AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 8711-13 (1992) Cranial Capacity Evolution in Homo erectus and Early Homo sapiens STEVEN R. LEIGH Departments of Anthropology and Cellular, Molecular, and Structural Biology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208 KEY WORDS Hominid evolution, Brain size, Trend analysis ABSTRACT This paper investigates patterns of cranial capacity evolution in Homo erectus, early Homo sapiens, and in regional subsamples ofH. erectus. Specifically, models explaining evolution of cranial capacity in these taxa are evaluated with statistical techniques developed for the analysis of time series data. Regression estimates of rates of evolution in cranial capacity are also obtained. A non-parametric test for trend suggests that cranial capacity in both H. erectus and early H . sapiens may increase significantly through time. Cranial capacity in an Asian subsample of H. erectus (comprised of Chinese and Indonesian specimens) increases significantly through time. Other subsamples of H. erectus (African, Chinese, and Indonesian) do not appear to increase significantly through time. Regression results generally corroborate results of the test for trend. Spatial and temporal variation may characterize evolution of cranial capacity in H. erectus. Different patterns of cranial capacity evolution may distinguish H. erectus from early H. sapiens. The study of the evolution of cranial capacity in fossil hominids has long occupied the attention of evolutionists (Darwin, 1871; Tobias, 1971; Weidenreich, 1941). An unmistakable tendency toward increasing cranial capacity (which reflects the size of the brain and associated soft tissue) characterizes the course of hominid evolution in general (Blumenberg, 1983; Godfrey and Jacobs, 1981; Henneberg, 1987, 1989; Lestrel, 1976; Lestrel and Read, 1973; Wolpoff, 19801, but debate surrounds many phylogenetic issues related t o this increase. Disagreement about changes in hominid cranial capacity is especially pronounced when limited numbers of taxa are investigated. In these cases, the familiar paucity of specimens and the relative lack of time depth may obscure evolutionary patterns, severely restricting our ability to understand factors involved in the evolution of taxa under investigation. Analyses of cranial capacity evolution in Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens typify the problems entailed in understanding the finer details of cranial evolution in hominids; these analyses have engendered substantive discord among scholars about the @ 1992 WILEY-LISS.INC. patterns of later hominid evolution (Eldredge, 1985; Holt, 1988; Levinton, 1982; Rightmire, 1981, 1982,1985,1986; Wolpoff, 1984, 1986). The present analysis attempts to clarify this issue through an investigation of changes in H. erectus and early H. sapiens cranial capacity through time. Previous authors have discussed the significance of various evolutionary models to the problem of later hominid evolution. Models that specify either a punctuated equilibrium process or a gradualist process have been advocated by various researchers (Eldredge, 1985; Rightmire, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986; Wolpoff, 1984, 1986). These contrasting models make very different predictions about the ways in which evolution occurs. Briefly, as proposed by Eldredge and Gould (1972), the punctuated equilibrium model addresses the tempo and mode of evolution. Evolutionary change is the result of two basic processes: stasis of an ancestral species followed by rapid allopatric evolution of new species. Traditionally, the punctuated equilibrium model has been contrasted with a Received March 8,1990 revision accepted J u n e 24,1991 2 S.R. LEIGH gradualist model that portrays evolutionary change as a relatively slow, steady, and sympatric process. The nature of cranial capacity evolution in Homo has figured prominently in debates over the adequacy of these contrasting views as general models of evolutionary change. Within the Homo lineage, attention has centered upon comparisons of rates of change between the taxa H. erectus and early H. sapiens (e.g., Rightmire, 1985). Stasis followed by rapid evolution in H. erectus would tend to support a punctuated equilibrium model of evolutionary change. On the other hand, significant and sustained increases in H. erectus cranial capacity through time followed by significant increases in cranial capacity in those samples classified as early H. sapiens would approximate a “gradualist” model of evolutionary change. Previous literature relevant to this problem is plainly divided between these two positions. Rightmire (1981, 1982, 1985, 1986) and Eldredge (1985) have strongly suggested that the evolution of early H. sapiens from H. erectus populations can be best understood as a process predicted by the punctuated equilibrium model. On the other hand, several authors (Cronin et al., 1981; Wolpoff, 1984, 1986) have argued that later hominid evolution fails to follow a pattern predicted by the punctuated equilibrium model. The hypotheses investigated in this paper attempt to distinguish between alternatives posed by Rightmire (1981, 1985, 1986) and Wolpoff (1984, 1986) but also address some more basic issues. Specifically, the hypothesis that H. erectus cranial capacity is randomly variable through time is tested. A similar hypothesis is also investigated in early H. sapiens. This possibility is relevant because a trend in the change of cranial capacity through time may characterize these data. A trend is defined as “any systematic change in the level of a time series’‘ (McCleary and Hay, 1980:31). The presence of a significant trend in H. erectus cranial capacity would provide evidence t o reject a punctuated equilibrium model of later hominid evolution. A study of the evolutionary history of a variable is clearly a time series problem, and such problems should be addressed with appropriate statistical techniques. As stressed by McCleary and Hay (19801, regression analyses of time series data may present the impression that changes in the level of a variable through time are non-random, even thoilgh stochastic processes may actually account for the observed trend. In addition to investigating the possibility that change in cranial capacity is random during later hominid evolution, hypotheses about differences