Talk:Homo naledi

Theory that smoke siege from cave attackers is cause of Naledi bodies?

It is an unattractive theory, but mammals rarely venture into claustrophobic, damp, dark, recessed caves, so the small brained Naledi either had fire or a reason why it wasnt damp dark and recessed.

If Naledi specimens didn't end up deep in the cave willingly or by burial "behavior", seeing as they shared Africa with larger brained homo species, They may have been trapped in the cave and smoked out... with a large fire at the entrance. That would have caused a number of small specimens to crawl to the deepest part of the cave and to die there and not be recuperated. Indeed there have been caves where large numbers of men women and children were found grouped at the back of the cave due to a fire at the entrance in bronce age times, which are well documented.

Examples of bodies grouped in a cave after suffocation are:

Eigg, Scotland, 1577,

Dunmore, Ireland, 928

Apache Death cave, Arizona, 1878

Kadjenica cave Slovenia 1814

also see sculptors sacrificial cave, 1000BC

and other grizzly things on this page http://listverse.com/2014/03/19/10-scary-holes-with-deadly-pasts/ The cave i had read about was a mystery until relatively recently and contained a small village of people.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeinthetrees (talk • contribs) 14:10, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

Interesting conjecture. The evidence so far suggests that the bodies (alive or dead) did not enter the Dinaledi chamber all at one time (Mentioned under Deliberate placement of bodies hypotheses: ". . . the bones did not accumulate there all at once."), but over an extended period (of tens to tens-of-thousands of years? – I will need to re-read the papers at some point to check this). However, such a tactic could have been used repeatedly over a long period. If the papers don't explicitly rule out such a scenario, (or even implicitly permit it), perhaps an email enquiry to one of the lead researchers (Berger or Hawks) might be in order.

For interest, have you references for the Bronze Age examples? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.60.183 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i added some references. cheers

Tswaing crater is of the same age as the Naledi remains. A distance of 70 km separates the two sites. A meteor of that size would have led to a powerful shock wave and fires over a large area. Clearly soot and ash layers would have resulted, and possibly an iridium layer. Paul venter (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete opinions

The entire Opinions section was accumulated before Dirks et al. had found the true age of the fossils in May 2017; that is, ~300 kya instead of over a million years. The greater portion of those opinions ("...the significance of this discovery is unknown until dating has been completed...", "...without an age there is no way to judge the evolutionary significance of this find" plus Bernard Wood, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, etc.) seems to be based on the old estimates. IMO, the overwhelming majority of additions to the Opinions section (and possibly other sections as well) no longer apply.

What do we do when there's a major shakeup in an article (like the new dating) and every conclusion reached before that date is suspect? Do we simply delete those opinions before that date? (The entire Opinions section will disappear.) Change the section title to "Historical opinions"? (Do we want historical opinions in a scientific article?)

From a WP:NPOV viewpoint, do old and probably obsolete opinions have any WP:Weight at all? Can we, as the editors of the H. naledi article, make decisions regarding weight? (If not us, who?) Are there any rules beside common sense? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

depends how much traction the ideas had. Might be better to combine the early opinions as initial reaction to the discovery. Puts subsequent analysis and import into context. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to tweak some tenses used in the paras containing the opinions so as to minimise the mis-match between pre-dating stances and the dating now published. I decided not to delete anything because (a) some of the citations may still be of interest and (b) some of the opinions mixed dating-dependent observations with other, still valid, questions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.201.233 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• While this discussion is a bit old, imagine if Wikipedia was around when Lucy was discovered, or T. rex for that matter. At first there would be a bevy of verifiable news items, as every paleontologist weighs in or gives quotes to media. Books upon books have been written on certain subjects, but we as editors must periodically edit and curate, such that articles do not become bloated lists of "Scientist X said Y on this date. Then Professor Q said Z on this date. Then the President of Foobania proclaimed XYZ. One year later, Professor Q said R." Try to keep things in perspective, e.g. what will likely still be salient in 5 years, and realize the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to document every bit of scholarly opinion (that's for scholars to do), but to summarize the essential knowledge as currently recognized. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Good point. I would delete those "opinions", but redact a paragraph (if not aleready there) on the polarity of the early (pre-dating) opinions. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Species articles written in singular form

This article is about a single species and therefore should be written in the singular form, not the plural. See Homo sapiens, Australopithecus afarensis, and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) for other hominin examples. Sorry for spamming this on multiple talk pages but it seems multiple articles have been changed to the plural form for some reason? Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean there's no real prescribed policy on using singular vs plural (just that you stay consistent within the article), but if we're trying to set a precedent for archaic humans, Neanderthal, which just got to GA yesterday, uses plural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've continued the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Species articles written in singular form. Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll just copy/paste my response over there then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Homo naledi femur.jpg
• Homo naledi mandible.jpg
• Homo naledi metacarpals.jpg
• Homo naledi pelvic specimens.jpg
• Homo naledi reconstruction of the endocranium.jpg
• Homo naledi tibia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Discovered in September 2013. Berger latched on, in October

