How big were early hominids?

The recent discovery of new postcranial fossils, particularly associated body parts, of several Plio-Pleistocene hominids provides a new opportunity to assess body size in human evolution.¹ Body size plays a central role in the biology of animals because of its relationship to brain size, feeding behavior, habitat preference, social behavior, and much more. Unfortunately, the prediction of body weight from fossils is inherently inaccurate because skeletal size does not reflect body size exactly and because the fossils are from species having body proportions for which there are no analogues among modern species. The approach here is to find the relationship between body size and skeletal size in ape and human specimens of known body weight at death and to apply this knowledge to the hominid fossils, using a variety of statistical methods, knowledge of the associated partial skeletons of the of early hominids, formulae derived from a modern human sample, and, finally, common sense. The following modal weights for males and females emerge: Australopithecus afarensis, 45 and 29 kg; A. africanus, 41 and 30 kg; A. robustus, 40 and 32 kg; A. boisei, 49 and 34 kg; H. habilis, 52 and 32 kg. The best known African early H. erectus were much larger with weights ranging from 55 kg on up. These estimates imply that (1) in the earliest hominid species and the “robust” australopithecines body sizes remained small relative to modern standards, but between 2.0 and 1.7 m.y.a. there was a rapid increase to essentially modern body size with the appearance of Homo erectus; (2) the earliest species had a degree of body size sexual dimorphism well above that seen in modern humans but below that seen in modern gorillas and orangs which implies (along with other evidence) a social organization characterized by kin-related, multi-male groups with females who were not kin-related; (3) relative brain sizes increased through time; (4) there were two divergent trends in relative cheek-tooth size—a steady increase through time from A. afarensis to A. africanus to the “robust” australopithecines, and a decrease beginning with H. habilis to H. erectus to H. sapiens.     

Relative cheek-tooth size in Australopithecus

Until the discovery of Australopithecus afarensis, cheek-tooth megadontia was unequivocally one of the defining characteristics of the australopithecine grade in human evolution along with bipedalism and small brains. This species, however, has an average postcanine area of 757 mm², which is more like Homo habilis (759 mm²) than A. africanus (856 mm²). But what is its relative cheek-tooth size in comparison to body size? One approach to this question is to compare postcanine tooth area to estimated body weight. By this method all Australopithecus species are megadont: they have cheek teeth 1.7 to 2.3 times larger than modern hominoids of similar body size. The series from A. afarensis to A. africanus to A. robustus to A. boisei shows strong positive allometry indicating increasing megadontia through time. The series from H. habilis to H. erectus to H. sapiens shows strong negative allometry which implies a sharp reduction in the relative size of the posterior teeth. Postcanine megadontia in Australopithecus species can also be demonstrated by comparing tooth size and body size in associated skeletons: A. afarensis (represented by A.L. 288–1) has a cheek-tooth size 2.8 times larger than expected from modern hominoids; A. africanus (Sts 7) and A. robustus (TM 1517) are over twice the expected size. The evolutionary transition from the megadont condition of Australopithecus to the trend of decreasing megadontia seen in the Homo lineage may have occurred between 3.0 and 2.5 m.y. from A. afarensis to H. habilis but other evidence indicates that it is more likely to have occurred between 2.5 to 2.0 m.y. from an A. africanus-like form to H. habilis.     

