Re: Archaic H. sapiens???
Ralph L Holloway (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 7 Jan 1997 12:15:01 -0500
On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Michael McBroom wrote:
> "The analyses of Laitman, Heimbuch, and Crelin (1979), Laitman (1983),
> and Laitman and Heimbuch (1982) involve consideration of the flexure of
> the basicranium in the skulls of a large population of modern human
> beings and living primates. These studies and the independent studies
> of Bergland (1963), George (1978), and Grosmangin (1979) show that a
> flexed basicranium supports a humanlike supralaryngeal airway. Laitman,
> Heimbuch, and Crelin apply these metrics to fourteen fossil hominid
> skulls. Their analysis shows that there 'appear to be at least two
> pathways taken in the evolution of man's upper respiratory system after
> a common pongid-like stage exhibited by the australopithecines. One
> line appears to have terminated with Classic Neanderthals. The other
> line, encompassing those hominids with basicrania and upper respiratory
> structures of more modern appearance, may have given rise to modern man'
> (1979, p. 15)."
I sort of remember from one of Jeff Laitman's lectures a slide that showed
a number of the fossil hominids in sagittal section, and I thought that OH
5, at least as reconstructed appeaRED WITHIN THE hOMO SAPIENS RANGE FOR
BASICRANIAL FLEXION. mY POINT IN A PREVIOUS POST WAS THAT i KNOW OF NO
RELATION BETWEEN THE VARIABILITY OF THAT ANGLE AND SOUND PRODUCTION BEING
DEMONSTRATED IN ANY LIVING SPECIES, AND THAT i HAVE NEVER SEEN AN
"ENVELOPe (so sorry for caps lock error), so to speak, for a large sample
of modern Homo sapiens that would provide the upper and lower limits.
> > Being one of those involved in studying the brain endocasts of Homo
> > habilis since the early '70's, I remember pointing out Broca's area to
> > Richard Leakey on the KNM-ER 1470 skull. The rest of the Homo habilis
> > endocasts that I've worked, such as OH 7, OH 13, OH 24, don't have those
> > regions intact, so i don't know what recent works you are referring to.
> > Could you elaborate?
> Only Leakey and Lewin (1993) and Walker and Shipman (1996) refer
> specifically to KNM-ER 1470. Two other sources I have, Bickerton (1990)
> and Pinker (1994), refer simply to references citing evidence of Broca's
> area in Homo habilis. So, most likely they are referring to 1470 as
I think I am about to give up here. I was hoping that perhaps you might
have read my paper on the Paleoneurology of Language published in 1983 in
Journal of Human Neurobiology, in which I discussed these habilines. OH7
lacks the frontal portions. There are no regions with Broca's area intact.
Ditto OH13. OH24 was crushed flat in roughly five layers, and despite Ron
Clark's extraordinary skills, the frontal portion is far too distorted
from the crushing to reconstruct Broca's area. That leaves 1470, which I
reconstructed for richard leakeey back in 1974, and you will find my slide
of the lateral aspect in his earliest book. OH 62 has almost no cranial
fragments. OH 16 is anyone's guess, but you can't find a Broca's region
thaT ISN'T QUESTIONABLE DUE TO DISTORTION AND FRAGMENTATION OF THE
ORIGINAL CRANIUM BY THE mASAAI CATTle (woops, sorry again).
Please tell me what other habilines you or anyone else is referring