Ancient Stone Tool Find Suggests Mystery Human Species

Ancient Stone Tool Find Suggests Mystery Human Species

Ancient stone tools from an archaeological site on Sulawesi have pushed back the date of the earliest human occupation of the Indonesian island to at least 118,000 years ago.

The discovery, published today in Nature, overturns the view that humans first entered the island between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago as Homo sapiens dispersed out of Africa on the way to Australia.

Instead the finding suggests an ancient human species inhabited the island well before Homo sapiens arrived.

Ok here we go

It appears this discovery will further shake things up, our human family tree is rather more like an angry gnarled bush.

Lead author Dr Gerrit van den Bergh, from the University of Wollongong, said it was likely this earlier inhabitant was related to the dwarf-sized hobbit (Homo floresiensis) — whose fossils were found more than a decade ago on the nearby island of Flores.

So it might be related to the hobbit and the age seems to be very conservative, more like 200,000 years but they are playing it safe.

This estimate was then supported by uranium dating of enamel on tooth fossils found at the site, which gave them a minimum age of 200,000 years old. Dr van den Bergh said although the Nature paper put the date of earliest human occupation at 118,000 years ago, this was a "very conservative" estimate.

I've felt there were more lines to be discovered and hopefully more remains found and possibly even viable DNA for further testing.

As Always Stay tuned.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Another great find Slayer.

200,000 years is a really long time. It takes about 450 years for a plastic bottle to degrade ... a thousand at the extreme.

If people were working with tools so far back, what could they have built that we might today find?

Cave art on Sulawesi shows modern humans (Homo sapiens) lived in Sulawesi around 40,000 years ago, Dr van den Bergh said.

"These modern humans must have encountered these archaic humans and what happened we don't know yet," he said.

So not only was there a species of human inhabiting the island before modern humans, but they were co-resident for a time.

-dex

it makes you wonder if elf, dwarf, and hobbit were real.

a reply to: SLAYER69

So much yet to be discovered! Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I always thought Hobbits were total fiction. maybe one day they will find a real dragon fossil, how cool would that be.

originally posted by: jellyrev
it makes you wonder if elf, dwarf, and hobbit were real.

Um...of course we're real. Look at my avatar. See?

Great thread Slayer!!

Maybe people from the island went to Africa and started a civilization there. Maybe they got it all backward. I never believed that everything rose out of Africa anyway, there are so many possibilities where humans were formed and I don't think they should have ever started that theory. Just because there is no evidence to the contrary yet doesn't mean that out of Africa theory is correct. It could be correct but I just don't want to believe something that may not be right. All I will say is that there is some evidence that man may have came from Africa.

a reply to: SLAYER69

So it's at least some what acceptable in the academic
community, to make claims about a race of hobbits or
dwarfs or even halflings I suppose. Even tho we haven't
the slightest memory of such in this present world of
ours.
But you yourself Slayer have seen saliva turn to drooling
foam, at the slightest mention of the word giant. Just
wanted to point that out.

SnF

a reply to: SLAYER69

Hmm, very interesting. I suppose Floresiensis would have had to have had a predecessor and so it would make sense if this was it.

I'm curious as to why these couldn't be tools of Floresiensis though, and Floresiensis is older than first thought?

Stone tools found on the island of Flores show that early humans arrived there at least 800,000 years ago, but it’s not known how early humans got there as the nearest island is 9 km (6 mi) away across treacherous seas. Paleoanthropologists found many stone tools associated with H. floresiensis, and these tools are broadly similar to those found earlier on Flores and throughout the human evolutionary career (i.e., Lower Paleolithic tools in Asia or Oldowan tools in Africa).

humanorigins.si.edu...

a reply to: SLAYER69

As always my friend, great thread and excellent info. One thing that surprised me, especially given the age and genetic evidence of the last decade, is why the lead author immediately jumped onto either H. Floresiensis or H. Erectus but failed to consider H. Altaiensis when the genetic data shows that "Denisovan" DNA is present in people indigenous to this area.

Don't get me wrong... H. Erectus was clearly living in this area with evidence of habitation up to the Toba event with possibilities of hanging on until 50KA so even the conservative 85-118KA dates could certainly be attributed to them. I can't make any real determination based on the picture provided which is literally a pile of lithic material. Without a side by side comparison with proper context and measurements I can only speculate on who made them. It should also be remembered that based on the recent wealth of new genetic information, that there is at least one unknown(from the fossil/geological record perspective) Hominid species in West Africa as well as the possibility of one in the area of this particular find highlighted in your OP. For me, this is a pretty amazing and simultaneously frustrating find. And the good ones usually are because while one door has been opened to show us something new, there's also a long hallway behind it that leads to even more questions. The last 20 years in Anthropology have produced more evidence than the first century following the publishing of On the origin of Species.

