Tag: anthropology

Hominin footprints in Kenya confirm two species occupied the same ecosystem the same time

Published on by zooks777Leave a comment

For the last forty thousand years anatomically modern humans have been the only primates living on Planet Earth with a sophisticated culture; i.e. using tools, fire, language, art etcetera. Since Homo sapiens emerged some 300 ka ago, they joined at least two other groups of humans – Neanderthals and Denisovans – and not only shared Eurasia with them, but interbred as well. In fact no hominin group has been truly alone since Pliocene times, which began 5.3 Ma ago. Sometimes up to half a dozen species occupied the habitable areas of Africa. Yet we can never be sure whether or not they bumped into one another. Dates for fossils are generally imprecise; give or take a few thousand years. The evidence is merely that sedimentary strata of roughly the same age in various places have yielded fossils of several hominins, but that co-occupation has never been proved in a single stratum in the same place: until now.

Footprints from Koobi Fora: left – right foot of H. erectus; right – left foot of Paranthropus boisei. Credit: Kevin Hatala. Chatham University

The Koobi Fora area near modern Lake Turkana has been an important, go-to site, courtesy of the Leakey palaeoanthropology dynasty (Louis and Mary, their son and daughter-in-law Richard and Meave, and granddaughter Louise). They discovered five hominin species there dating from 4.2 to 1.4 Ma. So there was a chance that this rich area might prove that two of the species were close neighbours in both space and time. In 2021 Kenyan members of the Turkana Basin Institute based in Nairobi spotted a trackway of human footprints on a bedding surface of sediments that had been deposited about 1.5 Ma ago. Reminiscent of the famous, 2 million years older Laetoli trackway of Australopithecus afarensis in Tanzania, that at Koobi Fora is scientifically just as exciting  for it shows footprints of two hominin species Homo erectus and Paranthropus boisei who had walked through wet mud a few centimetres below the surface of Lake Turkana’s ancient predecessor (Hatala, K.G. and 13 others, 2024. Footprint evidence for locomotive diversity and shared habitats among early Pleistocene hominins. Science, v. 386, p. 1004-1010; DOI: 10.1126/science.ado5275). The trackway is littered with the footprints of large birds and contains evidence of zebra.

One set of prints attributed to H. erectus suggest the heels struck the surface first, then the feet rolled forwards before pushing off with the soles: little different from our own, unshod footprints in mud. They are attributed to H. erectus. The others also show a bipedal gait, but different locomotion. The feet that made them were significantly flatter than ours and had a big toe angled away from the smaller toes. They are so different that no close human relative could have made them. The local fossil record includes paranthropoids (Paranthropus boisei), whose fossil foot bones suggest an individual of that speciesmade those prints. It also turns out that a similar, dual walkers’ pattern was found 40 km away in lake sediments of roughly the same age. The two species cohabited the same terrain for a substantial period of time. As regards the Koobi Fora trackway, it seems the two hominins plodded through the mud only a few hours apart at most: they were neighbours.

Artists’ reconstructions of: left – H. erectus; right – Paranthropus boisei. Credits: Yale University, Roman Yevseyev respectively

From their respective anatomies they were very different. Homo erectus was, apart from having massive brow ridges, similar to us. Paranthropus boisei had huge jaws and facial muscles attached to a bony skull crest. So how did they get along? The first was probably omnivorous and actively hunted or scavenged meaty prey: a bifacial axe-wielding hunter-gatherer. Paranthropoids seem to have sought and eaten only vegetable victuals, and some sites preserve bone digging sticks. They were not in competition for foodstuffs and there was no reason for mutual intolerance. Yet they were physically so different that intimate social relations were pretty unlikely. Also their brain sizes were very different, that of P. Boisei’s being far smaller than that of H. erectus , which may not have encouraged intellectual discourse. Both persist in the fossil record for a million years or more. Modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans, as we know, sometimes got along swimmingly, possibly because they were cognitively very similar and not so different physically.

Since many hominin fossils are associated with riverine and lake-side environments, it is surprising that more trackways than those of Laetoli and Koobi Fora have been found. Perhaps that is because palaeoanthropologists are generally bent on finding bones and tools! Yet trackways show in a very graphic way how animals behave and interrelate with their environment, for example dinosaurs. Now anthropologists have learned how to spot footprint trace fossils that will change, and enrich the human story.

