Thank you from a Milwaukee music teacher that loves the topic. I think you all are great and deeply appreciate your work. I doubt that you’ll see this, but I’m wondering if you have thoughts about bringing some of this science to my university music classes.
It is our pleasure, and mine, to bring it to you. My duty as a science communicator is to get the science into every nook and corner needed, and I would be happy to assist in any way possible. Feel free to email me at worldofpaleoanthropology@gmail.com
@@worldofpaleoanthropology I was remiss in not mentioning your channel specifically in my thanks and appreciation ! I can email sometime soon I hope, but I’m wondering: have you seen the work of Gary Tomlinson (or others)and his ideas of the development of culture in particular music? Have I missed any discussion on your channel?
@@Monedgar123 Well thank you, I appreciate that. I have not! But now I am interested. Most of what I work on is, as the name implies paleo, so the most of anything of done in relation to music is just the artifacts we have found since I am much more archaeology, bio, than cultural etc. But I can ask around?
@@worldofpaleoanthropology yes! Most artifacts are recent. The way he goes about it is trying to measure cognitive competence through tool making and tie that to potential brain processes that could then give rise to more and more complex culture like music. Super fun! There is a good lecture online!
What a great conversation. I’ve listened 3 times so far to make sure I absorbed everything I could. I really liked the discussion about open access & expanding the field. Yes, it was like a belief system-such an accurate description. Except unlike a belief system, there was actual physical proof beyond old writings & musings. It was just that it was (& is) being hoarded like a dragon guards its treasure. Thank you all for making this discussion available to me. Seth, you rock! I’m not sure if I’ve communicated this, (lolz) but I am REALLY looking forward to whatever it is y’all have discovered but have yet to reveal. What all was at the top of Dragon’s Back?! What did you find at the 105?! What else have we learned with the deeper study of Neo & Leti? I’ve already told everyone I know the story of Naledi’s discovery & how I came to learn about it. I can’t wait to tell them more. I’m not sure my family & friends are quite as interested as I am, but that’s ok, I’m gonna tell them anyway. I have enough excitement to go around. Twice.
I was SO glad to hear Dr Berger say perhaps one day we can throw out all the current labeling and rewrite it all. I’ve thought this more and more as I learn.
It will be interesting to see where Naledi fits in with species that were present during their time period. The large number of specimens at the Rising Star Cave is remarkable and hopefully will help to answer some questions while giving rise to more! Excellent panel! Thank you everyone!
Berger says in his book that his group had known about another section of the cave system containing more hominid fossils that was much more easily accessible, but they kept it quiet while the H. naledi story was being formulated. Then later, in 2017, Berger’s group published a paper detailing the presence of at least three more H. naledi fossils in this other section in what is now called the Lesedi Chamber. Since the original 2015 eLife publication, numerous research papers describing anatomical analyses of the bone assemblage have been published, mostly by members of Berger’s team. They keep showing that H. naledi is nothing more than a suspicious hodgepodge of ape-like bones (Australopithecus) and a few human-like bones. These papers reported on analyses of skulls, pelvic remains, leg bones, hands, and feet and give the same original confusing anatomical mosaic story. One of the few critical papers published outside Berger’s group contradicted the claims that H. naledi had flat, human-like feet. Another problem concerns Berger’s contention that the bones were intentionally buried. Not only were the extremely young (by evolutionary standards) dates a severe problem for H. naledi, but the story originally put forward by Berger and his team for the bones being intentionally and ritually buried has been just as troubling. The companion paper to the original 2015 publication describing the geology at the site stated: "The fossils are contained in mostly unconsolidated muddy sediment with clear evidence of a mixed taphonomic signature indicative of repeated cycles of reworking and more than one episode of primary deposition." So, not only were the fossils completely disarticulated and jumbled up in a muddy deposit, they were also intermixed with various bird and rodent bones. Even more suspicious is Berger’s careful storytelling to support his claim that the H. naledi fossils were purposefully buried while at the same time he hid the Lesedi Chamber discovery. If his story were true, then the Lesedi Chamber would have been a more logical location for the original participants to bury their dead since it is much more easily accessible and would not have required the super-gymnastic athletic ability needed to enter the Dinaledi Chamber. Also, why are we not being told what types of fossils were buried in the Dragon’s Back Chamber directly above it? Is it because it contains the same hodgepodge of fossil debris as the Dinaledi Chamber below it? This would prove they were all deposited during a cave flooding event. All I see right now is a Barnum & Bailey circus. Instead of starting out ultra-cautious and diffident about the discovery of what appears to be a minor variant of Australopith, Lee Berger has come perilously close to being labeled a Charlatan.
