I have covered the publication of
a paper detailing the convincing evidence of man in the Americas, specifically
in Southern California at 130,000BP here and here.
Holen et al. (2017) discuss the
candidate species in some detail, and in their supplementary information come
to the conclusion, that these species include:
1. Homo erectus
2. Homo neanderthalensis
3. Homo sp. “Denisovans”
4. “Archaic Homo sapiens”
Taking each species separately
let us look at which may be the most likely candidate.
1. Homo erectus
First we should get the ‘Which
Homo erectus?’ out of the way. By that I mean that some scientists,
particularly Chinese scientists have suggested that “Homo erectus is a species confined to Asia. Specialized characters
displayed by the Indonesian and Chinese skulls are said to be absent in
material from eastern Africa, and individuals from Koobi Fora and Nariokotome
are now referred by some workers to H. ergaster.” See Rightmire (1998).
Rightmire (1998), based on
comparisons of facial morphology of African and Asian examples of Homo erectus,
rejected this claim. From his abstract: “Much
or all of the variation in facial form can be attributed to sex dimorphism
and/or local differentiation of populations within the Asian and African
geographic regions. Metric differences among the fossils are comparable to
those documented in a subset of recent H. sapiens, and there is no evidence
that the Pleistocene specimens show greater dispersion than expected within a
single species. This finding is generally in keeping with observations made on
other parts of the cranium, lower jaw, and teeth. All of the hominids can be placed in H. erectus. Although its
phylogenetic origins remain obscure, this lineage must be rooted in Africa. The
species flourished for a long time. At several sites in China, H. erectus is
known from deposits of the later Middle Pleistocene, while at Ngandong in
Indonesia, archaic people may have survived even into the Late Pleistocene
(Swisher et al. [1996]). The Ngandong fossils may record the last appearance of
the lineage.”
Having dealt with that, what
specimens of Homo erectus have been discovered, in Asia, and what dates are
they? Could Homo erectus possibly have been the hominid that made it to
California 130,000 years ago?
The earliest Homo erectus fossils
discovered are from Africa (KMN ER3733 East Lake Turkana) and the Caucasus
(Georgia – Dmanisi) date to ca. 1.8-1.9 Mya. Given that all early hominid
species so far discovered are from Africa, it seems logical to assume that Homo
erectus evolved there and migrated East.
A few examples of Homo erectus
from a timeframe which would fit with the peopling of the Americas by this
hominid, from Asia and China are shown on the map below. A brief summary of
each site is given further down.
However, a more detailed map,
showing most known Homo erectus sites in east Asia, is given below. Click on each location for a brief biography.
Here are the details for each Homo
erectus site given on the first map above:
Specimen: Ngandong 7 (Solo 6)
Location: Solo River, Central Java, Indonesia
Age: Indriati et al., (2011), reported new 40Ar/39Ar, ESR and
U-series dates for Ngandong. They argue that the different dating methods
indicate an age in the range of 546-612 ka, placing these three sites in the
Middle Pleistocene and significantly older than previous estimates. However,
they caution that the ESR/U-series date that complies with all modelling
criteria is ~143 ka.
Ngandong 7 from Weidenreich,
(1951). Note the straight, square brow ridges.
Another view of the same specimen
from Athena Review (2004).
Specimen: Zhoukoudian composite skull cast from the Smithsonian.
Location: Zhoukoudian Cave
Age: 770,000 ka, Shen et al. (2009), Smithsonian (2016) 780,000 –
400,000 ka.
Zhoukoudian Homo erectus from the
Smithsonian (2016). Original caption reads: This composite skull combines
several skulls from the same site, first named Sinanthropus pekingensis but
later attributed to Homo erectus. The original fossils vanished
while being shipped to the United States for safety during World War II, but
scientists still have high-quality casts and descriptions to work with.
An interesting facial
reconstruction can be seen in this photo by Pillard (2007).
I have been unable to identify
the museum in which the picture was taken, however the caption card reads: Cast
of skull fragments found at
Choucoutien.
Specimen: Homo erectus molars
Location: Tham Khuyen Cave, Vietnam
Age: 745,000 ka (or perhaps as late as 140-80 kyr ago in the case
of the nearby Hang Hum cave).
These teeth, and indeed, the
occurrence of Homo erectus in Vietnam
have were debated for a decade until Ciochon et al. (1996), definitively identified
them as belonging to the above hominid and not for example,
Gigantopithecus blacki.
The teeth in question, adapted
from Ciochon et al. (1996). Original caption reads:
FIG. 2. ..Homo erectus molars
(right) from Tham Khuyen.
TK 65/105 (top right) left upper
M2 (MD = 12.0, BL = 12.7), TK 65/50 (bottom right) left upper M1 (MD = 11.7, BL
= 12.9). Scale bar is in cm. Other hominid teeth identified from Tham Khuyen
include TK 65/53, a right upper M1 (MD = 12.1, BL = 13.3), TK 65/167
left upper C (MD = 9.9, LL = 9.8), and TK 65/8, a left upper deciduous Ml (MD =
9.9, BL = 10.8).
