The Homo naledi Controversy! With Jamie Hodgkins and George Leader
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Thanks to Dr. Jamie Hodgkins and Dr. George Leader for a productive conversation. Thanks to Dr. Jason Heaton and Dr. Travis Pickering for getting in touch about the Misgrot Cave parallel. Thanks to Andy Herries for sharing photos. Thanks to Jonida Martini for video editing, visual design, and help with the captions.
Chip me a tip at
www.ko-fi.com/...
Or: / flintdibble
See here for my earlier public peer review of the Homo naledi burial paper: • Homo Naledi Burial? A ...
****
The papers being discussed. You can read the papers here as well as the reviews and editor comments. Note that the reviewers were unanimous in the types of issues they raised.
Berger et al. 2023a. "241,000 to 335,000 Years Old Rock Engravings Made by Homo naledi in the Rising Star Cave system, South Africa." elifesciences....
Berger, L. et al. 2023b. "Evidence for deliberate burial of the dead by Homo naledi." elifesciences....
Fuentes et al. 2023. "Burials and engravings in a small-brained hominin, Homo naledi, from the late Pleistocene: contexts and evolutionary implications." elifesciences....
Press release by Lee Berger announcing these three papers: • Lee Berger Announcemen...
For an in-depth dive into the peer reviews, see Gutsick Gibbon's video: • A Deep Dive into the S...
****
Additional Bibliography and Citations
Al-Malabeh. "Al-Fahda Cave (Jordan): the longest lava cave yet reported from the Arabian Plate." www.researchga...
Berger et al. 2015. "Homo naledi, a new species of the genus Homo from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa." eLife. elifesciences....
Berger, L. 2022. "The Future of Exploration in the Greatest Age of Exploration - Dr. Lee R. Berger." • The Future of Explorat...
Bruxelles et al. 2019. "A multiscale stratigraphic investigation of the context of StW 573 ‘Little Foot’ and Member 2, Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa." www.sciencedir...
Débenath and Dibble 1995. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology: Volume One, Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe.
Dirks et al. 2015. "Geological and taphonomic context for the new hominin species Homo naledi from the Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa." eLife. elifesciences....
Egeland et al. 2018. "Hominin skeletal part abundances and claims of deliberate disposal of corpses in the Middle Pleistocene." PNAS. www.pnas.org/d...
Harcourt-Smith et al. 2015. The Foot of Homo naledi. Nature Communications. www.nature.com...
Kivell et al. 2015. "The hand of Homo naledi." Nature Communications. www.nature.com...
Nel et al. 2021. "Taphonomic Study of a Modern Baboon Sleeping Site
at Misgrot, South Africa: Implications for Large-Bodied Primate Taphonomy in Karstic Deposits." Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology. link.springer....
Robbins et al. 2021. "Providing context to the Homo naledi fossils: Constraints from flowstones on the age of sediment deposits in Rising Star Cave, South Africa." Chemical Geology. www.sciencedir...
Robu 2016. "The assessment of the internal architecture of an MIS 3 cave bear bone assemblage. Case study: Urşilor Cave, Western Carpathians, Romania." www.sciencedir...
(keywords: Homo naledi burial, archaeology, Paleolithic, pleistocene, human evolution, behavior, hominid, hominin, taphonomy, geoarchaeology, bioarchaeology, formation processes, Dinaledi, Rising Star Cave, eLife, peer review, Netflix Unknown: Cave of Bones)
It's disappointing to realize how many problems there are with what's been presented to the public. I'm really grateful to have seen this discussion though so I understand better.
Yup they need to share the UFO's with the rest of us. Just saying.
I am saddened by this 'evidence'. I hope they, with Lee, will relent. Put your money where your mouth is, like the rest of us. 🦖
It was a bone pit. Bones have snail marks they leave when they eat flesh. Snails cannot survive in that pit deep in the back, very back of that cave.
It's clear scavengers have a history of taking kills to caves. A natural flood washed the various bones to the back of the cave. The so called cave art is nothing but scratching that's a common phenomenon found when dolomite is etched by WATER.
Berger has always been questionable. Doesn't stand up to peer review. End of story.
@@betsyb2256 you just spreding your opinion. Not facts. that allready been proved that it is not water that brought the bones inside dinaledi cave. No animal has brought them there. All teories have been checked and the one that is left is the intetional ”burial”of the dead
@@betsyb2256 And you also seem to have a personal thing for Lee Berger. That does not honer your claims.
Very brave of these 2 to put their name on their skepticism. Gutsick did as well and I’m here for it.
@jackwardrop4994 - For those who are interested, that referenced channel is "Gutsick Gibbon".
Really I thought their arguments were pretty much trash..
Other than the carbon dating.
Me too!
@@ED-sn3fnyou think that their paper is poorly cited isn't a good point to bring up? Or that the sources they cite are mostly their own? That's a pretty big red flag. There are a lot of red flags. I believe they made some pretty good points and zero trash points.
Thank you for such a thorough and understandable exposition of the different issues relating to this case. As a layperson who is very interested in these subjects I found the initial news fascinating, but the interest waned off the more I learned about the methodological problems and the timing of public announcements, press releases and so on.
The best part about Bergers Netflix show was that it was watched. Its a great subject that is user friendly. But, even amature fans like me know Lee Berger has always been a newshound.
South Africa, right.
I have to say, I finally watched it and found it so horrible it was shocking. I don't think this was the fault of the team, but rather it seemed like somewhere in the background there was a producer telling them all, 'okay we're going to follow you as you pretend to discover all these things for the first time, act surprised, but don't forget, you can't talk about science! No science terminology, and as little context as possible. Our audience needs to find this exciting, not educational.' If I remember correctly, they slip up and say the word 'hominin' only once in the entire 'documentary!'
