Did you know that your brain functions better right after you drink water? If you need to give an important presentation, take a test, conduct a meeting soon or more, you might want to keep water nearby. My guess is that the finding could apply to all mammals, and not just humans. The benefit might even be more evident in other species. I've noticed that cats and dogs, for example, seem to exhibit a mini energy boost right after gulping down water.
(Image: lightfoot)
Caroline Edmonds and Ben Jeffes of the University of East London examined whether drinking water improves performance in 6 to 7 year old children. The differences between the water and no water groups were significant, according to a paper that's been accepted for publication in the journal Appetite.
They found that "even
under conditions of mild dehydration, not as a result of exercise,
intentional water deprivation or heat exposure" their test subjects' "cognitive
performance can be improved by having a drink of water."
The below fellow clearly doesn't have a dehydration problem. He holds the world record for water drinking. Watch him down nearly a quart and a half of water in just 4 seconds.
Since this post touches on human health, I might as well also share with you the below tips from Harvard Health Publications' Neck and Shoulder Pain Special Health Report. It gives important tips on how to protect your neck with exercises and good ergonomic posture at your desk.
"For example, you can take control of your body posture by setting up your chair, desk, and computer to encourage healthy neck and back positioning.
Set the monitor directly in front of you so you can see it without hanging your head down (monitor too low), tilting it back (monitor too high), or thrusting it forward (monitor too far away).
Use an upright paper holder so you don’t have to bend to read papers on your desk.
Set your keyboard at a height to help you maintain this upright position and not hunch up your shoulders or lean over to type.
Never hold the telephone between your head and shoulder. Use your hands, a headset model, or a speakerphone.
Keep your upper back and neck straight and your head positioned directly over your neck.
Use armrests to support your forearms.
Slide your buttocks far back in your chair.
Set your chair height so you can keep both feet flat on the ground."
How did people prepare meat 200,000 years ago? The following press release from the American Friends of Tel Aviv University provides some clues.
A 200,000-year-old cut of meat
Tel Aviv University archaeologists shed light on life, diet and society before the delicatessen
Contestants on TV shows like Top Chef and Hell's Kitchen know that
their meat-cutting skills will be scrutinized by a panel of unforgiving
judges. Now, new archaeological evidence is getting the same scrutiny
by scientists at Tel Aviv University and the University of Arizona.
Their
research is providing new clues about how, where and when our communal
habits of butchering meat developed, and they're changing the way
anthropologists, zoologists and archaeologists think about our
evolutionary development, economics and social behaviors through the
millennia.
Presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
new finds unearthed at Qesem Cave in Israel suggest that during the
late Lower Paleolithic period (between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago),
people hunted and shared meat differently than they did in later times.
Instead of a prey's carcass being prepared by just one or two persons
resulting in clear and repeated cutting marks –– the forefathers of the
modern butcher ― cut marks on ancient animal bones suggest something
else.
(Image: Bone showing cutmarks from Israel's Qusem Cave; Credit: Mary Stiner)
Different rules of the game
"The cut marks we are
finding are both more abundant and more randomly oriented than those
observed in later times, such as the Middle and Upper Paleolithic
periods," says Prof. Avi Gopher of TAU's Department of Archaeology.
"What this could mean is that either one person from the clan butchered
the group's meat in a few episodes over time, or multiple persons
hacked away at it in tandem," he interprets. This finding provides
clues as to social organization and structures in these early groups of
hunters and gatherers, he adds.
Among human hunters in the
past 200,000 years, from southern Africa to upstate New York or
sub-arctic Canada, "there are distinctive patterns of how people hunt,
who owns the products of the hunt, how carcasses are butchered and
shared," Prof. Gopher says. "The rules of sharing are one of the basic
organizing principles of hunter-gatherer cultures. From 200,000 years
ago to the present day, the patterns of meat-sharing and butchering run
in a long clear line. But in the Qesem Cave, something different was
happening. There was a distinct shift about 200,000 years ago, and
archaeologists and anthropologists may have to reinterpret hunting and
meat-sharing rituals."
Meat-sharing practices, Prof. Gopher
says, can tell present-day archaeologists about who was in a camp, how
people dealt with danger and how societies were organized. "The basic
logic of butchering large animals has not changed for a long time.
Everyone knows how to deal with the cuts of meat, and we see cut marks
on bones that are very distinctive and similar, matching even those of
modern butchers. It's the more random slash marks on the bones in Qesem
that suggests something new."
