Recent Exciting Developments in Human Evolutionary History: Naledi and Flores

A reconstruction of Homo naledi’s head by paleoartist John Gurche, who spent some 700 hours recreating the head from bone scans. Image credit: John Gurche / Mark Thiessen / National Geographic. source:

Continuing with our series on recent exciting discoveries in human genetics/paleo anthropology:

  • Ancient hominins in the US?
  • Homo naledi
  • Homo flores
  • Humans evolved in Europe?
  • In two days, first H Sap was pushed back to 260,000 years,
  • then to 300,000 years!
  • Bell beaker paper

One of the most interesting things about our human family tree (the Homo genus and our near primate relatives, chimps, gorillas, orangs, gibbons, etc.) is that for most of our existence, “we” weren’t the only humans in town. We probably coexisted, mated with, killed, were killed by, and at times perhaps completely ignored 7 other human species–Homo erectus, floresiensis, Neanderthals, Denisovans, heidelbergensis, rhodesiensis, and now Naledi.

That said, these “species” are a bit controversial. Some scientists like to declare practically every jawbone and skull fragment they find a new species (“splitters”,) and some claim that lots of different bones actually just represent natural variation within a species (“lumpers.”)

Take the canine family: dogs and wolves can interbreed, but I doubt great danes and chihuahuas can. For practical purposes, though, the behavior of great danes and chihuahuas is similar enough to each other–and different enough from wolves’–that we class them as one species and wolves as another. Additionally, when we take a look at the complete variety of dogs in existence, it is obvious that there is actually a genetic gradient in size between the largest and smallest breeds, with few sharp breaks (maybe the basenji.) If we had a complete fossil record, and could reliably reconstruct ancient hominin behaviors and cultural patterns, then we could say with far more confidence whether we are looking at something like dogs vs. wolves or great danes vs. chihuahuas. For now, though, paleoanthropology and genetics remain exciting fields with constant new discoveries!

Homo naledi and homo Floresiensis may ultimately be small branches on the human tree, but each provides us with a little more insight into the whole.

Naledi’s story is particularly entertaining. Back in 2013, some spelunkers crawled through a tiny opening in a South African cave and found a chamber full of bones–hominin bones.

Anthropologists often have to content themselves with a handful of bones, sometimes just a fragment of a cranium or part of a jaw. (The recent claim that humans evolved in Europe is based entirely on a jaw fragment plus a few teeth.) But in the Rising Star Cave system, they found an incredible 1,500+ bones or bone fragments, the remains of at least 15 people, and they haven’t even finished excavating.

According to Wikipedia:

The physical characteristics of H. naledi are described as having traits similar to the genus Australopithecus, mixed with traits more characteristic of the genus Homo, and traits not known in other hominin species. The skeletal anatomy displays plesiomorphic (“ancestral”) features found in the australopithecines and more apomorphic (“derived,” or traits arising separately from the ancestral state) features known from later hominins.[2]

Adult males are estimated to have stood around 150 cm (5 ft) tall and weighed around 45 kg (100 lb), while females would likely have been a little shorter and weighed a little less. An analysis of H. naledi‘s skeleton suggests it stood upright and was bipedal.[2][22][23] Its hip mechanics, the flared shape of the pelvis are similar to australopithecines, but its legs, feet and ankles are more similar to the genus Homo.[2][24]

I note that the modern humans in South Africa are also kind of short–According to Time, the Bushmen average about 5 feet tall, (that’s probably supposed to be Bushmen men, not the group average,) and the men of nearby Pygmy peoples of central Africa average 4’11” or less.

The hands of H. naledi appear to have been better suited for object manipulation than those of australopithecines.[2][25] Some of the bones resemble modern human bones, but other bones are more primitive than Australopithecus, an early ancestor of humans. The thumb, wrist, and palm bones are modern-like while the fingers are curved, more australopithecine, and useful for climbing.[3] The shoulders are configured largely like those of australopithecines. The vertebrae are most similar to Pleistocene members of the genus Homo, whereas the ribcage is wide distally as is A. afarensis.[2] The arm has an Australopithecus-similar shoulder and fingers and a Homo-similar wrist and palm.[24] The structure of the upper body seems to have been more primitive than that of other members of the genus Homo, even apelike.[3] In evolutionary biology, such a mixture of features is known as an anatomical mosaic.

