus Problem, Courier Forschungs Institut Senckenberg 171, pp. 33–45, 1994.</ref> The skulls of four modern ''Homo sapiens'' populations were studied; south [[Chinese]], Romano-British, aboriginal Australians, and the famous Australian [[Kow Swamp]] remains - aborigines that were dated from 10,000 to 30,000 years ago. These modern skulls were contrasted against samples of Asian ''Homo erectus'' and so-called Chinese archaic ''Homo sapiens'' by measuring seven anatomical points on the skulls. Although the cranial-vault thickness was significantly different between modern [[Europeans]] and Chinese when compared to ''Homo erectus'', the archaic ''Homo sapiens'' did not differ from ''Homo erectus'' at any of the seven anatomical points. More surprising were the contrasts between ''H. erectus'' and the modern and ancient native Australians. The Kow Swamp remains differed at only one of the seven anatomical points of the skull, and presently living [[Australian aborigines]] differed from ''Homo erectus'' in only four of the seven anatomical points on the skull.<ref name=woodmorappe>[http://creation.com/how-different-is-the-cranial-vault-thickness-of-homo-erectus-from-modern-man How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?] by John Woodmorappe, ''Journal of Creation'' 14(1):10–13, April 2000.</ref> Brown summarizes the implications of the findings: | ||
{{cquote|Now that comparable data is available it appears clear that if ''H. sapiens'' includes all the people alive in the world today, their ancestors in the Late Pleistocene and “archaic” ''H. sapiens'' like Dali and Xujiayao then vault thickness can not be used to distinguish ''H. erectus'' from ''H. sapiens''.<ref name=brown/>}} | {{cquote|Now that comparable data is available it appears clear that if ''H. sapiens'' includes all the people alive in the world today, their ancestors in the Late Pleistocene and “archaic” ''H. sapiens'' like Dali and Xujiayao then vault thickness can not be used to distinguish ''H. erectus'' from ''H. sapiens''.<ref name=brown/>}} | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
[[File:Homo erectus pelvis.jpg|thumb|200px|''Homo erectus'' was previously thought to produce babies with relatively small brain capacity. However the discovery of the pictured pelvis has shown that they were actually capable of birthing babies with a cranial circumference very close to the lower end of the range of our own species.<ref name=nsf>[http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=112620 Discovery Questions Intelligence of Human Ancestor] National Science Foundation, Press Release 08-203, November 18, 2008.</ref>]] | [[File:Homo erectus pelvis.jpg|thumb|200px|''Homo erectus'' was previously thought to produce babies with relatively small brain capacity. However the discovery of the pictured pelvis has shown that they were actually capable of birthing babies with a cranial circumference very close to the lower end of the range of our own species.<ref name=nsf>[http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=112620 Discovery Questions Intelligence of Human Ancestor] National Science Foundation, Press Release 08-203, November 18, 2008.</ref>]] | ||
When the cranial capacity of ''Homo erectus'' is compared with ''Homo sapiens'' the morphological distinctions blur even further. ''Homo erectus'' has a cranial capacity from 780 cc to about 1225 cc, whereas modern humans have a capacity from 700 cc all the way up to 2200 cc. Clearly ''H. erectus'' falls with the natural range of modern humans in not only vault thickness, but cranial capacity as well.<ref name=lubenow128>Lubenow p. 128</ref> The close comparison was extended to new borns by a discovery in 2008 of a ''Homo erectus'' pelvis, which showed that their infants could have had a head much larger than previously thought. According to Sileshi Semaw, a paleoanthropologist at the Stone Age Institute and Indiana University-Bloomington, ''H. erectus'' infants could have had a head size of 318 mm in circumference, which is right at the lower end of the spectrum of modern day humans whose cranial circumferences at birth typically range from 320-370 millimeters.<ref name=nsf/> [[Neanderthals]] have also been shown to fall within the range of modern humans, having a skull capacity ranging from 1200 cc to 1650 cc. In fact, the skull morphology of the ''Homo erectus'' is virtually identical to Neanderthal - differing only by size.<ref name=lubenow128>Lubenow p. 128</ref> | When the cranial capacity of ''Homo erectus'' is compared with ''Homo sapiens'' the morphological distinctions blur even further. ''Homo erectus'' has a cranial capacity from 780 cc to about 1225 cc, whereas modern humans have a capacity from 700 cc all the way up to 2200 cc. Clearly ''H. erectus'' falls with the natural range of modern humans in not only vault thickness, but cranial capacity as well.<ref name=lubenow128>Lubenow p. 128</ref> The close comparison was extended to new borns by a discovery in 2008 of a ''Homo erectus'' pelvis, which showed that their infants could have had a head much larger than previously thought. According to Sileshi Semaw, a [[paleoanthropologist]] at the Stone Age Institute and Indiana University-Bloomington, ''H. erectus'' infants could have had a head size of 318 mm in circumference, which is right at the lower end of the spectrum of modern day humans whose cranial circumferences at birth typically range from 320-370 millimeters.<ref name=nsf/> [[Neanderthals]] have also been shown to fall within the range of modern humans, having a skull capacity ranging from 1200 cc to 1650 cc. In fact, the skull morphology of the ''Homo erectus'' is virtually identical to Neanderthal - differing only by size.<ref name=lubenow128>Lubenow p. 128</ref> | ||
Lubenow comments: | Lubenow comments: |