So Google Bard got a major update today, and say what you want about AI, it’s not coming, it is here, and we might as well use it!
So I set it up to act as if it was a paleoanthropologist and asked it a few questions. Here is how it went:
I asked it who was the first creator of art-
Homo Erectus – The Cradle of Artistic Expression?
For decades, the realm of art and symbolism was considered the exclusive domain of Homo sapiens. However, recent discoveries have cast doubt on this long-held belief. Evidence suggests that our ancestors, Homo erectus, may have possessed a capacity for artistic expression previously thought unimaginable.
Here’s why Homo erectus could be responsible for the creation of art:
1. The Trinil Shell Engraving: In 2014, researchers discovered a half-million-year-old mussel shell bearing a complex zigzag pattern. This engraving, found on the Indonesian island of Java, predates by hundreds of thousands of years any previously known examples of art. While the exact purpose of the engraving remains unknown, its deliberate nature and geometric complexity suggest a symbolic or artistic intent.
2. Cognitive Abilities: Recent studies have revealed that Homo erectus possessed cognitive abilities far more sophisticated than previously assumed. They were capable of complex toolmaking, controlled fire, and used advanced hunting strategies. This suggests they possessed the cognitive capacity for abstract thinking and symbolic representation, essential prerequisites for artistic expression.
3. Ochre Use: Evidence suggests that Homo erectus used ochre, a naturally occurring pigment, at least 400,000 years ago. While the exact purpose of ochre use remains unclear, its potential applications include body decoration, marking tools, or even creating rudimentary art.
4. Engraved Bones: Although rare, a few engraved bones have been found associated with Homo erectus sites. While these markings are less complex than the Trinil shell engraving, their deliberate nature suggests an intention to communicate or represent something beyond the purely practical.
5. Cultural Practices: We know that Homo erectus engaged in complex cultural practices, including burial rituals and the use of symbolic objects. This suggests that they possessed a capacity for abstract thought and symbolic representation, which are fundamental to art creation.
6. Shared Ancestry: We share a common ancestor with Homo erectus, suggesting that the potential for artistic expression existed long before the emergence of Homo sapiens. This evolutionary continuity makes it plausible that Homo erectus may have engaged in rudimentary forms of artistic expression.
7. Expanding Definition of Art: Expanding our definition of art to encompass non-figurative and symbolic expressions may lead to the recognition of artistic endeavors in other hominin species. This shift in perspective opens up new possibilities for understanding the origins of human creativity.
While the debate surrounding Homo erectus and art remains ongoing, the evidence presented here suggests that they possessed the cognitive capabilities and cultural practices necessary for artistic expression. As we continue to uncover more evidence, the true extent of Homo erectus’ artistic potential will become increasingly clear.
In conclusion, while conclusive evidence remains elusive, the emerging data paints a compelling picture of Homo erectus as a species capable of artistic expression. Recognizing their potential in this realm challenges our understanding of human evolution and forces us to reconsider the origins of creativity.
November 28th, 1924, exactly 99 years ago from today, a very significant hominin skull was unearthed near Taung, South Africa. On this day, a team of quarry workers uncovered the first described member of what would later be a very well represented hominin genus. This genus would be the genus Australopithecus, and the skull would be named the Taung Child, a juvenile member of the species Australopithecus africanus.
The Discovery
The Taung Child was found November 28th, 1924, in the Buxton-Lime Works quarry outside of Taung, South Africa. The physical location itself was a dissolution cavity, similar to a cave or sinkhole. The skull was surrounded by a carbonate-rich pedogenic sediment called a calcrete and breccia, a natural cement formed by water.
The skull was presented to anatomist Raymond Dart, who cleaned off the skull and researched it. The information of the skull would be published in 1925, and 3 photographs would be taken of Dart and the skull.
Raymond Dart with the Taung Child
The Taung Child’s Significance
The Taung Child is the first member of the genus Australopithecus, the genus of bipedal ape that would give rise to the genus Homo of which all humans belong to. The name translates to ‘southern ape’ due to the location where the Taung child was found.
The species of the Taung Child is Australopithecus africanus. This species was closely related to the genus Homo, and lived from 3.2-2 million years ago.
What we Can Learn from the Taung Child
The skull was clearly that of a juvenile ape, but some features stood out as unique. The brain was much larger than that of other primates, like baboons and chimpanzees. The organization of the brain also suggested that the brain stem came down beneath the head, indicative of bipedal walking. Dart described the features of the skull as humanoid, and on the human lineage, supporting Darwin’s suggestions that humans arose in Africa.
