Hawks on the 1470 Reconstruction

Hawks points out some flaws in the new 1470 reconstruction. Specifically, he points out that in the Bromage poster the Leakey reconstruction and the Bromage reconstruction are in different orientations.Hawks provides some compelling pictorial evidence that once the two are in the same orientation the differences between the two, by and large, disappear. Once Hawks pointed this it, it became obvious he was correct (Hawks, in my opinion, is one of more perceptive and insightful paleoanthropologists around – I’d give my right arm to study under him for awhile). So I did some photoshopping myself.

Basically, what I did was darken the Leakey reconstruction and superimpose it over the Bromage reconstruction so that both were oriented the same way.
The yellow arrow points the the Bromage face (a light greyish color), while the blue arrow points to the Leakey face (a dark bluish black color). Clearly, there is not that much difference between the two reconstructions. Bromage is supposed to be writing this up for a journal…
Hat tip to RBH

2 Responses

  1. Hawks pointed out that the Bromage reconstruction is not oriented to the Frankfurt Plane, which is considered highly important, The Leakey reconstruction may have been a little *too* vertical, but the Bromage reconstructions are a little too “horizontal”. There were other things Hawks pointed out, as well, and he showed pictures to illustrate what he meant. For this, and other reasons, I have a lot of respect for Hawks and his blog.
    Anne G

  2. I’m still unfamiliar with English so please “excuse my French”.
    I suppose, science has more solid and stable grounds than ‘how is roteted the picture on the poster’ and the impression you get from the picture.

    Well, now, that’s better. Now the vaults are at the same orientation.
    And the reconstruction does have a bit more sloping face. By about 5 degrees.
    Now, a good cast of ER 1470 comes with the face and vault in separate pieces. There is only one join between them, at the nose, and it’s not a very good one. Every graduate student in the world has probably taken these two pieces and rotated them back and forth to decide on the best angle. No doubt, there is five degrees of variation between them all. I’m perfectly willing to believe that the skull should have five more degrees of inclination to its face.

    Yes, someone rotated the cranium to make face projection ‘clear’:)
    But if the rotation-trick is so terrible – why did John Hawks say ‘5 degrees’? Surely, to make rotaion ‘clear’?
    It’s not 5 degrees, nor 6, nor 7.
    I believe, Hawks IS perceptive, insightful… clever.
    Why blame Bromage?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: