Re: homo species
Jim Foley (jimf@vangelis.FtCollins.NCR.com)
13 Jul 1995 18:05:56 GMT
In article <3u1ds3$59p@net.auckland.ac.nz>,
Howard Wiseman <h.wiseman@auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>On this subject, why is it that Australian aborigines possess very thick
>crania, large teeth (I have read exceeding Neandertals in robustness in
>some features)? ...
>Also, does anyone
>have any comments on the range of variation in Aust fossil homo, from
>very primitive looking Talgai cranium, to crania and skeletons more
>slender than those of present aborigines. How much support is there for 2
>migrations into Australia by quite different peoples?
It seems to be the accepted opinion that some of the primitive features
of some of the Kow Swamp skulls from Australia were caused by head
binding? Is there good evidence for this? (any references?)
Why is head binding used as an explanation for the flattened forehead of
the Kow swamp skulls, but not for the skulls of erectus or archaic
sapiens fossils?
I have seen some claims that the robust Kow Swamp skulls are Homo
erectus, while other authors state unequivocally that they are
H. sapiens sapiens.
I would guess that the Kow skulls could be caused by applying some
deformation to robust but essentially modern skulls. But I doubt any
amount of deformation on a sapiens skull would ever produce an erectus
skull, so I assume that the H. sapiens sapiens identification is the
correct one.
Jim (Chris) Foley, jim.foley@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)
|