Dali Man

Last updated • 6 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
Dali Skull
Dali Man Skull, Replica.jpg
Restoration of the skull Shaanxi History Museum
Common nameDali Skull
Species Homo, species uncertain
Agec. 160,000 years
Place discovered Dali County, Shaanxi, China
Date discoveredMarch 1978
Discovered byLiu Shuntang

Dali man (Chinese :大荔人) is the remains of a late Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens who lived in the late-mid Pleistocene epoch. The remains comprise a complete fossilized skull, which was discovered by Liu Shuntang in 1978 in Dali County, Shaanxi Province, China.

Contents

Dating the skull is a matter of debate. While uranium-series dating of ox teeth from the same site in 1994 obtained a date of 209±23 ka, [1] it is unclear whether the hominid cranium and the ox teeth date from a similar era. [2] A new analysis performed in 2017 used a variety of methods, arriving at an age estimate of about 260±20 ka. [3] The fossil is considered to be the most complete skull of that time period found in China. [4]

Access to Dali Man is restricted. The cranium is currently housed in the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, China. [2]

Characteristics of the skull

The Dali cranium is interesting to modern anthropologists as it is possibly a well-preserved example of archaic Homo sapiens; it has a mixture of traits from Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. [5] However, the details of the face and skull are distinct from European Neanderthals and earlier European hominids, such as remains found in Petralona cave and Atapuerca. [6]

Vault

The skull is low and long, though the posterior end of the skull is rounded, unlike the contemporary broad-based H. erectus or top-wide skull of modern humans. It does however bear a prominent sagittal keel, a trait found in H. erectus but in few modern humans. The brain appears to have been sitting mainly behind the face, giving an extremely low forehead. The cranial capacity is estimated to around 1 120 cc, at the lower end of the modern human range, and upper end of the H. erectus range. The base of the cranium is less robust than in H. erectus. [7] The posterior margin lacks the heavy neck muscle attachment seen in that group. Unlike the distinct tubular form seen in H. erectus, the tympanic plate is thin and foreshortened, a condition similar to that of modern humans. [8]

Unlike H. erectus skulls, the Dali skull lacks the "pinched" look between the face and the cranial vault.

Face

The face is topped by massive brow ridges. The ridges curve over each eye, unlike the straight bar-like ridges seen at the Peking man material from Zhoukoudian. The curvature is more similar structurally to the brow ridges in archaic humans from Europe and Africa. The cheek bones are delicate, and the nasal bone flattened, again a curious combination of traits. [5] During fossilization, the upper jaw has been fractured and dislocated upwards, giving the cranium the appearance of having a very short face. If reconstructed, the face would be probably be similar in overall dimensions to that of the Jinniushan woman skull. [7]

Taxonomy

A proposed recent human family tree
According to Ni et al. 2021 [9] (note, Xiahe and Denisovans are most closely related to Neanderthals according to nDNA and ancient protein analyses by Chen et al. 2019. [10] )

In March 1978, a surprisingly complete archaic human skull was unearthed by local geologist Liu Shuntang in Dali County, Shaanxi in north-central China. It was formally described the following year by Chinese palaeoanthropologists Wang Yongyan and colleagues, who preliminarily characterised it as a late Middle Pleistocene transitional morph between Homo erectus (more specifically, the Chinese Peking Man) and the European Neanderthals. In 1981, Wu Xinzhi produced a much more substantial description of the specimen, and instead concluded it is a transitional morph between H. erectus and modern humans, coining the name "Homo sapiens daliensis". [5] At this point in time, the Out of Africa hypothesis (that humans evolved in and dispersed out of Africa) was overturning the Out of Asia and multiregional hypotheses. In Western thought, Peking Man moved from the centre of human origins to a dead offshoot, while Chinese palaeoanthropologists repurposed the multiregional hypothesis wherein local archaic populations interbred with the ancestors of modern humans, thereby still being maintained as human ancestors. At this point, multiregional debates were accompanied by (occasionally racist) anatomical continuities between East Asian archaic and modern East Asian and Oceanian peoples. Wu grouped Dali Man with all late Middle Pleistocene skulls, including skulls from Dingcun, Jinniushan, and Yunxian, [11] though he promptly deserted the nomen "H. s. daliensis". [9] Thus, these specimens were often simply referred to as just "archaic H. sapiens". [12]

The 2010 sequencing of the genetic code of an unidentified human species from Denisova Cave, Siberia, propagated suppositions that the Dali Man and East Asian contemporaries represent these enigmatic "Denisovans", but this is impossible to confirm as Denisovans are only identifiable from DNA instead of any diagnostic anatomical features. [13]

At around this time, the nomen Homo heidelbergensis was regaining popularity, being largely assigned to various Middle Pleistocene African and European specimens. [13] Some authors additionally lumped contemporary East Asian remains into it, including Dali, first suggested by anthropologists Aurélien Mounier, Silvana Condemi, and Giorgio Manzi in 2011. [14] In 2016, Manzi recommended resurrecting Wu's nomen as "H. heidelbergensis daliensis" for Middle Pleistocene East Asian specimens. [12] However according to a 2023 assessment, since Wu wrote only that "it is suggested that Dali cranium probably represents a new subspecies" (p. 538, italics added for emphasis) the name daliensis was never validly published according to International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) rules, being proposed conditionally and published after 1960 (and not formally proposed by subsequent workers in the intervening period), and is therefore unavailable; [15] thus if its use were desired, for example to designate a separate taxon from H. longi (see below) under the scenario that the Harbin and Dali specimens came from different species or subspecies, the name would have to be republished under acceptable nomenclatural rules, or a different name proposed.

In 2021, Chinese paleoanthropologist Qiang Ji and colleagues described a new species, Homo longi , based on a late Middle Pleistocene skull from Harbin in northeastern China. They suggested Denisovans may belong to H. longi, but excluded Dali Man and contemporaneous East Asian specimens. They instead recommended reviving H. daliensis to accommodate these specimens. [16] In a study published the same day, Israeli anthropologist Israel Hershkovitz and colleagues suggested the apparent diversity of supposedly unique forms during the Middle Pleistocene is the result of a complex network of cross-continental interbreeding, based on the 140 to 120 thousand years old Israeli Nesher Ramla remains which feature a mix of Neanderthal and H. erectus traits. [17]

Other possible Dali-type finds

An assortment of primitive Homo skulls have tentatively been placed with the Dali find. The Maba Man, a 120 to 140 000 year old fragmentary skull from Guangdong in China shows the same general contours of the forehead. [18] A partial female skeleton with skull from Jinniushan (also China) seems to belong to the same group, characterized by a very robust skull cap but less robust skull base. [19] [20] [21] A possibly fourth member could be the Narmada skull from the Madhya Pradesh in India, consisting of a single robust cranial vault. [22]

The Denisova hominin, represented originally by a very robust finger bone found in the Altai mountains in Russia, and to which especially the find of a partial mandible in the Baishiya Karst Cave on the Tibetan Plateau in China was later added, are still in discussion if they might be linked to the Dali people (see Denisovan §Specimens). DNA studies show the Denisovans with Mitochondrial DNA linking them to a very deep split in the human tree. [23] This would make the DNA erectus rather than heidelbergensis or other more recent splits. [24] However, the analysis of the nuclear DNA points to a sister group relationship with the neanderthals. [25] Thus, it is possible that the archaic humans in Asia were a mixture of neanderthal relatives and an already widespread Asian erectus population. [26]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Homo heidelbergensis</i> Extinct species of archaic human

Homo heidelbergensis is an extinct species or subspecies of archaic human which existed during the Middle Pleistocene. It was subsumed as a subspecies of H. erectus in 1950 as H. e. heidelbergensis, but towards the end of the century, it was more widely classified as its own species. It is debated whether or not to constrain H. heidelbergensis to only Europe or to also include African and Asian specimens, and this is further confounded by the type specimen being a jawbone, because jawbones feature few diagnostic traits and are generally missing among Middle Pleistocene specimens. Thus, it is debated if some of these specimens could be split off into their own species or a subspecies of H. erectus. Because the classification is so disputed, the Middle Pleistocene is often called the "muddle in the middle".

<i>Homo</i> Genus of hominins that includes humans and their closest extinct relatives

Homo is a genus of great ape that emerged from the genus Australopithecus and encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens and a number of extinct species classified as either ancestral or closely related to modern humans. These include Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. The oldest member of the genus is Homo habilis, with records of just over 2 million years ago. Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably most closely related to the species Australopithecus africanus within Australopithecus. The closest living relatives of Homo are of the genus Pan, with the ancestors of Pan and Homo estimated to have diverged around 5.7-11 million years ago during the Late Miocene.

