Content deleted Content added
ShortDescBot (talk | contribs) ShortDescBot adding short description "Hominin fossil" |
m rv sockpuppet |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Hominin fossil}}
{{coord|47.627|N|18.384|E|display=title}}
{{Infobox fossil|common name=Samu|image=Homo erectus palaeohungaricus.JPG|alt=The bone, situated opposite its life position.|caption=The bone, situated opposite its life position.|species=''[[Homo neanderthalensis]]''?<br />''[[Homo heidelbergensis]]''|place discovered=[[Vértesszőlős|Vértesszőlős Early Man Site]], [[Hungary]]|age=325-340 ka|discovered by=László Vértes and team|date discovered=21 August 1965|catalog number=VSZ I-II}}
'''Samu''' ('''VSZ II''') is the nickname given to a fragmentary [[Middle Pleistocene]] human [[occipital bone|occipital]],
▲'''Samu''' is the nickname given to a fragmentary human [[occipital bone]] (also known as "Vertesszolos man", or "Vertesszolos occipital") found in [[Vértesszőlős]], [[Central Transdanubia]], [[Hungary]].
The discovery was made on 21 August 1965 during a dig led by {{ill|László Vértes|hu|Vértes László}}, and the fossil was named ''Sámuel'', 21 August being the [[name day]] of biblical judge [[Samuel]] in Hungarian tradition.<ref>János Ladó, Ágnes Bíró, ''Magyar utónévkönyv'' (2005), p. 109.</ref>▼
== Discovery ==
▲The
At the same time as the occipital, 'several lower'<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Roksandic |first1=Mirjana |last2=Radović |first2=Predrag |last3=Lindal |first3=Joshua |date=2018 |title=Revising the hypodigm of Homo heidelbergensis: A view from the Eastern Mediterranean |journal=Quaternary International |language=en |volume=466 |pages=66–81 |doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2017.10.013}}</ref> [[Deciduous teeth|milk teeth]] were discovered 8 meters from the [[cranium]], found close in relation to the [[Peking Man|Zhoukoudian hominins]], and catalogued '''VSZ I'''.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Soukup |first1=Václav |last2=Mechurová |first2=Zdenka |date=2018-12-14 |title=Mysterious Prehistoric Samuel: Homo erectus paleohungaricus in the Context of Anthropogenesis |url=https://journals.muni.cz/anthropologia_integra/article/view/11426 |journal=Anthropologia Integra |language=en |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=7–19 |doi=10.5817/AI2018-2-7 |issn=1804-6665|doi-access=free }}</ref> At first, the remains were believed to be of 500 ka, but recent revisions suggest a younger [[Age of Earth|antiquity]] of 300-250 ka.<ref>Kordos, L., "Revised biostratigraphy of the early man site at Vertesszolos, Hungary", ''Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg'' 171 (a May 1994), 225–236.</ref> Additional dating work clarifies an age of 315±72 ka for the fossil, 310±30 ka for the footprint, and 328±28 ka for the oldest human occupation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kele |first1=Sándor |last2=Markó |first2=András |last3=Cseh |first3=Julianna |last4=Shen |first4=Chuan-Chou |last5=Wu |first5=Chung-Che |last6=Bernasconi |first6=Stefano M. |date=2015 |title=Dating and clumped isotope-based temperature of a paleo-jacuzzi (Vértesszőlős Early Man site, Hungary) |url=https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=clumped_isotope |journal=Abstract Book of 31st IAS Meeting of Sedimentology |pages=267}}</ref> An alternative dating scheme is 210-185 ka.<ref name=":3" />
A replica of the Samu occipital bone is on exhibit in the [[Hungarian National Museum]],<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=2009-02-10 |title=Samunak kutya baja - FN.hu |url=http://www.fn.hu/tudomany/20090209/samunak_kutya_baja/ |access-date=2023-08-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090210123748/http://www.fn.hu/tudomany/20090209/samunak_kutya_baja/ |archive-date=2009-02-10 }}</ref> as well as associated tools and fossilized animal footprints.<ref name="Fzy412">{{Cite book |last1=Fozy |first1=István |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DQIjAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA412 |title=Fossils of the Carpathian Region |last2=Szente |first2=István |date=2013-12-18 |publisher=Indiana University Press |isbn=978-0-253-00987-6 |language=en}}</ref> Since discovery, the occipital has drawn great [[Tourism|tourist attraction]] and scientific interest.<ref name=":0" /> "Samu" has become a common name for plastic skeletons shown in [[biology]] classes in Hungarian student slang.<ref>[http://mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/szleng/ronaky/re_tan.htm Hogyan beszél ma az ifjúság?] (paper on student slang)</ref>
=== Vandalism scandal ===
{{Multiple image
| image1 = Flag of Vértesszőlős.svg
| image2 = Coa Hungary Town Vértesszőlős.svg
| width1 = 100
| width2 = 100
| perrow = 1 / 1
| caption2 = The village flag and coat of arms bears the face of Samu.
}}
In 2009, news sources claimed that a 14 year-old girl [[Vandalism|vandalized]] hominin material from the site and local [[elementary school]] children broke into the excavation area, marking up the walls and trampling faunal fossils. However, it was also stated by officials that no serious damage, aside from several broken bones, was caused by this, and the site remains valuable as no important finds could be accessed. Originally, it was reported that the girl has opened the exhibition space of the local with a key, scribbling rock band names on the windows and display cases sometime from January 28 to February 4, when the museum was closed and unable to be checked on. The damage was discovered by staff during weekly double inspections. The individual allegedly 'partially' admitted to guilt,<ref name=":2" /> and police started [[Legal proceeding|proceedings]] despite knowing if there were any other [[perpetrators]]. It was determined that the girl's house key was able to unlock the museum doors. However, later reports found that the original Samu fossil was housed in the Hungarian National Museum,<ref name=":2" /> not the museum that was vandalized,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2011 |title=Megrongálta egy 14 éves Samu maradványait |url=http://www.hirtv.hu/belfold/kek_hirek/?article_hid=257613 |access-date=2023-08-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721110459/http://www.hirtv.hu/belfold/kek_hirek/?article_hid=257613 |archive-date=2011-07-21 }}</ref> meaning that the original fossil was not damaged.
== Description ==
The occipital fragment probably belonged to an adult individual, but it is very thin and flattened at the top-rear. The nuchal hump is very developed and, in life, would have supported very robust neck [[musculature]]. The [[cranial capacity]] was initially estimated to be 1300 cc. The fragment has been distorted during [[fossilization]] within the [[travertine]]. Vértes hypothesized that traces of brain extraction and [[Human cannibalism|cannibalism]] are present on the bone, although this is typically rejected.<ref name=":0" /> Later [[Morphology (biology)|morphological]] analysis by Roksandic, Radović, and Lindal (2018) clarify that the revised cranial capacity is 'large', but do not list a metric.<ref name=":3" />
The [[Nuchal plane|nuchal]] and [[Occipital plane|occipital planes]] have a sharp angle. The [[Occipital bun|occipital torus]] is moderately wide, and a deep [[Sulcus (morphology)|sulcus]] that is somewhat continuous along the [[superior nuchal line]] makes this formation pronounced. A [[Suprainiac fossa|suprainiac]] depression is either not found above it, or, like [[Bilzingsleben (Paleolithic site)|Bilzingsleben]], it is not preserved in the fossil as it sits high and starts with the [[opisthocranion]]. The incipient suprainiac fossa is a derived [[Neanderthal]] trait, but the broad [[Mandible|ramus]] with small distance to the [[Third molar|M3]], thick and angled occipital, high [[inion]], and occipital torus morphology are basal ''[[Homo erectus]]'' traits.<ref name=":3" />
== Classification ==
The fossil was first described as '''''Homo erectus (seu sapiens) paleohungaricus''''' by Hungarian [[anthropologist]] Andor Thoma in 1996. Thoma was not sure what [[species]] his [[subspecies]] should belong to, ''seu'' being a [[Latin]] term meaning "either" or "or",<ref>{{Citation |title=seu |date=2023-08-10 |url=https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=seu&oldid=75604278 |work=Wiktionary, the free dictionary |access-date=2023-08-17 |language=en}}</ref> suggesting that either '''''H. sapiens paleohungaricus''''' or '''''H. erectus paleohungaricus''''' may be potentially valid as a late specimen of ''H. erectus'' or an early ''[[Human|H. sapiens]]''. Because the fossil is very fragmentary, the [[Taxonomy (biology)|classification]] of the find has since been controversial. Vértes suggested that it was a ''Homo erectus'', as did [[Phillip Tobias]]. However, Tobias disagreed in the estimated cranial volume of 1300 cc. Of the many scientists who examined Samu, Wolpoff concluded that the bone was relatively [[Diagnosis (taxonomy)|nondiagnostic]] in that it could not be conclusively generalized from its preservation and [[Taphonomy|taphonomic]] damage.<ref name=":0" />
