The Homo naledi Controversy! With Jamie Hodgkins and George Leader

Подписаться 26 тыс.

Просмотров 72 тыс.

50% 1

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)

Опубликовано:

28 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 386

@jackwardrop4994 Год назад

Very brave of these 2 to put their name on their skepticism. Gutsick did as well and I’m here for it.

@MossyMozart 8 месяцев назад

@jackwardrop4994 - For those who are interested, that referenced channel is "Gutsick Gibbon".

@ED-sn3fn 6 месяцев назад

Really I thought their arguments were pretty much trash.. Other than the carbon dating.

@usergiodmsilva1983PT 5 месяцев назад

Me too!

@garymaidman625 4 месяца назад

@@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.

@wendydomino Год назад

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.

@SamtheIrishexan 10 месяцев назад

Yup they need to share the UFO's with the rest of us. Just saying.

@BlueBonnie764 9 месяцев назад

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. 🦖

@Betsy.Ross76 5 месяцев назад

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.

@Per-x5i 2 месяца назад

@@Betsy.Ross76 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

@Per-x5i 2 месяца назад

@@Betsy.Ross76 And you also seem to have a personal thing for Lee Berger. That does not honer your claims.

@SimenSolli Год назад

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.

@FlintDibble Год назад

Thanks!

@SimenSolli Год назад

@@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.

@bigcountry5520 10 месяцев назад

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.

@eudyptes5046 10 месяцев назад

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.

@garymaidman625 4 месяца назад

@@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.

@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking Год назад

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

@JohnVander70 Год назад

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.

@FlintDibble Год назад

Great to hear, thanks!

@BassGoBomb Год назад

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.

@evecharles6273 Год назад

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.

@julane-h2y 8 месяцев назад

South Africa, right.

@maybellejohnson4424 Месяц назад

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!'

@johntaplin3126 Месяц назад

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@@julane-h2y

@1220b 10 месяцев назад

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.

@Redandranger 5 месяцев назад

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.

@a.karley4672 2 месяца назад

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.)

@beccabattalio Год назад

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.

@snieves4 11 месяцев назад

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.

@SpinningSandwich 10 месяцев назад

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.

@Redandranger 5 месяцев назад

@@snieves4 Controversy --- the only thing scientists love more than making a discovery is blowing up someone else's. Yep.

@joedryden4220 6 месяцев назад

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.

@FlintDibble 6 месяцев назад

Thanks!

@bennyd98 11 месяцев назад

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

@lyle1157 Год назад

Last week I watched Berger in a RU-vid 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.

@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking Год назад

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.

@lyle1157 Год назад

@@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

@Jolene8 Год назад

@@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.*

@KathrynsWorldWildfireTracking Год назад

@@lyle1157 yeah. sad, isn't it?

@judithvorster2515 Год назад

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

@markmarnell Год назад

Very interesting discussion . Thank you

@peterrees6346 Год назад

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.

@MossyMozart 8 месяцев назад

@peterrees6346 - Thank you for your insight.

@OlegNaumov 11 месяцев назад

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.

@belindahanley7582 Год назад

The documentary was great for excitement. They should have clarified that these were theories needed more investigation.

@michellerenner6880 Год назад

they did. He’s always said things need much more research

@kaudsiz Год назад

Hypotheses, not theories

@michellerenner6880 Год назад

@@kaudsiz I think they are closer to theories than to hypotheses.

@adamh.2791 Год назад

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.

@ED-sn3fn 6 месяцев назад

They did..

@lucasharsh1396 Год назад

Good discussion of some of the issues with this discovery. Looking forward to more videos.

@francissantos7448 Год назад

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.

@paulanderson7628 8 месяцев назад

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.

@chonqmonk Год назад

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...

@artificercreator Месяц назад

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.

@wirilome Месяц назад

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

@annemarielara1962 5 месяцев назад

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.

@bcbcbcbcbc Год назад

A real insight for us amateurs. Thank you Flint for putting this together (and Dr Hodgkins and Leader of course!)

@spaceshantynow1851 Год назад

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!

@jamesduncan3673 Год назад

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.

@MossyMozart 8 месяцев назад

@jamesduncan3673 - Apparently there IS a new Home member, but methods and conclusions are what is in question.

@MarkRoy-e2b Год назад

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.

@seanbeadles7421 Год назад

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

@MarkRoy-e2b Год назад

@@seanbeadles7421 Yeah - they all have delusions of grandeur. Sometimes a bone is just another bone.

@danhanqvist4237 Год назад

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.

@sylviarogier1 Год назад

I loved this discussion. Thank you.

@FlintDibble Год назад

Glad you enjoyed it!

@garymaidman625 4 месяца назад

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.

@DakiniDream Год назад

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 !

@FlintDibble Год назад

Thanks

@ashlaunicaalpari4584 Год назад

This is a great interesting conversation about this mysterious finding.

@brucepedersen4032 9 месяцев назад

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. 😊😊😊😊😊

@wilsonbeckett9487 Год назад

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 🤷‍♂️😁

@freandwhickquest Год назад

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.

@walterulasinksi7031 17 дней назад

A major factor that must be considered, being that the carbon dating for Homo Naeledi indicates one that overlaps with other hominid forms, can indicate contact between such groups. While carbon dating from a timeline much younger than Naeledi can indicate other occupation,it can also mean an assimilation of groups. At a later date. Much will depend upon if a determination of paleogenetics can be performed at 5he Max Plank institute, possibly detailing a length of time for which Naeledi can be considered to exist and any possible convergences with other paleogenetic factors can be considered such as the genetic mutation clock. Anthropologists are no longer considering a branching tree but rather a braided stream in which factors cause different genetic mutations that recombine at later dates. As such, unless it can be proven that a group such as Homo Erectus did not use fire either then the argument fails. It is more to be considered that hominid groups would have had contact and forms of communication that were not essentially adversarial. It is essential to understand that video programming even 8n documentary form is geared towards entertainment. Even the first documentary PBS NOVA “ Dawn of Humanity” was created during the initial excavation of the Naeledi bones and during that time except for a single skeletal remains of one owl, everything else was hominid. Lee Burger postulated a possibility of Naeledi being an older form than Homo Habilis. This proved to be a false postulation , but radio carbon dating had yet to be performed. The actual excavators were qualified archeologists, who were small enough to access the space, and used all techniques and scanning to determine 5hat the fossils were no from debris flow as can occur in some situations, such as Lee Burger’s discovery of Australopithecus Sedeba, where the remains of not just the hominids were present, but fractures of the remains could be viewed and a reasonable explanation was given for the evidence. That of being a natural death trap. Into which both Sedeba and other species were vulnerable.

@jerryfoust3860 Год назад

You said the claims were inadequate. They should have claimed more? Did you mean that the claims were inadequately supported by evidence?

@carriekelly4186 9 месяцев назад

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 .

@Minhtieu619 5 месяцев назад

If u were wrong would u ever admit u were wrong? Not saying you’re wrong.

@capitalisa Год назад

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.

@seanbeadles7421 Год назад

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

@TheCakeIsNotaVlog Год назад

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

@sheilamishra2710 Год назад

Claims are very weak. Thank you.

@danhanqvist4237 Год назад

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.

@valerieprice1745 6 месяцев назад

How many charlatans get to make millions off average people's gullibility before they start asking tough questions.

@robbee23 Год назад

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.

@ingloriousbetch4302 10 месяцев назад

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.

@danmosley4387 Год назад

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.

@andrewsarchus4238 Год назад

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.

@sabineb.5616 29 дней назад

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.

@Per-x5i 2 месяца назад

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.”

@jward891 Год назад

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?

@AlanTov Год назад

Because it was awful science.

@dn2817 Год назад

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.

@francissantos7448 Год назад

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.

