Saturday, September 6, 2008

ATI (Africa Timeline Index) "One-stop" Encyclopedic compilation from various sources:

The bulk of hominid skeletons uncovered in sub-Saharan East Africa has tremendously enhanced our insights into humanity's bio-evolutionary history, but in doing so, may have also created some sort of a researcher tunnel vision, wherein other places in the content are overlooked for the uncovering of other pieces of the hominid evolutionary index — where the prospect of uncovering both other "missing links" to modern humanity and "dead-enders" alike may well have been and continues to be hampered. The hominid cranium found in the Chadic area serves as such an example; it has been dubbed the "Toumai". It may well have been one of those so-called "dead-ender" hominids where ancestry to modern humanity is concerned, but the fact that it is quite old and found outside of east Africa, should serve — the present author thinks — as a wake up call to those aspirant researchers, who want to get a fuller insight into the hominid bio-evolutionary index, that they ought to pay little more attention and brush other parts of the African continent more enthusiastically, while still scavenging in east Africa for whatever hominid fossil pieces remain, for adding precision to our understanding of the hominid evolutionary history.

Toumai, the Chad Skull ~ 7 million years ago:
At 6-7 million years, the newly found Sahelanthropus from Chad, is the oldest known member of the human line of the ape-human family tree. - Courtesy archaeology.org, by the Archaeological Institute of America, 2002

Briefing on the Toumai

Dr. Daniel E. Lieberman, a biological anthropologist at Harvard, called the African specimen "one of the greatest paleontological discoveries of the past 100 years."

The skull was uncovered in the desert of Chad by a French-led team under the direction of Dr. Michel Brunet of the University of Poitiers. Struck by the skull's unusual mix of apelike and evolved hominid features, the discoverers assigned it to an entirely new genus and species — Sahelanthropus tchadensis. It is more commonly calledToumai, meaning "hope of life" in the local language.

...Dr. Brunet's group said the fossils — a cranium, two lower jaw fragments and several teeth — promised "to illuminate the earliest chapter in human evolutionary history…

…About a million years older than any previously recognized hominid, Toumai lived close to the time that molecular biologists think was the earliest period in which the human lineage diverged from the chimpanzee branch.

The next oldest hominid appears to be the 6-million-year-old Orrorin tugenensis, found two years ago in Kenya but not yet fully accepted by many scientists. After it is Ardipithecus ramidus, which probably lived 4.4 million to 5.8 million years ago in Ethiopia.

"A lot of interesting things were happening earlier than we previously knew," said Dr. Eric Delson, a paleontologist at the City University of New York and the American Museum of Natural History.

The most puzzling aspect of the new skull is that it seems to belong to two widely separated evolutionary periods. Its size indicates that Toumai had a brain comparable to that of a modern chimp, about 320 to 380 cubic centimeters. Yet the face is short and relatively flat, compared with the protruding faces of chimps and other early hominids. Indeed, it is more humanlike than the "Lucy" species, Australopithecus afarensis, which lived more than 3.2 million years ago.

"A hominid of this age," Dr. Wood wrote in Nature, "should certainly not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age."

Scientists suggest several possible explanations:

— Toumai could somehow be an ancestor of modern humans, or of gorillas or chimps.

— It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimps, before the divergence.

— "But why restrict yourself to thinking this fossil has to belong to a lineage that leads to something modern?" Dr. Wood asked. "It's perfectly possible this belongs to a branch that's neither chimp nor human, but has become extinct."

…A few scientists sound cautionary notes. Dr. Delson questioned whether the Toumai face was complete enough to justify interpretations of more highly evolved characteristics. One critic argued that the skull belonged to a gorilla, but that is disputed by scientists who have examined it.

Just as important perhaps is the fact that the Chad skull was found off the beaten path of hominid research.

Until now, nearly every early hominid fossil has come from eastern Africa, mainly Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, or from southern Africa. Finding something very old and different in central Africa should expand the hunt.

"In hindsight, we should have expected this," Dr. Lieberman said. "Africa is big and we weren't looking at all of Africa. This fossil is a wake-up call. It reminds us that we're missing large portions of the fossil record."

Source: Courtesy The New York Times, by John Noble Wilford, August 6, 2002

Australopithecus ramidus (a.k.a. Ardipithecus ramidus)  ~ 4.4 million years ago:
Australopithecus ramidus is the most recent addition to the human evolutionary tree; see [ Boyd & Silk 1997 ] , pp 359-361.

In 1994, fossils were found by Tim White and his associates [ White et al. 1994 ] in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia. They subsequently named A. ramidus, a new hominid species, though it has recently been changed to Ardipithecus ramidus.

The collection of 17 fossils includes dental, cranial and postcranial material. It is dated to around 4.4 million years ago, making it the remains of the oldest known hominid.

The features include small canines ( like humans ) and thin tooth enamel ( an african ape characteristic ).

They were found near Hadar where A. afarensis was found. Preliminary palaeogeographical reconstruction suggests that the habitat was woodland.

Source: Courtesy whurle-hk

 

Update - Other notes on Ardipithecus ramidus, personified by a specimen nicknamed "Ardi": 

- Volcanic layers around the fossil were used to date it from 4.4million years ago
 

- Ardi's upper canine teeth are more similar to stubby human teeth than sharp chimpanzee teeth
 

- Tooth enamel analysis revealed they ate fruit, nuts and leaves
 

- Ardi's brain was positioned in a similar way to that of humans
 

- Pelvis and hip show the gluteal muscles were positioned so she could walk upright 


"Previously, scientists believed that our common ancestor would have been very chimp-like, and that ancient hominids such as Ardi would still have much in common with them. But she was not suited like a modern- day chimp to swinging or hanging from trees or walking on her knuckles.This suggests that chimps and gorillas developed those characteristics after the split with humans - challenging the idea that they are merely an 'unevolved' version of us.

Ardi's feet were rigid enough to allow her to walk upright some of the time, but she still had a grasping big toe for use in climbing trees.And she had long arms but short palms and fingers which were flexible, allowing her to support her body weight on her palms. 

Her upper canine teeth are more like the stubby teeth of modern people than the long, sharp ones of chimps. An analysis of her tooth enamel suggests she ate fruit, nuts and leaves.
 

Scientists believe she was a female because her skull is relatively small and lightly built. Her teeth were also smaller than other members of the same family that were found later." - Courtesy of dailymail.co.uk  

A. afarensis footprints ~ 3.5-3.7 million years ago:
These A. afarensis footprints embedded now in volcanic rock, were made 3.5-3.7 million years ago at Laetoli in Tanzania.

They were discovered by Mary Leakey and her colleagues in 1978/79, and provide incontrovertible evidence of early hominid bipedalism.

Source: Courtesy whurle-hk

"Little Foot" — South African Sterkfontein Australopithecus-like specimen ~ between 3.22 and 3.58 million years old:
— The skeleton of the South African Sterkfontein Australopithecus-like specimen has been dated at between 3.22 and 3.58 million years old by the Geomagnetism Laboratory at the University of Liverpool. Previously the oldest complete hominid skeleton was a 1.5 million-year-old Homo erectus discovered in Kenya.

The analysis of "Little Foot" has already yielded some valuable insights into the hominid's ability to walk upright. An examination of its bone structure revealed the creature was adapted for clutching onto tree branches. Philip Tobias, one of Clarke's colleagues, said that the hominid had "arboreal habits coupled with terrestrial habits". His statement has created considerable controversy, as most anthropologists previously believed that hominids were completely ground dwelling 3.5 million years ago.

The current knowledge of Australopithecus has been obtained from a number of incomplete skeletons and bone fragments. Until now the oldest most complete Australopithecus was the 3.2 million-year-old fossil, known as "Lucy," which Donald Johanson discovered in 1974 in the Hadar valley of Ethiopia.

The discovery of "Lucy" caused a scientific sensation as it possessed human characteristics such as the ability to walk upright and use tools but had the brain size of a chimpanzee. Until then scientists had dismissed the conjecture made by Karl Marx's collaborator Fredrick Engels last century that upright stature, freeing the hands for tool making, was the crucial first step in human evolution--not brain size. - by Frank Gaglioti, WSWS.org, 1998.

— A nearly complete skeleton of one of the oldest apelike ancestors of humans – a creature who apparently swung in trees but also walked upright – has been discovered encased in a 3.5-million-year-old rock formation inside a South African cave, scientists here announced today…

…There are numerous skulls, parts of limbs, sets of vertebrae and ribs, and a few pelvises – but no specimens in which skull and skeleton are clearly from the same individual. As a result, fundamental questions about Australopithecus have remained unanswered, including the size of the brain in relation to the size of the body, its likely diet, its mode of locomotion and anatomical particulars…

…Two of the most familiar species are
Australopithecus afarensis (of which the Ethiopian specimen named "Lucy" is the prime example) and A. africanus, of which the classic examples are from South Africa. It is not clear whether one species preceded the other, whether they coexisted, or which – if either – was the direct ancestor of the first humans. It has generally been assumed that A. afarensis is probably the older species, but the new discovery may challenge that…

…The Geomagnetism Laboratory at the University of Liverpool in England dated the hominid at between 3.22 and 3.58 million years old based on magnetic characteristics of the surrounding breccia, or broken rock. That date would make it marginally older than "Lucy," discovered in Ethiopia in 1974, and one of the oldest known….

A. afarensis ( Lucy ) ~ 2.9 to 3.5 million years:
These remains ( Lucy - AL288 ) were found in the Hadar region of Ethiopia.

Lucy is one of the most important of all fossil hominid finds, with 40 percent of the skeleton recovered; [Boyd & Silk 1997] , pp 342-359.

The species Australopithecus afarensis was named in 1978 to include "Lucy" and the hominid footprints discovered in Laetoli by Mary Leakey and her team.
A. afarensis is widely believed to be ancestral to the other known hominids.

The Ethiopian specimens have been dated to between 2.9 and 3.5 million years.

The footprints (mentioned above) have been dated to between 3.6 and 3.75 million years.

Bringing both these sets of specimens into a single species was controversial at the time, and is still questioned by some specialists.

