Erectus Shrinking

[Beagle]

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AOvXS7ulx4 ... -%2010.pdf

New studies on H. Erectus skeleton have determined that they were smaller than originally thought. Good article and
it also makes me wonder about the fact that although they had a brain size of 900-1100 cc it may not be all that significant. Comparatively speaking, they may have been as proportioned as us, in body/brain ratio anyway.

[Rokcet Scientist]

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AOvXS7ulx4 ... -%2010.pdf

Document Not Found
The document you requested could not be found...

[Beagle]

I can't get it to come up either, although I got it yesterday via email.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/ere ... -2010.html

Here is Hawks on the same subject, and says the same thing as the article I tried to post.

[Minimalist]

It's an interesting point, though. Too much generalization based on too small a sample.

Even in comparatively modern times when we find burials they tend to be people who were buried with some ceremony or at least a tomb. As such, the upper classes are probably over-represented in the sample and one suspects that they tended to be the healthier (or at least better nourished) members of the community.

[Digit]

There's a derelict abbey near me that was closed by Henry 8, so 16C, and within the cloistered area are a number of gravestones. None are over 5ft.
My point there Min is that Cloistered Monks were unlikely to be on short commons. Granted many may have taken the cowl as adults, but many monasteries took in sub teens who then took the cowl later.
I would add that queen Victoria came to the throne at 18, she was 4ft 8 tall and eventually 5ft-5ft 2.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I don't think there is any doubt that people were generally smaller during the Ancient/Medieval times. I recall, as a kid, going down a stairway on a replica of Columbus' Santa Maria and realizing that my feet...even as a 14 year old.... were way too big for that stairway.

Any trip to a museum will show uniforms/armor of an amazingly small stature. Revolutionary War/Napoleonic muskets with the bayonet attached were six an a half feet long....far taller than the soldiers who carried them.

[Digit]

So why, I wonder, have we grown taller? Did HSN or Erectus?
With Erectus there are, as you pointed out, too few skeletons available to make a judgement.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

The obvious answer is nutrition.

In 1491, Mann makes the point that the native americans tended to be bigger and stronger than the Europeans and suggested it was because they ate a diet which was not primarily grain-based.

[Rokcet Scientist]

So why, I wonder, have we grown taller?

Yes. Western European caucasians have, on average, grown 6 to 8 inches taller in the last 150 years. Cause: healthier living, much better food. There's evolution for ya! You only have to look at your own grandparents and you can see it!

Did HSN or Erectus?

Who knows, mathematically they certainly had enough opportunity: HE was around for almost 2 million years, HSN for 300/400k years.

With Erectus there are, as you pointed out, too few skeletons available to make a judgement.

Well, there are African HE remains, Dmanisi Man, meganthropus palaeojavanicus, Java Man, Peking Man, Malaysian HE, Israeli HE, Spanish HE, and dozens of others (many chinese). All wildly differing. Many long considered to have been separate species, but all eventually recognised as regional/temporal variations of HE.

The hobbit is next.

Of course every new individual found will fire up the imaginations, but it will ultimately provide more information. And fill in the big picture some more.

[uniface]

Yes. Western European caucasians have, on average, grown 6 to 8 inches taller in the last 150 years. Cause:

Tobacco.

And better beer, too.

[Minimalist]

Interbreeding back on the table!

http://www.livescience.com/history/huma ... 00429.html

The researchers looked at DNA samples from humans living today, and found signs of leftover Neanderthal genes introduced from this interbreeding. They looked at genetic data from almost 2,000 people around the world, and calculated how much genetic variation existed between samples. The results indicate that some extinct group of hominids mixed their genes with ours at two points in history, Hunley said.

One period of interbreeding probably occurred shortly after Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. The researchers found an excess of genetic diversity in all modern people except Africans, suggesting that the influx of Neanderthal-like DNA came after the exodus from Africa.

[Digit]

As it's one am here I'm off to bed, but I thought I'd stir the pot before I go.
Let us assume that the origin of hominds is indeed Africa and that on one or more occasions groups left Africa, by what ever means.
Either those groups had already developed into different species or races or they did so after leaving.
If their history in Africa was long enough then logic says that such differentiation would have occured, BUT, logic again suggests that, faced with a major changes in climate, such as seasons, fluctuating temperatures etc, natural selection would have worked faster in Asia and Europe than in the Rift Valley.
This suggests to me that the possible early OOA scenario is reasonable till we know for certain that it is not, and that the one people who left Africa at that time would then continue the greater part of their development elsewhere.
Thus we would have OOA AND regional development. Frankly I can't believe that a tropical people moving north could do any thing else but change.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

So if a group moves OOA and stops in, say, India for a while they would adjust to conditions in India. Yes.

Then, the same group or a sub-unit moves north to Afghanistan and adapts to those conditions. It seems that even in a relatively short span of time the original group could fracture many times as they adapt to different climates.

Is that about it?

[Digit]

If Darwinism means anything Min then yes. Change to best suit the new environment.
The suggested development of a species into what was eventually HSN would seem to support the idea.
In other words we do not have to look for one new species after another arising in Africa then moving out, once or twice would be sufficient.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

In any case this again reinforces that it wasn't either this or that that happened, but that this and that happened: it all happened!