Where's the beef?
The
Qesem Cave finds demonstrate that man was at the top of the food chain
during this period, but that they shared the meat differently than
their later cousins. The Tel Aviv University excavators and Prof. Mary
Stiner of the University of Arizona (Tucson) hypothesize that the Qesem
Cave people hunted cooperatively. After the hunt, they carried the
highest-quality body parts of their prey back to the cave, where the
meat was cut using stone-blade tools and then cooked on the fire.
"We
believe this reflects a different way of butchering and sharing. More
than one person was doing the job, and it fits our expectations of a
less formal structure of cooperation," says Prof. Gopher. "The major
point here is that around 200,000 years ago or before, there was a
change in behavior. What does it mean? Time and further excavations may
tell."
Qesem, which means "magic" in Hebrew, was discovered
seven miles east of Tel Aviv about nine years ago during highway
construction. It is being excavated on behalf of TAU's Department of
Archaeology by Prof. Avi Gopher and Dr. Ran Barkai in collaboration
with an international group of experts. The cave contains the remains
of animal bones dating back to 400,000 years ago. Most of the remains
are from fallow deer, others from wild ancestors of horse, cattle, pig,
and even some tortoise. The data that this dig provides has been
invaluable: Until now there was considerable speculation as to whether
or not people from the late Lower Paleolithic era were able to hunt at
all, or whether they were reduced to scavenging, the researchers say.
American Friends of Tel Aviv University (www.aftau.org)
supports Israel's leading and most comprehensive center of higher
learning. In independent rankings, TAU's innovations and discoveries
are cited more often by the global scientific community than all but 20
other universities worldwide.
Internationally recognized for
the scope and groundbreaking nature of its research programs, Tel Aviv
University consistently produces work with profound implications for
the future.
Did the human family tree first take root in Ethiopia? That question wasn't addressed in last night's "Discovering Ardi" program, so I would like to discuss it here as I think some people might be misled by the evidence. Even Paula Zahn called Ethiopia "the cradle of humanity" during last night's follow-up discussion.
Looking at the fossil record, one could easily think that our hominid ancestors only lived in Ethiopia, that Egypt was the only happening place 5,000 years ago, that North American dinosaurs were all clustered together in Montana and other falsehoods. While it's true important finds have been made in each of these regions, we cannot discount the role geology has played in the process.
Africa has what are known as "rift valleys." These are valleys with steep sides formed by a rift in Earth's crust. Africa's Great Rift Valley forms a large, triangular depression called the Afar Rift in Ethiopia. As Ardi project co-director Tim White told me, sediments have been accumulating in this depression for millions of years.
"Much of Africa has a high elevation and most surfaces are eroding," he and his team concluded. "This is why fossils are concentrated in the rift valleys of Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, and other African countries."
The Afar Rift is important, in part, because the fossils within the sediment appear in well-defined layers that can be precisely dated. Australopithecus, famous for its "Lucy" skeleton, was found there, and so was Ardi. Last night's Discovery Channel program hinted that even older hominid remains have been found in deeper sediment layers at the site. Scientists can therefore see human evolution at work, as the layers strongly indicate that each of the hominid species at the site are connected, with one species giving rise to another. For example, White believes Ardipithecus likely gave rise to Australopithecus, which down the line gave rise to our own genus, Homo.
So it's not necessarily true that all of our ancestors were somehow huddled together in Ethiopia. Other hominids likely lived elsewhere in Africa. It's just that the geology has permitted scientists to unearth important fossils in Ethiopian soils and to establish probable connections between these fossils.
The excavated Ardipithecus fossils are extremely fragile. Many bones clearly were chewed by hyenas. It goes without saying that a lot can happen to strewn bones over millions of years. It's a minor miracle that any have stayed intact for our generation.
Ethiopia paints a vivid picture of human evolution, but it's likely not the only place where early hominids settled. As White and his team say, "The distribution of plants and animals found today as fossils in eastern Africa, including hominids, is therefore a fortunate accident of geology and where these organisms used to live."
Will another location yield important fossil finds? In future, maybe. At present, though, as White says, "Ethiopia has now taken the lead in human origins studies and discoveries."
I recently spoke with Gerrit Dusseldorp, an expert on Neanderthals and early humans who is at the University of the Witwatersrand's Institute for Human Evolution. Here's what he had to say about these puzzling hominids who may have been our relatives, our dinner or both.