Source: Courtesy whurle-hk

"Selam" — Australopithecus afarensis ~ 3.3 million-year-old:

Discovered by Zeresenay Almeseged in 2000 at Dikika in Ethiopia (Alemeseged et al. 2006). This is a well-preserved 3.3 million year old partial skeleton of an approximately 3 year old Australopithecus afarensis child. The fossil consists of an almost complete skull, hyoid bone, limb fragments, rib fragments, collar bones ( clavicles) and shoulder blades (scapulae), and some vertebrae. It is the most complete juvenile hominid skeleton known until Neanderthal times.


The bipedal features of other A. afarensis fossils are mostly found in this fossil, confirming that afarensis was bipedal...The features of Selam's upper body tend to be apelike: the shoulder blade closely resembles that of a gorilla, the finger bones are curved as in chimpanzees, and the semicircular canals are more like those of chimps than humans. All these lines of evidence suggest that A. afarensis was partly arboreal.

The name 'Selam' means 'peace' in the local Ethiopian language. Because it belongs to the same species as Lucy, the fossil has also been nicknamed 'Lucy's child', although it is actually about 100,000 years older than Lucy.

References courtesy talkorigins.org: Alemseged Z., Spoor F., Kimbel W.H., Bobe R., Geraards D., Reed D. et al. (2006): A juvenile early hominin skeleton from Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature, 443:296-301.Wood, B. (2006): Palaeoanthropology: a precious little bundle. Nature, 443:296-301. (the Dikika skeleton)

A. africanus Sts 5 skull ~ 2.6 million-year-old:
The female cranium Sts 5 from Sterkfontein in South Africa, found in 1936 by a vertebrate palaeontologist named Robert Broom.

This skull belonged to an adult female, and was better preserved than the Taung child.

This specimen has been variously named, including "Plesianthropus" for a while, from which has come the nickname "Mrs Ples" - pronounced "Please".

Nowadays most palaeoanthropologists assign it to Australopithecus africanus [ Boyd & Silk 1997 ] , pp 362-365.

Source: Courtesy whurle-hk

A. sediba remains, two fossils - MH1 (11 to 12 year old male) and MH2 (adult female) ~ between 1.78 and 1.977 million years old:


Click on the image for a higher resolution.
The teeth of this species -- called Australopithecus sediba -- indicate that it is also a close relative to the previously identified Australopithecus africanus. Both of these species are clearly more closely related to humans than other australopiths from east Africa, according to the new research.

The study, published in the journal Science, revealed that both africanus and sediba shared about the same number of dental traits with the first undeniably human species.


"Our study provides further evidence that sediba is indeed a very close relative of early humans, but we can't definitively determine its position relative to africanus, said Debbie Guatelli-Steinberg, co-author of the study and professor of anthropology at The Ohio State University.

...

africanus scored the same. Sediba shared 13 traits with Homo erectus, an early human species, which was comparable to how africanus scored.


Sediba and africanus shared five dental traits that weren't found in earlier australopiths, further showing their close relationship. Both also share five traits with early humans -- Homo habilis/rudolfenis and Homo erectus -- which weren't shared with earlier ancestors, demonstrating the close relationship between these two australopiths and the first humans.

...

"All of the research so far shows that sediba had a mosaic of primitive traits and newer traits that suggest it was a bridge between earlier australopiths and the first humans," she said.


Guatelli-Steinberg said their dental analysis showed that both africanus and sediba are more closely related to humans than the famous "Lucy" skeleton fossil found in East Africa in 1974. This fossil represented a species, Australopithecus afarensis, that was at one time was thought to be the closest relative of humans.


Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago. Sediba lived 1.977 million years ago, while africanus lived between 3.03 and 2.04 million years ago.


"Our research on teeth can't definitively settle if either sediba or africanus is more closely related to humans than the other species," Guatelli-Steinberg said. "But our findings do suggest that both are closely related to each other and are more closely related to humans than afarensis.


"We need to find more sediba remains to help fill in the missing pieces of this evolutionary puzzle."
- Courtesy of Science daily, Fossilized Teeth Provide New Insight Into Human Ancestor: Species Identified in 2010 Is One of Closest Relatives to Humans, April 11, 2013.


Homo Habilis ~ 1.9 - 1.6:

Homo habilis broke through into science in the early 1960's with the discovery of the OH 7 (the habilis type specimen) fossil at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania by Louis Leakey and collegues. The existence of Homo habilis is currently dated to between 1.9 and 1.6 million years

Homo ergaster ~ 1.8 million years ago:
— Anatomically, the African Homo ergaster is similar to the Eurasian Homo erectus. The differentiation comes in the higher cranial vault and lighter frame and facial structure of H. ergaster, as well as in the earlier dates with which ergaster is associated.

— Homo Erectus ( and/or Homo Ergaster? ) in Africa ~ 1.8 million years ago:

In 1997, Gilbert found the Homo erectus calvarium, or the upper part of a skull which lacks a lower face and teeth. The skull was embedded in the sediment of the Middle Awash study area in Ethiopia, about 140 miles northeast of Addis Ababa, the capital city.

The fossil was slightly exposed, and immediately recognizable as part of a skull, Gilbert said, calling the discovery of the Homo erectus cranium-the fourth one found in Africa-"breathtaking."

…"( The cranium ) looks like Asian Homo erectus," Gilbert said. "It's well within the range of variation you'd expect to see within a single widely distributed species."

The idea was that African and Asian specimens represent two divergent lineages, distinguishable from each other at the species level by morphology. If this were true, a quantitative analysis of physical characteristics in all existing specimens should have partitioned them into two distinct groups, by geography as well as morphology, White said.

...Once the new fossil was included in the quantitative analysis, there was no clear division between African versus Asian in the one million year old crania, White said….

…"Now we have this cranium from Africa that is not distinguished at the species level from the Asian forms," White said.

Source: Courtesy University of California, Berkeley, Media Relations


KNM-ER 1466 Left Side of Cranial Vault:Thick and rather robust features could also place this specimen with H. erectus or even as a robust H. sapiens - courtesy of msu.edu.

KNM-ER 3733
Cranium ~ dated to 1.8 million years
- courtesy of msu.edu :
Revealed in 1975 by the Koobi Fora Research Project at East Turkana, Kenya

The "Homo Erectus-like" Dmanis skulls ~ from 1.75 million years ago:

(Mission Paléoanthropologique Franco-Tchadienne) The small brain size of a 1.75-million-year-old Homo erectus skull [my emphasis — should rather read: "Homo Erectus-looking"; don't know yet if they were actually Homo Erectus], found in the Republic of Georgia, is causing a reevaluation of early human dispersal from Africa. (Gouram Tsibakhashvili) - Courtesy archaeology.org, by the Archaeological Institute of America, 2002

Briefing

— Although overshadowed by the news of Toumai, the well-preserved 1.75-million-year-old skull from Georgia was also full of surprises, in this case concerning a later chapter in the hominid story. It raised questions about the identity of the first hominids to be intercontinental travelers, who set in motion the migrations that would eventually lead to human occupation of the entire planet.

The discovery, reported in the July 5 issue of the journal Science, was made at the medieval town Dmanisi, 50 miles southwest of Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. Two years ago, scientists announced finding two other skulls at the same site, but the new one appears to be intriguingly different and a challenge to prevailing views.

Scientists have long been
thought that the first hominid out-of-Africa migrants were Homo Erectus, a species with large brains and a stature approaching human dimensions. The species was widely assumed to have stepped out in the world once they evolved their greater intelligence and longer legs and invented more advanced stone tools.

The first two Dmanisi skulls confirmed one part of the hypothesis. They bore a striking resemblance to the African version of H. erectus, sometimes called Homo ergaster. Their discovery was hailed as the most ancient undisputed hominid fossils outside Africa.

But the skulls were associated with more than 1,000 crudely chipped cobbles, simple choppers and scrapers, not the more finely shaped and versatile tools that would be introduced by H. erectus more than 100,000 years later. That undercut the accepted evolutionary explanation for the migrations.

The issue has become even more muddled with the discovery of the third skull by international paleontologists led by Dr. David Lordkipanidze of the Georgian State Museum in Tbilisi. It is about the same age and bears an overall resemblance to the other two skulls. But it is much smaller.

"These hominids are more primitive than we thought," Dr. Lordkipanidze said in an article in the current issue of National Geographic magazine. "We have a new puzzle."

To the discoverers, the skull has the canine teeth and face of Homo habilis, a small hominid with long apelike arms that evolved in Africa before H. erectus. And the size of its cranium suggests a substantially smaller brain than expected for H. erectus.

In their journal report, the discovery team estimated the cranial capacity of the new skull to be about 600 cubic centimeters, compared with about 780 and 650 c.c.'s for the other Dmanisis specimens. That is "near the mean" for H. habilis, they noted. Modern human braincases are about 1,400 cubic centimeters.

Dr. G. Philip Rightmire, a paleontologist at the State University of New York at Binghamton and a member of the discovery team, said that if the new skull had been found before the other two, it might have been identified as H. habilis.

Dr. Ian Tattersall, a specialist in human evolution at the natural history museum in New York City, said the specimen was "the first truly African-looking thing to come from outside Africa." More than anything else, he said, it resembles a 1.9-million-year-old Homo habilis skull from Kenya.

For the time being, however, the fossil is tentatively labeled Homo erectus, though it stretches the definition of that species. Scientists are pondering what lessons they can learn from it about the diversity of physical attributes within a single species.

Dr. Fred Smith, a paleontologist who has just become dean of arts and sciences at Loyola University in Chicago, agreed that his was a sensible approach, at least until more fossils turn up. Like other scientists, he doubted that two separate hominid species would have occupied the same habitat at roughly the same time. Marked variations within a species are not uncommon; brain size varies within living humans by about 15 percent.

"The possibility of variations within a species should never be excluded," Dr. Smith said. "There's a tendency now for everybody to see three bumps on a fossil instead of two and immediately declare that to be another species."

Some discoverers of the Dmanisi skull speculated that these hominids might be descended from ancestors like H. habilis that had already left Africa. In that case, it could be argued that H. erectus itself evolved not in Africa but elsewhere from an ex-African species. If so, the early Homo genealogy would have to be drastically revised.

But it takes more than two or even three specimens to reach firm conclusions about the range of variations within a species. Still, Georgia is a good place to start. The three specimens found there represent the largest collection of individuals from any single site older than around 800,000 years.

"We have now a very rich collection, of three skulls and three jawbones, which gives us a chance to study very properly this question" of how to classify early hominids, Dr. Lordkipanidze said, and paleontologists are busy this summer looking for more skulls at Dmanisi.

"We badly want to know what the functional abilities of the first out-of-Africa migrants were," said Dr. Wood of George Washington University. "What could that animal do that animals that preceded it couldn't? What was the role of culture in this migration? Maybe other animals were leaving and the hominids simply followed."

All scholars of human prehistory eagerly await the next finds from Dmanisi, and in Chad. Perhaps they will help untangle some of the bushy branches of the human family tree to reveal the true ancestry of Homo sapiens.

Source: Courtesy The New York Times, by John Noble Wilford, August 6, 2002

— It may well be instructive to note the following, that is said of the Dmanisi specimen found in Republic of Georgia…

The Dmanisi specimens share more similarities with the African species Homo ergaster than they do with the Asian Homo erectus, both of which may have existed at the time when the Dmanisi individuals lived. The only characteristic shared with H. erectus and not with H. ergaster is the presence of an angular bulge or torus at the back of the cranium. Homo ergaster specimens do not have an angular torus, whereas both D2280 and D2282 do. The presence or lack of this feature, though, is not considered significant in phylogenetic analysis.

Morphological and proportional similarities that D2280 and D2282 share with H. ergaster are considered more important. These similarities have led to the classification of both cranial remains as H. ergaster.

… This classification expands the boundaries of this species, which, until these finds, appeared to be geographically confined to East Africa. H. ergaster has been challenged by many paleoanthropologists who consider it a mere variation of the species H. erectus. The Dmanisi cranial remains show that H. ergaster is more than a limited geographical variant of another species.

Source: Courtesy Science vol. 288, pages 1019-1025. May 12, 2000, by L. Gabunia et al.

—D2280 Cranium:
Found in 1999 at Dmanisi, Georgia

—D2282 Cranium:
Found in 1999 at Dmanisi, Georgia

More pics in Source: Link

The remaining tid bits are extracts courtesy of msu.edu, *unless otherwise stated:

KNM-ER 3883
Partial Cranium ~ dated to between 1.4 - 1.6 million years:
Found by Richard Leakey at Koobi Fora, Kenya


The Koobi Fora Kenyan specimens ~ 1.51 and 1.56 million years:
One of the truly more amazing finds in the history of east african paleoanthropology is the Nariokotome Boy, found by K. Kimeu, Alan Walker, and Richard Leakey at Nariokotome III, West Turkana, Kenya. This find represents a nearly full skeleton of an ergaster youth, dating to between 1.51 and 1.56 million years.

KNM WT 15000
Partial Skeleton ~ dated to between 1.51 - 1.56 million years:

The cranium was found by K. Kimeu in 1984, while the remainder was found by Alan Walker and Richard Leakey over the next three years at Nariokotome III, West Turkana, Kenya

KNM-ER 730 Skull Fragments:
By M. G. Leakey in 1970, at Koobi Fora, Kenya. Traits correlate with both Ergaster on one hand, and Erectus on the other

KNM-ER 731 Mandible Fragment

KNM-ER 819 Mandible Fragment
Although placed in the general classification of Homo, is also a candidate for boisei. Because of its greater robusticity, it is placed into ergaster instead of habilis

KNM-ER 820 Juvenile Mandible:
Dentition compared closely to the Erectus specimen from Zhoukoudian. This specimen is placed by many under the H. Erectus classification

KNM-ER 992 Mandible ~ dated to 1.5 million years:
It is the type specimen for Homo ergaster found by C. Groves and V. Mazak in 1975 at Koobi Fora, Kenya

OH 13
Fragmented Skull ~ dated to 1.5 million years:
By Louis Leakey in 1963 at Olduvai


SK 847 Partial Cranium ~ dated to 1.5 million years:
Found at Swartkrans - South Africa in 1969 by Ronald Clarke




Taung skull, Australopithecus africanus ~ 1 million years ago:
1924 - the year the first australopithecine came to light in South Africa. Professor Raymond Dart of Witwatersrand University was sorting another crate of limestone rock from a quarry near a place called Taung…

…Limestone is good fossil-bearing rock. But dynamited fragments ( often associated with quarries ) are hard to date, particularly with radiometric techniques.

This is why the Taung fossil is
difficult to date. Faunal correlation ( i.e. dating a fossil by association with other fossils whose dates are known ) is one way round this, and there are others. But Taung dates are still controversial.

Several recent studies suggest that Taung is younger than once thought -
possibly little more than 1 million years BP.

...Dart was certain it was an extinct hominid, although very few of his colleagues in the profession agreed. Dart called his new find various things, but finally settled forAustralopithecus Africanus, the first of the "gracile" australopithecines, hominids with aslender or graceful physique…

…The australopithecines are usually separated into two morphological types on the basis of their body build:
gracile forms (Australopithecus afarensis and A. africanus) and robust forms (A. robustus, A. boisei and A. aethiopicus).

KNM-ER 1466
Left Side of Cranial Vault:
Thick and rather robust features could also place this specimen with H. erectus or even as a robust H. sapiens

KNM-ER 1593: Skull Fragments

KNM-ER 1648: Parietal Fragment

KNM-ER 1808 Adult Skull Fragments

KNM-ER 1811 Mandibular Fragments

KNM-ER 1812 Mandible Fragments

KNM-ER 1821 Right Parietal Fragment

KNM-ER 2592 Left Parietal Fragments

KNM-ER 2595 Right Parietal Fragment

KNM-ER 2598 Occipital Fragment

KNM-ER 3734 Mandibular Fragments

KNM-ER 3889 Mandible Fragment

KNM-ER 3892 Frontal and Parietal
:
Robusticity places it in comparison with that of Asian Erectus

Olduvai, Tanzania specimens:

OH 9 Partial Cranium ~ dated to 1.2 million years:
Discovered in 1960 by Louis Leakey at Olduvai, Tanzania


Already mentioned above: OH 13 Fragmented Skull ~ dated to 1.5 million years:
By Louis Leakey in 1963 at Olduvai

The Gawis cranium dated ~ 500 ky - 250 ky ago:
Missing link between the extinct Homo erectus and modern man?
The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- "comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human," said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia.

Omo crania ~ 195 ky ago:
Feb 2005: Two skulls found near the Omo River in Ethiopia in 1967 by Richard Leakey and thought to be about 130,000 years old have now been dated at 195,000 years, the oldest date known for a modern human skull (McDougall et al. 2005). The Omo I skull is fully modern, while Omo II has some archaic features - Courtesy Jim Foley, talkorigins.org

Herto Crania ~ 160 ky ago:
…After uncovering more fossilized fragments, the team reconstructed skull fragments and teeth from seven individuals. The three most complete fossils, however, were one adult cranium ( excluding the lower jaw ), cranial fragments from another adult, and a less-complete child’s skull.

…To determine the age of the fossils, White and his team turned to Paul Renne, of UC Berkeley’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and the Berkeley Geochronology Center--a non-profit organization that dates geological events in the Earth’s history. Renne’s research group used argon-isotope dating to find the age of the Herto fossils. This process takes advantage of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium ( potassium-40 ) into argon ( argon-40 ). By knowing the rate of this decay and measuring the proportion of potassium-40 to argon-40, Renne and his team determined the age of volcanic ash above and below the fossils. After correlating the make-up of the Herto fossils with the volcanic ash, they dated the skulls to about 160,000 years ago, chronologically placing them between pre-Homo sapiens and modern man

…The Herto individuals are not the only early humans found in Africa, but their relative wholeness makes them the most significant. Unlike remains dating from 130,000 to 260,000 years ago found in South Africa, Tanzania and Morocco, the Ethiopian fossils are “especially well preserved and clean,” said Renne. They do not show evidence of disease or pathologies, which can sometimes misrepresent a species and mislead scientists.

The most unique quality of the crania is their combination of early and modern human features For example:

— the wide-set eyes, anteriorly-placed teeth, and short occipital bone at the base of the skull are found in more ancient African crania.

— But the wide upper face, moderately domed forehead, and globular braincase resemble modern human fossils, like those found in Israel from about 115,000 years ago.

Source: Courtesy UC Berkeley, Science Review.

In the words of Jennifer Viegas, for Discovery news, going back to the point about avoiding bio-anthropological "tunnel vision",....


Although Omo I may be the world's "Adam" for now, it's possible that modern humans emerged even earlier at some other place in Africa.
"We only have evidence for what we have found," Fleagle said, adding that there "almost certainly were modern individuals before Omo I."
He explained that Ethiopia's geology has deposits suitable to bone preservation and discovery, which is perhaps why so many fossil hominids have been excavated there over the years.
"Paleontology is a very opportunistic science," he concluded. "When we have a record of fossils in one place, we can reconstruct what happened there, but it is impossible to say what was going on in places from which there is no fossil record." - Jennifer Viegas, Earliest Known Human Had Neanderthal Qualities, Discovery News - August 22, 2008.


Recommended reading: 

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Chronological Bits - Crania

Quick chronological bits on Anatomically modern human specimens:

East Africa:

Omo I ~ 195, 000 years ago.



Other views of the Omo I specimen: These below give a very good indication of the scope of the missing sections of the actual skull, the remaining fragments of which have been mated to a carefully moulded piece—emulating the contours of the skull fragments where they are fitted—to hold the fragments together and provide an intuitive idea of how the complete skull--had it been fully preserved—would have looked:


Below is a diagrammatic comparison between the skulls of Homo heidelbergensis, Omo I and a recent human respectively...


Herto Man ~ 165,000 years ago.


Levant:

Qafzeh skull ~ 90,000 to 100,000 years ago.



Good link to Paleontology!

East Africa - Nile Valley:

Singa specimen, Sudan ~ anywhere from 100,000 to 150,000 years ago depending on what source a reader picks up [Chris Stringer & Grun (1991) puts the age at ~ 100,000 years ago, McDermott et al. (1996) put it between ~ 140,000 and 150,000 years ago]


The specimen was uncovered in 1924. Note the Singa specimen's extraordinarily broad bi-pareital width near the bosses; several observers [e.g. notably Chris Stringer] describe this condition as one of a pathological one, attributable to absence of bony labyrinth structures in the skull's temporal bone, on the right side; see...

