Diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry of the Boxgrove 1 Middle Pleistocene human tibia

Trinkaus, Erik; Stringer, Chris; Ruff, Christopher B.; Hennessy, Robin J.; Roberts, Mark; Parfitt, Simon A.

doi:10.1006/jhev.1999.0295

Cited by 101 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the femur from Gesher Benot Ya'aqov (GBY 1) may be intrusive into this locality, it is not considered here (personal communication from Bar-Yosef, 2003). However, morphometric analysis shows that GBY 1 groups with other early Pleistocene Homo on the basis of general robusticity (Trinkaus et al, 1999 (Ruff, 2003). Other characteristics shared by African H. erectus femora appear to be primitive characters that are derived only for hominins generally (such as their long femoral necks) or for the genus Homo.…”

Section: Regional Postcranial Variationmentioning

confidence: 95%

Natural history ofHomo erectus

Antón

2003

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

416

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our view of H. erectus is vastly different today than when Pithecanthropus erectus was described in 1894. Since its synonimization into Homo, views of the species and its distribution have varied from a single, widely dispersed, polytypic species ultimately ancestral to all later Homo, to a derived, regional isolate ultimately marginal to later hominin evolution. A revised chronostratigraphic framework and recent work bearing either directly or indirectly on reconstructions of life-history patterns are reviewed here and, together with a review of the cranial and postcranial anatomy of H. erectus, are used to generate a natural history of the species. Here I argue that H. erectus is a hominin, notable for its increased body size, that originates in the latest Pliocene/earliest Pleistocene of Africa and quickly disperses into Western and Eastern Asia. It is also an increasingly derived hominin with several regional morphs sustained by intermittent isolation, particularly in Southeast Asia. This view differs from several current views, most especially that which recognizes only a single hominin species in the Pleistocene, H. sapiens, and those which would atomize H. erectus into a multiplicity of taxa. Following Jolly ([2001] Yrbk Phys Anthropol 44:177-204), the regional morphs of H. erectus may be productively viewed as geographically replacing allotaxa, rather than as the focus of unresolvable species debates. Such a view allows us to focus on the adaptations and biology of local groups, including questions of biogeographic isolation and local adaptation. A number of issues remain unresolved, including the significance of diversity in size and shape in the early African and Georgian records.

show abstract

Section: Regional Postcranial Variationmentioning

confidence: 95%

Natural history ofHomo erectus

Antón

2003

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

416

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, evaluation of temporal changes during this period in important characteristics such as relative brain size (encephalization) have relied on either comparisons of group means for brain and body size (1) or indirect methods of evaluating body size from cranial dimensions, such as orbital size (2,3). In addition, analyses of geographic or temporal variation during this period in aspects of body shape that are of adaptive and phylogenetic significance, such as body breadth relative to height or limb length (4,5), have been hampered by a lack of individually associated elements from critical areas of the skeleton, again necessitating more indirect methods for evaluating these characteristics (6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, even these two specimens are not ideal for such an analysis: KNM-WT 15000 is a juvenile whose adult body mass must be derived through growth extrapolation (9), and Tabun 1 does not include a completely preserved pelvis, so no direct estimation of body breadth is possible. Thus, the Jinniushan specimen represents a nearly unique opportunity to assess key aspects of morphology in an important period of human evolution, when relative brain size appears to have been increasing rapidly (1, 2) and geographic variation in body shape was becoming pronounced (6,10) as the geographic range of the human species expanded to cover most of the Old World.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Body size, body proportions, and encephalization in a Middle Pleistocene archaic human from northern China

Rosenberg

Zuné

Ruff³

2006

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

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The unusual discovery of associated cranial and postcranial elements from a single Middle Pleistocene fossil human allows us to calculate body proportions and relative cranial capacity (encephalization quotient) for that individual rather than rely on estimates based on sample means from unassociated specimens. The individual analyzed here (Jinniushan) from northeastern China at 260,000 years ago is the largest female specimen yet known in the human fossil record and has body proportions (body height relative to body breadth and relative limb length) typical of coldadapted populations elsewhere in the world. Her encephalization quotient of 4.15 is similar to estimates for late Middle Pleistocene humans that are based on mean body size and mean brain size from unassociated specimens.climatic adaptation ͉ paleoanthropology ͉ Pleistocene

show abstract

“…Just as bone distribution along distal limb segments appears to be optimized to endure typical loads, yet remain light enough to minimize energy expenditure, proximal elements are presumed to be less constrained by tissue economy (Stock andPfeiffer, 2001, 2004). As such, proximal limb elements are often used to identify archaic and modern human behavioral patterns in the recent archaeological and fossil record (Trinkaus et al, 1994;Trinkaus et al, 1999;Marchi et al, 2006;Shackelford, 2007;Churchill and Rhodes, 2009;Havelkova et al, 2011;Trinkaus and Ruff, 2012). Femoral robusticity in particular has proven a useful indicator of mobility patterns in Holocene and Pleistocene hunter-gatherers (Ruff, 1999;Holt, 2003).…”

Section: Skeletal Adaptation and Symmorphosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, proximal limb elements are often used to identify archaic and modern human behavioral patterns in the recent archaeological and fossil record (Trinkaus et al, 1994;Trinkaus et al, 1999;Marchi et al, 2006;Shackelford, 2007;Churchill and Rhodes, 2009;Havelkova et al, 2011;Trinkaus and Ruff, 2012). Femoral robusticity in particular has proven a useful indicator of mobility patterns in Holocene and Pleistocene hunter-gatherers (Ruff, 1999;Holt, 2003). The distal lower limb is also useful in reconstructing mobility in humans, however.…”

Section: Skeletal Adaptation and Symmorphosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Phenotypic plasticity and constraint along the upper and lower limb diaphyses of Homo sapiens

Nadell

Shaw

2015

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

show abstract

Diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry of the Boxgrove 1 Middle Pleistocene human tibia

Cited by 101 publications

References 43 publications

Natural history ofHomo erectus

Natural history ofHomo erectus

Body size, body proportions, and encephalization in a Middle Pleistocene archaic human from northern China

Phenotypic plasticity and constraint along the upper and lower limb diaphyses of Homo sapiens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About