Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate

Expand Messages
  • Ian Pitchford
    The World s No.1 Science & Technology News Service Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate 18:47 01 July 04 NewScientist.com news service The remnants of a
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service
       
       

      Petite skull reopens human ancestry debate

       
      18:47 01 July 04
       
      NewScientist.com news service
       

      The remnants of a remarkably petite skull belonging to one of the first human ancestors to walk on two legs have revealed the great physical diversity among these prehistoric populations.

      But whether the species Homo erectus, meaning "upright man", should be reclassified into several distinct species remains controversial.

      Richard Potts, from the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, DC, and colleagues discovered numerous pieces of a single skull in the Olorgesailie valley, in southern Kenya, between June and August 2003.

      The bones found suggest the skull is that of a young adult Homo erectus who inhabited the lush mountainside some 930,000 years ago. The prominent brow and temporal bone resemble other Homo erectus specimens found elsewhere in Africa, and in Europe, Indonesia and China.

      But the skull itself is around 30% smaller, which is likely to have corresponded to a similar difference in body size. The specimen helps fill a gap in the fossil record as very few Homo erectus specimens of this age have been found in Africa so far.


      Strong arm

      Many stone tools of similar age to the skull fragments have been found at the same site, and Potts' team suspect these may have required considerably more strength to manufacture than the small Homo erectus probably possessed. If so, this would imply a considerable physical variation within the local population.

      Some experts even go so far as to suggest that a complete rethink of the human genealogical tree may be in order. "Recognising that Homo erectus may be more a historical accident than a biological reality might lead to a better understanding of those fossils whose morphology clearly exceeds the bounds of individual variation," says Jeffrey Schwartz of Pittsburgh University.

       
      More on this story
       
      Subscribe to New Scientist for more news and features
       

      Related Stories

       
       
       
       
       
      For more related stories
      search the print edition Archive
       
       

      Weblinks

       
       
       
       
       

      But Fred Spoor, at University College London, UK, disputes this interpretation, saying there is probably similar variation among modern human populations and ape species. "It's completely justified to call it Homo erectus," he told New Scientist. "This just gives some insight into the great variation of later specimens."

      Spoor notes that the paucity of the fossil record means that many conjectures about Homo erectus remain unproven.

      He hypothesises that a Homo erectus of this size may in fact have been muscular enough to make the stone tools found in the Olorgesailie valley. "They may have been small individuals, but incredibly powerful," he says.

      Journal reference Science (vol 305, p 75)

       

      Will Knight

      http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996106

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.