Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, March 13, 2007 | Science : Archaeology | print version Print | Comments

Document 160,000-year-old jawbone redefines origins of the species

by Alok Jha, The Guardian

Thanks to George Hyde for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2032480,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=18

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Tuesday March 13, 2007
The Guardian

Modern humans were living in northern Africa far earlier than previously thought, according to scientists. A new analysis of a 160,000-year-old fossilised jawbone from Morocco shows that the homo sapiens in the area had started having long childhoods, one of the hallmarks of humans living today.

It is known that the species homo sapiens emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago, but the oldest fossils that resemble modern humans come from sites in Europe dated to around 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.

The latest find shows that the key time in the development of a complex human society came much earlier than previously thought. The longer people had to learn and develop their brains as children, the more sophisticated their society could become. The new study pushes the date that modern humans emerged back by more than 100,000 years.

"When you look across primates as a whole or mammals you see things that tend to grow fast and reproduce young, they don't tend to be as socially complex as things like great apes and humans," said Tanya Smith of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. "That has social implications. You can imagine being parents and having your kids grow up at 10 or 12 versus 16 or 18, it has a lot of implications for your social structure."

By looking at the teeth of a 160,000-year-old human fossil found at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, she found remarkable similarities to modern humans. "If you were to take a jawbone of an eight-year-old person today and compare it with the relative degree of dental development with this individual from Morocco they would be nearly identical."

She said that the results, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were unexpected. "We know that earlier fossil humans show a more rapid period of growth and development. At a given age they show more teeth erupted than a living human today. This is the earliest evidence of something that ... hadn't been detected before in the fossil record older than maybe 20,000 - 30,000 years ago."

Analysing teeth is an established proxy for understanding the development of ancient humans. "In studying the teeth we understand more how growth and development would be characterised in a species and how it's changed through time," said Dr Smith. "There's a strong relationship between when an individual erupts their teeth and how long their childhood is, what age they begin reproducing, how long they live."

She said that as children grow a record of lines is left behind in their teeth, similar to rings in a tree. "These lines are left behind in the dental hard tissues and they persist for millions of years. You can count them and measure them. By knowing their spacing you know the speed of growth, and by knowing their number you know the time."

Chris Stringer, research leader in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, said that the new study was important because the Jebel Irhoud site was often neglected by palaeontologists. "This paper certainly provides evidence of a pattern of growth like our own, and this is perhaps not surprising, as there is a very modern-looking child's skull from Herto in Ethiopia."

"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."

Comments 1 - 8 of 8 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #25490 by Teapot_Believer on March 13, 2007 at 5:05 pm

 avatarNow I'd like to know what creationists will say about this finding.

Pardon my ignorance, but how do scientists calculate the age of a fossil? What instruments do they use? Are they completely reliable (free from errors)? How do they use them?

Other Comments by Teapot_Believer

2. Comment #25492 by steveroot on March 13, 2007 at 5:41 pm

 avatarDawkins himself gives a succinct explanation on the Q&A part of his appearance at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

3. Comment #25494 by Macho Nachos on March 13, 2007 at 5:44 pm

 avatarI expect they'd start by saying that scientists can't agree, and that we keep getting it wrong and chopping and changing our estimates, and that theirs is the only constant answer, and we should teach the controversy.

Of course, the point of finding out the truth is the willingness to revise estimates based on new evidence. Science: it works, bitches.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

4. Comment #25547 by Severus on March 14, 2007 at 4:15 am

to teapot believer

The determining of age depends on the materials to be measured.
there are a whole battery of tests which can be made, including,
Radioactive decay: which measures the ticking clock of decay from the point when the compound began ticking.there are many radioactive elements which can be measured, Uranium 238, Thorium, Carbon 14...
Amino-acid racemization, which measures the chemical changes in organic substances after death.
Electron spin resonance, thermoluminescence, optically stimulated thermoluminescence, Varves, tree rings, Archaeo-magnetism, Obsidian Hydration.

few of them are absolutely perfect but they are repeated, tested, checked, monitored, improved, evaluated and cross-referenced over and over again. thousands and thousands of examples constantly being re-examined, under strict scrutiny and compared. 'Errors' or 'anomalies' rarely go for long without being challenged. can't remember an exact website for a quick look but maybe the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain site might have a link.

Other Comments by Severus

5. Comment #25549 by VanYoungman on March 14, 2007 at 4:27 am

 avatarTeapot:

There is an excellent explanation of dating in Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale. You should own that book.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

6. Comment #25587 by Philip1978 on March 14, 2007 at 7:36 am

 avatarPersonally, I think its best to ask anyones age before dating, though using Uranium might be a little harsh! hahahahaha!

Other Comments by Philip1978

7. Comment #25597 by fishfrog on March 14, 2007 at 8:55 am

Did anyone else notice the name of the person who wrote this? An article about a jawbone by a person named Alok Jha. hmmmmmmmm

Other Comments by fishfrog

8. Comment #25623 by Lionel A on March 14, 2007 at 10:50 am

 avatarComment #25597 by fishfrog on March 14, 2007 at 8:55 am

'Did anyone else notice the name of the person who wrote this? An article about a jawbone by a person named Alok Jha. hmmmmmmmm'

I noticed that. Perhaps they had intended this one for April 1st.

Other Comments by Lionel A
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: