Scientists CLASH Over Mysterious Fossilized Human Bones

In a controversial new interview with New Scientist magazine, archaeologist Lee Berger stated that he believes that the Middle Stone Age tool industry of southern and eastern Africa, as far north as Kenya, which is attributed to early Homo sapiens, could have been made by Homo naledi. In a counter-argument to criticism about Homo naledi, he said that archaeologists cannot assume that early modern humans were making those tools In another article, Berger, whose team discovered the 300,000-year-old Homo naledi near the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site outside Johannesburg, said he is unconvinced that early modern humans lived all over Africa 300,000 years ago. They've taken two data points and not drawn a line between them but a giant map of Africa, he said, a direct refutation of the African multi-regional model. Furthermore, Berger and John Hawkes wrote a paper in which they suggest that the South African Florisbad skull, dated to 260,000 years old and attributed to early Homo sapiens, is in fact much younger and does not overlap with Homo naledi. In their paper, Hawkes and Berger wrote that the current data do not demonstrate the presence of Homo sapiens in southern Africa 260,000 years ago. So Hawkes and Berger are questioning whether Homo sapiens even lived in Africa 300,000 years ago, blowing a huge hole in the out-of-Africa theory. What if we got that narrative wrong? What if Homo naledi is doing all that? Now, probably a lot of archaeologists, the moment I say something like that, will go pews and grab their heart and say, but we know modern humans did that. And my colleagues and I say, well, show us the evidence. In response, several paleoanthropologists, led by Chris Stringer of the British Natural History Museum, have accused Dr. Berger of exaggerating the intellectual prowess of Homo naledi, pushing a notion that is so unsubstantiated that it has met with rejection by the scientific community and playing fast and loose with the truth. These scientists trying to discredit Berger are backed by the British Natural History Museum, a staunch supporter of the out-of-Africa theory, and they published a paper titled, No Scientific Evidence That Homo naledi Buried Their Dead and Produced Rock Art. This disagreement has started a war in the scientific community. The possibility of Homo naledi overlapping with early Homo sapiens, such as those represented by Florisbad and Omo II, raises significant questions about hominin coexistence and ecological adaptations. This overlap in habitat and time period would challenge established views on ecological rules and the exclusive niches that different hominin species occupied. As to how Homo naledi held on to its primitive, ape-like characteristics while living next to big-brained human species, paleoanthropologist John Hawke stated that, it's hard to say it was geographic isolation because there's no boundary, no barrier. It's the same landscape from here to Tanzania. We're in one continuous savannah, woodland-type habitat. It doesn't look like they're in a different ecological niche. That's weird. It's a problem. This is not a situation where we can point to them and say they coexisted because they're using resources differently. With a small skull and brain, hunched shoulders, powerful hands and thin limbs, Homo naledi was built for long-distance walking. Fully grown, it stood about five feet tall, was broad-chested, walked upright, and had a human-like face, including a smile that was probably more human than ape-like. Powerful hands imply it was also a climber who may have spent time in trees. The skeletal remains of the naledi hominin reveal a form both ape-like and human, a paradox that challenges the understanding of human evolution. Its hands are curved, with fingers long and grasping, much like those of the orangutan or the baboon, suggesting a life spent clambering amongst the trees, as do the savage apes of Africa. Its shoulders and pelvis, too, bear the marks of an arboreal habit, with a structure suited for climbing rather than the upright gait of civilized man. Yet its lower limbs and feet show a conformation more human, with a heel and arch adapted for walking erect, though its stride must have been clumsy, lacking the elegance of our own kind. This creature, then, appears as a being between two worlds, neither fully ape nor fully man, a relic of some ancient race that lingered in the dark corners of the earth. In addition, Homo naledi had limb proportions just like ours, and there is no apparent reason why it could not have used stone tools. So you have this very primitive form of Homo naledi that has survived alongside these other human species for a million years or more. It is amazing the diversity that we are now seeing that we had missed before. Homo naledi, with a smaller brain size ranging from 465 to 610 cubic centimetres, a volume far inferior to that of the European, and a mix of primitive and modern traits, lived approximately between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago, based on current findings from the rising star-cave system. This places Homo naledi and the early Homo sapiens from Florisbad in overlapping time frames, igniting controversy. The Florisbad skull is a partial human cranium, estimated to be around 260,000 years old. This specimen is often considered an early representative of Homo sapiens or a transitional form between archaic species and modern humans. It exhibits a mix of archaic and modern features, such as a pronounced brow ridge paired with a cranial capacity that suggests an evolving brain structure similar to modern humans, the Florisbad skull is a significant hominin fossil that has been challenging to accurately date. In 1996, Rayner Grunn and colleagues applied electron spin resonance dating to a tooth associated with the skull, estimating its age at approximately 259,000 years. However, as mentioned, this dating has been subject to scrutiny. In 2020 John Hawkes and Lee Berger challenged the site's context and the dating methods used. They highlighted issues such as sediment mixing due to methane eruptions from the spring vents and the high uranium content in the peat layer where the skull was found, both of which could affect the accuracy of dating. Consequently, Hawkes and Berger suggested that the true age of the Florisbad hominin remains uncertain, emphasizing the need for cautious interpretation of its place in human evolutionary history. According to the competitive exclusion principle, two species that compete for the exact resources cannot stably coexist. The principle implies that for different hominin species to occupy the same habitat, there must be distinct ecological niches or adaptive strategies that allow them to avoid direct competition. If Homo naledi and early Homo sapiens coexisted in the same region, it would pose questions about how they managed to share the environment without one out-competing and causing the extinction of the other. One way to explain the coexistence would be through niche differentiation, where each species exploited different resources or occupied unique ecological roles. For instance, Homo naledi might have relied on different food sources such as more reliance on plant-based diets or scavenging compared to early Homo sapiens, who might have hunted larger game and used more advanced tools. Homo naledi could have had social or behavioral traits that allowed it to thrive in areas or conditions that early Homo sapiens found less favorable. What's more, at the Olorgesali archaeological site in southern Kenya, researchers unearthed a significant hominin fossil, a partial skull cap or frontal bone estimated to be between 900,000 and 970,000 years old. This discovery marked the first human fossil found at Olorgesali. The fossil was located in the same stratigraphic layer as numerous Acheulean hand axes and flakes, suggesting it belonged to Homo erectus, a species known for its association with such tools. The site of Olorgesali is renowned for its extensive collection of Acheulean hand axes, with some sites containing thousands of these tools, indicating the area's importance in studying early human technology and adaptation. The skull cap has been attributed to Homo erectus based on its morphology and the contemporaneous Acheulean tools found in the same layer. The frontal bone exhibits characteristics typical of Homo erectus, including robust brow ridges and a pronounced supraorbital torus. Some have sought evidence of tools among the Naledi remains, but none have been found, a fact that seems to confirm its lowly position, for the use of implements is a mark of man's dominion over nature, a gift not bestowed upon this creature. However, John Hawke stated in a recent presentation that this site, along with others in southern Africa, could be attributed to Homo naledi due to the striking similarity between the partial skull cap and Homo naledi fossils, presents a groundbreaking hypothesis with significant implications for African paleontology. Homo naledi has already challenged previous notions about the timeline of tool use and cognitive development due to the relatively late date of its fossils, combined with its primitive cranial features. If Homo naledi were found to have been present at Olorgesali nearly a million years ago, it would push back the timeline of when this species was believed to have existed and interacted with its environment. One of the most significant implications of identifying Olorgesali as a Homo naledi site would be a major revision of known hominin dispersal patterns. Homo naledi has so far been considered a South African hominin with limited geographical range. If evidence linked this species to a site in Kenya, it would suggest a much broader range than previously thought. This expanded range would imply Homo naledi would have demonstrated the ability to adapt to a variety of ecological niches, from the cave environments of South Africa to the open landscapes of East Africa. The presence of Homo naledi in East Africa would open up the possibility of interactions between this species and other hominins, such as Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens. The early Pleistocene was a time of remarkable hominin diversity, with multiple species existing concurrently. The presence of several hominin species in overlapping time frames challenges the linear progression model of human evolution, suggesting a more intricate web of evolutionary paths with potential cross-influences. The conventional evolutionary narrative places Homo erectus as the dominant toolmaker and one of the key progenitors of later hominins, including Homo sapiens. If Homo naledi were present at Olorgesali, it would suggest that multiple human species were experimenting with tool use and exhibiting complex behaviours at different scales of cognitive capability. According to Hawkes, paleontologists would need to re-examine existing fossil records and artefacts with a fresh perspective, considering that what was once attributed solely to Homo erectus might instead be evidence of multiple hominin groups sharing and modifying similar technologies. This reinterpretation would also encourage a more critical look at morphological features and the criteria used to classify fossils within certain species. The use of Acheulean tools by Homo naledi would suggest that smaller-brained hominins were capable of more sophisticated behaviour than previously assumed, redefining the link between brain size and toolmaking abilities. The expansion of Homo naledi into East Africa would imply that this species had a set of unique adaptive strategies that allowed it to survive in diverse environments. If further research reveals that the skull cap shares significant similarities with Homo naledi, this would suggest that Homo naledi inhabited a time and space far beyond its currently known range and time. The site of Olorgesali in southern Kenya is not far from Lake Turkana, which is the outlet for the Omo River in Ethiopia, where the 230,000-year-old Omo, too-early Homo sapiens skull, was discovered. If Homo naledi and early Homo sapiens were found to coexist, it would challenge the simplistic view that Homo sapiens always rapidly out-competed and replaced other hominin species due to superior cognitive abilities. It would suggest that the early Pleistocene and Middle Stone Age environments of Africa were dynamic and capable of supporting multiple hominin species simultaneously. The potential overlap also raises questions about interactions between the two species. Were there periods of direct competition for resources? Did these interactions lead to the eventual decline of Homo naledi? Or was there peaceful coexistence? Could there have been any transfer of tool-making techniques or cultural practices between the two