One other thought in response to your 'gnarled bush' analogy, a more recent analogy I've read that fits what we currently know now is the 'Braided Stream'. www.johnhawks.net...

I may do a write up on this one later when I've got more time but just to add a little more fuel to you fire regarding new species, let me leave you with this brand new member of our family tree, Homo Naledi
elifesciences.org...

a reply to: randyvs

there is a huge chasm between having physical remains to work with and test while forming hypothesis and taking mistranslated scripture at face value because of confirmation bias. There are physical remains of H. Floresiensis. There are no remains of "giants" that are not within the scope of what H. Sapiens Sapiens can physically grow to.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Maybe people from the island went to Africa and started a civilization there. Maybe they got it all backward.

I think the mistake you are making here is that when you read "new human found" you are assuming it is a reference to H. Sapiens Sapiens whereas "Human" encompasses the entire genus Homo all the way back to H. Habilis and isn't specifically reserved for "us" or our immediate precursors.

I never believed that everything rose out of Africa anyway, there are so many possibilities where humans were formed and I don't think they should have ever started that theory. Just because there is no evidence to the contrary yet doesn't mean that out of Africa theory is correct. It could be correct but I just don't want to believe something that may not be right. All I will say is that there is some evidence that man may have came from Africa.

Everything did not arise out of Africa. Multiregionalism is a much better explanation for this long, braided stream of our family tree. Neanderthal did not evolve in Africa nor did H. Altaiensis(Denisovan). They are the product of their European and West Asian environments. But the earliest members of our genus did begin in Africa. There are no hominid remains outside of Africa prior to H. Erectus leaving and colonizing nearly all of Europe and Asia. Your trepidation regarding OOA seems to be misplaced here. There is absolutely no evidence that a single hominid line can not be traced back to East Africa or South Africa. This isn't based solely on the fossil and geologic record anymore, we have copious amounts of genetic material telling a very broad tale of our history right down to the fact that there is another Hominid out there in W. Africa that we have no physical evidence for but we do have genetic evidence of. Denisovans likewise are known from a small handful of phalanges and teeth.

a reply to: SLAYER69

our human family tree is rather more like an angry gnarled bush.

great comparison and visualization of it. Slayer, I'm always fascinated by your threads. Thanks for taking the time to share this amazing find, and for your editorials/commentary. Always spot on

a reply to: randyvs

Except Hobbit is a slang name for Homo floresiensis, which we have evidence of existing. We have found them and studied them. So far, giants have not been discovered but i do not rule that out. Also, a hobbit and a halfling are the very same thing.

"It appears this discovery will further shake things up, our human family tree is rather more like an angry gnarled bush."

Gnarled Bush.....G W Bush?

a reply to: peter vlar

there is a huge chasm between having physical remains to work with and test while forming hypothesis and taking mistranslated scripture at face value because of confirmation bias. There are physical remains of H. Floresiensis. There are no remains of "giants" that are not within the scope of what H. Sapiens Sapiens can physically grow to.

Right okay, I suppose I have to agree with that and call it
the influence of evidence on hand. But the main underlining
goes where I don't understand, the scoffing part. Unlike you,
taking the time to explain things to people like me, who are
obviously outleagued by your class of knowledge. Thus, my
respect and appreciation for you and your presence on
these boards. If you scoff or rip someone apart I can always
see where they have it coming. Thanks Peter.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: randyvs

Except Hobbit is a slang name for Homo floresiensis, which we have evidence of existing. We have found them and studied them. So far, giants have not been discovered but i do not rule that out. Also, a hobbit and a halfling are the very same thing.

Thank you for your kind reply Man.
Same thing I said to Peter Vlar.

This new year has started off good, Slayer has been posting some threads again At least three I have read and as always with some very interesting finds. I love the fact that during modern construction we dig up some unknown bit of our ancestry. I am really interested in this luminesence dating technique, first time I have heard of it.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Maybe people from the island went to Africa and started a civilization there. Maybe they got it all backward. I never believed that everything rose out of Africa anyway, there are so many possibilities where humans were formed and I don't think they should have ever started that theory. Just because there is no evidence to the contrary yet doesn't mean that out of Africa theory is correct. It could be correct but I just don't want to believe something that may not be right. All I will say is that there is some evidence that man may have came from Africa.

'Out of Africa' never made sense. Not from a sociological perspective, nor a biological one.

With each new hominid find, it seems increasingly obvious to me that humanity grew from several different evolutionary sprouts.