See also: Ashworth, J. Fossil footprints of different ancient humans found together for the first time. Natural History Museum News 28 November 2024; Marshall, M. Ancient footprints show how early human species lived side by side. New Scientist, 28 November 2024

A new timeline for modern humans’ colonisation of Europe

Published on by zooks777Leave a comment
Aurignacian sculptures: ‘Lion-Man’ and ‘Venus’ from the Hohlenstein-Stadel and Hohle Fels caves in Germany.

The earliest culture (or techno-complex) that can be related to anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Europe is called the Aurignacian. It includes works of art as well as tools made from stone, bone and antler. Perhaps the most famous are the ivory sculptures of ‘Lion-Man’ and Venus of the Hohlenstein-Stadel  and Hohle Fels caves in Germany,  and also the stunning cave art, of Chauvet Cave in France. Aurignacian artefacts that are dated at 43 to 26 ka occur at sites throughout Europe south of about 52°N. It was this group of people who interacted with the original Neanderthal population of Europe and finally replaced them completely. There is a long standing discussion over who ‘invented’ the stone tools, both human groups apparently having used similar styles of manufacture (Châtelperronian). Likewise, as regards the subsistence methods deployed by each; in one approach Neanderthals may have largely restricted their activities to roughly fixed ranges, whereas the incomers were generally seasonal nomads. As yet it has not been possible to show if the interbreeding between the two, which ancient and modern genetic data show, preceded the Aurignacian influx or continued when the met in Europe. Whatever, Neanderthals as a distinct human group had disappeared from the geological record by 40 ka. (Note that the three thousand years of coexistence is as long as the time between now and the end of the Bronze Age, about 150 generations at least.) But that aspect of European human development is not the only bone of contention about the spread into Europe. How did the Aurignacian people fare during and after their entry into Europe?

Despite continuing discovery of AMH sites in Europe, and reappraisal of long-known ones, there are limits to how much locations, dates, bones and artifacts can tell us. The actual Aurignacian dispersal of people across Europe is confounded by the limited number of proven occupation sites. These were people who, like most hunter gatherers, must have moved continually in response to variations in the supply of resources that depend on changing climatic conditions. They probably travelled ‘light’, occupied many temporary camp sites but few places to which they returned generation after generation. Temporary ‘stopping places’ are difficult to find, showing little more than evidence of fire and a ‘litter’ of shards from retouched stone tools (debitage), together with discarded bones that show marks left by butchery. A group of archaeologists and climate specialists from the University of Cologne, Germany have tried to shed some light on the completely ‘invisible’ aspects of Aurignacian dispersal and subsistence using what they have called – perhaps a tribute to Frank Sinatra! – the ‘Our Way Model’ (Shao, Y. et al. 2024. Reconstruction of human dispersal during Aurignacian on pan-European scale. Nature Communications, v. 15, Article 7406; DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-51349-y. Click link to download a PDF).

The reality of hunter-gatherer life during a period of repeated rapid change in climate would clearly have been complex and sometimes precarious. To grasp it also needs to take account of human population dynamics as well as climatic and ecological drivers. The team’s basic strategy was to combine climate and archaeological data to model the degree to which human numbers may have fluctuated and the extent and direction of their migration. Three broad factors would have driven both: environmental change; culture – social change, curiosity, technology; and human biology. Really, environmental change is the only one that can be addressed with any degree of precision through records of climate change, such as Greenland ice cores. Archaeological data from known sites should provide some evidence for technological change, but only for two definite phases in Aurignacian culture (43-38 ka and 38-32 ka). Dating of   Aurignacian sites establishes some time calibration for episodes of occupation, abandonment and resettlement. Issues of human biology can be addressed to some extent from ancient genetics, where suitable bones are available. However, the ‘Our Way Model’ is driven by climate modelling and archaeology. It outputs an historical estimate of ‘human existence potential’ (HEP) that includes predictions of carbon storage in plants and animals – i.e.  potential food resources – expressed as regional population density in Europe. The technical details are complex, but Shao et al.’s conclusions are quite striking.

