PDA

View Full Version : 9.7-million-year-old hominin tooth fossil found in Germany



Johane Derite
19-10-17, 18:25
"A team of German archaeologists discovered a puzzling set of teeth in the former riverbed of the Rhine, the Museum of Natural History in Mainz announced on Wednesday.The teeth don't appear to belong to any species discovered in Europe or Asia. They most closely resemble those belonging to the early hominin skeletons of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), famously discovered in Ethiopia.
But these new teeth, found in the western German town of Eppelsheim near Mainz, are at least 4 million years older than the African skeletons, which has scientists so puzzled they held off publishing for a year."

Link: http://www.dw.com/en/archaeology-fossil-teeth-discovery-in-germany-could-re-write-human-history/a-41028029

Jovialis
19-10-17, 21:59
Honestly, I was a doubtful initially due to there being only one source related to this story. But now I see another news outlet has picked up the story, and a paper is coming out next week. Let's see where this goes:


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/will-10-million-year-old-teeth-crown-europe-cradle-humanity-1643846

Archaeologists have discovered a mysterious set of ape teeth - thought to be 9.7 million years old – which may upend our view of the evolutionary history of humans, the Museum of Natural History in Mainz has announced.

The teeth, which were found in the west German town of Eppelsheim, most closely resemble those belonging to two ancient human specimens which are only known to have lived several million years later in Africa – Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) and Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus) both famously discovered in Ethiopia.

However, the newly found teeth are more than twice as old as both of the African skeletons, puzzling scientists.

The first paper describing the teeth will be published online next week, but the importance of the find may not be clear until more is known about what species they belong to. At present, the fossils are being examined in detail by a specialist team, but if the teeth do turn out to belong to an early human ancestor, they would be the oldest hominin fossils ever discovered by some distance.

"They are clearly ape-teeth," Herbert Lutz, one of the researchers from the museum, was quoted as saying by local online news outlet Merkurist. "Their characteristics resemble African finds that are four to five million years younger than the fossils excavated in Eppelsheim. This is a tremendous stroke of luck, but also a great mystery."

In a press conference announcing the find, Mainz Mayor Michael Ebling said: "I don't want to over-dramatize it, but I would hypothesize that we shall have to start rewriting the history of mankind after today."

The archaeologists found the teeth while sifting through gravel and sand in a former riverbed of the Rhine – an area famous for ape fossil remains. They were discovered next to the remains of an extinct horse species which helped the researchers date the teeth.
From the end of October, the fossils will be displayed at the Rhineland-Palatinate state exhibition 'vorZEITEN', after which they will move to the Museum of Natural History in Mainz.

LeBrok
20-10-17, 01:36
I'm very sceptical about this news.

Jovialis
20-10-17, 03:00
I'm very sceptical about this news.
I am as well, as I am a firm believer in scientific consensus. Nevertheless, I'm interested to see how the leading geneticists weigh in when it's all laid out.

LeBrok
20-10-17, 05:20
I am as well, as I am a firm believer in scientific consensus. Nevertheless, I'm interested to see how the leading geneticists weigh in when it's all laid out.I don't think there will be a DNA pulled from such old teeth.

Maciamo
20-10-17, 13:10
9.7 million years long predates the presumed split between Chimpanzees and Australopithecines. Even if it were "only" 5 or 6 million years old, it would be the first (I think) Australopithecus found in Europe, or outside Africa for that matter.

Wheal
20-10-17, 16:53
I found this link from 2-hours ago.

http://www.newsweek.com/mystery-fossil-tooth-baffles-archaeologists-and-could-mean-first-humans-lived-689218

Jovialis
20-10-17, 16:53
I don't think there will be a DNA pulled from such old teeth.
Ahhh, I misspoke :dunce:

I recall that from my question in the thread on Jebel Irhoud homo sapien bones.

*archaeologists

Wheal
20-10-17, 16:57
The question I have is the dating. I would think if found in an old river bed that it could have washed from another area, and ended up next to the "horse-like" remains.

Jovialis
20-10-17, 22:06
https://i.imgur.com/DsUNZze.png

Here's a professional's reaction to the dailymail headline.

Jovialis
20-10-17, 22:19
Here's a pre-print of the paper that is to come out.


Abstract

In September 2016, two teeth of an up to now undescribed member of the Hominoidea have been uncovered from sediments of the Proto-Rhine River near Eppelsheim, Germany, the type locality for the Eppelsheim Formation (i. e. Dinotheriensande) and of 25 mammals of various systematic positions. Together with other finds from Eppelsheim and the Wissberg location, which is only 18 km away, these are the northernmost occurrences of Miocene primates in Europe. Both teeth, the crowns of an upper left canine and an upper right first molar, are exceptionally well preserved and obviously come from the same body of unknown sex. Their sedimentological environment and the accompanying faunal elements point to an age shortly before the Mid-Vallesian crisis at ca. 9.7 Ma. While the molar shares characters with various other taxa, the canine reveals intriguingly potential hominin affinities: its lingual outline is clearly diamond-shaped; its ratio of lingual height / mesiodistal length is within the range of Australopithecus afarensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Ardipithecus kadabba, and females of Pan troglodytes. The relative size of the canine, i. e. the ratio of the buccal heights of C and M1, is similar to those of e.g. Dryopithecus sp., Ankarapithecus meteai but also Ardipithecus ramidus. Both, reduced size and shape of the canine likely indicate that the new species from Eppelsheim had lost a honing (C/p3) complex already ca. 9.7 Ma ago. From all information gathered up to now, the question arises, if the newly discovered Eppelsheim species may be related to members of the African hominin tribe.

A new great ape with startling resemblances to African members of the hominin tribe, excavated from the Mid-Vallesian Dinotheriensande of Eppelsheim. First report (Hominoidea, Miocene, MN 9, Proto-Rhine River, Germany) (PDF Download Available). Available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320518472_A_new_great_ape_with_startling_resemblan ces_to_African_members_of_the_hominin_tribe_excava ted_from_the_Mid-Vallesian_Dinotheriensande_of_Eppelsheim_First_rep ort_Hominoidea_Miocene_MN_9_Proto-Rhine_Riv

mlukas
21-10-17, 15:52
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/97-million-year-old-teeth-found-germany-belong-hominin-only-known-have-021671

9.7 Million-Year-Old Teeth Found in Germany Belong to Hominin Only Known To Have Existed in Africa 4 Million Years Later

Archaeologists have made a discovery so sensational that they have waited 1 year to announce it as they had to be sure they had the dating correct. A set of teeth belonging to an early hominin species has been found in Germany that dates back 9.7 million years. Could this finding be another nail in the coffin for the out-of-Africa theory of human origins?

It was only one month ago that scientists made the surprising announcement of 5.7 million-year-old hominin footprints on the island of Crete in Greece. Many responded with disbelief, as such a discovery suggests that the earliest human ancestors wandered around Europe at the same time or even earlier than Africa, drawing into question the widely-believed theory that humans emerged in Africa before spreading out to the rest of the world. Now the finding of 9.7 million-year-old hominin teeth in Germany supports the possibility that the out-of-Africa theory is wrong.

Finally:cool-v:

Jovialis
21-10-17, 16:04
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34730-9-7-million-year-old-hominin-tooth-fossil-found-in-Germany
There's already a thread about this.

For the record, I accidentally up-voted your post. I didn't mean to vote at all.

There's still a lot of evidence pointing to Africa. There will need to be scientific consensus before we can make such assumptions. Don't get caught up in the sensationalism of the headlines.

PaleoRevenge
21-10-17, 17:26
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34730-9-7-million-year-old-hominin-tooth-fossil-found-in-Germany
There's already a thread about this.

For the record, I accidentally up-voted your post. I didn't mean to vote at all.

There's still a lot of evidence pointing to Africa. There will need to be scientific consensus before we can make such assumptions. Don't get caught up in the sensationalism of the headlines.

Science is not a opinion poll there kid, the fact either exists or it doesn't. Out of Africa is political science, pc b.s.

PaleoRevenge
21-10-17, 17:28
Out of Africa, another lie against western civilization. I see a lot of sad liberals.

davef
21-10-17, 17:43
^^ I doubt he's like that, he'll always take hard evidence over comfort theories designed to make everyone happy. If evidence that humanity began in Germany surpasses what we have that suggests an African origin, I doubt he's going to sit and cry and accuse the scientists of racism.

LeBrok
21-10-17, 17:51
Out of Africa, another lie against western civilization. I see a lot of sad liberals. I can see a weird creatures coming out from underbelly of conspiracy of archeology, and with one tooth wants to change history of mankind, lol. Soon they will show us "the proof" that people indeed lived with dinosaurs...
Yes, keep your open mind, but keep thinking as well!

Angela
21-10-17, 17:55
What does liberal or conservative have to do with it?

The phylogeny is still the phylogeny. All current ydna comes from AA, just as one example. Even if "humanoids" originally developed in Europe or Asia, there is still an OOA 60-70,000 years ago. It just means a return to Africa and then an exit.

It is what it is. What difference does it make?

Jovialis
21-10-17, 18:44
Science is not a opinion poll there kid, the fact either exists or it doesn't. Out of Africa is political science, pc b.s.

Where does the original story state the species homo sapiens didn't evolve in Africa? Because the last time I checked they didn't find homo sapiens bones older than the ones found there.

The archaeologists from Germany proposed they found teeth that mostly resemble that of Australopithecus, which looked like this:

https://i.imgur.com/k2vRUBNt.jpg

Read the pre-print of the paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320518472_A_new_great_ape_with_startling_resemblan ces_to_African_members_of_the_hominin_tribe_excava ted_from_the_Mid-Vallesian_Dinotheriensande_of_Eppelsheim_First_rep ort_Hominoidea_Miocene_MN_9_Proto-Rhine_Riv

What does the left-right political spectrum have to do with objectivity? So wanting consensus from professionals within the field makes someone liberal? That's not even what being liberal means. Also, there's plenty of so-called "conservatives" that don't even believe in evolution, let alone the fact that we evolved from apes. You're the one being political and bringing non-sense into the discussion, Kid.

bicicleur
21-10-17, 21:35
What does liberal or conservative have to do with it?
The phylogeny is still the phylogeny. All current ydna comes from AA, just as one example. Even if "humanoids" originally developed in Europe or Asia, there is still an OOA 60-70,000 years ago. It just means a return to Africa and then an exit.
It is what it is. What difference does it make?
Uptill know the only evidence for early OOA was homo erectus, some 2000 ka. If there were earlier OOA events, they probably were dead ends.
DNA suggests there were multiple OOA, the common ancestor of Neanderthal and Denisovan diverging 600 ka from modern humans, but also later admixture of pré-modern human mtDNA into Neanderthals.
As for modern humans, my guess is a 130-150 ka OOA into the Persian Gulf and further into Sundaland and Sahul that was replaced by a more recent OOA of haplogroup BT into Arabia with Nubyan complex and subsequent backmigrations into Africa and expansions into Eurasia from SW Asia.
This means that not only haplogroup E, but also B would be a backmigration into Africa, as the Nubyan complex in Arabia predates the B-CT split.

Jovialis
23-10-17, 21:24
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/ancient-teeth-found-germany-dont-rewrite-human-history-science/

Despite claims of a new origin story for humans, the fossils more likely belonged to a very distant branch on the primate family tree.

Two well-preserved teeth recovered from sediments in Germany offer intriguing clues to how some of our distant primate relatives eked out a living in what is now northern Europe. But do these teeth, as many news outlets have proclaimed, “rewrite human history?” In a word, no.

The much-ballyhooed discovery comes in the form of two caramel-colored fossil teeth—one identified as a canine, the other as an upper molar—belonging to a primate that lived between nine and 10 million years ago. (Find out more about human evolution.)

Scientists dug up the teeth in September 2016 from Eppelsheim, a prehistoric site near Frankfurt that is famous for its primate fossils. A fossilized femur found at Eppelsheim in the 1820s helped kick start the fields of paleontology and paleoanthropology. Unfortunately, many of these fossils were lost during World War II, and few fresh samples have been found since. (See fossil teeth from the oldest modern human found outside of Africa.)

The two teeth described this week are the first new fossils of their kind to come out of Eppelsheim in 80 years, according to the researchers who examined them.

Study leader Herbert Lutz, the deputy museum director at the Mainz Natural History Museum, says that he and his colleagues have been dumbfounded by the teeth for the last year. Their paper, posted online Friday on the article-sharing platform ResearchGate, claims that the teeth bear a close resemblance to some extinct African relatives of modern humans.

In particular, they find that the oddly squat canine tooth closely resembles those of the extinct human relatives Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis, the species best known from the fossil called “Lucy.” (Did a fall from a tree kill Lucy, one of our most famous ancient relatives?)

Lutz claims that the teeth are unlike anything found in Europe and Asia, but he's cautious about saying what that actually means.

“We want to hold back on speculation. What these finds definitely show us is that the holes in our knowledge and in the fossil record are much bigger than previously thought,” Lutz said in an interview with ResearchGate. “It’s a complete mystery where this individual came from, and why nobody’s ever found a tooth like this somewhere before.”

Perhaps the Eurasian primate bearing these teeth and its distant African relatives faced similar evolutionary pressures despite their geographic separation. This could have independently led them to similar tooth shapes, a widespread phenomenon in evolution called convergence.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING?

Based on what Lutz's team has published, however, outside experts say that the teeth hardly “force us to reexamine the theory that humans originated from Africa,” as ResearchGate’s interview with Lutz attests.

For one, we must be careful not to confuse modern humans with hominins, the bigger lineage containing humans and our closest extinct relatives, or hominoids, the even bigger group containing hominins, chimpanzees, gorillas, and other apes.

Overwhelming fossil and genetic evidence points to an African origin for modern humans, who left Africa no earlier than 120,000 years ago and most likely between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago. The Eppelsheim teeth are roughly a hundred times older. If the Eppelsheim teeth say anything about human evolution, they help to clarify where and how the earliest hominoids lived and evolved.

But some experts in the field question if the teeth really belong to a hominoid.

The canine tooth described in the paper has an unusual, intriguing shape, says University of Toronto paleoanthropologist Bence Viola, an expert on the teeth of humans' extinct relatives. However, the molar—which he says is the more important tooth for classification purposes—contradicts any case for a human connection.

“I think this is much ado about nothing,” he says by email. “The second tooth (the molar), which they say clearly comes from the same individual, is absolutely not a hominin, [and] I would say also not a hominoid.”

Instead, most experts we contacted say that the molar probably belongs to a species of pliopithecoid, an extinct, primitive branch of primates that lived in Europe and Asia between roughly seven and 17 million years ago.

Pliopithecoids are very distant relatives of humans. Some paleontologists argue that this group diverged from the common ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes before those two branches even split from one another. In other words, it's likely that modern humans are more closely related to baboons than to the species represented by these teeth.

And as Lutz's team acknowledges in its paper, the molar closely resembles those of Anapithecus, a species of pliopithecoid known from a jawbone dug up in Hungary, says University of Toronto paleoanthropologist David Begun.

“The molar is important, because it validates an idea proposed by several researchers that a femur known from Eppelsheim since the 1820s actually does most likely belong to a pliopithecoid and not a hominoid,” says Begun.

Sergio Almécija, an anthropologist at George Washington University who also studies pliopithecoids, agrees. As for the supposedly hominin-like canine, the experts’ opinions range from interest to dismissal. Begun even doubts that it's a canine.

“The 'canine' looks to me like a piece of a ruminant tooth,” Begun says by email. Ruminants are cud-chewing, plant-eating mammals such as cows and sheep. “It has a funny break that makes it look a bit like a canine, but it is definitely not a canine, nor is it [from] a primate.”

Lutz cautions that he and his colleagues are only just beginning their analysis, which he says will include high-resolution x-rays and analyses of the teeth's wear patterns, which could help scientists reconstruct the primate's diet.

“Hopefully, in one or two years, we'll know a lot more about what we've got on our hands,” Lutz told ResearchGate. “It's definitely a fantastic, exciting story.”