So what are u implying by your comment?Whatever people think of Berger, there us more than a whiff of professional envy from those who wish they had found half as much as Berger@@user-qt1qw1dy5b
I saw the Netflix documentary and got annoyed by the narrative that I felt it forced on the viewer. I am no archeologist, just a lowly mechanic with a general interest in science. So I searched for a critique of the narrative presented by Berger et al. The only one I could find was on this channel and it was eye opening (there has been a few others later on). You did a great breakdown of the scientific paper and this later talk with guests was also informative , so I salute you. Lee Berger is a likable guy and the find is astonishing, but he really seems to be chasing clout.
Thanks!
@@FlintDibble It’s sad to see scientists like Lee Berger and Avi Loeb create narratives and turn into clout chasers, because of social media. Even though it creates interest , I think as a whole it creates more downsides like conspiracy theories. And then there’s con artist like Graham Hancock… Resources like yourself, World of antiquity and others need more exposure.
Dude, you're more important than these scientists... These scientists don't produce anything, they just use other people's money to form opinions on things that are pretty much irrelevant.
I'm a biologist and I can tell you that in science you find all kinds of people, like in any other profession. One of these is the snake oil salesman and Lee Berker strikes me as such. He's a very good speaker, he talks fast, fluent and confident and this is very convincing to some people. I don't find him likable at all but these kind of people often get very far in their fields. It's good that credible scientists call him out.
@@eudyptes5046I agree with your summary of Lee Berger. This isn't the first high profile discovered he has made, and credit where credit is due, the discovery of a new species is amazing, but the way he does things is irresponsible.
Awesome podcast, I personally love getting hear about the methods you use to arrive at conclusions. I never knew how much thought went into the small details of a site. Fascinating content, cannot wait to hear more discussions.
Great to hear, thanks!
And to think that they are just scratching the surface of the processes and proofs that scientists go through even before publishing to seek scientific consesus. Or, you could read a book (or worse, let some one else read the book and then interpret it for you) and then tell every one else they are wrong because one has PROOF .. (Sorry, couldn't resist - N.B. 'One' not 'You'...:-)...) .. Even if one has NO IDEA as to scintific proofs and the time and effort that scientists go through to check, double check their work... Very, very occassionally scientists don't follow 'due process' then ..'this' happens. Which OK because this is yet another check on some one's work .. debate is good ... bigotry is not.
I've been a archaeologist for 30 years, and there are some seriously big flaws with this discovery.
The head archaeologist could not convert Centimeters to millimetres.
The tools they used were not standard for this form of excavation. And were only used to make it look more impressive.
No radiocarbon dating of charcoal or bones.
No isotopic findings from the teeth.
No recreations of the morphology and skull .
Guessing that the art work was done by by these hominids. But could just as well been created by later hominids. But of course he was the one who had to find these artworks after all !
Didn't mention that the cave had been visited before, pegs from earlier explorers were found on the floor.
He reminds me of Zahi Hawass in many ways.
If you've been any sort of a scientist for 30 yrs and you think it showed the head archeologist couldn't convert centimeters to millimeters, you've wasted 30 yrs. The point was that certain measurements were being made in CM while others in MM as numbers were being transcribed. Good lord.
Rising Star cave has been a sporting cave since ... the 1960s, I think. Nobody has ever claimed to be the original explorers (in modern times) - and surveys were known to be incomplete. The original discoverers of the bone deposits were merely the first people to *notice* the bones - and then take photos and samples and *report* them to Prof Berger. That has never been in dispute.
Radiocarbon dating - the site is dated to 236 ka BP, which is about 60 half-lives of C-14. Radiocarbon would be a waste of material. (Without re-reading any of the papers, I'd expect the Uranium-series method to be most applicable.)
12:35 - cave markings (scratches, or weathering) 15:00
17:20 - supposed tool (found near hand of naledi, not IN the hand)
27:40 - Cave Bear skeleton
29:22 - Australopithecus skeleton
46:00 - hyena remains
I’m just a paleoanthropologyphile so I really don’t know what to think about whether Naledi buried their dead or not. It’s hard to imagine them lugging bodies down there with chimp brains, but also hard to find any other explanation for the presence of multiple bodies in fetal positions in graves.
However, I do know that the documentary was so damn bad that I was almost embarrassed for watching it.
Lee Berger tried to get ahead of any criticism of his burial claims by stating in multiple lectures that there’d be criticism, and kind of mocking the would-be critics. He definitely seems to believe these are graves.
It would suck to see paleoanthropology corrupted by society’s obsession with fame. My last thought is that Berger needs to ditch the Indiana Jones hat.
Did you listen to the part about baboons and other animals who die in caves? What about the fact that the passage might not have been as restricted at the time of nadeli?
@@kyledexheimer6548 Thats the problem with their theory, there is really no evidence that it was the only passage way to enter the Naledi chamber even though they admitt that the parts of the caves had collapsed. Yet stick to the assumption that this was the only way to get there. Thats just not good science and it really makes the discoveries have a less of an impact when it looks like it was done a group of enthusiasts rather than scientists.
I hope he doesn't go as far into outer space as Graham Hancock does for notoriety.
What fetal positions, the skeletons are mostly incomplete and disarticulated?
As a member of the general public, thank you all, for the generous sharing of knowledge by the panel. You've all, given me a so much better understanding of this issue, and of the science as well.
