Posted on 09/20/2006 4:21:21 PM PDT by Wormwood
September 20, 2006 · Scientists in Ethiopia have discovered the skeleton of a 3.3 million years old child, the oldest child fossil on record. The fossil is known as the Dikika child, after the region where it was found.
Though not a human, the apelike creature could walk upright. The child is from the same species as the famous fossil Lucy, which was also discovered in Ethiopia over 30 years ago. It was probably female, and about three when it died.
The child lay within a sandstone tomb for over 3 million years. Six years ago, an Ethiopian scientist saw part of a skull sticking up out of the ground.
"I realized the significance of the fossil," says Zeresenay Alemseged, of the Max Planck Institute in Germany. "But what we had then was only the upper part of the body -- including the skull."
Alemseged soon realized the fossil contained more than a skull, but that retrieving it from the ground would be a time-consuming process.
"It took me, and I underline, 5 years," says Alemseged. "It was thousands and thousands of hours cleaning, preparing, and describing this fossil since it was discovered in 2000."
As Alemseged scraped away, rumors spread throughout the anthropological community. Bernard Wood, an anthropologist at George Washington University, visited Alemseged's lab a year ago to see the skeleton.
"He took this thing out of his safe and I was just sort of standing there with my jaw dropping somewhere around my knees," says Wood. "It's just the most remarkable thing to see -- to contemplate what is such an unlikely event ¿ which is the fossilization -- and then the fact that it's found. I mean, it's such a long shot."
Alemseged has now described the fossil in the journal Nature . Besides the skull, the fossil contains the upper and lower jaws, ribs, finger bones, leg and foot bones. The baby and adult teeth are still in the jaw. Wood says anthropologists are practically salivating at the information the skeleton might hold.
"You very seldom find all these things together," he says. "You rarely find them all together in an infant."
The child is from the group called Australopithecus afarensis . It's widely believed to be a transitional form between tree-dwelling primates and the earliest human-like species, but its exact position in the primate family tree is still debated.
Anthropologists do know that the A. afarensis walked, one of the first developments in human evolution. The lower body of the child does belong to a walker, but its finger bones are curved, suggesting a climber. The shoulder blade of the creature, Wood says, is also quite rare.
"You very rarely find [a fully preserved shoulder blade] in the fossil record," he says, "It's surrounded by muscle and it's high up on the wish list of scavengers. But this isn't modern human like either. Rather intriguingly, it's like the shoulder blade of a gorilla."
The fossil is especially interesting to anthropologists because it's a child, which could illuminate how these early creatures matured.
It may also indicate how changes in the Ethiopian climate could have influenced human evolution. Rene Bobe, from the University of Georgia and an author on the scientific paper, says the landscape was changing when A. afarensis and later, the first human ancestors, lived.
"There is indeed an opening of the environment," he says, "which means more grasslands coming in and fewer trees and forests."
There will be more chances for researchers to study the fossil. Some of the fossil is still hidden because Alemseged says he hasn't finished scraping away all the sandstone, a process which may take some time. So there's still more to see.
But Alemseged "doesn't want to be rushed" into finishing the recovery work. "Maybe it's the Ethiopian wisdom," he says. "We had this huge responsibility of conveying right scientific messages to the scientific community so I decided right from the beginning that we would wait as long as it takes."
Meet the Relatives
The 3.3 million -year-old skeleton just found in Dikika has plenty of anthropological company. Here's a look at some of the top regional finds of the last 40 years.
"Lucy"
WHO: 3.18 million-year-old adult female fossil
SPECIES: Australopithecus afarensis
WHERE: Ethiopia
FOUND BY: Americans Donald Johanson and Tom Gray
WHEN: November 1974
Researchers were quite excited when they saw what looked like an almost-complete hominid skeleton at the Hadar site in Ethiopia. That night back at camp, they celebrated by drinking and singing Beatles' songs -- including "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds." At some point during the night -- no one remembers when -- researchers started calling the skeleton Lucy, too.
"The First Family"
WHO: 13 3.2-million-year-old individuals ranging from adults to children
SPECIES: Australopithecus afarensis
WHERE: Ethiopia
FOUND BY: Americans Donald Johanson and Michael Bush
WHEN: Summer 1975
Because they were the oldest living example of a species living in a group, National Geographic called the skeletons "The First Family."
"Laetoli Footprints "
WHAT: 3.6 million-year-old footprints preserved in volcanic ash, providing early evidence for upright bipedal walking
WHERE: Laetoli, Tanzania
FOUND BY: American Andrew Hill
WHEN: 1976
Hill and a colleague were tossing elephant dung at each other at an architectural site. Hill dived to avoid a piece of flying feces and discovered the footprints.
--Melody Joy Kramer
ping
Just direct me to the part about pitching pachyderm poo.
Countdown to a Helen Thomas picture...
In 5...
4...
3...
2...
1...
Impressive that they had masons around 3.3 million years ago to make that sandstone tomb. I knew the Masons went back a long ways, but, wow!
[/tongue-in-cheek]
Of course it isn't and
Not a human = not a "child".
Third post that I read about this today & prolly another source.
Isn't there some kind of problem with Lucy?
>>Though not a human, the apelike creature could walk upright.<<
I've seen an ape walk upright, so I would believe this were possible.
*shrug*
>>Not a human = not a "child"<<
Bingo! It was a rather interesting use of words.
No, but anti-evolution propagandists like to falsely claim that there is: Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors
Of course it isn't and
Not a human = not a "child".
Although not "human" in the modern sense, this was still a young hominid, and using the term "child" is not inappropriate.
"I've seen an ape walk upright, so I would believe this were possible."
Was his name Hugo? Hugo Chavez?
Sigh. Yeah, and you believe that the Earth once orbited Saturn, too, so we'll take that link with a few truckloads of salt.
Furthermore, Lucy was in no way like a "monkey". Obviously you don't know the difference between hominid apes and "monkeys". Nice try.
Hey Ted, what are you going to say when the feet of this current fossil are unearthed and look more human than "monkeylike"?
Then read all the replies, wherein all the errors and misrepresentations in that article are documented.
Ted, why do you bother? And how do you manage to stick around this time after being a retread (i.e. a banned poster returning under a new name)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.