The skull would be given the species name Australopithecus africanus, meaning southern ape of Africa, making it the first member of what would eventually be one of the most well known and well studied genera of extinct primate. The specimen itself would be identified as 3 years old, and given the name the Taung Child.
The child’s age was deduced by the presence of deciduous teeth, with its permanent molars growing in. On one of these permanent molars was the presence of linear enamel hypoplasia, an enamel defect associated with periods of malnutrition, illness or trauma. This suggests that the child underwent a period of stress or sickness around 2.5 years of age, although this is likely not what killed it.
One of the most significant aspects of the Taung Child is its endocast of its brain, a fossil imprint of the brain. The specimen’s endocast is very well preserved, and possesses many details. From this, it can be deduced that the Taung Child walked on its two legs due to the positioning of certain parts of the brain. Due to the young age of the Taung Child, the presence of an endocast is very important, as we can learn lots about the brain development of australopiths.
The Taung Child did not possess signs of postnatal brain development, such as a persistent metopic suture or an open anterior fontanelle. This suggests that Australopithecus had brain development more alike that of other apes rather than humans.
In modern humans, our brains grow to up to 70% their full size within a year after birth. In other apes however, this time is much longer. With the Taung child, we now know that this occurred later in the genus Homo, and australopiths had much slower brain development.
The rate of brain development from the Taung Child matches with adult members of the species, such as STS 71.
STS 71 Australopithecus africanus Skull
The Taung Child’s Death
One of the most interesting aspects of the Taung Child is the way it died. The Taung Child seems to have been killed by a predatory crowned eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus).
Crowned Eagle from Africa
Talon marks are present in the orbits of the Taung Child’s skull, identical to the marks in the eye sockets of modern monkeys that have been hunted by the same species. Scratch marks are also present on the rest of the skull, including the frontal, temporal, parietal, and occipital bones.
It seems that the Taung Child was carried off by a predatory eagle, and was eaten in its nest, where the skull would fall to the ground and preserve, to be later uncovered 99 years ago today.
Taung Child with Eagle Talon Marks in its Orbits
Conclusion
The Taung Child is one of the most important discoveries in the history of paleoanthropology. It was the first described member of the genus Australopithecus, a very fascinating and significant genus in our lineage. The amount of research done on this genus and everything we know about it all started with this skull from South Africa.
From this small skull, we are able to learn so much about the development of our ancestors’ brains, a difficult thing to learn about from fossils, and how our ancestors lived in their environments, and the dangers they faced. All this crucial information became accessible this day, 99 years ago.
Hopley, J. P., Herries, R. I. A., Baker, E. S., Kuhn, F. B., Mentor, C. G. (2013). Brief Communication: Beyond the South African cave paradigm—Australopithecus africanus from Plio–Pleistocene paleosol deposits at Taung. American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 151(2), 316-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22272
Lacruz, S. L., Rozzi, R. F., Bromage, C. T. (2005). Dental enamel hypoplasia, age at death, and weaning in the Taung child : research letter. South African Journal of Science, 101, 11, https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC96314
Holloway, L. R., Broadfield, C. D., Carlson, K. J. (2014). New high-resolution computed tomography data of the Taung partial cranium and endocast and their bearing on metopism and hominin brain evolution. PNAS, 111(36), 13022-13027. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402905111
van Dyck, I. L., Morrow, M. E. (2017). Genetic control of postnatal human brain growth. Current Opinion in Neurology. 30(1), 114-124. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000405
McNulty, P. K., Frost, R. S., Strait, S. D. (2006). Examining affinities of the Taung child by developmental simulation. 51(3), 274-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.04.005
Berger, R. L. (2006). Brief communication: Predatory bird damage to the Taung type-skull of Australopithecus africanus Dart 1925. American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 131(2), 166-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20415
November 24th, 1974, exactly 49 years ago today, the world of paleoanthropology was changed forever. On this day, Donald Joahanson and his team discovered perhaps the most famous specimen of our evolutionary lineage, Lucy.
Lucy’s fame comes from the fact that she was the first of her species (Australopithecus afarensis), not because she’s the best specimen of this species, but for her time, she was very important, and would give us the first glimpse of the lives and biology of our ancestors.
Lucy’s Discovery
Lucy was discovered in 1974 in Hadar Ethiopia, by a team of paleoanthropologists made up of Donald Johanson, Tom Gray, Maurice Taieb, Alemayehu Asfaw, along with others. Johanson, who was 31 at the time, had recently gained his Ph.D and was a professor in Cleveland, Ohio. He had been to Ethiopia twice before, and even discovered a hominin knee joint on his second trip, the first hominin remains ever uncovered in the region. This discovery gave him hope for new discoveries this time.
