Thursday, March 27, 2008 | Science : Anthropology | print version

Fossil find could be Europe's first humans

by James Randerson, The Guardian

The Guardian

· Find fills gap in knowledge of long march out of Africa
· Possible ancestor of our species and Neanderthals

Homo antecessor reconstructed

Homo antecessor, the first European, reconstructed from the Atapuerca fossils. Photograph: Juan Herrero/EPA

A fossilised jawbone and teeth found in a cave in northern Spain may have belonged to one of the first human ancestors to set foot in western Europe. The hominid has been identified as Homo antecessor, or pioneer man, a possible ancestor of both our own species and Neanderthals. The fossils date from between 1.1m and 1.2m years ago.

The find helps fill another gap in our understanding of the long march early humans made out of Africa. Stone tools and animal bones found with the hominid jaw also paint a vivid picture of the life of early cave-dwelling Europeans.

"The timing of the earliest human occupation of Europe has been controversial for many years," said Professor Chris Stringer, an expert in early humans at the Natural History Museum in London, who was not involved directly in the research. "[This find] suggests that southern Europe began to be colonised from western Asia not long after humans had emerged from Africa - something which many of us would have doubted even five years ago."

The fossils were discovered in the Sima del Elefante cave in Atapuerca in north-western Spain. Along with the hominid remains the research team found 32 rock fragments that were either stone tools or flakes produced by making the tools, suggesting that the hominids used the cave as a workshop among other things. There were numerous animal bones from a variety of species including rats, ferrets, bison, foxes, bears and big cats.

José Bermúdez de Castro at the National Research Centre on Human Evolution in Burgos, a member of the team that uncovered the fossils, said the early humans occupied a lush, warm, green paradise with plentiful water and lots of prey. The animal bones found suggest that humans at the site were eating meat. "We have evidence of cut marks on bones," he said. And in one case the jaw of a cow was broken to get at the succulent marrow inside. The find is detailed in Nature.

The hominid jawbone itself is probably from a female because it is small. Although the jaw fragment is not much to go on, from previous fossils the researchers can guess that the cave people would have been around 1.7 metres high (5ft 7in), with a brain three-quarters the size of ours.

Although the same species has been found at sites close to Sima del Elefante, the team are convinced this find is considerably older. They used three dating techniques to pin-point its age. These are based on past changes in the Earth's magnetic field, the known ages of other mammal species found with the jaw fragment and a new method that uses radioactive decay in sediments.

Not everyone is sure the fossil is H antecessor. The doubt stems from the fact that other finds of the species have not included jawbones for direct comparison.

Backstory

The question of when early humans made it into Europe is controversial. A large fossil collection from Dmanisi, Georgia, is dated to around 1.7m years ago. These are probably Homo erectus, a human species found mainly further east in Asia. Previously the oldest European fossils with convincing dates were from Gran Dolina, close to the new find in Atapuerca, Spain, and from Ceprano in Italy. These are around half the age of the new find.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, March 27, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 42 of 42 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #150549 by Dr Doctor on March 27, 2008 at 5:18 am

Interesting, Homo Shrektus.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

2. Comment #150556 by mmurray on March 27, 2008 at 5:26 am

Does anyone know why this is thought to be a common ancestor of neanderthals and ourselves? Why isn't this more likely to be a European descendant of homo erectus who had migrated northwards while we are African descendants of homo erectus. If this is the case and the DNA evidence that we descend from a recent charge (rather than march) out of Africe is correct this isn't part of the same exodus out of Africa that we come from.

Of course we could have descended from these guys in Africa -- maybe that is what the fossils suggest.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

3. Comment #150562 by 0strich on March 27, 2008 at 5:34 am

"Interesting, Homo Shrektus."

LOL It is!! It's Shrek! LMAO

Other Comments by 0strich

4. Comment #150564 by Logicel on March 27, 2008 at 5:47 am

Was wondering why that mug is familiar!!!