"From Singa in the Sudan, there is another hominin, discovered in 1924. On the basis of U-Th dating of calcrete adhering to the bones, the Singa cranium is >133,000 years old. It has a domed frontal, a relatively high vault, and is very broad at the parietal bosses. Here, the parietals are thickened, mostly because of diploic expansion. Great biparietal width is perhaps related to pathology, because the Singa right temporal lacks structures of the bony labyrinth." - Rightmire (2009), Middle and later Pleistocene hominins in Africa and Southwest Asia.

Some observers in the past [e.g. Woodward (1938) and Wells (1951)] have advocated affinities between KhoiSan cranial trends and the Singa calvaria, and the possible genealogical ties thereof; others, Alan G. Morris (2003) for example, contest such viewpoints, noting that...

Although the skull is difficult to date, the most recent attempts have suggested that it is older than 100 000 years (Grun & Stringer 1991) and has little to do with the direct ancestry of specific recent African populations. - A. G. Morris (2003), The Myth of the East African 'Bushmen'.

As far as Morris is concerned, KhoiSan morphological trends are just as "derived" relatively recently in biohistory as any other recent group...

"The ancestral allelic states identified f rom both mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA do indeed reflect ancient roots but the total morphological pattern is as derived from the ancestral form as it is in any other human group. The morphology of populations reflects adaptive patterns that are dynamic responses to sequences of adaptive events in the local environment."

Taramsa-1 specimen ~ 55,000 years BP
A child burial was found at Taramsa-1 dating to this time (c.55,000BP): “The poorly preserved bones were those of a sub-adult ‘anatomically modern human’ similar in appearance to the Mechtoid populations of the north African Epipalaeolithic. The position of the body, as well as the depth of the pit in which it was found . . . suggest that the child had not died in this location but had been deliberately brought here to be buried” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.37).

Nazlet Khater specimen ~ 30,000 to 38,000 years BP


Wadi Kubanniya specimen ~ 20,000 years BP

Tushka specimens ~ 14,500 +/- 490 years BP [Wendorf 1968, and personal communication per Groves 1999]

Sahaba specimens ~ 13,700 +/- 600 years BP [Wendorf 1968, and personal communication per Groves 1999]

Jebel Sahaba-Wadi Halfa specimens ~ 12,000-6000 years BP [Sahaba specimens ~ 13,700 +/- 300 Wendorf 1968, per Groves 1999]

West Africa:

Jebel Irhoud specimens ~ 160,000/+ years ago, comprising of two adult male skulls (Irhoud 1 and 2) and juvenile's jaw (Irhoud 3) fragment, humerus (Irhoud 4) bone and a pelvis fragment (Irhoud 5)...


Above, we have a sketch of an adult male, and right by that, is the photo of the actual skull. In the image following, is the mandible fragment of a child, along with two subsequent images zeroing in on a tooth from the same specimen—i.e."tooth and tooth growth lines of 160,000-year old Homo sapiens child" [courtesy of Natural History Museum].

Irhoud 1 and 2 adult male specimens were uncovered in 1961. Both reportedly have a mix of pleisiomorphic [such as low vault, thick supra-orbital ridges, occipital buns and robusticity] and "modern" traits [such as for example, the level of protrusion of the face and large rectangular orbits]. The same applies to the mandible fragment of what is estimated to be an eight-year old child (Irhoud 3), uncovered in 1968; it is deemed to be considerably robust and its posterior symphysis recalls the "archaic" types of Skhul or Qafzeh. The humerus bone (Irhoud 4)—also deemed to that of a child, and uncovered in 1969—continues the empirical trend of robusticity. Last but not least, "a fragmentary pelvis encased in breccia" was uncovered at the Jebel Irhoud site, as noted by Stringer and Gamble (1993). Courtesy of Natural History Museum, we are told the following about the mandible piece of an eight-year old child... 

"Tests on remains from a child show it was growing as slowly as an eight-year-old child would today. This is the earliest evidence of a prolonged childhood in our modern human ancestors, Homo sapiens."

"The team of scientists ... looked for molar teeth in the jaw that may not have erupted, an important clue to the development of a child. And a powerful X-ray technique on a fossilised tooth revealed microscopic growth lines hidden inside. This shows the tooth was immature and had grown slowly, the same as an eight-year-old child's would today." 

"Humans have the longest childhood of all primates, and this feature in nature is associated with complex social structures, as the brain has longer to develop during childhood.
 

More ancient human ancestors grew up much faster. For example Australopithecines , living about 3 million years ago, may have reached adulthood by the age of 12."

"The fossil remains of this child, who was about eight years old, were discovered in the Jebel Irhoud site in Morocco in 1968. 'This is a very important site and has often been neglected in the discussions of modern human origins,' says Chris. 'In my own case, studies of an adult skull from this site over 30 years ago was one of the factors that led me to the view that our species had evolved in Africa.'

'While I think that the Irhoud material is probably less 'modern' overall than do the authors of this paper, nevertheless these fossils could certainly represent populations ancestral to modern humans, and they show that North Africa may well have played a significant part in our origins,' concludes Chris." -
Courtesy of Natural History Museum 

These specimens had been prematurely dismissed as "Neanderthaloids" or "Neanderthal-like", but more recent research have shown that these specimens actually belonged to anatomically modern humans, albeit retaining what some call "pleisiomorphic" cranio-facial tidbits here and there. Furthermore, reactionary attempts to render these specimens as "non-African" fall flat, as they date to time frames earlier than the oldest known examples in both Europe [Upper Paleolithic ~ 30 to 35ky ago] and the so-called "Southwest Asia" [in the Levant ~ 100,000; see Qafzeh above].

Aterian specimens ~ dates ranging from 32,150 +/- 4800 years ago to 41,160 +/- 3500 years ago according to thermoluminesence estimation of an Aterian level wherein a mandible fragment and a piece of canine tooth were recovered; no radiometric age estimation is available for the Dar es-Soltane and Temara specimens at the moment according to E. Trinkaus (2005), who goes onto note that age estimations of Aterian levels, as put forth by Debenath (1994) and Wengler (1997), open up the possibility that the Aterian industry extended well into the late Paleolithic after 30,000 years BP, likely alluding to estimations such as that based off of a radiocarbon date on a "Helix" shell—ca. 25,580 +/- 130 years ago (Debenath 2000). These age estimates seem to point the stratigraphically upper layers of the Aterian industry, i.e. the latter layers (the Upper Paleolithic), since the complex extends to as far as the middle Paleolithic ~ 90,000 + years ago based on age estimates of the deeper or older layers of the industry.



The Aterian specimens all in all comprise of a partial skull, with the face sans a complete mandible—save for a hemi-mandible, as shown in the image above—to the left, a juvenile skull cap, as shown above—to the right, an adolescent mandible fragment missing the ramus, yet another mandible fragment, and a canine tooth. The first specimens were recovered from the Dar es-Soltane II site in 1975, while the remaining two specimens were recovered from the El Harhoura site in 1977. The aforementioned Aterian "partial skull" (Dar es-Soltane 5) noticeably sports supra-orbital ridges, which some observers may well consider as part of the "pleisiomorphic" elements that accompany the "modern" characteristics; Erik Trinkaus describes the Dar es-Soltane 5 and Temara 1 specimens as follows...

"At about the same time period as the Nazlet Khater remains are the Aterian fossils from Dar-es-Soltane and Temara (Vallois & Roche 1958;Ferembach 1976, 1998;M´enard 1998, 2002). They have dentitions that are reduced relative to the preceding late Middle Pleistocene remains of the region (Hublin & Tillier 1981) but are still moderately large. Temara 2 lacks a supraorbital torus and has a rounded occipital region, and Dar-es-Soltane 5 has some prominence of the tuber symphyseos, reduction of the nasal region, distinct canine fossae, and a high and rounded anterior neurocranium.Yet, Temara 1 lacks a chin, and Dar-es-Soltane 5 has a clear supraorbital torus and a relatively wide mandibular ramus. For their late OIS 3 age, they exhibit an archaic/modern morphological mosaic unusual in Africa." - E. Trinkaus (2005), Early Modern Humans.

Taforalt specimens ~ 10,800 +/- 241 years BP to 12,070 +/- 400 years BP. [Roche 1963, dates per Groves 1999]


Afalou-bou-Rhummel specimens ~ date back to about the same time frame as the Taforalt specimens, although are proclaimed to be "*somewhat* later in date". [no specific dates provided by Groves 1999] 

Mechta-el-Arbi specimens ~ 8,500 years ago. [dates per Groves 1999] 

Gobero Early Holocene (Kiffian) specimens, Niger ~  9,500 to 10,000 years ago

In relation to the Gobero Kiffian remains, Sereno et al. (2008) note...

"Phase 2 peoples are tall in stature, approaching two meters for both males and females. Hyperflexed, supine burial postures predominate, their compact configuration and anatomical articulation suggesting that their bodies were tightly bound with animal skin, ligament or basketry binding, although no trace of these perishable materials are preserved (Figure 4C). Their crania are long and low and are characterized by a distinct occipital bun, flattened sagittal profile, pentagonal posterior outline, broad proportions across the zygoma and interorbital region, broad nasal aperture, and negligible alveolar prognathism (Figure 4D), features that are apparent in juveniles as young as four years of age (Figure 4E) and absent in skulls from mid-Holocene burials [see below, the specifics of the mid-Holocene Gobero specimens]" - Sereno et al. (2008), Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change.

Hassi el-Abiod specimens, so-called "Mechtoids" or "Mechta-Afalou" of Mali ~ 4,500 to 7,000 years BP, comprising some 89 individuals according to some sources [see below for details]; 15 individuals were dated at ca. 7,000 years BP, while 46 specimens were dated at ca. 4,500 years BP [B.M. & C. Rothschild, 1996]

Barbara Barich notes about the Hassi el-Abiod burial patterns, that...