<i>Homo rhodesiensis</i> Species of primate (fossil)

Homo rhodesiensis is the species name proposed by Arthur Smith Woodward (1921) to classify Kabwe 1, a Middle Stone Age fossil recovered from Broken Hill mine in Kabwe, Northern Rhodesia. In 2020, the skull was dated to 324,000 to 274,000 years ago. Other similar older specimens also exist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ceprano Man</span> Prehistoric human skull cap from Italy

Ceprano Man, Argil, and Ceprano Calvarium, is a Middle Pleistocene archaic human fossil, a single skull cap (calvarium), accidentally unearthed in a highway construction project in 1994 near Ceprano in the Province of Frosinone, Italy. It was initially considered Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, or possibly Homo antecessor; but in recent studies, most regard it either as a form of Homo heidelbergensis sharing affinities with African forms, or an early morph of Neanderthal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steinheim skull</span> Hominin fossil found in Germany

The Steinheim skull is a fossilized skull of a Homo neanderthalensis or Homo heidelbergensis found on 24 July 1933 near Steinheim an der Murr, Germany.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maba Man</span> Hominin fossil

Maba Man is a pre-modern hominin whose remains were discovered in 1958 in caves near the town called Maba, near Shaoguan city in the northern part of Guangdong province, China.

Human taxonomy is the classification of the human species within zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Homo, is designed to include both anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans have been designated as subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated, according to some, from the direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaic humans</span> Extinct relatives of modern humans

Archaic humans is a broad category denoting all species of the genus Homo that are not Homo sapiens. Among the earliest modern human remains are those from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, Florisbad in South Africa (259 ka), and Omo-Kibish I in southern Ethiopia. Some examples of archaic humans include H. antecessor (1200–770 ka), H. bodoensis (1200–300 ka), H. heidelbergensis (600–200 ka), Neanderthals, H. rhodesiensis (300–125 ka) and Denisovans.

<i>Homo erectus</i> Extinct species of archaic human

Homo erectus is an extinct species of archaic human from the Pleistocene, with its earliest occurrence about 2 million years ago. Its specimens are among the first recognizable members of the genus Homo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florisbad Skull</span> Hominin fossil

The Florisbad Skull is an important human fossil of the early Middle Stone Age, representing either late Homo heidelbergensis or early Homo sapiens. It was discovered in 1932 by T. F. Dreyer at the Florisbad site, Free State Province, South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Denisovan</span> Asian archaic human

The Denisovans or Denisova hominins(di-NEE-sə-və) are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic human that ranged across Asia during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, and lived, based on current evidence, from 285 to 25 thousand years ago. Denisovans are known from few physical remains; consequently, most of what is known about them comes from DNA evidence. No formal species name has been established pending more complete fossil material.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Red Deer Cave people</span> Prehistoric humans from 12,500 BCE in southwest China

The Red Deer Cave people were a prehistoric population of modern humans known from bones dated to between about 17,830 to c. 11,500 years ago, found in Red Deer Cave and Longlin Cave in Yunnan and Guangxi Provinces, in Southwest China.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ndutu cranium</span> Hominin fossil

The Ndutu skull is the partial cranium of a hominin that has been assigned variously to late Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis, and early Homo sapiens, from the Middle Pleistocene, found at Lake Ndutu in northern Tanzania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Penghu 1</span> Hominin fossil

Penghu 1 is a fossil jaw (mandible) belonging to an extinct hominin species of the genus Homo from Taiwan which lived in the middle-late Pleistocene. The precise classification of the mandible is disputed, some arguing that it represents a new species, Homo tsaichangensis, whereas others believe it to be the fossil of a H. erectus, an archaic H. sapiens or possibly a Denisovan.

Xujiayao, located in the Nihewan Basin in China, is an early Late Pleistocene paleoanthropological site famous for its archaic hominin fossils.

Jinniushan is a Middle Pleistocene paleoanthropological site, dating to around 260,000 BP, most famous for its archaic hominin fossils. The site is located near Yingkou, Liaoning, China. Several new species of extinct birds were also discovered at the site.

