Homo Sapien Sapiens: Where Did We Originate?
Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2007
by Jerry Boone
http://merechristianity.us/
What do we know about the ancestry of man? Let's see what paleontologists and archaeologists have discovered about the sub-species called Homo sapien sapiens.
The beginning of Homo sapien sapiens (Let's just call them sapiens) is shrouded in mystery. Estimates vary among the authorities anywhere from 100,000 to a million years ago. Trying to trace modern humans back to Homo erectus is as difficult to document as it was with neanderthal.
Robustus remains a possibility exception. But we can pretty much rule out robustus. The tool proceeded that species by a half million years. Moreover, the only "tools" anyone has ever credited to robustus were made of bone - not stone.
Johanson thinks the only thing that could have made that tool was a human. But that presents a problem. The earliest estimates anyone has ever given for both Homo habilis and Homo erectus is two million years ago. And neanderthal was a couple of million years too late to manufacture that tool. Consequently, the 2.5 million year old Ethiopian tool remains one of many unsolved archeology puzzles.
Many fossil remains from Africa, Asia, and Europe date from 100,000 to 500,000 years ago. Collectively they are called "archaic" Homo sapiens. Archaic is a broad category. We see a lot of variety. Some of these fossils reveal erectus characteristics, but have larger brains or show other differences in size or shape of the skull.
The experts are divided on how we should view these fossils. Some believe these "archaics" may have been one or more separate species. Others say that these early sapiens were no more diverse than people are today. After all, modern humans vary widely in size and shape: black, white, tall, short, fat, thin, big nose, small nose, etc. That degree of variation is rarely found in other species.
Nevertheless, when sapiens appear on the scene, they show more traits in common with each other than with any other species or sub species in the area. That suggests that a single ancestral population with modern features spread out rapidly across Africa, Asia, and Europe. Anthropologists believe these widespread modern human characteristics indicate a recent common origin.
What are sapiens' distinguishing traits? A high rounded cranium with a large brain cavity averaging around 1400 cubic centimeters, small teeth, distinct bony chin, and a relatively slender body. The most striking characteristic of a modern human skeleton is the brain cavity.
At birth a baby's brain is only one-third the size of a mature adult brain. The brain more than doubles in weight during the first year. Starting day one with a fourteen ounce brain, a normal baby will grow to a thirty-five ounce brain by its first birthday. By six or seven, modern humans reach their mature level with a forty-five ounce brain.
On the other hand, both apes and monkeys are limited to mature brains no more than twice the size of what they had at birth. Chimpanzees, for instance, start with seven ounces and mature with fourteen. It is thought that erectus also started with seven ounces at birth, but increased eighteen more in the first year and another seven before reaching maturity. The fully mature Homo erectus brain weighed in at thirty-two ounces.
Although the human brain weighs a mere three pounds, proportionally that's five times larger than the mammal average, given our body weight. Homo erectus' brain was three times the average considering its body size.
The oldest archaic sapien fossil is a skull from Java dated 700,000 years ago. The face protrudes forward and has pronounced ridges over its eye sockets. The cranial vault is long, low, and broad at the base of the skull. It was similar to what we found in Homo erectus.
In Zambia, Africa, a Homo sapien skull shows a large face and dense brow ridges. Paleontologists think it could be 300,000 years old. Some have suggested it could be a form between erectus and sapien.
Yet another skull comes from Dali in northern China. This one is dated between 180,000 and 230,000 years old. Johanson says it shows "a lot of primitive features including an exceptionally large brow ridge, thick cranial bone, and a long low cranium similar to Homo erectus. Its brain size lies between that of erectus and modern humans.
Two more China skulls called Maba and Dali are archaic Homo sapiens. Researchers date them very roughly between 100,000 and 200,000 year old.
A cranium found in a cave in Morocco, Africa, the so called "Jebel Irhoud 1" has been difficult to date. But it's believed to be in the vicinity of 100,000 to 200,000 years old. While the brow ridges are heavy, the shape of the face and cranium is modern. It reveals a short flat face. Compared to neanderthal, the nose was short and the cheek region relatively hollow.
Still another skull, this one from Omo-Kibish in southern Ethiopia, has an uncertain age but may be 130,000 years old. They call it "Omo 1." Again, Johanson is our source of information for this fossil. He tells us that much of the back of the skull and some of the sides are present. Its parietal bones are intact. The mandible has a distinct chin, and the cheek bones meet the face at a right angle just like they do in modern humans.
The brow ridges taper at the sides as it does in Jebel Irhoud 1. Omo 1 possessed a short, broad face which is far more modern with its high forehead and long curved sides than the much later neanderthal.
At the southern tip of Africa, about 400 miles east of Cape Town, archeologists discovered the Klasies River Mouth cave. Here they found human fossils, stone tools, and animal bones. Among the artifacts were numerous leaf-shaped, pointed stone flakes and scrapers.
Those are the sort of tools archeologists classify as Middle Stone Age technology, a period usually associated with neanderthal from roughly 40,000 to 180,000 years ago. But these fossils show modern features - not neanderthal.
The fossils are in bits and pieces. Found were several fragments of lower jaws, one upper jaw, a number of partial skulls, teeth, and four cranial bones. Johanson says the lower jaw is nearly identical to modern human's. It has a light build, small teeth, and most significant of all -- a chin. Neanderthals did not have a bony chin, neither did Homo erectus. What's more, we find no bony ridges over their eye sockets. That means these bones definitely didn't belong to a neanderthal.
Furthermore, it didn't belong to any of the other archaic Homo sapien groups in Africa either. These fossils may be 100,000 years old. They were modern humans, living in South Africa during the same period neanderthal lived in Europe and western Asia. And they had the same technology as neanderthal.
Apparently humans, who looked very much like us today, lived in this cave somewhere between 75,000 to 115,000 years ago. Investigators claim these people hunted large and small game.
At approximately the same date, 100,000 years ago in Java, we find more fossils at Ngandong located six miles north of Trinil, the so called "Solo fossils." Unearthed were several skulls, skull fragments, and a couple of lower limbs. Unfortunately, no face was present. Its features resembled Homo erectus, but its brains were larger.
We have moved from Africa to Java; now it's on to France. In 1947, a pair of fossils was discovered in the Fontechevard cave in France. Their features were modern. Excavators found these partial skulls beneath a layer of undisturbed stalagmite. From this we know later burial was impossible. The were dated at 100,000 year old.
Remains of modern human burials were located in two Israel caves, Qafzeh and Skhul. Fifteen individuals dated around 90,000 years old - possibly as old as 100,000, possibly as recent as 80,000 years ago - were uncovered in these caves. Johanson says, "Their mandible have a distinct chin, their faces are short and broad, and the back of their craniums lack the distinctive occipital bun" which identifies neanderthals.
They look very much like their contemporaries found in far off Klasies River cave in South Africa. Ninety-thousand years ago we already see Homo sapiens from both South Africa and the Near East who bear a striking modern resemblance to humans today.
From Australia we find Mongo III, an almost complete male skeleton, who was buried in a flexed (knees bent) position between 28,000 and 32,000 years ago in what is now New South Wales. It was similar to early burials taking place in Europe during the same period.
The bones were pink from ocher spread over the burial. The fossil was robust, but Johanson believes he was not quite as robust as the average male Aborigine of today.
About the same time, 30,000 years ago, Cro-Magnon was living in France. In the town of Les Eyzies, skeletons of three males, a female, and an infant were discovered along with reindeer and mammoth bones. These people were modern in every respect.
Back to Australia, at Lake Mungo over 100 partial skeletons have been found. Researchers reconstructed a female and nicknamed her Mungo I. She lived 25,000 years ago and had been cremated.
In China, two skulls were discovered dating 25,000 year old. They are modern.
Sometimes paleontologists are surprised by the twists and turns in the fossil record. That nice looking modern skull turns out to be quite old; conversely, primitive fossils on occasion are of recent vintage. Examples of the former are seen in the 90,000 year old modern groups found in Israel and South Africa.
Kow Swamp serves as a prime example of the latter. Forty individuals, some decorated with shells and beads, were buried together at Kow Swamp, south of Lake Mungo. They show robust skulls with large faces and teeth. Above their eye sockets were dense ridges across flat foreheads.
Researchers began to speculate that they had discovered the missing link between erectus and sapiens. These primitive-looking archaic types just might be the direct descendents of Homo erectus. The surprise came when the fossils were dated. They were only 9,000 to 15,000 years old.
Amazing! The primitive-looking Kow Swamp people were half as old as the much more gracile Mungo fossils which clearly belonged to modern humans. Such contradictions are not uncommon in the fossil record.
As the Qafzeh and Klasies River Mouth sites show, Homo sapiens already had their distinctive physical features at least by 90,000 years ago. They reveal high rounded craniums, small teeth, bony chins, and slender gracile bodies. Physically they were human. But what about culturally?
Culturally, they were at the same Middle Stone Age level as neanderthal. And they remained at that level. Erectus, you may recall, kept the same stone technology for one to two million years. No innovations, no changes, no real variation from place to place. Experts question his ability to speak based to a large degree upon his prolonged stagnate culture.
Neanderthal was around for 100,000 years or so. His Middle Stone Age technology was certainly more refined than erectus' tools. All the same, neanderthal, like erectus before him, failed to improve as time went on. Again, we suspect something about neanderthal is not quite human; otherwise we would expect progress.
Next we find Homo sapiens. Some look archaic; others appear physically very modern. Still, no cultural progress. Once more, we are forced to conclude that they are not quite human either, even if they look the part. That certain bit of creative genius, that certain spark that makes humans human was as absent in sapiens as it had been in erectus and neanderthal. Sapiens, like neanderthal, appears to have come into this world with Middle Stone Age abilities, and there they stayed.
Creative Revolution
There they stayed until 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. Then something happened. Something transformed sapien behavior so dramatically, we know we are viewing people as human as ourselves. In his book, Ancestors, Don Johanson tells us that revolutionary new ideas exploded across the Old World.
We see a greater variety of stone tools including specialized utensils for different tasks. Styles start changing over time and from place to place. New stone implements appear: flint leaf-shaped points, projectile points, scrapers, and harpoon heads.
Moreover, we find grave goods, communal graves, ocher making, and rocks covering graves to deter scavengers. Yes, neanderthal buried their dead too, but sapiens added ceremony to the burial.
At the same time, we find the first archeological evidence of symbolic art. Modern sapiens began to demonstrate their skill and desire for something beyond their day to day needs. Prehistoric art appeared in caves in three continents: Europe, Africa, and Australia. Evidently, the artwork arose independently some 40,000 years ago.
Neither neanderthal nor archaic Homo sapiens left any engraving or painting. Only modern sapiens left artwork. This human revolution is called the Upper Paleolithic in Europe and the Late Stone Age in Africa.
Symbolic art certainly implies a spoken language. Anthropologists believe that art, language, and human self-perception all occurred 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. That would explain why so little progress had been make before that period, and so much has been achieved since.
You might wonder how do the naturalists and the religious side view this "human revolution." All the naturalists can say is: "Some nucleotide in a sapien's brain must have mutated which left him -- different." That mutation must have been a fortunate one, for it took a dimly reasoning creature who couldn't find his way out of Middle Stone Age technology and turned him into a reasoning, thinking, creative dynamo who found his way to the moon and back.
Those on the religious side respond: "The one who made the universe and created life on this planet gave man a spark of his own creative reason. That is what Genesis means when it says, 'He made them in his on image.' This divine spark is the individual soul. Therein lies our consciousness, our reason, our ingenuity, our uniqueness, and our immortality. That is what sets modern Homo sapiens apart from all other creatures past and present."
Two Premises
How did mankind evolve? You find as many opinions on this subject as you find paleontologists. That is no surprise. The trail of clues is often no more than a few flakes of stone and broken animal bones. Maybe a vaguely human type of jaw or perhaps just a tooth is found among other bones.
Little wonder investigators come up with widely different interpretations. The major problem remains the pitifully small number of hominid fossils.
All too often, the experts make up for scanty and ambiguous evidence with speculation. Presumption becomes intertwined with meager evidence, and it is all presented as facts. About the only thing authorities in this field can agree on is that "evolution is a fact." Ask them how it happened, and they quickly began to squabble among themselves.
What do we actually know about the ancestry of man? An honest answer is -- very little. A wide variety of human-like forms, to one degree or another have lived on earth during the last two million years. By all accounts, some were contemporaries of early humans, others might have proceeded humans. It is difficult to say because we really don't know when Homo sapiens began.
Going back into time, we run into fossil after fossil which may be a human variation, but then again, perhaps they were something else. Certainly the authorities don't agree. The bits of bone and stone they uncover explain little and conceal much.
As for which fossil begat which, there are no surviving eyewitnesses, there are no written records, DNA tests are not feasible. The only thing left is theory and speculation.
In his book, The Making of Mankind, paleontologist Richard Leakey quotes David Pilbeam's candid assessment of the fossil record: "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we've got he'd surely say, 'Forget it; there isn't enough to go on.' . . . we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from evidence that is so incomplete," cautions Leakey himself.
If such eminent anthropologists are "fully aware" of their "meager" and "incomplete" fossil evidence, why do they turn right around and say emphatically, "the fossil record supports evolution"? Here's the straight forward unvarnished truth: The fossil record is too "meager," too "incomplete," and too "inadequate" to prove either evolution or creation.
That is the truth. But you won't catch anthropologists saying it. To understand their position, you need to look at it from their point of view.
The authorities in this field start with two premises. The first is that everything can be explained by natural forces of one type or another. And the second premise is that mutations and natural selection have no natural boundaries. Given enough time and the proper circumstances a single-celled organism can mutate and natural select its way into an elephant or man. If you accept both of these premises, then you accept evolution.
Evolution is a given. The only reason for consulting paleontology, archeology, or anthropology is to see how life evolved, not if. As for those millions of years between major types of hominids, no problem. Future investigations will surely fill in the gaps, they believe.
Anthropology field and laboratory work continues to churn out new information. Anthropologists, keeping abreast of the latest developments, occasionally update their views on what proceeded man. And due to the sketchy nature of the evidence, they will continue to disagree among themselves about our ancestors. However, they unite in saying we evolved. Certainly. That was an unquestioned assumption from the start. And so it has remained. Anthropology had nothing to do with it.
Question to Consider: Is human evolution -- science? or a faith-based set of beliefs?
Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.
This Article has been viewed 26,469 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More comments"Question to Consider: Is human evolution -- science? or a faith-based set of beliefs?" There is no tangible facts for evolution (or none that could really be completely proven) - people say "Oh, well we have radio-carbon dating and fossils and highly similar DNA..." but the fact is it takes A LOT more faith to believe that we evolved than to just attribute it to a higher being.
Can anything ever be proven? The idea of evolution is universally accepted. The theory of what we evolved from is disputed because of religious incompatibilities. Thinking we came in a direct line from primates is just the best fit for all the evidence we have now.
This article didn't help me at all. They keep repeating the same things over and over again.
How did people come across these artifacts or fossils?
Thanks dude my wife loved this
Good article...thanks! I believe there were a number of bipedal hominids through early history. Essentially they all had the fundamental ability to survive in a harsh environment up to a point. Drastic environmental change would had been the demise of many species. Changing hunting landscapes would have been other factors effecting populations. My belief is that it was only what we call Modern Humans or Cro-Magnon who experienced a species changing brain lobe connectivity mutation that eventually gave us the ability to employ our entire mind to recognize and solve problems, and survive to this day. Other species appear to not have had the same analytical ability and that made all the difference in the World... Single mindness vs multi mindness. Compare a calculator to a computer and you will understand what I mean in technological jargan. Al Barrs Florida
The following position is fully supported in this writer's opinion and completely logical. The topic is "why we must have come from Neanderthals and cannot ignore all of the facts in support of this conclusion".As is demonstrated in the article "Homo Sapien sapiens: Where did we originate", there is an abundance of information and conclusions relating to human evolution and where we come from. The article also demonstrates why one can never believe everything one reads. With this in mind, i have attempted to assemble numerous points of fact and logical positions in support of the topic and counterpoints which i objectively hope will help people to increase their interest and knowledge in our human ancestry and provide stimulating thought.1. Why is there only a 1-4% amount of neanderthal dna remaining in some human beings?Let's consider the analogy that neanderthals are the last link prior to modern humans. Initially, the newly arrived neanderthal-sapien transitional dna evolution is in a state of flux (including mitochondrial), and so the new progeny are able to mate with original neanderthals and the new human strain. During this time, evolution is taking its toll on both types of beings. After thousands of generations there are hardly any original neanderthals left. There is also a very limited number of neanderthal-sapiens (those homo-sapiens that still contain transitional neanderthal dna= the 1-4%) remaining , and the dominant species is the genetically complete homo-sapien (which have no transitional neanderthal dna within them).Finally, after all of the generations of coexistence, migration, environmental, societal, and other hazards from their origins in eastern europe & the northern middle east, the strain is to much for the original neanderthals who are lost forever. The homo-sapien has finally arrived in africa, but some of them still contain the 1-4% of transitional NEANDERTHAL DNA.COUNTERPOINT: Homo sapiens originated in africa from a yet unknown clear genetic pathway and migrated from a warm fertile area into a mostly barren middle east and cold eastern europe, not to mention ice ages. This ultimately leads to interbreeding between homo sapiens and neanderthals. Homo sapiens survive but the neanderthal goes extinct. It's that simple.2. We have no other form of human predecessor to test genetically, eg., homo erectus, in which to make a supportable argument.COUNTERPOINT: All models in support of the homo sapien origin in africa relies entirely on some fossils or other archaeological evidence. We just have to imagine a genetic link.3. Any conclusions relating to other forms of human species as being our nearest relative is based solely on extremely limited numbers of fossils or other archaeological finds, and is guesswork at best.COUNTERPOINT: We can always rely on the authenticity of so called fossil discoveries? It doesn't matter that a lot is at stake for the people that invest in these searches, e.g., financially? We can't say that because a fossil is found somewhere that environmental causes may be the reason why it is there, it simply fell there and stayed in that spot for thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of years despite flooding, wind storms, earthquakes, tectonic plate shifting? Also, we should never look at discoveries suspiciously when they are found in extremely small numbers? If you find some coins in a river, but no where else in the river, this means there has to be more of them nearby.4. It is a fact that prior to and during the homo-sapien ascension the neanderthal was the most numerous and dominant of human sub-species. We have had no problem discovering the neanderthal.COUNTERPOINT: It doesn't matter that neanderthals are found in eastern europe and the middle east in enough numbers to be found easily in archaeological terms. It doesn't matter that we don't find many other skeletons or fossils of other so called archaic humans during the same time period. All of these neanderthals don't mean a thing, and just because we bred with them and lived with them doesn't either. I mean really, we don't live with our cousins, parents, sisters, and brothers, because we're related, do we?5. Transitional evolutionary dna stages can explain why there is such a difference between neanderthal and homo sapien dna. Although, definitive information regarding large numbers of dna comparisons between neanderthals and homo sapiens haven't been made as of yet. The comparisons that have been made show a clear line of heredity and interbreeding between these two forms of humans (see internet articles relating to neanderthal vs homo sapien dna findings). These articles claim that the similarity is somewhere between 2% and 5% identical. I'm no expert, but it seems that this is well within dna parameters relating to dna changes from one form of species to another, especially within the same family. Perhaps, mitochondrial dna changes are more drastic when a new species evolves from its predecessor. It seems very logical that this would occur, considering the complexity of the changes taking place (see point 8).COUNTERPOINT: None of this information matters at all. Just because we have a clear link between these two types of humans means absolutely nothing in terms of evolution. We can't test any other human types, but we're positive neanderthals are not responsible because the dna doesn't match closely enough. We're experts on dna technology, we know everything about it, we just invented it 20 or so years ago, just trust us.7. Transitional evolutionary dna can explain why three types of humans were present at the same time and why only one survived. Isn't it amazing that there is a genetic link between neanderthals and homo sapiens. What's even more surprising is that they mated and neanderthal dna is present in some of the modern human population. During a genetic transitional period between species this is exactly what should occur and be present.COUNTERPOINT: Once again, this doesn't make sense at all. So what if all of this is true. We are the experts, not you. We will decide who might be right, who might be wrong. It doesn't really matter to us, as long as we get paid, and are in control. We don't care that neanderthals are all over the place. We don't care that they were so much like us we mated and lived with them. We don't care that ultimately we separated from them, as the history of race relations generally points out. We just don't care.8. Transitional evolutionary dna can explain anamolies in the evolutionary path, e.g., why other forms of human species have been found and do not have similar human dna. Is it any wonder that new forms of relatively new species of humans have been found, dead of course, but found. Does it make sense that their dna and mitochondrial dna is different from ours and neanderthals. It shouldn't be, because transitional dna stages of flux can easily account for them. Not only account for them, but makes perfect sense. Here's how, let's say a new species of human pops out of your mother or your wife. Hey, initially you might think, hey, what's up with this if the child looks different, or the child might look so much like you initially, you may think nothing is wrong. But inside of the child, all kinds of dna changes are taking place. millions upon millions of particles of information are moving around. Some of them are permanent, while others continue to evolve, while others stop at some future point in time. These genetic changes happen in human beings everyday. But in this case, its time for a new evolution to occur in the species (probably will again someday to us) and so there is a large amount of the genetic material which is and will remain in a transient state for hundreds or thousands of generations. Only some of the absolutely necessary life function dna molecules are completely stable. Even the normally stable mitochondrial dna isn't, of course it wouldn't be, the process is at the beginning, not at the end of the cycle. So, we have a new species on the way, new mitochondrial dna, and new dna strands and combinations. This kind of stuff makes way to much sense. As the generations and thousands of years pass, as it does in patriatic speciation, the new species replaces the old species. Then after all of this time, and tests have been done comparing the two species, we find entirely new mitochondrial dna, but leftovers of dna from the older species. We suddenly realize, wow, so this is how it was done. Then the cycle will begin all over again, as it has relentlessly throughout the history of this planet.COUNTERPOINT: SO WHAT? There's no such thing as transitional evolutionary dna, you just made it up. Keep dreaming, your not an academic scholar, lol.I hope that this article gives you some insight into the world of evolution and even some humor. While some of the counterpoints are overly illustrative, i did this on purpose to show just how illogical the other side appears, at least to this writer. I do not mean any disrespect at all to anyone, and i hope it spurns a greater yearning for reasoned out positions. If by some chance the topic of this article is no longer defendable and is proven to be incorrect, i tip my hat to all those who are responsible. Until then, "we must have come from neanderthals and cannot ignore all of the facts in support of this conclusion".
I believe in God. Not this crap.Right. God will always be an unproven belief. I believe in the tooth fairy myself. Prove I'm wrong!
i believe in God not this i feel sorry for u if u believe in that
I feel sorry for anyone who believes in God. but everyone has a right to their own opinion. only through human evolution and adaptation will we eliminate climate change, and I don't see any higher power snapping their fingers to eliminate the use of plastic so....
i still believe in GOD. i don`t think we came from apes.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.