Skip to comments.On the Variability of the Dmanisi Mandibles
Posted on 03/04/2014 7:46:09 AM PST by Renfield
The description of a new skull (D4500) from the Dmanisi site (Republic of Georgia) has reopened the debate about the morphological variability within the genus Homo. The new skull fits with a mandible (D2600) often referred as big or enigmatic because of its differences with the other Dmanisi mandibles (D211 and D2735). In this report we present a comparative study of the variability of the Dmanisi mandibles under a different perspective, as we focus in morphological aspects related to growth and development. We have followed the notion of modularity and phenotypic integration in order to understand the architectural differences observed within the sample. Our study reveals remarkable shape differences between D2600 and the other two mandibles, that are established early in the ontogeny (during childhood or even before) and that do not depend on size or sexual dimorphism. In addition, D2600 exhibits a mosaic of primitive and derived features regarding the Homo clade, which is absent in D211 and D2735. This mosaic expression is related to the location of the features and can be explained under the concept of modularity. Our study would support the possibility of two different paleodemes represented at the Dmanisi site. This hypothesis has been previously rejected on the basis that all the individuals were constrained in the same stratigraphic and taphonomic settings. However, our revision of the complex Dmanisi stratigraphy suggests that the accumulation could cover an undetermined period of time. Even if short in geological terms, the hominin accumulation was not necessarily synchronic. In the same line we discard that the differences between D2600 and the small mandibles are consequence of wear-related dentoalveolar remodeling. In addition, dental wear pattern of D2600 could suggest an adaptation to a different ecological niche than the other Dmanisi individuals.
(Excerpt) Read more at plosone.org ...
A controversial fossil and soil analysis concludes that a key West Asian site hosted not one but two Homo species, one living around 1.8 million years ago and another several hundred thousand years later.
A team that excavated partial skeletons at Dmanisi, in the nation of Georgia, categorized the finds as part of one species, Homo erectus, that lived in Africa and West Asia 1.8 million years ago (SN: 11/16/13, p. 6). But disparities in several skeletal features that emerge early in life distinguish a large Dmanisi lower jaw from two smaller ones, signaling the presence of separate species, asserts a team led by paleoanthropologist José María Bermúdez de Castro of the National Research Center on Human Evolution in Burgos, Spain. The small jaws come from a population that was closely related to early African Homo populations, the scientists conclude February 20 in PLOS ONE. The team suggests the larger jaw belonged to Homo georgicus, a poorly understood species.
Excavation director David Lordkipanidze of the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi disagrees. Shape similarities among Dmanisi skulls that fit the lower jaws indicate that only one Homo species occupied the site. Geologic studies show that the Dmanisi fossils are no younger than 1.76 million years old, he adds.....
You can fancy it up all you like, but I still say it's a perversion!
- DNA studies in Germany found that African Homo species contained/contains no Neanderthal DNA ..
- Neanderthal DNA was found in Euro and Asian DNA specimens.
- Chicken/Egg questions present now as previous “theories” (not facts) which insisted that the “Out of Africa” stories we were told now turn out to be just stories that sounded good to certain people and groups.
- Does skin pigment go away for some Europeans and not others? Where did the Neanderthal DNA go if Africans were the first in Northern Europe and Asia?
- I am sure some PC/Global BS types can come up with an answer backed up with evidence like the Neanderthal DNA test results found in Germany.
- Now - DNA tests on early North American, Central American, and South American remains. - This will be blocked and protested by alleged “native Americans” as they have done in several controversial skeletal finds. Bet on it.
- Is a puzzlement .
Teh Panics! It’s the nephelim!
Note: this topic was posted 3/4/2014. Thanks Renfield.
- Thanks - I had some good questions and info to reply with but I stupidly touched the sensitive pad of my MacPro laptop
- We need more threads like this one on Free Republic -
- homo electus husseinus II
- from your links :
- why, despite sharing 99% of our DNA with chimps, we humans look so different
- hmmmmmmmm ..
Years ago I used to do a lot of Project Management and I needed a planner to write specs and deal with vendors. I had a good guy but he pissed off upper management and they tossed him.
They hired a clown who wrote like the author of this piece and I fired him because no one knew what the hell he was talking about. Clear and concise is the name of the game.
"Image: JOHN GURCHE PORTRAIT OF A PIONEER With a brain half the size of a modern one and a brow reminiscent of Homo habilis, this hominid is one of the most primitive members of our genus on record. Paleoartist John Gurche reconstructed this 1.75-million-year-old explorer from a nearly complete teenage H. erectus skull and associated mandible found in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. The background figures derive from two partial crania recovered at the site."
Why so many old finds in Georgia? I suppose it would be a good transit point for travelers into and out of the Steppes to the north, Mesopotamia to the south, Anatolia and Persia. Or is it favorable geology for finding specimens that old?
The geology is always the main factor. Obviously something or someone has died on pretty much every square inch of the Earth at some time or other. :’)
I’ve been known to annoy ardent environmentalists by asking them to imagine just how many dinosaurs the fresh water they’re so worried about has passed through over the ages.
Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal were well establshed in Eurasia well before Afro-homos showed up. Many now believe that they were pale skinned, blue eyed redheads (which is called the “ginger gene” and common in Scotland and other northern European places. When the Africans moved north some white mutations made successful reproduction more possible as absorbtion of vitamin D from pale skin meant better female pelvic structure. Also some may have been gained from Neanderthal matings.
“Neanderthal DNA was found in Euro and Asian DNA specimens.”
Pardon my iggernunce, but is that now a generally accepted proposition?
“Clear and concise is the name of the game.”
Yes. There is always an acceptable alternative to alliteration, and polysyllabification is forbiddenized.
- GOOGLE search it -
- There are also several threads about this on FR
- Chimps are within 1% of certain alleged human groups DNA too - try Detroit and Chicago