Ternifine (or Tighenif) is an Algerian archeological site dating around 700,000 years old, representing an arid, treeless environment. From this fossil site, a plethora of animal remains and Acheulean tools were discovered, most notably including fossil hominin remains (Britannica). In this post, I examine the hominins at Ternifine, specifically the complete jawbone and teeth recovered.
Dataset
I use the typically H. ergaster specimens KNM-WT 15000, KNM-ER 992, and the Ternifine collection (Ternifine 1-4). Defining dental characters are from Tattersall 2013.
Results
After examining the mandibular dental characters of specimens often assigned to Homo ergaster, I found that the specimens investigated are all very similar. However, they bear slight differences. Between the two Turkana specimens (Turkana Boy and the holotype of H. ergaster). Comparing ER 992 and WT 15000, the latter does not have high lower canines and distinct anterior-posterior forveae (APF) on the anterior lower premolar, but otherwise, they are nearly the same. Comparing WT 15000 with Ternifine, they differ with smaller lower molars that have deeper basins. Finally, comparing Ternifine with WT 15000, there is no APF on the anterior lower premolar and the lower molars are slightly less elongated. Aside from dental traits, the general body shape and the ramus, coronoid process, neck and head are nearly indistinguishable between specimens. It may also be noted that Ternifine bears distinctly Acheulean tools, which ergaster were known to have pioneered the production of; although this anecdote proves little, as the industry was common in Africa 1.6-1.4 mya (Klein 2005).
Classification
The Ternifine hominins are most often called Homo mauritanicus, but were first described under the genus Atlanthropus. These are often dismissed and sunk into the larger Homo erectus (Britannica). The supplementary material for the description of the species H. longi also classifies the specimen in the rhodesiensis morphotype (Ni et al.); although I generally agree with the conclusions of this analysis, I (and John Hawks) have issues with this classification, which I will touch on below. However, if the ergaster model is used (which I am currently inclined to support based on morphological and phylogenetic conclusions), it is fair to say that the Ternifine hominins are most likely to represent a variation of Homo ergaster, and the justification for the name Homo mauritanicus is weak.
If, however, more material were to be uncovered from this site that justifies bringing back this name, the revival of mauritanicus could be welcomed. However, flooding at the site stopped work and it is not implausible to assume that remaining hominin fossils (if any) may have been damaged or destroyed in the event. The Ternifine hominins also resolve close to Homo rhodesiensis (Ni et al.), a stance that I am reluctant to accept for one reason: the Ternifine mandibles bear a superficial resemblance to Mauer 1, the only (at the time of writing) confirmed mandible of the species, which may or may not even be rhodesiensis (Stringer).
Instead, I am inclined to sink the Ternifine hominins into H. ergaster based on a greater resemblance. Still, the jaw is greatly robust, more so than the other specimens, and the teeth are too. I hypothesize that this morph slightly adapted to a different diet, perhaps one that includes harder foods such as seeds and/or nuts, which would account for the greater thickness. It is possible that this population is an example of generations undergoing minuscule changes to account for greater/lesser food availability, which would align with their goeographic placement in relation to Kenya. Additionally, it should be noted that ER 992, though close to the same age as WT 15000, bears archaic features from H. habilis (Tattersall 2013). I hypothesize this may be a relict from interbreeding with Homo habilis, which went extinct shortly before (Spoor et al. 2013), or a similar species.
Comments
Post a Comment