Speculations about the selective basis for modern human craniofacial form
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The last few decades have seen an explosion of knowledge about the time and place of origin of our species, Homo sapiens. New fossils, more sites, better dates, modern and fossil DNA, and scores of analyses have mostly disproved the multiregional model of human evolution. By and large, the evidence generally supports some version of the out‐of‐Africa model, according to which humans first evolved in Africa at least 200,000 years ago and then migrated to other parts of the world. Remaining debates about human origins primarily address if and how much hybridization occurred between modern humans and taxa of archaic Homo such as H. neanderthalensis.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The morphological integration of the skull is an inexorable process because cranial components are packed together, share a common developmental background, functional demands exerting reiterative pressures, and share an evolutionary history.
“The morphological integration of the skull is an inexorable process because cranial components are packed together, they have a common developmental background, functional demands exerting reiterative pressures and all the cranial portions share an evolutionary history [5,6].”
From Morphological consequences of artificial cranial deformation: Modularity and integration (2020) · cites this paper as [6]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredBone growth centers are present in the craniofacial skeleton and are situated to optimize the organism's physiological requirements through integrating factors over time.
“One aspect of this organization in the craniofacial skeleton is the presence of bone growth centers 22,55 , which are situated to optimize the organism's physiological requirements through the actions of integrating factors over time.”
From The evolutionary history of the human face (2019) · cites this paper as [55]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 107 · Cited by 109
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Lahr MM. 1996. The evolution of modern human cranial diversity: a study in cranial vari- ation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lieberman DE. 2000. Ontogeny, homology, and phylogeny in the hominid craniofacial skeleton: the problem of the browridge. In: O'Higgins P, Cohn M, editors. Development, growth and evolution: implications for the study of hominid skeletal evolution. London: Academic Press. p 85-122.
- Enlow DH. 1990. Facial growth, 3rd ed. Phil- adelphia: WB Saunders.
- Holloway RL, Broadfield DC, Yuan MS, Schwartz JH, Tattersall I. 2004. The human fos- sil record, vol. 3, brain endocasts: the Paleon- eurological evidence. New York: Wiley.
- Hylander WL, Picq PG, Johnson KR. 1992. Bone strain and the supraorbital region of pri- mates. In: Carlson DS, Goldstein SA, editors. Bone biodynamics in orthodontic and ortho- paedic treatment. Ann Arbor: Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development, Vol. 27. p 315-349.
- Lucas PW. 2004. How teeth work. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Vogel S. 2004. Comparative biomechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Lieberman P. 2006. Towards an evolutionary biology of language. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press.
- Trinkaus E. 1983. The Shanidar Neander- tals. New York: Academic Press. 101
- V V C 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
- Authors
- Lieberman, D. E.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lieberman, Daniel E.
- ORCID
- Lieberman, Daniel E.
- Venue
- Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-68
- ISSN
- 1060-1538 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6505
- OpenAlex
- W2119187983
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 107
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 58.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews (publishedVersion)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- craniofacial morphology, human evolution, Out of Africa model, multiregionalism, human origins
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