"The Hassi el Abiod cemetery in Mali, with its sample of 89 individuals, can be considered a real exception (Petit-Maire, Riser eds. 1983). This human group has been accurately studied and described, and clear inhumation practices have been identified. For example, they maintained a practice of placing the body in a crouched position, on the left or right side, with the head oriented towards the east (Dutour 1989). This also represents a very important anthropological sample, providing an invaluable opportunity for comparison with material from another important cemetery, Jebel Sahaba." - Barbara E. Barich, People, water, and grain: the beginnings of domestication in the Sahara and the Nile Valley, 1998.

Notice how what is ordinarily called "sub-Saharan west Africa" in Eurocentric media circles, is interestingly referred to as the "Sahara" when it comes to discussing certain matter, like in this case, the so-called "Mechtoids" of Hassi el-Abiod, or say, the Tamasheq ("Tuaregs") groups of that same region. In all other occasions, Mali is simply bunched along with, and dismissed as "sub-Saharan" Africa. Barich goes onto provide a schematic of Jebel Sahaba burial practice (below), and therein too, the head of the dead face east, while the bodies are placed in a crouched position, though mostly on their left side.


Asselar specimen from Asselar, Mali ~ 6,400 BP [C.A. Diop, per Chamla (1986), and Boule & Vallos (1932)]

Gobero Mid-Holocene (Tenerean) specimens, Niger ~ 4,800 to 6,700 years ago


"Occupational Interruption (6200–5200 B.C.E)
 

A harsh arid interval separates early and mid-Holocene populations at Gobero, when the paleolake appears to have dried out and the area abandoned. Although we have no means to directly assess aridity, no terrestrial or aquatic vertebrates or lakebed sediment have been dated to this interval, which lasted approximately one millennium (Figure 3). The only specimens dated within this interval were found in the paleolake deposit and consist of a cluster of the small gastropod Melanoides tuberculata, a species that prefers periodically flooded habitats to permanent water bodies." - Sereno et al. (2008), Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change.

The Gobero Tenerean burials surface after this "occupational interruption", and as far as their cranio-morphological particulars go, Sereno et al. tell the reader that...

"Phase 3 humans have more gracile skeletons and shorter stature for both males and females. They are buried most commonly in semi-flexed postures on either left or right sides (Figure 5D, E). Their crania are long, high and narrow, and their faces are taller with considerable alveolar prognathism (Figure 5C). Principal components analysis of craniometric data clearly distinguishes the mid-Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-m) from all other sampled populations, including the early Holocene population at Gobero, Iberomaurusian and Capsian populations from the Maghreb, “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania, as well as much older Aterian samples (Figure 6). The morphological isolation of the mid-Holocene population from Gobero is particularly noteworthy, as several of the other populations sampled (WMC, Mali, Maur) are believed to be mid-Holocene contemporaries." - Sereno et al. (2008), Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change.

Haua Fteah mandible specimens ~ 40,000 to 46,000 years ago. These comprise of two ramus fragments attributed to two individuals [Haua Fteah I and 2], between 18 & 25 years of age and between 12 and 17 years of age respectively. Haua Fteah 1 was uncovered in 1952, while Haua Fteah 2 was uncovered in 1955. As with other northwest specimens described above, and northeastern African specimens, these specimens were in the past assumed to belong to "Neanderthal-like" populations, until more recent assessments demonstrated similarities to recent groups, including "sub-Saharan" Africans.

*Click on small-sized images for higher resolution. More to come, as this page gets updated.
_______________________________________________________________

Additional reading:

Mechta and Afalou: Do they and the so-called "Mechtoids" constitute a type with the "Cro-Magnon"?

Monday, September 1, 2008

Crania: Behind the "Generalized Modern human pattern" ...

Within 'Medi-centrist' circles, ideologues have sought psychological refuge in this anthropological catchword, in relation to cranial morphology; however, what is this term really a code word for? Well, let's examine from the language of a few anthropological publications, what this really boils down to...

The reactionary and outdated anthropological work of Colin Groves naturally comes to mind immediately:

...The implications of the Herto find for modern human origins are clear. Here were H. sapiens, more primitive than anyone now living but recognizably members of our own species, living in north-eastern Africa at a time when the Neanderthal people were in sole occupation of Europe. Even later than Herto, the only people for whom we have evidence were still non-modern - an enigmatic Neanderthal-like skull from Maba in China, and late H. erectus in Java. Just as predicted by the Out-of-Africa model, modern humans appear in Africa long before they are known from anywhere else.

There are implications for the origins of modern races, too. Herto (and Jebel Irhoud) are H. sapiens, but with primitive features. They are not, racially speaking, Africans. The later Omo and Klasies remains are more modern, but they too are archaic, and certainly show no traces of the features that characterize any modern races. Only Qafzeh and Skhul seem to lack these primitive features, and rate as “generalised modern humans”.

Our species seems to have existed as an entity long, long before it began to spread outside Africa or the Middle East, let alone split into geographic races.

When, then, did H. sapiens begin to split into races? The evidence indicates that modern racial features developed only gradually in each geographic area. The earliest H. sapiens specimen outside the Africa/Levant region is from Liujiang in China, whose dating was recently confirmed at 67,000 BP by a group led by Guanjun Shen of Nanjing Normal University. Like Qafzeh and Skhul, Liujiang is a “generalized modern”; it has no Mongoloid features.

The East Asian fossil record is not good enough to show when Mongoloid features began to develop. All we can say is that they must have developed before the end of the Pleistocene (12,000 BP) because this is when people began to cross what is now the Bering Strait (which was then a land-bridge); and Native Americans are Mongoloid.

H. sapiens began to enter Europe about 40,000 BP, but it is only at 28,000 BP that we get a fossil that shows any Caucasoid features - the Old Man from Cro-Magnon, in France.

Within the African homeland, the appearance of Negroid features is debatable. The skull from Border Cave, on the South Africa/Swaziland border, may be 60,000 years old and may show Negroid features, but both claims have been challenged.

And Australia? The earliest widely accepted dates for human occupation are of the order of 60,000 BP, not more, according to Bert Roberts of La Trobe University and the late Rhys Jones of the Australian National University. The claim that the Mungo Man skeleton is 62,000 BP has recently been challenged. According to a recent study led by Jim Bowler of Melbourne University, both Mungo Man and Mungo Woman may be only 40,000 years old (AS, April 2003, pp.18-21), but they are still the earliest skeletal remains we have from Australia. Are they Australoid?

Of all “major races”, Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalized modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full-blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/Skhul pattern. A 1999 study by Susan Antón and Karen Weinstein of the University of Florida, in the process of confirming that some of the Australian fossils (including most of the famous Kow Swamp series) had undergone artificial head deformation in infancy, found unexpectedly that most of the Pleistocene fossil Australian crania are rounder-skulled than modern ones. So racial features developed late in this part of the world, too.

In summary, the new discovery at Herto does not shatter any myths, but it extends the dataset, shifts the weight of evidence yet more decisively in favour of the Out-of-Africa model of modern human evolution, and helps to place modern racial variation very firmly into context.

Colin Groves is professor of archaeology and anthropology at the Australian National University.

© Control Publications 2003


Let's see what Groves says is not the "generalized modern human pattern":

— primitive features

...which Grove observes, is a feature of the Herto, the Omo and Klasies specimens; and to drive this point, Grove tells us that: The later Omo and Klasies remains are more modern, but they too are archaic, and certainly show no traces of the features that characterize any modern races.

Apparently, bespeaking of the outdatedness of his viewpoint, the Omo specimens that Grove deems more modern, are actually much older than the Herto specimen — that is, outside the fallacy of "human races".

What else is not generalized modern, according to Groves?

— Mongoloid features

...on which we are clued in, here: Like Qafzeh and Skhul, Liujiang is a “generalized modern”; it has no Mongoloid features.

What else?

— Caucasoid features

And we know this, because Groves tells us that: it is only at 28,000 BP that we get a fossil that shows any Caucasoid features - the Old Man from Cro-Magnon, in France.

Mind you, this would be the same "Caucasoid" Cro-Magnons that Chris Stringer tells us: more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China

And with regards to which, Brace says: oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are “us” (46) is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains

We are also clued in that generalized modern isn't exactly....

— modern racial features...either!

Yeap, you probably guessed it; he implies this to us, right here: When, then, did H. sapiens begin to split into races? The evidence indicates that modern racial features developed only gradually in each geographic area.

Yet even by Groves' own rationale, although he turns around and simply says that it has been challenged, the so-called 'Negroid' trait preceded the so-called Caucasoid:

Within the African homeland, the appearance of Negroid features is debatable. The skull from Border Cave, on the South Africa/Swaziland border, may be 60,000 years old and may show Negroid features, but both claims have been challenged.

For if the said 'Negroid' features are attested to 60 ky ago, then that would apparently predate the questionable appearance of the so-called 'Caucasoid' features at ca. 28 Ky ago among the discredited "Caucasoid Cro-Magnons" , wouldn't it?!

But perhaps the most instructive piece of Groves' racialist discourse, is this:

Of all “major races”, Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalized modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full-blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/Skhul pattern.

It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see that Australian aborigines are tropically-derived peoples, with considerable skin eumelanin, placing them well within the range of skin pigmentations found across 'sub-Saharan' Africans. In popular language, we all know the latter are known as "blacks". Indeed, Groves' ability to see closer phenotypic link between Australian aborigines and Upper Paleolithic "Eurasian" specimens of Qafzeh/Skhul and Australia, is consistent with the aforementioned Chris Stringer et al.'s assessment:

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China

Source: African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity by Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie, Page 162

Stringer et al.'s observation is yet consistent with that of Neves et al. 2005:

"Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen **today** among **Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.**

Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian/early archaic specimen from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil. The Capelinha skull was compared with samples of four Paleoindian groups from South and Central America and worldwide modern groups from W.W. Howells' studies.

In **both analyses** performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status."


Reminiscent of Groves' distancing of the generalized cranial morphology from the so-called 'Mongoloid pattern', Neves et al. tells us:

The increasing evidence that all late Pleistocene/ early Holocene human groups from South America are characteristically non-Mongoloid has major implications for the colonization of the Americas, as argued by one of us (WAN) since the end of the 1980s. Even if few studies with large samples from single sites have been carried out so far with Paleoindians (see Neves et al., 2003, 2004, as examples of these studies), it is evident by now that South America Central America and possibly North America, were populated by human groups with a more generalized cranial morphology before the arrival of the Mongoloids.

