The Origin Of A Cranium

The main tools for measuring Specimen 253 are the spreading calipers and the sliding calipers. For the Spreading calipers it has two measurement ways; Cranial Breath and Cranial length. The cranial breath it takes the measurement by moving the points of spreading the caliper along the Parietal bones until you find the maximum reading, at the euryon on both sides of the skull. Next is The Cranial Length which measure two point of the spreading from the forehead (Glabella) to the lower back of the head (Opisthocranion). Fix one of the spreading caliper points on the glabella and hold it with one hand and hold with the other end of the caliper at the Opisthocranion until you found the maximum reading. After you collected your data, you must use the Cephalic index formula to solve the overall size head of specimen 253 (Cranial index = Cranial Breath (100) / Cranial Length). After you finish with the spreading calipers, you will also be using the sliding calipers to measure the nasal region. This tool can measure two ways; the nasal breath and the nasal height. The nasal breath measure the widest portion of the nasal aperture, between the two alare landmarks. The nasal height, it measures from the inferior margin to the superior margins of the nasal bone. After you collected your data for the nasal region, you must apply the nasal index formula to your data (Nasal index = Nasal Breath (100) / Nasal Length). After you collected all you data, you must

If you were a forensic anthropologist and were studying human remains, what information would you look for in the bones? Why would this information be helpful?

Australopithecus Afarensis: Even longer face, cranial capacity looks even more disproportionate with face, cheekbones are very distinctive

In my paper, I will explain forensic osteology and how it helps determine child abuse. I will also explain different cultures and situations where child abuse cases take place. I will describe where child abuse has taken place even in ancient times. Lastly, I will explain the challenges of forensic osteology in determining child abuse, what could be mistaken for it, and how it’s properly analyzed.

Hoping to address the shortcomings of the Giles and Elliot technique (1962) with regard to Native American populations, the interorbital features method was developed by Gill in 1984 with particular attention paid to accurately distinguishing between individuals of European and Native American descent.

The first was length of brain case, length of face, head balancing index( brain case/face), distant between eyes, and canine gap and we would average them. The first skull we did was the A.Afarensis length of brain case and got 49.91mm. Then the length of the face we got 121.12 we took these two number and divided them and got .41 mm. We then moved down to the distance between the eyes and there is a 19.87 mm gap between the eyes.

In the Article “Redrawing Humanity’s Family Tree” by John Noble Wilford, describes how two different skulls challenge the theories of human origins and migrations. The Central African skull, that dates back to nearly 7 million years ago, was assigned to a whole new genus and species because of its apelike and evolved hominid species. The 1.75-million-year-old Georgian skull shows evidence that the first hominids may have been intercontinental travelers who set motion the migrations that occupied the whole planet. Finally a third skull was found that is the same age and shares a resemblance but, the size of the skull suggests that the brain was smaller than expected for H. erectus.

Discoveries relating to the human lineage are extremely exciting and often baffling. This is the case with the recent discovery of what seems to be the oldest member of the human family. A skull found in northern Chad in 2001, has been deemed the earliest relative to the human ever found. Nicknamed Toumai, and discovered by Michel Brunet and his paleontology team, this new category of human has been given the scientific name, Sahelanthropus tchaensis. What makes this skull so definitive is the fact that it dates back approximately 6-7 million years in the earth’s history (Whitfield 2002). Since the discovery there have been anthropologists and paleontologists that have

There are many species that belong as a part of the Primates; not only in today’s world, but also in a world before Homo Sapiens became advanced enough to be able to differentiate anthropomorphic traits in other species. To identify these species, specific analyses of a wide variety of characteristics had to occur. One of these characteristics being detention, or “the sizes, shapes, and number of an animal’s teeth” (Lavenda and Schultz 100). Looking at skulls of Primates that are no longer around, or maybe even still existing, can sometimes be hard to distinguish; at least if you are still learning about the shapes and sizes of each species. When unsure of which group the skull of a Primate belongs to, looking at the number and shapes of

The eight primates whose sequences were used are: Homo sapiens sapiens (modern human), Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal), Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee), Pan paniscus (bonobo), Gorilla gorilla (gorilla), Pongo abelii (Sumatran orangutan), Pongo pygmaeus (Bornean orangutan), and Hylobates lar (gibbon). Based on morphological similarities, it is hypothesized that Neanderthal is the most closely related species to humans. For instance, both species walk up right, have large brains, were able to develop and create tools and had spoken language—although more research is still needed to say for certain that Neanderthals did have spoken language. Additionally, it is also hypothesized that modern human and Neanderthal are both more closely related to the sister group of bonobo and chimpanzee, then to gorilla, then to the sister taxa of Sumatran orangutan and Bornean orangutan, and lastly the gibbon (the outgroup of this data). Hence, by developing the order of these eight primates through genetic data and phylogenetic character analysis, we can gain a new insight into the evolution of

First we started with the nasal index, which was .50, perfectly matching the results from the average asian skull. The nasal silling and prognathism also pointed towards asian, showing rounded ridges and variable respectively. However, the next two traits were both positive for female. After much time was spent checking our data, we decided to conclude that the body was asian because ⅗ measurements showed that

Observe skull sample and record nasal root, lower border of nasal aperture, orbital shape, malar tubercle, dental shape, and lingual side of incisors. Compare your observations with the information in lab book’s (table 8.3) characteristics to determine ancestry of the

Professor David Lordkipanidze presented some highly interesting information regarding our ancestry as humans. He is an internationally renowned scientist and paleontologist, and it was a great privilege to hear about his work in the Dmanisi where he led the discovery and analysis of the earliest human found outside of Africa.

A study co-authored by Lauren Gonzales of Duke University and Fred Spoor of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology sheds some light on some long-held secrets of the ancient skull. Prior to their research, it was commonly thought and generally accepted that primate brains first grew in size, and then in complexity. However, the 3-D brain image that they were able to construct after using

The first Neanderthal fossils found in Europe, a fragmented child’s cranium in Belgium in 1830, and an adult cranium in Gibraltar, were not immediately recognized as a divergent kind of human. Only in 1856 after a partial skeleton was found in a cave in the Neander Valley in Germany it became clear that these fossils belonged to an extinct human and our closest evolutionary relative (Hublin and Pääbo, 2006). Since then, questions about their relationship with modern humans have been fiercely debated between anthropologists. But what attracts most interest from scientists and popular media is the possibility of hybridization between Neanderthals and modern humans if, in other words, they were a genetically different specie or a