The skull looked pretty "primitive" to me; more like what I'm used to calling Homo erectus. However, the browridges *do* seem to be somewhat thinner, although the skull seems awfully long and low. John Hawks, OTOH, seems to think it's different from other Middle Pleistocene hominids. What I thought was interesting was, that the skull is relatively complete, and it was in two pieces which could be fitted together rather easily(I should think). I'd really liike to see the published paper on this.
More details on the new Gawis cranium from Ethiopia, reported by Paul L. Allen from the
Tucson Citizen HERE.
Interestingly,it gives what I would consider a better estimate of the age of the fossil, based on what it looks like to me and the quotes from the geoscientist interviewed for this story, University of Arizona scientist (Professor) Jay Quade:
*****
"...Quade said he will determine the age of Gawis Cranium by isotopic dating of geological samples collected from layers directly above and below its resting place. What already is known about the area would indicate it is about 400,000 years old "plus or minus 100,000 years," he said.
Its gender has not been determined, but it was an adult individual, based on tooth wear and the fact that wisdom teeth are present.
Stone tools found in the immediate vicinity, he said, are smaller and more sophisticated than the earliest known human tools, but less so than those from 200,000 years ago...."
*****
The story also says there are three pieces (not two, like in other news reports) and mentions tooth wear and presence of wisdom teeth. So while the "lower jaw" was not found, there does seem to be a portion of the maxilla not readily apparent (to me, anyways) in the one photo released so far.
Dar
