Human ancestor was in Eurasia nearly 2 million years ago, cut marks on animal bones suggest
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
Looking again through the magnifying lens at the fossil's surface, one of us, Sabrina Curran, took a deep breath. Illuminated by a strong light positioned nearly parallel to the surface of the bone, the V-shaped lines were clearly there on the fossil. There was no mistaking what they meant.
She'd seen them before, on bones that were butchered with stone tools about 1.8 million years ago, from a site called Dmanisi in Georgia. These were cut marks made by a human ancestor wielding a stone tool. After staring at them for what felt like an eternity − but was probably only a few seconds − she turned to our colleagues and said, "Hey … I think I found something."
What she'd spotted in 2017 was our team's first evidence that hominins butchered several animals at the site of Grăunceanu, in Romania, at least 1.95 million years ago. Before this discovery, those other cut marks from Dmanisi were the oldest well-dated evidence in Eurasia of the presence of hominins − our direct human ancestors.
Other scientists have reported sites in Eurasia and northern Africa with either hominin fossils, stone tools or butchered animal bones from around this time. Our recently published research adds to this story with well-dated, verified evidence that hominins of some kind had spread to this part of the world by around 2 million years ago.
Related: 150,000-year-old stone tools reveal humans lived in tropical rainforests much earlier than thought
A little background on Grăunceanu: This open-air site was originally excavated in the 1960s, and researchers found thousands of fossil animal bones there. It's one of the best-known Early Pleistocene sites in East-Central Europe. Many of the fossil animal bones are quite complete and at the time of excavation lay together as they were positioned in life. The original deposition was called a "bone nest" because of how densely packed the bones were.
If you were to stand on the hillside surrounding Grăunceanu almost 2 million years ago, it would likely have seemed familiar: a river channel surrounded by a forest that fades into more open grasslands to the foothills. Occasionally that river floods its banks, inundating the valley with rich soils, providing nutrients for the plants that the resident animals feed on. All pretty familiar, until you look more closely at those animals: ostriches, pangolins, giraffes, saber-toothed cats and hyenas − in Europe!
It's the fossil bones of these ancient animal inhabitants that were excavated at Grăunceanu. Unfortunately, most of the excavation records and provenance data for the site have been lost. Even without those, though, the Grăunceanu fossils are so remarkably preserved that they offer up a wealth of paleontological information.
A few years after finding those first cut marks, our team, including biological anthropologist Claire Terhune, zooarchaeologist Samantha Gogol, and paleoanthropologist Chris Robinson, spent several weeks carefully studying all 4,524 Grăunceanu fossils, looking for more marks.
We examined all surfaces of every fossil bone with a magnifying lens and low-angled light. Most of these fossils have root etching on them − sinuous, shallow, overlapping marks made by plant roots that grew nearby. But whenever we saw a linear mark that looked interesting, we took an impression of that mark with dental molding material.
We can't go back in a time machine to watch when these marks were made. Yes, ancient human butchers wielding stone tools would leave marks on bone. But mammalian predators or crocodiles could also leave marks with their sharp teeth. Sediments in rivers could scratch any bones rolling around in the water. Large animals walking across the landscape could move and scrape bones with their steps.
So how can we be confident that they're cut marks? That's where our zooarchaeologist collaborators Michael Pante and Trevor Keevil came in.
Within the past decade, Pante developed a novel method for identifying the source of marks left on bones. The first step is capturing precise 3D measurements of the mark impressions using an advanced microscope called a noncontact 3D optical profiler.
Then they compare the 3D shape data from the ancient marks with a reference set of 898 marks on modern bones made by known processes, including stone tool butchery, carnivore feeding and sedimentary abrasion.
This new method adds to the more qualitative, descriptive criteria many researchers, including our team, use to make mark identifications. For instance, we consider things such as mark location: Is the mark near a muscle attachment site, where you might expect to find a cut mark if a hominin were removing meat from a bone?