Four skulls were discovered in the Dinaledi chamber, thought to be two females and two males, with a cranial volume of 560 cm3 (34 cu in) for the males and 465 cm3 (28.4 cu in) for females, about 40% to 45% the volume of modern human skulls; average Homo erectus skulls are 900 cm3 (55 cu in). A fifth, male skull found in the Lesedi chamber has a larger estimated cranial volume of 610 cm3 (37 cu in) [6]. The H. naledi skulls are closer in cranial volume to australopithecine skulls.[3] Nonetheless, the cranial structure is described as more similar to those found in the genus Homo than to australopithecines, particularly in its slender features, and the presence of temporal and occipitalbossing, and the fact that the skulls do not narrow in behind the eye-sockets.[2] The brains of the species were markedly smaller than modern Homo sapiens, measuring between 450 and 610 cm3 (27–37 cu in). The teeth and mandiblemusculature are much smaller than those of most australopithecines, which suggests a diet that did not require heavy mastication.[2] The teeth are small, similar to modern humans, but the third molar is larger than the other molars, similar to australopithecines.[24] The teeth have both primitive and derived dental development.[26]

The overall anatomical structure of the species has prompted the investigating scientists to classify the species within the genus Homo, rather than within the genus Australopithecus. The H. naledi skeletons indicate that the origins of the genus Homo were complex and may be polyphyletic (hybrid), and that the species may have evolved separately in different parts of Africa.[27][28]

Because caves don’t have regular sediment layers like riverbeds or floodplains, scientists initially had trouble dating the bones. Because of their relative “primitiveness,” that is, their similarity to our older, more ape-like ancestors, they initially thought Homo naledi must have lived a long time ago–around 2 million years ago. But when they finally got the bones dated, they found they were much younger–only around 335,000 and 236,000 years old,[1][4] which means H naledi and Homo sapiens–whose age was also recently adjusted–actually lived at the same time, though not necessarily in the same place.

(On the techniques used for dating the bones:

Francis Thackeray, of the University of the Witwatersrand, suggested that H. naledi lived 2 ± 0.5 million years ago, based on the skulls’ similarities to H. rudolfensis, H. erectus, and H. habilis, species that existed around 1.5, 2.5, and 1.8 million years ago, respectively.[35][36] Early estimates derived from statistical analysis of cranial traits yielded a range of 2 million years to 912,000 years before present.[2][37][38]

Dirks et al. (2017) obtained a much more recent age range of between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago from dating fossil teeth, sediments encasing the fossils and overlying flowstone. They used a variety of dating techniques, including radiocarbon dating of teeth, optically stimulated luminescence of sediment, palaeomagnetic analysis of flowstone, and most conclusively, uranium-thorium dating of cave flowstone and teeth and electron spin resonance dating of teeth.[1][4] The latter two types of measurements of teeth were performed on blind duplicate samples by two different labs.[1])

H naledi is unlikely to be a major branch on the human family tree–much too recent to be one of our ancestors–but it still offers important information on the development of “human” traits and how human and ape-like traits can exist side-by-side in the same individual (a theme we will return to later.) (Perhaps, just as we modern Homo sapiens contain traits derived from ancestors who mated with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and others, H naledi owes some of its traits to hybridization between two very different hominins.) It’s also important because it is one more data point in favor of the recent existence of a great many different human varieties, not just a single group.

Flores Hobbit aka Homo floresiensis source

The Flores hominin, (aka the Hobbit,) tells a similar tale, but much further afield from humanity’s evolutionary cradle.

The island of Flores is part of the Indonesian archipelago, a surprisingly rich source of early hominin fossils. Homo erectus, the famous Java Man, arrived in the area around 1.7 million years ago, but to date no erectus remains have been discovered on the actual island of Flores. During the last Glacial Maximum, ocean levels were lower and most of Indonesia was connected in a single continent, called Sundaland. During one of these glacial periods, H erectus could have easily walked from China to Java, but Flores remained an island, cut off from the mainland by several miles of open ocean.

