CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 106Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyEvolution and Paleontology StudiesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

Liang Bua Homo floresiensis mandibles and mandibular teeth: a contribution to the comparative morphology of a new hominin species

Brown, Peter, Maeda, Tomoko·2009·Journal of Human Evolution
DOI 10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.06.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In 2004, a new hominin species, Homo floresiensis, was described from Late Pleistocene cave deposits at Liang Bua, Flores. H. floresiensis was remarkable for its small body-size, endocranial volume in the chimpanzee range, limb proportions and skeletal robusticity similar to Pliocene Australopithecus, and a skeletal morphology with a distinctive combination of symplesiomorphic, derived, and unique traits. Critics of H. floresiensis as a novel species have argued that the Pleistocene skeletons from Liang Bua either fall within the range of living Australomelanesians, exhibit the attributes of growth disorders found in modern humans, or a combination of both. Here we describe the morphology of the LB1, LB2, and LB6 mandibles and mandibular teeth from Liang Bua. Morphological and metrical comparisons of the mandibles demonstrate that they share a distinctive suite of traits that place them outside both the H. sapiens and H. erectus ranges of variation. While having the derived molar size of later Homo, the symphyseal, corpus, ramus, and premolar morphologies share similarities with both Australopithecus and early Homo. When the mandibles are considered with the existing evidence for cranial and postcranial anatomy, limb proportions, and the functional anatomy of the wrist and shoulder, they are in many respects closer to African early Homo or Australopithecus than to later Homo. Taken together, this evidence suggests that the ancestors of H. floresiensis left Africa before the evolution of H. erectus, as defined by the Dmanisi and East African evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.06.002

Cites

219 of 219 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 222 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Brown, P., & Maeda, T.
Affiliations
University of New England (AU)
Corresponding author
Brown, Peter
Venue
Journal of Human Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
571-596
ISSN
0047-2484 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.06.002
OpenAlex
W1986492213
Cited by
106
References
222
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 7
FWCI
47.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Human Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Keywords
Homo floresiensis, Liang Bua, mandible, mandibular teeth, LB1, Australopithecus, early Homo, molar size, premolar morphology, growth disorders, hominin dispersal out of Africa, Dmanisi
MeSH terms
Animals, Fossils, Humans, Indonesia, Mandible, Tooth, Hominidae

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