Developmental age and taxonomic affinity of the Mojokerto child,Java, Indonesia

An increasing number of claims place hominids outside Africa and deep in Southeast Asia at about the same time that Homo erectus first appears in Africa. The most complete of the early specimens is the partial child's calvaria from Mojokerto (Perning I), Java, Indonesia. Discovered in 1936, the child has been assigned to Australopithecus and multiple species of Homo, including H. modjokertensis, and given developmental ages ranging from 1–8 years. This study systematically assesses Mojokerto relative to modern human and fossil hominid growth series and relative to adult fossil hominids. Cranial base and vault comparisons between Mojokerto and H. sapiens sapiens (Hss) (n = 56), Neandertal (n = 4), and H. erectus (n = 4) juveniles suggest a developmental age range between 4 and 6 years. This range is based in part on new standards for assessing the relative development of the glenoid fossa. Regression analyses of vault arcs and chords indicate that H. erectus juveniles have more rounded frontals and less angulated occipitals than their adult counterparts, whereas Hss juveniles do not show these differences relative to adults. The growth of the cranial superstructures and face appear critical to creating differences in vault contours between H. erectus and Hss. In comparison with adult H. erectus and early Homo (n = 27) and adult Hss (n = 179), the Mojokerto child is best considered a juvenile H. erectus on the basis of synapomorphies of the cranial vault, particularly a metopic eminence and occipital torus, as well as a suite of characters that describe but do not define H. erectus, including obelion depression, supratoral gutter, postorbital constriction, mastoid fissure, lack of sphenoid contribution to glenoid fossa, and length and breadth ratios of the temporomandibular joint. Mojokerto is similar to other juvenile H. erectus in the degree of development of its cranial superstructures and its vault contours relative to adult Indonesian specimens. The synapomorphies which Mojokerto shares with H. erectus are often considered autapomorphies of Asian H. erectus and confirm the early establishment and long-term continuity of the Asian H. erectus bauplan. This continuity does not, however, necessarily reflect on the pattern of origin of modern humans in the region. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:497–514, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Disproportionate Cochlear Length in Genus Homo Shows a High Phylogenetic Signal during Apes’ Hearing Evolution

Changes in lifestyles and body weight affected mammal life-history evolution but little is known about how they shaped species’ sensory systems. Since auditory sensitivity impacts communication tasks and environmental acoustic awareness, it may have represented a deciding factor during mammal evolution, including apes. Here, we statistically measure the influence of phylogeny and allometry on the variation of five cochlear morphological features associated with hearing capacities across 22 living and 5 fossil catarrhine species. We find high phylogenetic signals for absolute and relative cochlear length only. Comparisons between fossil cochleae and reconstructed ape ancestral morphotypes show that Australopithecus absolute and relative cochlear lengths are explicable by phylogeny and concordant with the hypothetized ((Pan,Homo),Gorilla) and (Pan,Homo) most recent common ancestors. Conversely, deviations of the Paranthropus oval window area from these most recent common ancestors are not explicable by phylogeny and body weight alone, but suggest instead rapid evolutionary changes (directional selection) of its hearing organ. Premodern (Homo erectus) and modern human cochleae set apart from living non-human catarrhines and australopiths. They show cochlear relative lengths and oval window areas larger than expected for their body mass, two features corresponding to increased low-frequency sensitivity more recent than 2 million years ago. The uniqueness of the “hypertrophied” cochlea in the genus Homo (as opposed to the australopiths) and the significantly high phylogenetic signal of this organ among apes indicate its usefulness to identify homologies and monophyletic groups in the hominid fossil record.     

A taxonomy of Javan hominid mandibles

The mandibular remains from Java have been controversial since the discovery of Kedung Brubus (Mandible A) in 1890. These mandibles, now called Kedung Brubus, and Sangiran 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 22, have been assigned to a wide variety of taxa. It is now commonly accepted that all seven mandibles can be accommodated in a single species;Homo erectus. A recent assessment to this effect was performed by Kramer (1989). Utilizing powerful statistical techniques he distinguished the Sangiran mandibles from the robust australopithecines and placed them all withinH. erectus. The jaws are not a homogeneous sample. Morphologically they are a mixture ofAustralopithecus africanus («Homo habilis») males (5,6), anA. africanus («H. habilis») female (8),H. erectus males (1,9), and aH. erectus female (22) and Kedung Brubus. The dating of these fossils remains unresolved, with a minimum date of 500,000 ya and a maximum of 1.6 mya. Any of the mandibles may have been transported and secondarily redeposited. If the jaws are allH. erectus then they have a sexual dimorphism exceeding that of modern gorillas. When Kedung Brubus is included with those from Sangiran the range of size dimorphism is well beyond that known for any primate, thus more than one species may be invloved. This dimorphism is found inA. africanus («H. habilis») but not inH. erectus samples anywhere else in the world. TheH. erectus skulls found in Java correspond with mandibles 1, 9, and 22. It is not likely that the largest mandible (6) is aH. erectus, because the skull would have had heavy temporal lines and probably a sagittal crest, neither of which is found on anyH. erectus specimen. But, a cranium has been found which morphologically matches the Sangiran 6 mandible. A double sagittal crest is present on Sangiran 31 a reported «Meganthropus» specimen.     