species, similar to what is proposed for interactions between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens? For both Homo naledi and early Homo sapiens to exist in overlapping habitats, they must have had significant ecological plasticity, an ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions and resource availabilities. This would imply that Homo naledi had more advanced behavioral adaptations than previously thought, capable of surviving alongside a species with greater technological sophistication. Early Homo sapiens might not have been as dominant in all ecological settings, allowing for the persistence of small-brained hominins. The potential coexistence of Homo naledi and early Homo sapiens suggests several implications. The adaptations that allowed Homo naledi to persist despite its tiny brain size and archaic morphology would need to be re-examined. Such a small brain suggests a creature of small intellect, incapable of the higher faculties of reason or language, though it must have possessed some base instinct sufficient for its survival in the wilds. The overlap indicates that survival was not solely determined by brain size or technological prowess. The ecological success of Homo naledi points to a broader range of factors, such as efficient environmental use, cooperative behaviors, or specialized foraging techniques. The coexistence could also provide insight into the evolutionary pressures that shaped both species. The persistence of Homo naledi alongside early Homo sapiens might indicate that The environment may have been resource-rich enough to support distinct feeding and foraging behaviors, reducing direct competition. Both species may have faced common threats from predators or climatic shifts, influencing their adaptive paths and survival strategies. Of its habits in life, we may speculate from the environs of its discovery. The southern lands of Africa, where the Naledi hominin dwelt, are a region of grassy plains and wooded groves, where beasts such as the antelope, the zebra, and the lion do abound. The Naledi hominin, with its climbing limbs and small stature, may have sought sustenance in the trees, gathering fruits and nuts, or perchance preying upon small creatures such as birds or rodents, which it could seize with its grasping hands. In considering the origins of the Naledi savage, we may look to the theories of natural history prevalent in our age. Some might propose that it is a degenerate form of humanity, a race of savages reduced by the harshness of their climb to a state of brutishness. The overlap between Homo naledi and early Homo sapiens in Africa would represent a significant deviation from the expected ecological norms of hominin evolution, where one species outcompetes another. It would highlight the complex, multifaceted nature of early human survival strategies and adaptation. The presence of multiple hominin species in a single region underscores the complexity of human evolution, suggesting it was not a straightforward progression from archaic forms to modern humans, but rather a web of interactions and adaptations. Or, if Hawkes and Berger are correct, then modern humans did not originate in eastern or southern Africa at all. In considering the origins of the Naledi hominin, some might propose that it is a degenerate form of humanity, a race of savages reduced by the harshness of their climb to a state of brutishness. Others might see in it a survivor of the ancient world, a creature spared the wrath of the humanity by its remote habitation, and thus preserved as a living testament to the diversity of evolution. Yet some are inclined to view it as a missing link, a creature intermediate between the ape and man, which illustrates the gradual ascent of life from the meanest forms to the divine image of humanity. Its small brain, its ape-like limbs, and its savage nature mark it as a being of the most ancient sort, a vestige of that primeval age, when man was yet emerging from the darkness of his bestial origins. Thank you for watching, and please let us know your thoughts in the comments. ...that there were only large-brained hominids in Africa in the last 500,000, 600,000 or so years. Suddenly we have found a small-brained hominid that's primitive, that's not a human, not anything like one of those large-brained hominids, and it's sitting right there in the middle of southern Africa. Around it is a plethora of archaeology that we call the early Middle Stone Age, that almost every archaeologist, from those working at Pinnacle Point to Wunderwerk Cave to the coast of South Africa, other coastal sites in South Africa, say that industry is the origins of what will be the complex next stage of the origins of modern human that's going to lead into this explosion that's happening after 200,000 years in symbolic behavior, in complexity, the invention of what I've often called the infinite toolkit. What if we got that narrative wrong? What if Homo Naledi's doing all that? Now, probably a lot of archaeologists, the moment I say something like that, will go puce and grab their heart and say, but we know modern humans did that. And my colleagues and I say, well, show us the evidence. For example, these hafted points from Katupan in South Africa are among the earliest known in the African continent, before 400,000 years old. Who made them? Was it Homo Naledi? We don't know. And this creates a problem for us. How do we tell when there are possibly two cultural hominids in the same continent? Who made what? We don't know. These pigment blocks from Olorgesailie, again, Allison's work, are among the earliest uses of pigment anywhere in the continent. And what Olorgesailie is also known for is a much earlier deposit, more than 800,000 years old, including lots and lots of hand axes, including this extraordinary pavement of hand axes that the walkway is built around there. Those hand axes are coeval with a hominin specimen from Olorgesailie that, when Rick Potts described it, said, well, this looks like a frontal bone that might be a very small Homo erectus. In today's context, this looks like a ringer for later 250,000-year-old Homo Naledi. When we look at small-brained hominins in Africa, they're associated with, in temporal terms, lots of different technical abilities. The question is, how can we pin down who made these things, and who's responsible for them, and whether they interacted with each other? This is a serious question.