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #150579 by Darwin's badger on March 27, 2008 at 6:18 am

Looks like a fat Patrick Stewart to me! "Number One: More cakes!"

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

6. Comment #150585 by davorg on March 27, 2008 at 6:25 am

Did anyone else notice the URL for that article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/27/archaeology.dinosaurs

Should someone point out to the Guardian science desk that early human remains have nothing to do with dinosaurs?

Other Comments by davorg

7. Comment #150592 by Vinelectric on March 27, 2008 at 6:34 am

I've always suspected my boss was at least a million years old.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

8. Comment #150619 by BNCbright on March 27, 2008 at 7:25 am

How on earth can young-earth creationists even intelligibly respond to findings like this?

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

9. Comment #150620 by black wolf on March 27, 2008 at 7:27 am

I can picture the guy saying: "Will ya stop blabbering about creation already? We've got a bison to skin, I'm hungry dammit!"

Other Comments by black wolf

10. Comment #150633 by paulifa1 on March 27, 2008 at 7:39 am

Creationists will have no problem at all refuting this, it's just another example of the work of the enemy (read Devil) trying to test the faithfull and confuse those stupid atheists again!!

"Number One: More cakes!" priceless lol

Other Comments by paulifa1

11. Comment #150676 by esuther on March 27, 2008 at 8:45 am

This video was posted on Alternet today. It shows Creationist teachers taking school kids to the Denver Museum for a debunking tour of the "theory" of evolution. Frightening, really.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#80595

Almost as infuriating as the videotape is the NBC lead-in which treats the two sides as if they were two completely reasonable intellectual positions being taken in a never-ending squabble.

I'm getting a little tire of this 'fair and balanced' shit which pretends that cumulative reason and infantile fantasies have an equal claim to one's respect.

esuther

Other Comments by esuther

12. Comment #150695 by DavidSJA on March 27, 2008 at 9:12 am

Well, young Earth creationists with whom I mixed when I was I green behind the ears theorised that the speed of light is not a constant, and that its change over time has led to a corresponding change in radioactive decay rates, thus rendering dates from carbon-14 testing inaccurate; it's accurate fro the recent past, but the further back you go the greater the degree of inaccuracy (eg. something that is 8 Ky old can appear to be many My/Gy). The closer to the point of creation, the closer towards infinity the degree of inaccuracy.

I'm sure a physicist can debunk that faster than I, a mere life sciences student, can, but it had me convinced until I realised everything else was a lie...

Other Comments by DavidSJA

13. Comment #150702 by Double Bass Atheist on March 27, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #150676 by esuther

This video was posted on Alternet today. It shows Creationist teachers taking school kids to the Denver Museum for a debunking tour of the "theory" of evolution. Frightening, really.

esuther-
This was first posted in our forums on this website last Thursday, March 20th and is currently on two threads, linked below:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=39546

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=39899

DavidSJA-
You want to read some truly amazing levels of creationist stupidity? Ever seen the website "Fundies Say The Darndest Things"?
http://www.fstdt.com/

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

14. Comment #150710 by esuther on March 27, 2008 at 9:41 am

Thanks DBA

I did a brief check through the "Recent News" and did not see any reference to the news report, but I did not look through the commentaries, and I overlooked the forums (fora?).
I should have known that nothing as egregious as this would escape your notice.

Esuther

Other Comments by esuther

15. Comment #150712 by Steve Zara on March 27, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #150695 by DavidSJA

There are interesting possibilities in the physics of the early universe that may have resulted from the speed of light not being what it was now, but that does not help the creationists at all, as time is related to the speed of light. It's a bit like saying that "all clocks ran faster". If all clocks ran faster, then it would make no difference!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

16. Comment #150763 by jesus_christ_himself on March 27, 2008 at 11:58 am

Is he missing a rib?

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

17. Comment #150788 by Eamonn Shute on March 27, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Is he missing a rib?

He seems to be a she.

"The hominid jawbone itself is probably from a female"

No wonder they are extinct if the women were as ugly as that!