in rates of change among and within taxa are addressed. Specifically, the null hypothesis that rates of change in H. erectus and early H. sapiens are equal is tested. The hypothesis that rates of change among geographically defined subsamples of H. erectus are equal is also tested. Evaluation of these hypotheses may provide insight into processes affecting patterns of evolution in H . erectus and in early H . sapiens. Investigation of regional patterns of change in H. erectus may be especially important given the emphasis of punctuated equilibrium models on allopatric speciation (Eldredge and Gould, 1972; Gould andEldredge, 1977). In order to test these hypotheses, this study utilizes a variety of statistical approaches to measuring rates of cranial capacity evolution. These include a nonparametric test for trend in a time series,-nonparametric and parametric regression analysis, and analysis of covariance. The test for trend utilized in this study is of critical importance because it circumvents some of the problems inherent in previous statistical investigations of the nature of cranial capacity changes during later hominid evolution. MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials Materials for this analysis include cranial capacities estimated for 20 specimens classified as H. erectus (Table 1). The H. erectus cranial capacities used are published by Rightmire (1985). A supplemental sample (Table 2) that includes several poorly dated and taxonomically debatable specimens (the Sambungmachan and Ngandong crania) is also analyzed (see Pope, 1988; Santa Luca, 1980). These crania are not investigated by Rightmire (1985). Separate analysis of this sample permits comparisons with previous investigations without the confounding effects of alternative sample composition. The Sambungmachan individual is classified here as H . erectus, roughly contemporaneous with Zhoukoudien (following Wolpoff, 1984:Table 1). The Ngandong crania are treated as H. erectus in some analyses and as H. sapiens in others. Measurements of early H. sapiens cranial 3 H. ERECTUS AND EARLY H. SAPIENS CRANIAL CAPACITY TABLE I. Specimens, estimated geologic age, and cranial capacity for the Homo erectus sample (N = 20)' Locality and specimen African subsample SaleOlduvai Hominid 12 Olduvai Hominid 9 East Turkana 3883 East Turkana 3733 Chinese subsample Hexian Zhoukoudian V Zhoukoudian I1 Zhoukoudian I11 Zhoukoudian VI Zhoukoudian X Zhoukoudian XI Zhoukoudian XI1 Gongwangling Indonesian subsample Sangiran 10 Sangiran 12 Sangiran 17 Trinil Sangiran 2 Sangiran 4 Estimated geologic age (myr) Cranial capacity .25 .70 1.23 1.52 1.60 880 727 1,067 804 848 .25 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 30 1,025 1,140 1,030 915 850 1,225 1,015 1,030 780 .62 .62 .62 .62 .76 .93 855 1,059 1,004 940 813 808 (4 Specimen 'These data are published hy Rightmire (1985). TABLE 2. Specimens included in supplemental analyses' Specimen1 Ngandong I Ngandong V Ngandong VI Ngandong IX Ngandong X Ngandong XI Sambungmachan TABLE 3. Specimens, estimated geologic age, and cranial capacity for the Homo sapiens sample (N = 10)' Estimated geologic age (mw) Cranial capacity kc) .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 .42 1,172 1,251 1,013 1,135 1,231 1,090 1,035 'These specimens werenot analyzed by Rightmire(l985).Analyses of these crania are presented separately. The Ngandong sample is analyzed both as H. erectus and early H. sapiens (seetext). Cranial capacities for Ngandong are published by Holloway(l980) (and by Weidenreich (1943) for Ngandong IX). The cranial capacity estimate for Sambungmachan is presented by Pope (1988). capacities (Table 3) are those published by Rightmire (1985) and by other researchers (Table 2). An alternative ordering of early H . sapiens specimens is also provided and analyzed (Table 4). This alternative ordering is investigated because several of the early H . sapiens specimens are insecurely dated. Correction for body size was not attempted (see ''Discussion''). Regional subdivisions of the H . erectus sample are not intended to reflect morphologically based taxonomic differences be- Laetoli Hominid 18 Omo 2 Broken Hill Petralona Steinheim Swanscombe Hopefield Dali Arago 21 Ndutu Estimated geologic age (myd Cranial capacity kc) ,125 .13 .15 .20 .25 .25 .30 .30 .40 .40 1,367 1,430 1,285 1,200 1,100 1,250 1,225 1,120 1,166 1,100 'Data are from Adam (1985), Brauer (19841, Rightmire(1985), and Wolpoff (1980). TABLE 4 . Alternative ordering of early Homo sapiens specimens1 Specimen Laetoli Hominid 18 Omo 2 Broken Hill Ndutu Dali Swanscombe Hopefield Steinheim Arago 21 Petralona Estimated geologic age (myr) Cranial capacity ,125 .13 .15 .20 .25 .25 .30 .30 .40 .40 1,367 1,430 1,285 1,100 1,120 1,250 1,225 1,100 1,166 1,200 (4 'This ordering is made to account for the uncertain geologic age of several specimens. Ties are not assumed in tests of trend in this particular sequence. Dates from Table 2 are retained in the same order. tween these specimens. Taxonomic discussions of the H . erectus sample have been provided by numerous aathors (Bilsborough and Wood, 1986; Rightmire, 1985, 1986; Stringer, 1984,1987; Turner and Chamberlain, 1989). It should be noted that the Sale specimen exhibits unusual (possibly pathological) occipital morphology (Hublin, 1985), which may have affected cranial capacity, Accordingly, analyses that both include and exclude this specimen were undertaken. Methods Regression analysis has typically been used to investigate change in hominid cranial capacity through time (Godfrey and Jacobs, 1981; Lestrel and Read, 1973; Lestrel, 1975;Rightmire, 1981,1985).Ordinaryleast squares regression has frequently been employed to measure these rates, despite the 4 S.R. LEIGH possibility that this technique may not be suitable for modeling change in a variable through time. The inadequacy of ordinary least squares regression may be the result of several factors. First, in a time series, the assumption of independence between dependent variables is often violated. Correlation among residuals, or serial correlation, may result if values of Y in one time period are affected by values of Y at other time periods (Younger, 1979). Second, ordinary least squares regression lines tend to be best-fitted to the first and last observations in the series. Third, ordinary least squares regressions are