Stone tools appeared on Flores about 1 million years ago, though we don’t know yet who made them, nor how they developed the technology necessary to make the journey.

The diminutive Hobbits show up later, around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, though stone tools recovered alongside their remains have been dated from 50,000 to 190,000 years ago. Homo erectus is generally believed to have lived between 2 million and 140,000 years ago, and Homo sapiens arrived in Indonesia around 50,000 years ago. This places Floresiensis neatly between the two–it could have interacted with either species–perhaps descended from erectus and wiped out, in turn, by sapiens. (Or perhaps floresiensis represents an altogether novel line of hominins who left Africa on a completely separate trek from erectus.)

Unlike H naledi, whose diminutive stature is still within the current human range (especially of humans in the area,) floresiensis is exceptionally small for a hominin. According to Wikipedia:

The first set of remains to have been found, LB1, was chosen as the type specimen for the proposed species. LB1 is a fairly complete skeleton, including a nearly complete cranium (skull), determined to be that of a 30-year-old female. LB1 has been nicknamed the Little Lady of Flores or “Flo”.[2]

LB1’s height has been estimated at about 1.06 m (3 ft 6 in). The height of a second skeleton, LB8, has been estimated at 1.09 m (3 ft 7 in) based on measurements of its tibia.[3] These estimates are outside the range of normal modern human height and considerably shorter than the average adult height of even the smallest modern humans, such as the Mbenga and Mbuti (< 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in)),[32] Twa, Semang (1.37 m (4 ft 6 in) for adult women) of the Malay Peninsula,[33] or the Andamanese (1.37 m (4 ft 6 in) for adult women).[34]

By body mass, differences between modern pygmies and Homo floresiensis are even greater. LB1’s body mass has been estimated at 25 kg (55 lb). This is smaller than that of not only modern H. sapiens, but also H. erectus, which Brown and colleagues have suggested is the immediate ancestor of H. floresiensis. LB1 and LB8 are also somewhat smaller than the australopithecines from three million years ago, not previously thought to have expanded beyond Africa. Thus, LB1 and LB8 may be the shortest and smallest members of the extended human family discovered thus far.[citation needed]

Aside from smaller body size, the specimens seem otherwise to resemble H. erectus, a species known to have been living in Southeast Asia at times coincident with earlier finds purported to be of H. floresiensis.[3]

There’s a lot of debate about whether floresiensis is a real species–perhaps affected by insular dwarfism–or just a hominin that had some severe problems. Interestingly, we have a find from about 700,000 years ago on Flores of another hominin, which we think was also a Hobbit, but is even smaller than Flo and her relatives.

Floresiensis, like Naledi, didn’t contribute to modern humans. Rather, it is interesting because it shows the breadth of our genus. We tend to assume that, ever since we split off from the rest of the great apes, some 7 or 8 million years ago, our path has been ever upward, more complex and successful. But these Hobbits, most likely descendants of one of the most successful human species, (Homo erectus, who mastered fire, was the first to leave Africa, spread across Asia and Indonesia, and lasted for over a million and half years, far longer than our puny 300,000 years,) went in the opposite direction from its ancestors. It became much smaller than even the smallest living human groups. Its brain shrank:

In addition to a small body size, H. floresiensis had a remarkably small brain size. The brain of the holotype LB1 is estimated to have had a volume of 380 cm3 (23 cu in), placing it at the range of chimpanzees or the extinct australopithecines.[2][40] LB1’s brain size is half that of its presumed immediate ancestor, H. erectus (980 cm3 (60 cu in)).[40] The brain-to-body mass ratio of LB1 lies between that of H. erectus and the great apes.[41]

Nevertheless, it still made tools, probably controlled fire, and hunted cooperatively.

Whatever it was, it was like us–and very much not like us.

 

More on Naledi: Another Awesome Twig on our Human Family Tree and Homo Naledi was Chipping its Teeth Amazingly Often.