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

18. Comment #150795 by sarah95 on March 27, 2008 at 12:27 pm

The facial reconstruction on the right hand side of the picture looks EXACTLY like my old grade-school principal!

Other Comments by sarah95

19. Comment #150840 by padster1976 on March 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Unrelated post -

This has nothing to do with the above article but it's the newest and therefore I reckon that most people will look at it first check out the link below for the BBC's idea of a blog - open office hours of all things! Must be something to do with the censorship er I mean 'moderation'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213235?thread=5251222

Just read some of the drivel.

Other Comments by padster1976

20. Comment #150843 by padster1976 on March 27, 2008 at 1:14 pm

This is my favorite from the first page - from a nice chap called Eric -

"God is not a Ford Focus! He is the everlasting Father - and beware the temptation to base your idea of his fatherhood on lesser, imperfect human fathers - of which I am one.

Fatherhood is not about masculinity in any negative sense - not macho-ness. God the Father is neither male nor female. Male and female human characteristics both derive from him, not the other way round. God is God, and we are made in his image.

Incidentally, for those who want gender-inclusive language in Bible translations, there is no such thing as a daughter of God. Men and women believers are all sons of God, because their relationship to the Father is through the Son, and they are heirs as sons were heirs in ancient middle eastern cultures. "

Other Comments by padster1976

21. Comment #150848 by padster1976 on March 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm

This a close second...

"
You have a very distorted view of the God who reveals himself as Love. God is not willing that anyone should perish, including you. He has made provision for each one of us to escape the torture you speak of. It is not inevitable.

God does not "get" angry, in the way you or I might. He has a permanent disposition of fierce anger towards sin because it is so alien to him. He is holy. If he tolerated sin he would not be God. It would not be right - each one of us has a sense of outrage when someone gets away with wrongdoing; how much more a holy and righteous God?

But God is not content to throw people into the lake of fire. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to make it possible for that not to happen to you and me. Because he loved you, SBQ, he took the full and righteous punishment for your sins and mine on the cross. The Bible says that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" This greatest act of love the world has ever seen has been much maligned. Please do not continue to scorn the very hand that would feed you. "

I like "God who reveals himself as Love. God is not willing that anyone should perish,"

and then...

"He has a permanent disposition of fierce anger towards sin"

But he's a tolerant guy right?

"If he tolerated sin he would not be God."

Then if he's 'GOD', why does he allow it?

Other Comments by padster1976

22. Comment #150896 by robotaholic on March 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Padster, this demonstrates that the religious hang themselves with their own drivel! Just let them talk for a while and it's a messy saliva froth of nonsense. lol

Other Comments by robotaholic

23. Comment #150906 by Double Bass Atheist on March 27, 2008 at 3:03 pm

padster1976 -

"God is not a Ford Focus!

Perhaps he is!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amywatts/103235388

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

24. Comment #150907 by mmurray on March 27, 2008 at 3:10 pm

"God is not a Ford Focus

I think what he meant to say is `God is not Ford Prefect'. A comment that puts him at risk of attack from extreme Adamists

Michael

PS: On a related note God is apparently a dab hand at wheel alignment:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2402,Police-Girl-Dies-After-Parents-Pray-for-Healing-Instead-of-Seeking-Medical-Help,Fox-News,page3#150375

Other Comments by mmurray

25. Comment #150912 by DNAtheist on March 27, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Stop finding these fossils! You're just creating more gaps!

Other Comments by DNAtheist

26. Comment #150926 by b0ltzm0n on March 27, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Just curious, but why does the hyperlink to this article on the guardian.co.uk site have the word "dinosaurs" at the end?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/27/archaeology.dinosaurs

Nevermind.... just noticed that someone else already noticed. Maybe I'll try reading prior posts next time. =(

Other Comments by b0ltzm0n

27. Comment #150954 by dragonfirematrix on March 27, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Very interesting article...

Science is working very hard to bring the truth of our existence to humanity.

Religion is working very hard to propagate lies about our existence to humanity.