<<JV: Your research suggests that Neanderthals and hyenas occupied the same top carnivore place on the early European food chain. But didn't Neanderthals edge them out by being superior hunters?
GD: First,
hyenas, like Neanderthals were capturing very dangerous animals.
However, it appears (from the few sites that I have looked at) that, if
circumstances allow, hyenas prefer to focus on smaller game. In this
case: At a French hyena den (called Lunel Viel) located in a forested
environment, deer were the most common prey, followed at some distance
by horse and aurochs. In a den (Camiac also in France) located in a
Mammoth Steppe environment, bovids and horse are common, followed by
woolly rhinoceros while cervids are rare. From extant spotted hyenas
(of which we know that they are genetically indistinguishable from
European cave hyenas) we know that they prefer to forage alone. When
foraging in groups they are able to take much larger prey. However,
since there is a strong dominance hierarchy, especially low-ranking
animals may take part in hunting a large animal and not profit from the
kill at all. It appears that in forested environments, where prey is
dispersed, foraging alone is successful. On the mammoth steppe, prey is
concentrated in large herds. Therefore foraging in groups becomes
necessary and this leads to larger prey being represented at sites.
JV: So what then was the hunting strategy of Neanderthals?
GD: Neanderthals
on the other hand appear to have focused in warm environments, even if
many other alternatives were available. I looked at a site in forested
environment in Germany (called Taubach) where rhinoceros and brown bear
were the most common prey, followed by bison. Several species of deer
were also available, as well as horses, donkeys and wild boar, but they
were not exploited. (We know this because butchery marks were present
on hundreds of bear and rhino bones and absent on bones of cervids,
boars, horses, donkeys and so on).
At
the colder French site of Biache-Saint-Vaast, rhinoceros and brown
bears were also hunted, but here the smaller aurochs were the most
common prey. As the environment becomes colder, herd animals become
more common prey, while bears are not hunted anymore. (Again butchery
marks indicate which species were exploited. Although here too, boar
and different species of deer were present they do not seem to have
been selected by Neanderthals. Horses do seem to have been selected in
the latest coldest phase of occupation).
Even
more striking is the fact that all of the bison at Taubach of which the
sex could be ascertained, were bulls. At Biache-Saint-Vaast, about 60
percent were male and 40 percent were female.
JV: What's the significance of that finding?
GD: I
interpreted this as signaling that Neanderthals prefer large prey.
However, in warm, forested environments, available biomass was scarce,
since most of it was locked up in trees as wood and leaves, which
hominins cannot digest. Therefore, they were present in lower
population densities. In contrast to hyenas, Neanderthals as primates
are not carnivores equipped with natural weapons such as powerful jaws
and claws. Their most important weapon likely was their big brain.
Locations of sites suggest that they usually hunted using ambush
strategies. When living in smaller groups in forests, they probably
could not easily ambush herds of large animals like female bison, or
horses. They therefore concentrated on solitary animals: rhinoceros,
brown bear and bulls of bison, since they live solitary most of the
year.
As
the environment becomes more open, biomass is available in larger
quantities. Neanderthals could live in larger groups. This led to
increased exploitation of herd-living animals such as female bison. The
very dangerous brown bear was dropped from the diet, because killing
this solitary animal may have been easier for small groups it was
probably more dangerous than ambushing a herd of bison or horses.
JV: Do you then think that Neanderthals fared better when they were in more open and less forested areas? That seems hard to fathom.
GD: The
conclusion that forested environments may have been less suited to
Neanderthals may seem counterintuitive, but is supported by data on
animal species in modern European forests. At Bialowice National Park
in Poland for example, there is about 2 tonnes of herbivore biomass per
square kilometer. For the mammoth steppes, divergent estimates have
been proposed, but 14 tonnes per square kilometer appears reasonable.
JV: Is it possible that competing Neanderthals and hyenas ate each other?
GD: Neanderthals
may have consumed hyenas, but there is little evidence for this (there
are no sites with large quantities of hyena bones with butchering
marks). Some Neanderthal bones have been found in hyena dens and some
of these bones show clear traces of gnawing by hyenas. (A nice
illustration is found in the paper I attached). Therefore they may have
been eaten at least occasionally by hyenas. Their remains in these
contexts are always few in number though.
JV: I've also read that Neanderthals and hyenas shared cave dwellings. Do you think that happened?
GD: Some
caves provide clear evidence that they were used by both species.
However, often they were used in different points in time. This is signaled by the use of caves by hyenas to raise their young. Young
spotted hyenas are fully dependent on their parents for the first 15
months of their lives and are hidden at secure places. We know from
studies on extant hyenas that once a site is disturbed, the cubs will
be moved and the site will be avoided for some time. Battles for caves
seem therefore unlikely. Especially since hyenas often use burrows that
they dug themselves. They are therefore not dependent on caves as
living spaces.
JV: Why do you think Neanderthals went extinct?
GD: On
the question of Neanderthal extinction, it is still uncertain what
caused it. However, the focus of Neanderthals on the very largest
animals, though brave may have brought some problems with it as well.
Large animals are present in low population densities and have low
rates of reproduction. In an unstable environment these species may not
respond well to crises. Anatomically modern humans appear to have
sometimes also exploited small animals like rabbits, hares, birds and
fish. These species may be difficult to exploit efficiently, unless one
invests in traps, nets or snares. However they are present in larger
numbers and they reproduce rapidly. They may therefore bounce back from
crises more quickly than larger species. Therefore anatomically modern
humans may have had a more reliable palet exploited foods. After
environmental crises modern humans may then have recovered more quickly
than Neanderthals, and may have started usurping territories that
before the environmental crisis were occupied by Neanderthals.
JV: What research are you conducting at present?
GD: I
am now investigating how and when anatomically modern humans started
exploiting this kind of resources in South Africa. Here a few sites
have been found with very early indications for “modern behaviour” such
as symbolism. I want to track the concomitant changes in foraging
strategies and see how this affected indications for population
density. I hope to be able to document if and when modern human
foraging strategies enabled a growth in their populations.>>
Archaeologists have just found what is arguably the world's oldest known depiction of a human. The Venus from Hohle Fels, named after the cave in Germany where the object was excavated, has been dated to being at least 35,000 to 40,000 years old. Over 30 radiocarbon measurements were taken at the site. Without question, it's the world's earliest known representation of a woman.
(Credit: H. Jensen; photomicrographs by B. Ligouis; copyright University of Tubingen)
In the story, I wasn't able to delve into what the possible use and meaning of the object might have been. This subject has been hotly debated for other so-called Venus figurines dated to later periods. A few possibilities include:
The object could have held shamanic, spiritual significance, perhaps meant to convey certain attributes or powers to the wearer or holder of the artifact.
It might have been used in fertility rituals.
The figurine could have been associated with a possible sacred goddess, worshiped by Europe's first modern humans.
Art for art's sake might have existed way back when. Our ability to symbolically represent ourselves, other creatures and inanimate things through art appears to have really exploded just 5,000 to 10,000 years later, right when anthropologists suspect we were evolving complex language and representational skills.
One word: sex. According to Paul Mellars of the University of Cambridge, other early European sites have yielded explicitly sexual objects, such as bone, ivory and horn phallic carvings. Both men and women were depicted in all of their anatomical glory during the Gravettian and later periods.
My own view is that all of the above could be true. Today we tend to think very categorically, often separating sex from spirituality, art from ritual. Perhaps our prehistoric ancestors weren't quite as rigid in this regard. Hollywood had its pre-code movies. Here we have prehistoric pre-code: a no holds barred look at the human body from the mindset of Neanderthal-era modern humans.
I invite you to watch the below video, which describes a somewhat similar, yet later, Venus figurine.
In keeping with today's earlier news about morning and evening people, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has just released an extensive survey concerning social trends in industrialized countries.
France turned out to be the sleepiest nation, with people there sleeping about 9 hours per night. America ranked second. Korea was named the "most awake" country.
See where your nation, if included, ranks in the below.
Last Friday's entry left you with a scene from The Lord of the Rings. It therefore seems fitting today to unveil a cast of a "Human Hobbit" skeleton that will go on public display for the first time ever at Stony Brook University's 7th Human Evolution Symposium on April 21.
(Credit: Stony Brook University; National Research and
Development Centre for Archaeology, Jakarta)
Archaeologists who discovered the bones in 2003 claim they belong to a new human species, which they named Homo floresiensis, aka "Hobbit." The remains were found on the Indonesian island of Flores.
From the time the skeleton was first described to the scientific community, it has been the center of a heated debate. Was this individual simply a deformed or ill modern human, or was it really a separate human species?
Richard Leakey, one of the world's most noted paleoanthropologists, is convening the April New York gathering, which is fittingly called, "Hobbits in the Haystack: Homo floresiensis and Human Evolution."