Based on our analyses, we determined that 20 Grăunceanu fossils are marked by cuts, with eight displaying high-confidence cut marks. Most of those marks are on fossils of hoofed animals, including a few deer; one is a small carnivore leg bone. When we could identify the type of bone, the cut marks are always in anatomical locations consistent with cutting meat off bones.
While the fossil species present can give us a rough age estimate of the site, we used uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating to get more precise age information. This technique relies on the fact that naturally occurring uranium decays over long but well-known periods of time to eventually transform into lead. Geologists use the ratio of these two elements like a radiometric clock to determine how old something is.
When one of us, Virgil Drăgușin, asked geochemist Jon Woodhead to use U-Pb dating to estimate the age of the Grăunceanu fossils based on several small tooth fragments, he was reluctant. Teeth do not usually work well for this dating technique. But he agreed to a test run, and to his surprise the teeth he tried worked very well.
Together with his colleague John Hellstrom, they calculated a much more precise date for the site. We now know the Grăunceanu site is older than 1.95 million years.
All of this data together − the very well-calibrated and tightly clustered dates of the specimens plus at least 20 cut-marked bones verified both by qualitative and quantitative methods − provides very reliable evidence that hominins were indeed in Eurasia by at least 1.95 million years ago, even though there are no hominin fossils from Grăunceanu.
RELATED STORIES
—Earliest known stone tools in Europe are 1.4 million years old. And they weren't made by modern humans.
—16,000-year-old skeleton, crystals and stone tools discovered in Malaysian caves
—'Mystery population' of human ancestors gave us 20% of our genes and may have boosted our brain function
Sometimes when we look through our magnifying lenses, it almost feels like we can peer into the past. That's impossible − but we can piece together lines of evidence to paint a clearer picture of what happened in the past at Grăunceanu.
Now, imagining the view 1.95 million years ago, we see scenes of deer cautiously drinking from the river, majestic mammoths in the distance, a herd of horses grazing, a saber-toothed cat stalking a large monkey, a bear teaching her cubs to hunt … and a small group of hominins butchering a deer.
This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ancient DNA from Papua New Guinea reveals centuries of genetic isolation
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The first ancient human genomes analyzed from Papua New Guinea reveal that some of the early groups that lived there were completely genetically isolated from their neighbors, showing there was little intermarriage at multiple points in time, a new study finds. New Guinea is the second largest island in the world, after Greenland. It and its outlying isles were vital launch points for early seafaring journeys into the wider Pacific, culminating with the settlement of some of the last islands on Earth to be permanently inhabited, scientists noted. However, until now, much remained unknown about its ancient genetic history. In a new study, researchers analyzed ancient DNA from the bones and teeth of 42 people who lived as long as 2,600 years ago on Papua New Guinea — the nation inhabiting the eastern half of New Guinea — and the nearby Bismarck Archipelago, northeast of the main island. "This was a very long time in the making," study co-lead author Kathrin Nägele, an archaeogeneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, told Live Science. "DNA preservation in tropical environments is extremely challenging." Previous research suggested that New Guinea and outlying areas were first settled more than 50,000 years ago. Much later, by about 3,300 years ago, new seafaring peoples with Asian ancestry arrived at the Bismarck Archipelago. This group, which archaeologists have dubbed the Lapita culture, is renowned for their intricate pottery and farming practices, which included raising pigs, dogs and chickens, as well as growing coconuts, bananas, yams and varieties of breadfruit. The new findings unexpectedly revealed the earliest known inhabitants of the Bismarck Archipelago and the Lapita people did not mix genetically for centuries. However, one individual examined suggested they were the result of intermixing about 2,100 years ago. "Despite the co-occupation, it seems the different groups didn't mix for a long time, which is quite unusual for human encounters," study co-lead author Rebecca Kinaston, an anthropologist and director of BioArch South, an archaeology and forensic anthropology consultancy in New Zealand, said in a statement. Related: Easter Island's population never collapsed because it never got that big, researchers suggest These findings also shed light on the ancestry of remote Oceanic islands such as Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. They support prior research that Papuans and the Lapita independently arrived at those distant isles and intermarried there, as opposed to mixing first at New Guinea and nearby isles and then voyaging to those remote lands. "It suggests the