Just as he hoped, he had more luck in 1974, when he discovered a partial skeleton of an australopith. He first spotted the proximal region of the ulna bone in the forearm. After some work, the team eventually uncovered many other fossils, including cranial fragments, a mandible, some ribs, vertebrae, both arms, parts of her pelvis (including her sacrum and innominate bone), and parts of her legs and feet. All the remains would make up about 40% of the full skeleton.
Lucy’s Skeleton
The specimen would be given the nickname of ‘Lucy’, named after the at the time popular Beatles song, “Lucy and the Sky of Diamonds”. She would be given the Ethiopian name Dinknesh, which is Amharic for “you are marvelous”. The fossils would be dated to about 3.2 million years old, and would be given the new species name, Australopithecus afarensis, meaning southern ape of Afar, named after the Afar region of Ethiopia she was discovered in.
Lucy’s Significance
Though Lucy wasn’t the first of the genus Australopithecus discovered, that honor goes to the Taung Child which was discovered 40 years earlier in 1924 by Raymond Dart, belonging to the species Australopithecus africanus, she was the first of the species Australopithecus afarensis to be discovered.
Since her discovery, several hundred other fossils have been found, making up many individuals, including Kadanuumuu, Selam, and the first family. Research from these fossils show that this species lived from about 3.9-2.8 mya, and lived throughout eastern Africa.
Australopithecus afarensis cranium, composed of Lucy’s skull fragments
What we Can Learn from Lucy
Lucy’s size made Johanson believe that she was female, as in most primates, the females are much shorter. Computer reconstructions of Lucy’s femur gives it a length of of 277 mm, very close to previous estimates. Relating this to the rest of her body, Lucy seemed to have been about 104-106 cm tall, while males stood about 150 cm tall. This couldn’t have been because of her age however, as all her adult teeth had grown in by the time of her death.There has been some debate on Lucy’s sex, such as Häusler and Schmid (1995), but the larger consensus is that she was female. Along with her femur, Lucy also has a well preserved pelvis.
Lucy’s pelvis consists of a sacrum and innominate bone. Her sacrum had 5 fused sacral vertebrae just like modern humans, sharing the same morphology as well, such as an inferiorly-projecting cornua and a kidney-shaped inferior body articular surface. This morphology is also found in other related species, like Australopithecus sediba.
Compared to a chimpanzee and human pelvis, Lucy’s pelvis was more platypelloid, or flat. This has two implications for Australopithecus, 1. Bipedal locomotion would be much easier for them, and 2. Birth for this species would be slow and difficult, due to the pelvis being more narrow. Moving up from the pelvis, her vertebrae also hold some significance.
Lucy was found with 9 vertebrae. One vertebrae was uniquely worn and of a different texture however, and would later be reclassified as a vertebrae of Theropithecusdarti, a large extinct species of modern Geladas, an old world monkey. This resulted in a reexamination of Lucy’s fossils, showing that the rest of her fossils did indeed belong to her.
This resulted in heavy scrutiny being placed on the whole hominin fossil record to make sure all the fossils were valid, ultimately being great for paleoanthropology. Overall, Lucy’s vertebrae were very human-like, and give some clues to how she walked, but aren’t useful for very much.
Lucy’s arms were very long, and had muscle attachment sites on her humerus, giving her very powerful arms great for climbing in trees. Lucy’s forearms also had the capacity for great elbow flexion, similar to chimpanzees, and had elbow extension similar to orangutans. This shows that Lucy was a great climber and certainly still spent time in the trees, but she was still clearly well adapted for terrestrial bipedalism.
Her femur was intermediate between chimpanzees and humans. Though her arms were well adapted for arboreal locomotion, her legs were well adapted to walking, with cortical thickness in the femoral neck which is useful for weight bearing. Digital muscular reconstructions of Lucy also show that she could walk bipedally. 36 muscles were recreated. The muscles in the leg were much larger than they are in humans, with the muscles in the thigh making up 74% of the mass of the leg compared to the 50% in humans.
Digital reconstruction of Lucy’s thigh muscles
These muscles would have made it very easy to walk on her two legs efficiently. Her legs and pelvis would have given her great ability to walk on her two legs, though she would still spend time in the trees, likely more at night to avoid nocturnal predators.
Lucy’s Death
The time Lucy spent in the trees may have ultimately been her demise. CT scans of Lucy’s fossils that were originally meant to study her locomotion showed impacted fractures and patterns of collapse. These fractures resembled that of a four-part proximal humeral fracture, which occurs when the head of the humerus is shoved into the shoulder joint, an event that usually happens when you brace yourself with your arms during a large fall or during a car crash. This suggested to the researchers that Lucy fell from some height, such as a tree.
