EL CRÁNEO 5: CONTROVERSIA POR DMANISI
En efecto, tal como suele
depararnos el mundillo paleoantropológico, una polémica más que agria se ha desatado
en lo que respecta a la interpretación de los fósiles de humanos de Dmanisi. Se
trata de los restos humanos más antiguos hallados fuera de África: cerca de 1,8
millones de años de antigüedad. Como era
de esperar los dueños del hallazgo (el equipo georgiano-alemán bajo la
dirección del profesor David Lordkipanidze) suelen aferrarse con uñas y dientes a la idea de que
su hallazgo representa un cambio de paradigma en la historia humana o algo por
el estilo. Tal cosa se da sistemáticamente en todos los grandes sitios donde
algún antropólogo hace un hallazgo “espectacular”: la Cuna de la Humanidad,
Atapuerca, Zoukoudian…
En este caso los
realizadores del hallazgo de Dmanisi (Georgia) han optado por bautizar una
nueva especie: el Homo georgicus. Sin embargo desde un principio varios autores
han sugerido que los restos en realidad pertenecen a dos especies distintas de
humanos. Quienes establecieron la discrepancia con la interpretación oficial
fueron los miembros de un equipo de investigación español que trabajó en el
área bajo la dirección de José María Bermúdez de Castro. Este equipo fue el
primero en señalar que el cráneo D 4500 (Cráneo 5) y la mandíbula D 2600
pertenecen a una especie distinta respecto a los demás fósiles. También el
norteamericano Matthew Skinner señaló en su momento que el rango de
variabilidad en el tamaño macho-hembra que sugieren los restos de Dmanisi era
superior al de los gorilas. En efecto se trataría de un individuo de complexión
física y robustez casi descomunal si se los compara con la gracilidad y
pequeñez de los otros. 
El primer fósil encontrado
en Dmanisi fue la mandíbula D 211, la que fue comparada con los primeros Homo
africanos (habilis y rudolfensis). No fue hasta 2.000, cuando apareció la gran
mandíbula D 2600 que un equipo franco-georgiano propuso que se trataba de una
nueva especie de homínido (Homo georgicus). 
El 20 de febrero de 2014
la revista PLOS ONE publica el trabajo del equipo de José María Bermúdez de
Castro donde se expone la evidencia respecto a que los restos de Dmanisi
pertenecen a dos especies distintas. Posiblemente ambas especies coexistieron,
si bien el trabajo del geólogo Mark Jan Sier ha cuestionado la identificación
de los niveles geológicos de la cueva. Eso quiere decir que podría haber
diferencias importantes de tiempo entre los fósiles. De todos modos no quedan
lugar a dudas respecto a que la variedad morfológica de las mandíbulas es
demasiado grande para aceptar que se trata de la misma especie. La mayoría de
los restos pertenecerían a un homínido pequeño similar a habilis o ergaster
temprano. Únicamente la mandíbula D 2600 y el cráneo D 4500 serían atribuibles a
una nueva especie: el Homo georgicus, de tamaño más grande y características
morfológicas en algunos aspectos similares a neanderthalensis.El equipo de David Lordkipanidze ha replicado con una nueva hipótesis. De hecho ha cuestionado la existencia misma de las especies habilis y rudolfensis, proponiendo la existencia de una única especie: Homo erectus. En realidad se trata de una radicalización de una idea que mantiene un sector importante del academicismo antropológico. Desde hace un tiempo se viene proponiendo que el número de especies homínidas clasificadas taxonómicamente son una exageración. Basados en que el hombre moderno posee un rango de variabilidad morfológica atípica creen que debe seguirse el mismo criterio al momento de tratar con restos fósiles de humanos primitivos. Si están datados en fechas cronológicas próximas se trataría de una única especie sin importar las variaciones morfológicas o la distancia geográfica.
De más está decir que atribuir todos los restos fósiles humanos entre los 2 millones y 30.000 años a Homo erectus es un reduccionismo importante. La hipótesis de Bermúdez de Castro reaviva la polémica sobre el primer homínido que salió de África y, de hecho, obliga a repensar la hipótesis del Homo erectus tal como pretende reavivarla el equipo de Lordkipanidze. Un frondoso árbol genealógico con múltiples especies (o cuasi-especies) coexistiendo es precisamente admisible para cualquier modelo de evolución aplicado a cualquier especie animal. El hecho de que la variabilidad genética se le sea negada al ser humano es claramente un prejuicio antropocéntrico. Queramos creerlo o no los humanos, en el fondo, seguimos creyéndonos algo distinto a los animales.
ARTICLE IN ENGLISH (there
may be errors in translation)
SKULL 5: CONTROVERSY BY Dmanisi
Indeed, as is often the paleoanthropological scene store for us, but bitter controversy has broken out in regard to the interpretation of human Dmanisi fossils. It is the oldest human remains found outside of Africa about 1.8 million years old. As expected the owners of finding (the Georgian-German team under the direction of Professor David Lordkipanidze) often cling fiercely to the idea that his discovery represents a paradigm shift in human history or something like that. Such a thing is given systematically to all the great sites where some anthropologist makes a "spectacular" discovery: the Cradle of Humankind, Atapuerca, Zoukoudian ...
In this case the filmmakers of the discovery of Dmanisi (Georgia) have chosen to christen a new species: Homo georgicus. But from the beginning, several authors have suggested that the remains actually belong to two distinct species of human. Who established the discrepancy with the official interpretation were members of a Spanish research team that worked in the area under the direction of Jose Maria Bermudez de Castro. This team was the first to point out that the skull D 4500 (Skull 5) and the mandible D 2600 belong to a different species compared to other fossils. American Matthew Skinner also said at the time that the range of variability in the male-female suggested the remains of Dmanisi size was higher than the gorillas. Indeed it would be a guy almost hulking physique and strength if compared with the gracefulness and smallness of others.
The first fossil was found in Dmanisi mandible D 211, which was compared to the early African Homo (habilis and rudolfensis). It was not until 2000, when appeared the great jaw D 2600 that a French-Georgian team proposed that it was a new species of hominid (Homo georgicus).
The February 20, 2014 PLoS ONE publishes the work of the team of Jose Maria Bermudez de Castro where evidence is exposed regarding the Dmanisi remains belong to two different species. Possibly both species coexisted, although the work of geologist Mark Jan Sier has questioned the identification of geological levels of the cave. That means it could be significant timing differences between fossils. Anyway there are no doubt as to the morphological variety of the jaws is too great to accept that it is the same species. Most of the remains belong to a small hominid like habilis ergaster or early. Only the jaw and skull D 2600 D 4500 would be attributed to a new species: Homo georgicus, bigger and morphological characteristics in some aspects similar to neanderthalensis size.
David Lordkipanidze team has replicated with a new hypothesis. In fact it questioned the very existence of the species habilis and rudolfensis, suggesting the existence of a single species: Homo erectus. Actually it is a radicalization of an idea that remains an important sector of anthropological scholarship. For some time it has been proposed that the number of hominid species are taxonomically classified exaggeration. Based on that modern man has a range of morphological variability atypical believe the same approach when dealing with fossils of early humans must be followed. If they dated in chronological dates next it would be a unique species regardless of morphological variation or geographic distance.
It goes without saying that attribute all human fossils between 2 million and 30,000 years is an important reductionism. The hypothesis Bermudez de Castro revived the controversy over the first hominid that left Africa and, indeed, forces us to rethink the assumption of Homo erectus as the team aims to revive Lordkipanidze. A leafy family tree with multiple species (or quasi-species) coexisting is precisely permissible for any model of evolution applied to any animal species. The fact that the genetic variability will be denied the human being is clearly an anthropocentric prejudice. Whether we believe it or not human, basically, we continue thinking ourselves something different animals.