Others remained divided by the apparently large volume and Neanderthal-like traits (which drew criticism, as the nuchal region of Samu is unlike Neanderthals). [[Chris Stringer|Stringer]] first classified the fragment as a late-surviving [[Accretion model of Neanderthal origins|preneanderthal]], a term that describes specimens typically assigned to ''[[Homo heidelbergensis]]'' with Neanderthal affinities. Others such as Adams (1999) suggest that the [[population]] is transitional of ''Homo erectus'' and ''Homo sapiens''.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Adams |first=Brian |date=1999 |title=Lower, Middle or Upper Palaeolithic? A Classification Analysis of the Bársony House Hand Axes from the North Carpathian Basin |journal=Lithic Technology |language=en |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=7–26 |doi=10.1080/01977261.1999.11720942 |issn=0197-7261}}</ref> Later discoveries, such as the [[Petralona skull]], compare well in the occipital wall and Soukup and Mechurová (2018) support assignment to ''Homo heidelbergensis''.<ref name=":0" />
Roksandic, Radović, and Lindal (2018) suggest that the specimen is alike to [[Castel di Guido]], [[Tautavel Man|Arago]], Bilzingsleben, and Petralona in the suite of [[Basal (phylogenetics)|basal]] ''Homo erectus'' traits with few [[Derived (phylogenetics)|derived]] Neanderthal traits. They raise the possibility that a restricted ''Homo heidelbergensis'' definition might include this specimen, and definitely includes [[Mauer 1|Mauer]], [[Ceprano Man|Ceprano]], [[Visogliano]], [[Mala Balanica|Balanica]], [[HaZore'a|Hazorea]], and [[Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar]] as a group close to the human-Neanderthal split.<ref name=":3" /> However, they did not include the specimen in their ''[[Homo bodoensis]]'' like they did with many of the other specimens mentioned in their 2018 study,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Roksandic |first1=Mirjana |last2=Radović |first2=Predrag |last3=Wu |first3=Xiu-Jie |last4=Bae |first4=Christopher J. |date=2022 |title=Resolving the "muddle in the middle": The case for Homo bodoensis sp. nov. |journal=Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews |language=en |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=20–29 |doi=10.1002/evan.21929 |issn=1060-1538 |pmc=9297855 |pmid=34710249}}</ref> a taxon which is considered a [[junior synonym]] of ''[[Homo rhodesiensis]]''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Delson |first1=Eric |last2=Stringer |first2=Chris |date=2022 |title=The naming of Homo bodoensis by Roksandic and colleagues does not resolve issues surrounding Middle Pleistocene human evolution |journal=Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews |language=en |volume=31 |issue=5 |pages=233–236 |doi=10.1002/evan.21950 |pmid=35758557 |s2cid=250070886 |issn=1060-1538|url=https://academicworks.cuny.edu/context/le_pubs/article/1437/viewcontent/The_naming_of_Homo_bodoensis_by_Roksandic_and_colleagues_does_not_resolve__Delson___Stringer.pdf }}</ref> Other recent classifications suggest they were 'archaic' Neanderthals.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Trájer |first=Attila J. |date=2023-06-15 |title=Ecological evaluation of the development of Neanderthal niche exploitation |journal=Quaternary Science Reviews |volume=310 |pages=108127 |doi=10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.108127 |s2cid=258795364 |issn=0277-3791|doi-access=free }}</ref> A paper submitted to a conference uses '''''Homo erectus hungaricus''''' as an alternate name.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Naddeo |first=Michelangelo |date=2023 |title=Az ősi magyar jelképrendszer keresése |url=https://epa.oszk.hu/01400/01445/00066/pdf/EPA01445_acta_hungarica_2023_1_0460-0492.pdf |journal=Acta Historica Hungaricus |volume=38}}</ref>
== Technology ==