Thanks!
"I want to believe in UFOs, but all I see are balloons and birds." - Mick West, hobbyist
How did he miss the bugs,bats,helicopters,jets,airplanes and drones? Mitch seems a little myopic, maybe
he just missed the UFOs.
Thank you Mr. Dibble for lightening this up again and again and hosting this talk. And thanks to the two guest for their braveness not to hide but to attend to their duty as scientists for staying grounded and question things that are questionable. For me as a non scientific observer it is that, what i expect from scientists in their field. To work carfully on revealing the facts and not to make a discovery like this into a misleading pop enterprise on base of unbased assumptions. Your former yt review and this podcast made me feel confirmed in my growing doubts about the so far "official" narrative how these individuals got in this place, just because in this narrative it all fits to well on first sight. But there are so many possibilities of what could have happened, that it appeared to me as a non archelogist but someone with decades of interest in this field quite "suspicious" how fast this one solution was and is presented. Thank you and your guests once more. I'm sure your father would be proud of your courage to speak up. Because there is a lot to be questioned. You folks lift up my believe in true science out there. Best wishes from Germany.
I think a lot of us in the profession felt this as well. There just seemed to be leaps of assumptions without much backgrounding. Watching the filmed stuff, I really was waiting through the whole thing for the radiocarbon dating for the fire evidence...and it never arriving was a real red flag for me.
Very good discussion. I haven't watched the Netflix documentary (because I'm generally more wary of those than say a Nova documentary), but it sounds like some real liberties were taken with these grandiose hypotheses that cannot be at this time supported as well as they could be. I've read Lee Berger's pop-sci book on Homo nailed "Almost Human" in which I think he laid out some interesting information about the discovery and potential theories, but in the book, I felt like he made sure to hedge more that a lot of his hypotheses about intentional burials and any rock art were as yet unsupported. You have to be very careful when disseminating information to the public because once it's out there and if it's exciting and new enough, it's hard to backtrack. I've seen this done in many science disciplines. Like both of your guests said, just the discovery of Homo nailed itself is exciting, and I feel like, if presented properly, could be enough to get the public interested in paleoanthropology.
Its a well produced presentation. It presents some interesting ideas. I was excited about it. Now hearing the controversy i wish theyd put disclaimers that much of whats shown is still being analyzed in the scientific community.
It's definitely possible to very publicly have information backtracked, but the downside for the authors is that it will read like a scandal. In many ways it already is, although I'm not sure any of the hypotheses have been outright ruled out yet.
@@snieves4 Controversy --- the only thing scientists love more than making a discovery is blowing up someone else's. Yep.
Last week I watched Berger in a RUclips interview say that anthropology/archaeology has an "unhealthy obsession" with dating and at that point I resolved to stop assuming honesty in the mistakes on his part. He is actively and maliciously distorting data to promote his own fame and fantastic speculations. Netflix I understand, because they have no ethics whatsoever, but if NatGeo doesn't revoke their little bestowed magic explorer title he loves to cite, I'll have to put them in the same bucket of blatantly promoting of misinformation, which sucks.
National Geographic has been gutted by Disney - who now owns them... I think I read an article about how they don't have any full-time editors on staff anymore. It's unfortunately the end of an era.
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking That's awful and neatly explains the massive decline in scholarly quality. I have a old NatGeo article by Jane Goodall framed in my room! To think how far they're fallen is pretty disheartening
@@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking Archeological journalism. There are more "infotainment" types getting involved, with who knows what type of intentions. I honestly get a lot of pleasure reading the articles and whatever back and forth, between the scientific peers who challenge, correct or interested, content creators that make real use of those articles. Interfering this way does not bode well for *real science.*
@@lyle1157 yeah. sad, isn't it?
I lost all respect for NatGeo when they ran a 'reality programme' in Cape Town, where they encouraged babboons to break into a house for food. They had cameras setup in the house. The entire point was to encourage the babboons to circumvent the increasingly complex measures put in place to keep them out.
Never mind all the Cape Town residents that now has to cope with these babboons, and never mind the consequences to the babboons that now could nit be kept out of people's homes
Documentaries like those do a great disservice to real archeology. Thank you for critiquing this from a scientific background. Why do the mass media think that they need to screw real science so badly? What you guys are doing is way more interesting IMO.
One of the other things I didn't like about the Netflix doc is they didn't give a shout out to the 2 cavers who discovered the fossils
I was so confused (after watching the documentary) how Lee first discovered the wall "etchings" and yet no previous archaeologist to enter that chamber had ever noticed them? One of the previous archaeologists HAD to have seen those hashes, and I hope that person will eventually step forward and speak up.
The previous archeologists didn't report seeing the etchings publicly. They were being paid to excavate.
Why? are archaeologists super-human?
Has sediment DNA been done on the block ?
Yeah,
like how long did it take to get the H. on Neanderthalensis ?
but Naledi gets the H. almost as if by default ? ...I would say H ? Naledi ...I don't think we are there yet with this.
the big picture is strewn with just so many failed attempts at bipedal evolution, as an extremely messy littering from the trees .... Sima de los Huesos is H ? antesessor, likely an african overshoot Gibraltar crosser....same complete mess as Naledi, but dramatically separated in time................where H.Neanderthalensis -- > Did What Makes Sense < --- Under Population Overshoot Conditions, ( had fewer off spring ) I would put the H on Neanderthalensis, and more tend to lump Naledi in with Antecessor.
Recently watched the doc, super interesting. I'm an archaeologist, and I also thought something was fishy. Typically even when you're getting paid to do an excavation job, you're pretty observant of surroundings. Weird.
