LINGJING SITE (HENAN, CHINA) SKULL DISCOVERY.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

This story has been spreading around over the last four days. A bit of media hype, but nothing compared to what we would get if “westerners” had been involved in the ongoing research. I suppose that this is something that Chinese researchers have yet to master.

Anyway, you can have a look at Yahoo’s and Reuters versions HERE, and HERE.


You will note that the find has yet to be precisely dated. It is reported that they could range between 25,000 and 400,000 ky in the Yahoo report, and the Reuters’one refers to an age of 100,000 ky, while a Chinese correspondant mentions a possible age of 80 – 100, 000 ky.

Also tantalizing are the references, in the media reports, to the discovery of a fossilized membrane on the inner side of the skull (something that has been briefly commented upon by John Hawks, ( HERE). Equally interesting is the correspondant’s refence to the fact that “many stone artifacts and animal bones”  were found.

Since the site was only discovered a month ago, I guess we will have to be patient for additional details to slowly trickle in and, in the meantime you can have a look at three newspaper images that are a bit more informative than the one(s) provided by the western media.

Finally, if you want to have a look at Chinese newspaper(s) images that are bit larger and more interesting than what we have been fed by our media, have a look

HERE,

HERE, and

HERE.

The first one (a) is a better version than what has been shown so far on the web, the second one (b) is particularly interesting in that it shows (I assume) the inner fossilized membrane mentioned earlier, and the third one (c) is a pretty good picture of the site under excavation.

By the way, the name of the site (Lingjing) was provided by the Chinese correspondant who kindly sent the images.

Jacques

[AWSX]

Rather hard to determine much from the photos of the fragments but the vault does appear to be rather high. Also the shading on some of the photos make the brow ridge appear to be very significant. Guess we will have to wait for a paper and the reconstruction.

From some of the comments in the news articles, I am getting the impression that the Chinese consider this to be early evidence of modern humans in East Asia.

There was a discovery in Liujiang several years ago that was intriguing http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021221/fob1.asp. Does anyone know if the dating has been refined?

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Rather hard to determine much from the photos of the fragments but the vault does appear to be rather high. Also the shading on some of the photos make the brow ridge appear to be very significant. Guess we will have to wait for a paper and the reconstruction.

From some of the comments in the news articles, I am getting the impression that the Chinese consider this to be early evidence of modern humans in East Asia.

There was a discovery in Liujiang several years ago that was intriguing http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021221/fob1.asp. Does anyone know if the dating has been refined?

Regarding the most recent paper I have read that deals in part with Liujiang:

LIUJIANG

Shen, Guanjun and Véronique Michel. 2007. Chronological position of modern Homo sapiens sites in China based on U-series dating. L’Anthropologie 111: 157–165.

Abstract:
The origin and evolution of modern Homo sapiens has been the subject of an intensive debate between exponents of two competing hypotheses, multiregional origins and ‘‘recent out of Africa’’. This paper presents a synthesis of the chronological studies on seven hominid sites in China based on the U-series dating, five of them of intercalated speleothem calcites and other two of fossil materials. The results show that modern humans were present in China about 100 ka ago, much earlier than previously estimated, and that the so-called ‘‘temporal gap’’ of human presence in China between 40 and 100 ka is most probably nothing but an artifact caused by systematic errors of the dating methods. Further multidisciplinary studies on hominid sites in China may provide important evidence for resolving the hotly debated issues concerning the origin of modern humans.

Here is (in French) what the authors have to say about the stratigraphic position of the find, and its possible chronological placement.

2.1. La datation du site de l’Homme de Liujiang

Les restes fossiles de l’Homme de Liujiang, un des représentants les plus complets del’Homme moderne en Chine, ont été découverts, associés à une faune Ailuropoda-Stegodon, dans la grotte de Tongtianyan, à 16 km au sud de la ville de Liuzhou dans le Guangxi (Woo, 1959). Yuan et al. (1986) ont daté le deuxième plancher stalagmitique de ce site par la méthode U-Th et ont obtenu une date de  67 ka. Cinq restes fauniques fossiles ont été également analysés par les méthodes 230Th/234Uet 231Pa/235U, donnant des dates concordantes comprises entre 95 et 227 ka. Cependant, à cause de l’incertitude de la provenance des fossiles humains, ces dates ont été généralement négligées. L’âge le plus fréquemment cité dans la littérature pour l’Homme de Liujiang est de l’ordre de 20 ka. Le remplissage sédimentaire de cette grotte, épais de 8 m, se divise en trois ensembles: l’ensemble supérieur constitué de planchers stalagmitiques et d’argiles sableuses meubles et stériles ; l’ensemble meédian constitué d’argiles sableuses cimentées par des carbonates et graveleuses fossilifères ; l’ensemble inférieur constitué de sables limoneux fluviatiles.Une brèche légèrement cimentée en forme de cône s’enfonce dans la partie supérieure de l’ensemble médian. Cinq couches de plancher stalagmitique et deux autres spéléothèmes ont été analysés par la méthode U-Th (alpha etTIMS).Le deuxièmeplancher stalagmitique qui recouvre la brèche est date par TIMS de 61  68 ka. Ce qui représente un âge minimum pour la brèche dont serait originaire le squelette humain. D’après les résultats d’analyse obtenus, deux hypothèses sont possibles : l’âge de la brèche est compris entre 153 et 68 ka et plus probablement entre 139 et 111 ka. Et d’après l’étude stratigraphique du site, il est aussi possible que le squelette soit plus ancien que 153 ka. Ces résultats en font l’Homme moderne le plus ancien de l’est de l’Asie (Shen et al., 2002).

If I can find time, I’ll try to come up with a quick and dirty translation! In the meantime, do a SEARCH for Liujiang on PALANTH. This should give you access to additional pointers.

Jacques

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

For your information:

HERE is, from National Geographic, a brief addendum to the recent “Henan skull” story. But for the usual, cautious comments "de circonstance" by Stringer and Trinkaus, it adds very little to what has already been circulated by various media outlets.

Jacques

[aggsbach]

Jacques,

The "membrane" seems to be a part of the preserved meninges and the vessels seen on the second picture are parts of the middle meningeal artery  ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_meningeal_artery)

Johannes

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Jacques,

The "membrane" seems to be a part of the preserved meninges and the vessels seen on the second picture are parts of the middle meningeal artery  ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_meningeal_artery)

Johannes

Dear Johannes,

Thanks for this nice and informative addition to the initial Lingjing site post which -- for people who have yet to read it –- can be found HERE.

Jacques