Papuans were separately capable of remarkable seafaring," Nägele said. "The seafaring hunter-gatherers on Papua New Guinea have likely been underestimated, just as hunter-gatherer societies tend to be underestimated all over." Another striking discovery occurred when the scientists analyzed two communities that inhabited the south coast of Papua New Guinea between 150 and 500 years ago. "Although these two communities only lived a few kilometers apart, they were unexpectedly genetically different," Nägele said. "Looking into the direct family relations between the two sites, we had to go six generations back to find a common ancestor, which means that for six generations, the two groups did not mix despite the close proximity and no geological barriers between them." Both groups had a mix of Papuan-related and Southeast Asia-related ancestries. One group, buried at the site Eriama, showed more of the Papuan-related ancestry compared to the site of Nebira, where Asian ancestry was the larger component. Why did these groups stop mixing with each other? One possibility is a climatically challenging time on New Guinea between 1,200 and 500 years ago, which may have seen increased El Niño events, such as major droughts. RELATED STORIES —Some of the 1st ice age humans who ventured into Americas came from China, DNA study suggests —Polynesians and Native Americans paired up 800 years ago, DNA reveals —Newly discovered 'ghost' lineage linked to ancient mystery population in Tibet, DNA study finds "Settlements were abandoned — people might have retreated to unknown places that were more viable," Nägele said. "We think wherever these people were, they started engaging in new trade networks. Nebira appeared to engage more with coastal groups, and Eriama more with inland groups from the highlands. This might have led to different identities, different cuisines, and other differences that led to cultural diversification." In the future, the researchers hope to collect older genetic data, as well as samples from the highlands of New Guinea and the first Asian-related people to arrive on the coast of the island. "Papua New Guinea is such a diverse place in so many regards, that we have only just scratched the surface of what is to learn about the past of the second largest island in the world," Nägele said. The scientists detailed their findings June 4 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
There's an infinite amount of energy locked in the vacuum of space-time. Could we ever use it?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. There may be an infinite amount of energy locked in the vacuum of space-time. So could we ever harness this energy for anything useful? The idea of vacuum energy comes from quantum field theory, which is a marriage of quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of special relativity. In quantum field theory, particles are not really what we think they are. Instead, they are better represented as fields, which are quantum entities that span all of space and time. When a localized patch of the field gets sufficient energy and starts traveling, we identify it as a particle. But the real fundamental object is the field itself. In quantum mechanics, any system has a defined set of energies, like the energies that an electron can have in its orbital shells around an atomic nucleus. Similarly, the quantum fields have energies associated with them at every point in space. Any finite volume, like an empty box, contains an infinite number of geometric points, so this means there's an infinite amount of energy in that volume. This happens even when the fields are in their lowest energy state possible, also known as the zero-point state or the ground state. This is the state with no extra energy added to it, no extra vibrations, no extra excitations whatsoever — just the lowest possible ground state, below which there is nothing. But due to the fundamental uncertainties of quantum mechanics, even this ground state has an energy associated with it, so you still run into an infinite amount of energy. However, we can't extract energy out of the vacuum and use it to do work. That's because whatever its value is, it is the lowest energy state possible for the universe. To get work done, you have to transfer energy from one state to another. But if you could somehow "pull" energy out of the vacuum, there would be no place to put it, because no matter what you do, you are still surrounded by a vacuum. It's like drawing water out of the bottom of a dry well: There's nothing left to give. Another way to look at it that is completely compatible with the field portrait is via the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that you can never know both the energy of a particle and the duration of its existence with a perfect degree of precision. This means that at the ground state or zero-point state of the universe, particles can temporarily pop into existence, "borrowing" energy from the vacuum, as long as they disappear in a short enough time to return that energy back. If you were to pluck out one of these particles and make it permanent, that would violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because you borrowed energy from the ground state without giving it back in time. These particles are known as virtual particles. They are the manifestation of all the fundamental energies of the quantum fields that permeate space-time. RELATED STORIES —Here's how the universe could end in a 'false vacuum decay' —Is the vacuum of space truly empty? —10 mind-boggling things you should know about quantum physics The bottom line is that no matter what the zero-point energy is, it's the background of the universe on top of which all of physics takes place. Just as you can't go lower than the ground floor of a building with no basement, you can't get lower than the ground state of the universe — so there's nothing for you to extract, and there's no way to leverage that into useful applications of energy. So, unfortunately, any work you do in the universe will have to be done the old-fashioned way.