See section "Discovery", this [1] version. It seems that Berger had nothing to do with the discoveries in September 2013. 89.8.158.26 (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In the original version of the paragraph, I cited https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-latest-on-homo-naledi in which John Hawks says "Hunter and Tucker were working with South African paleoanthropologist Lee Berger, hoping to identify new cave settings with evidence of our fossil ancestors and relatives"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor made a similar comment on User talk:Dudley Miles, which is copied here with my reply:

[2] Sources shows that Homo Naledi was discovered in September 2013. The two discoverers went back - and then under the direction of Lee Berger - to the cave in October 2013, perhaps a re-discovery in your eyes. See "Discovery" section, this [3] version. 89.8.158.26 (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

According to Ed Yong in the source you cite at [4], "The project became so all-encompassing that in 2013, Berger, an explorer at heart, realized that he had stopped exploring. To rectify that, he enlisted two cavers, Rick Hunter and Steve Tucker, to explore other South African caves that might yield important fossils. The Rising Star Cave was one of them." Does any reliable source deny that the cave was originally selected by Berger? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm gonna go ahead and remove your redundant paragraph (it talks about exactly the same things as the paragraph underneath it)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• "My" cited source (one of discoverers, Tucker) says that the site and its fossils were discovered on 13 September 2013 by Tucker and Hunter; before they entered the cave that day "the cavers knew that a scientist in Johannesburg was looking for bones";
  What Ed Yong says, is that on 1 October photos were shown "to Pedro Boshoff and then to Lee" Berger.
  Your version says what happened in October - and yes in October, then Tucker and Hunter were working for Berger. However, your version does not say what happened in September! (Therefore, I recommend that you do not remove sourced info about September!). 89.8.158.26 (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• You are wrong. Yong does not say anything about Boshoff. He says that Tucker and Hunter were commissioned to look at a list of caves including Rising Star. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, we know what happened in October 2013 (after 1 October). However, just because you (or others) are choosing not to say what happened in September 2013, then I recommend that you do not remove from the article, what other sources (Tucker) has said about September 2013. 89.8.158.26 (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yong says Berger was motivated by the 2008 A. sediba discovery to hire cavers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

"Your" text on Wikipedia is not telling the story about the discovery in September. (And yes, Berger did hire cavers in October 2013, when the cavers revisited their discovery from the previous month (September).

Therefore I recommend that you do not remove from the article, what other sources (Tucker) has said about September 2013.

If my "underground-astronaut language" is not clear, then please let me know. 89.8.158.26 (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Homo naledi femur.jpg
• Homo naledi foot.jpg
• Homo naledi hand.jpg
• Homo naledi mandible.jpg
• Homo naledi metacarpals.jpg
• Homo naledi pelvic specimens.jpg
• Homo naledi reconstruction of the endocranium.jpg
• Homo naledi skeletal specimens.jpg
• Homo naledi tibia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

National Geographic Sponsorship?

Shouldn't the sponsorship and filming of the archaeological dig, through National Geographic, be included in this article? It is what enabled the successful recovery of these archaeological artifacts... by financing the excavation. Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Gonna need an update

It seems they were able to control fire. . User:Jwissick (talk) 02:24, December 3, 2022

• We should wait for a published, peer-reviewed report Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• New Scientist says that Chris Stringer has criticised Berger for publishing the claim before the charcoal has been dated, which is further reason for us to hold off. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes - *entirely* agree - a better presentation of all this in the responsible scientific literature would be preferred of course - nonetheless - my earlier post (since reverted) was as follows (updated with my published NYT comment):
"In June 2023, The New York Times reported further studies supporting the notion that H. naledi buried their dead, created art in their caves and used fire."
in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

More here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Yes but that's not an actual study, it's more like rumors, or the authors still formulating their paper and prematurely sensationalizing their hypotheses Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Details of site location

"discovered in 2013 in the Rising Star Cave, Cradle of Humankind" These details at the head of the article are a little unclear, and perhaps assume greater knowledge than is reasonable on the part of the general reader. Currently the text might be taken to suggest that the Rising Star cave is being referred to as 'The cradle of mankind.' I would suggest that the amendation'Rising Star system' would make clearer that the fossils were discovered in a known and explored geological feature. It would also be better to indicate that 'The Cradle of Mankind' is a label (Not entirely scientific) distinct from the Rising Star Cave location which denotes a considerably wider district of South Africa where significant early and pre-human remains have been found. Putting the link in brackets thus : (see 'The cradle of mankind.') would be a simple way of achieving that. JF42 (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

what about "in Rising Star Cave in the Cradle of Humankind, South Africa"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Tool?

Berger presents the possibility of a tool in Cave of Bones. 142.163.195.114 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Afterlife" neutrality

I'm not certain but it seems to me stating "that a hominid species had developed a concept of the afterlife so early in time" ("the" afterlife rather than "an") seems to suggest a formal or singular afterlife. Could this be updated to "an afterlife belief" to be more neutral? Odin Vex (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)