posted
Earliest Known Human Had Neanderthal Qualities Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
Aug. 22, 2008 -- The world's first known modern human was a tall, thin individual -- probably male -- who lived around 200,000 years ago and resembled present-day Ethiopians, save for one important difference: He retained a few primitive characteristics associated with Neanderthals, according to a series of forthcoming studies conducted by multiple international research teams.
The extraordinary findings, which will soon be outlined in a special issue of the Journal of Human Evolution devoted to the first known Homo sapiens, also reveal information about the material culture of the first known people, their surroundings, possible lifestyle and, perhaps most startling, their probable neighbors -- Homo erectus.
"Omo I," as the researchers refer to the find, would probably have been considered healthy-looking and handsome by today's standards, despite the touch of Neanderthal.
"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.
Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
Building On Leakey's Work
Parts of the Omo I skeleton were first excavated in 1967 by a team from the Kenya National Museums under the direction of Richard Leakey, who wrote a forward that will appear in the upcoming journal.
Leakey and his colleagues unearthed two other skeletons, one of which has received little attention. Two of the three skeletons found at the site have been a literal bone of contention among scientists over the past four decades. Reliable dating techniques for such early periods did not exist in the late 60's, and the researchers could not agree upon the identity of the two skeletons.
From 1999 to the present, at least two other major expeditions to the southern Ethiopian site -- called the Kibish Formation -- have taken place, with the goal of solving the mysteries and learning more about what the area was like 200,000 years ago.
As evidenced by photographs showing the researchers followed by armed guards, work at this location proved challenging.
"It took us five plus days to get there from Addis," paleobiologist Josh Trapani of the Smithsonian Institution and the University of Michigan told Discovery News. "Once there, we had intense heat, hyenas outside camp, crocodiles in the river, many insects and two remarkable and very different groups of people, the Mursi and the Nyangatom on opposite sides of the river who were our partners in some of this work."
Primitive, Yet Still Like Us
The ordeals proved successful, as the scientists have recovered new bones for Omo I, some of which perfectly fit into place with the remains Leakey unearthed over 40 years ago.
Several scientists analyzed the bones, including a very detailed, comparative look at the shoulder bone by French paleontologist Jean-Luc Voisin. They concluded that, without a doubt, Omo I represents an anatomically modern human, with bones in the arms, hands and ankles somewhat resembling those of other, earlier human-like species.
"Most of the anatomical features of Omo are like modern humans. Only a few features are similar to more primitive hominids, including Neanderthals and Homo erectus," explained John Fleagle, distinguished professor in the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University in New York.
"Omo II is more primitive in its cranial anatomy," he added, "and shares more features with Homo erectus and fewer with modern humans."
Unlikely Neighbors
New dating of the finds determined that Omo II lived at around the same time and location as Omo I, indicating that Homo sapiens may have coexisted with Homo erectus, a.k.a. "Upright Man," who is believed to have been the first hominid to leave Africa.
Fleagle explained the detailed nature of the latest dating techniques that place both skeletons at around the 200,000-year-old period.
He said both skeletons were recovered from rocky geological layers, with "Adam" unearthed just above a layer of volcanic rock. Precise dates can then be calculated because "when volcanic rocks form, they start a radiometric clock that ticks at a regular rate."
Fleagle added, "By looking at the ratio of parent minerals and daughter minerals you can calculate when the rocks were initially formed."
Material Culture In A Different Environment
Anthropologist John Shea sifted through the Kibish dirt and rocks hoping to find evidence for early material culture.
He found it.
"The assemblages are dominated by relatively high-quality raw materials procured as pebbles from local gravels," Shea determined, adding that he unearthed stone tools flaked on both sides, hand axes, picks and spear-shaped objects. It appears that most were not retouched. So, once the early modern humans crafted their tools, they likely left them as is.
Trapani, who conducted a study on fossil fish at the site, said later-dated barbed bone points recovered from the site look remarkably like catfish spines, which "may be purely coincidental." Or, "alternatively, perhaps the spines impressed early hunters with their potential utility as flesh-piercing hunting implements."
Trapani added, "This may have come about through simple visual inspection or, perhaps -- more likely -- through painful lesson."
Living High on the Hog
Supporting Trapani's findings that large catfish, as well as Nile perch and other fish, were in abundance, studies on the site's geology indicate that conditions were wetter 200,000 years ago.
Yet another study, on the large mammal fauna at Kibish, found the humans were surrounded by big game.
Smithsonian Institution archaeobiologist Zelalem Assefa identified hippos, giraffes, elephants, horses, rhinos, numerous other hoofed mammals and more.
"In terms of settlement strategy, the early modern humans at Kibish might have practiced some type of seasonal based settlement strategy -- possibly following the movement of big game," Assefa told Discovery News.
Perhaps his two most unusual finds were that very few remains for non-human primates and carnivores were found, which puzzles the researchers, but may suggest that the first known humans didn't have many, if any, animal predators.
Secondly, Assefa was surprised to find duiker (a small, shy antelope that usually prefers forest cover) and giant forest hog remains. The giant forest hog is the largest wild pig on Earth, weighing as much as 600 pounds. Since other parts of the site were probable grasslands, the presence of these two animals suggests a riparian forest must have also been nearby.