Similar fractures were found throughout her body, in her ankle, knee, pelvis, and ribs. The researchers calculated that fractures like this would be the result of fall from a four story height at about 59 kilometers per hour. The fractures also had no sign of healing, suggesting that she was killed quickly by the supposed fall. Not everyone agrees with this idea however.
Others have suggested that the fractures were results of later geological processes after death. The fractures found in Lucy are also found in other animal fossils from the area, including the ones that would be spending no time in the trees at all, like antelope, gazelles, elephants, rhinos, and giraffes. This makes Lucy’s fall more controversial, and the true cause of her death unknown.
Conclusion
Though Lucy is by no means the best example of human evolution uncovered so far, she can still give us great information about our ancestors. From her size, the way she walked, her life, and her death, this 3.2 million year old australopith is still very significant, and was discovered exactly 49 years ago today.
Sylvester, D. A., Merkl, C. B., Mahfouz, R. M. (2008). Assessing A.L. 288-1 femur length using computer-aided three-dimensional reconstruction. Journal of Human Evolution, 55(4), 665-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.05.019
Tague, G. R., Lovejoy, O. C. (1998). AL 288-1–Lucy or Lucifer: gender confusion in the Pliocene. Journal of Human Evolution, 35(1), 75-94. 10.1006/jhev.1998.0223
Russo, A. G., Williams, A. S. (2014). “Lucy” (A.L. 288-1) had five sacral vertebrae. American Journal of Biological Anthropology. 156(2), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22642
Meyer, R. M., Williams, A. S., Smith, P. M., Sawyer, J. G. (2015). Lucy’s back: Reassessment of fossils associated with the A.L. 288-1 vertebral column. Journal of Human Evolution, 85, 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.05.007
Ibáñez-Gimeno, P. Manyosa, J., Galtés, I., Jordana, X., Moyà-Soyà, S., Malgosa, A. (2017). Forearm pronation efficiency in A.L. 288-1 (Australopithecus afarensis) and MH2 (Australopithecus sediba): Insights into their locomotor and manipulative habits. American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 164(4), 788-800. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23319
Ruff, B. C., Burgess, L. M., Ketcham, A. R., Kappelman, J. (2016). Limb Bone Structural Proportions and Locomotor Behavior in A.L. 288-1 (“Lucy”). PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166095
Short answer, OF COURSE! It is a fascinating piece of the Human story.
Just because the new papers are being questioned, doesn’t make things wrong, it’s been the process so far. There used to be so much more to come!
Quick review of the new papers:
Overview of the new Peer Reviews
What does Google Bard, the collective mind of the internet, think?
“In 201(3), scientists announced the discovery of a new species of human ancestor, Homo naledi, in the Rising Star Cave in South Africa. The discovery was based on a remarkable collection of fossils, including skulls, jaws, teeth, and postcranial bones, representing at least 15 individuals. Homo naledi is characterized by a mosaic of features that are both primitive and derived, making it difficult to place it in the human family tree.
Anatomy and Morphology
Homo naledi is a small-bodied species, with adults standing about 1.5 meters (5 feet) tall. The braincase is small and relatively unspecialized, but the face is robust and the teeth are large. The postcranial skeleton is also relatively primitive, with features such as long arms and curved fingers that are reminiscent of chimpanzees.
Age and Environment
The fossils of Homo naledi are dated to between 236,000 and 335,000 years old, based on uranium-thorium dating of flowstones in the Rising Star Cave. This suggests that Homo naledi lived during the Middle Pleistocene, a time period that was characterized by significant environmental changes in Africa.
Behavior and Taphonomy
The Rising Star Cave is located in a remote and inaccessible part of the Cradle of Humankind, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in South Africa. The cave is deep and labyrinthine, and it is filled with sharp rocks and narrow passages. This suggests that Homo naledi was capable of navigating difficult environments.
The fossils of Homo naledi were found in a deep chamber of the cave, along with the remains of other animals such as hyenas, porcupines, and birds. This suggests that Homo naledi may have been preyed upon by other animals. However, it is also possible that Homo naledi actively deposited the bodies of dead animals in the cave.
Significance of the Discovery
The discovery of Homo naledi is significant for a number of reasons. First, it provides us with a new and important piece of the human evolutionary puzzle. Homo naledi is a close relative of our own species, and its discovery helps to fill in the gaps in our understanding of human evolution.
Second, the discovery of Homo naledi raises a number of important questions about the behavior and ecology of our early ancestors. Was Homo naledi capable of complex behaviors such as tool use or language? Was it a social animal? How did it interact with other species?
