Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Australopithecine and Early Hominin Thread

13

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Clever little hobbitses...to reach so far!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭_Tombstone_




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 218 ✭✭Linnaeus


    Has Homo floresiensis got anything to do with the pygmies, aborigenes or similar groups? As for "wee folk" in general, very ancient mythologies and legends from all over the world mention them as individuals which once flourished on the Earth's surface but have gone mostly underground...Could Homo floresiensis have inspired such myths?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    They are not the ancestors of pygmies in any way; as the article stated, they're either closely related to Homo erectus or a miniaturized variety of it.

    The hobbits of Flores were seemingly limited to Flores and perhaps nearby islands, so they wouldn´t have inspired the worldwide myths about small humanoids, BUT, they did inspire the stories about the Ebu Gogo which are the local variety of "wee folk".
    Here's a very interesting piece of writing by Richard Roberts, one of the discoverers of Homo floresiensis, regarding Ebu Gogo:
    When I was back in Flores earlier this month we heard the most amazing tales of little, hairy people, whom they called Ebu Gogo - Ebu meaning grandmother and Gogo meaning 'he who eats anything'. The tales contained the most fabulous details - so detailed that you'd imagine there had to be a grain of truth in them.
    One of the village elders told us that the Ebu Gogo ate everything raw, including vegetables, fruits, meat and, if they got the chance, even human meat.
    When food was served to them they also ate the plates, made of pumpkin - the original guests from hell (or heaven, if you don't like washing up and don't mind replacing your dinner set every week).
    The villagers say that the Ebu Gogo raided their crops, which they tolerated, but decided to chase them away when the Ebu Gogo stole - and ate - one of their babies.
    They ran away with the baby to their cave which was at the foot of the local volcano, some tens of metres up a cliff face. The villagers offered them bales of dry grass as fodder, which they gratefully accepted.
    A few days later, the villagers went back with a burning bale of grass which they tossed into the cave. Out ran the Ebu Gogo, singed but not fried, and were last seen heading west, in the direction of Liang Bua, where we found the Hobbit, as it happens.
    When my colleague Gert van den Bergh first heard these stories a decade ago, which several of the villages around the volcano recount with only very minor changes in detail, he thought them no better than leprechaun tales until we unearthed the Hobbit. (I much prefer Ebu as the name of our find but my colleague Mike Morwood was insistent on Hobbit.)
    The anatomical details in the legends are equally fascinating. They are described as about a metre tall, with long hair, pot bellies, ears that slightly stick out, a slightly awkward gait, and longish arms and fingers - both confirmed by our further finds this year.
    They [the Ebu Gogo] murmured at each other and could repeat words [spoken by villagers] verbatim. For example, to 'here's some food', they would reply 'here's some food'. They could climb slender-girthed trees but, here's the rub, were never seen holding stone tools or anything similar, whereas we have lots of sophisticated artefacts in the H. floresiensis levels at Liang Bua. That's the only inconsistency with the Liang Bua evidence.
    The women Ebu Gogo had extremely pendulous breasts, so long that they would throw them over their shoulders, which must have been quite a sight in full flight.
    We did ask the villagers if they ever interbred with the Ebu Gogo. They vigorously denied this, but said that the women of Labuan Baju (a village at the far western end of Flores, better known as LBJ) had rather long breasts, so they must have done.
    Poor LBJ must be the butt of jokes in Flores, rather like the Irish and Tasmanians.
    A local eruption at Liang Bua (in western Flores) may have wiped out local hobbits around 12,000 years ago, but they could well have persisted much later in other parts of the island. The villagers said that the last hobbit was seen just before the village moved location, farther from the volcano, not long before the Dutch colonists settled in that part of central Flores, in the 19th century.
    Do the Ebu Gogo still exist? It would be a hoot to search the last pockets of rainforest on the island. Not many such pockets exist, but who knows. At the very least, searching again for that lava cave, or others like it, should be done, because remains of hair only a few hundred years old, would surely survive, snagged on the cave walls or incorporated in deposits, and would be ideal for ancient DNA analyses.
    Interestingly, we did find lumps of dirt with black hair in them this year in the Hobbit levels, but don't know yet if they're human or something else. We're getting DNA testing done, which we hope will be instructive.
    Richard "Bert" Roberts is a University of Wollongong professor and one of the team investigating the Hobbits.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Boskop man freaks me out to no end. But I think it's not considered a thing anymore. What a shame :(