<i>Homo longi</i> Archaic human from China, 146,000 BP

Homo longi is an extinct species of archaic human identified from a nearly complete skull, nicknamed 'Dragon Man', from Harbin on the Northeast China Plain, dating to at minimum 146,000 years ago during the Middle Pleistocene. The skull was discovered in 1933 along the Songhua River while the Dongjiang Bridge was under construction for the Manchukuo National Railway. Due to a tumultuous wartime atmosphere, it was hidden and only brought to paleoanthropologists in 2018. H. longi has been hypothesized to be the same species as the Denisovans, but this cannot be confirmed without genetic testing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Salé cranium</span> Enigmatic Middle Pleistocene hominin specimen

The Salé cranium is a pathological specimen of enigmatic Middle Pleistocene hominin discovered in Salé, Morocco by quarrymen in 1971. Since its discovery, the specimen has variously been classified as Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis/bodoensis, or Homo heidelbergensis. Its pathological condition and mosaic anatomy has proved difficult to classify. It was discovered with few faunal fossils and no lithics, tentatively dated to 400 ka by some sources.

The Hualongdong people are extinct humans that lived in eastern China around 300,000 years ago during the late Middle Pleistocene. Discovered by a research team led by Xiujie Wu and Liu Wu, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, from the Hualong Cave in Dongzhi County at Anhui Province in 2006, they are known from about 30 fossils that belong to 16 individuals. The first analysis of the skull fragments collected in 2006 suggested that they could be members of Homo erectus. For some of the specimens, their exact position as a human species is not known. More complete fossils found in 2015 indicate that they cannot be directly assigned to any Homo species as they also exhibit archaic human features. They are the first humans in Asia to have both archaic and modern human features. They are likely a distinct species that form a separate branch in the human family tree.

The Narmada Human, originally the Narmada Man, is a species of extinct human that lived in central India during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. From a skull cup discovered from the bank of the Narmada River in Madhya Pradesh in 1982, the discoverer, Arun Sonakia classified it was an archaic human and gave the name Narmada Man, with the scientific name H. erectus narmadensis. Analysis of additional fossils from the same location in 1997 indicated that the individual could be a female, hence, a revised name, Narmada Human, was introduced. It remains the oldest human species in India.

