4.3 Article

A partial Homo pelvis from the Early Pleistocene of Eritrea

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION
Volume 123, Issue -, Pages 109-128

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2018.06.010

Keywords

Pelvic evolution; Homo erectus; Eritrea; Os coxae; Buia hominins

Funding

  1. National Museum of Eritrea
  2. Italian Foreign Ministry
  3. Italian Ministry for Education University and Research
  4. Italian National Research Council
  5. Leakey Foundation
  6. Wenner-Gren Foundation
  7. National Science Foundation [BCS-1232393]
  8. National Geographic Society
  9. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (MINECO/AEI/FEDER, UE) [CGL2017-82654-P]
  10. Generalitat de Catalunya (CERCA Programme)
  11. University of Rome
  12. University of Florence
  13. National Museum of Prehistory and Ethnography of Rome
  14. University of Poitiers
  15. French CNRS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Here we analyze 1.07-0.99 million-year-old pelvic remains UA 173/405 from Buia, Eritrea. Based on size metrics, UA 173/405 is likely associated with an already described pubic symphysis (UA 466) found nearby. The morphology of UA 173/405 was quantitatively characterized using three-dimensional landmark-based morphometrics and linear data. The Buia specimen falls within the range of variation of modern humans for all metrics investigated, making it unlikely that the shared last common ancestor of Late Pleistocene Homo species would have had an australopith-like pelvis. The discovery of UA 173/405 adds to the increasing number of fossils suggesting that the postcranial morphology of Homo erectus s.l. was variable and, in some cases, nearly indistinguishable from modern human morphology. This Eritrean fossil demonstrates that modern human-like pelvic morphology may have had origins in the Early Pleistocene, potentially within later African H. erectus. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available