Like Stringer, they too see the generalized pattern as that akin to that seen in cranial morphology of tropical adapted groups like Australians, Melanesians and Africans:

— Since this more generalized morphology (‘‘Australo-Melanesian- like’’) was also present in East Asia at the end of the Pleistocene, transoceanic migrations are not necessary to explain our findings.

— As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ‘‘Australo-Melanesian-like’’ population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).

What Neves et al. tells us next, pretty much sums up why Upper Paleolithic African specimens show affinities with Upper Paleolithic 'Eurasians', as well as Paleo-Indians:

1) Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces.

2) We postulate that after reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions.

— 50 Ky ago
One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 Ka.


— Between 50 and 20 Ky ago
Sometime between 50 and 20 Ka a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans.

Neves et al.'s observations are apparently valid, and appears to be the consensus scientific finding, but even they fall victim to "idealized" typological constructs [as indicated by the need to refer to the term "Mongoloid" at all] — although to a much lesser degree than Groves — and it serves one to understand that when they speak of stronger phenotypic associations between Paleo-Indians and Paleo-Eurasians and contemporary dark-skinned tropically-adapted/derived groups like aboriginal Australians, Melanesians and Africans than other contemporary groups, that with regards to Africans, the comparison is being made with view to only a snapshot of African diversity. Take for instance, the following Neves et al. characterizations of the Paleo-Indian source populations:

Recap — Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces.

And then this — When the classical Mongoloid cranial morphology appeared in northeastern Asia, either as a local response to extreme environmental conditions, or as the product of a migration from northern Europe, a new expansion of northern Asians reached the New World, bringing with it a cranial morphology characterized by short, wide neurocrania and broad, retracted faces.

Although local microevolutionary processes in the Americas can not be precluded to explain the transition from a generalized to a very specialized cranial morphology (Powell and Neves, 1999), a model based on the entrance of two different morphological patterns from the Old World is much more parsimonious.

The two patterns are further described as follows...

The three different quantitative analyses undertaken in this study demonstrate that the first South Americans exhibit a cranial morphology that is:

1 — very different from late and modern Northeastern Asians and Amerindians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses)

2 — but very similar to present Australians/Melanesians and Africans, especially with the former (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).

Source: Neves et al. 2005; Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World.

Clearly, the cranial patterns described in association with the Australian/Melanesian and African groups is only a snapshot of the actual overall diversity of Africans; the combination of traits described above is often invoked in what one might refer to as 'stereotypical Negro" — or as it has been referred to elsewhere — as "forest Negro". Certainly, these traits do not cover the full range of cranio-facial patterns observed across sub-Saharan Africans and Africans as a whole; they are just subsets of the said variation.

Revisiting that last 2nd point: 2 — but very similar to present Australians/Melanesians and Africans, especially with the former (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).

It should be obvious from the above, that showing stronger phenotypic affinities with the above mentioned groups — Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, that this doesn't mean the said three groups show no inter-group differences; apparently, there are discernible phenotypic manifestations between them, with contemporary Australians and Melanesians perhaps showing somewhat stronger links to the aforementioned Paleolithic specimens than contemporary Africans, but relatively smaller distances between the three contemporaries and the Paleolithic specimens, than the case may be with other groups; this brings us to the:

Conclusion: Stronger phenotypic associations are observed between the modern tropically-adapted/derived groups like Australians, Melanesians and Africans and Paleolithic groups of Africa, Eurasia and America, because original modern humans were tropically-adapted Africans, who sported considerable skin pigmentation — that is to say, "blacks". Therefore, the 'generalized modern' is nothing more than a code word or just another euphemism for a variant(s) of the [naturally, dark-skinned] tropical African, otherwise also called "black African". This applies to their tropically-adapted Paleolithic descendant populations in the Levant, SouthAsia, Europe, and the Americas. The generalized moderns represent part of the then existing overall variation of tropical Africans, just as the "stereotyped" or "idealized" sub-Saharan African archetype constitutes just a part of overall phenotypic diversity of Saharo-Sub-Saharan Africa.

Ps — Some Eurocentric ideologues, as exemplified in Groves' work, unable to psychologically come to grips with their ultimate derivation from dark-skinned [tropical] African ancestors, conjure up pseudo-scientific "racialist" or typological discourse wherein they seek to mystify the fact by hiding behind code terms like "generalized modern", even if it means contradicting themselves in the process — again as Groves did — and overlooking it. For instance, from Groves, one almost gets the sense that he tries too hard to make a case that the generalized modern is a type which is spared so-called archaic features, yet distinctive from 'contemporary' populations which he divides and classifies into rigid types, while at the same time, acknowledging a relatively stronger association with the contemporary likes of aboriginal Australians. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that aboriginal Australians are considerably dark skinned peoples, whom like other tropical-affiliated groups like Melanesians, are in certain ways reminiscent of their dark skinned African brethren, not to mention sporting strong morphological affinities with both Paleo-'Eurasians' and Paleo-Africans, because they all emanate from autochthonous dark skin ancestral populations of tropical Africa — a fact which is relayed through cephalo-morphometric study, as just examined, and molecular genetics — wherein relatively deeper monophyletic units or markers are attested to in these groups [especially Africans] than those observed in their counterparts elsewhere!
____________________________________________________
*References:

— Colin Groves 2003

—Neves et al. 2005; A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World.

—Neves et al. 2005; Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World.

—Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie, African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity.

— Brace et al. 2005, The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form. Neat little link (clickable) to a discussion on the draft of the this paper before it went into publication!

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Urbanization in the African Horn was the outcome of autochthonous social processes, or was it?

Though a minority clique, there are a few who attribute the Aksumite complex and urbanization in the African Horn to migrants from the Arabian peninsula, rather than a long history of social processes leading to development of distinctive urban centers at different time frames, influenced by both local processes and prevailing environmental and/or external socio-political pressures or influences. Is this so? Researcher Fattovich is quite clear enough by himself, in his layout of urbanization development in the African Horn, in what would eventually become part of the territorial sphere of the modern state of Ethiopia, and so, the present author simply allow the man speak for himself, and then draw the conclusion from the chronological layout:

A relatively elaborate layout from Pre-Aksumite to the Aksumite phases - starting with the Pre-Aksumite phase:

c. 1000–800/700 BC

The Early pre-Aksumite Phase (
c. 1000–800/700 BC). In this phase, the pre-Aksumite cultural area was apparently divided into two regions: (a) central Eritrea and northern Tigray and (b) western Tigray. They probably reflected a cultural division of the plateau going back to late prehistoric times (see Fattovich 1988). It is possible that chiefdoms already existe (Schneider 1976), but no safe archaeological evidence of them is yet available. The people of western Tigray who were definitely in contact with the southern Arabians worked iron, as we can infer from slag found at Gobedra rock shelter near Aksum (see Phillipson 1977; Fattovich 1980; Fattovich 1990c). The late ‘Jebel Mokram Group’ people in the lowlands were in contact with those of western Tigray (Fig. 5).

c. 700/600–300 BC

The Middle pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 700/600–300 BC). The kingdom of Da’amat appeared in this phase. Its territory stretched from western Tigray to central Eritrea. Most likely, the capital was located at Yeha (western Tigray) and monumental and epigraphical evidence stresses a direct link with the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia. Some rock inscriptions recorded in Eritrea point to contacts with other south Arabian peoples and there were also contacts with the Nubian kingdom of Kush, the Achemenian Empire, and the Greek world. The nomads living in the Atbara and Gash alluvial plains were included in the area of Ethiopian influence (Fig. 6; Drewes 1962; de Contenson 1981; Anfray 1990; Fattovich1990c).

c. 300 BC–100 BC/AD 100

The Late pre-Aksumite Phase (c. 300 BC–100 BC/AD 100). In this phase, the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed, but petty kingdoms probably survived on the plateau. The pre-Aksumite cultural area was again divided into two main regions as in the early phase, and the northern plateau (Rore region) was included in the eastern cultural area. The southern Arabian influence practically disappeared and local traditions emerged again in this phase (Fig. 7;Conti Rossini 1928; Anfray 1968; Fattovich 1979; Anfray 1990; Fattovich 1990c).

c. AD 400–700

The Middle Aksumite Phase (c. AD 400–700). This phase corresponds to the period of major expansion of the kingdom. The western and eastern plateau shared the same material culture, except for some slight differences in the pottery. Coinage was widely used. Churches were widely scattered over the territory of the kingdom. Syrian influences can be recognized in the architecture of this period (Anfray 1972; Anfray 1974; Anfray 1981; Anfray 1990).

c. 700–900 AD

The Late Aksumite Phase (c. 700–900 AD). This phase corresponds to the decline of the kingdom. Coinage was probably no more in use and some important towns, such as Matara and Adulis, were apparently abandoned. Aksum was quite reduced in size (Anfray 1974;Anfray 1990; Michels 1990; Munro-Hay 1991).


The development of urbanism up to medieval times in the northern Horn of Africa can be divided into three main stages. They correspond to different phases of state formation in the region: 

Fattovich continues...

  • The proto-Urban Stage (third–second millennia BC), represented by the ‘Gash Group’ in the lowlands and perhaps the ‘Ona Group A’ on the eastern plateau. It corresponds to the rise of chiefdoms in the region.
  • The Early Urban Stage (first millennium BC), represented by the pre-Aksumite culture in Eritrea and Tigray. It corresponds to the development of the Sabean-like kingdom of Da’amat on the plateau.
  • The Mature Urban Stage (first millennium AD), represented by the Aksumite culture on the plateau. It corresponds to the development of the kingdom of Aksum.
-----

Any interpretation of the development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa is still speculative. In my opinion, however, some factors affecting this process can be identified. The main factor was probably the progressive inclusion of the region in the interchange circuit between the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean countries. This gave rise to chiefdoms and states since the mid-third millennium BC. In particular, the south Arabian expansion in the late second to early first millennia BC, stimulated the emergence of a state on the plateau. In turn, large residential settlements arose in strategic positions to control the local resources and traderoutes. Eventually, they were the major markets in the local exchange network, as well. On the contrary, the Arab political and commercial activity in northeast Africa at the end of the first millennium AD, caused the progressive isolation of the plateau. This probably affected the collapse of urbanism in late Aksumite times.

The development of complex societies and states improved the agricultural production to sustain more nucleated populations and specialized activities. This possibly caused the selection of more fertile areas as a location for the larger settlements within the range of areas suitable to control the local resources.

The improvement of agricultural production probably caused an increase in the ‘Gash Group’ population in the lowlands, and in the pre-Aksumite and Aksumite ones on the plateau. This increase could have generated a dispersal of the single populations to exploit other areas suitable for cultivation and grazing. In such a way new large settlements arose as markets and administrative centres in the peripheral regions. Political factors surely affected this process. The need to control the local resources and trade routes most likely stimulated the territorial expansion of the pre-Aksumite and Aksumite states. This might have caused the disappearance of some residential settlements with political functions and the establishment of new administrative centres. Moreover, ideological factors connected with the legitimation of the elite might have affected the ceremonial function of the main settlements (e.g. Mahal Teglinos, Yeha, Aksum).

Environmental factors were less significant than the economic and cultural ones. The moister climate of the region in the mid first millennium BC to the mid first millennium AD probably facilitated the establishment of the ‘plough and cereal complex’ on the plateau. It is possible that the generally reduced rainfall in the seventh to tenth centuries AD, together with the progressive exhaustion of the soils and deforestation by human activity in Aksumite times, caused droughts and famines with consequent epidemics. They might have affected the progressive depopulation of the plateau, pushing the population to move southwards. Moreover, the sudden abandonment of Adulis and Matara in the eighth century AD might point to a catastrophic event.On the basis of the above, the following tentative explanation of the development of urbanism in the northern Horn can be suggested:

c.4000 BC

The inclusion of the ‘Butana Group’ people in an interchange circuit with predynastic Egyptian the fourth millennium BC, gave rise to a hierarchical society at the confluence of the Gash and the Atbara river. In turn, this stimulated the transition to cattle-breeding and cultivation of cereals, and the founding of large sedentary settlements.

c. late 4000 BC to early 3000 BC

In the late fourth to early third millennia BC, the Gash progressively shifted from the original confluence with the Atbara river into the present bed (see Sadr 1991). This opened a more direct route from the Nile valley to the Horn of Africa than the Atbara valley. The descendants of the ‘Butana Group’ people followed the shift of the river and settled in the present southern delta. In such a way they occupied a strategic position to control the land route to Nubia and Egypt. At the same time, they were able to exploit better the resources ofthe western lowlands during the seasonal movements from the Gash to the plateau (seeFattovich 1990d).

In the mid-third millennium BC, the ‘Gash Group’ people played a crucial role as intermediaries between Nubia and the regions of the Horn of Africa and southern Arabia. They were directly in contact with the kingdom of Kerma. This stressed the transition from a hierarchical society to a chiefdom and increased agricultural production. Mahal Teglinos was the residential centre of the elite and a crucial node in the trade network from Egypt and Nubia to the Horn and southern Arabia, becoming a proto-urban settlement.

In the early second millennium BC, the ‘Gash Group’ people spread through the western lowlands, as far as the Red Sea coast. Residential villages appeared in the middle Barka valley, along the way from Kassala to the plateau.

In the second half of the second millennium BC, the Red Sea become the main trade route from Egypt to the Horn and southern Arabia. This isolated the lowlands from the circuit, with a regression in social complexity and proto-urban settlements. An Afro-Arabian coastal interchange circuit arose. A port, possibly frequented by the Egyptians, appeared at Adulis. At the same time, the southern Arabians started their commercial activity northwards, along the land routes of western Arabia.

In the same period, the ‘Ona Group A’ people living on the plateau along the route from Kassala to Adulis become the intermediaries between the hinterland and the coast. It is possible that they also were in direct contact with Egypt. A complex society perhaps arose in the eastern plateau and a quite large settlement appeared at Sembel Cuscet.

By the late second millennium BC, the Egyptian trade with the southern regions was interrupted. This facilitated the south Arabian commercial expansion, with the rise of kingdoms in the region. The eastern Tigrean plateau was probably included in the Arab area of commercial activity. A residential settlement appeared at Matara.

In the early first millennium BC, the southern Arabians penetrated in the western Tigrean plateau, most likely to get a direct access to the resources of the western lowlands, particularly ivory. Quite soon the region was included in the area of political and commercial influence of the kingdom of Saba. The contacts with the Sabeans gave rise to the local kingdom of Da’amat. An urban society, reflecting the south Arabian pattern, appeared on the plateau. Yeha become a very important ceremonial centre and the possible residence of the kings. The agricultural production to sustain the new state was improved by the use of plough. The need to control the routes to the Red Sea caused the eastwards territorial expansion of the kingdom. Kaskasè become another important ceremonial centre. An urban settlement arose at Matara.

In the late first millennium BC, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in southern Arabia, the kingdom of Da’amat collapsed. The plateau was probably divided into petty kingdoms, including Aksum. Towns seem to disappear in the western plateau. Yeha remained an important ceremonial centre, but much reduced in size. The eastern plateau was progressively included in the Greek-Roman trade circuit along the Red Sea. This probably enabled the local populations to maintain a form of urban society.

By the first century BC, the western Tigray was included, as well, in the Roman trade circuit. **Aksum** probably become a gateway in the trade with the hinterland. An urban settlement arose at this site since the first century AD. Initially, it was a ceremonial centre connected with the funerary cult of the elite ancestors.

In the second to third centuries AD, with the progressive conquest of the other petty kingdoms, Aksum become the dominant state on the plateau. The kingdom was at this time the main African commercial partner of the Roman empire along the Red Sea route. An urban society, reflecting a local pattern, arose again on the plateau and agricultural production was surely improved.

In the mid-first millennium AD, after the introduction of Christianity, the kingdom reached its maxim expansion. It was an important political and commercial partner of the Byzantine empire. The population increased remarkably and urbanism reached its peak.

By late first millennium AD

The increase in population and agricultural production probably caused the exhaustion of the soils and the deforestation. Rainfall also reduced, which might have caused droughts and famines, and the depopulation of the plateau in the late first millennium AD. At the same time, the Arab political and commercial expansion through northeast Africa and along the Red Sea isolated the kingdom from the main interchange circuits. The Christian kingdom survived, but its centre shifted southwards.

In the first half of the second millennium AD, towns apparently no longer existed on the Tigrean plateau, but a few Islamic ports, connected with the Arab commercial activity along the Red Sea, occurred along the coast. - ends - by Fattovich

In relation to the above,...

"researchers have been confronted with archeological indicators which suggest that its [D'mt's] relationship with the Sabean complex across the red sea, which was experiencing its golden age then, allowed the Sabean complex's good fortunes to spill over to D'mt. It has to be kept in mind that "having influenced" is not the same thing as "being responsible for the origins" of an entire cultural complex. Both regions on either side of the Red sea have influenced the other side at some point or another over the course of history." - by Mystery Solver

Conclusion - Present author's input: Urbanization processes, as relayed in the layout above, are largely the product of in situ social processes at different time frames, each impacted by the prevailing environmental and external socio-political influences or pressures specific to the times in question. Thus, social complexes like Da'amat, for example, should be viewed within the context of ongoing in situ urbanization in the area, impacted by the then existing trade-network environments of each development phase.

On different note, interesting, is the Aksumite architecture of the Stelae:

Between ~ 3rd & 4th century:
 -
The stelae were carved mainly from solid blocks of nepheline syenite, a weather-resistant rock similar in appearance to granite, and are believed to have come from the quarries of Wuchate Golo several miles to the west of Aksum. After being cut from the rock walls there, they would have been dragged by organized manpower to the site of their installation, where finer carving awaited a few of the stelae. The impetus for this organizational effort appears to have been commemorative: there are many burials in this area and elaborate tombs are situated near the foremost group of the largest stelae. The wide variation in size and carving sophistication is most likely due to the varying degrees of social status and wealth of the deceased. Although the identities of the persons who sponsored them are not known, the tallest stelae probably commemorated royalty while smaller works were most likely commissioned by local elite. - Courtesy Metmuseum.org

An ancient African tradition; and possible ties to ancient "Sudanese" architectural traditions; from Stuart Munro-Hay:

Aksumite Domestic Architecture

...It is possible that the original inspiration for the design of the decorated stelae came from the South Arabian mud-brick multi-storey palaces familiar to the Aksumites from their involvements in that country, rather than from Ethiopian examples. On some of the Aksumite podia there could conceivably have been erected high tower-like structures of mud-brick around a wooden frame, such as that found at Mashgha in the Hadhramawt (Breton et al. 1980: pls. VIII, X) looking rather like the great stelae. But no evidence for such Yemeni-style buildings actually survives in Ethiopia, nor is there any archaeological indication there for mud-brick architecture. Alternatively, and more probably, the stelae could have been exaggerated designs based on the Aksumite palaces; and here there is archaeological support, since the structure called the `IW Building' partly cleared by the excavations of Neville Chittick (Munro-Hay 1989), included just such wood-reinforced walls.

…The origins of the stelae are very difficult to disentangle. Attributions of stelae in Ethiopia to the pre-Aksumite period, though customarily accepted (Munro-Hay 1989: 150), are not necessarily correct (Fattovich 1987: 47-8). A stele tradition appears nevertheless to have existed in the Sudanese-Ethiopian borderlands, and in parts of northern Ethiopia and Eritrea in pre-Aksumite times. Fattovich suggests, plausibly enough, that stelae belong to an ancient African tradition. In the case of the stelae at Kassala and at Aksum — despite the difference in time and the difference in the societies which erected them — he sees a similarity in several features. These include the suggestion that `the monoliths are not directly connected with specific burials' (Fattovich 1987: 63). However, this is questionable as far as the Aksum stelae are concerned, now that it has been possible to analyse the results of Chittick's work. Though it is not yet easy to identify tombs for all the stelae, it does seem that, at the Aksum cemeteries, wherever archaeological investigations have been possible there is a case for suggesting that stelae and tombs are directly associated.
- S. Munro-Hay

Setting the record straight? With regards to Munro-Hay's reference to Fattovich, pertaining to the association of Aksumite Stelae with burials, the said attribution of the former to the latter had been contested elsewhere, and this is how it was followed up:

"The Aksumite culture emerged from local traditions, including partly the pre-Aksumite one. A typical feature of this culture was the large funerary stelae, up to 33 m high, probably deriving from the stelae marking the ‘Gash Group’ burial grounds, suggesting a cultural link with the late prehistorical chiefdoms of the lowlands (Fattovich 1987b; Fattovich 1988)." - R. Fattovich, 2002.