Exceptionally interesting. This discussion makes me think of horses, zebras and asses, which all coexist today. Which is the "real", most typical equid?
There's a book by Richard Leakey (RIP) where he tells of a debate with IIRC Donald Johanson a few decades ago. Johanson drew a complete genealogical tree of all Australopithecus and Homo species then known, according to the prevailing scientific consensus at the time. Leakey answered with his own version of the tree... which mainly featured a big question mark in the middle!
Lee Berger, you get such a kick from teasing us with hints. When are you going to come clean and tell us what you found? I so hope you put it all on a video. I am just an old retired man who has followed your discoveries every since i saw your son say “dad, i found a fossil”. I don’t have access to read your publications, and truth be told i don’t understand everything in them. One thing i want to tell you, to echo so many others, thank you for being a leader with open access. It is the way science should be.
Don't know how I missed this one. Fantastic discussion around yet one more discipline that's moving from a homocentric view to a holistic examination of where we fit.
Рік тому+2
7 (seven) Considerations for two simple questions. Whereas (1) THAT, in a rare event, several fossils were found gathered in the same place; (2) THAT, these fossils are of individuals with ages ranging from months (infant) to mature age; (3) THAT these individuals appear to have died at the same time; (4) THAT there are no traces of food or hunting utensils/tools - nor of routine use of fire, although the place is very dark; (5) THAT the site is difficult to access even for small individuals, being difficult to go down to the lower chambers of the cave; (6) that exit from the site must be via the entry point; (7) that transporting adult corpses through the narrow labyrinth would be especially trying. I ASK: I. Wouldn't these individuals belong to a group (complete family, with adults, young people and children) that, in a hurry, sought refuge in the depths of the cave when fleeing from a pursuer who, in turn, had means of understanding the situation and stood guard for days or weeks, until it killed the refugees with thirst and hunger? II. Was the stalker the sapiens?
Naledi creates a necessity to simply accept that the paradigm is advancing. Yes it's work...but it should be embraced, for it means growth for the fields of study, and within the entire intertwined community. Underneath it all, did people go into these fields for ease and comfort? If so they chose the wrong discipline. It's so much more interesting with the addition of Naledi.
We need to be constantly cognizant of the fact that evolution selects for adaptivity. Naledi's mix of archaic juxtaposed with more modern human features should be a strong indicator of this, during an in-between time/stage we've known little about before their discovery. Evolution is why they are how they are. It seems obvious to me that the archaic arm and shoulder features were kept because climbing in these caves used similar anatomy to that used in trees. We don't know what all the caves meant to them, but as they evolved their bodies did. Likewise, it seems obvious that the leg/foot, dentition, and brain organisation were selected due to increased need to walk often, absorb the available nutrients, and think more adaptively. (I'm a layperson and can make such a comment because my career doesn't depend on it.) So there must have been interbreeding with early more modernish humans... Though the evolutionary adaptations clearly must have added to their success, we don't know what happened in the environment, with other populations, or what possibly insurmountable challenges may have existed eventually. So they may be cousins not in our direct line...but still....having such a complete sample of a species that underwent this evolutionary process can't help but inform us as to the how and why of the big picture. I think the discovery of homo naledi is pivotal and exciting.
It seems like there's a deep well of resentment/anger concerning open access (and almost certainly other shibboleth endangerments), from which misrepresentations of what those directly involved with Naledi have demonstrably and provably said in research papers and recorded conversations such as this one. As I read, listen, and compare, I find numerous negative statements (often couched in scientist concern) made by colleagues which simply aren't true. It's a stain, and not on the Naledi researchers.
@@roanora7853Yes they might be. If they are, it would useful if they said as much. A useful discussion might come from stating their concerns outright. As matters stand, I see nothing useful coming from them.
Dr Berger, congrats on your weight loss and finally being able to get into the Dinaledi site! Maintainence is more challenging than losing, I hope you succeed. (I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off 5 years, so I know it can be done.)
