Research Topics
| Timothy D WeaverSummaryAffiliation: University of California Country: USA Publications
| Collaborators |
Detail Information
Publications
Did a discrete event 200,000-100,000 years ago produce modern humans?Timothy D Weaver
Department of Anthropology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
J Hum Evol 63:121-6. 2012..That this class of models is a viable option has implications for how modern human origins is conceptualized...
Out of Africa: modern human origins special feature: the meaning of neandertal skeletal morphologyTimothy D Weaver
Department of Anthropology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:16028-33. 2009..For both the cranium and the postcranium, changes in diet or activity patterns may underlie why Neandertals and Pleistocene modern humans tend to be more robust than Holocene humans...- Neandertal birth canal shape and the evolution of human childbirthTimothy D Weaver
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:8151-6. 2009..Such a late shift underscores the uniqueness of human childbirth and the divergent evolutionary trajectories of Neandertals and the lineage leading to present-day humans... - Close correspondence between quantitative- and molecular-genetic divergence times for Neandertals and modern humansTimothy D Weaver
Department of Anthropology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:4645-9. 2008..Nonetheless, for the measurements we consider here, we find no conflict between molecules and morphology... 
Were neandertal and modern human cranial differences produced by natural selection or genetic drift?Timothy D Weaver
Department of Anthropology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
J Hum Evol 53:135-45. 2007..We conclude that rather than requiring special adaptive accounts, Neandertal and modern human crania may simply represent two outcomes from a vast space of random evolutionary possibilities...- Do modern humans and Neandertals have different patterns of cranial integration?Charles C Roseman
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, 102 Davenport Hall, 607 S Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL 61802, USA
J Hum Evol 60:684-93. 2011..We conclude that the evolution of patterns of cranial integration is a cause for caution but also presents an opportunity for understanding cranial differences between modern humans and Neandertals... - Who made the Aurignacian and other early Upper Paleolithic industries?Shara E Bailey
Department of Anthropology, New York University, 25 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10003, USA
J Hum Evol 57:11-26. 2009..These results provide some of the strongest evidence that anatomically modern humans made the Aurignacian and other (non-Châtelperronian) early Upper Paleolithic industries... - Molecules versus morphology? Not for the human craniumCharles C Roseman
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Bioessays 29:1185-8. 2007..It appears that the amount of phenotypic variance in the human cranium decreases at the population level as a function of distance from Sub-Saharan Africa much in the same way as observed for human molecular data... - The affinity of the dental remains from Obi-Rakhmat Grotto, UzbekistanShara Bailey
New York University, Center for the Study of Human Origins, Department of Anthropology, New York, NY, USA
J Hum Evol 55:238-48. 2008..The second is a morphometric analysis of the first upper molar of OR-1. The results of both analyses suggest the dentition of OR-1 is essentially Neandertal... - Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signaturesKaterina Harvati
Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol 288:1225-33. 2006..Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction... - Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversityCharles C Roseman
Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 2117, USA
Am J Phys Anthropol 125:257-63. 2004..Moreover, these results have implications for assessing the biological affinities of prehistoric samples that are temporally separated from contemporary human reference populations... - The evolution of human running: effects of changes in lower-limb length on locomotor economyKaren L Steudel-Numbers
Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
J Hum Evol 53:191-6. 2007..Contrary to general expectation, a linear relationship between stride length and lower-limb length was not found... - Brief communication: infracranial maturation in the skeletal collection from Coimbra, Portugal: new aging standards for epiphyseal unionHélène Coqueugniot
UMR 5199 PACEA, Laboratoire d Anthropologie des Populations du Passé, Universite Bordeaux 1, Avenue des Facultes, 33405 Talence Cedex, France
Am J Phys Anthropol 134:424-37. 2007..We further discuss developmental differences between the sexes and similarities and differences between the Coimbra documented collection and other published aging standards... - The shape of the Neandertal femur is primarily the consequence of a hyperpolar body formTimothy D Weaver
Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 360, Stanford, CA 94305 2117, USA
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:6926-9. 2003..These results, considered in light of hip mechanics during growth, highlight the importance of developmental and functional integration in determining skeletal form...