@jeffmacdonald9863 Год назад

@@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.

@francissantos7448 Год назад

@@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.

@angrydoggy9170 5 месяцев назад

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.

@dral9971 Месяц назад

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.

@ysf-d9i 27 дней назад

would be nice if you got someone on the other side for a debate. See what answers they have for the concerns.

@FlintDibble 27 дней назад

I've asked Lee Berger. His response was to ghost me and unfollow me on twitter

@dholloway2410 7 месяцев назад

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?

@usergiodmsilva1983PT 5 месяцев назад

Ah, came here for the Homo Naledi debate 8 months ago, and now Dibble is a JRE superstar! 😂

@michellerenner6880 Год назад

I liked the animations - because it made me think they weren’t trying to nail down anything and just used as a place-holder.

@punjabiexplorer 3 месяца назад

Similar questions were also raised when Taung Child was found by Raymond dart in 1924. For 20 years no one believes Dart

@jnkoa33 2 месяца назад

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?

@eximusic Год назад

Netflix shows on science will probably not get made with the same hedges required for a scientific paper.

@stephenballard3759 7 месяцев назад

I am very excited about all these possible discoveries. But very skeptical that all of them are valid. All by itself the cave of bones with the H. naledi fossils is an extraordinary discovery. It needed no embellishment (if that's what happened). Meanwhile , now I have to work hard to be just as skeptical of the skeptics as I now am of the secondary discoveries, until it gets settled.

@maxdowski9259 10 месяцев назад

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.

@timkbirchico8542 Год назад

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.

@shannonreid5499 Год назад

Is it possible Naledi dropped/placed their dead into the hole where post box opening was and sediment drift towards the lower part of the cave or flood events from the adjacent river moved the remains into the lower parts of the cave? Stopping only when the entrance became blocked with fill?

@ED-sn3fn 6 месяцев назад

100 bucks says this lady is religious..

@benstone7887 Год назад

Very poor debate. No one from the dig side to defend and attacking animations of the documentary used to explain to the lay man. Comes across as petty and a need to be included. 1*

@Jamesfranco1825 Год назад

How did they get down there if not a burial?

@Betsy.Ross76 5 месяцев назад

Water. Those scratches are from water on dolomite A known phenomenon. This is nothing but a bone pit. Scavengers carry dead carcases to caves. Snail markings on the bones...snails can't live in the very back of that cave. Natural flooding washed that Mish mash of bones to the back of the cave.

@Per-x5i 2 месяца назад

But that is ruled out allready based on facts.

@kinglyzard Год назад

Is there a possibility of genetic sequencing on Homo neledi to compare to the recent sequencing of Paranthropus robustus? How about Lucy? Is genetic sequencing from tooth enamel the next level of paleotechnology?

@wendylafolle Год назад

Thanks so much for this video. When I watched the Netflix docu it raised many questions for me.

@albertgalan2483 Год назад

Propaganda, sales? Enjoyed this discussion!👍🏼

@NeedsEvidence 6 месяцев назад

Super interesting controversy, critical thinking at its finest

@hansolo-mx4xt Год назад

"Flimsy house of cards"? you just described most scientific theorys. Science advances one funeral at a time.

@noahwallick89 5 месяцев назад

Amazing podcast. I'm a field arch and it's frustrating to see so many archaeologists accepting really critical, impactful things at face value, and not ask questions. You da man. Cradle of human kind is definitely worth a trip, awesome area, ZA is gorgeous!

@callowaylaw 7 месяцев назад

This seems to be a work in progress that was published to the public rather than standard academic procedures. Publication at this point is surely an invitation for immediate criticism. Surely Mr. Berger was aware this would happen. I would hope he had a good reason or maybe it was an opportunity . . . But I cannot escape the impression that there is some academic envy involved . . .

