Découverte d’un nouvel hominidé à Dmanissi (Transcaucasie, Géorgie)

Gabounia, L.; Lumley, Marie‐Antoinette de; Vekua, Abesalom; Lordkipanidze, David; Lumley, Henry de

doi:10.1016/s1631-0683(02)00032-5

Cited by 152 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The facial length of the immature KNM-WT 15000 skull is also greater than that of KNM-ER 3733 (23), and it would have been substantially longer had the individual lived to maturity. In addition, the Dmanisi early H. erectus sample includes both specimens with short faces and at least one very long mandible (24)(25)(26).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neandertal faces were not long; modern human faces are short

Trinkaus

2003

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S ince the discovery of a large male Neandertal skull with an essentially intact facial skeleton at the Bouffia Boneval near La Chapelle-aux-Saints in 1908 (1), descriptions of the Neandertals and comparisons of their facial dimensions have frequently emphasized the large size of their facial skeletons (e.g., refs. 2-9), with them being described recently, for example, as having an ''extraordinary forward projection of the face along the midline'' (10). Since the La Chapelle-aux-Saints discovery, the sample of sufficiently complete Neandertal crania and mandibles that provides data on facial length has increased significantly. Moreover, similar samples of their archaic Homo predecessors back to early Homo erectus and of their Late Pleistocene early modern human contemporaries and successors have markedly expanded. From this material, it has been recognized since the 1970s (11-16) that it is principally the combination of a projecting midface and a more posteriorly positioned lateral facial skeleton, along with a series of secondary morphological consequences of that ''midfacial prognathism,'' that differentiates the Neandertal face from those of other Pleistocene and recent members of the genus Homo. However, as the quote above illustrates, it remains unclear whether it is variation in the forward projection of the midface or contrasts in the position of the lateral face and detailed aspects of their facial skeleton that explain the overall configuration of the Neandertal face.Most of the earlier quantitative comparisons of Neandertal facial projection (e.g., refs. 12 and 13) principally compared Neandertal facial projection to that of recent (late Holocene) human populations, though papers concerning other aspects of their facial skeletons (e.g., refs. 14 and 16-19) have provided data suggesting that their overall facial lengths were similar to those of at least their Middle Pleistocene non-Neandertal predecessors. However, because the assessment of whether the Neandertals have a phylogenetically derived degree of overall prognathism provides a baseline for assessing the polarities and paleobiology of various characteristics of their facial anatomies, it is appropriate to reassess, with the currently available samples, whether the Neandertals did indeed have long faces. Materials and MethodsFacial length is defined here generally as the direct distance from the middle of the cranial base to the labial incisor alveoli. As such, it is concerned with the degree of lower facial, or dentoalveolar, projection relative to the core of the basal neurocranium. This distance is correlated to some degree in the cranium with upper facial length (measured as basion-nasion length or nasion radius) (20), but upper facial length is more directly influenced by endocranial volume, and hence is a less appropriate measure of facial projection.In paleontologically practical terms, given the dearth of crania with a complete foramen magnum and upper facial skeleton (for a basion-prosthion length) and the greater number of preserved ma...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neandertal faces were not long; modern human faces are short

Trinkaus

2003

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, there remains a possibility that dental reduction observed in northern China and Java occurred independently in the two regions. Evidence from the earlier periods of Eurasia is more limited, but the dental remains from Dmanisi nevertheless suggest that postcanine tooth size was highly variable at the Plio-Pleistocene boundary in the Caucasus (Gabunia et al, 2002;Kaifu et al, 2005b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced dental reduction in Javanese Homo erectus

Kaifu

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The postcanine tooth crowns of late Early Pleistocene Homo erectus from Sangiran, Java, have been considered to be significantly smaller than those of older H. erectus remains of the same region. In this study, the degree of dental reduction in the former was examined by comparing their postcanine crown size with that of various regional groups of recent H. sapiens. The results show that overall crown size and degree of posterior molar reduction of Javanese H. erectus of the late Early Pleistocene was within the range of variation of recent H. sapiens. The position of this H. erectus group in the general trend of dental reduction in Early to Middle Pleistocene Asian archaic Homo is discussed. Implications for the phylogenetic discontinuity hypothesis between H. erectus and H. sapiens in Australasia are presented. In contrast to their reduced crown size, the Javanese H. erectus remains exhibit robust root systems, presumably a primitive retention. This observation indicates that reduction in crown size preceded reduction of the roots during evolution of Homo, at least in the Sunda region.

show abstract

“…The discussion on the classification of the Dmanisi material is testimony to the diversity of opinions (cf. Gabunia et al, 2002;Antó n, 2003;Schwartz and Tattersall, 2005;Rightmire et al, 2006). In Schwartz and Tattersall's view: 'at the morphrecognition level none of its constituents can at present be shown to bear a compelling resemblance to claimed Homo erectus materials from either Africa or Asia, despite a few isolated similarities here or there.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…1 as a very widely (from East Africa to Java) distributed polytypic species, incorporating WT-15000 (Nariokotome boy) from West Turkana (Homo ergaster), the Dmanisi hominins (for some Homo georgicus; cf. Gabunia et al, 2002) and the Java material (Homo erectus). The discussion on the classification of the Dmanisi material is testimony to the diversity of opinions (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The human colonisation of Europe: where are we?

Roebroeks

2006

J Quaternary Science

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the earlier parts of the human colonisation of Europe and its wider setting and addresses the two basic tasks of archaeologists working in this field: (1) to identify the spatio-temporal patterns of human presence and absence, i.e. getting the pattern 'right '; (2) to explain these patterns. Archaeologists have invested mostly in the first task, while the second one takes us to the field of biogeography. Study of biogeographical limits of hominins necessitates integration of many aspects of a species, e.g. diet, life history and social organisation, and the way environmental factors shape these. Palaeoanthropologists need to combine these with establishing data on the chronology of hominin presence, on palaeoenvironment and climatic oscillations, on emergence and disappearance of land bridges, and so on. They further have to acknowledge the fact that only very small parts of the former ranges of the species have been sampled 'adequately'. The paper explores some of the key issues at stake in dealing with the human colonisation of Europe.

show abstract

Découverte d’un nouvel hominidé à Dmanissi (Transcaucasie, Géorgie)

Cited by 152 publications

References 4 publications

Neandertal faces were not long; modern human faces are short

Neandertal faces were not long; modern human faces are short

Advanced dental reduction in Javanese Homo erectus

The human colonisation of Europe: where are we?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About