Palanth Forum
May 24, 2012, 07:54:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1
  Print  
Author Topic: Skulls from Dmanissi (1991–2000) - paper  (Read 1558 times)
shenzhou
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« on: April 03, 2006, 06:12:10 AM »

There is a huge (110 page) paper in press at L'anthropologie describing the fossil skulls that have been found so far at Dmanisi / Dmanissi. As it called part 1 There is presumably a post cranial paper due soon. BTW the paper is in french.

Les restes humains du Pliocène final et du début du Pléistocène inférieur de Dmanissi, Géorgie (1991–2000). I – Les crânes, D 2280, D 2282, D 2700

Human remains from the Upper Pliocene – Early Pleistocene Dmanissi site, Georgia (1991–2000). Part I: the fossil skulls (D 2280, D 2282 and D 2700)

Marie-Antoinette de Lumley, Leo Gabounia, Abesalon Vekua and David Lordkipanidze

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2006.02.001

Abstract

Since 1991, several human remains: 5 skulls, 4 mandibles and numerous postcranial fragments have been discovered on the Dmanissi prehistoric open site. It is an exceptional discovery due to the stratigraphical, paleontological and cultural context, which is well known and accurately well dated (Upper Pliocene–Early Pleistocene). Most of the hominids discovered in the level V and VI are dated between 1.81 My (level V) and 1.77 My (level VI) corresponding to a 40,000 years period. The assemblage of fossil human remains is peculiar due to (1) the quality of bone representation (distinct parts of the skeleton are preserved: skull, thorax, upper and lower limbs, belt), (2) the high degree of bone preservation (skulls and long bones are entire, rarely broken or crushed), (3) the diversity age at death estimated for each of the 5 individuals (3 adults, 1 young adult, 1 adolescent of both sexes). The study dealing with the first discovered mandibles and skulls has begun with Leo Gabounia since 1991 and represents several interests: 1) a paleoanthropological interest: the Dmanissi skulls are characterized by their small size; they are short, narrow and low. The skullcaps are less elevated than those of the Homo erectus group and even those of Homo ergaster. They are more elevated than those of Homo habilis and very close to Homo rudolfensis. The elevation and the transversal development of the middle part of the skull in the parietotemporal region are more significant: the Dmanissi specimens are intermediate between Homo habilis and Homo ergaster. In term of cranial capacity, a similar trend is observed. Generally speaking, the skull is slender. The vault is more flat than in Homo erectus, the frontal bone is less developed, divergent and the postorbital constriction is strong. The temporal bone is long, flat and the mastoid part is short. The upper part of the occipital bone is low and narrow. Crests are thin, less developed than in the Homo erectus group. The superior temporal crests are in a high position and a torus angularis is present on the adult-male specimen. The glenoid cavity is large with strong edges. The petrotympanic region is slender with a tympanic circle individualized and it shows a horizontal rotation in a posterior position, which is distinct from Homo erectus. The orthognathic trend of the face distinguishes the Dmanissi specimens from the early Pleistocene hominids (Homo habilis, Homo ergaster) and from the first Eurasian Homo erectus. Nevertheless, the subnasal region of the face is projected. The morphology of the mid-face, showing a developed pillar of the canine, an inframalar incurvation and an anterior position of the root of the zygomaticomaxillary crest, suggests strong masticatory stress. Considering the overall morphology, cranial and metrical features, the Dmanissi fossil skulls are intermediate to the Homo habilis-rudolfensis group and Homo ergaster while they are closer to the former and peculiarly to Homo rudolfensis (ER 1470). However, the Dmanissi fossil skulls are distinct from Homo rudolfensis by numerous features and among them: by their large maximum cranial width (Euryon–Euryon), the posterior rotation of their petrotympanic structure and the strong development of the pillar of their canine. Due to the gracility of their face, the narrowness of their occipital bone, and their cranial base pattern (mastoid region and petrotympanic structure), the Dmanissi fossil skulls are different from the Homo erectus group: 2) the abundance of the human fossils discovered in Dmanissi site provides information about the biodiversity of these hominids with the establishment of the morphological features related to either growth or sexual patterns: 3) compared to modern humans, the Dmanissi fossil skulls seem to follow a different growth pattern. The present study of the fossil skulls discovered is a pioneer step. Indeed, the Dmanissi site has yielded the oldest evidences of the first settlements in Eurasia, which were, until now, attributed to Homo erectus. The Dmanissi fossil skulls are close to the Homo habilis-rudolfensis African group. We attribute these hominids to Homo georgicus.
Logged
Daryl Habel
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 472



« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2006, 10:03:32 AM »

There is a huge (110 page) paper in press at L'anthropologie describing the fossil skulls that have been found so far at Dmanisi / Dmanissi. As it called part 1 There is presumably a post cranial paper due soon. BTW the paper is in french.
(snip)

Thanks for the notice of this.  L'Anthropologie always has an English-language abstract, and photographs and tables usually are captioned in both French and English language, so it should not be too difficult for handicapped Anglophiles to enjoy.  And yes, keep an eye out for the presumed forthcoming Part II, which hopefully will appear soon with a description of  the mostly media-neglected post-cranial remains. 
Dar
Logged

Daryl Habel
Editorial Advisory Committee
PALANTH
shenzhou
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2006, 11:36:27 AM »

The issue of l'anthropologie containing the paper (January-March 2006) has now been released as a free sample issue so anyone who wants a copy can now get it for free: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00035521 .
Logged
lagarvelho
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354



« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2006, 04:07:36 PM »

Shenzhou:

The paper is mostly in French, but the abstract gives some pretty good details, for those whose French is less than superb.
Anne G





The issue of l'anthropologie containing the paper (January-March 2006) has now been released as a free sample issue so anyone who wants a copy can now get it for free: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00035521 .
Logged
Daryl Habel
Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 472



« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2006, 07:15:43 PM »

Anatomical descriptions, comparative studies, and evolutionary significance of the hominin skulls from Dmanisi (Rightmire et al. 2006, Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2): 115-141) CLICK HERE, is an English-language description and analysis of the same three skulls which are described and illustrated in much more detail by this newest paper from L'Anthropologie., that is, the D2280 braincase and the  D2282/D211 and D2700/D2735 skulls. 

But regardless of the fine descriptions in these and other recent papers eminating from Dmanisi,  their analyses generally omit mention of the fourth skull, D3444, the toothless old man, which is noted in one earlier paper CLICK HERE, and although I note the postcranial specimens are enumerated in the new L'Anthropologie paper (17 elements), these also are yet to be described specimens of the Homo georgicus hypodigm.  There was some earlier discussion here about the relatively quiet criticism [acceptance?] of the proposed species Homo georgicus, but I think that is because the folks at Dmanisi are doing a great job of describing the fossil finds in good time.  They are not waiting until the site has been exhausted before publishing everything at one time, and from the first mandible found the Dmanisi hominins were thought to be some type of early Homo erectus/ergaster, but with each new find they begin looking more and more like they are closer to the Homo habilis/rudolfensis African group (as the proposers of H. georgicus note in their analyses).  So views pro and con will change in strength with each discovery.  At present, I'm OK with Homo georgicus as described but will I feel the same after everything has been found and described?  I can't say.

Dar
 
Logged

Daryl Habel
Editorial Advisory Committee
PALANTH
lagarvelho
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354



« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2006, 03:14:33 PM »

Dar:

I'm "okay" with the description of Homo georgicus so far myself.  This is partly because I don't know a whole lot about it.  OTOH, whether or not it is a genuine "species" is one of those questions that will have to wait for further analyses.
Anne G
Logged
Pages: 1
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!