WHY DO WE TOLERATE THE RELIGIOUS?

I also read a post from a fellow member (quoted below), and I followed a link to a video the member provided. In my mind, the school children in the video are being brainwashed by the church and their parents, and our government is permitting this to happen. It sent a chilling feeling up my spine.

"------------------------------------------------
11. Comment #150676 by esuther on March 27, 2008 at 8:45 am

This video was posted on Alternet today. It shows Creationist teachers taking school kids to the Denver Museum for a debunking tour of the "theory" of evolution. Frightening, really.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#80595
------------------------------------------------"

THIS BRAINWASHING OF CHILDREN BY THE RELIGIOUS IN AMERICA IS INDEED "frightening."

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

28. Comment #150956 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 27, 2008 at 7:22 pm

I'm sorry to continue on the "looks like" thread, but it really does look like Jean-Luc Picard.

Which lends weight to the "impregnation by intelligent aliens" theory, denied by ID.

Jean-luc, Jean-luc.

You old ape-fucker, you.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

29. Comment #150975 by Roland_F on March 27, 2008 at 9:14 pm

12. Comment #150695 by DavidSJA

Well, young Earth creationists with whom I mixed when I was I green behind the ears theorized that the speed of light is not a constant, and that its change over time has led to a corresponding change in radioactive decay rates, thus rendering dates from carbon-14 testing inaccurate; it's accurate fro the recent past, but the further back you go the greater the degree of inaccuracy (eg. something that is 8 Ky old can appear to be many My/Gy). The closer to the point of creation, the closer towards infinity the degree of inaccuracy.

This is the usual creationist crap : from astronomy we know that the speed of light is constant over billion of years, beside some possibly very small variations in the very early universe where the fine structure constants might have been slightly different.
However the cretinist claim that the speed of light is part of these 'Goldilocks' fine tuned constants of nature to proof God did the fine-tuning, on the other hand they claim the speed of light is massively changing to have the 4004 BC creation myth explained = all self contradicting B.S.
There were some calculations that the amount of radioactive decay when following the speed YEC are claiming for 6000 years of age, the earth would be 65,000 degrees Celsius hot.
Beside the C14, there are several other radioactive dating methods, there are tree rings which can be interpreted like fingerprints to count down gap free time for thousand of years ; also cross-verifying C14 timing, there are ice drilling in Antarctica where the yearly layers can be counted down for 2 million years; also cross checking radioactive dating, there are astronomical measurements possible like the slowing down of earth rotation (currently 24h some millennia back 25h a day etcâ€¦). In short everything is cross validated over and over gain: no chance for cretinist BS.

Other Comments by Roland_F

30. Comment #150981 by riki on March 27, 2008 at 10:28 pm

I'm wondering do religious people worship God because he's good, or do they worship God because he's God.

There's a big difference, with implications.

The later would indicate absolute acceptance good or bad. Implying they would follow their maker even if he was evil.

While the former is conditional worship. Which implies the possibility of rejecting God if he wasn't good.

But I seriously doubt any God would want to be worshiped, it seems more like an insecure human trait.

Other Comments by riki

31. Comment #150984 by jo5ef on March 27, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Nice one Dr Doctor! Alright fundies, how does it go.."grab your torch and pitchfork"?

Other Comments by jo5ef

32. Comment #150999 by Ilovelucy on March 28, 2008 at 1:17 am

Even though the reporter had the good sense to talk to Chris Stringer, he needs to get up to speed on the Out of Africa theory or the more refined Out of Africa Again and Again Theory. As far as I know Antecessor is thought of as a link between Erectus and Neanderthal and has less to do with the later arrival in Europe of Homo Sapiens from Africa. It is strange that the reporter also states that this is evidence of the earliest human occupation of Europe and then goes on to mention the older Georgian fossils. All the confusion seems to come from the use of the term "human", and the reporter seems to think that Erectus weren't human.
As for the rest of you, isn't this interesting enough to discuss on its own without having to mention creationism? Sheesh...