Maps of estimated anatomically modern human population density during the first six thousand years of Aurignacian migration and palaeoclimate record from the Greenland NGRIP ice core, with shaded warm episodes – red spots indicate the time of the population estimates above. (Credit: Shao et al. Fig. 1)

Climate change in the later stages of cooling towards the last glacial maximum at ~20 ka was cyclical, with ten Dansgaard-Oeschger cold stadial events capable of ‘knocking back’ both population density and the extent of settlement. In the first two millennia expansion from the Levant into the Balkans was slow. From 43 to 41 ka the pace quickened, taking the Aurignacian culture into Western Europe, with an estimate total European AMH population of perhaps 60 thousand. A third phase (41 to 39 ka) shrank the areas and densities of population during a prolonged cold period. The authors suggest that survival was in Alpine refuge areas that AMH people had occupied previously. Starting at around 38 ka, a lengthy climatic warm period allowed the culture to spread to its maximum extent reaching southern Britain and the north and east of the Iberian Peninsula. Perhaps by then the AMH population had evolved better strategies to adapt to increasing frigid conditions. But by that time the Neanderthals had disappeared from Europe freeing up territory and food resources. That too may have contributed to the expansion and the sustenance of an AMH total population of between 80 and 100 thousand during the second phase of the Aurignacian.

It’s as well to remember that this work is based on a model, albeit sophisticated, based on currently known data. Palaeoanthropology is extremely prone to surprises as field- and lab work progresses …

See also: New population model identifies phases of human dispersal across Europe. EurekaAlert, 4 September 2024; Kambani, K. 2024. The Dynamics of Early Human Dispersal Across Europe: A New Population Model. Anthropology.net, 4 September 2024.

News about ‘hobbits’ (Homo floresiensis)

Published on by zooks777Leave a comment

The roof lifted for palaeoanthropologists in October 2004 when news emerged of a fossil from Liang Bua cave on Flores in the Indonesian archipelago. It was an adult female human skull about a third the size of those of anatomically modern humans (see: The little people of Flores, Indonesia; October 2004). Immediately it was dubbed ‘Hobbit’, and from the start controversy raged around this diminutive human. The cave layer contained evidence of fire and sophisticated tools as well as bones of giant rats and minute elephants, presumed to be staple prey for these little people. Despite having brains about the size of a grapefruit – as did australopithecines – the little people challenged our assumptions about intelligence. Preliminary dating from 95 to 17 ka suggested they may have cohabited Indonesia with both H. erectus and AMH. Indeed, modern people of Flores tell legends of the little people they call Ebo Go Go. Like both their ancestors must have crossed treacherous straits between the Indonesian islands, which existed even when global sea level was drawn down by polar icecaps. Once an early suggestion that the original find was the skull of a deformed, microcephalic individual had been refuted by further finds in Flores, scientists turned to natural selection of small stature through living on a small island with limited resources – similar to the tiny elephant Stegodon and other island faunas elsewhere. By 2007, it had become clear from other, similar fossils that they were definitely a distinct species Homo floresiensis (see: Now we can celebrate the ‘Hobbits’! November 2007) with several anatomical similarities to H. erectus. Then more sophisticated dating revealed that the Flores cave sediments containing their fossils and tools spanned 100 to 60 ka, well before AMH reached Indonesia. By 2018 their arrival on Flores, marked by a mandible fragment and 6 teeth in sediments from sediment excavation at Mata Menge 70 km east of Luing Bua, had been pushed back to 773 ka.  At the new site stone tools were found in even earlier sediments (1.02 Ma). In 2019 evidence emerged that isolated island evolution in the Philippines had produced similar small descendants (H. luzonensis) by around 67 ka.

Artist’s impression of Homo floresiensis with giant rat. (Credit: Box of Oddities podcast)

The latest development is the finding of a fragment of an adult humerus (an arm bone) in the Mata Menge excavations that had yielded the oldest dates for Homo floresiensis fossils (Kaifu, Y. and 12 others 2024. Early evolution of small body size in Homo floresiensis. Nature Communications, v. 15, article number 6381; DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-50649-7). Comparing the teeth and arm-bone fragment with an intact adult from Liang Bua suggests that the earliest known ancestors of Homo floresiensis were even smaller. The teeth, albeit much smaller, resemble those of Indonesian specimens of H. erectus. That observation helps to rule out earlier speculation that the tiny people of Flores descended from the earliest humans from Africa (H. habilis) that were about the same size, but more than twice as old (2.3 to 1.7 Ma). The evidence points more plausibly towards their evolution from Asian H. erectus, who arrived in Java around 1.1 million years ago. Having solved the issue of ‘island hopping’ to reach Java a group of Asian H. erectus could have found their way to Flores. That island’s biological resources may not have met the survival requirements of a much larger human ancestor but evolution in isolation kept the arrivals alive. Within 300 ka, and perhaps much less for a small population, survival of smaller offspring allowed them a very long and apparently quite comfortable stay on the island. Though diminished in stature, they demonstrated the survival strategies conferred by being smart.

Was the earliest human ancestor a European?

Published on by zooks7772 Comments

Charles Darwin famously suggested that humans evolved from apes, and since great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas) live in Africa he reckoned it was probably there that the human ‘line’ began. Indeed, the mitochondrial DNA of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) is the closest to that of living humans. Palaeoanthropology in Africa has established evolutionary steps during the Pleistocene (2.0 to 0.3 Ma) by early members of the genus Homo: H. habilis, H. ergaster, H. erectus; H. heidelbergensis and the earliest H. sapiens. Members of the last three migrated to Eurasia, beginning around 1.8 Ma with the individuals found at Dmanisi in Georgia. The earliest African hominins emerged through the Late Miocene (7.0 to 5.3 Ma): Sahelanthropus tchadensi, Orrorin tugenensis and Ardipthecus kadabba. Through the Pliocene (5.3 to 2.9 Ma) and earliest Pleistocene two very distinct hominin groups appeared: the ‘gracile’ australopithecines (Ardipithecus ramidus; Australopithecus anamensis; Au. afarensis; Au. africanus; Au. sediba) and the ‘robust’ paranthropoids (Paranthropus aethiopicus; P. robustus and P. boisei). The last of the paranthropoids cohabited East Africa with early homo species until around 1.4 Ma. Most of these species have been covered in Earth-logs and an excellent time line of most hominin and early human fossils is hosted by Wikipedia.

All apes, including ourselves, and fossil examples are members of the Family Hominidae (hominids) which refers to the entire world. A Subfamily (Homininae) refers to African apes, with two Tribes. One, the Gorillini, refers to the two living species of gorilla. The other is the Hominini (hominins) that includes chimpanzees, living humans and all fossils believed to be on the evolutionary line to Homo. The Tribe Hominini is defined to have descended from the common ancestor of modern humans and chimps, and evolved only in Africa. As the definition of hominins stands, it excludes other possibilities! The Miocene of Africa before 7.2 Ma ‘goes cold’ as regards the evolution of hominins.  There are, however fossils of other African apes in earlier Miocene strata (8 to 18 Ma) that have been assigned to the Family Hominidae, i.e. hominids, of which more later.

Much has been made of using a ‘molecular clock’ to hint at the length of time since the mtDNA of living humans and chimps began to diverge from their last common ancestor. That is a crude measure at it depends entirely on assuming a fixed rate at which genetic mutation in primates take place. Many factors render it highly uncertain, until ancient DNA is recovered from times before about 400 ka, if ever. The approach suggests a range from 7 to 10 Ma, yet the evolutionary history of chimps based on fossils is practically invisible: the earliest fossil of a member of genus Pan is from the Middle Pleistocene (1.2 to 0.8 Ma) of Kenya. Indeed, we have little if any clue about what such a common ancestor looked like or did. So the course of human evolution relies entirely on the fossil sequence of earlier African hominins and comparing their physical appearances. Each species in the African time line displays two distinctive features. All were bipedal and had small canine teeth.  Modern chimps habitually use knuckle walking except when having to cross waterways. As with virtually all other primates, fossil or living, male chimps have large, threatening canines. In the absence of ancient DNA from fossils older than 0.4 Ma these two features present a practical if crude way of assessing to when and where the hominin time line leads.

In 2002 a Polish geologist on holiday at the beach at Trachilos on Crete discovered a trackway on a bedding plane in shallow-marine Miocene sediments. It had been left by what seems to have been a bipedal hominin. Subsequent research was able to date the footprints to about 6.05 Ma. Though younger than Sahelanthropus, the discovery potentially challenges the exclusivity of hominins to Africa. Unsurprisingly, publication of this tentative interpretation drew negative responses from some quarters. But the discovery helped resurrect the notion that Africa may have been colonised in the Miocene by hominins that had evolved in Europe. That had been hinted at by the 1872 excavation of Oreopithecus bambolii from an Upper Miocene (~7.6 Ma) lignite mine in Tuscany, Italy – a year after publication of Darwin’s The Descent of Man.

