Date: 6/07/2022 16:28:41
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1905099
Subject: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

Fossils found at the Sterkfontein Caves in South Africa may be much older than previously thought.


Four different Australopithecus crania that were found in the Sterkfontein caves, South Africa. The Sterkfontein cave fill containing this and other Australopithecus fossils was dated to 3.4 to 3.6 million years ago, far older than previously thought. The new date overturns the long-held concept that South African Australopithecus is a younger offshoot of East African Australopithecus afarensis.

Ancient human-like fossils in South Africa may be more than a million years older than previously thought, which raises the odds that the species they came from gave rise to humans, a new study finds.

The new date could rewrite a few key stages in the history of human evolution. That’s because the finding suggests these fossils belong to a species that may predate the iconic 3.2-million-year-old “Lucy” fossil. Lucy’s species was long thought to potentially have been the prime contender for the direct ancestor of humans.

Homo sapiens is the only surviving member of the human lineage, the genus Homo. Previous research suggested that the leading candidate for the precursors of Homo may be the genus Australopithecus, which lived about 4.1 million to 2.9 million years ago.

Australopithecus, which means “southern ape,” includes Lucy’s species, Australopithecus afarensis. At the time of Lucy’s discovery in Ethiopia in 1974, her bones were the world’s oldest and most complete skeleton of an ancient hominin, the group that includes humans and the extinct species more closely related to humans than any other animal, according to Nature(opens in new tab).

The most abundant sources of Australopithecus fossils discovered to date are the Sterkfontein Caves in South Africa, which are part of a site named the Cradle of Humankind. Sterkfontein became famous when the first known adult Australopithecus was discovered there, in 1936. Over the decades, scientists have found hundreds of hominin fossils at Sterkfontein, which are usually classified as members of the species Australopithecus africanus.

However, previous research suggested that the bones at Sterkfontein were only 2.1 million to 2.6 million years old. In contrast, the oldest known Homo fossils, unearthed in Ethiopia, date back about 2.8 million years. This suggested that the Sterkfontein Australopithecus species could not have been the direct ancestors of Homo.

Instead, researchers have often proposed that the ancestors of the human lineage were Australopithecus species in East Africa, such as Lucy’s, A. afarensis, and that South Africa’s A. africanus descended from East Africa’s A. afarensis.


Female Australopithecus Sts 71, discovered in 1947 from Member 4 at Sterkfontein, South Africa and newly dated to 3.4 million to 3.6 million years.

Still, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the ages of the fossils at Sterkfontein. For example, the nearly complete skeleton known as Little Foot found there is estimated to be 3.67 million years old, according to research from Darryl Granger, a geochronologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and his colleagues.

In the new study, Granger and his colleagues sought new estimates of the ages of the other hominin fossils at Sterkfontein. They found that those bones may actually be about 3.4 million to 3.7 million years old. This makes them older than Lucy and opens the possibility that Homo could have evolved from the Australopithecus species of South Africa, and not East Africa as long thought.

Understanding the dates of the fossils at Sterkfontein can be tricky. Normally, scientists estimate the ages of fossils by analyzing the layers in which they are found; the deeper a layer is, the older it may be. However, the complex system of caves at Sterkfontein could lead older deposits to get mixed with younger material, complicating attempts to date them.

Other strategies for dating the Australopithecus specimens in Sterkfontein include examining the bones of other animals, such as horses unearthed around the hominin fossils, or the flowstone linked with the fossil layers — thin sheets of rock deposited from flowing water found all along the walls and floors of caves. However, bones can shift within caves during flooding, and young flowstone can be deposited in old sediment, meaning the dates derived from these methods could be incorrect.

One potentially more accurate method involves dating the actual rocks in which the fossils were found. In the new study, researchers analyzed the concrete-like matrix in which the fossils are embedded, called breccia.

The scientists analyzed so-called cosmogenic nuclides within the rocks. These are extremely rare versions of elements, or isotopes, produced by cosmic rays — high-energy particles that constantly bombard Earth from outer space. Each isotope of an element has a different number of neutrons in its atomic nucleus — for example, aluminum-26 has one less neutron within its nucleus than regular aluminum.


“Mrs. Ples” (Sts 5), discovered at Sterkfontein, South Africa in 1947, now shown to be contemporaneous with Lucy’s species in East Africa.

Aluminum-26 forms when a rock containing quartz is exposed at the surface, but not after it has been deeply buried in a cave. As such, the researchers can date cave sediments, and the fossils within them, by measuring levels of aluminum-26 in tandem with another cosmogenic nuclide, beryllium-10.

“It was surprising to me at first that the new ages of 3.4 to 3.6 million years were so close to the older sediments,” Granger told Live Science. “What this says is that all of the Australopithecus fossils at Sterkfontein fall into a fairly narrow time range, and in a particular time when there was a lot of diversification of hominins in East Africa as well. This points to an early connection between hominins in East Africa and South Africa.”

