Jennifer Chapman
ANTH 1010
Feb. 4, 2011
Skull Lab
Throughout the history time, the skeletal composition of the body has and continues to slowly change, as proved in our skull lab. As one glances over the skulls it is interesting to see the similarities and differences between the specific specimens. Participants were given many skulls and asked to identify them through observation and evidence naturally found and provided through the skulls themselves. This paper is a review of my personal findings, evidence, and also the possibilities of being mistaken for the skulls that I examined.
The oldest skull I observed was skull number two, Australopithecus Afrarensis, which existed about 3.5 million years ago. This particular skull had many distinct qualities, which contributed to my conclusion. It had facial pragmatism, (a protruding face) very large molars with a square jaw and diastema, (the gap next to the canine tooth) no forehead with large brow ridges, a small cranial capacity, and a large zygomatic bone indicating that there were large muscles there to help chew fibrous food. One particular feature that I did not see was a sagital crest, which as been said to occasionally be seen in this sort of specimen. And due to the fact that on all of the skulls we cannot determine the sex, uniqueness, or see the full skeleton we may not have come to the right conclusion.
The next to oldest skull I looked at was skull number 4, which I feel to be Australopithecus aethiopicus, dated from 2.7 to 2.5 million years ago. With a flatter face/cheekbones, facial pragmatism, large eyebrow ridges (although not as large as the previous skull) a small, yet larger that the afrarensis, cranial capacity, and a sagital crest, I came to this conclusion. This particular skull did not have teeth, which if were present, could change my findings and it also looked somewhat similar to skull number 5. The boisei and aethiopicus also lived vaguely around the same time period, which could potentially pose problems. The boisei, as previously mentioned, I believe to be skull number 5. It is quite similar to skull number four, sharing almost all the same qualities, but is not so flat, long and the cheek bones are not as wide.
We now move to the homo specimens, beginning with skull number eight , Homo heidelbergensis who lived right before the Neanderthals. The skull had a square jaw and large molars, no forehead with a significantly small forehead and large wide brow bones, it also had less of the pragmatism. The thing that makes me doubt my guess on this skull is that is had a large hole where some of the teeth were missing and it made me wonder about possible diastama. I also remember learning that they were quite large comparatively and this skull didn’t seem much bigger than the others.
Neanderthals were the next skull I had time to examine, skull number six (500,00 – 300,00). The forehead began to form with a smaller but still noticeable brow bone, a smaller zigomatic space, less facial pragmatism, and the head is more eggshaped, although it was missing the teeth. I had a hard time distinguishing and putting my finger on this one. It just seemed a little too similar compared to what I was expecting a Neanderthals to appear to be, especially when one throws personal facial structure and genetics into the mix.
The last skull I was able to look at was skull number seven, which I am guessing is Homo Sapien. The forehead is much more prevalent with very small brow bone. A larger cranial capacity, smaller zygomatic bone, not much pragmatism, and a round jaw. This specimen was also lacking teeth which could’ve helped some and seemed very similar to many of the other skulls. These last few generations were hard for me to tell the difference. One can only hope.
This activity/lab was interesting. Although I really did NOT like the texture of some the skulls it was worthy of note of the ever changing skeletal make up of previous cohorts and beings before us. I learned how much what seems like a simple skull can open gateways into their eating habits, why certain things may be needed for survival or even to help to make a picture of what they looked like. I never knew that evolution wasn’t people saying we came from monkeys, it was just the evolution and change of the specimens and their bodies. But, in conclusion, I can say that I am happy to know not only from hearing through the grape vine but by looking at evidence that we did not come from monkeys.
ANTH 1010
Feb. 4, 2011
Skull Lab
Throughout the history time, the skeletal composition of the body has and continues to slowly change, as proved in our skull lab. As one glances over the skulls it is interesting to see the similarities and differences between the specific specimens. Participants were given many skulls and asked to identify them through observation and evidence naturally found and provided through the skulls themselves. This paper is a review of my personal findings, evidence, and also the possibilities of being mistaken for the skulls that I examined.
The oldest skull I observed was skull number two, Australopithecus Afrarensis, which existed about 3.5 million years ago. This particular skull had many distinct qualities, which contributed to my conclusion. It had facial pragmatism, (a protruding face) very large molars with a square jaw and diastema, (the gap next to the canine tooth) no forehead with large brow ridges, a small cranial capacity, and a large zygomatic bone indicating that there were large muscles there to help chew fibrous food. One particular feature that I did not see was a sagital crest, which as been said to occasionally be seen in this sort of specimen. And due to the fact that on all of the skulls we cannot determine the sex, uniqueness, or see the full skeleton we may not have come to the right conclusion.
The next to oldest skull I looked at was skull number 4, which I feel to be Australopithecus aethiopicus, dated from 2.7 to 2.5 million years ago. With a flatter face/cheekbones, facial pragmatism, large eyebrow ridges (although not as large as the previous skull) a small, yet larger that the afrarensis, cranial capacity, and a sagital crest, I came to this conclusion. This particular skull did not have teeth, which if were present, could change my findings and it also looked somewhat similar to skull number 5. The boisei and aethiopicus also lived vaguely around the same time period, which could potentially pose problems. The boisei, as previously mentioned, I believe to be skull number 5. It is quite similar to skull number four, sharing almost all the same qualities, but is not so flat, long and the cheek bones are not as wide.
We now move to the homo specimens, beginning with skull number eight , Homo heidelbergensis who lived right before the Neanderthals. The skull had a square jaw and large molars, no forehead with a significantly small forehead and large wide brow bones, it also had less of the pragmatism. The thing that makes me doubt my guess on this skull is that is had a large hole where some of the teeth were missing and it made me wonder about possible diastama. I also remember learning that they were quite large comparatively and this skull didn’t seem much bigger than the others.
Neanderthals were the next skull I had time to examine, skull number six (500,00 – 300,00). The forehead began to form with a smaller but still noticeable brow bone, a smaller zigomatic space, less facial pragmatism, and the head is more eggshaped, although it was missing the teeth. I had a hard time distinguishing and putting my finger on this one. It just seemed a little too similar compared to what I was expecting a Neanderthals to appear to be, especially when one throws personal facial structure and genetics into the mix.
The last skull I was able to look at was skull number seven, which I am guessing is Homo Sapien. The forehead is much more prevalent with very small brow bone. A larger cranial capacity, smaller zygomatic bone, not much pragmatism, and a round jaw. This specimen was also lacking teeth which could’ve helped some and seemed very similar to many of the other skulls. These last few generations were hard for me to tell the difference. One can only hope.
This activity/lab was interesting. Although I really did NOT like the texture of some the skulls it was worthy of note of the ever changing skeletal make up of previous cohorts and beings before us. I learned how much what seems like a simple skull can open gateways into their eating habits, why certain things may be needed for survival or even to help to make a picture of what they looked like. I never knew that evolution wasn’t people saying we came from monkeys, it was just the evolution and change of the specimens and their bodies. But, in conclusion, I can say that I am happy to know not only from hearing through the grape vine but by looking at evidence that we did not come from monkeys.