Hominin Head-Scratcher: Who Butchered This Rhino 709,000 Years Ago?

By Gemma Tarlach | May 2, 2018 12:00 pm
Researchers say cut and percussion marks on a rhino suggest a hominin presence in the Philippines more than 700,000 years ago, ten times earlier than previously known. (Credit Ignicco et al 2018, 10.1038/s41586-018-0072-8)

Researchers say cut and percussion marks on a rhino suggest a hominin presence in the Philippines more than 700,000 years ago, ten times earlier than previously known. (Credit Ignicco et al 2018, 10.1038/s41586-018-0072-8)

More than 700,000 years ago, in what’s now the north end of the Philippines, a hominin (or a whole bunch of them) butchered a rhino, systematically cracking open its bones to access the nutritious marrow within, according to a new study.

There’s just one problem: The find is more than ten times older than any human fossil recovered from the islands, and our species hadn’t even evolved that early.

Okay, so, maybe it was an archaic hominin, you’re thinking, maybe Homo erectus or some other now-extinct species. But there’s a problem with that line of thought, too.

According to the conventional view in paleoanthropology, only our species, Homo sapiens, had the cognitive capacity to construct watercraft. And to reach the island where the rhino was found, well, like Chief Brody says, “you’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

So who sucked the marrow from the poor dead rhino’s bones? It’s a whodunit with the final chapter yet to be written.

A single foot bone that’s about 67,000 years old is currently the oldest human fossil found in the Philippines (fun fact: the bone was found in Callao Cave, not far from Kalinga, the site of today’s discovery).

For more than half a century, however, some paleoanthropologists have hypothesized that hominins reached the archipelago much earlier. The pro-early presence camp has cited stone tools and animal remains originally excavated separately in the mid-20th century, but critics have noted there’s no direct association between the tools and bones, and the finds have lacked robust dating.

The larger obstacle in the eyes of the anti-early presence camp is all wet.

At numerous times in our recent history, geologically speaking, falling sea levels have exposed land surfaces now underwater, connecting islands and even continents to each other. The land bridge of Beringia is perhaps the most famous, joining what’s now Alaska with Russia at several points in time.

Land bridges were a thing in the broad span of geography between China, Southeast Asia and Australia, too.

An example of how much land can be exposed during periods of sea level drop. A team of researchers not involved in today's study created this map in 2015 as a paleogeographical reconstruction of Palawan Island, in the Philippines. The site mentioned in the new research is from the northern part of Luzon, top center of the map. (Credit Robles, Emil, et al. "Late Quaternary sea-level changes and the palaeohistory of Palawan Island, Philippines." The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10.1 (2015): 76-96.)

An example of how much land can be exposed during periods of sea level drop. A team of researchers not involved in today’s study created this map in 2015 as a paleogeographical reconstruction of Palawan Island, in the Philippines. The site mentioned in the new research is from the northern part of Luzon, top center of the map. (Credit Robles, Emil, et al. “Late Quaternary sea-level changes and the palaeohistory of Palawan Island, Philippines.” The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10.1 (2015): 76-96.)

These lost land bridges made it possible for animals — including humans and other members of our hominin family — to expand into places that are now island nations, such as Indonesia. But although the Philippine archipelago once had more real estate, several of its islands were never joined to the mainland. And that’s where today’s mystery begins.

Stones and Bones

Researchers working at a site in the northern part of the island of Luzon report the discovery of 57 stone tools found with more than 400 animal bones, including the mostly-complete remains of a rhino (the now-extinct Rhinoceros philippinensis, a poorly known subspecies… having a specimen that’s about 75 percent complete is an achievement in and of itself).

Using the electron-spin resonance method on its tooth enamel, the team established that the rhino was about 709,000 years old. Thirteen of its bones, according to the study’s authors, showed signs of butchering, including cuts and “percussion marks” on both humeri (forelimb bones), which is typical of smashing open a bone to access the marrow.

Alas, none of the bones found belonged to a hominin, which not only could have told us the butcher’s identity but also confirmed that butchering took place.

If you’re thinking it sounds kind of familiar to read a Dead Things post about apparent stone tools beside an animal that appears to have been butchered at a time and place out of sync with the human evolution timeline, well, you’re not wrong.

You may recall, about a year ago, the not-insignificant hullabaloo that erupted over claims that a hominin had processed a mastodon carcass in what’s now Southern California 130,000 years ago — more than 110,000 years before humans arrived on the continent, according to the conventional timeline. The skeptical pushback about the Californian find continues, most recently in February in Nature, and the claim is unlikely to be taken seriously unless a hominin fossil turns up.

Today’s discovery at Kalinga is in many ways just as convention-busting, though the tools at the site appear more obviously shaped by a hominin than those at the California site. Let’s accept that Kalinga is indeed a butchering site, where at least one hominin processed the carcass of at least one animal. Then the question becomes: which hominin?

The Unusual Suspects

There is no evidence that H. sapiens is anywhere close to 700,000-plus years old. Although researchers are pushing back the timeline for our species’ emergence, even the most out-there genetic modeling places the dawn of our species at no more than 600,000 or so years.

What’s more, the oldest fossils classified as H. sapiens, from Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, are about 300,000 years old, and even calling them H. sapiens has been contentious. Although the face appears strikingly modern, the lower, more elongated shape of the Jebel Irhoud hominin brain case suggests that the individuals had a smaller cerebellum, lacking the advanced cognitive skills of modern humans.

In fact, only anatomically modern humans like you and me have ever scampered about boasting such big, fancy brains, with an oversized cerebellum that makes us stand out in a hominin lineup.

Because the cerebellum is linked to creativity and fine motor skills, among many other functions, the fact that Neanderthals and other hominins had smaller versions is one of the reasons many researchers believe only H. sapiens has been capable of complex processes…processes such as building a boat and getting it across water from Point A to Point B.

It’s reasonable to rule out H. sapiens at Kalinga, as well as Neanderthals and Denisovans, who also had not yet evolved.

But that leaves only archaic hominins, such as H. erectus or another as yet unknown member of our family tree, able to boat across open water to Luzon. We won’t know for sure who enjoyed a snack of rhino marrow some 709,000 years ago until we find their bones.

The findings were published today in Nature.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Living World, top posts
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Not_that_anyone_cares, but…

    My big, fancy brain, with an oversized cerebellum cannot author a comment sufficiently facetious for this.

  • bea bea

    Did the boil the bone first, or eat it raw.
    Me, I love bone marrow. Healthy stuff.

  • Oldglass Stuff

    I don’t think the rhino got to the island by boat so why does H.Erectus have to come via boat?

    • Jim

      Why is it not possible for the rhino to arrive by boat?

      • John Condo

        Rhinoceroses don’t build boats.

        • SG1_Guy

          Maybe they weren’t Islands back then? 😉

  • Erik Bosma

    Well the obvious solution is obvious – Homo Erectus DID have the ability to build a boat. After all, it really just takes a log with a stick for a paddle. When looking at Google Earth, it seems as if much of the Philippines was reachable by foot. Could it be that a few Erectus were being chased as possible food sources by other Erectuses and jumped on a log or anything in their panic to get away. They then floated across to the next island and discovered the rhino-burgers. All it takes is a little imagination and a little knowledge of human behaviour.

    • TLongmire

      My guess would be an uncle al broke from the heard way back when and made it to paradise but still sucked the bone for its sustenance.

      • Erik Bosma

        I believe you may be onto something. Let’s ask Uncle Al for his photo album.

    • EarlyMedievalSerf

      Maybe the carbon dating is bad.