heavily influenced by outliers. These problems lead to difficulty in obtaining accurate estimates of both slope and intercept in regressions of time series. Thus, if a trend toward increasing cranial capacity is present, ordinary least squares estimation may not detect the presence of such a trend. Conversely, ordinary least squares regression may indicate the presence of a trend when stochastic behavior (drift) actually accounts for changes in a variable through time (McCleary and Hay, 1980:35-36). In addition to the general problems of modeling time series with ordinary least squares regression, there may be substantial error in measurement of the independent variable (geologic age) in this particular sample. This very serious general problem is discussed by Sokal and Rohlf (1981).Wolpoff (1984)considers this problem with respect to measuring evolutionary rates in H. erectus. Regression techniques that account for measurement error in both X and Y variables (such as reduced major axis, major axis, and related techniques) are not well suited to the present problem. These methods are subject to the same limitations in time series applications as ordinary least squares regression. Moreover, the low correlation between geologic age and cranial capacity in the H. erectus sample (see Rightmire, 1985;) produces extremely narrow reduced major axis confidence intervals (Jolicoeur, 1975; see also Jolicoeur, 1973, for discussion of similar problems with major axis regression). Analyses with Model I1 regressions would likely minimize the differences in rates of evolution between taxa. Specifically, the H. erectus rate of cranial capacity increase would be inflated as a result of low correlation. The general complications of time series analysis and the presence of error in measurement of geologic age place a premium on methods that are capable of accurately describing patterns of hominid cranial capacity evolution. Unfortunately, the unequal time intervals between observations and the presence of more than one cranial capacity for a given date lead to difficulties in using standard methods for the analysis of time series (Vandaele, 1983). Although these obstacles are often encountered in paleobiological context s, little theoretical statistical research has been undertaken to solve these problems. However, Kitchell et al. (1987)discuss the problem of unequal intervals in paleobiological contexts, while Quenouille (1957), and Cleveland and Devlin (1980, 1982) address this problem in econometric applications. A simple nonparametric test for trend that minimizes the deficiencies of these data is provided by Hubert et al. (1985; see also Konigsberg, 1990). Specifically,this test is a distribution-free permutational test for randomness in ordered data. The test makes no assumptions about the length of intervals between observations. In addition, multiple observations sharing the same geologic age (ties) can be accommodated by this technique. It is essential t o note that measurement error in geologic age is minimized because observations are merely ordered from earliest to latest. Hubert et al.’s test allows detection of a trend in cases where regression may not prokide an accurate measure of trend. The procedure is based on a test statistic (r) derived from the cross-product (or dot product) of two 1 x N matrices or vectors where: r =a’b The first vector (a)is, in this case, a vector of cranial capacities ordered by time. The second vector (b) consists of an ordered series (e.g., 1,2,3,4,5)with equal intervals between each observation. The b vector reflects the chronological order of the variables in the a vector. In the case of ties (cranial capacities from the same date) the cells of the b vector are “stuttered (e.g., 1,2,2,2,3,4,5). Hubert et al. (1985) recommend that the dot product of these vectors serve as a test statistic for measuring the presence of randomness in ordered data. The significance of the initial summed cross-product statistic (r)can be estimated by obtaining a distribu- H . ERECTUS AND EARLY H . SAPIENS CRANIAL CAPACITY tion of summed cross-products calculated from random permutations of the values in one of the original vectors. In other words, one vector is randomly re-arranged, and a cross-product is calculated for each new permutation. The significance level of the test statistic is defined by (M + l)/(N + 11, where M is the number of values as large or larger than r and N is the number of permutations (Hubert et al., 1985). Thus, the significance of the association between vectors can be estimated. A significant positive trend is implied when only a small percentage of randomly obtained dot product values exceeds the value of gamma derived from the original vectors. Conversely, randomness in the order of observations is suggested if the value of the original gamma lies near the center of the distribution of permutational gammas. Up to N! permutations are possible. In the present study, tests for trend are undertaken for the H. erectus, early H . sapiens, supplemental samples, and in subdivisions of the H. erectus sample. The subdivisions of the H. erectus sample include African, Chinese, Indonesian, and “Asian” (represented by the combined Chinese and Indonesian samples). All analyses were undertaken with 1,000 random permutations with the exception of the African (120 exact permutations) and Indonesian (720 exact permutations) samples. Exact permutations utilize every unique cross-product value and are feasible because the African and Indonesian samples are very small. The test for trend offers information about the presence and significance of directional change in the variable of interest. Unfortunately, it does not provide information about rates of change. Nonparametric and ordinary least squares regressions are used for this purpose, but only with the assumption that estimates of regression parameters are unbiased. If regressions detect a trend after the presence of trend has been established with Hubert et al.’s method, then the regression results may be interpreted more confidently. Nonparametric spline regression described by Schluter (1988; see also Eubank, 1988; Seber and Wild, 1989) is used for visual assessment of changes in cranial capacity. This method is not constrained by choice of model (e.g., linear, nonlinear), allowing flexibility in the modeling of complex distributions. Most importantly, confidence inter- 5 vals with these regressions are calculated through bootstrap techniques, which are based upon iterative random selection (with replacement) of data points from the original sample. The main assumption of this technique is that the sample analyzed bears a relatively close relationship to the probability distribution from which the sample was drawn (Efron, 1982). With iterative sampling, relatively accurate confidence intervals should be obtained. In all cases, 300 iterations are undertaken in construction of confidence intervals, Finally, ordinary least squares regression and analysis of covariance are employed to estimate the significance of differences between rates of change in H. erectus and early H. sapiens. These techniques are used only after tests for trend and modeling of bivariate distributions with nonparametric regression. Thus, their roles can be viewed as corroborative. Only linear models were used, facilitating tests of significance between regressions. It should be noted that nonlinear models may suffer the same limitations as ordinary least squares linear models in time series analysis (Seber and Wild, 1989). Analysis of covariance permits tests of significance of differences in regression lines. This analysis is comprised of two parts. The first is a test for difference in slope, while the second is a test for difference in intercepts (see Edwards, 1985). Together, these tests provide a basis for distinguishing between several hypotheses that specify the relation between regression lines. Specifically, analysis of covariance permits identification of 1)identical regression lines (equal slopes and intercepts), 2) parallel regression lines (equal slopes, unequal intercepts), or 3) unequal slopes. Throughout this study, significance for all statistical tests is measured at the .05 level. Regression significance values are evaluated as two-tailed tests because previous analyses (Rightmire, 1981, 1985) suggest that slopes near zero will be obtained in the H. erectus analyses. Tests for trend are treated as one-tailed tests. RESULTS Trend The test for trend indicates that cranial capacity in H. erectus may not vary randomly with respect to geologic age (Table 5). Of 1,000 random permutations, only 58 (5.8%) of the randomly obtained values of gamma equaled or exceeded the value of gamma 6 S.R. LEIGH TABLE 5. Results of tests for trend by taxon, by region, and withing the Homo erectus sample* Sample or subsample Probability* Number of permutations .058 1,000' 1,000' 1,000' Homo erectus Homo erectus, excluding SaleEarly Homo sapiens Early Homo sapiens, re-ordered African Homo erectus Asian Homo erectus Chinese Homo erectus Indonesian Homo erectus .041 ,001 ,020 .500 1,000' 1202 ,014 ,079 ,200 1,000' 1,0001 7202 *Probability values are based on the No. of randomly permuted gammas equal to or larger than observed gammas. 'Random permutations. 'Exact permutations. based upon the original ordering of data. When the Sale specimen is removed from the sample, the trend in H . erectus is more significant. In this analysis, 41 of 1,000permutations (4.1%) exceeded the observed gamma. Thus, a significant positive trend toward increasing cranial capacity appears present in the H . erectus sample, although this result is not quite significant when the Sale specimen is included. The early H . sapiens sample also appears to exhibit a trend toward increasing cranial capacity. In this analysis, only 1 of 1,000 randomly calculated gamma values (. 1%) equaled or exceeded the original observed gamma. A positive trend is also present when some of the less securely dated early H . sapiens specimens are re-ordered (see Table 4). Trend in this re-ordered sample is less obvious than in the analysis with the original ordering, with 20 of 1,000 (2.0%) randomly calculated gammas exceeding the initial reordered gamma. The patterns among subsamples of H . erectus are not as clear. The Chinese subsample may show a significant trend toward increased cranial capacity, with 79 of 1,000 randomly obtained gammas (7,9%)equal to or exceeding the observed gamma. Obviously, this is not quite significant at the .05 level. Trend is apparent neither in the Indonesian subsample (143 of 720 exact gammas equal to or exceeding the observed gamma) nor in the African subsample (59 of 120 exact gammas equal t o or exceeding the observed gamma). Combination of the Chinese and Indonesian subsamples to form the Asian subsample produces significant results. Only 14 of 1,000 random gammas equal or exceed the observed test statistic for the combined Asian sample. TABLE 6. Results of tests for trend in the supplemental sample* __ Samiole or subsamole Probabilitv* Homo erectus, Ngandong a s Homo erectus Early Homo sapiens, Ngandong as Homo sapiens Asian Homo erectus, with Ngandong Indonesian Homo erectus, with Ngandong - ,003 ,003 ,001 ,001 *Probability values are based on the No. of randomly permuted gammas equal to or larger than observed gammas, and there are 1,000 permutations in each analysis. Analyses of the supplemental sample mirror analyses based on Rightmire's (1985) sample (Table 6). Trend in the H . erectus sample appears more significant. Inclusion of the Ngandong crania either with the early H . sapiens sample or with the Asian H . erectus sample produces significant trend. Significant trend seems present in the supplemental Indonesian sample, in contrast to results based on the original sample. Regression analysis Spline regressions of H . erectus cranial capacity against geologic age suggest little change, with some possible variation in rates through time (Fig. 1). The rate of cranial capacity evolution may fluctuate through time in H . erectus, although the rate increase between 1.2 and 1.6 myr is based upon only three specimens. In contrast, early H . supiens cranial capacity appears to increase markedly during a short time span. Visual assessment of predicted lines and confidence intervals indicates that the rate of change in early H . sapiens probably exceeds the rate of change in H. erectus. Unfortunately, regional subsamples are too small to allow H . ERECTUS AND EARLY H . SAPIENS CRANIAL CAPACYW 7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Geologlc Age (Miillons) -Homo erectus 1.2 1.4 1.6 +Early Homo sapiens Fig. 1. Predicted regression lines and 95% confidence