Third, the discovery of Homo naledi has important implications for our understanding of the diversity of human ancestors. For many years, scientists believed that there was a single linear path of human evolution, leading from our ape-like ancestors to modern humans. However, the discovery of Homo naledi suggests that human evolution was a much more complex and branching process.
Future Research
The discovery of Homo naledi is just the beginning of our understanding of this new species. Scientists are continuing to study the fossils and the Rising Star Cave in order to learn more about Homo naledi’s anatomy, behavior, and ecology. This research is likely to provide us with new and important insights into human evolution.”
Science is about civil discourse. We learn from disagreements, and redoing the work over and over, ensuring we receive the same result across the board.
Science involves peers, review, and as I mentioned, reworking.
The naledi pre prints are just that, pre prints. The papers have not even come out yet. So let’s keep that in mind, and I can tell you there is a great deal more work going on at Rising Star, which I will of course be covering.
But in the meantime, we have what Berger et. al are purporting, and then this new paper, which is not the last of its kind, trust me there.
So with all of that in mind, what are your views on Riaing Star? Emotions, and dreams of what we want aside?
For a full detailed review of the new paper, as it’s behind a paywall, watch my video here:
We have some big developments in surrounding Homo naledi this week!
As many of you know, a few months ago there were some major, and I mean major announcements out of Rising Star from Dr. Berger and team. Announcements that would blow the top of the field of Paleoanthropology, and in many cases it did. Especially in the public eye.
But should it have?
Now that others have had a chance to look at the evidence, and come out with the first peer reviewed paper on the findings, things seem to be taking a different turn, but after the media blitz, will it even matter?
On behalf of the Cambridge Journal of Human Behaviour, I have an awesome opportunity to tell you all about!
They are currently accepting undergraduate work for submissions to their peer reviewed journal! This is a chance to get your work published before you even get to graduate school!
Take look at the call for papers:
I hope you are doing well.
If you could please distribute the following message and attached document to members of your department (especially undergraduates), that would be greatly appreciated.
___________________
Cambridge Journal of Human Behaviour: Call for Submissions (Vol. 2, Issue 3)
The Cambridge Journal of Human Behaviour (CJHB) is now calling for submissions! CJHB is an internationally registered, peer-reviewed journal that is interdisciplinary in nature and dedicated to publishing the exceptional work of undergraduates from across the globe.
We are a diamond open access journal, do not charge fees of any sort (subscription, processing, membership, or otherwise), and permit the author to re-publish their work elsewhere.
The deadline for the third issue of Volume 2 is the 2nd of January, 2024. Submissions are always open and can be submitted online via our website: www.cjhumanbehaviour.com
Specific details for submission:
Dissertations, projects, and extended essays welcome
5,000 words maximum
Any topic relating to human behaviour (archaeology, anthropology, psychology, biology, etc.)
Interdisciplinary manuscripts strongly encouraged
All work must have been completed during the course of a student’s undergraduate studies
We are now also accepting book reviews
Word limit: 1,500
Reviews for books published in 2022 or later welcome
Revisiting seminal books in a field also permitted
It is commonly thought that Homo erectus was the first human species to leave our home continent of Africa. Though there is some evidence of earlier migrations accomplished by other species, it is clear that Homo erectus was the first species to accomplish mass migrations throughout Eurasia. Homo erectus fossils have been uncovered from right outside of Africa in sites in the Middle East, and extending all the way into Asia, going into Indonesia and even as far as China.
This begs a variety of questions, mainly, why did Homo erectus leave Africa, and when did these migrations begin? There are some early sites right outside of Africa that give a good idea of generally when this species first began migrating. The closest site outside of Africa that contains Homo erectus remains is ‘Ubeidiya, Jordan. This site contains great faunal and lithic assemblages, and most importantly, Homo erectus remains, including a left parietal bone, a lumbar vertebrae, and some dental remains.
Research on this site shows that during the Pleistocene, when Homo erectus was living there, this area resembled a steppe environment, with very large water bodies and woodlands, very different from the environments in Africa. It appears that Homo erectus began migrating due to environmental changes. This answers the question of why they left, but not necessarily when. Homo erectus at ‘Ubeidiya are about 1.5 million years old, but there is an even older site farther from Africa that is even older.
A map showing the migrations of Homo erectus out of Africa
Out of Africa
Even as predicted by Charles Darwin, humans and our evolutionary lineage originated in Africa. This was originally thought by the fact that our two closest extant relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, also live in Africa, but it is now backed up by more fossil and genetic evidence. The migrations of humans out of Africa is creatively referred to as “Out of Africa”. Throughout the history of our evolution, there have been many migrations, all of which seem to have been accomplished by multiple different species.