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why are tropical animals so colorful?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. From the striking rainbow colors of parrots in the rainforest to the brilliant flashes of yellows, oranges and blues in coral reefs, vibrantly colorful wildlife abounds in tropical ecosystems. But what is it about these environments that has driven their animal inhabitants to evolve such eye-catching hues? Broadly speaking, animals tend to use color to communicate, said Oscar Puebla, a fish ecologist at the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research in Germany. "It could be communication with members of your species — for example, to attract a mate," he told Live Science. "It could be communication to predators to make the point that you're venomous. It could be camouflage to escape predators." The reasons and methods of this color communication vary massively among species and environments. Birds tend to acquire colored pigments — like red, orange and yellow carotenoids — through their diet and use the resulting strong coloration to attract a partner or establish dominance. Meanwhile, fish and mollusks use complex microscopic structures within their cells to bend and diffract light and thus change their color to camouflage them from predators. But whether it's on land or under the sea, tropical conditions have played a huge part in this evolved adaptation. Sign up for our newsletter Sign up for our weekly Life's Little Mysteries newsletter to get the latest mysteries before they appear online. "There's a correlation between the diversity of a certain community and the amount of color or diversity in color that the different species display," said Roberto Arbore, an evolutionary biologist at the Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources in Portugal who specializes in parrots. "If you live in a very diverse community, such as a rainforest, you need to recognize individuals of the same species because interacting with individuals of different species can be very costly in terms, for example, of mating." Birds, in particular, rely on their sense of sight to perceive the world. The sheer number of avian species in the forest environment therefore drives up this competition to stand out, leading to the extraordinary variety of colors and patterns exhibited by parrots, hummingbirds, toucans and other birds that call the tropics home. However, "we have to be careful always with these colors and color patterns," Puebla cautioned. "The way we perceive colors could be very different from the way other animals perceive it." Related: Why are animals so colorful? This is especially true in marine systems. Because of the way light travels through water, red is absorbed extremely quickly, counterintuitively making it the ideal color for camouflage. Similarly, bright patterns that appear ostentatious to human eyes help many small fish hide from predators in the clear waters of coral reefs. "Reef fishes have a lot of blue and yellow, but many fish do not see that," Puebla said. "These are colors with a very strong contrast, so they use that to break their silhouette as a way of camouflaging." The high diversity and good visibility within tropical environments provide strong evolutionary pressures for colorful appearance, but there's also a physiological explanation for this abundance of color in animals that live near the equator, Arbore said. The production of color, whether through pigments or microstructural features, requires an investment of energy — something in short supply in harsher environments such as the tundra or desert. RELATED MYSTERIES —Why is there so much biodiversity in the tropics? —How do octopuses change color? —Why is the color blue so rare in nature? "Normally, tropical habitats are more rich," Arbore told Live Science. "The conditions are more generous in terms of energy, the availability of food, a milder climate, which has a strong impact on the physiology of animals in tropical environments. Different species can actually invest more energy in color because there is more abundance and the physiological cost of being very colorful is reduced." Whatever the evolutionary advantage, animals' color is inextricably intertwined with their environment, be it the bright birds of the rainforest or the dull silver fish of the deep sea. And the complex and diverse tropical ecosystem provides the perfect blend of competition and natural resources to support a fantastic explosion of vibrant color.