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Sadly so and hasn't been a thing since the 60's IIRC. Basically early 20th century researchers at the height of the missing link craze found a partial braincase that was at the upper limit of modern humans and got excited. As you would. Then they cherry picked any larger - but still within upper normal limits - as being a part of this "race", et voila the Boskops.

    This is quite common in hominid research. We see it with stone tools and actually I'd say IMH anyway, we're still seeing that today in that field to some degree. Take the "hand axe". When the antiquarians started to realise these were likely very ancient, they started to collect them using modern eyes and again cherry picked the finest and most symmetrical examples. The "pretty" ones. Today when we look at in situ assemblages we see that they varied in shape and levels of finish. A lot. There have been attempts to set different shapes into certain geographical areas and there's some meat on those bones, but again there's quite the bit of cherry picking going on there too. EG the Bout coupe hand axe. Considered locally strongly diagnostic for British Neandertals, yet I have a near letter perfect one in my personal stash found in southern France. Oops. Must have been on a gitte holiday back in the day. :D

    The Mousterian Levallois technique lithic culture itself as described currently I have some issues with too. Again there is serious cherry picking going on and only the examples that fit the theory are focused on. There are tables of "types" of "final outcome" tools of different but planned shapes. Though if you look at assemblages you're really trying to fit square pegs in round holes. The vast majority of such tools don't fit neatly into the imagined types. If you look at the stone cores left over, you'll be looking a long time indeed to find one that looks like the one in the wiki animation. Yes they did make Levallois points and clearly set out to make them(as evidenced by some with secondary retouch to refine the shape), but equally they used the method to just get usable cutting edges and "design" be damned.

    One more recent example of this was highlighted in that Brian Cox series on humanity and such a while back. A discovery in Africa of points and blades from a time way before they would be expected. Great, but if you read the original dig report and looked at the finds, the so called "blades" were a tiny proportion of the tools of all sorts of shapes actually found and were themselves variable in shape. You have a blade culture where you commonly find blades and they make up a large percentage of the finds, you don't have one where they're a minority.

    Don't get me started on every new skeletal find being a new human species...

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Same happens with dinosaurs... so many good names wasted on measly fragments...

    What do you know about Homo tsaichangensis? Think it may be H. erectus or something else?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Going on a jawbone fragment dredged from the sea out of context and with no reliable dating means it's anybody's guess and anything more than a guess is "scientific" noodling over tiny details. Details that mean nada unless more specimens show up. If I was to guess and it is an archaic I'd say Erectus myself. They seemed to have been an extremely variable people. Check out the ones from Georgia all from the same place and contemporary with each other.

    131017112631-04-ancient-skulls-1017-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg

    Now if I was a betting man I'd bet that if they had been found in five different places there'd be at least two different "species" claimed. Check out the guys second and third from the left. One has a much flatter face than the other. One looks more hominid than ape and brow ridges are very variable across the board. The toothless dude looks to be an old individual, but look at the size of the brows. That's before we get to possible gender differences. In that line up 1,2 and 5 might be lads and 3 and 4 might be lasses.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    New hominin fossils from Flores have been found that date (using Argon & Uranium fission dating) to 700MYA. The fossils are several teeth and a mandible, and they have characteristics similar to the much more recently-living 'hobbit' fossils from Flores, and features that are lacking in earlier Australopithecines. The ancestors appear to have been even smaller than the recent fossils.

    This means it looks as if the Flores hobbits were descendents of a Homo erectus migration out of Africa into Asia that ended up on Flores and evolved through island dwarfism to be the size we've seen.

    Two papers, one on the fossils and the other on the site where they were found and the associated animals (including stegodonts) are out in Nature & free to view.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Damn, it's pay per view :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    Damn, it's pay per view :(

    That's strange - the papers were open access an hour ago, under the label:
    'Online access to this article has been provided by the nature.com content sharing initiative.'
    Oh well, the story will get written up elsewhere at least.

    sciencenews.org has a piece giving some alternative hypotheses including multiple colonisation events and colonisation by an even earlier form of H. erectus or an ancestor.



    Edit:

    The links directly from the Guardian article work - there seems to be some kind of referrer token that grants access because when I copy & paste the URLs & they don't work. So go to the Guardian link above, scroll down ~half way & click the links under 'But the fossils, described in two papers in Nature...'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Homo naledi coexisted with Homo sapiens.

    Apparently, it lived 335.000 to 235.000 years ago or so, much younger than anticipated. 
    https://phys.org/news/2017-05-homo-naledi-surprisingly-young-age.html
    homonalediss.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    This is the most complete spine of any early hominin known.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083546.htm
    170523083546_1_540x360.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I've been always slightly surprised that they didn't TBH AK. I recall reading and seeing a pic of a skull found in South America and it looked very primitive, like Homo Heidelbergensis primitive. Set against that is the long history of North American folks collecting flint tools and not a single verifiable example of a pre Sapiens one has come up.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Given the effectiveness of hominid.hunters and the local waves of extinctions that can be measured by their arrival in America, there should be lots of auxiallary evidence already to back that up if true.

    Slightly OT, but the writer Harry Turtledove wrote a book that postulated what would happen if such early hominids instead of Native Americans were present in the time of Columbus onwards - "A Different Flesh".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I've been always slightly surprised that they didn't TBH AK. I recall reading and seeing a pic of a skull found in South America and it looked very primitive, like Homo Heidelbergensis primitive. Set against that is the long history of North American folks collecting flint tools and not a single verifiable example of a pre Sapiens one has come up.
    Do you remember where it was found? 
    I remember reading about a brow ridge bone from Chapala, Mexico, that has been compared to H. erectus before:
    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/03/news/adfg-bones3
    Manach wrote: »
    Given the effectiveness of hominid.hunters and the local waves of extinctions that can be measured by their arrival in America, there should be lots of auxiallary evidence already to back that up if true.

    Slightly OT, but the writer Harry Turtledove wrote a book that postulated what would happen if such early hominids instead of Native Americans were present in the time of Columbus onwards - "A Different Flesh".
    That is really interesting, I had wondered about it but didn´t know there was a book on it. I gotta read that one of these days!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    Do you remember where it was found??
    Sadly not, but Chile rings a bell. This is the only pic I could find of that Mexican find.
    chapala-brow-ridge.jpg
    If it is from there and is human and it looks like it is, then it's way outside the range of anatomically modern humans, certainly outside the range of the currently held "first Americans". Erectus? Maybe, but it could also be Neandertal/Denisovan.
    Manach wrote: »
    Given the effectiveness of hominid.hunters and the local waves of extinctions that can be measured by their arrival in America, there should be lots of auxiallary evidence already to back that up if true.
    With anatomically modern humans certainly, with earlier species of humans not so much M. We stand out in that regard. EG Neandertals ranged across Eurasia for about 300,000 years and didn't cause any local extinctions. Same with Erectus. Like every other apex predator earlier humans reached a population equilibrium and balance with available prey/resources. Their populations stayed relatively static, ours don't. We appear in an area and rapidly grow in numbers and local fauna, particularly megafauna suffers and regularly goes extinct because of this pressure. Tracking us by extinctions is a great tool, tracking earlier humans it really isn't.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    It wouldn´t surprise me if H. erectus, Neanderthals or something similar were eventually found in North America. Plenty of creatures we think of as exclusively Asian today (dhole, tiger) seemingly did reach the New World during the Pleistocene, and not all at the same time. Maybe they just weren't abundant. 
    Native Americans certainly had many stories about hairy humanoids. The Lakota even called them chiye-tanka, "great elder brothers".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/aaft-ffo070218.php
    t 2½ years old, the Dikika child was already walking on two legs, but there are hints in the fossil foot that she was still spending time in the trees, hanging on to her mother as she foraged for food. Based on the skeletal structure of the child's foot, specifically, the base of the big toe, the kids probably spent more time in the trees than adults. "If you were living in Africa 3 million years ago without fire, without structures, and without any means of defense, you'd better be able get up in a tree when the sun goes down,"

    174688_web.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Some cool pictures of the skull!

    47508821_1218391038286133_8738659783223017472_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent.fgdl5-1.fna&oh=e9cfd711c82a698ed40b6f1e0b8d100e&oe=5CAC92F6

    47574187_1218391021619468_4160029731481190400_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent.fgdl5-1.fna&oh=6e98b80870344f9c8aeb3fe13b75038b&oe=5C9C8793


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    A change in the surrounding habitat and not necessarily extinction may be the cause behind the "hobbit"'s dissappearance from the cave's fossil record around 60.000 years ago.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/03/hobbit-humans-story-gets-twist-from-thousands-of-rat-bones/?fbclid=IwAR1mUlSGTP9oJflkJ7FMJ_veYtDdUe00pijLuGWAn8TYv2O4YLpz20iEW9w

    04-rats-liangbuarats-fig-02.jpg

    742a1cf673ea8addab3cfaca27ee7b99.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Very interesting news! Remains found in a cave in Luzon, Philippines, have been recognized as a new species of tiny hominin, as small as Homo floresiensis, if not smaller. It has been named Homo luzonensis.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/new-species-ancient-human-discovered-luzon-philippines-homo-luzonensis/

    17059391518_5c26ddb3b5_b.jpg

    img_evelasco_20190410-171613_imagenes_lv_terceros_homo_luzonensis-kF5H-U461580618350UkF-992x558@LaVanguardia-Web.jpg

    Although the remains are fragmentary, they include teeth, toes and finger bones, and a partial femur, and come from at least three different individuals. The toe bones suggest a primitive foot shape probably associated with tree climbing- and similar to that of much older australopithecines.
    The 2010 paper that introduced the Callao cave foot bone—which is now considered a part of H. luzonensis—mentions that a deer bone found in the same sediments bears what look like stone-tool cut marks. Michael Petraglia, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, takes the bone as a sign that H. luzonensis was a proficient toolmaker and hunter.

    There's also evidence thatH. luzonensis, or another ancient hominin, lived on Luzon even further back in time. In 2018, Mijares and his colleagues announced the discovery of stone tools and a butchered rhinoceros skeleton that are more than 700,000 years old, found not too far from Callao Cave. Because of the time gap between the remains and the tool site, however, it's tough to say whether the stone tool users were predecessors of H. luzonensis or an unrelated hominin.

    What remains unclear is what exactly was the relation between Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis, how the latter arrived to the island (which was never connected to the mainland), and whether the two species are (as often suggested) miniaturized Homo erectus, or rather part of a hitherto unknown radiation of more primitive, Australopithecus-like hominins that spread throughout Asia at some point.

    May as well mention that remains of tiny hominins were also reported years ago from Palau:

    https://www.science20.com/news_releases/were_there_hobbits_in_palau

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-humans-islands/tiny-palau-skeletons-suggest-hobbits-were-dwarfs-idUSN1059511220080310


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    This adds a bit to the hypotheses that Australopithecus or similar also left Africa, or maybe some parallel evolution was going on in Asia. Like I thought at the time they were found and described the Flores dudes being dwarf Erectus never sat well with me TBH. If we remove the expectation that the only hominids that left Africa were Erectus and took them and these new guys on face value they really don't look like Erectus.