‘Out of Africa 1’ refers to the migrations of Homo erectus throughout Eurasia, in which they migrated throughout Eurasia, especially in Asia, beginning roughly 2 million years ago. These migrations are often thought to be the first times humans left Africa, but there is potential evidence of earlier migrations done by a different species.
Another map showing Out of Africa, and the geographical ranges of different species. The red represents Homo sapiens, the orange is Homo neanderthalensis, and the green is Homo erectus.
Oldowan style stone tools have been found in Zarqa Valley, Jordan, just outside of geopolitical Africa, dating to 2.4 million years ago. This suggests an earlier migration of an earlier hominin, something similar to Homo habilis, soon after the evolution of the Homo genus. Other Oldowan style tools have also been found in China, dating to 2.1 million years ago.
All of these tool sites date to before Homo erectus ever left Africa and are more primitive than Homo erectus, suggesting that earlier migrations of early Homo took place 2.4 million years ago. These migrations could explain the origins of other primitive hominin species outside of Africa, such as Homo floresiensis in the island of Flores, in Indonesia.
The first mass migrations were accomplished later, by Homo erectus, first migrating into the middle east, in sites like ‘Ubeidiya at 1.5 million years ago, and in an even older site, known as Dmanisi, which contains the oldest fossil remains of Homo erectus outside, at 1.8 million years old. This site contains great information about the earliest migrations of Homo erectus, and has been heavily studied. With the new research done, we now have a great understanding of the humans that lived there and what their lives were like.
The Life and Ecology of Dmanisi
The Dmanisi site is a fossil cave site which was previously laid beneath a medieval city. Dmanisi has held lots of Pleistocene faunal remains that have been uncovered, including about 40 fossil hominin remains. These fossils, along with the modern life of this area, gives a good idea of what the world was like there about 2 million years ago.
Many amphibian, reptile, and mammal remains have been found. Amphibian and reptile species which have been found here include the European green toad (Bufo viridis), Greek tortoises (Testudo graeca), the European green lizard (Lacerta viridis), and several species of snake in the genera Elaphe and Natrix. Because all of these species are extant and still around today at Dmanisi, they can still be studied, allowing for a greater understanding of the ecology, landscape, and climate of this area.
By using the Mutual Climatic Range method (studying modern life to compare to prehistoric life), it has been shown that the climate at Dmanisi was warm and dry, similar to that of modern Mediterranean climates, though the average temperature was slightly warmer than it is today. The average rain levels were also slightly lower than it is today, except for in the winter.
The paleofauna of Dmanisi also indicates that the landscape was arid, with semi deserts, Mediterranean forests, and rocky substrate with bushy areas. Research of small mammals from this site, such as shrews, hamsters, and pikas, shows that roughly 36.5% of this environment was open-dry habitat, 25.7% water edge, 21% rocky, 15.5% open-wet habitat, and 1.3% woodland.
These mammals, along with other carnivoran mammals found at this site, would have provided a good meat source for the hominins living there, aiding in the transition to a more carnivorous diet in hominins. As hominin populations migrated into this area, they slowly adapted to the unique environment, which could explain the unique morphology they possessed.
The Dmanisi Hominins
The fossil hominins from Dmanisi are the oldest, unquestionable, confirmed hominins outside of Africa. By using 40Ar/39Ar (Argon-Argon) dating, paleomagnetism, and paleontologic constraints, it has been determined that these hominins lived around 1.8-1.7 million years ago. Morphologically, they are very basal, resembling early Homo in many ways, but also resembling the later Asian Homo erectus.
They are currently placed in the species Homo erectus, but have been sometimes placed in a separate species, Homo georgicus, though this species name is not commonly accepted at this time. There is lots of variation between the different individuals at the site, especially in their mandibles, but they are similar enough in overall morphology and time to belong to the same population. Their jaws and crania seem to be dimorphic in size, which could represent possible sexual dimorphism in the population.
An artist’s rendition of the Dmanisi hominins, compared with Homo sapiens and other members of Homo erectus from Asia.
The hindlimb anatomy of these hominins was similar to that of modern humans, and would have been useful for hunting down prey by using persistence hunting. Dental microwear analysis of the teeth of these hominins shows that their diets were consistent with other migrating populations of Homo erectus. Their teeth also share several synapomorphies (evolutionary traits shared between two related lineages) with Australopithecus and early Homo, especially in size.
The Dmanisi hominins would have used the rocky terrain they lived in to produce many Oldowan style stone tools, mainly using basalt and andesite as their two main blanks for these tools. Many cores, flakes, and rock debris have been found, showing that all stages of stone flaking were present. The stone knapping wasn’t very elaborate however, as most of the stones were unifacial rather than the intricate bifacial tools produced by later Homo erectus.
