| Abstract: | Fossils recognized as early Homo were discovered first at Olduvai Gorge in 1959 and 1960. Teeth, skull parts and hand bones representing three individuals were found in Bed I, and more material followed from Bed I and lower Bed II. By 1964, L.S.B. Leakey, P.V. Tobias, and J.R. Napier were ready to name Homo habilis. But almost as soon as they had, there was confusion over the hypodigm of the new species. Tobias himself suggested that OH 13 resembles Homo erectus from Java, and he noted that OH 16 has teeth as large as those of Australopithecus. By the early 1970s, however, Tobias had put these thoughts behind him and returned to the opinion that all of the Olduvai remains are Homo habilis. At about this time, important discoveries began to flow from the Koobi Fora region in Kenya. To most observers, crania such as KNM-ER 1470 confirmed the presence of Homo in East Africa at an early date. Some of the other specimens were problematical. A.C. Walker and R.E. Leakey raised the possibility that larger skulls including KNM-ER 1470 differ significantly from smaller-brained, small-toothed individuals such as KNM-ER 1813. Other workers emphasized that there are differences of shape as well as size among the hominids from Koobi Fora. There is now substantial support for the view that in the Turkana and perhaps also in the Olduvai assemblages, there is more variation than would be expected among male and female conspecifics. One way to approach this question of sorting would be to compare all of the new fossils against the original material from Olduvai which was used to characterize Homo habilis in 1964. A problem is that the Olduvai remains are fragmentary, and none of them provides much information about vault form or facial structure. An alternative is to work first with the better crania, even if these are from other sites. I have elected to treat KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1813 as key individuals. Comparisons are based on discrete anatomy and measurements. Metric results are displayed with ratio diagrams, by which similarity in proportions for several skulls can be assessed in respect to a single specimen selected as a standard. Crania from Olduvai examined in this way are generally smaller than KNM-ER 1470, although OH 7 has a relatively long parietal. In the Koobi Fora assemblage, there is variation in brow thickness, frontal flattening and parietal shape relative to KNM-ER 1470. These comparisons are instructive, but vault proportions do not help much with the sorting process. Contrasts in the face are much more striking. Measurements treated in ratio diagrams show that both KNM-ER 1813 and OH 24 have relatively short faces with low cheek bones, small orbits and low nasal openings. Also, they display more projection of the midfacial region, just below the nose. This is not readily interpreted to be a female characteristic, since in most hominoid primates the females tend to have flatter lower faces than the males. The obvious size differences among these individuals have usually been interpreted as sex dimorphism, but, in fact, two taxa may be sampled at Olduvai and in the Turkana basin at the beginning of the Pleistocene. One large-brained group made up of KNM-ER 1470, several other Koobi Fora specimens, and probably OH 7, can be called Homo habilis. If these skulls go with femora such as KNM-ER 1481 and the KNM-ER3228 hip, then this species is close in postcranial anatomy to Homo erectus. The other taxon, including small-brained individuals such as KNM-ER 1813 and probably OH 13, seems also to be Homo rather than Australopithecus. If the OH 62 skeleton is part of this assemblage, then the small hominids have postcranial proportions unlike those of Homo erectus. However, it is too early to point unequivocally to one or the other of these groups as the ancestors of later humans. Both differ from Homo erectus in important ways, and both need to be better understood before we can map the earliest history of the Homo clade. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc. |