    The associated tools are just as mind blowing for me. Small primitive looking hominids using a flake based tool set where you would not expect to find that was a what the hell? moment for me. It was hard enough to find pics and descriptions of those Flores tools at the time as everyone, certainly the media were obsessed with their stature. Tool use and possible hunting strategies in a hominid with tiny brains is a big part of the story for me. Though their tools remained the same throughout the hundreds of thousands of years. No innovation over time in that period.

    The tools associated them with Erectus and seems to have sealed the connection for many. I dunno, they're a basic flake and chopper based toolkit, though generally smaller to fit their physique. Erectus had similar, but they also had bifaces which Floresiensis didn't. the same tool designs have been found across different species before without any apparent contact so I can't see how the Erectus connection is any way definitive just going on the tools.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Charles Ingles


    Maybe Darwin was wrong after all.
    Creationism might not be as wrong as people think


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Adam Khor wrote: »
    What remains unclear is what exactly was the relation between Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis, how the latter arrived to the island (which was never connected to the mainland), and whether the two species are (as often suggested) miniaturized Homo erectus, or rather part of a hitherto unknown radiation of more primitive, Australopithecus-like hominins that spread throughout Asia at some point.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    This adds a bit to the hypotheses that Australopithecus or similar also left Africa, or maybe some parallel evolution was going on in Asia. Like I thought at the time they were found and described the Flores dudes being dwarf Erectus never sat well with me TBH. If we remove the expectation that the only hominids that left Africa were Erectus and took them and these new guys on face value they really don't look like Erectus.

    Were there parallel lineages of different hominin experiments unfolding early in our complex evolutionary history in different parts of the world?
    Maybe Darwin was wrong after all.
    Creationism might not be as wrong as people think
    The theory of evolution, especially associated variation and differential reproduction, continues to receive substantial empirical support; and so long as it does, it will continue to survive Karl Popper's falsifiability, unlike the pseudoscience of creationism that has zero merit towards describing or explaining the recent Homo luzonensis find.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Black Swan wrote: »
    The theory of evolution, especially associated variation and differential reproduction, continues to receive substantial empirical support; and so long as it does, it will continue to survive Karl Popper's falsifiability, unlike the pseudoscience of creationism that has zero merit towards describing or explaining the recent Homo luzonensis find.

    Thank you.

    I personally see nothing odd about australopithecines or australopithecine-like apes reaching Asia before H. erectus. There's plenty of other creatures that we associate with and presumably originated in Africa, such as the ostrich, giraffe, gelada, hippopotamus or spotted hyena- which were also found in Asia during the Pleistocene. And apparently australopithecine-like remains have also been reported from mainland China...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Friendly reminder that the island of Luzon is also home to the Philippine eagle, a huge, powerful monkey-eater. Presumably, the eagle would've been present already in the Pleistocene. The mind wanders...

    Philippine-Eagle-Close-up-photo2-by-Klaus-Nigge.jpg

    philippine-eagle-centre.jpg

    image7-e1423167890626.jpg


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Raptor indeed!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    This study provides evidence that modern humans evolved from an ancestor with an African ape-like foot associated with terrestrial plantigrady and vertical climbing. Hominin upright walking therefore likely emerged in the context of semi-terrestrial quadrupedalism.

    https://elifesciences.org/articles/44433

    default.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Australopithecus sediba too recent to be ancestral to us.

    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/australopithecus-sediba-not-likely-humans-ancestor--study-65857

    australopithecus-sediba-thumb-s.png
    “I had no doubt in my mind—nor did many in our field—that A. sediba could not have been the ancestor of Homo, not only because the earliest known representative of Homo is 800,000 years older, but also because A. sediba does not have all of the morphological features that one would expect to see from the earliest Homo,”
    The authors say the result supports the idea that the now-extinct hominin A. afarensis is probably the true ancestor of humans.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Australopithecus tracks found in Spain.

    I'm no expert but I don´t remember anything about Australopithecus evidence of any kind found outside of Africa until now. If that is the case then this is a really interesting find!

