Australopithecus = Pan naledi :-D
From
Marc Verhaegen@21:1/5 to
All on Mon Nov 20 05:31:17 2023
No scientific evidence that Homo naledi buried their dead and produced rock art María Martinón-Torres cs 2023 doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103464
The Rising Star Cave system has yielded a stunning concentration of hominin remains, estimated >15 individuals of all age groups, assigned to a new species, Homo naledi (Berger cs 2015, Dirks cs 2015). Previous publications (e.g. Dirks cs 2015, Randolph-
Quinney 2015) + popular interviews with the team-leaders have suggested H.naledi was engaged in deliberate disposal of the dead.
But other researchers have cited geological, taphonomic & paleontological evidence: natural formation scenarios may account for skeletal accumulations, e.g. a natural death trap, water transport of bodies/body parts, carnivore activity (Val 2016, Stiner
2017, Egeland cs 2018, Pettitt 2022).
eLife (June 2023) hosted 3 reviewed pre-prints by the Rising Star research-team claiming that the Dinaledi & Hill Antechamber skeletal remains indicate deliberate burial practices + the production of associated rock art (Berger cs 2023a & b, Fuentes cs
2023).
Both the reviewed & previously unreviewed pre-prints were accompanied by a strong media campaign, that quickly spread the revolutionary idea that the small-brained (∼450–600 cc) hominins found deep in the Rising Star Cave system were capable of
complex funerary behaviors equivalent to those attributed to larger-brained (∼1400 cc) hominin spp H.sapiens & H.neanderthalensis.
The media hype that accompanied the unreviewed & reviewed, though currently unmodified, pre-prints at the time of this writing, triggered strong public controversy + an immediate debate about ‘modern human behavior’, but also about the way in which
scientific work is communicated & perceived by the public (e.g. Gibbons 2023, Petraglia cs 2023, Zimmer 2023).
Here we will examine the evidence for the alleged burials & the purported rock-art presented in the 3 reviewed pre-prints + a consideration of the open reviews published alongside them.
The peer-reviews were unanimous in considering the evidence inadequate in its present form.
Despite this, these versions remain available & communicated to the press & social media, without yet integrating any of the referee's comments.
Here we argue: the evidence presented so far is not compelling enough to support the deliberate burial of the dead by H.naledi, nor that they made the purported engravings.
Substantial additional documentation & scientific analyses are needed before we can rule out that natural agents & post-depositional processes are responsible for the accumulation of bodies/body parts, and to prove the intentional excavation & filling of
pits by H.naledi,
detailed analyses are needed to demonstrate that the so-called ‘engravings’ are indeed human-made marks, and that (like the purported evidence of fire use) they can be securely linked to H.naledi.
Our commentary also offers a brief insight on the state of the field re. the importance of responsible social communication & the challenges brought by new models of scientific publication.
____
Just google "Pan or Australopithecus naledi" :-DDD
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)