Lignites in Tuscany and Sardinia have since yielded many more specimens, so the species is well documented. Oreopithecus could walk on two legs, its hands were capable of a precision grip and it had relatively small canines. Its Wikipedia entry cautiously refers to it as ‘hominid’ – i.e. lumped with all apes to comply with current taxonomic theory (above). In 2019 another fascinating find was made in a clay pit in Bavaria, Germany. Danuvius guggenmosi lived 11.6 Ma ago and fossilised remains of its leg- and arm bones suggested that it could walk on two legs: it too may have been on the hominin line. But no remains of Danuvius’s skull or teeth have been found. There is now an embarrassment of riches as regards Miocene fossil apes from Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean (Sevim-Erol, A. and 8 others 2023. A new ape from Türkiye and the radiation of late Miocene hominines. Nature Communications Biology, v. 6, article  842.; DOI: 10.1038/s42003-023-05210-5). A number of them closely resemble the earliest fossil hominins of Africa, but most predate the hominin record there by several million years.

Phylogenetic links between fossils assigned to Hominidae found in Africa and north of the Mediterranean Sea. (Credit: Sevim-Erol et al. 2023, Fig 5)

Ayla Sevim-Erol of Ankara University, Turkiye and colleagues from Turkiye, Canada and the Netherlands describe a newly identified Miocene genus, Anadoluvius, which they place in the Subfamily Homininae dated to around 8.7 Ma. Fragments of crania and partial male and female mandibles from Anatolia show that its canines were small and comparable with those of younger African hominins, such as Ardipithecus and Australopithecus. But limb bones are yet to be found. Around the size of a large male chimpanzee, Anadoluvius lived in an ecosystem remarkably like the grasslands and dry forests of modern East Africa, with early species of giraffes, wart hogs, rhinos, diverse antelopes, zebras, elephants, porcupines, hyenas and lion-like carnivores. Sevim-Erol et al. have attempted to trace back hominin evolution further than is possible with African fossils. They compare various skeletal features of different fossils and living genera to assess varying degrees of similarity between each genus, applied to 23 genera. These comprised 7 hominids from the African Miocene, 2 early African hominins (Ardipithecus and Orrorin) and 10 Miocene hominids from Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. They also assessed similarities with 4 living genera, Homo, orang utan (Pongo), gorilla and chimp (Pan).

The resulting phylogeny shows close morphological links within a cluster (green ‘pools’ on diagram) of non-African hominids with the African hominins, gorillas, humans and chimps. There are less-close relations between that cluster and the earlier Miocene hominids of Africa (blue ‘pool’) and the possible phylogeny of orang utans (orange ‘pool’). Sevim-Erol et al. note that African hominins are clearly more similar and perhaps more closely related to the fossils of Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean than they are to Miocene African hominids. This suggests that evolution among the non-African hominids ceased around the end of the Miocene Epoch north of the Mediterranean Sea. But it may have continued in Africa. Somehow, therefore, it became possible late in Miocene times for hominids to migrate from Europe to Africa. Yet the earlier, phylogenetically isolated African hominids seem to have ‘crashed’ at roughly the same time. Such a complex scenario cannot be supported by phylogenetic studies alone: it needs some kind of ecological impetus.

The Mediterranean Basin at the end of the Miocene Epoch when the only water was in the deepest parts of the basin. (Credit: Wikipedia, Creative Commons)

Following a ‘mild’ tectonic collision between the African continent and the Iberian Peninsula during the late Miocene connection between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea was blocked from 6.0 to 5.3 Ma. Except for its deepest parts, seawater in the Mediterranean evaporated away to leave thick salt deposits. Rivers, such as the Rhône, Danube, Dneiper and Nile, shed sediments into the exposed basin. For 700 ka the basin was a fertile, sub-sea level plain, connecting Europe and North Africa over and E-W distance of 3860 km. There was little to stop the faunas of Eurasia and Africa migrating and intermingling, at a critical period in the evolution of the Family Hominidae. One genus presented with the opportunity was quite possibly the last common ancestor of all the hominins and chimps. The migratory window vanished at the end of the Miocene when what became the Strait of Gibraltar opened at 5.3 to allow Atlantic water. This resulted in the stupendous Zanclean flood with a flow rate about 1,000 times that of the present-day Amazon River. An animation of these events is worth watching