As we have small people today--pygmies--and fossil evidence of "hobbit" in Indonesia--so smaller versions of humanity have existed side-by-side in the far past. We keep, In my opinion, putting forth our image as the measure of the fossil record. Naledi is a small version within its milieu of larger hominids; I'd go in a cave, too, for safety. The lines they've carved into the walls of their home are similar to the lines marked in 40,000-year-old lines in caves in Europe. This line mark is probably very deep in our history. The first marks my son made (as a teacher I've observed this in many students) was a straight up and down line; horizontal lines developed later. Symbol-making is innate in hominids, it might seem, and size shouldn't be the marker for being human. The neurologist is correct to point to how and why an organism needs to use a skill in its environment. Neladi's needs correspond to its use of the environment. Actually, I think it's pretty strategic to use a cave system that doesn't allow larger hominids to catch me. Culture doesn't have to be the Mona Lisa and a Dubai skyscraper; culture is what is necessary at the time and will change according to necessity. Perhaps, also, no stone tools to-date have been found because they used wooden ones. Wood seems to be understood by them. Stones are being placed next to each other and on top of each other, a hearth or wall? That's nothing a monkey can do. Building with blocks is innate in children, too, getting back to the innate properties of the brain. Marks on bones might also imply stone tools. I haven't heard if there are such marks. We need a team of experts on a case: anthropologist, geologist, neurologist, etc. We group one sort of mind approach into a situation that's incestuous within its group. Pygmies are small with small brains, but they live just fine and express culture within the necessities of their needs and environment. How we use our frontal cortex brain matter is the key, not how big the surrounding the brain is. Isn't "bigness" a male perspective, too, in this field. I'm not being feminist here, but that's a consideration as the field was male-dominated for a long time. For example, when Jane Goodall came along in a male-dominated field of primate study, she brought a new perspective and experience of primates that we now consider de rigueur. For a long time, neanderthal was a brute, now we share genetics and realize they weren't the near apes we thought they were. Our opinion of our own height in evolution needs to get out of our way of finding knowledge.
The most surprising thing is how they got to where they are (temporally sneaking) with no previous traces! - perhaps the folk legends of 'little' people have more truth than we ever imagined ... "Irish" of course, but 'celtic' in general, but I saw reference s Lyell to skeletally 'small' people found in France in the 18thC, and of course now there are 'floriensis.
Many things in myth have strings in truth! I can tell you that the people of Flores who had tales of little people, were actual! Something they are still there, surviving somehow!
Great discussion with 3 of the best science educators in the business. Ta Seth and all involved in putting this together. It's so much more thought provoking when you hear people talk about where they disagree. Always makes me want to find out more. Ps. I listened to a really interesting webinar / talk about the Dmanisi Crania by Dr. Anne Margelashville .She talks about the variation in the skulls ,so thought it may be of interest to people seeing as theyre mentioned in this. There's a technical problem at the start but it gets sorted. Link is ua-cam.com/video/9ADXrzh0tSs/v-deo.html
I am not a paleoanthropologist, but I have watched a lot of videos, and I stayed in Holiday Inn Express last night! That said, I think humans are homo centric and homo chauvenistic. Most believe, because of the Bible and what they were taught, that they are the pinnacle of life on earth. While there can be no debate that homo sapiens are truely the most intelligent life on the planet, there were others before us which must have had significant intelligence and were perfectly adapted to their environments. Some, like homo Naledi, existed at the same time. To not believe that would be like if all the birds on the planet went extinct, and the only ones left were pengiuns. Suppose the penguin then tried to figure out his evolution and tried to shoehorn every other bird in a timeline leading directly to him? That would neglect and misplace birds such as raptor, crows, seabirds, and many more. My suspicion is, there may be 100 other hominids out there that we know nothing about, yet we may have some of their DNA and they probably fit their ecological niche. Homo Naledi could live within 200 miles at the same time as another species, but be in a completely different environment. The thing to do now, if it has not been done, is to determine what Homo Naledi's environment was like. Lastly, my wife and I owned two Yellow Labs. We taught them language systematically. She was a speech pathologist. We estimate that they each had about 500 word vocabularies. We started with nouns, then went to verbs, then adverbs and adjectives. We could talk to them almost like people, and they could pick words out of sentences we spoke to each other, I once said harness, and our first dog went nuts because she thought she was going to get her narness and go for a ride. And these were just dogs. What could our ancient ancestors understand and do? Surely, they must have been smarter than dogs! Scientists should never become too attached to their writings and theories. Too many have been disproven over the centuries. New thinking is always in order.