References

  1. Chen, T; Yang, Q; Wu, E (1994). "Antiquity of Homo sapiens in China". Nature. 368 (6466): 55–56. Bibcode:1994Natur.368...55T. doi:10.1038/368055a0. PMID   8107882. S2CID   4311322. Uranium series dating of ox teeth from the site obtained a date of 209±23 ka.
  2. 1 2 P. Brown Dali archaic Homo sapiens University of New England, Australia (2002)
  3. Xuefeng Sun et al. , "TT-OSL and post-IR IRSL dating of the Dali Man site in central China", Quaternary International 434, Part A, 1 April 2017, 99-106, doi : 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.05.027 "correlating the pIRIR290 ages between 267.7 ± 13.9 ka and 258.3 ± 14.2 ka and new pollen analysis, we proposed a new viewpoint that the Dali Man was likely to live during a transitional period from glacial to interglacial climate in the S2/L3 (MIS 7/8) stage."
  4. Xiao, J.L.; Jin, C.; Zhu, Y. (2002). "Age of the Fossil Dali Man in North-Central China deduced from Chronostratigraphy of the Loess-paleosol Sequence". Quaternary Science Reviews. 21 (20): 2191–2198. Bibcode:2002QSRv...21.2191X. doi:10.1016/s0277-3791(02)00011-2.
  5. 1 2 3 Wu, X. Z. (1981). "A well-preserved cranium of an archaic type of early Homo sapiens from Dali, China". Scientia Sinica. 24 (4): 530–41. PMID   6789450.
  6. Wu, X (1988). "Comparative study of early Homo sapiens from China and Europe". Acta Anthropologica Sinica. 7: 292–299.
  7. 1 2 Wu R. (1988): The reconstruction of the fossil human skull from Jinniushan, Yinkou, Liaoning Province and its main features. Acta Anthropologica Sinica no 7: pp 97–101.
  8. 1 2 Ni, X.; Ji, Q.; Wu, W.; et al. (2021). "Massive cranium from Harbin in northeastern China establishes a new Middle Pleistocene human lineage". Innovation. 2 (3): 100130. Bibcode:2021Innov...200130N. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100130. PMC   8454562 . PMID   34557770. S2CID   236784246.
  9. Chen, F.; Welker, F.; Shen, C.-C.; et al. (2019). "A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau" (PDF). Nature. 569 (7756): 409–412. Bibcode:2019Natur.569..409C. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1139-x. PMID   31043746. S2CID   141503768.
  10. Schmalzer, Sigrid (2008). The People's Peking Man: Popular Science and Human Identity in Twentieth-Century China. University of Chicago Press. pp. 530–532. ISBN   978-0226738604.
  11. 1 2 Manzi, G. (2016). "Humans of the Middle Pleistocene: The controversial calvarium from Ceprano (Italy) and its significance for the origin and variability of Homo heidelbergensis". Quaternary International. 411: 254–261. Bibcode:2016QuInt.411..254M. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.047.
  12. 1 2 Stringer, C. B. (2012). "The status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908)". Evolutionary Anthropology. 21 (3): 101–104. doi:10.1002/evan.21311. PMID   22718477. S2CID   205826399.
  13. Mounier, A.; Condemi, S.; Manzi, G. (2011). "The Stem Species of Our Species: A Place for the Archaic Human Cranium from Ceprano, Italy". PLOS ONE. 6 (4): e18821. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...618821M. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018821 . PMC   3080388 . PMID   21533096.
  14. Bae, Christopher J.; Liu, Wu; Wu, Xiujie; Zhang, Yameng; Ni, Xijun (2023-11-13). ""Dragon man" prompts rethinking of Middle Pleistocene hominin systematics in Asia". The Innovation . 4 (6): 100527. Bibcode:2023Innov...400527B. doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2023.100527. ISSN   2666-6758. PMC   10661591 . PMID   38028133.
  15. Ji, Qiang; Wu, Wensheng; Ji, Yannan; Li, Qiang; Ni, Xijun (2021-06-25). "Late Middle Pleistocene Harbin cranium represents a new Homo species". The Innovation. 2 (3): 100132. Bibcode:2021Innov...200132J. doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100132 . ISSN   2666-6758. PMC   8454552 . PMID   34557772.
  16. Hershkovitz, I.; May, H.; Sarig, R.; et al. (2021). "A Middle Pleistocene Homo from Nesher Ramla, Israel". Science. 372 (6549): 1424–1428. Bibcode:2021Sci...372.1424H. doi:10.1126/science.abh3169. S2CID   235628111.
  17. Maba skull Archived 2016-05-27 at the Wayback Machine , Australian museum
  18. Lu, Z. (1989): Date of Jinniushan man and his position in human evolution. Liaohai Wenwu Xuekan no 1, pp 44-55
  19. Wu, R-K (1988): The reconstruction of the fossil human skull from Jinniushan, Yinkou, Liaoning Province and its main features. Acta Anthropologica Sinica No 7, pp 97-101
  20. Brown, P.: Jinniushan skull Archived 2012-02-10 at the Wayback Machine
  21. Cameron, D., Patnaik, R. & Sahni, A. (2004): The phylogenetic significance of the Middle Pleistocene Narmada hominin cranium from central India. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, vol. 14, Issue 6, pp 419-447 summary Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine
  22. Reich, D; Green, RE; Kircher, M; Krause, J; Patterson, N; Durand, EY; Bence, V; Briggs, AW; Stenzel, U; Johnson, PLF; et al. (2010). "Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia". Nature. 468 (7327): 1053–1060. Bibcode:2010Natur.468.1053R. doi:10.1038/nature09710. hdl:10230/25596. PMC   4306417 . PMID   21179161.
  23. Bower, B (2010). "Ancient DNA suggests new hominid line". Science News. 177 (9): 5–6. doi:10.1002/scin.5591770904.
  24. Reich; et al. (2011). "Denisova Admixture and the First Modern Human Dispersals into Southeast Asia and Oceania". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 89 (4): 516–528. doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.09.005. PMC   3188841 . PMID   21944045.
  25. M. J. Hubisz et al. (2020). Mapping gene flow between ancient hominins through demography-aware inference of the ancestral recombination graph. PLoS Genet 16 (8): e1008895; doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008895, see also:

34°52′N109°44′E / 34.867°N 109.733°E / 34.867; 109.733