As I watched some videos on Homo naledi by the discovery team, I didn't like the justification they gave for disliking the peer review system. It smelled fishy to me, and even more now after watching this video.
I have read all the comments below, and no one has mentioned that they thought it may be, that they put their dead down into the cave because they did not want their kin to be eaten by wild animals, which could mean their brain was evolving over time. Most species, not all, but the majority, do evolve on this planet. When we look at the word "buried" in our day and age, we think about a funeral, a caset, so the word "buried" might not be the best word to use in this situation. The word "hide" would probably be a better choice. They were hiding their kin from wild animals so that they would not be eaten by them. Did Homo Naledi eat meat? Even if that meat was leftover from other predators kills? Just watching predators kill and eat, in their environment, they would know that they would also be eaten in the same way. They may have witnessed this happening. So hiding their kin from these predators is how they kept that from happening. I have watched Lee's documentary many times now, and this thought of "hiding" always comes to mind. Rewatch Lee's documentary and let me know if you think they may have been hiding their kin, rather than burying them. Thanks for listening.
It is not possible to know people's motives. For all we know, this may have been some sort of "death cult", and these people crawled into this chamber to die, believing that they would find immortality or some such.
Good point. Same thought I had. Badgers ´bury´ their dead kin in their burrow by blocking the entrance of the chamber where it died. Good way to keep the place tidy. And why should you want to attract unwanting guests by putting the body outside? I think what we are seeing is the birth of burials!
"Hiding" is a very interesting concept. There are animals that hide ( or cache) their food for the future. Or hide it from their own.
I’ve worked in science communication for the last thirty years. I’ve worked for all major broadcasters, Discovery, Nat Geo, BBC. I created the hit series MythBusters. All I can say is that it is getting harder and harder to produce science programming of any kind let alone something with any accuracy. Audiences just aren’t engaged with the truth and preprinting makes the whole situation more confusing. I didn’t watch the Netflix documentary because I knew what it would portray based on last years press conferences. Sadly they are going down the US cable story telling route with this one.
@peterrees6346 - Thank you for your insight.
I have learned so much due to Berger's open science approach. He presented his thoughts on his finds and we are all enjoying the process of determining whether his original thoughts on the finds can be proven or disproven through various experts and testing. Without his approach, we would just be told in 20 years or so what everyone agrees on concerning his findings. That would be boring and not spark the curiosity that his approach has allowed us to develop about the various scientific approaches used to prove or disprove his initial thoughts. He has done so many of us a great service by allowing us to see science in action.
Very interesting discussion . Thank you
Frankly, I think some
juveniles went too deep in the cave and fell into that pit. The exit was in the ceiling somewhere in the pitch black dark. Their screams for help were followed down the hole and to the same fate.
This is excellent. Fabulous, smart, knowledgeable experts, all.
The documentary was great for excitement. They should have clarified that these were theories needed more investigation.
they did. He’s always said things need much more research
Hypotheses, not theories
@@kaudsiz I think they are closer to theories than to hypotheses.
They did literally multiple times during the doc. These scientists are just jealous that they aren’t making discoveries, or have never made one of any significance. It’s easy to tear apart someone else’s good work and the literal rockstar of paleoanthropology right now. They reek of jealousy.
They did..
it's so unfortunate that the integrity of such an amazing find and site are being compromised by such shoddy and yet well-publicized papers/documentaries
It is very important to defend the scientific method, it is very fun to theorize but to prove it is a very different thing. i'm a game dev, is like having this super idea for a game but for when the time to make it happen arrives, the complexity and costs are beyond what you could have ever imagined and you have to scale it down, reality fact checks you in the end.
Figuring out the history of the species it is a mystery on its own, I think when a scientist takes it easy ignoring the hype fuss and just focus on sharing the scientific work that is loved so much, that resonates with people a lot.
I admit I'm something of a Lee B. follower/fan.. But what I see is Lee trying to make Paleo-Anthro more popular to the pupblic and especially younger folk. While he is clearly making himself also more out there, what this viideo and others seem to be responding to the presentations from Netflix, mostly saying this requires more research, while Berger when speaking directly of repeats "this will require more proof.
Yes he often "Jumps the gun" but he is far from an Avi Loeb..
In this video, one person mentions seeing somethung and having an idea but holding that thought until proof is obtained, Lee clearly voices the thought and later says "..but that will need proof." Not in this video but in some their anger is in the reputation. Not sure where that comes from. To popularize a field of science will bring the interest of some bright young minds and hopefully more funding in the future..
PS.. Please excuse spelling errors or misplace words..I am old, with failing eyesight..
The more I hear, the less confidence I have in any of Dr. Berger's conclusions.
I was excited about Homo naledi at first, but now I'm thinking it's almost all hype.
@jamesduncan3673 - Apparently there IS a new Home member, but methods and conclusions are what is in question.
It is inconcievable to me that Naledi could or would attempt to navigate the cave without light.
That would suggest that naledi had control of fire which only sapiens and neanderthal's have been shown to have. That's important.
@@kenfalloon3186there’s very strong implications that erectus/ergaster had faculties over fire by about 1MYA but no direct evidence to confirm it.
@@kenfalloon3186 Aren’t Homo Erectus also believed to have been able to use fire? Re. the use of caves, perhaps some hominid species that didn’t use fire used them only at night for safety from predators, so didn’t need light in them as they only slept there. Some kind of natural event like an earthquake could have trapped a large number of them in a cave and caused their deaths.
