• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Homo erectus

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
58,109
Location
Eblana
Finding showing human ancestor older than previously thought offers new insights into evolution
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-hum ... ought.html
June 29th, 2011 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils


Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus—a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution—new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The work was co-directed by NYU anthropologist Susan Antón. Pictured are skulls of Homo erectus uncovered in the 1930s in Indonesia. © Kenneth Garrett Photography (KennethGarrett.com)


(PhysOrg.com) -- Modern humans never co-existed with Homo erectus -- a finding counter to previous hypotheses of human evolution—new excavations in Indonesia and dating analyses show. The research, reported in the journal PLoS One, offers new insights into the nature of human evolution, suggesting a different role for Homo erectus than had been previously thought.

The work was conducted by the Solo River Terrace (SoRT) Project, an international group of scientists directed by anthropologists Etty Indriati of Gadjah Mada University in Indonesia and Susan Antón of New York University.

Homo erectus is widely considered a direct human ancestor—it resembles modern humans in many respects, except for its smaller brain and differently shaped skull—and was the first of our ancestors to migrate out of Africa, approximately 1.8 million years ago. Homo erectus went extinct in Africa and much of Asia by about 500,000 years ago, but appeared to have survived in Indonesia until about 35,000 to 50,000 years ago at the site of Ngandong on the Solo River. These late members of Homo erectus would have shared the environment with early members of our own species, Homo sapiens, who arrived in Indonesia by about 40,000 years ago.

The existence of the two species simultaneously has important implications for models about the origins of modern humans. One of the models, the Out of Africa or replacement model, predicts such overlap. However, another, the multiregional model, which posits that modern humans originated as a result of genetic contributions from hominin populations all around the Old World (Africa, Asia, Europe), does not. The late survival of Homo erectus in Indonesia has been used as one line of support for the Out of Africa model.

However, findings by the SoRT Project show that Homo erectus' time in the region ended before modern humans arrived there. The analyses suggest that Homo erectus was gone by at least 143,000 years ago—and likely by more than 550,000 years ago. This means the demise of Homo erectus occurred long before the arrival of Homo sapiens.

"Thus, Homo erectus probably did not share habitats with modern humans," said Indriati.

The SoRT Project's investigations occurred in Ngandong and Jigar, two sites in the "20-meter terrace" of the Solo River, Indonesia. The sediments in the terrace were formed by the flooding of the ancient river, but currently sit above the Solo River because the river has cut downward through time. The terrace has been a rich source for the discovery of Homo erectus and other animal fossils since the 1930s.

As recently as 1996, a research team dated these sites of hominin, or early human, fossils to as young as 35,000-50,000 years old. The analyses used a technique that dates teeth, and thus provided ages for several animals discovered at the sites. However, other scholars suggested the sites included a mixture of older hominins and younger animals, raising questions about the true age of the hominin remains.

The goal of the SoRT team, which included both members of the 1996 group and its critics, was to understand how the sites in the terrace formed, whether there was evidence for mixing of older and younger remains, and just how old the sites were.

Since 2004, team members have conducted analyses of animal remains, geological surveys, trenching, and archaeological excavations. The results from all of these provide no evidence for the mixing of older and younger remains. All the evidence suggests the sites represent just a short time period.

"The postmortem damage to the animal remains is consistent and suggests very little movement of the remains by water," explained Briana Pobiner, the project's archaeologist and a paleoanthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. "This means that it is unlikely that very old remains were mixed into younger ones."

In addition, clues from the sediments exposed during excavation suggest to the projects' geoarchaeologists, Rhonda Quinn, Chris Lepre, and Craig Feibel, of Seton Hall, Columbia, and Rutgers universities, that the deposits occurred over a short time period. The teeth found in different excavation layers at Jigar are also all nearly identical in age, supporting the conclusion that mixing across geological periods did not occur.

"Whatever the geological age of the sites is, the hominins, animals, and sediments at Ngandong and Jigar are all the same age," said project co-leader Susan Antón.

The team applied two different dating techniques to the sites. Like earlier work, they used the techniques—U-series and Electron Spin Resonance, or ESR—that are applied to fossilized teeth. They also used a technique called argon-argon dating that is applied to volcanic minerals in the sediments. All three methods use radioactive decay in different ways to assess age and all yielded robust and methodologically valid results, but the ages were inconsistent with one another.

The argon-argon results yielded highly precise ages of about 550,000 years old on pumices—very light, porous volcanic products found at Ngandong and Jigar.

"Pumices are hard to rework without breaking them, and these ages are quite good, so this suggests that the hominins and fauna are this old as well," said project geochronologist Carl Swisher of Rutgers University.

By contrast, the oldest of the U-series and ESR ages, which were conducted at Australian National University by Rainer Grün, are just 143,000 years.

The difference in the ages means that one of the systems is providing an age for something other than the formation of the sites and fossils in them. One possibility is that the pumices are, in fact, reworked, or mixed in, from older rocks. The other possibility is that the ESR and U-series ages are dating an event that occurred after the sites were formed, perhaps a change in the way groundwater moved through the sites.

Either way, the ages provide a maximum and a minimum for the sites – and both of these ages are older than the earliest Homo sapiens fossils in Indonesia. Thus, the authors concluded that the idea of a population of Homo erectus surviving until late in time in Indonesia and potentially interacting with Homo sapiens seems to have been disproven.

Provided by New York University
 
:confused:

This is sort of a "walk-through" type of thing, to see if I've got all this straight.

(Which I probably don't, because my research is based entirely on watching documentaries that mostly seem to contradict each other, and examining the little plastic models of hominids available in museum gift shops, etc.)

Okay, so...

1. A very very long time ago, a vaguely-defined group of creatures that more or less fell into the category called Homo erectus started to wander out of Africa. Not in any organized manner, just sort of gradually wandering around.

then...

2. After a very long time of wandering, these Homo erectus creatures developed into various localized varieties all over Eurasia. These different varieties are known collectively as Archaic Humans. Archaic humans include things like the Neanderthal types and Denisovans and probably more than that, with estimates ranging from "a few" to "quite a few". But anyway, Archaic Humans, all over the Old World.

then...

3. A very long time after that, some Homo sapiens sapiens (or "Modern Humans") wandered out of Africa, eventually encountering scattered batches of various Archaic Humans in different locations, and then creating various hybrids of Modern Humans and Archaic Humans.

Is that more or less right?
 
I think so.
Difficult to tell though, as new discoveries are being made all the time.
 
Useful chart here (but Floresiensis and Denisovans are missing):
ba178ec5b3dca4f4afde4baa0446dcf7.jpg
 
They are from the "Carnegie Collection"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_collection

and they might be getting slightly rare these days. (Carnegie's Elasmosaurus would be good as a Nessie, if anyone was building a railroad diorama or whatever, or maybe an "alternate history" scene or something.)

The Australopithecus was part of a family group:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/198139464/vintage-toy-plastic-figurine-safari-ltd

Some science stores and museum gift shops should still have some. They were very popular at one time, there should still be some in places like that.

You can still find dinosaurs by Marx* in some places, and those were originally made in 1955.

_______________________________________________________________

* Marx Toys. (Not Karl, or Groucho.)
 
Phwoar, thats my cup of tea every day of the week. She aught to get into modeling, minus the jurassic bling though. She certainly knows her onions and I like looking at them too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are these really the best comments we can manage in a thread called 'Homo Erectus' after a picture of a beautiful young woman has been posted?

Actually, it's probably for the best
 
icon_surprised__.gif


Hey, hey.

I'm sure that she's a very nice girl.
And obviously scientifically-inclined.
Endowed with intrepid curiosity.

So, quit staring at her Triceratops!
 
She certainly needs to join the forum. I for one have some interesting tales about dinosaurs that includes a Dimetrodon, my review of Jurrasic Park and other non-related stuff too. ;)
 
:confused:

This is sort of a "walk-through" type of thing, to see if I've got all this straight.

(Which I probably don't, because my research is based entirely on watching documentaries that mostly seem to contradict each other, and examining the little plastic models of hominids available in museum gift shops, etc.)

Okay, so...

1. A very very long time ago, a vaguely-defined group of creatures that more or less fell into the category called Homo erectus started to wander out of Africa. Not in any organized manner, just sort of gradually wandering around.

then...

2. After a very long time of wandering, these Homo erectus creatures developed into various localized varieties all over Eurasia. These different varieties are known collectively as Archaic Humans. Archaic humans include things like the Neanderthal types and Denisovans and probably more than that, with estimates ranging from "a few" to "quite a few". But anyway, Archaic Humans, all over the Old World.

then...

3. A very long time after that, some Homo sapiens sapiens (or "Modern Humans") wandered out of Africa, eventually encountering scattered batches of various Archaic Humans in different locations, and then creating various hybrids of Modern Humans and Archaic Humans.

Is that more or less right?


Then dreeness, there is a theory held by some of multi regional origins for humanity - which to me makes more sense - it would further explain the preponderance of national blood group types, rather than one homogenous blood grouping for all.


In nature, we have specific requirements to live in specific eco niches e.g. birds, arboreal, water, and burrowing. we have large quadruped, medium sized quadrupeds and small quadrupeds. We have amphibians and reptiles &c. &c..

In a continent that has been isolated, where there is no, let's say badgers, we get an alternative animal that fills that niche - in Australia we have the wombat. Australia, until recently had no canines or wolves , so the Tasmanian tiger, (Thylacinus cynocephalus) filled that gap. There is a phrase for this, but it eludes my mind at the moment - my apologies.


I reckon that it makes sense for me to keep an open mind on humanity and it's origins.
 
Then dreeness, there is a theory held by some of multi regional origins for humanity - which to me makes more sense - it would further explain the preponderance of national blood group types, rather than one homogenous blood grouping for all.


In nature, we have specific requirements to live in specific eco niches e.g. birds, arboreal, water, and burrowing. we have large quadruped, medium sized quadrupeds and small quadrupeds. We have amphibians and reptiles &c. &c..

In a continent that has been isolated, where there is no, let's say badgers, we get an alternative animal that fills that niche - in Australia we have the wombat. Australia, until recently had no canines or wolves , so the Tasmanian tiger, (Thylacinus cynocephalus) filled that gap. There is a phrase for this, but it eludes my mind at the moment - my apologies.


I reckon that it makes sense for me to keep an open mind on humanity and it's origins.

Yeah, Multiregional Hypothesis gives more credit to Homo erectus, it makes more sense that they could just spread all across the Old World, developing local varieties (Archaic Humans) as they went, and then eventually everything got "anatomically modern human" everywhere. Probably there were lots more Archaic Human varieties than they even suspect, what with genetic drift and things like that.
 
She certainly needs to join the forum. I for one have some interesting tales about dinosaurs that includes a Dimetrodon, my review of Jurrasic Park and other non-related stuff too. ;)




...And here are the Marx Toys dinosaurs:

http://www.dinosaur-toys-collectors-guide.com/Marx-Toys.html

Even though they were originally made in the 1950s, they could still be found in shops well into the 1980s. The design and detail is outstanding.
 
New Species of Human Relative Discovered in South African Cave

The discovery of a new species of human relative was announced today (Sept. 10) by the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits University), the National Geographic Society and the South African Department of Science and Technology/National Research Foundation (DST/NRF). Besides shedding light on the origins and diversity of our genus, the new species, Homo naledi, appears to have intentionally deposited bodies of its dead in a remote cave chamber, a behaviour previously thought limited to humans.

The finds are described in two papers published in the scientific journal eLife and reported in the cover story of theOctober issue of National Geographic magazine and a NOVA/National Geographic Special. An international team of scientists took part in the research.

http://www.deepstuff.org/new-species-of-human-relative-discovered-in-south-african-cave/
 
Back
Top