    Article is in Spanish.

    https://www.diariosur.es/culturas/huellas-prehominidos-antiguas-20190523123951-nt.html?fbclid=IwAR0XeFvilbcR5rIESqP4oKIQrxBNyaA3EHM9ILWgoHosqd4n9Xb_PkBNPo8

    Apparently the site has tracks of different kinds of primates, including more than one kind of hominin.

    Hallan-huellas-australopiteco-Alora-Malaga_EDIIMA20190523_1027_4.jpg

    epfotos20190523140857.jpg

    arc_319521_g-RO3Pt9IIck4Ej7rihNcn7KM-624x385@Diario%20Sur.jpg


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    If confirmed this could get very interesting. Particularly on top of the finds in Crete. If Australopithecus were wandering aorund outside Africa that far back it could change the maps on human evolution. It might also explain how Flores hominids look to have some Australopithecine features rather than later Erectus.

    While Africa is a great origin story for humanity for a few reasons it always struck me that we were maybe repeating the same bias as we had in the past with regard to Europe and Asia. When people first looked for the cradle of humanity they looked hardest in Europe and Asia and lo and behold found evidence of earlier hominids. Then Africa got the spotlight and lo and behold again they found evidence of earlier hominids. Where you look hard enough for something in an area you expect to find it, you then tend to find it.

    Now I would still believe that Africa is where the hominid line(s) got their starts I would be much more open to the idea that Asia and Europe had huge influences going on, influences that will come more and more to light.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Wibbs wrote: »
    If confirmed this could get very interesting. Particularly on top of the finds in Crete.

    Here's an article about the find in Crete for those who missed it.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

    I still can´t help but to wonder whether other linneages of primates may have evolved human-like feet at some point. Not that I think there's anything strange or implausible about australopithecines leaving Africa- it's just, there was a lot of time and a lot of space for different creatures to evolve...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Fossils suggest "hobbit" ancestors were already small.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36463668?fbclid=IwAR21P1Os7JWt7aO60M34CYpz9nSrGGFP8dvpuFNeO18oZwrI34wjUzUuoJE

    _89916936_jaw.jpg

    This coupled with the discovery of Homo luzonensis makes me wonder whether these guys actually "shrank", or rather were a relic of a time when tiny hominins roamed all across Africa and Asia and we just don´t know yet...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44060-2
    This result is generally consistent with the hypothesis of relatively human-like (but perhaps slightly higher) sexual dimorphism for H. erectus, rather than the greater levels of dimorphism that have been hypothesized by recent fossil discoveries and analyses.

    aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA4NC83Mzkvb3JpZ2luYWwvaG9tby1lcmVjdHVzLWZvb3RwcmludHMuanBn

    srep28766-f1.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Skull of Australopithecus anamensis found, suggests species gave rise to afarensis and coexisted with it for 100,000 years.

    5374742?w=1600&preview=1567086085140.jpg

    http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/australopithecus-anamensis-skull-07542.html



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Homo erectus survived until about 100.000 years ago in Java, study suggests:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50827603

    _110224110_mediaitem110224109.jpg
    Researchers led by Prof Russell Ciochon of the University of Iowa in Iowa City opened up new excavations on the terraces beside the Solo River, reanalysing the site and its surroundings.

    They have provided what they describe as a definitive age for the bone bed of between 117,000 and 108,000 years old. This represents the most recent known record of Homo erectus anywhere in the world.

    (...)


    But why did Homo erectus survive so late on Java? In Africa, the species was probably gone by 500,000 years ago; in China it vanished some 400,000 years ago. Russell Ciochon thinks that it was probably outcompeted by other human species elsewhere, but Java's location allowed it to thrive in isolation.

    However, the results show the fossils came from a period when environmental conditions on Java were changing. What were once open woodlands were transforming into rainforest. Prof Ciochon thinks this could mark the exact point of extinction of Homo erectus on the island.