Blind people can navigate really well without the use of light. People with great vision in poor light may be a great side research.
@garyallen8824 oh wow!! That's very interesting. Neanderthals painted in caves too. Or at least used caves one way or another.
The conversation, and the cool personalities involved, outshone the documentary itself. Even though I'm not an archaeology expert (like at all), this Netflix film made some audacious claims that had my skepticism radar buzzing from the get-go. Sadly, documentaries of this nature tend to be more entertainment than education, leaving much to be desired in terms of genuine knowledge. Thank you for making this video.
Thank you for this video. I am currently reading “Cave of Bones” and I was having trouble with the conclusions drawn before the evidence was gathered and examined.
Something I find amusing is when people who think they know everything aka the believers in pseudo archaeology, believe that archaeology is it's own discipline. It's not. Archaeology is a blanket term. It's a multi-disciplinary field. It's one of the main reasons why there are teams of archaeologists at any given site. These people also believe that once a site is excavated, it's done and onto the next one. Nope, not how it works. Any given site undergoes excavation and analysis for decades. That's not even an exaggeration. There is so much information to unpack and analyse at any given site, that it takes a long time, sometimes generations.
It seems like Mr. Berger is emerging as a bit of a P.T. Barnum of paleoanthroology :)
If you're interested in archaeology -- I mean, actual archaeology -- this piece is sooo much more exciting than the Netflix piece. I learnt more from this piece than I have from several documentaries and much reading.
Thank you for the reviews of the Homo Naledi funerary presentation. It is part of the scientific process. I hope to hear the counter arguments. Homo Naledi is such a fascinating discovery.
Thanks for this discussion. The whole episode sounds like History Channel level exploitation was at work.
Fascinating discussion. I sort of want to watch the Netflix show now, but if it pisses me off the whole time I'll have no one to blame but myself.
When I was in the 4th grade in 1976 I was looking through a dictionary and saw the word, 'pithecanthropus.' For the definition it just said "Java man." I had no idea what that meant, so I looked into it and found out Java is an island and pithecanthropus is an extinct"missing link" type hominid, very controversial, and I'm pretty sure pithecanthropus isn't a thing anymore; oh, and cro magnon man was still a thingback then , and I think they're gone too now, yes? (Brontosaurus was a dinosaur, and then it wasn't, and now (as of like 10 or 15 years ago?) it is again, right?)
If our species isn't fighting to just to stay extant in 50 years and Idiocracy doesn't completely come true, I wonder what our understanding of Naledi will be like 500 years from now...
Berger did say in the film, "We just don't know." Did you just miss that?
A real insight for us amateurs. Thank you Flint for putting this together (and Dr Hodgkins and Leader of course!)
What about the striking similarity between Homo naledi's crosshatch engravings and the Neanderthal crosshatch engravings in Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar? Why are the Neanderthal engravings not considered natural dolomite weathering as well but rather accepted as proof of art? You don't mention that.
It’s not true that you need a tool “tougher” than the rock you’re engraving.
Minerals of equal hardness can abrade each other.
Good discussion of some of the issues with this discovery. Looking forward to more videos.
You all are discussing all this, and people are reading it, and commenting on it… creating debate. THAT is the point of Lee Berger’s enthusiasm and over sharing and possibly jumping the gun on some of it. He wants it discussed, and debated. If he didn’t, he would be quiet and secretive like so many other people in the field no one has ever heard of 🤷♂️😁
i wonder why many of Lee Berger fans act like the ancient aliEns enthusiasts? the idea that ''old fashioned secretive scientists keep their secret behind closed doors'' and ''heroic scientists like Lee expose the secrets for the common people'' is not very different from conspiracy theorist populist cranks.
I'm reminded of the Leakeys always finding the 'first' or 'oldest.' And using National Geographic to publicize their finds and themselves. I was young and reading the NG articles as they came out, and had no reason to question any of it.
Oh god don’t forget Donald Johansson who thinks every hominin since like Lucy is a dead end and he figured out human evolution 40 years ago
@@seanbeadles7421 Yeah - they all have delusions of grandeur. Sometimes a bone is just another bone.
I'm just a member of the public. Other than cataloging bones and giving names to supposed new hominid or hominin species idk. I did see the doc only because Netflix had nothing else on. Dr.Berger seems to be such an empathetic person and human being. I liked the fact it wasn't all dried out by paperwork and the public could just see it as it happened. Did they bury their dead,did they make artwork? I'm not a paleoanthropologist I have no idea how we could know what any of these millions of year old bones did while they were alive or how it effects my life one way or the other. Just seems like Dr.Berger has a vivid imagination on what would've been happening so long ago. How we have any way of really knowing any of the claims. I dont know. I have cancelled Netflix at any rate. Ok thanks .
The critiques are necessary. Seems Berger wanted publicity early. Make this fabulous discovery open to everyone. Some of the evidence, bones, skulls, etc
Will hold up. More people talking about it is Good. 😊😊😊😊😊
I loved this discussion. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
If u were wrong would u ever admit u were wrong? Not saying you’re wrong.
I've seen that same etched pattern on dolomite stone in local streams. Very unique looking and very hard and durable.
Outstanding conversation. Thank you all three. Cogent arguments strongly in favor of doing the science right, come what may.
From my somewhat jaded perspective, I think the real story will be to see the extent to which dissenting voices are suppressed in the coming year.
Hopefully not. R
Finding an object in the hand of a skeleton led them to the declaration that naledi believed in an afterlife. I cannot take those people seriously if this is what passes for science.