@aciddrive1019 Год назад

Good God! What has the world come to? This is a video about at the archeological remains of a species of early human, and the first thing you do is warn viewers that their sensitive little psyches might get upended by the sight of archeological human remains. If our ancestors only knew that they'd started off a race of humans that are so pathetic, they'd have stopped breeding because having descendants millions of years in the future like us would be too embarrassing to stomach. I mean, who the hell is gonna click on this video if they think they might crap themselves at the sight of a few old bones?

@truthismycause2800 Год назад

For real! It got me scratching my head too.

@InterestingWorldLove 2 месяца назад

Beyond very questionable methods to measure lies entertaining speculation? No science here? archaeology, weather, history requires speculation? What is chemistry, physics, math?

@donnsmith6482 Год назад

The "markings" (scratches etc.) on the walls of this cave could very likely be made by cavers in the same way hikers may bend branches or stack rocks so they know the right path to take out of a dense forest. If you lose your source of lght in this cave you will never find your way out unless you can "feel" your way back. So those markings may be indicators of which way to go---tactile maps! --- -As always the simple answers are preferrable to complex solutions!

@bigred8438 2 месяца назад

If radio carbon dating only goes back 60,000 years any carbon produced before that date could not be dated now surely? In other words any ash or burnt wood from before 60,00 years ago cannot be dated beyond 60,000 years, even though it could be 200,000 years old. It will still only tell you it is 60,000 years old.

@thebearcat 2 месяца назад

Carbon 14 dating is only one technique. There are others

@zigavojska1672 3 месяца назад

could be that Naledi excavated the caves themselves

@RileyRampant Год назад

Mr. Berger's extravagant claims aside, I wonder if H Naledi is a weird hybrid population of Australiopithecine and archaic homo late persisting - its such an outlier.

@ivanhunter1994 6 месяцев назад

I am writing from South Africa…political pressure??

@erikcreature3412 Год назад

More accurate would be Australopithecus Naledi!

@tolbaszy8067 Год назад

I think a more plausible reason for homo Naledi in Rising Star Cave is the cave was a hibernaculum of sorts. The small hominids would crawl into crevices for restorative sleep. Maybe Naledi required extended periods of REM sleep, and a safe place would be necessary to accomplish this. The hypothesis that Naledi practiced ritual burials due to the concentrated bone deposits of primarily Naledi remains could be explained by natural attrition of individuals during those extended sleep sessions in that favorite place. The migration of the bodies down into the cave is a natural process. Rising Star Cave is not only part of The Cradle of Humanity, but more significantly, may be The Cradle of Dreams!

@redhaze8080 Год назад

cool vid

@FlintDibble Год назад

Thanks

@justinhamilton8647 7 месяцев назад

I’m no archeologist and even I knew this doc was BS

@kyanamccoy 6 месяцев назад

Wouldn't it be true that all archeology lacks evidence. We find bones, we guess as to what was going on at that time.

@FlintDibble 6 месяцев назад

Nope. Definitely not true. We have lots of evidence and it's our job to figure out what can appropriately be said from it

@droptuned83 5 месяцев назад

@FlintDibble Nope , your just guessing in most case's.

@blaberus1 11 месяцев назад

The most plausible/parsimonious hypothesis as to why remains of so many H. naledi individuals ended up in the Dinaledi Chamber is in my view the following: It is know that baboons hide at night in a cave in the Cape of South Africa to protect themselves from predators. So perhaps naledi did this too. Occasionally an individual would get disoriented in the dark (I personally doubt they had torches) and walked the wrong way - going deeper and deeper into the cave. If you look at a cross-section of it you will see that the Dinaledi Chamber is like a trap - you climb up, and there is then an abrupt drop. It seems very easy to imagine the poor naledi plunging to their deaths in this way. No need to invoke religion to explain what we observe.

@ChitwoodMitwood 5 месяцев назад

Maybe they killed themselves with CO?

@ochoatv567 Год назад

Its a stone that looks like a tool and its on his hand come on what else you need not near on his hand

@donna4843 Год назад

Being that testing and data is incomplete is there any chance that they all died from CO poisioning from the fires?