Fossil Homo femur from Berg Aukas,northern Namibia

The proximal half of a hominid femur was recovered from deep within a paleokarst feature at the Berg Aukas mine, northern Namibia. The femur is fully mineralized, but it is not possible to place it in geochrono logical context. It has a very large head, an exceptionally thick diaphyseal cortex, and a very low collodiaphyseal angle, which serve to differentiate it from Holocene homologues. The femur is not attributable to Australopithecus, Paranthropus, or early Homo (i.e., H. habilis sensu lato). Homo erectus femora have a relatively longer and AP flatter neck, and a shaft that exhibits less pilaster than the Berg Aukas specimen. Berg Aukas also differs from early modern femora in several features, including diaphyseal cortical thickness and the degree of subtrochanteric AP flattening. The massive diaphyseal cortex of Berg Aukas finds its closest similarity within archaic H. sapiens (e.g., Castel di Guido) and H. erectus (e.g., KNM-ER 736) samples. It has more cortical bone at midshaft than any other specimen, although relative cortical thickness and the asymmetry of its cross-sectional disposition at this level are comparable with those of other Pleistocene fem ora. The closest morphological comparisons with Berg Aukas are in archaic (i.e., Middle Pleistocene) H. sapiens and Neandertal samples. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Multivariate discriminant analysis of dental data bearing on early hominid affinities

The dimensions of hominoid dentitions are compared by multiple discriminant analysis. By this technique the fossil taxa are compared with living pongids and modern man in a multivariate framework. This enables the classification of the fossils to be made consistent with that of the living forms. H. africanus and H. erectus generally form the most compact grouping within the hominids, thus suporting the argument that these two species can indeed be lumped into a single genus. The degree of separation between H. africanus and Paranthropus is found to be at least as great as that between the genera of modern apes. Gigantopithecus sorts with the hominids rather than with the pongids and seems to be most closely related to Paranthropus.     

Comparative primate energetics and hominid evolution

There is currently great interest in developing ecological models for investigating human evolution. Yet little attention has been given to energetics, one of the cornerstones of modern ecosystem ecology. This paper examines the ecological correlates of variation in metabolic requirements among extant primate species, and uses this information to draw inferences about the changes in energy demands over the course of human evolution. Data on body size, resting metabolism, and activity budgets for selected anthropoid species and human hunter-gatherers are used to estimate total energy expenditure (TEE). Analyses indicate that relative energy expenditure levels and day ranges are positively correlated with diet quality; that is, more active species tend to consume more energy-rich diets. Human foragers fall at the positive extremes for modern primates in having high expenditure levels, large ranges, and very high quality diets. During hominid evolution, it appears that TEE increased substantially with the emergence of Homo erectus. This increase is partly attributable to larger body size as well as likely increases in day range and activity level. Assuming similar activity budgets for all early hominid species, estimated TEE for H. erectus is 40–45% greater than for the australopithecines. If, however, it is assumed that the evolution of early Homo was also associated with a shift to a more “human-like” foraging strategy, estimated expenditure levels for H. erectus are 80–85% greater than in the australopithecines. Changing patterns of resource distribution associated with the expansion of African savannas between 2.5 and 1.5 mya may been the impetus for a shift in foraging behavior among early members of the genus Homo. Such ecological changes likely would have made animal foods a more attractive resource. Moreover, greater use of animal foods and the resulting higher quality diet would have been important for supporting the larger day ranges and greater energy requirements that appear to have been associated with the evolution of a human-like hunting and gathering strategy. Am J Phys Anthropol 102:265–281, 1997 © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Homo erectus found still further west: Reconstruction of the Kocabaş cranium (Denizli,Turkey)

Few human fossils are known in Turkey and no Homo erectus has been discovered until now. In this respect, the newly discovered partial skull from Kocaba? is very important: (1) to assess the pattern of the first settlements throughout the Old World; and (2) to document the extension of the species H. erectus to the west of continental Asia. Using CT data and 3D imaging techniques, this specimen was reconstructed and a more detailed analysis was done, including the inner anatomical features. The preliminary results of this study highlight that the fossil hominid from Kocaba? is close to the H. erectus species regarding the following cranial patterns: presence of a clear post-orbital constriction, strong development of the frontal brow-ridge with a depressed supratoral area in the lateral part, as well as endocranial patterns such as the development and orientation of the middle meningeal artery and the presence of a frontal bec. The Kocaba? skull is morphologically very close to the fossils from Zhoukoudian L-C. The partial Kocaba? skull is the oldest H. erectus known in Turkey and the only one from this species to have settled so far west in Asia.     

Human taxonomic diversity in the pleistocene: Does Homo erectus represent multiple hominid species?

Recently, nomina such as “Homo heidelbergensis” and “H. ergaster” have been resurrected to refer to fossil hominids that are perceived to be specifically distinct from Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. This results in a later human fossil record that is nearly as speciose as that documenting the earlier history of the family Hominidae. However, it is agreed that there remains only one extant hominid species: H. sapiens. Has human taxonomic diversity been significantly pruned over the last few hundred millennia, or have the number of taxa been seriously overestimated? To answer this question, the following null hypothesis is tested: polytypism was established relatively early and the species H. erectus can accommodate all spatio-temporal variation from ca. 1.7 to 0.5 Ma. A disproof of this hypothesis would suggest that modern human polytypism is a very recent phenomenon and that speciation throughout the course of human evolution was the norm and not the exception. Cranial variation in a taxonomically mixed sample of fossil hominids, and in a modern human sample, is analyzed with regard to the variation present in the fossils attributed to H. erectus. The data are examined using both univariate (coefficient of variation) and multivariate (determinant) analyses. Employing randomization methodology to offset the small size and non-normal distribution of the fossil samples, the CV and determinant results reveal a pattern and degree of variation in H. erectus that most closely approximates that of the single species H. sapiens. It is therefore concluded that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Patterns of evolution in Middle Pleistocene hominids

This paper reviews the chronology and morphological variability of Middle Pleistocene H. erectus. specimens. Functional complexes are delineated within the skull and dentition, and their total morphological patterns quantified using univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. Statistical distances are calculated between H. erectus and other hominid samples for each complex, compared to illustrate patterns of mosaic evolution within the skull and dentition of middle Quaternary hominids, and estimated evolution rates are derived. An attempt is made to relate the observed morphological patterns to ecological shifts by early hominid communities, and to assess their significance for hominid taxonomy.     

Longgupo: EarlyHomo colonizer or late plioceneLufengpithecus survivor in south China?

A fragment of mandible and a maxillary incisor of different individuals from the Longgupo Cave, China have been cited as evidence of an early dispersal ofHomo from Africa to Asia. More specifically, these specimens are said to resemble “Homo ergaster” orHomo habilis, rather than the species usually thought to be the first Asian colonizer,Homo erectus. If this supposition is correct, it calls into question which hominid (sensu stricto) first left Africa, and why hominids became a colonizing species. Furthermore, the Longgupo remains have been used to buttress the argument thatHomo erectus evolved uniquely in Asia and was not involved in the origins of modern humans. We question this whole line of argument because the mandibular fragment cannot be distinguished from penecontemporary fossil apes, especially the Late Miocene-Pliocene Chinese genusLufengpithecus, while the incisor is indistinguishable from those of recent and living east Asian people and may be intrusive in the deposit. We believe that the Longgupo mandible represents the relic survival of a Late Miocene ape lineage into a period just prior to the dispersal of hominids into southeastern Asia, with some female dental features that parallel the hominid condition. If the Longgupo mandibular fragment represents a member of theLufengpithecus clade, it demonstrates that hominoids other thanGigantopithecus and the direct ancestor of the orangutan persisted in east Asia into the Late Pliocene, while all other Eurasian large-bodied hominoids disappeared in the Late Miocene.     

Forward from Taung

The hominine grade of organization should preferably be defined by those morphological characters of the braincase and face which are first recognizable in Homo erectus. Provisionally, then, Olduvai hominid 24 and East Rudolf 1470 are regarded as protanthropine, irrespective of whether they both belong to “Homo habilis” or not. It is possible that either or both of these hominids can be considered directly prehominine, while A. africanus reflects an earlier prehominine stage.     

