Posted on 02/09/2011 7:22:36 AM PST by decimon
BINGHAMTON, NY – Eight small teeth found in a cave near Rosh Haain, central Israel, are raising big questions about the earliest existence of humans and where we may have originated, says Binghamton University anthropologist Rolf Quam. Part of a team of international researchers led by Dr. Israel Hershovitz of Tel Aviv University, Qaum and his colleagues have been examining the dental discovery and recently published their joint findings in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
Excavated at Qesem cave, a pre-historic site that was uncovered in 2000, the size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man, Homo sapiens, which have been found at other sites is Israel, such as Oafzeh and Skhul - but they're a lot older than any previously discovered remains.
"The Qesem teeth come from a time period between 200,000 - 400,000 years ago when human remains from the Middle East are very scarce," Quam said. "We have numerous remains of Neandertals and Homo sapiens from more recent times, that is around 60,00 - 150,000 years ago, but fossils from earlier time periods are rare. So these teeth are providing us with some new information about who the earlier occupants of this region were as well as their potential evolutionary relationships with the later fossils from this same region."
The teeth also present new evidence as to where modern man might have originated. Currently, anthropologists believe that modern humans and Neandertals shared a common ancestor who lived in Africa over 700,000 years ago. Some of the descendants of this common ancestor migrated to Europe and developed into Neandertals. Another group stayed in Africa and evolved into Homo sapiens, who later migrated out of the continent. If the remains from Qesem can be linked directly to the Homo sapiens species, it could mean that modern man either originated in what is now Israel or may have migrated from Africa far earlier that is presently accepted.
But according to Quam, the verdict is still out as to what species is represented by these eight teeth, which poses somewhat of a challenge for any kind of positive identification.
"While a few of the teeth come from the same individual, most of them are isolated specimens," Quam said. "We know for sure that we're dealing with six individuals of differing ages. Two of the teeth are actually deciduous or 'milk' teeth, which means that these individuals were young children. But the problem is that all the teeth are separate so it's been really hard to determine which species we're dealing with."
According to Quam, rather than rely on individual features, anthropologists use a combination of characteristics to get an accurate reading on species type. For instance, Neandertal teeth have relatively large incisors and very distinctive molars and premolars whereas Homo sapiens teeth are smaller with incisors that are straighter along the 'lip' side of the face. Sometimes the differences are subtle but it's these small changes that make having a number of teeth from the same individual that much more important.
But even though Quam and the team of researchers don't know for sure exactly who the teeth belong to, these dental 'records' are still telling them a lot about the past.
"Teeth are evolutionarily very conservative structures," Quam said. "And so any differences in their features can provide us with all sorts of interesting information about an individual. It can tell us what they ate, what their growth and development patterns looked like as well as what their general health was like during their lifetime. They can also tell us about the evolutionary relationships between species, all of which adds to our knowledge of who we are and where we came from."
Excavation continues at the Qesem site under the direction of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr. Ran Barkai of Tel Aviv University. The archaeological material already recovered includes abundant stone tools and animal remains, all of which are providing researchers with a very informative 'picture' of daily life and hunting practices of the site's former inhabitants.
"This is a very exciting time for archeological discovery," Quam said. "Our hope is that the continuing excavation at the site will result in the discover of more complex remains which would help us pinpoint exactly which species we are dealing with."
Quam continues to be in touch with the on-site archeologists and hopes to collaborate in the project when and if more complete human remains are recovered.
###
For more information on the site and related research projects, visit http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/qesem/index.html
For more Binghamton University research news, visit http://discovere.binghamton.edu/
Just so. Dry places, the right kind of caves, and so forth. Which doesn’t mean that the finds we have aren’t valuable evidence, but that that evidence has statistical limitations that need to be kept in mind.
Actually the creation date of 4004 BC was NOT traditional all through the middle ages. Some estimates had been made close to that date, but it was not until Bishop Ussher did a vast amount of calculating that he came up with his October 23, 4004 BC date around 1670 which was well in the Renaissance. And it was not publicized officially until around 1700. He calculated his figure using the ages quoted in the Bible, such as the statement that Adam fathered a child at 130 years old, and lived around 900 years. A number of other extreme ages which are no longer deemed credible were used. His month, day figure was a guess based on the fruiting times of certain plants. Did he use English maturation data or Middle East data? At any rate, here is a link that goes into great detail on the calculation and related arguments.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html
This could take a bite out of the Out of Africa theory.
Well, actually, the millinarian thinking goes back at least to the year 1000, when many expected the world to end. And I don’t have the exact dates, but the theory of several millenial ages, of 2000 years each, for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, also goes back to the middle ages.
Archbishop Usher made that 4-year adjustment to the numbers, but that was relatively minor.
Yes, there is a better than even chance that creation is going on as you read this. Genesis does not say that God stopped creating, only that he rested on the 7th day.
The out of Africa theory is a piece of over hydrated concrete. It was postulated to support a lot of extinct monkeys in Northeast Africa.
There is no Biblical authority for the date of Jesus' birth. I submit that his birth is relatively unimportant, as all me are born. What is important isn't even that he died on the cross either (stay with me!), as all men die.
What he did is come back of his own accord, THAT is unique. THAT is THE defining moment of Christianity. Even his Disciples doubted until they knew he had risen.
And it is also an event that the Bible precisely dates!
There's where our calendar should start, with the day of resurrection, not with something so common as a birth, but with a singular rebirth.
Extra bonus points:
That means this isn't the 2011th Year of Redemption.
And that means we haven't yet reached the True Millennium yet, either...
That was an incisive comment.
Well, actually, the question of when Jesus was born is based on various passages in the synoptic gospels, such as Luke 2:
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And so forth. Piece that together with similar passages in the other gospels, including those about the conception of John the Baptist (the gospels tell us that Mary visited Elizabeth while the two of them were pregnant).
The results can, and have been argued. The usual estimate is that the Anno Domini system was off by four years, but some argue it was off by up to seven years.
But we can pin it down to a time when Augustus was Emperor, Herod was King of Judaea, and so forth. Then there are early extra-biblical sources as well, such as Joseph of Arimathea. Altogether, the date can be pinned down to within a few years, at least.
Yes. that more-or-less pins down the year, but we know to a certainty it wasn’t Dec 25.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.