Indeed, as is often the paleoanthropological scene store for us, but bitter controversy has broken out in regard to the interpretation of human Dmanisi fossils. It is the oldest human remains found outside of Africa about 1.8 million years old. As expected the owners of finding (the Georgian-German team under the direction of Professor David Lordkipanidze) often cling fiercely to the idea that his discovery represents a paradigm shift in human history or something like that. Such a thing is given systematically to all the great sites where some anthropologist makes a "spectacular" discovery: the Cradle of Humankind, Atapuerca, Zoukoudian ...
In this case the filmmakers of the discovery of Dmanisi (Georgia) have chosen to christen a new species: Homo georgicus. But from the beginning, several authors have suggested that the remains actually belong to two distinct species of human. Who established the discrepancy with the official interpretation were members of a Spanish research team that worked in the area under the direction of Jose Maria Bermudez de Castro. This team was the first to point out that the skull D 4500 (Skull 5) and the mandible D 2600 belong to a different species compared to other fossils. American Matthew Skinner also said at the time that the range of variability in the male-female suggested the remains of Dmanisi size was higher than the gorillas. Indeed it would be a guy almost hulking physique and strength if compared with the gracefulness and smallness of others.
The first fossil was found in Dmanisi mandible D 211, which was compared to the early African Homo (habilis and rudolfensis). It was not until 2000, when appeared the great jaw D 2600 that a French-Georgian team proposed that it was a new species of hominid (Homo georgicus).
The February 20, 2014 PLoS ONE publishes the work of the team of Jose Maria Bermudez de Castro where evidence is exposed regarding the Dmanisi remains belong to two different species. Possibly both species coexisted, although the work of geologist Mark Jan Sier has questioned the identification of geological levels of the cave. That means it could be significant timing differences between fossils. Anyway there are no doubt as to the morphological variety of the jaws is too great to accept that it is the same species. Most of the remains belong to a small hominid like habilis ergaster or early. Only the jaw and skull D 2600 D 4500 would be attributed to a new species: Homo georgicus, bigger and morphological characteristics in some aspects similar to neanderthalensis size.
David Lordkipanidze team has replicated with a new hypothesis. In fact it questioned the very existence of the species habilis and rudolfensis, suggesting the existence of a single species: Homo erectus. Actually it is a radicalization of an idea that remains an important sector of anthropological scholarship. For some time it has been proposed that the number of hominid species are taxonomically classified exaggeration. Based on that modern man has a range of morphological variability atypical believe the same approach when dealing with fossils of early humans must be followed. If they dated in chronological dates next it would be a unique species regardless of morphological variation or geographic distance.
It goes without saying that attribute all human fossils between 2 million and 30,000 years is an important reductionism. The hypothesis Bermudez de Castro revived the controversy over the first hominid that left Africa and, indeed, forces us to rethink the assumption of Homo erectus as the team aims to revive Lordkipanidze. A leafy family tree with multiple species (or quasi-species) coexisting is precisely permissible for any model of evolution applied to any animal species. The fact that the genetic variability will be denied the human being is clearly an anthropocentric prejudice. Whether we believe it or not human, basically, we continue thinking ourselves something different animals.
Mandíbulas de
Dmanisi: D 2600 (izquierda de la imagen) y D 2735. La escala tiene seis
centímetros.
http://reflexiones-de-un-primate.blogs.quo.es/files/2014/02/dmanisi.jpghttp://reflexiones-de-un-primate.blogs.quo.es/2014/02/21/dmanisi-una-o-dos-especies/
José
María Bermúdez de Castro, María Martinón-Torres, Mark Jan Sier, Laura
Martín-Francés: On the Variability of the Dmanisi Mandibles (PLOS ONE. Published: February 20, 2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088212) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088212
http://www.sinapsit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/image8.png
http://www.sinapsit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/image7.pnghttp://esmateria.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dmanisi_skull5.jpg
http://www.sinapsit.com/dmanisi-unica-especie-2-millones-de-anos/
http://redhistoria.com/estudios-en-un-yacimiento-de-georgia-revelan-dos-especies-diferentes-de-homo/#.VjurC1JdGUk
http://redhistoria.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/mandibulas-dos-especies-de-homo.jpg
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario