• Golden Eye 0.1% w/v Eye Drops
    Golden Eye Drops Solution
  • Hypromellose 0.3% Eye Drops
    Hypromellose Eye Drops - For Dry Eyes
  • Optrex Bloodshot Eye Drops
    Optrex Bloodshot Eye Drops-ads
  • Viscotears Gel For Dry Eye
    Viscotears Gel For Dry Eye Treatment 10g
  • Golden Eye Chloramphenicol Eye
    Golden Eye Chloramphenicol Eye Ointment
  • Spatone Apple Liquid Iron
    Spatone Apple Liquid Iron Supplement-banner
  • Holland & Barrett Gentle Iron 20mg
    Holland & Barrett Gentle Iron 20mg 90 Capsules-banner
  • Vitabiotics Feroglobin Capsules
    Vitabiotics Feroglobin Capsules-banner

Fossil Boosts South Africa Claim to be Cradle of Humanity


New dating of South Africa’s most famous hominid fossil confirms it is older than previously thought, boosting the country’s claim to be a home of humankind, scientists said Wednesday.Known as “Little Foot,” the skeletal remains are those of a small ape-like creature who fell into a pit in South Africa’s Sterkfontein cave complex millions of years ago.

How many years, though, is the question, and teams have put forward an extraordinary range of estimates, from 1.5 million to 4 million.

The date is the key issue as to whether humans rose in East Africa, as a mainstream theory suggests, or in southern Africa — or possibly in both or other places simultaneously.

The new dating of Little Foot, reported in the journal Nature, puts the remains at 3.67 million years old, give or take 160,000 years.

That makes it a rough contemporary of “Lucy,” the Ethiopian hominid that lived about 500,000 years later and has the most prominent claim on being our earliest known ancestor.

“There is nothing to rule out the idea that (Little Foot) was the forerunner of humanity. Everything is possible,” said Laurent Bruxelles from France’s National Institute for Archaeological Research (INRAP), who took part in the study.

In the claim for being the cradle of humanity, “southern Africa is back in the race,” Bruxelles said.

The evidence comes thanks to an updated form of the technology used to date the sediments in which the fossil was found.

The technique, called cosmogenic nuclide dating, looks at levels of rare isotopes that are created when soil or rocks are hit by high-speed particles that arrive from outer space.

A first attempt using this method, in 2003, suggested an age of 4 million years, although it had an enormous margin of error.

That estimate was dramatically countered by dating of different deposits, looking for uranium and lead isotopes, which gave a far younger age of 2.2 million years.

That was devastating news for Little Foot’s champions, for it would relegate their fossil to a footnote in the human odyssey.

Last year, though, Bruxelles and colleagues determined that those calcite deposits had enveloped Little Foot in the cave at a much later date.

It would explain why the soil taken there was so much younger than the fossil itself. They deduced that Little Foot was “probably around 3 million” years old.

That work, in turn, led to a fresh dating of the sediments, using different search parameters and a powerful new instrument at Purdue University, Indiana, to measure two kinds of cosmogenic nuclides.

Out of 11 samples collected over a decade as the skeleton was teased from the sediment, the results from nine were in “stunning” alignment, “giving a robust age for the deposit,” said the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.

Both Little Foot and Lucy are from a branch of the human family tree called Australopithecus.

This genus had both ape and human features and could walk upright.

That branch also has forks, with Little Foot called Australopithecus prometheus, and Lucy categorized as Australopithecus afarensis.

Their anatomies were “very different . . . (which) now raises interesting questions about early hominid diversity,” said the study, led by Darryl Granger of Purdue University.

Like Lucy, Little Foot was female. The species was much bigger and taller than Lucy’s, with gorilla-like facial features but fully upright and very strong with powerful hands for climbing, according to paleoanthropologists Ron Clarke and Kathy Kuman of the University of the Witwatersrand.

Its hands were proportioned like ours, with a long thumb and relatively short fingers and palm, unlike the elongated hands of modern apes. Its legs were slightly longer than its arms, unlike modern apes.

The new date for Little Foot indicates Lucy’s species was not the only one that could have given rise to later members of the human family tree, said Clarke and Kuman.

“The fact . . . that we have at least two (Australopithecus) species living at the same time in different parts of Africa, 3.67 million years ago, raises the question of how many other species there may have been which have not yet been discovered,” they said by email.

Clarke and Kuman noted similarities in facial structure and some teeth between Little Foot and the later human relative Paranthropus, indicating Little Foot’s species may have been ancestral to Paranthropus or a close cousin.

The Australopithecus hominids are thought to have given rise to Homo habilis, the direct ancestor to anatomically modern man, Homo sapiens.

The first traces of H. habilis are dated to around 2.5 million years ago.

Far older fossils of hominids have been unearthed in East Africa and Chad that predate both Lucy and Little Foot, but their lineage to Australopithecus is unknown.

Published: APR 2, 2015. By AFP-JIJI, REUTERS
Copyright © 2015 The Japan Times Ltd

About Black Patient

Health Information & Support │www.blackpatient.com │ www.twitter.com/blackpatient │ www.facebook.com/blackpatient

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to SMS

Get text messages such as vaccination reminders, antenatal/postnatal tips, health alerts, disease prevention and more straight to your mobile phone.

Opt out from SMS / Email