No scientific evidence that Homo naledi buried their dead and produced rock art
María Martinón-Torres cs 2023 doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103464

The Rising Star Cave system has yielded a stunning concentration of hominin remains, estimated >15 individuals of all age groups, assigned to a new species, Homo naledi (Berger cs 2015, Dirks cs 2015). Previous publications (e.g. Dirks cs 2015, Randolph-Quinney 2015) + popular interviews with the team-leaders have suggested H.naledi was engaged in deliberate disposal of the dead.
But other researchers have cited geological, taphonomic & paleontological evidence: natural formation scenarios may account for skeletal accumulations, e.g. a natural death trap, water transport of bodies/body parts, carnivore activity (Val 2016, Stiner 2017, Egeland cs 2018, Pettitt 2022).
eLife (June 2023) hosted 3 reviewed pre-prints by the Rising Star research-team claiming that the Dinaledi & Hill Antechamber skeletal remains indicate deliberate burial practices + the production of associated rock art (Berger cs 2023a & b, Fuentes cs 2023).
Both the reviewed & previously unreviewed pre-prints were accompanied by a strong media campaign, that quickly spread the revolutionary idea that the small-brained (∼450–600 cc) hominins found deep in the Rising Star Cave system were capable of complex funerary behaviors equivalent to those attributed to larger-brained (∼1400 cc) hominin spp H.sapiens & H.neanderthalensis.
The media hype that accompanied the unreviewed & reviewed, though currently unmodified, pre-prints at the time of this writing, triggered strong public controversy + an immediate debate about ‘modern human behavior’, but also about the way in which scientific work is communicated & perceived by the public (e.g. Gibbons 2023, Petraglia cs 2023, Zimmer 2023).
Here we will examine the evidence for the alleged burials & the purported rock-art presented in the 3 reviewed pre-prints + a consideration of the open reviews published alongside them.
The peer-reviews were unanimous in considering the evidence inadequate in its present form.
Despite this, these versions remain available & communicated to the press & social media, without yet integrating any of the referee's comments.

Here we argue: the evidence presented so far is not compelling enough to support the deliberate burial of the dead by H.naledi, nor that they made the purported engravings.
Substantial additional documentation & scientific analyses are needed before we can rule out that natural agents & post-depositional processes are responsible for the accumulation of bodies/body parts, and to prove the intentional excavation & filling of pits by H.naledi,
detailed analyses are needed to demonstrate that the so-called ‘engravings’ are indeed human-made marks, and that (like the purported evidence of fire use) they can be securely linked to H.naledi.
Our commentary also offers a brief insight on the state of the field re. the importance of responsible social communication & the challenges brought by new models of scientific publication.

____

Just google "Pan or Australopithecus naledi" :-DDD

Marc Verhaegen wrote:

> No scientific evidence that Homo naledi buried their dead and produced rock art

They called it "Homo" when they thought it was 2 to 2.5 million years old, and
claimed it was an ancestor. Then they dated it at 900k and STILL called it
Homo. Then they dated it at maybe 200 to 300 thousand years old, and STILL
called it Homo!

Seems like "Homo" was decided first, and then they went looking for an
excuse to use it...

> Just google "Pan or Australopithecus naledi" :-DDD

Australopithecus is known from cave finds elsewhere. What's wrong with
saying that, just as some of our child species clung on by taking to the
forests, Lucy's ilk managed to cling on by taking to the caves...

They were probably prey to Homo.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/734460585236905984