These new findings, which show A. africanus is at least as old as, if not older than, A. afarensis, may rule out the idea that A. africanus descended from A. afarensis. And in fact, A. africanus possesses a more primitive ape-like skull and facial features than A. afarensis, paleoanthropologist Yohannes Haile-Selassie, director of Arizona State University’s Institute of Human Origins, who did not take part in this research, told Live Science. Instead, he suggested A. africanus and A. afarensis may be sister species, descended from an older common ancestor such as 3.8-million-year-old A. anamensis, which Haile-Selassie helped unearth in Ethiopia in 2016.

Another implication of the new work is that “this older age allows more time for the South African species to evolve into later hominins,” Granger said. This could include Homo. “We don’t know that this happened for sure, but it opens a window of possibility.”

John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who did not participate in this study, noted the new cosmogenic technique will likely not end the controversy of the Sterkfontein fossils’ ages.

“This is a case where the different teams really need to get together and agree on what the geology of the site is telling us,” Hawks told Live Science. “I think this paper is a first step in that process, but it will take a lot of work to get these different scientists to agree on what they are seeing.”

For example, scientists who want to solve the puzzle of the ages of these bones may take part in double-blind experiments involving “different groups of researchers examining the same samples, without knowing where they are from until they report their results,” Hawks said. “Otherwise, there is too much potential for researchers to choose samples and methods that reinforce their own ideas.”

The scientists detailed their findings June 27 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(opens in new tab).

https://www.livescience.com/south-african-fossils-human-evolution

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2022 17:44:38
From: Bubblecar
ID: 1905110
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

Interesting, ta.

There used to be too many big egos in palaeoanthropology, with everyone wanting their particular fossils to be the most important ones. Hopefully this is changing.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2022 18:46:04
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1905141
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

Bubblecar said:


Interesting, ta.

There used to be too many big egos in palaeoanthropology, with everyone wanting their particular fossils to be the most important ones. Hopefully this is changing.

I tend to disagree a bit there. The egos in palaeoanthropology were big but deserved.
Oh wat, I stand corrected. The ego of the person who coined the word Denisovan on the basis of DNA results from some loose junk bones is way too over-inflated.

Some egos with respect to the death of the dinosaurs however, are way too over-inflated.

> Sterkfontein Caves in South Africa

Now that’s a name I knew as a teenager.

Glad to see that we have more accurate dating now.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2022 19:26:58
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1905164
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

mollwollfumble said:


Bubblecar said:

Interesting, ta.

There used to be too many big egos in palaeoanthropology, with everyone wanting their particular fossils to be the most important ones. Hopefully this is changing.

I tend to disagree a bit there. The egos in palaeoanthropology were big but deserved.
Oh wait, I stand corrected. The ego of the person who coined the word Denisovan on the basis of DNA results from some loose junk bones is way too over-inflated.

Some egos with respect to the death of the dinosaurs however, are way too over-inflated.

> Sterkfontein Caves in South Africa

Now that’s a name I knew as a teenager.

Glad to see that we have more accurate dating now.

Yeah. Someone with a grossly over-inflated ego among this group of palaeoanthropologists.
VIOLA B.,
RICHARDS M.,
TALAMO S.,
SHUNKOV M.V.,
DEREVIANKO A.P.,
HUBLIN J.-J.

But the big egos of Raymond Dart, Louis and Mary Leakey, Richard Leakey and Donald Johanson are well and truly deserved.

The disagreements between them were less than the media would have us believe.

Reply Quote

Date: 6/07/2022 23:28:23
From: dv
ID: 1905248
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

Ardipithecus was the predecessor of Australopithecus, though there was also a time when they both existed. The former appears to have been at least partlly arboreal, and not fuilly “upright” in terms of its spinal column and so probably not fully bipedal, perhaps knuckle-walking most of the time like a gorilla. Probably went extinct around 4 million years ago. Australopithecus, which dates to around 4.5 million years, was fully upright. By 3.3 million years they were manufacturing stone tools.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/07/2022 13:19:59
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1905404
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

dv said:


Ardipithecus was the predecessor of Australopithecus, though there was also a time when they both existed. The former appears to have been at least partlly arboreal, and not fuilly “upright” in terms of its spinal column and so probably not fully bipedal, perhaps knuckle-walking most of the time like a gorilla. Probably went extinct around 4 million years ago. Australopithecus, which dates to around 4.5 million years, was fully upright. By 3.3 million years they were manufacturing stone tools.

Yep.

There were a whole series of Australopithecines. As much diversity among Australopithecines as amongst Homo.

I like the newly measured older date of the South African fossils, because that means that the evolution of the Australopithecines didn’t regress towards gorilla-like as much as had previously been supposed. Evolution doesn’t reverse very easily.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/07/2022 18:23:24
From: dv
ID: 1905553
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

dv said:


Ardipithecus was the predecessor of Australopithecus, though there was also a time when they both existed. The former appears to have been at least partlly arboreal, and not fuilly “upright” in terms of its spinal column and so probably not fully bipedal, perhaps knuckle-walking most of the time like a gorilla. Probably went extinct around 4 million years ago. Australopithecus, which dates to around 4.5 million years, was fully upright. By 3.3 million years they were manufacturing stone tools.

The first speaker discusses the human like skull configuration of ardipithecus, despite it’s small brain.
https://youtu.be/CPDx04CBgxE

Reply Quote

Date: 9/07/2022 20:09:28
From: dv
ID: 1906681
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

Willow Smith has an album called Ardipithecus.

Huh.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/07/2022 21:02:30
From: dv
ID: 1906697
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

https://youtu.be/t0BQuv8M5GQ

Lomekwian stone industry, 3.4 mya.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term before.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/07/2022 21:07:22
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1906702
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

dv said:


https://youtu.be/t0BQuv8M5GQ

Lomekwian stone industry, 3.4 mya.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term before.

I was reading this week about stone tools about 500,000 years old being found in England, and I thought that was very old.

Reply Quote

Date: 9/07/2022 21:44:41
From: dv
ID: 1906718
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

The Rev Dodgson said:


dv said:

https://youtu.be/t0BQuv8M5GQ

Lomekwian stone industry, 3.4 mya.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term before.

I was reading this week about stone tools about 500,000 years old being found in England, and I thought that was very old.

Well it’s pretty old in terms of English archeology…

https://youtu.be/lXaDqAg2TCY
Professoraur: Anatomically modern humans

This is a great series

Reply Quote

Date: 9/07/2022 23:04:32
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1906737
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

dv said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

https://youtu.be/t0BQuv8M5GQ

Lomekwian stone industry, 3.4 mya.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term before.

I was reading this week about stone tools about 500,000 years old being found in England, and I thought that was very old.

Well it’s pretty old in terms of English archeology…

https://youtu.be/lXaDqAg2TCY
Professoraur: Anatomically modern humans

This is a great series

Watched that. QI, although a bit hard to follow what she was saying .

Reply Quote

Date: 9/07/2022 23:13:22
From: dv
ID: 1906740
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

The Rev Dodgson said:


dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I was reading this week about stone tools about 500,000 years old being found in England, and I thought that was very old.

Well it’s pretty old in terms of English archeology…

https://youtu.be/lXaDqAg2TCY
Professoraur: Anatomically modern humans

This is a great series

Watched that. QI, although a bit hard to follow what she was saying .

I remember that in the 1990s there was something of an African Ape Gap: a period from about 14 mya to 8 mya where there were few decent fossils spanning roughly from the most common ancestor of gorillas, chimps and humans to the most common ancestor of chimps and humans.

It appears that since then the gap has been tidily filled in.

Reply Quote

Date: 10/07/2022 00:07:43
From: dv
ID: 1906743
Subject: re: South African fossils may rewrite history of human evolution

Here’s something else I did not know

The original “Peking Man” fossils were lost in world war 2.


In 1941, to safeguard them during the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Zhoukoudian human fossils—representing at least 40 different individuals—and artefacts were deposited into two wooden footlockers and were to be transported by the United States Marine Corps from the Peking Union Medical College to the SS President Harrison which was to dock at Qinhuangdao Port (near the Marine basecamp Camp Holcomb), and eventually arrive at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. En route to Qinhuangdao, the ship was attacked by Japanese warships, and ran aground. Though there have been many attempts to locate the crates—including offering large cash rewards—it is unknown what happened to them after they left the college.

Rumours about the fate of the fossils range from their having been onboard a Japanese ship (the Awa Maru) or an American ship that was sunk, to being ground up for traditional Chinese medicine. The affair also provoked allegations of robbery against Japanese or American groups, especially during the Resist America, Aid Korea Campaign in 1950 and 1951 to promote anti-American sentiment during the Korean War.

Marine Richard Bowen recalled finding a box filled with bones while digging a foxhole one night next to some stone barracks in Qinhuangdao. This happened in 1947 while the city was under siege by the CCP Eighth Route Army, who were under fire from Nationalist gunboats (a conflict of the Chinese Civil War). According to Mr. Wang Qingpu who had written a report for the Chinese government on the history of the port, if Bowen’s story is accurate, the most probable location of the bones is 39°55′4″N 119°34′0″E underneath roads, a warehouse, or a parking lot.

Four of the teeth from the original excavation period are still in the possession of the Paleontological Museum of Uppsala University in Sweden.

Reply Quote