“At the symposium, we’ll do our best to
separate fact from myth on the controversial issues surrounding this
prehistoric hominin, which has gained international celebrity status,”
said William Jungers, Distinguished Teaching Professor and Chair of the
Department of Anatomical Sciences at Stony Brook.
Jungers added, “A cast of the entire
skeleton of the specimen has never been displayed anywhere, inside or
outside of Indonesia. This is a real first.”
Nicknamed “Flo” and
referred to as a “Hobbit” due to its brain size – about a third of the
size of modern humans – and small physical stature, the enigmatic "Homo
floresiensis" has emerged as one of the most fascinating and perplexing
twists to the story of human evolution in recent history. Dated to only
17,000 years ago, these “Hobbits” possessed an unexpected number of
primitive morphologies more reminiscent of earlier Homo erectus or even
Australopithecus, than modern humans.
Below is an entire BBC program on the enigmatic "Hobbit."
Analysis of a remarkable cluster of graves at a Stone Age burial site near Eulau, Germany, provides the oldest molecular genetic evidence for a nuclear family.
The
13 graves, dating to 4,600 years ago, contained groups of adults and children buried
facing each other – hands interlinked in many cases. The family members, ranging in age from very young children to adults 30 years and older, were interred simultaneously.
(These figures illustrate the careful arrangement of the bodies of a
Late Stone Age family grave. While the association of a close familial
relationship becomes immediately apparent at the first sight, the
multiple burials of grave 99 from Eulau, Germany has proven to be the
oldest successful case of biological kinship testing in prehistory. Thanks to Landesamt für Denkmalpflege und Archäologie Sachsen-Anhalt (State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt), photographer Juraj Lipták, artist Karol
Schauer and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for use of the images.)
It's likely that the family was the victim of a violent raid. One female was impaled by a stone arrowhead, found stuck in her back bone. Another woman's skull had multiple fractures. Most of the other family members had "defense injuries" on their arms and hands, showing that they tried to fight off the raiders.
A flint arrowhead embedded in a lumbar vertebra of individual 5 (grave
90).
(The genetic relationship of individuals from grave 99. An in situ
photograph is overlain by a pedigree reconstructed from the genetic
results with squares denoting male, circles female individuals and
triangles indifferent individuals. Different genetic lineages are
illustrated by color fillings of the symbols with the mitochondrial
(maternal) lineages highlighted in red and orange and the Y-chromosomal
(paternal) lineage shown in blue (HG = Haplogroup, Ind. = Individual).
When no genetic results could be received, the symbol is shown in grey.
Haplogroup, Ind. = Individual). A reconstruction of the situation at
death was added on top to emphasize the “intertwining” and the
orientation of the bodies.)
The researchers, whose findings are outlined in this week's Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, used high tech genetics, physical anthropology and archaeological methods to study the remains.
"By establishing
the genetic links between the two adults and two children buried
together in one grave, we have established the presence of the classic
nuclear family in a prehistoric context in Central Europe – to our
knowledge the oldest authentic molecular genetic evidence so far," said lead author Wolfgang Haak of the University of Adelaide. "Their
unity in death suggests a unity in life. However, this does not
establish the elemental family to be a universal model or the most
ancient institution of human communities."
The scientists used another clever technique—strontium isotope analysis—to determine the burial group's social organization.
Hylke de Jong, a
PhD student working on the Eulau graves at the University of Bristol explained, "We measured strontium isotopes in their teeth to give us an
indication of where these people spent their childhood. Strontium from
the food you eat is incorporated into your teeth as they grow. We can
relate the proportion of different strontium isotopes back to regions
with different geology and identify the area where a person grew up."
Dr
Alistair Pike, Head of Archaeology at the University of Bristol and
co-Director of the project, continued: "The strontium analysis showed
that the females spent their childhood in a different region from the
males and children. This is an indication of exogamy (marrying out) and
patrilocality (the females moving to the location of the males). Such
traditions would have been important to avoid inbreeding and to forge
kinship networks with other communities."
You can see the burials in person, as they are now on permanent display at Germany's Landesmuseum Sachsen-Anhalt.
Our ancient human, and even not so human, relatives evolved in different ways to match their living environments and needs. Let's take a baseball card look at some of them to see how they would have fared at today's summer Olympic games.