I mean, equally strong claims are made about Shanidar cave and some flowers buried with Shanidar 4. We just accept it more because they’re Neanderthals
I often marvel at how people differentiate between stuff like butchery marks and natural marks. I know people have done a lot of research/experimental archaeology but experience is also key.
Same with art esp scratches in rock is very difficult. Often its like ink blot tests. Wishful thinking is a dangerous thing.
Thank you! Great discussion here. I’m not in the sciences but really enjoy scientific discussions. I just finished listening to the audio book of Cave of Bones and really enjoyed Berger’s tale and his personal reading of it. I also watched the documentary previously too. It was all very inspiring but, as a member of the non-scientific public I really needed to hear these challenges to Berger and his team’s claims. I am slightly deflated but looking forward to further analysis of these discoveries. It is dangerous to cast out to the public in such a big way revolutionary claims with out all the evidence. Cheers!
How many charlatans get to make millions off average people's gullibility before they start asking tough questions.
Valids points here, and i'm hightly sceptical to this founds there in south Africa. Not to say that when i hear "Netflix-documentary", i have an alarm bell ringing for sure.
We need much more further diggings, founds and prouves to give serious explanations.
Great job done with this video, and thanks to all !
Thanks
Here's what I don't get. Just the existence of these creatures, primates (or even hominids) from the stated time period is an amazing discovery. Why these attempts to inflate the significance beyond that? And done so poorly?
You said the claims were inadequate. They should have claimed more? Did you mean that the claims were inadequately supported by evidence?
This is all very interesting and there are very good points that need to be studied. I think ground penetrating radar and other tech should be used to look for more entrances, more passages and more bones. More study if the cave structure might answer some questions.
I'm super grateful for the people who are brave enough to go down in those caves to explore and collect the bones. There's no chance I'm going down there, and I'm skinny enough. But that's not on my list of stuff to do.
I heard something about possible H Naledi bones found in Kenya. I hope we hear more about those bones and what they are, it would be awesome if they're H Naledi.
Lee Burger has undermined the credibility of his fascinating work by his premature publication of speculative findings. There are experts in the fields of human burials, cave markings and use of fire.
When such experts are allowed full access to the cave and removed material I will listen again to the reports of Naledi.
Closed minded because your experts did not go first? Really?
Lee Burger came across as very unprofessional in the Netflix film. Even a layman such as myself could see that.
This is a great interesting conversation about this mysterious finding.
You wonder if Berger wanted something to be remembered by. He will be remembered, but for all the wrong reasons.
Science publication is in a really bad place as it is, with premature publishing and a refusal to publish negative findings. Netflix itself is perhaps not to blame, though the documentary should more properly probably not have been about Homo naledi but about the archaeologists (and that's, in substance, pretty much what it was). What is more troubling is the shenanigans about the reviews, the papers themselves and how they tied in with Netflix. That really didn't look very good.
It’s all about the data. The evidence. Opinion is irrelevant. And so far as I can see, mostly, that’s what everyone on every side is basing their conclusions on. So no matter what, we have some fascinating results ahead of us
The possible stone tool could have been picked up and used and not made from a core. I'm sure the first stone tools were just rocks that got picked up and used to do stuff. I wouldn't rule it out as a tool just because it's not from a core. Maybe H Naledi didn't make stone tools but they used rocks they found. They could have existed before stone knapping. I'm not saying it's my theory or making any claims, I'm just pointing out a possible possibility.
I think the point in the video was that you have to rule out everything else, before you can claim it's a tool.
What I got from the video is, "What if..." I did not get Lee trying to foist his thoughts on the viewer. He says more testing is necessary. Why do you feel it necessary to jump in and criticize what is a great find no matter how you see it?
Because it was awful science.
I agree with every point discussed here, especially regarding the lack of proper sed/strat context. I would add a lack of doing basic petrography to define a paragenetic sequence which would aid in relative dating and address the potential effect of diagenesis. The earlier pub mentioned in the video on the cave sed/strat did this. The only maybe useful(?) comment I have is about the "tool". The scans show very good morphological detail. From my sed/strat "bias" I noticed what lookes like a fabric trend for the "striations". If you look at the three images in Figure 12 above and below the arrows, you can see fairly consistent 2D linear-looking features in the same or similar orientation to the "striations". Flowstones, stalactites, and stalacmites form by sequential layers of mineral accretion. We know from other papers that flowstones, and reworked clasts of flowstones are an important part of the sed/strat story in this chamber and the cave as a whole. We don't know what the rock-type of the "tool" is, jumping to a claim that this rock is a tool is a big stretch
Very interesting assessment of Lee Berger's controversional excavation. Thanks!
But there is one very important ingredient which is unfortunately missing: you are three guys who are skeptical for very good reasons. But there's no one from the other side who actually agrees with Lee Berger's conclusions - which are not even written in stone by him. He was perfectly open about the necessity of further research!
By now I have seen several discussions with Lee Berger and also a talk with a subsequent Q&A session, which gave him the chance to address the very vocal criticism of his methods and his conclusions. I have to say that he defended himself very well, and his arguments were plausible. And several experts from various fields supported many of his arguments.
Most of us viewers aren't experts, and it's very easy to present arguments in a very compelling way. But Lee Berger did exactly the same! Only a discussion with several opposing factions gives us the chance to form an educated opinion.
All that said, l don't think that it was a great idea to combine such an important excavation with a Netflix show which calls itself "documentary"! It tempts producers and scientists to oversell their conclusions because they want to impress a tv audience which isn't necessarily familiar with scientific methods. And unfortunately Netflix has an abysmal record re: documentaries or shows about controversional subjects! I will just mention the terrible tv-show "Cleopatra", or the trashy documentary about the vanishing of MH370, the Malaysian airplane which crashed into the Southern Indian Ocean ten years ago. That's a subject I am very familiar with, because l used to work together with several people who were actively involved as advisers in the various searches for the plane. I also know some of the people personally who presented their theories in the Netflix show - and I can tell everybody that the Netflix show is utter garbage and many statements are completely false and can be easily debunked! If l were a scientist l would give Netflix a wide berth! I might get paid well, but my reputation is more important.
To be fair these terrible Netflix shows which l mentioned, hadn't been aired at the time when Berger started to work with Netflix. But even producers of documentaries with a decent reputation - like the BBC, National Geographic or PBS - often fall into the oversell-trap because the producers want to present their viewers cut-and-dried results - and if the results seem to be sensational - great. But this approach is simply not warranted if so much more research needs to be done.
Claims are very weak. Thank you.
That many individuals are found dead, in one and the same place, never fulfills the archaeological definition of a burial place. In Northern European archaeology, it is a "repository of remains." When it occurs in cramped caves or places where so many individuals cannot normally stay for long periods of time, the most natural causes can be found in accidents, temporary shelter or as food depots for wild animals.
Below ia a citation from Lee Bergers paper
Why do the peer reviewer lies about where the tool shaped rock are found in the block of rock?
”In addition to the skeletal remains, the feature contains a single stone artifact in close contact with the articulated hand and wrist material (SI 3; Figs. 11 and 12). It is emplaced
340 within the feature at an angle of 25 degrees from horizontal in a southeast-northwest slope, in a different orientation from with any of the skeletal material or the slope of the chamber floor, and it does not rest upon the bowl-shaped bottom of the feature.”
The use of “cradle of human kind,” in reference to the East African Rift Valley is no longer scientific tificallt accurate. The findings of human or near human remains from ~300,000 YBP in Morocco have left the “cradle of humanity” academia narrative demolished.
C14 dating is unreliable at the estimated dates. That they haven't done C14 dating is moot. The comparison to other stone in the complex is interesting. We have claims from other sites, and I've never heard anyone say - was this stone compared with other stone in the area. Finally concerns about Berger publishing before peer review. Archaeology, much like other sciences is dependent on funding. No money, no work. This site, despite the valid and other criticism, is important and needs money.
Homo naledi did not make art.The rock art claim at Rising Star Cave is undated. To imply to Homo naledi requires a firm date. Feels like a self-promotion scam.
Looking forward to your other scientific critiques Flint, or is the the only research that bothers you on a personal level ? Have you approached Dr. Berger directly to discuss your questions ? He's very open to inquiries so I was thinking you're skipping the 1st step and moving directly to your own conclusions.
What do you think peer reviewing is? It's directly critiquing the work. And to be fair, skipping ALL the steps/tests and moving directly to their own conclusions is exactly what Berger did.
Its good to have an open mind and discover possibilities and make discoveries but leaps and bounds and discoveries must be speculated and proven and debated!
Berger and his team, they know
This was a much more nuanced (and accurate) criticism of the recent naledi preprints than the other youtube video floating around. I think it's fairly obvious the papers were rushed out to have something technically published before the documentary, which I assume has more to do with Hollywood scheduling processes than anything to do with scientific negligence. That said, I've read both the peer reviews and author response, and while there were many valid criticisms (and a few that ignored context of the site) there was also declared intent to address those requests in the final versions of the papers. Is this not true? Did the authors abandon them in a half-baked state, or are the preprints more like the outlines they had to rush out before their media deadline? It would be very telling to know who had control of the media deadline, which was surely set well in advance of release date. I'd guess they intended it to conclude with Berger finally making it into the cave himself, set a release schedule based on that, and his (for now possible, not definite) discoveries were unexpected and demanded additional rushed preprints prior to the documentary release, which diluted their efforts.
On the less generous end, Berger is also the guy who authorized the actual bones, not replicas, to go on a rocket joy ride for "publicity." It seems likely he'd be just as reckless in allowing the lighting of fires in the actual research site. I'd almost say Berger should recuse himself from the next round of papers, but I'm sure that won't happen. An independent team could ask to review the evidence themselves to test not just the findings but the claims of open access research.
Ah, came here for the Homo Naledi debate 8 months ago, and now Dibble is a JRE superstar! 😂
So one reviewer doesn’t understand or believe in backprojection cone beam X-ray CT and nondestructive imaging. Not a good look. Hint - you can see stuff like bones in CT scans! And a lot more besides.
Here"s my theory. A Naledi troop living/sheltering in the cave attacked by another group of Hominid using fire. In the ensuing fight all the full-grown Naledi males defending the troop are killed, dragged way, chopped up and eaten. The rest are all driven back into cave by fire/smoke, and in trying to escape came to slowly perish in the deep dark recesses of the cave. This scenario covers many of the facts to date, and reminds me of a comment Berger made years ago that the site reminded him of a grave yard ..the site containing only young or very old skeletons
would be nice if you got someone on the other side for a debate. See what answers they have for the concerns.
I've asked Lee Berger. His response was to ghost me and unfollow me on twitter
Even a random field archaeologist like me pointed out how unethical their propaganda was, to some colleagues... Now if you just don't find their method convincing, you'll be the guy who "doesn't believe Homo Naledi did *[insert whatever]* "
yes, in this new world of the internet, the word "skeptic" now has negative connotations for a large group of people who believe in conspiracies and bad science stories that are spread indiscriminately by thousands of websites created solely to sell ads.
Has anyone explored or proposed the idea that the fall of the “Dragon’s Back” feature might have trapped Naledi in this cave and led to this looking like a cemetery population and burial?
All the scrutiny of Berger's speculations if anything makes it more difficult for any poor science to acquire credibility and it is his decision to open access his work that has opened it up to this scrutiny. Personally, l like the idea of open access as the process of investigation of raw data can be very educational for everyone interested in palaeoanthropology l find the gatekeeping attitude of the academic backlash which seeks to keep the work strictly in house, very concerning.
Yea, I think that might have been Lee’s intention. Cause scrutiny and speculation and make it an open process rather than have it be behind closed doors. Not sure if it’s what I’d do but it’s a different way of doing science. There are some issues with peer review and maybe doing an “open” peer review might actually be better than standard peer review. Because there are some issues with peer review. I just don’t know if this is the solution.
But I do hate the entitled as shit Tim White “hide all research for 20 years and keep the pace of research painfully slow and purposefully prevent new students from entering the field with your secrecy” approach.
I much prefer data and findings to be open access to any other researcher rather than closed off due to a childish fear of being wrong. Being wrong still advances knowledge, and should be a part of science. It’s not unscientific to be wrong. It’s the same perverse incentive that makes scientists fake results that makes them terrified of being seen as wrong
maybe the Naledi research team are more interested in the cash from a Netflix vid etc than an in depth analysis and peer reviews. Maybe. hmmm.
One point I thought of while watching the netflix “documentary” is: did they have fire or did they have amazing night vision like some animals also have?
So, for a Homosapien, we feel scared in a dark cave but the Homo naledi could see much better in the dark cave?
Who even really knows what the heck was going on back some 300 thousand years or more ago ?
They will examine our remains some day and think a corpse in front of a game console was doing some amazing spiritual ritual but it was just a kid playing grand theft auto part 7 when the world ended.
I came into the same hypothesis. A human ancestor with night vision. Or are more active at night. How to prove that? I have poor night vision than most people. Maybe there are people who have good vision in poor light. H Naledi may have a culture which values their blind members and really really value them. Stuff for movies.
@@francissantos7448 Not even animals with the best night vision can see anything deep in a cave. You need to be able to navigate by feel or smell or echolocation or something.
Even the best night vision needs some light. Deep in a cave, there's absolutely nothing to work with, unless you bring artificial light sources with you.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 "navigate by feel" you're into something here. Thanks for the insight. Blind people are experts at memorizing routes using a cane to trace their routes. A map could be memorized in low light from the entrance in incremental stages. Just light your fire at new areas to explore. H Naledi was probably a cave explorer extraordinaire. The hatchmarks may not be art but landmarks. Cheers.
Modern humans are worried about the dark. Ancient hominids wouldn’t necessarily have that issue. It gets very dark outside as well if you don’t have any artificial light source. Crawling into a dark cave wouldn’t be that different from being outside. Some modern monkeys also go into pitch dark caves to sleep.
There are always those who will try to debunk data of others PA findings. We have all seen it happen, over and over again.
The point is that scientists need to try and debunk their own data.
I dont think its necessarily wrong to go public with your hypothesis, as long as its proposed as one and there is no obscurity. I think we should go public with our hypothesis because it may give others an idea that can improve it, like you guys!
Such an interesting debate. The Netflix doc definitely hightened my skepticism about some of the claims and brought me here. While I understand the issues with the Lee and co saying this is definitively a burial, this is a new species, so it find it a little strange that we would apply the standards of burial of 'more human' species to a different animal. Why would they necessarily need to backfill anything or even do it in some organized consistent manner? Perhaps the only consistent part is that they put the body into a hard to reach part of a cave? Maybe they are still experimenting with their practices. It would be a shame to assume natural reasons without proof either.
I saw a presentation by Dr Berger without any knowledge of his history and the discovery of H. naledi. I got the impression that he has a large ego. He was talking about his career and making a name for oneself in anthropology.
Now that I know more about this subject, could it be that, despite knowing the proper scientific approach to a new discovery in anthropology, he simply refused to wait for verification and research to be completed by others in the field before information regarding this new species was released to the public?
Thank you
What if we took detailed pictures and 3d scans of as many humans and closely related extant species as possible while they are alive. Then after death, do the same thing with their skulls.
Then we train an AI on all that information, and let the AI reconstruct what a species looked like on any newly discovered skulls. You would think that would be at least more accurate than an artist making a guess.
It was portrayed to the public as reputable science, but the group chose money and fame over scholarly ethics
Similar questions were also raised when Taung Child was found by Raymond dart in 1924. For 20 years no one believes Dart
It never seemed credible that hominins with brains only a little bigger than that of an australopithecine could be capable of such sophisticated thinking and behavior. I smiled at 59:09 when Dr. Leader said "Alienating them with the way they're presented", giving a new meaning to the word "alienation" - making them seem like aliens.
Long before i saw this video and because the entrance to the cave is so hard to navigate the falling boulder making it harder to get into the cave makes sense. Dragging a dead body down there the way the entrance is now would have bin very hard.
Well, I think you have contributed hugely to the ultimate actual understanding of this site.. The people doing the earlier part left a mess and no mistake.. Such blundering,jumping to conclusions,, failing to follow the steps. I mean, of the scientific method!!
I think you folks have increased the interest of this site. We can only
build understanding if we start at the null hypothesis, then rule out cases till we can see what remains .
Netflix shows on science will probably not get made with the same hedges required for a scientific paper.