    No Homo erectus are found after this time, he explained, and there's a gap with no human activity at all until Homo sapiens turns up on Java around 39,000 years ago. Prof Ciochon believes H. erectus was too dependent on the open savannah and too inflexible to adapt to life in a rainforest.

    "Homo sapiens is the only hominin species that lives in a tropical forest," he explained. "I think it's mainly because of the cultural attributes of Homo sapiens - the ability to make all these specialised tools."

    "Once this rainforest flora and fauna spread across Java, that's the end of erectus."

    Maybe they were all eaten by tigers :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    Paranthropus arm bones discovered, suggest greater versatility/dexterity than previously thought:

    https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-hominid-species-nutcracker-man-stone-tools

    022720_BB_boisei-arm_feat-1028x579.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    On Homo erectus' persistence hunting ability:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248419300077
    Our results showed that H. erectus would reach the dehydration limit in 5.5–5.7 h of persistence hunting at the reported Kalahari conditions, which we argue represent a conservative model also for Early Pleistocene East Africa. Maximum hunt duration without drinking was negatively related to the relative body surface area of the hunter. Moreover, H. erectus would be able to persistence hunt over 5 h without drinking despite possible deviations from modern-like heat dissipation capacity, aerobic capacity, and locomotor economy. We conclude that H. erectus could persistence hunt large prey without the need to carry water.

    VanArs_Figure-3.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    More on Homo erectus. This study finds that it would've had a shorter, wider, more voluminous rib cage than modern humans, being more similar in build to the Neanderthal.

    This contradicts the idea that they had flat chests and were of a lean build; it apparently also implies that they would've been heavier than we thought.

    ribcage-comparison-humans-homo-erectus-two-column.jpg.thumb.768.768.jpg

    In the latest study, Turkana Boy's adult shape (had he grown up) was predicted. The ribcage shape was compared with that of modern humans and a Neanderthal, and virtual animation allowed breathing motion to be investigated.

    'Its thorax was much wider and more voluminous than that of most people living today,' says Daniel García Martínez, one of the paper's authors based at the National Center for Research on Human Evolution in Spain.

    'Actually, the ribcage of H. erectus seems more like that of more stocky human relatives such as Neanderthals, who would have inherited that shape from H. erectus.

    'Our own body shape, with its flat, tall chest and narrow pelvis and ribcage, likely appeared only recently in human evolution with our species, Homo sapiens,' adds co-author Dr Scott Williams, Associate Professor at New York University.

    https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2020/july/human-ancestor-homo-erectus-had-stocky-chest-of-a-neanderthal.html


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,279 ✭✭✭Adam Khor


    "Rhodesia man" skull (Homo heidelbergensis) shows no ancestral traits to our species:

    f0bb335a909750dfc1f5452414e52462

    https://news.yahoo.com/landmark-skull-fossil-provides-surprising-150935687.html
    wo sophisticated dating methods have determined the skull to be about 299,000 years old, plus or minus 25,000 years, said geochronologist Rainer Grün of Griffith University in Australia, lead author of the study published in the journal Nature. Some experts had hypothesized it was 500,000 years old.

    This indicates the species represented by the skull was unlikely to have been a direct ancestor of Homo sapiens as some had thought. Our species first appeared more than 300,000 years ago in Africa, later spreading worldwide.

    Scientists initially assigned the skull to a species they called Homo rhodesiensis. Most scientists now assign it to the species Homo heidelbergensis, which inhabited parts of Africa and Europe starting about 600,000 years ago.

    The skull, dubbed Rhodesian Man when it was discovered, possesses primitive features such as a large face, flat forehead and huge brow ridges. Its brain size fits in the range of our species.

    "It's a surprisingly late age estimate, as a fossil at about 300,000 years might be expected to show intermediate features between Homo heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens, but Broken Hill shows no significant features of our species," said Stringer, a study co-author.

    "Also, the latest research suggests that the facial shape of Homo heidelbergensis fossils does not fit an ancestral pattern for our species," Stringer added.


Advertisement