Australopithecus afarensis Lived: 2.9 to 3.9 million years ago small brain compared to modern humans ape-like curved fingers and toes wrist-locking mechanism suggests they were knuckle-walkers as well as bipedal great climbers and all around athletes
Most likely to win a gold medal in: triathlon (with some swimming lessons) basketball, since their shoulders suggest they had great overhead reach and strength, but they would've had an odd shooting technique given their curved finger bones track and field events (jumping over hurdles would've been a piece of cake)
Australopithecus africanus Height: 4 to 4.5 feet tall Brain: About 35% the size of a modern human Lived: 3 to 3.9 million years ago Best body feature: Their chimp-like arms. Although A. africanus walked on two feet, it still retained long arms for grabbing, swinging, baby holding and more.
Most likely to win a gold medal in: gymnastics (would've blown away the modern human competition) rowing weightlifting water polo (if they could wear tiny flotation devices) track and field (another talented jumper) volleyball (long arms would've given it a net advantage)
Homo rudolfensis (Credit: Smithsonian Institution) Lived: Around 1.9 million years ago slim hips for walking long distances sophisticated sweating system one of the first hominids to have longer legs than arms less body "fur"
Most likely to win a gold medal in: track and field (long distance running- no sweat) basketball volleyball swimming and diving (less body hair means less frictional drag in water)
Paranthropus (Credit: Gunnar Ries) Lived: Around 2.7 million years ago Brain: About 40 percent the size of modern man Height: 4.5 to 5 feet tall Probably lived in wooded, rather than grassland, areas
Most likely to win a gold medal in: gymnastics (another one that could have decimated the modern human competition) boxing table tennis (if played on a very short table) handball
Homo habilis Lived: 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago Homo habilis means "handy man" or "skillful person" Short with disproportionately large arms handy with tools and early weapons
Most likely to win a gold medal in: modern pentathlon shooting (might've needed a gun with special hand adaptations) archery basketball table tennis gymnastics
Homo ergaster aka "Working Man" Lived: 1.9 to 1.4 million years ago Stood: Around 6 feet 3 inches used hand axes and cleavers
Most likely to win a gold medal in: basketball (If H. ergaster could walk onto the court, the modern humans might as well just give up and leave) track and field events taekwondo archery fencing modern pentathlon badminton volleyball
Homo erectus aka "Upright Man" Height: Around 5.87 Much stronger than modern humans Smart, had tools and knew how to use them
Most likely to win a gold medal in: weight lifting judo wrestling (could beat any modern human) boxing soccer triathlon
Homo heidelbergensis Around at least 400,000 to 500,000 years ago Height: 6 feet on average More muscular than modern humans Large brain advanced tools and behavior
Most likely to win a gold medal in: everything but the swimming events (but it'd have a decent chance if it shaved its body)
Homo neanderthalensis aka Neanderthal Lived: From around 130,000 to 30,000 years ago Height: About 5.5 feet tall muscular with robust bone structure particularly strong arms and hands smart, talked, sang, had tattoos, body piercings brave big game hunter Given its penchant for rebellious style, would've been a crowd favorite
Most likely to win a gold medal in: everything except for maybe diving, given its unstreamlined, stocky body
Soon at Discovery News you will find out when language and singing probably first emerged. The world's first conversation and songs likely occurred thousands of years before documented history. The Stone Age? Think much earlier. To find out just how long ago, please check the news page a bit later this week.
In the story, I wasn't able to include information about yet another human family tree discovery. Ignacio Martinez Mendizabal of Alcala University and his team have been studying hominid remains at Sima de los Huesos ("The Pit of the Bones") cave site in Atapuerca, Spain. The remains belonged to Homo heidelbergensis, a tall, muscular ancestor to Neanderthals.
What's left of them. Photo credit: Javier Trueba, Madrid Scientific Films
Twenty eight of these individuals were all buried in the Spanish cave.
"The most probable hypothesis to explain this incredible accumulation points to an anthropic origin, thus involving the first evidence of a 'culture of death' and a symbolic behavior in the human lineage," Mendizabal told me.
The cave could therefore represent the earliest evidence for organized burials among anyone on the "family of man" ancestral tree. There's another interesting new study on early burials in Ireland caves, but I believe those finds date to much later.
If you have 10 minutes, please watch this segment from the BBC and Discovery production, Walking with Cavemen. Also, for those on the U.S. East Coast, you can hear me talking more about cavemen on NPR today at around 2:30/2:45.
Recent Comments