@atmanbrahman1872 11 месяцев назад

No homo naledi. Its an artefact of minxing.

@annemarielara1962 Год назад

Could the "tool" found just be a piece of rock used as a tool by Homo naledi without being altered by them? That could be another possibility, right? I mean, does a rock or other medium used as a tool necessarily have to be deliberately altered to be considered a "tool"?

@richb2229 Год назад

It was called a tool shaped stone in the paper. So they didn’t come right out and say it’s a tool. There are other similar tools from other sites so it could have been made or just a well shaped rock used to scrape things. I am sure there is a team working on it as we speak and that many papers will be written about it. Also, if it is a tool I am sure many more will be found and n the future.

@walkerroadrevivalrevelatio565 Год назад

I love History Study it for fun The Urantia book has a great read for figuring out our lost chapters in our past

@MarkLux-k5r 10 месяцев назад

I think you need to go the rising star cave and see it for yourself.

@michaelsmith6420 Месяц назад

Naw, these people are simply jealous. Go find your own fossils.

@FlintDibble Месяц назад

So jealous. I never find any fossils from ancient Greece

@orin2522 2 месяца назад

More likely a lion buried bones. 🍭🍪

@3_up_moon Год назад

Please increase your audio so I can hear you. My volume is at max, and I have to hold the speaker to my ear to hear what you are saying.

@Tupsx57 Год назад

I am not a scientist. In my line of work, I always look at incentives to figure out why people act in certain ways. I felt an incredible amount of hubris when Burger attempted to squeeze into the “burial” chamber. At 57, he probably feels he doesnt have much years left and felt the need to publish these findings despite not having sufficient evidence.

@Jolene8 Год назад

They are theories and he does not claim they are settled. I believe he has left it open to further research, while making clear _his_ findings. He's definitely not superficial in his work, unlike some other's... Anyone can understand his need to get in there and be a part of the space to examine for himself, as a tenured scientist, as dangerous as it was. To want to take it all in in person, is a very human thing.

@DulceN Год назад

@@Jolene8Hypotheses, not theories.

@francissantos7448 Год назад

@@DulceNHmmmm. Semantics?

@pinball1970 10 месяцев назад

@@francissantos7448No, there is a difference in science.

@francissantos7448 10 месяцев назад

@@pinball1970 I agree there is a difference in science. In the context of the video, Homo Naledi which is the theory and which is the hypothesis? The question is wether Homo Naledi buried their dead. Is that a theory or hypothesis?

@theamazingshazbob Год назад

Here is the part where sometimes a man just has to spit it out. “I don’t want people to see this and think it’s like ugh…like I’m a mainstream archeologist, and I just like don’t you know, agree with this, I mean but…um.” Try saying THAT! Try JUST saying “I AM a mainstream archeologist and I don’t agree with this.” Period. The girl had a nice set of lady nuts when she said “my child’s science show for kids has more science than this show, they are learning deductive reasoning on a kids show and this show does not even have that.” That’s having nuts.

@wonderlandrockopera Год назад

Not engraves, thoughts linear markings are used to sharpen spear.

@scrubjay93 Год назад

Lee Berger and Avi Loeb need to do a collab on ancient asteroid aliens.

@UncommonSense-wm5fd Год назад

I refused to watch the documentary given that the published evidence supporting the documentary are pre-prints and had at that point, not been subject to peer review. Additionally, Berger gave a symposium at Carnegie with only the pre-prints as supporting evidence. The timeline suggests everything was rushed and there is insufficient evidence to support claims of funerary practice or use of fire among other tenuous links. It seems Lee has fallen victim to the fame bug.

@ThePrader 9 месяцев назад

There is nothing wrong with applying "The 10th Man " principle to all scientific claims. If solid, the claims, whatever they might be, should withstand the application of this "rule" in the search for accuracy. You also have to be brave to be that "10th man".