If you sent a group of families out to live in space for 100 years, the resulting offspring would be morphologically different. They are still Homo sapiens but with environmentally induced differences. Homo naledi and florensis could be analogous for the people of their time
It may come as surprise to the average person that scientists still disagree on how to describe something. I mean, what is a species really? What makes us human and not Naledi. if they are not. Scientists like to express the view or openness of mind, and openness of sharing discovery. Instead we see petty jealousies, and pet theories getting in the way of progress. I get that scientists are human too, but we are living in a golden age where are finding out such much about what makes us who we are. We need to be able to be super-open minded
If they are not Human, how do you explain they buried their dead beloved ones? Not even Apes have these burial culture. I first saw the documentary on netflix.. what are they?
The point that is being made here is, “What does it mean to be Human”? 100 years ago, most anyone you asked would have said only modern humans. But that definition has expanded to include other related species. So the line becomes more blurry, now we have creatures (naledi) possibly doing things that a creature with their brain capacity should not be able to do. Did they? The evidence doesn’t stack up just yet, but it’s possible. More work needs to be done. But either way, whether naledi is “human” or not, it’s a debate that is only beginning.
There are no hard dividing lines between homo sapien and hominids, time progressive changes of morphology rather than firm dividing lines is the story of hominids to homo sapien ✌️❤️🇬🇧
Blacks have rights do they not? They have admixture with an as of yet determined super archaic "ghost species" which was very likely a species like Naledi..
have you ever checked into that maybe their was a shift in the earth. possibly during history causing the chute to be smaller in the future.? or earthquake moving the earth or a calapse of rocks.
So -- y'all should hammer out "anthropological definitions" of "human" and "people" - and put yer names on the definitions for posterity ! And to communicate that these definition models could be contrasted with someone else's definition - and thereby advance the theoretical/empirical quest.
Was there any debate in scientific comunity about starchild skulls and elongated skulls from south america, or is that forbidden? Can you give any adresses/connctions to these topics. Thank you
The. egotism of the. "senior scientists" is. disgusting, demeaning. and embarrassing. You have. no. shame- Excuse me- you three. know. everything. Share some of the glory. with your fellow scientists!
41:00 Boo hoo! I didn't go to an elite school! Bwaaa! Seriously? The finest universities use the same texts as Behind the Gas Station Close Cover Before Striking College.
Isn't Homo Naledi just an insignificant evolutionary dead end, a branch off the "family tree" that never went anywhere? I don't know why there has been such an enormous amount of (excessive) hype about this species.
It’s hard to know why this is relevant or important to the average curious person like myself. Just need a handle or overview. Here in this video It’s all couched in specialised language and requires so much background knowledge. I’m just interested in bottom line: what does it all mean about our origins as humans. Maybe Graham Hancock has a view on this. I dont want to take up some serious study of paleo anthropology. 8:06
Thank you from a Milwaukee music teacher that loves the topic. I think you all are great and deeply appreciate your work. I doubt that you’ll see this, but I’m wondering if you have thoughts about bringing some of this science to my university music classes.
It is our pleasure, and mine, to bring it to you. My duty as a science communicator is to get the science into every nook and corner needed, and I would be happy to assist in any way possible. Feel free to email me at worldofpaleoanthropology@gmail.com
@@worldofpaleoanthropology I was remiss in not mentioning your channel specifically in my thanks and appreciation !
I can email sometime soon I hope, but I’m wondering: have you seen the work of Gary Tomlinson (or others)and his ideas of the development of culture in particular music? Have I missed any discussion on your channel?
@@Monedgar123 Well thank you, I appreciate that. I have not! But now I am interested. Most of what I work on is, as the name implies paleo, so the most of anything of done in relation to music is just the artifacts we have found since I am much more archaeology, bio, than cultural etc. But I can ask around?
@@worldofpaleoanthropology yes! Most artifacts are recent. The way he goes about it is trying to measure cognitive competence through tool making and tie that to potential brain processes that could then give rise to more and more complex culture like music. Super fun! There is a good lecture online!
We'll be happy to support you with this from UW-Madison. Just send an e-mail and we'll come up with some plans.
The openness and flexibility of Lee Berger’s mind is fantastic. Whenever I listen to him, my mind winds up traversing new territory.
Great discussion! It's fantastic when students take the lead in organizing talks like this.
What a great conversation. I’ve listened 3 times so far to make sure I absorbed everything I could. I really liked the discussion about open access & expanding the field. Yes, it was like a belief system-such an accurate description. Except unlike a belief system, there was actual physical proof beyond old writings & musings. It was just that it was (& is) being hoarded like a dragon guards its treasure.
Thank you all for making this discussion available to me. Seth, you rock!
I’m not sure if I’ve communicated this, (lolz) but I am REALLY looking forward to whatever it is y’all have discovered but have yet to reveal. What all was at the top of Dragon’s Back?! What did you find at the 105?! What else have we learned with the deeper study of Neo & Leti? I’ve already told everyone I know the story of Naledi’s discovery & how I came to learn about it. I can’t wait to tell them more. I’m not sure my family & friends are quite as interested as I am, but that’s ok, I’m gonna tell them anyway. I have enough excitement to go around. Twice.
Thank you for treating us to a fascinating and insightful discussion with this wonderful panel of experts!
I was SO glad to hear Dr Berger say perhaps one day we can throw out all the current labeling and rewrite it all. I’ve thought this more and more as I learn.
It will be interesting to see where Naledi fits in with species that were present during their time period. The large number of specimens at the Rising Star Cave is remarkable and hopefully will help to answer some questions while giving rise to more! Excellent panel! Thank you everyone!
Berger says in his book that his group had known about another section of the cave system containing more hominid fossils that was much more easily accessible, but they kept it quiet while the H. naledi story was being formulated. Then later, in 2017, Berger’s group published a paper detailing the presence of at least three more H. naledi fossils in this other section in what is now called the Lesedi Chamber.
Since the original 2015 eLife publication, numerous research papers describing anatomical analyses of the bone assemblage have been published, mostly by members of Berger’s team. They keep showing that H. naledi is nothing more than a suspicious hodgepodge of ape-like bones (Australopithecus) and a few human-like bones. These papers reported on analyses of skulls, pelvic remains, leg bones, hands, and feet and give the same original confusing anatomical mosaic story. One of the few critical papers published outside Berger’s group contradicted the claims that H. naledi had flat, human-like feet.
Another problem concerns Berger’s contention that the bones were intentionally buried. Not only were the extremely young (by evolutionary standards) dates a severe problem for H. naledi, but the story originally put forward by Berger and his team for the bones being intentionally and ritually buried has been just as troubling. The companion paper to the original 2015 publication describing the geology at the site stated:
"The fossils are contained in mostly unconsolidated muddy sediment with clear evidence of a mixed taphonomic signature indicative of repeated cycles of reworking and more than one episode of primary deposition."
So, not only were the fossils completely disarticulated and jumbled up in a muddy deposit, they were also intermixed with various bird and rodent bones.
Even more suspicious is Berger’s careful storytelling to support his claim that the H. naledi fossils were purposefully buried while at the same time he hid the Lesedi Chamber discovery. If his story were true, then the Lesedi Chamber would have been a more logical location for the original participants to bury their dead since it is much more easily accessible and would not have required the super-gymnastic athletic ability needed to enter the Dinaledi Chamber. Also, why are we not being told what types of fossils were buried in the Dragon’s Back Chamber directly above it? Is it because it contains the same hodgepodge of fossil debris as the Dinaledi Chamber below it? This would prove they were all deposited during a cave flooding event.
All I see right now is a Barnum & Bailey circus. Instead of starting out ultra-cautious and diffident about the discovery of what appears to be a minor variant of Australopith, Lee Berger has come perilously close to being labeled a Charlatan.
Exceptionally interesting. This discussion makes me think of horses, zebras and asses, which all coexist today. Which is the "real", most typical equid?
Excited for more presentations once the New papers are published 😃
This was great! Thank you for posting
Can't wait to hear the new updates!
There's a book by Richard Leakey (RIP) where he tells of a debate with IIRC Donald Johanson a few decades ago.
Johanson drew a complete genealogical tree of all Australopithecus and Homo species then known, according to the prevailing scientific consensus at the time.
Leakey answered with his own version of the tree... which mainly featured a big question mark in the middle!
Lee Berger, you get such a kick from teasing us with hints. When are you going to come clean and tell us what you found? I so hope you put it all on a video. I am just an old retired man who has followed your discoveries every since i saw your son say “dad, i found a fossil”. I don’t have access to read your publications, and truth be told i don’t understand everything in them. One thing i want to tell you, to echo so many others, thank you for being a leader with open access. It is the way science should be.
He was seriously holding out!
It has been announced that Homo Naledi used fire! It might be It?
Don't know how I missed this one. Fantastic discussion around yet one more discipline that's moving from a homocentric view to a holistic examination of where we fit.
7 (seven) Considerations for two simple questions. Whereas (1) THAT, in a rare event, several fossils were found gathered in the same place; (2) THAT, these fossils are of individuals with ages ranging from months (infant) to mature age; (3) THAT these individuals appear to have died at the same time; (4) THAT there are no traces of food or hunting utensils/tools - nor of routine use of fire, although the place is very dark; (5) THAT the site is difficult to access even for small individuals, being difficult to go down to the lower chambers of the cave; (6) that exit from the site must be via the entry point; (7) that transporting adult corpses through the narrow labyrinth would be especially trying. I ASK: I. Wouldn't these individuals belong to a group (complete family, with adults, young people and children) that, in a hurry, sought refuge in the depths of the cave when fleeing from a pursuer who, in turn, had means of understanding the situation and stood guard for days or weeks, until it killed the refugees with thirst and hunger? II. Was the stalker the sapiens?
Just finished The World Before Us - prof Tom Higham. Shows how valuable that data is . 1 little finger bone and everything can change again .
This is so cool! Nice work Seth
A big thanks to the whole team!
1:01:17 Lee's comments on the scarcity mentality holding back the field are very interesting. "Finding half a mandible..." indeed!
_FANTASTIC!_ 😀
Naledi creates a necessity to simply accept that the paradigm is advancing. Yes it's work...but it should be embraced, for it means growth for the fields of study, and within the entire intertwined community. Underneath it all, did people go into these fields for ease and comfort? If so they chose the wrong discipline. It's so much more interesting with the addition of Naledi.
We need to be constantly cognizant of the fact that evolution selects for adaptivity. Naledi's mix of archaic juxtaposed with more modern human features should be a strong indicator of this, during an in-between time/stage we've known little about before their discovery. Evolution is why they are how they are.
It seems obvious to me that the archaic arm and shoulder features were kept because climbing in these caves used similar anatomy to that used in trees. We don't know what all the caves meant to them, but as they evolved their bodies did. Likewise, it seems obvious that the leg/foot, dentition, and brain organisation were selected due to increased need to walk often, absorb the available nutrients, and think more adaptively. (I'm a layperson and can make such a comment because my career doesn't depend on it.)
So there must have been interbreeding with early more modernish humans...
Though the evolutionary adaptations clearly must have added to their success, we don't know what happened in the environment, with other populations, or what possibly insurmountable challenges may have existed eventually. So they may be cousins not in our direct line...but still....having such a complete sample of a species that underwent this evolutionary process can't help but inform us as to the how and why of the big picture. I think the discovery of homo naledi is pivotal and exciting.
Hard to pick a archaeological specimen as central to human evolution because humanity itself does not truly have a center.
It seems like there's a deep well of resentment/anger concerning open access (and almost certainly other shibboleth endangerments), from which misrepresentations of what those directly involved with Naledi have demonstrably and provably said in research papers and recorded conversations such as this one. As I read, listen, and compare, I find numerous negative statements (often couched in scientist concern) made by colleagues which simply aren't true. It's a stain, and not on the Naledi researchers.
They are worried about the political an sociological implications
@@roanora7853Yes they might be. If they are, it would useful if they said as much. A useful discussion might come from stating their concerns outright. As matters stand, I see nothing useful coming from them.
Another great video Seth!
Dr Berger, congrats on your weight loss and finally being able to get into the Dinaledi site! Maintainence is more challenging than losing, I hope you succeed. (I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off 5 years, so I know it can be done.)
Hope dr Berger is well and healthy.
Crazy informative!
You all are going to receive letters like the astronomers did when he threw out Pluto as a planet. :)
As we have small people today--pygmies--and fossil evidence of "hobbit" in Indonesia--so smaller versions of humanity have existed side-by-side in the far past. We keep, In my opinion, putting forth our image as the measure of the fossil record. Naledi is a small version within its milieu of larger hominids; I'd go in a cave, too, for safety. The lines they've carved into the walls of their home are similar to the lines marked in 40,000-year-old lines in caves in Europe. This line mark is probably very deep in our history. The first marks my son made (as a teacher I've observed this in many students) was a straight up and down line; horizontal lines developed later. Symbol-making is innate in hominids, it might seem, and size shouldn't be the marker for being human. The neurologist is correct to point to how and why an organism needs to use a skill in its environment. Neladi's needs correspond to its use of the environment. Actually, I think it's pretty strategic to use a cave system that doesn't allow larger hominids to catch me. Culture doesn't have to be the Mona Lisa and a Dubai skyscraper; culture is what is necessary at the time and will change according to necessity. Perhaps, also, no stone tools to-date have been found because they used wooden ones. Wood seems to be understood by them. Stones are being placed next to each other and on top of each other, a hearth or wall? That's nothing a monkey can do. Building with blocks is innate in children, too, getting back to the innate properties of the brain. Marks on bones might also imply stone tools. I haven't heard if there are such marks. We need a team of experts on a case: anthropologist, geologist, neurologist, etc. We group one sort of mind approach into a situation that's incestuous within its group. Pygmies are small with small brains, but they live just fine and express culture within the necessities of their needs and environment. How we use our frontal cortex brain matter is the key, not how big the surrounding the brain is. Isn't "bigness" a male perspective, too, in this field. I'm not being feminist here, but that's a consideration as the field was male-dominated for a long time. For example, when Jane Goodall came along in a male-dominated field of primate study, she brought a new perspective and experience of primates that we now consider de rigueur. For a long time, neanderthal was a brute, now we share genetics and realize they weren't the near apes we thought they were. Our opinion of our own height in evolution needs to get out of our way of finding knowledge.
The most surprising thing is how they got to where they are (temporally sneaking) with no previous traces! - perhaps the folk legends of 'little' people have more truth than we ever imagined ... "Irish" of course, but 'celtic' in general, but I saw reference s Lyell to skeletally 'small' people found in France in the 18thC, and of course now there are 'floriensis.
Many things in myth have strings in truth! I can tell you that the people of Flores who had tales of little people, were actual! Something they are still there, surviving somehow!
Great discussion with 3 of the best science educators in the business. Ta Seth and all involved in putting this together. It's so much more thought provoking when you hear people talk about where they disagree. Always makes me want to find out more.
Ps. I listened to a really interesting webinar / talk about the Dmanisi Crania by Dr. Anne Margelashville .She talks about the variation in the skulls ,so thought it may be of interest to people seeing as theyre mentioned in this. There's a technical problem at the start but it gets sorted. Link is ua-cam.com/video/9ADXrzh0tSs/v-deo.html
Why doesn't Rogan podcast this instead of focusing on magic?
My degree is in banking, from 50 years ago. And this is great stuff!
Thanks!
Do you think that there may be a genetic link between Homo Nalidi and the Kjoisan?
Since they are from much farther north, unlikely.
Since they are from much farther north, unlikely.
@@worldofpaleoanthropology human migration is far more capable than you are giving it credit for.
@@worldofpaleoanthropology lol cope
I am not a paleoanthropologist, but I have watched a lot of videos, and I stayed in Holiday Inn Express last night! That said, I think humans are homo centric and homo chauvenistic. Most believe, because of the Bible and what they were taught, that they are the pinnacle of life on earth. While there can be no debate that homo sapiens are truely the most intelligent life on the planet, there were others before us which must have had significant intelligence and were perfectly adapted to their environments. Some, like homo Naledi, existed at the same time. To not believe that would be like if all the birds on the planet went extinct, and the only ones left were pengiuns. Suppose the penguin then tried to figure out his evolution and tried to shoehorn every other bird in a timeline leading directly to him? That would neglect and misplace birds such as raptor, crows, seabirds, and many more. My suspicion is, there may be 100 other hominids out there that we know nothing about, yet we may have some of their DNA and they probably fit their ecological niche. Homo Naledi could live within 200 miles at the same time as another species, but be in a completely different environment. The thing to do now, if it has not been done, is to determine what Homo Naledi's environment was like. Lastly, my wife and I owned two Yellow Labs. We taught them language systematically. She was a speech pathologist. We estimate that they each had about 500 word vocabularies. We started with nouns, then went to verbs, then adverbs and adjectives. We could talk to them almost like people, and they could pick words out of sentences we spoke to each other, I once said harness, and our first dog went nuts because she thought she was going to get her narness and go for a ride. And these were just dogs. What could our ancient ancestors understand and do? Surely, they must have been smarter than dogs! Scientists should never become too attached to their writings and theories. Too many have been disproven over the centuries. New thinking is always in order.
This cave finding is as important as the finding of Tut's tomb. The good deal here is the science is waaaay more advanced, responsible & carefull.
Well, at least it used to be.
If you sent a group of families out to live in space for 100 years, the resulting offspring would be morphologically different. They are still Homo sapiens but with environmentally induced differences. Homo naledi and florensis could be analogous for the people of their time
It may come as surprise to the average person that scientists still disagree on how to describe something. I mean, what is a species really? What makes us human and not Naledi. if they are not. Scientists like to express the view or openness of mind, and openness of sharing discovery. Instead we see petty jealousies, and pet theories getting in the way of progress. I get that scientists are human too, but we are living in a golden age where are finding out such much about what makes us who we are. We need to be able to be super-open minded
100%!
The neladi seems to be a type of chimp and not human except the feet.
Inspiring…wonder if Anthropology comes up in STEM promotional events or is it overlooked?
I sure combine them, but it’s looked at differently depending on where you are.
It irritates me as an Anthropology and Biology major that Anthropology isn’t STEM.
If they are not Human, how do you explain they buried their dead beloved ones? Not even Apes have these burial culture. I first saw the documentary on netflix.. what are they?
The point that is being made here is, “What does it mean to be Human”? 100 years ago, most anyone you asked would have said only modern humans. But that definition has expanded to include other related species. So the line becomes more blurry, now we have creatures (naledi) possibly doing things that a creature with their brain capacity should not be able to do. Did they? The evidence doesn’t stack up just yet, but it’s possible. More work needs to be done. But either way, whether naledi is “human” or not, it’s a debate that is only beginning.
There are no hard dividing lines between homo sapien and hominids, time progressive changes of morphology rather than firm dividing lines is the story of hominids to homo sapien ✌️❤️🇬🇧
Homo sapiens are hominins..
If they were around today, would they be granted personhood?
A very good question, one that I think would reach the supreme court!
@@worldofpaleoanthropology Well... that would be a "No" then, from our current justices.
Considering some courts have ruled personhood for chimps and orangutans anything is possible. I wonder if nadalia could speak
Blacks have rights do they not? They have admixture with an as of yet determined super archaic "ghost species" which was very likely a species like Naledi..
have you ever checked into that maybe their was a shift in the earth. possibly during history causing the chute to be smaller in the future.? or earthquake moving the earth or a calapse of rocks.
There has been much study in the geology of the cave, yes.
So -- y'all should hammer out "anthropological definitions" of "human" and "people" - and put yer names on the definitions for posterity ! And to communicate that these definition models could be contrasted with someone else's definition - and thereby advance the theoretical/empirical quest.
That happens constantly. Man the tool maker. Man the thinker. Man the hunter. Man the artist.
Was there any debate in scientific comunity about starchild skulls and elongated skulls from south america, or is that forbidden? Can you give any adresses/connctions to these topics. Thank you
Forbidden science is not real. There is no connection between these topics. Elongated skulls are not a mystery anymore, please do a google search.
I think the fossils must be 2 to 3 million years old
Hard to believe only 200 to 300 thousand.
I think it shocked most people!
The final blow to theocracy .
Gee, I do logic every day and I am not a geek.
The. egotism of the. "senior scientists" is. disgusting, demeaning. and embarrassing. You have. no. shame- Excuse me- you three. know. everything. Share some of the glory. with your fellow scientists!
Wow lol. Ok
41:00 Boo hoo! I didn't go to an elite school! Bwaaa!
Seriously?
The finest universities use the same texts as Behind the Gas Station Close Cover Before Striking College.
Isn't Homo Naledi just an insignificant evolutionary dead end, a branch off the "family tree" that never went anywhere? I don't know why there has been such an enormous amount of (excessive) hype about this species.
What do you think now?
@@dinkyep I think Berger and Hawks are publicity hounds who have flogged "Homo Naledi" for all it's worth, and then some, to their own detriment.
Pay attention.
It’s hard to know why this is relevant or important to the average curious person like myself. Just need a handle or overview. Here in this video It’s all couched in specialised language and requires so much background knowledge. I’m just interested in bottom line: what does it all mean about our origins as humans. Maybe Graham Hancock has a view on this. I dont want to take up some serious study of paleo anthropology. 8:06
That’s what it takes to learn and understand things. Nice try with the Graham Hancock jab, let’s me know you are a troll
Graham Hancock??? 🤡 🤡 🤡