intervals obtained from spline regression. Confidence intervals are based upon bootstrap procedures with 300 iterations for each sample. Only predicted values are shown. TABLE 7. Ordinary least-squares regresion results by taxon, and by region within the Homo erectus sample Sample or subsample RZ Slope Intercept P-value for slope Homo erectus Homo erectus, excluding Sale Early Homo sapiens Early Homo sapiens, re-ordered African Homo erectus Asian Homo erectus Chinese Homo erectus Indonesian Homo erectus .14 .18 -124.87 -145.13 1,029.79 1,050.00 <.I09 <.075 .61 59 -864.08 -658.72 1,440.75 1,389.31 <.007 <.069 .01 26.28 -367.48 -523.06 -282.18 837.34 1,172.51 1,233.00 1,125.95 <.a49 <.033 <.123 <.438 .31 .31 .I6 accurate calculation of bootstrap confidence intervals. Parametric regressions produce results relatively consistent with trend analysis (Table 7). Ordinary least squares regression (Fig. 2) suggests that H. erectus cranial capacity changes relatively slowly through time: a rate of about 125 cc per million years is suggested (cf. Rightmire, 1985).This slope appears statistically indistinguishable from zero (p < .log), a result that seems to conflict with the results of the test for trend. It should be noted that the observed cranial capacity value for Sale exceeds the value predicted from this regression. When the Sale specimen is removed from the H. erectus regression, the estimated slope increases slightly to 150 cc per million years. This slope is not quite significant (p < ,0691. The regression for the early H. sapiens sample suggests a very rapid increase in cranial capacity through time. A significant slope of about 865 cc per million years is obtained in this regression (cf. Rightmire, 1985). Analyses of the re-ordered early H . sapiens data (see Table 3) indicate a slope (about 660 cc per million years) which may not be significantly different from zero. Other regressions imply the presence of some geographic differences in the rate of increase in H. erectus cranial capacity. A statistically significant increase in cranial capacity is apparent in the Asian subsample. As with trend results, smaller subsamples (African, Chinese, and Indonesian) do not appear to show statistically significant increases through time. Finally, inspection of residual plots for all least-squares regressions indicates no obvious correlation among residuals. Regression analyses of the supplemental sample show some differences with those based on Rightmire’s (1985) sample (Table 8). Change in cranial capacity is signifi- :I 8 S.R. LEIGH mania1 Dapacliy (Thousands) 1.5T + \ ++ t -----y4 0.9 o 0.2 0.4 - 0.e 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.8 Oeologlc Age (Mllllons) Homo erectus + Early Homo saplens Fig, 2. Predicted ordinary least-squares regression lines and data points for Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens. TABLE 8. Ordinary least-squares regression results for the supplemental sample R2 Slope Intercept P-value for slope Sample or subsample Homo erectus, with Ngandong Earlv Homo sawiens, wGh Ngandong Asian Homo erectus Indonesian Homo erectus .2B -206.24 1,111.63 <.004 63 -862.54 1,411.84 <.009 .49 .65 -468.16 -464.30 1,237.96 1,256.31 <.ooo cant when Ngandong is included in either the H . erectus or the H . sapiens sample. Analyses of Ngandong with the early H . sapiens sample suggests only minimal differences with analyses of the original early H . sapiens sample. Assignment of Ngandong to the H . erectus Indonesian subsample produces statistically significant regression results. Analyses of covariance Analysis of covariance (Table 9) suggests that differences in rates of cranial capacity increase in H . erectus and early H . sapiens may not be statistically significant (p < .056), although this level of significance makes interpretation difficult. Exclusion of the Sale specimen produces regression lines that appear more similar. For these tests, the potentially insignificant difference in slope combined with significant intercept differences suggest that these regression lines are parallel. In other comparisons (Table 9),patterns of cranial capacity change among various H . erectus subsamples appear similar. Comparisons of regressions between early H . sapiens <.004 and regional subsamples of H . erectus may suggest some differences. The African regression appears significantly different from the early H . sapiens regression. The rate of change in the Asian subsample is indistinguishable from the rate of change in the early H . sapiens sample, but intercepts appear to differ, Regressions for the Chinese and Indonesian subsamples are indistinguishable from the early H . sapiens regression. It should be emphasized that small sample sizes may substantially influence the analysis of covariance results, particularly for the regional comparisons. Analyses of covariance for the supplemental sample do not alter the results for comparison of H . erectus with early H . sapiens (Table 10). When Ngandong is classified as early H . sapiens, the implied relation does not change, although the probability values might be close enough to consider the H . erectus and early H . sapiens slopes significantly different. Other analyses present some discrepancies with the analysis of the original sample. Slope differences (rather than same lines) are implied for the AfricanAsian comparison and for the African-Indo- 9 H . ERECTUS AND EARLY H . SAPIENS CRANIAL CAPACITY TABLE 9. Analysis of covariance results f o r comparisons of regression lines between taxa, between Homo erectus subsamples, and between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus subsamples Comparison Homo erectus, Early Homo sapiens Homo erectus (excluding Sale', Homo sapiens African Homo erectus, Asian Homo erectus African Homo erectus, Chinese Homo erectus African Homo erectus Indonesian Homo erectus Chinese Homo erectus, Indonesian Homo erectus Early Homo sapiens, African Homo erectus Early Homo sapiens, Asian Homo erectus Early Homo sapiens, Chinese Homo erectus Early Homo sapiens, Indonesian Homo erectus Implied relation between regressions Significance of sloue difference* Significance of interceut difference ,056 .000 Parallel .062 .001 Parallel ,059 ,417 Same line .I3 ,301 Same line ,494 ,412 Same line ,627 ,620 Same line Diff. slopes ,022 ,161 .04 Parallel .416 .ll Same line ,161 ,756 Same line * A significant difference in slope obviates the test for intercept differences TABLE 10. Analysis of covariance results for comparisons of regression lines between taxa, between Homo erectus subsamples, and between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus subsamples for the supplemental sample* Comparison Homo erectus (with Ngandong), early Homo sapiens Homo erectus, early Homo sapiens (with Ngandong) African Homo erectus, Asian Homo erectus African Homo erectus, Indonesian Homo erectus Early Homo sapiens, Asian Homo erectus (with Nagandong Early Homo sapiens (with Ngandong), Asian Homo erectus Early Homo sapiens (with Ngandong), Indonesian Homo erectus Implied relation between regressions Significance of slope difference* Significance of intercept difference .096 ,002 Parallel .050 ,000 Parallel Diff. slopes .003 ,006 - ,228 ,027 Parallel ,160 ,077 Same line I72 ,082 Same line Diff. slopes *A significant difference in slope obviates the test for intercept differences. nesian comparison. All other comparisons involving the supplemental sample are unchanged. DISCUSSION The results of this analysis suggest that cranial capacity in H. erectus may change significantly through time. Patterns of change among regional subsamples of H. erectus may show limited variability, but this cannot be demonstrated with analysis of covariance. Small sample sizes may be partially responsible for variation in the presence of significant increases among various H. erectus subsamples. Regression results, taken with the appro- 10 S.R. LEIGH priate caveats, generally corroborate the re- interpretations of slope comparisons (Huisults of regional trend analyses. Spline re- tema, 1980:146-147). Third, the data do not gressions may suggest fluctuation in the extend to the Y-axis. rate of evolution in the H. erectus sample. An If these intercept differences can be given early increase in the African subsample may meaningful biological interpretations, then be present. their presence would suggest that some inThe lack of statistically significant in- crease in rate of cranial capacity change creases in cranial capacity in all but the would be necessary to produce the pattern of Asian subsample suggests that an hypothe- change observed in early H. sapiens. It sis of stasis for these samples cannot be should also be noted that the Asian subsamrejected. Considered in conjunction with ple is composed of later specimens than the trend results, regression models (see Levin- African subsample. Thus, the similarity in ton, 1982; Rightmire, 1981,1985) and other rate of evolution between the Asian subsamstatistics not designed for time series analy- ple and the early H. sapiens sample may sis in general (see Wolpoff, 1984)may under- reflect temporal rather than regional differestimate the actual amount of change in this ences in rates of evolution. case. A directional process probably accounts Cranial capacity in early H. sapiens ap- for the possibility of trend in H. erectus, early pears non-static, and both trend and regres- H. sapiens, and in the Asian H. erectus subsion analyses provide consistent results. In samples. This process could be directional addition, a trend seems present even when selection on brain size, although other proless securely dated specimens are re-or- cesses might account for the observed patdered. terns. For example, the trend of increasing Analysis of covariance suggests that dif- cranial capacity in these samples could be a ferences in rates of change may not be signif- result of evolutionary increase in body size icant in a comparison between the early H. (cf. Pilbeam and Gould, 1974; Lande, 1979). sapiens and the entire H. erectus sample. The hypothesis that evolutionary changes The rates of increase in the Asian, Chinese, in body size account for the increases in and Indonesian subsamples cannot be dis- cranial capacity observed in these samples is tinguished from rates of increase in the early not directly testable. The inability to test H. sapiens sample. The rate of change in the this hypothesis is a result of the lack of a African subsample is statistically distin- suitable measure of body size for each indiguishable from the rate of change in the vidual in this sample. Ideally, a measure of early H. sapiens sample. Again, small sam- body size would be derived from dimensions ple sizes may have a marked effect on these such as long bone lengths for each individresults. ual. Such data are unavailable for these Incorporation of Ngandong and Sambung- specimens. Dental size could provide an almachan into Rightmire’s (1985) sample pro- ternate source of size estimation. Dental duces a few differences in results. Specifi- measures might be problematic in this concally, trend and regression analysis suggest text, however, because tooth size seems to significant change in the Indonesian sub- show a trend toward decrease through time sample. in the hominid lineage (Pilbeam and Gould, Differences in rates of change are not sta- 1974; Wolpoff, 1984). tistically detectable between the early H. An indirect argument to evaluate this possapiens sample and various H. erectus sub- sibility can be based on an early juvenile H. samples. However, different overall patterns erectus specimen from Africa, KNM-WT of change may characterize these compari- 15000, whose stature is estimated at about sons. Specifically,intercepts differ when the 168 cm (Brown et al., 1985).l The stature early H . sapiens regression is compared with estimate for this individual is clearly within the H. erectus sample and with the Asian subsample. Intercept differences are difficult to inter‘This specimen was not used in the cranial capacity analysis pret in this analysis for two reasons. First, because it is a juvenile. However, it can be noted that incorporation of this specimen into Rightmire’s original sample produces sample sizes are very small. Second, the data only slight differences in results. Specifically, the significance for early H. sapiens and H . erectus overlap levels for the slope comparison between African and Indonesian subsamples changes from ,059 to ,044. In the Homo erectus vs. only in a relatively restricted range. The lack Homo sapiens comparison, the slope comparison moves from ,056 of extensive overlap may also complicate to ,047. All other results are unchanged. ~~ H . ERECTUS AND EARLY H . SAPIENS CRANIAL CAPACITY the range of modern adult humans (Tanner, 1978), despite a dental developmental age which suggests a chronological age of 11-13 years (Brown et al., 1985). Thus, large body size seems apparent at an early geologic age (1.6 million years), implying that increases in H. erectus and early H. sapiens body size may not directly account for the observed increases in cranial capacity. A related explanation is that the trend in cranial capacity evolution reflects selection for increased body size in taxa ancestral t o H. erectus. In other words, brain size may lag well behind increases in body size (Lande, 1979). In the case of a lag, Lande suggests that selection directly on brain size may “adjust brain size to accumulated changes in body size” (1979:412). Investigation of this possibility requires evaluation of trends in brain and body size in taxa ancestral to H. 11 Regional analyses do not greatly clarify the situation. Significant trend is present in the Asian subsample, but this sample is also late relative to most of the African subsample. Analysis of additional specimens suggests that significant increases in cranial capacity may characterize the Indonesian subsample. Small sample sizes, taxonomic and chronometric problems, plus limitations on regressions restrict the strength of these interpretations. Further evaluation of contrasting evolutionary models must be based on further analyses of fossil material and on molecular analyses. It should be emphasized that finer estimates of rates of evolution within H. erectus may be necessary, particularly between .8 and 1.6 myr. CONCLUSIONS erectus. Changes of cranial capacity through time The present analysis cannot distinguish in H. erectus, regional subsamples of H. erecbetween these (and other) possibilities. How- tus, and early H. sapiens are measured using ever, the apparent presence of trend in early time series techniques and regression. Tests H. sapiens and H. erectus may indicate that for trend indicate that cranial capacity may there are similarities in the nature of the increase significantly in H. erectus, contrary directional process or processes that cause to some previous suggestions. A trend tocranial capacity increase. In other words, ward increasing cranial capacity is present factors that cause cranial capacity increase in early H. sapiens. Trend is not apparent in in H. erectus may also affect the rate of most H. erectus regional subsamples, but an increase in early H. sapiens. The apparent Asian subsample may show significant inincrease in rate of cranial capacity evolution creases. In general, the test for trend utilized in early H. sapiens could be due either to in this study provides more reliable informastronger selection for increased brain or body tion about cranial capacity change in H. size or to a more sensitive response to selec- erectus than previous investigations. The tion. In any case, these results provide no presence of a statistically significant trend clear evidence that substantial differences in in some samples of H. erectus implies that causes of cranial capacity increase existed previous models which specify a punctuated between early H. sapiens and at least some evolutionary pattern of later hominid evoluH. erectus subsamples. Limited variation in tion may not be accurate. trend among the H. erectus subsamples may Nonparametric regressions could indicate imply differences in the precise evolutionary variation in the rate of cranial capacity mechanisms that affect cranial capacity change through time in the H. erectus samamong H. erectus subsamples. ple. Specifically, a rapid increase in cranial The results of this analysis provide a basis capacity may be present in the early African for refinement and clarification of macroev- subsample. The rate also seems to increase olutionary models that have been proposed late in the H. erectus sequence in a sample to explain relations between H. erectus and that is predominantly Asian. early H. sapiens. The likelihood that a trend Regression analysis results are consistent toward increasing cranial capacity is present with some trend analysis results, but limitain the H. erectus sample indicates that stasis tions on regression analysis hinder biologimay not characterize cranial capacity evolu- cal interpretations. Analyses of covariance tion in H. erectus (cf. Eldredge, 1985; Right- suggest that rates of evolution in H. erectus mire, 1981, 1985). This result implies that and in early H. sapiens cannot be statistipreviously proposed punctuated equilibrium cally distinguished. However, the overall models do not adequately describe later pattern of cranial capacity change (as indihominid evolution. cated by significant intercept differences) 12 S.R. LEIGH may vary between taxa. Regional differences among subsamples of H. erectus seem present. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Lyle Konigsberg for providing substantive comments throughout the course of this research. His computer programs for analysis of trend are also greatly appreciated. Drs. Brian Shea, Larry Cochard, and Jill Bullington offered constructive comments on this manuscript. I also thank Drs. Malcolm Dow, Fred Smith, Maceij Henneberg, and G.N. van Vark for comments on earlier versions of this paper. The valuable comments of anonymous reviewers and editors contributed much to this manuscript. An earlier version of this paper was awarded the 1988 Ales HrdliEka Student Paper Prize at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Kansas City, MO. LITERATURE CITED Adam KD (1985)The chronological and systematic position of the Steinheim skull. In E Delson (ed.): Ancestors: The Hard Evidence. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp. 272-276. Bilsborough A, and Wood BA (1986) The nature, origin, and fate ofHomo erectus. In BA Wood, L Martin, and P Andrews (eds.): Maior Toaics in Primate and Human Evolution. Cambrdge: Cambridge Univ. Press pp 295-316. Blumenberg B (1983) The evolution of the advanced hominid brain. Curr. Anthropol. 24t589-623. Brauer G (1984)A craniological approach to the origin o f anatomically modern Homo supiens in Africa and implications for the appearance o f modern Europeans. In FH Smith and F Spencer (eds.): The Origins of Modern Humans: A World Survey o f the Fossil Evidence. New York Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp. 327410. Brown F, Harris J, Leakey R, and Walker A (1985)Early Homo erectus skeleton from west Lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature 316:78%792. Cleveland WS, and Devlin SJ (1980) Calendar effects in monthly time series: detection by spectrum analysis and graphical methods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 75:487496. Cleveland WS, and Devlin SJ (1982) Calendar effects in monthly time series: modeling and adjustment. J . Am. Stat. Assoc. 77:520-528. Cronin JE, Boaz NT, Stringer CB, Rak Y (1981) Tempo and mode in hominid evolution. Nature 292:115-122. Darwin C (1871)The Descent ofMan. London: J Murray. Edwards AL (1985) Multiple Regression and the Analysis of Variance and Covariance. San Francisco: WH Freeman and Go. Efron B (1982)The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Eldredge N (1985)Time Frames. New York: Knopf. Eldredge N, and Gould SJ (1972)Punctuated equilibria: a n alternative to gradualism. In TJM Schopf (ed.): Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman and Cooper, pp. 82-115. Eubank RL (1988) Spline Smoothing and Nonparametric Regression. New York: Marcel Dekker. Godfrey L, and Jacobs KH (1981)Gradual, autocatalytic, and punctuational models o f hominid brain evolution: a cautionary tale. J. Hum. Evol. 10,255272. Gould SJ, and Eldredge N (1977) Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3: 115-15 1. Henneberg M (1987) Hominid cranial capacity change through time: a Darwinian process. Hum. EvoL2r213220. Henneberg M (1989) Morphological and geological dating of early hominid fossils compared. Curr. Anthropol. 30: 527-529. Holt BM (1988)Anevaluation ofrates of change in Homo erectus based on a cladistic definition. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 75:223. Holloway RL (1980) Indonesian “Solo” (Ngandong) endocranial reconstructions: some preliminary observations with Neanderthal and Homo erectus groups. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 53.285-295. Hoffman A (1989) Arguments on Evolution. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Hubert LJ, Golledge RG, Constanzo CM, and Gale N (1985)Tests ofrandomness: unidimensional and multidimensional. Environment Planning 17t373-385. Hublin JJ (1985) Human fossils from the North African Middle Pleistocene and the origin ofHomo supiens. In E Delson (ed.): Ancestors: the Hard Evidence. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp. 283-288. Huitema BE (1980)Analysis o f Covariance and Alternatives. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Jolicoeur P (1973) Imaginary confidence limits of the slope of the major axis of a bivariate normal distribution: a sampling experiment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 68:866-871. Jolicoeur P (1975) Linear regressions in fishery research: some comments. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 32:1491-1494. Kitchell JA, Estabrook G, andMacLeod N (1987)Testing for equality ofrates in evolution. Paleobiology 13:286296. Konigsberg LW (1990) Temporal aspects o f biological distance: serial correlation and trend in a prehistoric skeletal lineage. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 8245-52. Lande R (1979) Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:body size allometry. Evolution 33:402-416. Lestrel PE (1975) Hominid brain size versus time: revised regression estimates. J. Hum. Evol. 5:207-212. Lestrel PE, and Read DW (1973)Hominid cranial capacity versus time; a regression approach. J . Hum. Evol. 2t405-411. Levinton J S (1982) Can a null hypothesis be too null? Paleobiology 8:307. McCleary R, and Hay RA (1980) Applied Time Series Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage. Pilbeam DR, and Gould SJ (1974) Size and scaling in human evolution. Science 186r892-901. Pope GG (1988) Sambungmachan. In I Tattersall, E Delson, and J van Cowering (eds.): Encyclopedia of Human Evolution. New York: Garland, p. 503. Quenouille MH (1957)Analysis o f Multiple Time Series. New York: Hafner. Rightmire GP (1981) Patterns o f evolution in Homo erectus. Paleobiology 7:241-246. H. ERECTUS AND EARLY H . SMIENS CRANIAL CAPACITY Rightmire GP (1982) Reply to Levinton. Paleobiology 8:307-308. Rightmire GP (1985) The tempo of change in the evolution of Mid-Pleistocene Homo. In E Delson (ed.j: Ancestors: the Hard Evidence. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc., pp. 255-264. Rightmire GP (1986) Stasis in Homo erectus? Stasis in Homo erectus defended. Paleobiology 12:324-325. Santa Luca AP (1980) The Ngandong fossil hominids: a comparative study of a Far Eastern Homo erectus group. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, New Haven 78. Schluter D (1988) Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42r848-861. Seber GAF, and Wild CJ (1989) Nonlinear Regression. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sokal RR, and Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry. San Francisco: WH Freeman and Co. Stringer CB (1984) The definition of Homo erectus and the existence of the species in Africa and Europe. Cour. Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg 69:131-143. Stringer CB (1987) A numerical cladistic analysis of the genus Homo. J . Hum. Evol. 16r135-146. Tanner JM (1978) Fetus into Man. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. 13 Tobias PV (1971) The Brain in Hominid Evolution. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Turner A, and Chamberlain A (1989) Speciation, morphological change and the status of African Homo erectus. J . Hum. Evol. 18t115-130. Vandaele W (1983) Applied Time Series and Box-Jenkins Models. New York: Academic Press. Weidenreich F (1941) Observations on the form and proportions of the endocranial casts of Sinanthropus pekinensis, other hominids and the great apes: a comparative study ofbrain size. Paleontol. Sin. D 7:l-50. Weidenreich F (1943) The skull of Smanthropus pekinensis: A comparative study on a primitive nominid skull. Palaeontologica Sinica, new ser. D, No. 10, Whole Series No. 127, pp. 1-484. Wolpoff MH (19801 Paleoanthropology. New York: Knopf. Wolpoff MH (1984) Evolution in Homo erectus: the question of stasis. Paleobiology 10t389-406. Wolpoff MH (1986) Stasis in the interpretation of evolution in Homo erectus; a reply t o Rightmire. Paleobiology 12:325-328. Younger MS (1979) A Handbook for Linear Regression. Boston: Duxbury.