January 11, 2012
Meet the Contenders for Earliest Modern Human
Cro-Magnon was one of the first fossils of an ancient human ever discovered. Image courtesy of Wikicommons
Paleoanthropologists agree that modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago, yet the fossil evidence for the earliest examples of Homo sapiens is scarce. One problem is the difficulty in recognizing true modern humans in the fossil record: At this time, many of the fossils thought to be early members of our species possess a mix of modern and primitive traits. For some paleoanthropologists, it means our species once had a greater range of physical variation than we do today. For others, it means more than one species of Homo may have lived in Africa at this time, sharing some traits in common.
Despite the challenges of identifying early humans, there are several candidates for the earliest known members of our species. Here’s a look at some of the top contenders.
Omo I and II (195,000 years ago): In 1967, a team led by Richard Leakey discovered possible Homo sapiens fossils in the Kibish Formation near the Omo River in southern Ethiopia. Originally the fossils, Omo I (a partial skull and skeleton) and Omo II (a partial skull), were thought to be 130,000 years old, but a dating reanalysis in 2005 revealed they were much older—195,000 years old, making them the oldest fossils assigned to Homo sapiens. Over the last 45 years, the species status of the fossils has been debated. Researchers largely agree Omo I was a modern human; it had the human hallmarks of a flat face, fully formed chin, high forehead and globular braincase. They are less certain about Omo II, which was more primitive with its thicker, more “rugged” cranial bones and sloped forehead. While some paleoanthropologists say Omo II is too archaic to be one of us, others suggest it’s evidence of the great physical diversity of early modern humans.
Herto fossils (160,000 years ago): Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley and colleagues unearthed three largely complete skulls, two adults and one child, in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia in 1997. The skulls appear quite modern, the researchers reported in Nature in 2003. But because certain cranial traits are outside the range of modern human variation, the researchers placed the Herto fossils in their own subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means “elder” in the Afar language of Ethiopia). Cutting and scraping marks on the skulls suggest these early humans engaged in some sort of mortuary practices, as these types of markings are not typical of cannibalism.
Qafzeh and Skhul fossils (~100,000 years ago): In the 1930s, researchers working in the caves of Qafzeh and Skhul in northern Israel found the skeletal remains of at least 30 individuals, a few purposefully buried. Some researchers suggest the fossils represent an early migration of humans out of Africa. But like Omo II, some of the fossils in the collection are difficult to classify. For example, the skull known as Skhul V had thick brow ridges and lacked a chin. The primitive traits in this population might have been the result of interbreeding with Neanderthals, which also lived in the region at this time.
Cro-Magnon 1 (30,000 years ago): OK, this fossil is too young to be a real contender for the oldest member of our species. But I included it on the list for its historical significance. Discovered in France in 1868, the Cro-Magnon 1 skull was one of the first ancient Homo sapiens fossils ever found, demonstrating our species’ great antiquity.
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
What do you think about the pre-human tooth discovery in Bulgaria by German professthe University of Tubingen in Germany by Madelaine Bohme and Philipe Havlik? The finding challenges the out of Africa model.
Comment by Richard William Nelson — January 12, 2012 @ 10:04 pm
Richard, thanks for the question. The tooth discovered in Bulgaria is about 7 million years old, so it’s much too old to relate to the question of where our species, Homo sapiens, evolved. So, in that respect, the finding doesn’t challenge the idea that our species evolved in Africa.
But then there’s the question of where the first hominin evolved. We’ve known for a long time that apes lived in Europe during the Miocene. This tooth shows that apes lived in Europe even more recently than we thought. The researchers suggest this could be explained by apes moving into Europe from Asia or Africa. But of course, that also leaves open the possibility that some apes could have migrated from Europe (or Asia) into Africa. If one of these forms gave rise to hominins, then perhaps you could argue our lineage wasn’t strictly African.
Comment by Erin Wayman — January 13, 2012 @ 11:41 am
It is interesting to see evolutionists take a skull then paint any picture on it they want. There is no one alive today to prove them wrong. Please prove with real evidence that those skulls actually belong to the ‘people’ you claim they do and not conjecture, speculation, hypothesis. Use real evidence with real and valid ancient documents that speak on this matter.
Comment by Dr. David Tee — January 14, 2012 @ 4:58 am
One thing that would chip a huge hole in the very core foundation of the “out of africa” theory(and it is still a theory) would be to find the same type of stone tools in the USA that are found in Africa and other alleged early man sites abroad. If the identical early man tool technologies that have been recorded and identified with “homo erectus” or neanderthal sites were to be found here in the USA, any theoried migration “out of africa” would crtainly be established as “just another theory.” According to the evolution and migration OOA believers, the tool technologies of our earliest ancestors are well established knowledge, with labelings such as Oldowan, Acheulean, Mousterian, aurigacian, etc., after the locations of tools that have been found in association with skeletal remains of earliest man, thereby an imagined tool “trail” has been proposed but certainly not proven. These tool technologies have been very clearly classified and “typed” with very specifically made tools being found repeatedly at the sites displaying the obvious “industries”. Very rarely are these early man technologies confused each having distinct characteristics seen over and over again for many years by archaeologists and anthropologists. If these technologies were found here in the USA, they would be unmistakeable as there are no known Native American technologies to parallel them from the Clovis or later periods. BUT if they were found here and had very specific parallels of all the technologies and types found abroad, “out of Africa” is shown to be simply a guess.
Well, those tool industries have been found here and are available to see and be scrutinized. All of the most prominent Museums and Universities including the Smithsonian have been approached attempting to gain interest in the artifacts, but to date have only been met with doubt and dismissal, some without ever seeing them. “out of africa” is going the way of “clovis first” and the Dodo. The artifacts are rock solid, thousands of them, displaying every early man tool type found in the alleged “cradle of mankind” and are all from USA. Doubt it?
feel free to contact me and the rocks will speak for themselves. You don’t have to “make silent stones speak.”…..rick doninger
Comment by rick doninger — January 14, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
Rick,
Even if what you say is true, parallel evolution has occurred often in nature (the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods, e.g.), let alone in technology. Very often the antecedents to a technology suggest the same new tool to people wholly independently of one-another.
How many times have you seen some new product and thought “Hey! I had that idea!”? Maybe you even made a tool and then saw someone else commercialize something similar. The explanation, of course, is that we all face similar problems and have similar materials at hand.
In the case of primitive stone tools, you could argue that our very bodies are lent to particular tools and represent a generalized antecedent.
Jacob
Comment by Jacob — January 17, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
To David Tee: “Evolutionists” do not “paint any picture they want” onto these skulls–nor are they merely “conjecturing, speculating, hypthesizing.” They take many different factors into account beyond the skulls themselves; such as the probably environment and climate at the time the owners of the skulls were alive, any tools or dwelling places, the disposition of the remains, markings on the bones, etc. Not only that, they compare their findings to others and seek to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. In fact, maybe it would be helpful if you used putting together a puzzle as an analogy. Usually you find the corners and edge pieces, then you group together pieces with similar patterns and colors and fit them together, and so on. Eventually you get to a point where you can pick up a piece and say “this probably goes here” or “this definitely does not go here.” Of course, you have no picture to work from, so perhaps you create a rough picture as a reference point and then see if the pieces fit into it (or if the picture helps you find more pieces). If not, you revise the picture.
See, David, it’s not as simplistic as you try to make it.
Comment by Gregg — January 19, 2012 @ 1:48 pm
well jacob it is true.
Comment by rick doninger — January 21, 2012 @ 11:33 pm
Wherefore art Thou, Erin? Whither Hominid Hunting?
Comment by Rob Gargett — February 18, 2012 @ 12:24 pm
It is interesting that there is so much variation of age and location of the contenders, which means the search for the earliest modern human may only be in the early stages.
Even the term “modern human” may have different meanings. In this case, it refers to homo sapiens, but in other instances it refers to “fully modern humans” of the Upper Paleolithic, 40,000 to 30,000 years ago.
I also find it interesting that one of the contenders is from Israel. Other early discoveries have been made in Israel as well. It seems this was a land of origin in prehistoric as well as biblical times.
Comment by Sid Tafler — March 2, 2012 @ 4:03 pm
Is this blog dead?
Comment by Jeff Michals-Brown — March 16, 2012 @ 10:24 pm