PDA

View Full Version : A comparative study of stereolithographically modelled skulls of Petralona and B Hill



Euclides
Saturday, June 19th, 2004, 10:17 PM
J Hum Evol. 1997 Dec;33(6):691-703. Related Articles, Links


A comparative study of stereolithographically modelled skulls of Petralona and Broken Hill: implications for future studies of middle Pleistocene hominid evolution.

Seidler H, Falk D, Stringer C, Wilfing H, Muller GB, zur Nedden D, Weber GW, Reicheis W, Arsuaga JL.

Institute of Human Biology, University of Vienna, Austria.

Computer generated three-dimensional stereolithographic models of middle Pleistocene skulls from Petralona and Broken Hill are described and compared. The anterior cranial fossae of these models are also compared with that of another middle Pleistocene skull, Arago 21. Stereolithographic modelling reproduces not only the outer surfaces of skulls, but also features within the substance of the bones, and details of the internal braincase. The skulls of Petralona and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Broken Hill are extremely pneumatized. Previously undescribed features associated with pneumatization are detailed, along with their possible functional significance, polarity, and potential for understanding hominid cranial variation. Petralona and Broken Hill also exhibit a dramatic suite of cerebral features that is probably related to extensive pneumatization of the skull, namely frontal lobes that are tilted and located behind rather than over the orbits, laterally flared temporal lobes, marked occipital projection, and basal location of the cerebellum. Comparison of the anterior cranial fossae of Petralona, Broken Hill, and Arago 21 suggests that external resemblance of skulls may not always correlate with endocranial similarity. We believe that stereolithographic reconstructions have the potential for helping to resolve difficult questions about the origins of Neanderthal and anatomically modern people.

Agrippa
Saturday, June 19th, 2004, 11:19 PM
I always thought that it is very unlikely that Petralona is under the ancestors of modern humans. After reading that article I'm quite sure that such Hominids are not under our ancestors but rather groups which didnt survived and were partially eliminated by modern humans.

Would be interesting to see a similar study about late Neandertals and early sapiens in Europe, because I'm quite sure that similar differences, although not that extreme might be seen and that the difference will be big enough to prove my idea, that neanderthalensis is definitely a different species, even if hybrids (maybe infertile or such not accepted in the group) are at least possible.

morfrain_encilgar
Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 07:56 PM
I always thought that it is very unlikely that Petralona is under the ancestors of modern humans. After reading that article I'm quite sure that such Hominids are not under our ancestors but rather groups which didnt survived and were partially eliminated by modern humans.

Would be interesting to see a similar study about late Neandertals and early sapiens in Europe, because I'm quite sure that similar differences, although not that extreme might be seen and that the difference will be big enough to prove my idea, that neanderthalensis is definitely a different species, even if hybrids (maybe infertile or such not accepted in the group) are at least possible.

I find these two archaics, to be part of a lineage that seems distinct from moderns and neanderthals, discounting hybridisation with neighbouring populations from other lineages.