19 thoughts on “Recent Exciting Developments in Human Evolutionary History: Naledi and Flores

    • Depends on how we define “species” of course. Humans and chimps have different #s of chromosomes, so can’t produce viable offspring. Humans and Neanderthals obviously interbred, despite nearly half a million years of separation. I’m not sure a few thousand years either way would make a big difference, species-wise.

      Like

  1. So much to write about, so little time (all of these new findings).

    “but to date no erectus remains have been discovered on the actual island of Flores.”

    Well, erectus did make it to Java, so I don’t think it’s out of the question that he made it to Flores.

    It’s thought that they survived on around 1200 kcal a day and 1400 when nursing, in comparison to erectus who survived on 1800 kcal per day and 2500 when nursing (Lieberman, 2013: 125). So that’s a good sign it was erectus.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-for-more-evolved-and-progressive-evolution-1/

    There is also evidence that erectus could make rafts so that’s another good sign it was him.

    I also wrote about the finding that it was either habilis or a descendant of habilis that got to Flores.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/22/the-evolutionary-puzzle-of-floresiensis/

    With the estimated caloric requirements of erectus and floresiensis, it’s highly plausible that floresiensis is a derived form of erectus.

    Oh and I also came across a paper stating that erectus died out around 80 kya. Will link it when I find it.

    The LB1 specimen also didn’t have a pathology:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892980/

    So that hypothesis is ruled out.

    I’m positive that island dwarfism is the cause. Floresiensis had less caloric energy and thusly evolved a smaller brain and body. That’s the best hypothesis in my opinion.

    Also see this new paper that lends credence to the fact that floresiensis is derived from erectus.

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1857/20171065

    Like

    • The proximity of Erectus and total lack of any other local hominin remains in the area makes Erectus the simplest and most logical explanation. Anything else requires a much more complicated explanation that isn’t supported by the current fossil record.

      Like

  2. I can never get excited about this kind of stuff
    To much fraud in the past and to much speculation on small bone fragments

    As always this sort of stuff seems like a waste of nerd power

    Like

      • You hear about dinosaurs because people like dinosaurs. Hardly anyone is actually employed in dinosaurs. I know more people working at Los Alamos than paleontologists. I can’t blog about their work, though.

        Eh, it’s hard to talk about our difficulties w/getting jobs because it’s vaguely personal stories and people always respond w/something along the lines of “It’s hard for everyone, the people you know just need to work harder,” and it’s difficult to prove one way or another. But if you know anyone who’d like to hire an autist, I know some who need jobs.

        Like

      • Less employed doing dinsour shit and more about the college pipeline for dinosaur shit and you know darn well there are many more examples like that

        Work is hard to come by. It’s good that these things the umc has supported for years is now negatively effecting them. It way tough for engineers and computer nerds thanks to the Hindu invasion and the FOB jib-jibs tend to be nasty, nasty little fuckers but sow the wind, reap the whirlwind and all that

        Like

      • In the jobs difficulties department, take for example, Trump recently signed the Protecting Women in Entrepreneurship Act and the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers and Explorers Women Act. Both specifically target women. There are tons of programs targeting women. That’s great for me personally, but most nerds are male. If we’re looking at raw brainpower, the most under-utilized demographic in the country is white males in rural areas from lower-class homes. It’s harder to do all of the college and job-searching stuff when you’re further from it, and if there are any programs targeting them for jobs and higher education, I sure haven’t heard of them.

        Nerds are especially bad at the niceties of social interaction, and HR departments like to hire people they personally enjoy interacting with. At some point ages ago (before the blog) I collected data on this, and it was pretty depressing: HR departments were doing slightly worse than picking randomly from the resumes. People who don’t make eye contact and have spent more of their life memorizing information about cars than learning how to play stupid social games with women have a tough time in interviews, especially at companies where they have to get special permission just to hire any white male, because the upper ups are putting so much pressure on HR to increase female and minority numbers.

        Now even the military wants transgender soldiers or female navy seals or whatever but kicks out folks with Asperger’s. (By contrast, the Israeli military has a special division for autists because they’re really good at monitoring boring video feeds of the desert.)

        I mean fuck it all. I watch the shit people I know are going through trying to survive and just feel like it’s all stacked against us.

        Like

      • Legit rant darling especially about rural Whites

        Employers are out of control these days. A friend of mine who is a very skilled aviation dude has been struggling like most folks wouldn’t believe to find work. When he did find a job it paid 38% of his old salary. Just insane

        Like

  3. This stuff is interesting. How about some politically incorrect blasphemy? I like to collect papers on odd stuff. So there was a wild hairy Women found in the Caucuses. (Big Neanderthal area). She was captured and sold to a noble who put her in a cage where she eventually had relations with several Men. Here’s her children and the story.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20120805192746/http://www.hominology.narod.ru/zanai.htm
    http://gaizy.hubpages.com/hub/Mystery-Files-The-Story-of-Zana-Do-Neanderthals-Still-Walk-Amongst-us
    http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/khwit-dna/

    Her son

    Son??? and daughter

    Look how Jewish he looks., He was said to be extremely good at mathematics and music.

    There are several people that speculate that the Jews have a huge amount of Neanderthal in them. This would explain their long term hatred of everyone else (Cro-Mags). There’s a guy whose half-Jewish and he wrote a couple of books about this(Michael Bradley). He says the Caucuses and the middle east have a high amount of Neanderthal and that’s why they’re so violent. He says he talked to one of the researcher assistants about the study that said Europeans, Chinese and all others except Africans have around 5% Neanderthal. He pointed out that if Whites and Chinese had almost none and the middle east had 40% then it could still add up to 5% average. The lead researcher on that study was Jewish. I of course trust nothing the Jews say so he may be right. If you look at people that are really Jewish with a small admixture they do look Neanderthalish. Notice the Jews are really, really against phreneology(study of head shapes).

    Like

    • I remember Zana. She was a black lady. African:
      “Zana’s son and other descendants had the same amount of Neanderthal DNA as expected for modern humans in that region. It was time to put the theory that Zana was a surviving Neanderthal to bed.

      Then the surprising news: the DNA of Zana’s son and other descendants indicated that she was 100% sub-Saharan African! It seemed Zana was just an escaped black slave, and because of the racism of the time period, was described as some kind of wild ape woman.

      However upon further examining her son’s skull and the DNA of her descendants, Sykes began to think that Zana was not a modern African at all, but from a relict population who left Africa 100,000 years ago and hid in the Caucasus Mountains.” https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/05/09/oxford-scientist-analyzed-dna-of-russian-ape-woman/ There are links in the original. (She could also have had a rare condition that made her hairy, as that is a far more common thing than relict populations of any humans.)

      It’d be awesome to find any population with significant archaic DNA, but they’d have very high miscarriage rates when marrying other groups.

      Like

      • pumpkinperson! I used to read his blog. I haven’t in a while. I’ll have to start again.

        I like the Zana story. If you take what the villages say at face value then it’s super interesting. The other conclusions are just from what scientist are willing to believe. That a earlier human relic would have African genes would not be surprising at all. That this suddenly becomes a modern African could be true but not necessarily what really was. They have as their only evidence that Zana had some African genes which does not make her African.

        There’s a lot of really odd stuff that’s dug up and laying around that points towards humanity being WAY older than the common story. Footprints in old volcanic mud millions of years old. Iron pans in coal seams. Stupefying rock building and walls that seem to be made of geopolymers(geopolymers are a mineral analog to plastics with mostly silicon-based polymer backbone as compared to carbon for polymers. Portions of the Great Pyramids are most certainly made of geopolymers). There’s also maps that show Antarctica, and the Americas before Columbus that also appear to be before the Ice Age ended. There’s also the Melonheads or coneheads that scientist say are all bound but mummified babies with Melonheads exist and “supposedly” the volume of the cranial cavity of a lot of the cone heads is very, very high. It seems that “respectable” scientist refuse to look at these. Probably to keep themselves in the “respectable” column of scientist.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s