Posted on 06/11/2003 8:03:26 AM PDT by blam
Oldest human skulls found
By Jonathan Amos
BBC News Online science staff
Three fossilised skulls unearthed in Ethiopia are said by scientists to be among the most important discoveries ever made in the search for the origin of humans.
Herto skull: Dated at between 160,000 and 154,000 years old (Image copyright: David L. Brill)
The crania of two adults and a child, all dated to be around 160,000 years old, were pulled out of sediments near a village called Herto in the Afar region in the east of the country.
They are described as the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.
What excites scientists so much is that the specimens fit neatly with the genetic studies that have suggested this time and part of Africa for the emergence of mankind.
"All the genetics have pointed to a geologically recent origin for humans in Africa - and now we have the fossils," said Professor Tim White, one of the co-leaders on the research team that found the skulls.
"These specimens are critical because they bridge the gap between the earlier more archaic forms in Africa and the fully modern humans that we see 100,000 years ago," the University of California at Berkeley, US, paleoanthropologist told BBC News Online.
Out of Africa
The skulls are not an exact match to those of people living today; they are slightly larger, longer and have more pronounced brow ridges.
These minor but important differences have prompted the US/Ethiopian research team to assign the skulls to a new subspecies of humans called Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means "elder" in the local Afar language).
Herto reconstruction: What the ancient people might have looked like (Image copyright: J. Matternes)
The Herto discoveries were hailed on Wednesday by those researchers who have championed the idea that all humans living today come from a population that emerged from Africa within the last 200,000 years.
The proponents of the so-called Out of Africa hypothesis think this late migration of humans supplanted all other human-like species alive around the world at the time - such as the Neanderthals in Europe.
If modern features already existed in Africa 160,000 years ago, they argued, we could not have descended from species like Neanderthals.
"These skulls are fantastic evidence in support of the Out of Africa idea," Professor Chris Stringer, from London's Natural History Museum, told BBC News Online.
"These people were living in the right place and at the right time to be possibly the ancestors of all of us."
Sophisticated behaviour
The skulls were found in fragments, at a fossil-rich site first identified in 1997, in a dry and dusty valley.
Stone tools and the fossil skull of a butchered hippo were the first artefacts to be picked up. Buffalo fossils were later recovered indicating the ancient humans had a meat-rich diet.
The most complete of the adult skulls was seen protruding from the ancient sediment; it had been exposed by heavy rains and partially trampled by herds of cows.
SEARCH FOR HUMAN ORIGINS
The Herto skulls represent a confirmation of the genetic studies
The skull of the child - probably aged six or seven - had been shattered into more than 200 pieces and had to be painstakingly reconstructed.
All the skulls had cut marks indicating they had been de-fleshed in some kind of mortuary practice. The polishing on the skulls, however, suggests this was not simple cannibalism but more probably some kind of ritualistic behaviour.
This type of practice has been recorded in more modern societies, including some in New Guinea, in which the skulls of ancestors are preserved and worshipped.
The Herto skulls may therefore mark the earliest known example of conceptual thinking - the sophisticated behaviour that stands us apart from all other animals.
"This is very possibly the case," Professor White said.
The Ethiopian discoveries are reported in the journal Nature.
1000s. Why do you ask?
Yes, they were. Us whities got the mark of Cain - straight hair, narrow noses and lips, bleached skin, no rhythm, can't jump...
;^)
1. Simply an ape that has never been discovered before or...
2. Clearly just another human skull, with deformities and damage that makes it appear not human.
As a creationist I pick No. 2, except what "deformities and damage" make this guy "appear not human"? He looks quite human to me. That seems to be the point of the article.
Exactly incorrect. Theories by nature can never be proven; they can only be disproven. Insofar as scientists draw conclusions at all--they are never actually final--it is necessarily based upon something unproven. We test our theories, and they either stand or fall according to the data. The surviving theory that best fits the data is the one we accept as correct.
As far as science has anything to say about the matter, man evolved from apes. The question will be revisited as soon as there's evidence that says otherwise--at which point we'll weigh it against the huge amount of evidence in favor of common descent--but right now none exists.
Perhaps some things should never be known.
You're not alone in that. I get the impression that if the average creationist could simply destroy the fossil record, he'd do it in a heartbeat.
Well ... no doubt Peter was a witness too, even if his written account didn't make it. Josephus, whether his book was altered or not, probably wasn't an eye witness. So we really have only a handful. But for millions of believers, that's sufficient. I'd really love it if one day somebody discovered the writings of Pontius Pilate. Now there's a witness I'd like to hear from! This is way off the evolution track.
Wrong. It is a human skull according to the scientists who found it. It is not intermediate to anything.
The bones "have all the features of modern humans - there's nothing lacking", says Lieberman. For example, the adult cranium has a large, globular braincase and a flat face.
It is said to also have "primitive" features.
There were only six days of creation. Adam was created n the sixth.
Where exactly is it written we have reached or passed 6,000 year mark?
What are you talking about?
It is genetically impossible for all races to come from two people...
Huh? Even evolutionists say all humans came from a single female ancestor, who even they call "Eve." You should think before you start typing.
Come on, everyone knows it's the work of the Devil ;) ....and that the Earth was formed in 4004 BC. (Bishop Ussher, RIP).
Could this be because the fossils no longer exist (Peking Man or Java Man, I forget which) and there is no way to evaluate them, or because specimens, supposedly of the same individuals, were found many yards apart, and may be a mix of human and ape bones?
As others have already noted, evolution just isn't about the life of Christ in particular, or the proving/disproving of anyone's religion in general. But you do have to give science free reign to go out and follow the evidence wherever it goes.
The original batch of Peking Man fossils were lost in WWII, but similar finds are still being made in China. Now considered a subvariety of H. erectus, a very widespread and well-represented species. Any controversy exists mainly in the minds and cult literature of the creationists.
... specimens, supposedly of the same individuals, were found many yards apart, and may be a mix of human and ape bones?
This charge is sometimes applied to Lucy, but you're probably thinking of the times it has been leveled against Java Man, the skullcap of which was indeed found in a mix of bones from different animals including a more modern human femur.
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.