Additionally, another Vietnamese
site, within a couple of hundred kilometres of the Tham Khuyen, has yielded
Homo erectus teeth, this time of a relatively recent date, according to Schwartz
and colleagues (1995): “The cave of Hang
Hum has also yielded three teeth.. These teeth were initially identified as
Homo sapiens, but their large size places them outside the range of our own
species. The two lower molars compare most closely in size and morphology with
those of Homo erectus from Zhoukoudian. The third tooth is too worn to permit
similar comparison. If the lower molars are indeed those of Homo erectus, this
would suggest a remarkably late survival of this species in Vietnam.” Dated
approximately 140,000BP.
Is there any evidence that Homo erectus was in America 130,000BP?
Many archaeologists and bloggers
make assertions that it is impossible that man arrived in the Americas before
ca. 20Kya. The main piece of evidence they cite is the lack of human skeletal
remains. This is a fair point. However, it depends where and how deeply you dig.
A number of archaeologists have
let their curiosity get the better of them and dug far deeper than the ‘20,000BP
is the limit of human occupation in the Americas’ horizon. What did they find? Artifacts..
indisputably human-made artifacts!
A few examples of the evidence
are:
Ground Sloth Kill site reported by
Farima et al. [see here]
In addition, some other sites,
which I haven’t covered yet, spring immediately to mind, for example:
Topper (Goodyear)
Pendejo Cave (MacNeish)
And the quite a few others such
as those in the table in a previous post I wrote in February 2016 [see here]
The earlier sites from the above
could be attributed to Homo erectus or their descendants in the Americas but
where are the bones to prove it?
Well there is actually, a number
of specimens, one of which, I covered here.
Since that post I have come
across some additional evidence from a paper published by Irish et al. (2000).
The brief paper states:
“The likelihood of a late-Pleistocene human
presence in Jalisco, Mexico, is supported by culturally modified faunal bones,
diagnostic lithics, and mineralized human bones; this report concerns the
latter, which were analyzed by Irish, using standard osteological procedures
(Bass 1981; Brothwell 1981; Ortner and Putschar 1985; Shipman et al. 1986;
Ubelaker 1989; White 1991). All materials were recovered 50 km southeast of
Guadalajara, in the Lake Chapala and Zacoalco Playa basins.
The human remains are thought to be
of late-Pleistocene age based on faunal correlation. Many have been in
Solórzano’s possession for some time; others were recently collected. Like
associated fauna, all are mineralized, dark in color, and fragmentary. We have
a focus on their origins and will work to establish exact field proveniences in
May 2000.
The Chapala bones (n = 10) have a
MNI of three, based on two left superciliary arches (brow ridges) and a
deciduous incisor. The super border of each brow is blunt, implying the sex was
male in both cases. However, size variations of other fragments suggest males
and females are represented. The deciduous incisor is from a three-year-old;
the rest represent young adults.
One Chapala superciliary arch
deserves specific mention due to its large size. Studies by Solórzano show the
bone resembles that in archaic Homo sapiens at Arago, France. In an unpublished
1990 report, Texas A&M osteologists suggest the brow’s thickness and
robustness are comparable to those of
KNM-ER 3733 (African Homo erectus). Our measurements show the central
torus thickness is 13.3, compared with 8.5 mm for KNM-ER 3733; the lateral
torus thickness is 11.5 versus 9.0 mm (Rightmire 1998). Thus for the sake of
comparison, the brow is more like that of Zhoukoudian Skull XI (Asian Homo
erectus), with a central torus thickness of 13.2 +/- mm; lateral torus
thickness was not measured (Rightmire 1998). Modern brows are too diminutive to
allow these measurements. The brow also shows pneumatization (air pockets)
along its length.
However, to reiterate the findings
of the Texas A&M workers, these comparisons do not imply that pre-Homo
sapiens were in the Americas. No
phylogenetic or age implications are intended. Instead, the comparisons
demonstrate the size relative to most New World specimens, although brows on
the Lagoa Santa skull (Bryan 1978) and on recent Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia
crania (Lahr 1995; C.L. Brace pers. comm. 1998) appear comparable.
Twenty-one fragments from Zacoalco
also have a MNI of three, based on duplicate mandible and parietal fragments.
Sex determination is difficult, but size variation suggest both males and
females. Concerning age, an unerupted third molar crypt indicates a 12- to
16-year-old. The remainder were adults or older adults, based on cranial suture
closure, a fully formed third molar socket, and Pacchionian depressions on an
inner parietal surface (see Ortner and Putschar 1985).
A Zacoalco maxilla fragment, with
sockets for the canine and premolars, also deserves mention due to its size. It
is much thicker and more robust than comparative specimens from other
prehistoric Native American males. Like the Chapala brow, the fragment could be
lost in a collection of archaic Homo sapiens maxillae. However, again, no
phylogentic inferences are intended. Instead, the robust Chapala and Zacoalco
remains may be suggestive of region-specific variation in late-Pleistocene
central Mexico, as noted elsewhere (Pompa 1987).
Lastly, despite the fact that the
remains are mineralized and recovered with Pleistocene-age fauna, we are
continuing an attempt to obtain a chronometric date. Radiocarbon dating of the
remains is difficult due to mineralization. However, a Zacoalco molar was
thought to contain remnant organics for AMS dating. With permission from the
Museo Regional de Guadalajara, the tooth was sent to a U.S. lab that previously
dated a Chapala swamp deer (Blastoceros spp.) incisor at 18,200 yr B.P.
Unfortunately, the human protein was more heavily mineralized; the amount of
carbon after combustion was too small to provide a reliable date. Thus, we must
locate additional remains. Still, a 13C value of -24 was obtained, implying
that the tooth came from a non-agriculturalist; this value exceeds that from
known Paleoindian fossils (e.g., Kennewick).
In sum, these cursory descriptions
are presented for the purpose of initiating comparisons with other New World
Pleistocene-age remains. A future objective is to delineate the Jalisco finds
in a broader spatial and temporal context. However, in-depth regional and
extra-regional comparisons must await additional data collection. Although our
research team received a major setback by the death of Jack Lobdell, continuing
work in the project area appears promising.”
Although I cannot identify the
source I additionally I came across the following picture from Charlie Hatchett
(2010):
Conclusion
Much lithic and modified bone
evidence has been uncovered in the Americas, apart from that, from the CM site.
Human bones of uncertain
taxonomic affinity, have also been found in the Americas, which could,
plausibly be those of Homo erectus.
Much of this evidence has been
contested on spurious grounds (I will write an entire post on that later) or
completely ignored.
As shown by the specimens
illustrated and the additional one detailed on the Google map at the link further
up this post, Homo erectus was in Asia for at least a million and could easily
have crossed the Beringian Land Bridge. That these land bridges existed on numerous
occasions in that timeframe is shown in my post here.
Therefore from the volume of
evidence listed above, it is more than possible that Homo erectus was indeed
the species of human responsible for modifying the Mastodon bones found in
southern California 30 years ago and reported by Holen et al. (2017) and thus had peopled the Americas by 130,000BP.
References
Athena Review, Anon. 2004. Athena
Review, Vol. 4, No.1: Homo erectus Introduction: The long journey of an ancient
human ancestor. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.athenapub.com/13intro-he.htm.
[Accessed 20 June 2017].
Ciochon, R, et al., 1996. Dated
co-occurrence of Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus from Tham Khuyen Cave, Vietnam. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science. USA, Vol. 93, April 1996, 3016-3020.
PDF download available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/93/7/3016.long
Hatchett, C. 2010. Paleo Planet, Archaeology/Anthropology
Forum, The Tail Wagging the Dog. [ONLINE] Available at: http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/33439/The-Tail-Wagging-the-Dog#.WZJTZVV97IV.
[Accessed 15 August 2017].
Holen, S. R., et. al. (2017) A 130,000-year-old
archaeological site in southern California, USA Nature 544, 479–483
doi:10.1038/nature22065
Can be accessed here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v544/n7651/full/nature22065.html
Indriati, E, et al. 2011. The Age of the 20 Meter Solo River
Terrace, Java, Indonesia and the Survival of Homo erectus in Asia. PLoS
ONE, [Online]. 6(6): e21562. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021562, 1-10.
Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021562
[Accessed 19 June 2017].
Irish, J.D., Lobdell, J.E., Davis, S.D. and Solórzano
Barreto, F.A., 2000. Prehistoric human skeletal remains from Jalisco,
Mexico. Current Research in the Pleistocene, 17, pp.95-97.
Pillard, S. 2007. Homo erectus. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://zipcodezoo.com/index.php/File:Homo_erectus_17.jpg.
[Accessed 21 June 2017
Rightmire, G.P. (1998) Evidence
from facial morphology for similarity of Asian and African representatives of
Homo erectus. Am J Phys Anthropol.106(1):61-85.
Schwartz, J. et al. 1995. A
review of the Pleistocene hominoid Fauna of the socialist Republic of Vietnam
(excluding hylobatidae) Anthropological papers of The American museum of
natural history, Number 76 New York: 1995.
Download available from: https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/bitstream/handle/2246/259/v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/ant/A076a00.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Schwartz J. H. and I. Tattersall. 2003. The Human Fossil
Record: Craniodental Morphology of Genus Homo (Africa and Asia) v. 2 Wiley-Blackwell;
2003 p284-293
Shen, G., et al, 2009. Age of
Zhoukoudian Homo erectus determined with 26Al/10Be burial dating. Nature,
458 (12 March 2009), 198-200.
Abstract available at: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7235/full/nature07741.html
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. 2016.
What does it mean to be human? Zhoukoudian. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/zhoukoudian.
[Accessed 20 June 2017].
Swisher III, C.C., Rink, W.J.,
Anton, S.C. and Schwarcz, H.P., 1996. Latest homo erectus of Java: Potential
contemporaneity with homo sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science, 274(5294),
p.1870.
Weidenreich, F. (1951) Morphology
of Solo Man. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol.
43: Part 3. New York.