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

33. Comment #151002 by davorg on March 28, 2008 at 1:39 am

In #150840, padster1976 said:

check out the link below for the BBC's idea of a blog

Actually that's not "the BBC's idea of a blog". You can find the BBC's blogs at www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/. What you've found there is a message board for users - which, hopefully, explains why it's full of such nonsense.

Other Comments by davorg

34. Comment #151090 by j.mills on March 28, 2008 at 6:35 am

Hmm. Would s/he have been white? There's a touch of Harvey Keitel too in that weathered pugnacity.

Other Comments by j.mills

35. Comment #151096 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 28, 2008 at 6:41 am

babrock: you haven't noticed that Picard is basically bald? That's devotion! Granted, Picard would have to eat burgers and drink beer to complete the picture, but then I haven't seen him for years.

To me, the similarity here is in the 'intense acting' look they both have.

You can see it more easily in Harrison Ford and Andy Garcia, because that is their only 'acting face', but they are not bald, nor, probably, model builders.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

36. Comment #151124 by padster1976 on March 28, 2008 at 7:24 am

davorg -

message board, blog, forum - hey! What's in a name.

Split hairs anyone? Pedantics corner anywhere?

So, blogs contain no nonsense, is that what you're saying is the difference? Because that doesn't sound right to me.

"What you've found there is a message board for users - which, hopefully, explains why it's full of such nonsense."

You've implicitly linked its content to determine what 'it' is.

My original intentions was to compare it to the entries on this website so I suppose this is a message forum.

I just can't keep up with webisms. To me the difference is slight but yes I will agree that a 'blog' is a form of online diary.

But surely the difference is format, not content.

Pedantic yes, but it seems to be important to you.

Other Comments by padster1976

37. Comment #151266 by Richard Morgan on March 28, 2008 at 10:53 am

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

38. Comment #151329 by rcphelan on March 28, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Sarah95, I see we were in the same grammar school together. I can remember him bellowing, "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat."

Actually, I think he looks more like Uncle Fester.

Other Comments by rcphelan

39. Comment #151568 by Philip1978 on March 29, 2008 at 2:08 am

Ah,
I see Richard Morgan is showing evolution working as per usual!

Excellent stuff Richard, am proud of you!

This is so tea drinkingly excellent, I love it when they find new fossils, even small bits and are then able to reconstruct the features in the model shown above.

The hominid jawbone itself is probably from a female because it is small. Although the jaw fragment is not much to go on, from previous fossils the researchers can guess that the cave people would have been around 1.7 metres high (5ft 7in), with a brain three-quarters the size of ours.

Just how they go about getting all that info out of one jawbone I think is just amazing, I am very impressed at how far science has come to be able to get such accurate readings.

Well, long may it continue, I for one am always very happy to hear about these sorts of finds, bravo!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

40. Comment #152122 by reason-first on March 30, 2008 at 7:36 am

Hi DavidSJA,

here's a link to debunking the creationists on the speed of light. Many more links from that one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y

Other Comments by reason-first

41. Comment #152134 by reason-first on March 30, 2008 at 8:31 am

@ #29

Hi Roland_F,

I do not want to be overparticular. But while I agree with everything else you say, let me point out a slight error:

"there are astronomical measurements possible like the slowing down of earth rotation (currently 24h some millennia back 25h a day"

Actually days were shorter when the Earth was spinning faster. So the dinosaurs experienced a day that was only between 22 and 23 hours long.

Other Comments by reason-first

42. Comment #152761 by Teratornis on March 31, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Comment #150954 by dragonfirematrix:

WHY DO WE TOLERATE THE RELIGIOUS?

One might also ask why Iraq tolerates the United States.

I think a more interesting question is: when will we understand the religious? I'm not encouraged by all the expressions of astonishment I read here. Astonishment implies we have little idea of who we are dealing with.

Sun Tzu would probably have expected the more astonished of two opponents to be losing to the less astonished.

Other Comments by Teratornis

Reload Comments | Back to Top