An Unfinished Story
Although Omo I may be the world's "Adam" for now, it's possible that modern humans emerged even earlier at some other place in Africa.
"We only have evidence for what we have found," Fleagle said, adding that there "almost certainly were modern individuals before Omo I."
He explained that Ethiopia's geology has deposits suitable to bone preservation and discovery, which is perhaps why so many fossil hominids have been excavated there over the years.
"Paleontology is a very opportunistic science," he concluded. "When we have a record of fossils in one place, we can reconstruct what happened there, but it is impossible to say what was going on in places from which there is no fossil record."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: "Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Adding to the above is the mention of most of their anatomical traits being similar to modern humans,(of course they mean modern Africans) of course the archaic features, are probably just that, archaic, and not Neanderthal. Although, few anthropologists even believe when Modern humans entered Europe, they began to intermix with Neanderthal. Chris Stringer and C.L. Brace are two, anthropologists who postulate this notion.
quote: "Most of the anatomical features of Omo are like modern humans. Only a few features are similar to more primitive hominids, including Neanderthals and Homo erectus," explained John Fleagle, distinguished professor in the Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook University in New York."
quote:Although Omo I may be the world's "Adam" for now, it's possible that modern humans emerged even earlier at some other place in Africa.
Well of course, Omo I, didn't just pop up out of nowhere, no doubt he had ancestors. Just like Egypt, people think it just popped out of nowhere. It's funny when they ACT surprised by new finds.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils
Osbjorn M. Pearson
Journal of Human Evolution
August 2008
"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils
Osbjorn M. Pearson
Journal of Human Evolution
August 2008
"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."
^^^^Exactly, and great find
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ditto. Note: Neanderthal is the most cold adapted of all hominid, and is radically different in form to the point where they can be determined from skeletal structure without actual crania.
Morphologically, they are about as far as you can possibly get from 'long slender' niLotic's of Southern Sudan and Ethiopia.
That's why the finding of so called 'archaic' features in places like Kenya moots the notion that said features indicate gene flow from Neanderthal.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Ditto. Note: Neanderthal is the most cold adapted of all hominid, and is radically different in form to the point where they can be determined from skeletal structure without actual crania.
Morphologically, they are about as far as you can possibly get from 'long slender' niLotic's of Southern Sudan and Ethiopia.
That's why the finding of so called 'archaic' features in places like Kenya moots the notion that said features indicate gene flow from Neanderthal.
You know what I've just noticed, it is actually similar to the fallacy of East African 'Caucasoids', in where they find features similar to archaic hominid, Neanderthal, but skeletal structure and other features, indications are a sure confirmation of African origin, and tropical adaptation. Same thing with East Africans, early euro-centrists were surprised by the phenotypical diversity in Africa, and tried to explain it through gene flow from outside invaders who are simply, NOT there.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: "Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Inverting the pyramids: The world isn't short on wacky theories about Egypt's greatest monuments. The reality is less fun, but more illuminating
Khaled Diab guardian.co.uk, Monday August 18 2008
Some Jews began to subscribe to this far-fetched theory to draw pride amid discrimination, just as the 19th century Afrocentric movement in the US extended the period of Kushite (modern-day Nubian) rule for two centuries during the third intermediate period to all of Egyptian history in order to claim that ancient Egypt was "black African".
This flies in the face of all the evidence that points to the fact that Egypt – an integral part of the fertile crescent and sitting at the north-eastern edge of Africa – was always a multiracial society but that the basic makeup of the population has not changed much since ancient times.
Evergreen Writes:
The "Multiracial" school is one of the most sinister and insidious propagators of racism. They deplore racism without deconstructing the basic premise that distinct "races" exist. If races do not exist then there is no such thing as multiracial.
Humans began in Africa and migrated out of Africa via the Nile corridor and these humans were "much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today". If we begin with this basic premise we have to conclude that the basic makeup of the Egyptian population has changed since ancient times.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The "Multiracial" school is one of the most sinister and insidious propagators of racism. They deplore racism without deconstructing the basic premise that distinct "races" exist. If races do not exist then there is no such thing as multiracial.
^ Yes this is the basic contradiction at the root of all the 'frank sweets, jamie' mulatto centrists.
If you call them on this, they shuffle their feet and run while dissembling as fast as they can.
But never do they honestly address the parodox inherent in their [finally racist] ideology.
So, I don't respect them.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: You know what I've just noticed, it is actually similar to the fallacy of East African 'Caucasoids', in where they find features similar to archaic hominid, Neanderthal, but skeletal structure and other features, indications are a sure confirmation of African origin, and tropical adaptation. Same thing with East Africans, early euro-centrists were surprised by the phenotypical diversity in Africa, and tried to explain it through gene flow from outside invaders who are simply, NOT there.
Indeed! According to the article, these archaic features are not only associated with Neanderthal but Homo erectus so state they were Neanderthal qualities only in the title?? It seems Eurocentrism has gone to new heights or really sunk down to new lows when they not only use the usual "caucasoid" as a standard but even non-Sapien Neanderthal as somekind of standard! Why the hell do they keep using Europeans AMH or not as standard features when AMH originated in Africa?!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic