The Caveman’s Corner

This is (abridged) a 2 year old essay that I wrote for fun. (That’s what I used to do in lieu of a girlfriend. Now I mostly just cry. And blog!).

The Kow Swamp series consists of the fossilized remains of at least 40 individuals recovered from Kow Swamp, a lake near the Murray River in Australia (Johanson & Edgar, 1996). The finds vary slightly in age, from around 9,000 to 13,000 years old (Larsen, Matter, & Gebo, 1998). Of this series, only two individuals posses crania complete enough to be of significance here, Kow Swamp 1 and 5 (Larsen et al., 1998).

What is striking about the Kow Swamp crania is the fact that they seem to posses a mix of traits characteristic of both Indonesian Homo erectus (the Sangarin series) and modern Australian Aborigines. The two crania both possess the long, low foreheads typical of erectus, as well as thick cranial bones and a rounded lacrimal. However, the large cranial capacity, relatively gracile jaw, and fully modern post-cranial skeletons of the two finds are all typical of Homo sapiens (Johanson & Edgar, 1996). Multiregionalists claim that this population is an example of a transitional form between Indonesian H. erectus and Australian H. sapiens.

Out of Africans, on the other hand, contend that these peculiarities are the result of cranial vault modification practices. That is, these are individuals who have had their heads shaped by binding when they were children. Cranial vault modification has been practiced by cultures all over the world for much of human history, often to denote social status or cultural affiliation (Torres-Rouff & Yablonsky, 2004). The modern peoples of Borneo practice a form of frontal compression using a tool known as the tadal that can produce results similar to those seen at Kow Swamp (Australian Museum, 2000).

One could argue with these findings. Firstly, all the crania that could be measured showed roughly the same erectus-like cranial features. Both the choice of modification technique and its effect on the adult cranium will often vary dramatically in a single population (Torres-Rouff & Yablonsky, 2004). Also, cranial vault modification is often a reflection of social status. It can be reasonably deduced that because of the time and energy that must go into the cranial modification process, and because of the fact that it will often make the subject useless as a labourer, only higher status families would be able to afford to cranially modify their children (Wyman, 2004). At Kow Swamp, the condition seems universal, and not respective of social class. Furthermore, cranial vault modification often leaves tell-tale signs on the modified crania. Tiesler (1999) found that the formation of a coronary groove (an indentation behind the coronal suture on the cranium) was a “physiological side effect of compression”, “unrelated to any particular [cranial modification] technique” (p. 3). The Kow Swamp crania show no such grooves.

The universal nature of the condition is not, however, so convincing when one considers the size of the sample. As has already been stated only two of the recovered individuals had crania complete enough for thorough study. A sample this small makes argument about the state of cranial modification as applied to the whole population extremely difficult.
The absence of coronal grooves may also be explainable. Tiesler’s study was of Maya remains in the Yucatan pennensula. The Maya practiced mostly forms of fronto-occipital modification, where both the back and front of the skull are compressed simultaneously. On the Kow Swamp crania, the rear of the skull is apparently un-”deformed” (like that of a modern Aborigine), not suggesting fronto-occipital compression, but simply frontal compression.

The coronary groove may occur as a result of the squeezing of the skull, which is exactly what fronto-occipitial compression entails. Frontal compression would result in some fronto-occipital squeezing, but nothing to the extent of intentional fronto-occipital compression, perhaps not enough to result in the formation of a post-coronary groove.

Whichever way one goes, I believe that the Kow Swamp crania are still too shaky and controversial in their meaning to be used as a platform for a completely new way of looking at the evolution of modern humans. Even if one accepts the arguments against cranial modification I have put forth here, none of them conclusively rule out cranial modification, or offer explicit support for a Multiregionalist continuity model. It still remains to be established that a transitional form between H. erectus and H. sapiens could even look like Kow Swamp 1 or 5. In general, Multiregionalists, look for your Holy Grail elsewhere.

Works Cited

Johanson, D., & Edgar, B. (1996). From Lucy to Language. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Larsen, C. S., Matter, R. M., & Gebo, D. L. (1998). Human Origins: The Fossil Record. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Tiesler, V. (1999). Head Shaping and Dental Decoration Among the Ancient Maya: Archeological and Cultural Aspects. 64 Meeting of the Society of American Archeology.

Torres-Rouff, C. & Yablonsky, L. T., (2004). Cranial vault modification as a cultural artifact: a comparison of the Eurasian steppes and the Andes. Homo: The Journal of Comparative Human Biology, 56, 1-16.

Wynman, D. (2004, Nov. 9). The Osteology of Social Complexity. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/Wyman.pdf

Kow Swamp 1

Kow Swamp 5

This entry was posted on Monday, February 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pm and is filed under Archaeology, Human Evolution, Physical Anthropology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.