The Dmanisi Specimens
There are 5 cranial specimens from Dmanisi, and several associated mandibular specimens, along with many other post cranial elements. The first specimen is known as D2280.
All 5 of the hominin crania from Dmanisi side by side.
D2280
This specimen is the first of 5 cranial specimens, and is also the largest. The specimen is only a skull cap, but still has lots of well preserved features. From these features, we can tell that this individual is a male. Significant traits found in this specimen include a large supraorbital torus (brow ridge), a strong angular torus at the back of the skull, and a cranial capacity of about 775 cc.
D2282
This specimen is the second cranial specimen from Dmanisi, belonging to a young female. It is similarly incomplete to D2280, with the majority of the interorbital region (consisting of the eyes and nose) incomplete. The zygomatic and maxillary bones are complete however. The mastoid portions at the lower back of the skull are partially crushed but are still preserved. The mandibular specimen D211 is associated with the cranium. This specimen possessed a cranial capacity of about 650 cc.
The D2282 Homo erectus cranium
D2700
The third cranial specimen, D2700, belonged to a subadult male with partially erupted back molars. This specimen has damage to the maxilla and zygomatic bones, and is missing some teeth, though other scattered teeth found in the site fit in the sockets well. The D2735 mandible is associated with this specimen. This specimen had a cranial capacity of about 600 cc.
D3444
D3444 is the fourth, and perhaps the most important specimen out of the five, and has great implications for the sociality of the Dmanisi hominins. This specimen belonged to an elderly male who had naturally lost all of his teeth. In the associated D390 mandible, the canine teeth sockets hadn’t healed over, suggesting he kept those teeth. However the teeth sockets in the cranium had fully healed over, showing that he had survived for a good while after he lost them. There are a few ideas of how he could have survived this. He could have eaten plants, softer meat such as brain matter or bone marrow, but must have been in some way cared for by the other individuals, showing evidence of compassion and care early on in the species. This specimen had a cranial capacity of about 650 cc.
The D3444 and D390 Homo erectus cranium and mandible
D4500
D4500 is the last cranial specimen, and seems to be the most unique and complete out of the five, belonging to an adult male. This specimen has a very large face, with squared maxilla similar to Homo habilis, but a very small brain and a face similar to Australopithecus. Its cranial capacity was about 546 cc. This specimen had very bar-like browridges, and very large teeth which appear to be worn down and infected. The D2600 mandible is associated with this specimen.
The D4500 and D2600 Homo erectus cranium and mandible
Conclusion
There is little question that humans evolved in Africa and later migrated out of it in several waves. Homo erectus is typically considered the first species to have done this, in an event referred to as ‘Out of Africa 1’, in which it traveled throughout Europe and Asia. Earlier migrations may have taken place, but none as drastic, widespread, and long lasting as what Homo erectus did.
The earliest Homo erectus remains outside of Africa have been found in two main sites. The closest site to Africa is ‘Ubeidiya, at 1.5 million years ago, and even older but farther away, at Dmanisi.
The Dmanisi hominins are very important for our understanding of our evolution. Not only do they show when humans migrated out of Africa, when we shifted to more carnivorous diets, but they show when we began caring for each other, which was very important for our sociality, compassion, and morality.
Belmaker, M., Tchernov, E., Condemi, S., Bar-Yosef, O. (2002). New evidence for hominid presence in the Lower Pleistocene of the Southern Levant. Journal of Human Evolution, 43(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2002.0556
López, S., van Dorp, L., Hellenthal, G. (2015). Human Dispersal Out of Africa: A Lasting Debate. Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 11(Suppl 2): 57-68. 10.4137/EBO.S33489
Scardia, G., Parenti, F., Miggins, P. D., Gerdes, A., Araujo, M. J. A., Neves, A. W. (2019). Chronologic constraints on hominin dispersal outside Africa since 2.48 Ma from the Zarqa Valley, Jordan. Quaternary Science Reviews, 219, 1-19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.06.007
Argue, D., Moorwood, J. M., Sutikna, T., Jatmiko, Saptomo, W. E. (2009). Homo floresiensis: a cladistic analysis. Journal of Human Evolution, 57(5), 623-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.002
Akhilesh, K., Pappu, S. (2015). Bits and pieces: Lithic waste products as indicators of Acheulean behaviour at Attirampakkam, India. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 4, 226-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.08.045
Dennell, W. R., Louys, J., O’Regan, J. H., Wilkinson, M. D. (2013). The origins and persistence of Homo floresiensis on Flores: biogeographical and ecological perspectives. Quaternary Science Reviews, 95, 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.06.031