[[File:Őskőkori kultúrréteg.JPG|thumb|Human cultural layer from the site.|left|239x239px]]
In 1966, István Skoflek discovered evidence of fire and charred animal bones dating to 350 ka probably belonging to a hunting camp. The bones were found within the fire, and were probably used to keep the fire alive. Alongside the bone fragments was a [[charcoal]] layer around 5 cm thick and spanning around 7 meters in width. The site also provides a [[stone tool]] [[Industry (archaeology)|industry]] characterized by cutting tools with chipping and distinctive [[Microlith|microlithic]] character that were constructed from [[quartz]], [[quartzite]] [[Cobblestone|cobbles]], or [[silex]]. Both this site and Bilzingsleben are alike in their lack of [[Hand axe|handaxes]] and dominance of [[Flake (archaeology)|flakes]].<ref name=":1" /> These raw materials, from carefully selected boulders that were split, were probably retrieved from the [[Silt|silts]] and [[Sediment|sediments]] around the river. The average implement is 2.4 cm in length, and the humans at this site used these for cutting, carving, [[leatherworking]], and wood manufacturing to produce [[Spear|spears]] and other items. These activities left 'production waste' important in studying their use and evolution.<ref name=":0" />
=== Diet ===
As the site becomes less ancient, the technology becomes more advanced in their manufacturing. As well, a bone culture was identified and similar to the stone tools in production. Other bones bore traces of [[Bone marrow|marrow]] extraction and meat trimming. The area was abundant in food, and the ancient people hunted herbivores of various sizes and predators alike. Skeletal evidence suggests that horses were the most common food item, but [[aurochs]], bison (such as ''[[Bison schoetensacki]]<ref name=":4" />''), [[deer]], [[Wolf|wolves]], and [[Roe deer|roe]] as well as [[bear]] fossils were discovered, although it is undetermined if the bears were hunted or brought by people from another location. Animals that died of non-human causes are present as well.<ref name=":0" />
== Paleoecology ==
[[File:Ősembertelep Vértesszőlős 01.jpg|thumb|Sign at the archeological site denoting the finding of the occipital.|252x252px]]The town of Vértesszőlős is located in the northern section of the [[Pannonian Plain|Pannonian Plains]] of the [[Gerecse Mountains]] foothills. The fossil itself was exhumed from the [[Által-ér]], a river that stretches 51 km and consists of 4-5 travertine terraces made of calcite. The fossils found by the river are very well preserved. Human occupation at the site exists in two settlements aged 400-200 ka (during the [[Mindel glaciation]]; the second [[ice age]]). During this time, the climate was milder and warmer, and in January temperatures probably did on, on average, extend under 37.4 °F (3 °C). Human fossils and culture can be found in several layers of sediment, such as cut animal bones and even a human footprint.<ref name=":0" /> The hominins lived in an area that was mid-mountainous at the western foot of a mountain with open calcareous tuff or freshwater limestone pools<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dobosi |first=Viola T. |date=2011 |title=Obsidian use in the Palaeolithic in Hungary and adjoining areas |url=https://www.meiji.ac.jp/cols/english/research/6t5h7p00000de6rx-att/06.pdf |journal=Natural Resource Environment and Humans |volume=1 |pages=83–95}}</ref> on the verge of what once was a [[thermal lake]], which is consistent with other Neanderthal populations{{ref|a|a}}. The site was once a dense [[Temperate forest|temperate]] seasonal forest. Rhinoceros like ''[[Stephanorhinus etruscus]]'' were also contemporaries with aurochs, bison, deer, wolves, and roe.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":4" />
== Notes ==
:1. {{Note|a}}The author of this study agrees with the classification of the Vértesszőlős fossils as early Neanderthals, but those such as Roksandic ''et al.'' suggest affinities with specimens typically assigned to ''Homo rhodesiensis'' or ''Homo heidelbergensis''.
==References==
{{commonscat|Paleolithic site in Vértesszőlős}}
| |||