Make sure you check out part one of my blog, published two weeks ago.
Teeth came up in another story in 2010. Researchers were quoted as saying that modern humans, traditionally thought to have evolved roughly 200,000 years ago in East Africa, now might be 400,000 years old. In addition, they may have evolved in Israel rather than Africa. Twice as old and not from Africa, was the message spread by the media. The evidence? A few teeth found in Qesem Cave.
However, a word of caution is in order here. What was reported in the media was not what the scientists had said. In fact, they had implored the members of the press not to engage in hyperbole and present hypotheticals as proven facts. They were ignored. Someone called the media on this and chastised them for engaging in “science by press release.”
DNA made the headlines several times this past year. In August scientists announced that they had decoded famous ice man Oetzi’s genome. This is interesting in itself; it would be even more interesting if we could compare his genetic makeup with the genome of the Tarim Basin mummies. Such a genome has not been decoded yet, so we will have to wait. Imagine, however, the potential such a comparison would present to evaluate the origins of these Caucasoid mummies.
|Oetzi the Iceman: as exhibited in Museum Bélesta (Ariège), France;
reconstruction of his equipment. Photo by: Gerbil
What lessons can we draw from all this?
First, it seems that a lot of trailblazing research is now based on minute amounts of evidence, a finger bone here, and a few teeth there.
Second, the fact that we are dealing with minute amounts of information does not detract from the importance of the scientific contributions these data have made.
Third, some of the data are microscopically small. Size notwithstanding, DNA and DNA analysis have become a very valuable component in retracing human origins.
I would like to end with an observation and a comment.
In March 2010, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History proudly opened its doors on the completely renovated David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins. It is a wonderful exhibit, sharing with millions of visitors the scientific basis of our understanding of human evolution.
On display for the first three months were three original fossils, one Cro-Magnon and two Neanderthals. Their presence was announced with great pride in the original press release. A review by a leading US newspaper stated: “Because of the fragility of human remains, only a handful of actual fossils are on display, diminishing the sense of wonder the real thing always inspires.”
Interestingly, the reference to the original fossils was missing in other (presumably later) online versions of that same announcement. Instead, we only find a reference to “a display of more than 75 skulls (exact replicas).”
Here is a photograph as it appeared in the media (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin), showcasing two of the three original skulls on display.
|photo credit: Ryan Somma|
The caption read :
“Fossil skulls of La Ferrassie Neanderthal, left, and Cro-Magnon, that are on a three-month loan from the Musée de l’Homme in France, are seen in the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins exhibit at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington. Scientists think DNA analysis of Siberian genetic material may have revealed yet another branch of the human tree.”
In an age where the human attention span seems to be measured in minutes, let alone days or even years, it is good to remember that in 2007, there was another original fossil on display in the US. The venue was the Houston Museum of Natural Science. The original fossil involved was that of Lucy.
In a very savvy media campaign, several leading paleoanthropologists engaged in variations of an ad hominem attack, and used rather unfortunate language to refer to the museum, as well as the curator of the exhibit.
The scientists who opposed Lucy going on display all invoked the same document, a 1998 statement drafted by the International Association for the Study of Human Paleontology. The second resolution in this document declares:
“We strongly recommend that original hominid fossils should not be transported beyond the country of origin unless there are compelling scientific reasons which must include the demonstration that the proposed investigations cannot proceed in the foreseeable future in the country of origin.”
Less than three years after invoking this document, the National Museum of Natural History now finds itself doing the very same thing it once so vehemently opposed. Moreover, an internet search in the days following the opening of the new hall in Washington failed to identify any criticism by the same individuals who in the previous case had brought out the big guns. As the first anniversary of the hall is just around the corner, still not a word of criticism has been uttered.
As someone once said: “Isn’t that special?”