Li, H., Kuman, K., Li, C. (2018). What is currently (un)known about the Chinese Acheulean, with implications for hypotheses on the earlier dispersal of hominids. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 17, (1-2), 120-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.09.008
Agustí, J., Lordkipanidze, D. (2010). How “African” was the early human dispersal out of Africa? Quaternary Science Reviews, 30, (11-12), 1338-1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.04.012
Parés, M. J., Duval, M., Arnold, J. L. (2011). New views on an old move: Hominin migration into Eurasia. Quaternary International, 295, 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2011.12.015
Blain, H., Agusti, G., Lordkipanidze, D., Rook, L., Delfino, M. (2014). Paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental context of Early Pleistocene hominins from Dmanisi (Georgia, Lesser Caucasus) inferred from the herpetofauna assemblage. Quaternary Science Review, 105, 136-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.10.004
Agusti, J., Chochishvili, G., Lozano-Fernández, I., Furió, M., Piñero, P., Marfà d. R. (2022). Small mammals (Insectivora, Rodentia, Lagomorphia) from the Early Pleistocene hominin-bearing site of Dmanisi (Georgia). Journal of Human Evolution, 170, 103228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103238
Tappen, M., Bukhsianidze, M., Ferring, R., Coil, R., Lordkipanidze, D. (2022). Life and death at Dmanisi, Georgia: Taphonomic signals from the fossil mammals. Journal of Human Evolution, 171, 103249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103249
Messager, E., Lebreton, V., Marquer, L., Russo-Ermolli, E., Orain, R., Renault-Miskovsky, J., Lordkipanidze, D., Despriée, J., Peretto, C., Arzarello, M. (2010). Paleoenvironmental of early hominins in temperate and Mediterranean Eurasia: new paleobotanical data from Paleolithic key-sites synchronous natural sequences. Quaternary Science Reviews, 30, (11-12), 1439-1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.09.008
Mgeledze, A., Lordkipanidze, D., Moncel, M., Despriee, Chagelishvili, R., Nioradze, M., Nioradze, G. (2011). Hominin occupations at the Dmanisi site, Georgia, Southern Caucasus: Raw materials and technical behaviours of Europe’s first hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 60(5), 571-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.10.00
Ferring, R., Oms, O., Agustí, J., Lordkipanidze, D. (2011). Earliest human occupations at Dmanisi (Georgian Caucasus) dated to 1.85-1.78 Ma. PNAS, 108(26), 10432-10436. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1106638108
Rightmire, P. G., Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A. (2005). Anatomical descriptions, comparative studies and evolutionary significance of the hominin skulls from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia. Journal of Human Evolution, 50,(2), 115-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.07.009
Pontzer, H., Rolian, C., Rightmire, P. G., Jashashvili, T., Ponce de Léon, S. M., Lordkipanidze, D., Zollikofer, E. P. C. (2010). Locomotor anatomy and biomechanics of the Dmanisi hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 58,(6), 492-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.03.006
Skinner, M. M., Gordon, D. A., Collard, J. N. (2006). Mandibular size and shape variation in the hominins at Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia. Journal of Human Evolution, 51,(1), 36-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.01.006
Rightmire, P. G., Margvelashvili, A., Lordkipanidze, D. (2018). Variation among the Dmanisi hominins: Multiple taxa or one species? American Journal of Biological Anthropology, 168(3): 481-495. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23759
Pontzer, H., Scott, R. J., Lordkipanidze, D., Ungar, S. P. (2011). Dental microwear texture analysis and diet in the Dmanisi hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 61,(6), 683-687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.08.006
Martinón-Torres, M., Bermúdez de Castro, M. J., Gómez-Robles, A., Margvelashvili, A., Prado, L., Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A. (2008). Dental remains from Dmanisi (Republic of Georgia): Morphological analysis and comparative study. Journal of Human Evolution, 55, (2), 249-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.12.008
Lordkipanidze, D., Vekua, A., Ferring, R., Rightmire, P. G., Zollikofer, E. P. C., Ponce de Léon, S. M., Agusti, J., Kiladze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nioradze, G. (2006). A fourth hominin skull from Dmanisi, Georgia. The Anatomical Record, 288A,(11), 1146-1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.a.20379
Rightmire, P. G., Ponce de Léon, S. M., Lordkipanidze, D., Margvelashvili, A., Zollikofer, E. P. C. (2017). Skull 5 from Dmanisi: Descriptive anatomy, comparative studies, and evolutionary significance. Journal of Human Evolution, 104, 50-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.01.005
Schwartz, H. J., Tattersall, I., Chi, Z. (2014). Comment on “A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Biology of Early Homo”. Science, 344,(6182), 360. DOI: 10.1126/science.1250056
World of Paleoanthropology 