The present author's reaction to the above was: It is interesting that Fattovich should mention the above, in his publication of The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times, 2002, when Mr. Munro Hay has this to say about his work from 1987:

"Fattovich suggests, plausibly enough, that stelae belong to an ancient African tradition. In the case of the stelae at Kassala and at Aksum — despite the difference in time and the difference in the societies which erected them — he sees a similarity in several features. These include the suggestion that `the monoliths are not directly connected with specific burials' (Fattovich 1987: 63)..." - S. Munro-Hay, 1991.

Mr. Munro Hay does mention the date and page of the particular source he is supposedly referencing from, though unfortunately, the title of the particular Fattovich work had not been provided to the extent to which the present author is able to access the work [of Mr. Munro Hay]...which, seems to be a reasonable portion of the work in question (Aksum: An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity), i.e., as far one's understanding of the message being communicated goes. This aforementioned Munro Hay publication came out back in 1991. The 1987 Fattovich publications that Munro Hay's reference could possibly be taken from, are the following:

R. Fattovich: Remarks on the peopling of the northern Ethiopian-Sudanese borderland in ancient historical times, 1987a

R. Fattovich: Some Remarks on the Origins of the Aksumite Stelae’, 1987b

So Munro Hay's reference, if they were taken from either of the above mentioned publications, then those are the only two 1987 publications the present author was able to come across. So, the p63 of either work, might contain R. Fattovichs claim on "monoliths".

In any case, R. Fattovich has made his viewpoint clear in the aforementioned publication of the title, The development of urbanism in the northern Horn of Africa in ancient and medieval times, as of 2002! — Follow up ends.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Cranio-morphological Variation

Cranio-facial variation is perhaps the most overrated phenotypic aspect of human body in societies, aside from skin tone. Not surprising, considering that it is the most regularly exposed part of the body that noticeably sports considerable variation, and goes without saying, forms a biological basis around which an individual's unique identity is established. Socio-ethnic identification is secondary to individual identity in society. Such is the obviousness of cranio-facial variation that images of certain archetypes or "idealized" types have been implanted or socially conditioned in the minds of folks, as socio-ethnic identifiers; this took a particularly notorious turn from ca. 19th century within European bio-anthropological circles, wherein human populations were grouped into narrow rigid "idealized" types, which were usually also identified with major geographical locations. These were presented as non-overlapping types, as though the so-grouped human populations didn't sport intra-group and intra-population variation, and by extension, variation manifestation that is shared with groups outside a reference point group. Howells types rely on such typological groups, and which Forensic science has embraced via Fordisc 2.0. Recent studies have shown that such approach is considerably limited in its ability to account for intra-group variation, and hence, fails the test of classifying individuals of a given population to the correct population of origin, because an 'unknown' or a 'known' specimen may well cluster with individuals in not one but multiple populations. A study on Spanish cranial series ended up having the said specimens cluster all over the map, with individuals in the series clustering with a multitude of groups spanning continents.

"Variation in racial classification represents the lack of a Spanish sample within the FORDISC 2.0 database as well as the human variation inherent within them. Individual crania were classified according to the best fit with the existing samples of the database, but the samples clearly were inadequate to elucidate the specific geographical origin of the overall Spanish sample…some crania were classified into groups with no clear geographic or ancestral relationship with the Spanish sample…

The authors also agree that additional and more complete samples from different geographical regions and groups are needed to augment the existing databases
."

"race classification of all individuals in this sample using the Forensic Data Bank option. Of the 95 individuals, 42 (44 percent) were classified as white, 35 percent as black, 9 percent as Hispanic, 4 percent as Japanese, 4 percent as American Indian, and the remaining three individuals as Chinese and Vietnamese" - Ubelaker et al., Application of Forensic Discriminant Functions to a Spanish Cranial Sample, 2002.

Williams et al. 2005 provided another example of this, when their examination of Meroitic cranial series showed that the series couldn't be classified into a single homogeneous entity, but rather, produced clusters with multiple series from distinct geographical regions. They say:

The Howells series. Fordisc 2.0 could not effectively classify ten of the crania, and of the remainder, eight were identified as Late Period Dynastic Egyptian, six as Zalavar, four as Easter Islander, three as Lake Alexandrina Tribes, and three as Norse (Medieval Norway). Eight were not significantly different from eight separate populations: Teita, Andaman Islands, Zulu, Arikara, Santa Cruz Island, Ainu, Hokkaido, and Atayal.

"The Howells series. Fordisc 2.0 could not effectively classify ten of the crania, and of the remainder, eight were identified as Late Period Dynastic Egyptian, six as Zalavar, four as Easter Islander, three as Lake Alexandrina Tribes, and three as Norse (Medieval Norway). Eight were not significantly different from eight separate populations: Teita, Andaman Islands, Zulu, Arikara, Santa Cruz Island, Ainu, Hokkaido, and Atayal."

“Fordisc 2.0 classified the Nubian crania with populations over an enormous geopraphic range, including North and Central Europe, Easter Island, the Andaman Islands, Japan, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, and North America. “

“If Fordisc 2.0 is revealing genetic admixture of Late Period Dynastic Egypt and Meroitic Nubia, then one must also consider these ancient Meroitic Nubians to be part of Hungarian, part Easter Islander, part Norse, and part Australian Aborigine, with smaller contributions from the Ainu, Teita, Zulu, Santa Cruz, Andaman Islands, Arikara, Ayatal, and Hokkaido populations. In fact, all human groups are essentially heterogeneous, including samples within Fordisc 2.0. Using Fst heritability tests, Relethford (1994) demonstrated that Howells’s cranial samples exhibit far more variation within than between skeletal series. There is no reason to assume that the heterogeneity of the Late Period Dynastic Egyptian population exceeds that characterizing our Nubian sample. This heterogeneity may also characterize the populations in the Forensic Data Bank; Fordisc 2.0 classified the Meroitic Nubians not as either all black or all white but as black, white, Hispanic, Chinese, Japanese, and Native American.”

“We suggest that skeletal specimens or samples cannot be accurately classified by geography or by racial affinity because of (1) the wide variation in crania of the known series that crosscuts geographic populations (polymorphism), (2) the clinal pattern of human variation, and (3) cultural and environmental factors. Even a presumably homogeneous population such as the Meroitic Nubians shows extensive variation that preclude its classification as a geographic group.”

Apparently multiple variables go into shaping variations in human crano-facial development. Williams et al. put this simply, when they say:

“Finally, the assumption that cranial form is an immutable “racial” character is very likely to be false, given the diversity of studies of immigrants and the known effects of food preparation and masticatory stress upon cranial form. Cranial form, like other aspects of the body, is a phenotype partly determined by heredity but also strongly influenced by the conditions of life.”

As far as the "conditions of life" is concerned, "acclimatization" is one notable factor. Michael A. Little and Jere D. Haas summarize it, when they say:

“there is a recognition of the importance of the process of acclimatization. Acclimatization is defined as a biological response to repeated exposure to a climatic stressor (Prosser 1964). It is an expression of the genetic plasticity of the population, and with acclimatization, it is assumed that an adaptive response can occur without genetic change. Three forms of physiological acclimatization have been recognized: (1) simple, reversible acclimatization-a physiological response to a stressful environment that gradually disappears at the cessation of the stress; (2)irreversible acclimatization—acquired as a result of climatic stress but remaining after the stress is removed; and (3) developmental acclimatization— much like irreversible acclimatization except that the exposure must occur at a particular time during the growth process. Until the process of acclimatization was appreciated and its varieties identified much inter-operation variation was attributed to genetic difference. Attempting to define the limits of acclimatization has become as important as defining the underlying genetic basis of adaptation. Indeed it is only after acclimatization is accounted for that genetic adaptations can be identified.

A third manner by which contemporary studies of climatic adaptation differ from earlier efforts is through an appreciation of the role of culture (Baker 1960). Anthropologists since the time of Darwin have played lip service to cultural factors using such generalities as “sexual selection” and “cultural selection.” But it is only with recent empirical studies that cultural mechanisms are being identified and quantified. These have shown that culture is a buffer that modifies rather than eliminates climatic exposure (Wulson 1949, Planalp 1971, Little and Hanna 1978).” - Courtesy of Michael A. Little and Jere D. Haas—Human Population Biology: A Transdisciplinary Science, 1989.

From the genetic standpoint, it is generally known that when only a small segment of a larger population diverges and then locates elsewhere to assume the role as a founder group, the likelihood of loss of diversity is a strong possibility that goes along with it. Hence, pronounced reduction of diversity characterizing the newly-divergent offshoot group allows the distribution of certain traits to figure more prominently than the case would be in the parent population, and alternatively, other traits die out more dramatically. The result of such development, has been invoked in marked departure of offshoot founder groups from their ancestral population. As Little & Haas note, cultural behavior patterns chime in to "modify" these variations. Hence, putting acclimatization effects aside [not to leave out natural selection in the complex mix of factors], on one hand, certain variations brought upon by genetic mutation can be quite dramatic secondary to random genetic drift, wherein certain variations are magnified while others not so much; on another hand, cultural behavior patterns, which can be exemplified in "sexual selection" tendencies, factor in and contribute further to the sustenance and prevalence of certain elements of the overall variation over other elements, and hence, lending hand in certain intra-population morphological tendencies.

*Subject to modification upon new information without notice.
________________________________________________________
*References

—Ubelaker et al., Application of Forensic Discriminant Functions to a Spanish Cranial Sample, 2002

—Williams et al. 2005, Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation.

—Michael A. Little and Jere D. Haas—Human Population Biology: A Transdisciplinary Science, 1989.

—Discussion link: Nile Valley discussion board.