Craniofacial morphology of Homo floresiensis: Description, taxonomic affinities, and evolutionary implication
Abstract
This paper describes in detail the external morphology of LB1/1, the nearly complete and only known cranium of Homo floresiensis. Comparisons were made with a large sample of early groups of the genus Homo to assess primitive, derived, and unique craniofacial traits of LB1 and discuss its evolution. Principal cranial shape differences between H. floresiensis and Homo sapiens are also explored metrically. The LB1 specimen exhibits a marked reductive trend in its facial skeleton, which is comparable to the H. sapiens condition and is probably associated with reduced masticatory stresses. However, LB1 is craniometrically different from H. sapiens showing an extremely small overall cranial size, and the combination of a primitive low and anteriorly narrow vault shape, a relatively prognathic face, a rounded oval foramen that is greatly separated anteriorly from the carotid canal/jugular foramen, and a unique, tall orbital shape. Whereas the neurocranium of LB1 is as small as that of some Homo habilis specimens, it exhibits laterally expanded parietals, a weak suprameatal crest, a moderately flexed occipital, a marked facial reduction, and many other derived features that characterize post-habilis Homo. Other craniofacial characteristics of LB1 include, for example, a relatively narrow frontal squama with flattened right and left sides, a marked frontal keel, posteriorly divergent temporal lines, a posteriorly flexed anteromedial corner of the mandibular fossa, a bulbous lateral end of the supraorbital torus, and a forward protruding maxillary body with a distinct infraorbital sulcus. LB1 is most similar to early Javanese Homo erectus from Sangiran and Trinil in these and other aspects. We conclude that the craniofacial morphology of LB1 is consistent with the hypothesis that H. floresiensis evolved from early Javanese H. erectus with dramatic island dwarfism. However, further field discoveries of early hominin skeletal remains from Flores and detailed analyses of the finds are needed to understand the evolutionary history of this endemic hominin species.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 130 · Cited by 86
- Authors
- Kaifu, Y., Baba, H., Sutikna, T., Morwood, M. J., Kubo, D., Saptomo, E. W., Jatmiko, Awe, R. D., & Djubiantono, T.
- Affiliations
- National Museum of Nature and Science (JP)
- University of Wollongong (AU)
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Kaifu, Yousuke
- Venue
- Journal of Human Evolution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 644-682
- ISSN
- 0047-2484 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2056347211
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 130
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 20.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Human Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EPubDev Repository (submittedVersion)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Museum of Nature and Science
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Keywords
- Homo floresiensis, LB1, craniometry, craniofacial morphology, Homo erectus, island dwarfism, taxonomic affinities, Homo habilis, human, facial reduction, masticatory stress, orbital shape, neurocranium
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cephalometry, Biological Evolution, Face, Female, Fossils, Indonesia, Skull, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Hominidae, Principal Component Analysis
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