Basicranial flexion,relative brain size,and facial kyphosis in Homo sapiens and some fossil hominids

Comparative work among nonhominid primates has demonstrated that the basicranium becomes more flexed with increasing brain size relative to basicranial length and as the -upper and lower face become more ventrally deflected (Ross and Ravosa [1993] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 91:305–324). In order to determine whether modern humans and fossil hominids follow these trends, the cranial base angle (measure of basicranial flexion), angle of facial kyphosis, and angle of orbital axis orientation were measured from computed tomography (CT) scans of fossil hominids (Sts 5, MLD 37/38, OH9, Kabwe) and lateral radiographs of 99 extant humans. Brain size relative to basicranial length was calculated from measures of neurocranial volume and basicranial length taken from original skulls, radiographs, CT scans, and the literature. Results of bivariate correlation analyses revealed that among modern humans basicranial flexion and brain size/basicranial length are not significantly correlated, nor are the angles of orbital axis orientation and facial kyphosis. However, basicranial flexion and orbit orientation are significantly positively correlated among the humans sampled, as are basicranial flexion and the angle of facial kyphosis. Relative to the comparative sample from Ross and Ravosa (1993), all hominids have more flexed basicrania than other primates: Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, and Australopithecus africanus do not differ significantly from Modern Homo sapiens in their degree of basicranial flexion, although they differ widely in their relative brain size. Comparison of the hominid values with those predicted by the nonhominid reduced major-axis equations reveal that, for their brain size/basicranial length, Archaic and Modern Homo sapiens have less flexed basicrania than predicted. H. erectus and A. africanus have the degree of basicranial flexion predicted by the nonhominid reduced major-axis equation. Modern humans have more ventrally deflected orbits than all other primates and, for their degree of basicranial flexion, have more ventrally deflected orbits than predicted by the regression equations for hominoids. All hominoids have more ventrally deflected orbital axes relative to their palate orientation than other primates. It is argued that hominids do not strictly obey the trend for basicranial flexion to increase with increasing relative brain size because of constraints on the amount of flexion that do not allow it to decrease much below 90°. Therefore, if basicranial flexion is a mechanism for accommodating an expanding brain among non-hominid primates, other mechanisms must be at work among hominids. © 1995 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Cranial capacity in hominid evolution

We present an analysis of cranial capacity of 118 hominid crania available from the literature. The crania belong to both the genusAustralopithecus andHomo and provide a clear outline of hominid cranial evolution starting at more than 3 million years ago. Beginning withA. afarensis there is a clear increase in both absolute and relative brain size with every successive time period.H.s. neandertal has an absolutely and relatively smaller brain size (1412cc, E.Q.=5.6) than fossil modernH.s. sapiens (1487cc, E.Q.=5.9). Three evolutionary models of hominid brain evolution were tested: gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, and a mixed model using both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Both parametric and non-parametric analyses show a clear trend toward increasing brain size withH. erectus and a possible relationship within archaicH. sapiens. An evolutionary stasis in cranial capacity could not be refuted for all other taxa. Consequently, the mixed model appears to more fully explain hominid cranial capacity evolution. However, taxonomic decisions could directly compromise the possibility of testing the evolutionary mechanisms hypothesized to be operating in hominid brain expansion.     

Cross-sectional morphology of the SK 82 and 97 proximal femora

Computed tomography scans of the proximal femoral shaft of the South African “robust” australopithecine, A. robustus, reveal a total morphological pattern that is similar to the specimen attributed to A. boisei in East Africa but unlike that of Homo erectus or modern human femora. Like femora attributed to H. erectus, SK 82 and 97 have very thick cortices, although they do not have the extreme increase in mediolateral buttressing that is so characteristic of H. erectus. And unlike H. erectus or modern humans, their femoral heads are very small relative to shaft strength. These features are consistent with both increased overall mechanical loading of the postcranial skeleton and a possibly slightly altered pattern of bipedal gait relative to that of H. erectus and modern humans. Am J Phys Anthropol 109:509–521, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Palato-facial comparison ofDryopithecus (Proconsul) with extant catarrhines

Multivariate shape analysis of 15 palato-facial measurements of the RusingaD. africanus and MorotoD. major specimens in comparison with apes and monkeys fails to support the hypothesis of special relationship between the dryopithecine species and extant African pongids. TheD. africanus shares with gibbons and cercopithecoids the primitive catarrhine metrical pattern, while chimpanzees and gorillas show a different, derived pattern. TheD. major shows partial convergence on the shape pattern typifying gorillas.     

Sangiran 5,(“Pithecanthropus dubius”), homo erectus, “Meganthropus,” orPongo?

There are now eleven known mandibular remains from the Lower and Middle Pleistocene of Java, all but one being from the Sangiran site. All of these have been assigned toHomo erectus by most workers, while others have suggested as many as four different hominoid taxa. The author finds that the jaws cannot be a homogeneous sample. Morphologically, they are a mixture of undoubtedH. erectus, “H. meganthropus,” and possibly a pongid. If the jaws are allH. erectus then they have a sexual dimorphism exceeding that of modern gorillas. The case of“Pithecanthropus dubius” (Sangiran 5) is even less certain; even its hominid status is disputed. If it is indeedHomo it must be placed with the other“H. meganthropus” specimens. Its size and morphology are well beyond the known range anyH. erectus.     

The sixth skull cap of Pithecanthropus erectus

The sixth skull cap of Pithecanthropus erectus (or skull V, since the Modjokerto skull has not been given a number) was found in the upper layers of the Trinil beds of Sangiran (Central Java) in 1963, associated with fossils of the Sino-Malayan fauna. No stone tools were discovered in direct association with the find. The specimen consists of the occipital, both parietals, both temporals, sphenoid fragments, the frontal and the left zygomatic bone. We consider the skull to be a male in his early twenties. The occipital, parietal, frontal and temporal bones demonstrate definite pithecanthropine characteristics, and the cranial capacity is estimated to be 975 cm³. Of the superstructures, the supraorbital torus is extraodinarily thick, approaching the condition in Australopithecus boisei and Rhodesian man. And the sagittal torus is certainly higher than in skulls I and II, but lower than in skull IV. In addition, the angle between the occipital and nuchal planes is larger than in the previous finds. As revealed by various features, the gap between the robustness of skull IV on one hand, and skulls I, II and III on the other, is bridged by the present find. There is no reasonable taxonomic need to ascribe this specimen to a new species, because it seems to be merely an intrapopulational variant of the same species. Other skulls of P. erectus suggest that the bregmatic eminence, and hence the vertex, is invariably situated at bregma, but this new skull cap deviates from the pattern. Its pteric regions disclose the anthropoid X and I types. The middle meningeal groove pattern is similar to other Pithecanthropus skulls; however, it betrays a known anomaly in that the main stem is covered for a short distance by a bony plate. The mastoid process is fairly well developed, and is also well pneumatized as in P. pekinensis, with its air cells invading the pronounced supramastoid crest. The zygomatic bone, the first one recovered of P. erectus, does not show characters of particular importance. In fact, its thickness is in the range of modern man. We would like to stress that the absence of the cranial base does not necessarily indicate that the specimen must be a poor victim of cannibalism, since the morphology of the base renders it more susceptible to post-mortem natural traumata.     

Cranial growth in Homo erectus: how credible are the Ngandong juveniles?

Confusion exists regarding the developmental ages of numerous Asian and southeast Asian Homo erectus fossils because of Weidenreich's contention that Pithecanthropus fused its sutures prematurely relative to H. sapiens. I reevaluate the cranial developmental ages of the Ngandong “juveniles” (2, 5, 8, 9) based on a series of indicators of youth (superstructure development, suture development/fusion, and cranial thickness) and cranial contours. The Ngandong juveniles are compared with H. sapiens adults (n = 281) and subadults (n = 81) and with Ngandong and other H. erectus adults (n = 20) and subadults (n = 4). Cranial contours are assessed using bivariate plots of arc vs. chord measurements. All indicators suggest that Ngandong 5 and 9 are adults, whereas Ngandong 8 is an older juvenile or young adult and Ngandong 2 is a juvenile with a developmental age range of greater than 6 and less than 11 years. In addition, adult cranial contours and the pattern of contour development are similar between Ngandong adults and other H. erectus adults. There is nothing in the cranial contour data to suggest that Ngandong is, despite a relatively large brain, transitional in vault shape between H. erectus and H. sapiens. Am J Phys Anthropol 108:223–236, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.