      • Tony Eales

        This find was far too old to use carbon dating. They in fact used a combination of electron spin resonance dating on both the rhino teeth and associated quartz grains, Single crystal 40Ar/39Ar dating, uranium series dating on the tooth enamel, paleomagentology and looked at the presence of reworked tektites. If these’s something wrong with the find it is unlikely to be the dating.

  • Claudia Putnam

    I’ve read elsewhere that erectus most likely had language and built boats. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/20/homo-erectus-may-have-been-a-sailor-and-able-to-speak

  • Claudia Putnam

    PS Neanderthals seem to have been plenty creative. There are lots of attempts to rationalize why modern humans “out competed” Neanderthals, as a means of showing that our evolutionary adaptation is the most “advanced.” But evilutionaev success has nothing to do with advancement or complexity. Only adaptation, or, sometimes, just accident. Perhaps Neanderthals had less genetic diversity and got hit w a disease that sapiens were more immune to. Or perhaps they made a cultural decision as the ice age came to an end. They were apex predators focused on up-close-and-personal mammoth hunting w spears. Extremely risky and physically intense. Cro-magnons were more diversified w their atlatls and eventually bows…lighter gear for smaller animals. Better for the changing climate. Even if the N’s couldn’t think of this themselves (assumption), they could have copied. Most analysts assume they had some kind of COGNITIVE rigidity that prevented this. But what if they thought going after lighter game was wimpy? What if they viewed cro-magnons as sacrilegious inferior people? What if hunting mammoth in the old way was their definition of human? Their world died and they died, too. Not necessarily because they were stupid, but maybe because they thought our ways were disgusting.

    • Erik Bosma

      Since Home Europeus almost wiped out Home Americus with small pox and other lovely viruses, why isn’t it highly likely that the same thing happened to Neanderthals? And the very few who did survive were absorbed into the Sapien Sapien herd. Could explain why 3% of my DNA is Neanderthal.

      • EarlyMedievalSerf

        Slavery and domination is the more likely scenario in the Neolithic world. Neanderthals were likely systematically wiped out. Homo sapien has a way of doing that.

  • Philip Olson

    Must be the year for hominids.
    Several more Neanderthal sites on isolated islands in the Mediterranean Sea were excavated recently. Sites on islands that were connected as well as islands surrounded by water since their emergence.
    Small wooden dugout boats are not complex and are an easy step from log rafts.
    The evidence confirms common sense, floating is easier than running, human, hominid, neanderthal, or any one of the extinct species of primate as yet unknown could and did figure this out.

  • bwana

    “the fact that Neanderthals and other hominins had smaller versions” I do believe Neanderthals had larger brains than ours!?

  • EarlyMedievalSerf

    GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. The rino bones ain’t no 700,000 years old. Carbon dating is not the infalliable word of god that scientists would like you to believe. I just read today that sometimes the home DNA kits can’t distinguish human DNA from a dog’s!

  • Pingback: Humans were in Philippines 700000 years ago – Michael Jackson()

  • Pingback: 700000-Year-Old Butchered Rhino Pushes Back Ancient Human Arrival in the Philippines – Michael Jackson()

  • Juno_Moneta

    Was there an incentive to cross a large distance of ocean? If you can see another body of land then maybe yes. Populations of hominins were small, supposedly, so the possibility of be killed by others would have also provided incentive. The rino’s presence does indicate that there had to be a land bridge or connection at some point and apparently at an earlier time than the kill. I’m not sure there is enough evidence to estimate reliably the intelligence of earlier hominins. With limited innate killing or escaping ability our ancestors had to be very resourceful in order to evolve at all. To those that question the standard dating methods used I’ve read that the researchers used multiple methods, including meteoric glass that could also be dated found on the site. This is truly a fantastic mystery that I hope to hear more from; ditto for the 130k old mammoth kill in CA, another amazing story if it can be proven.

  • Robert Baden

    Cerebellum? Did the author mean cerebrum?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Dead Things

Digging up the dirt on the latest finds and weirdest revelations, from lost civilizations to dinosaurs.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+