Rising of a new link in the rising star cave with the advent of the concept of Homo Naledi

Anthropology as science has the power to access the results of any given fossil from multiple viewpoints. The tale of the discovery of Homo Naledi is a vibrant example of this fact where the tools of morphology and scanning identified a primitive species which has the potential to substantiate the theory of gradual evolution of Homo sapiens and hypotheses drawn by the experts of the anthropology tried to substantiate them. In the case of Rising Star Cave, the evidence drawn from the monographic observations establishes a different type of human, which was never seen before (Randolph, 2015). However, its existence as the prevailing species at any given time of history is doubtful because when we see them stand-alone evidence, we find a definitive conclusiveness in them. However, as an anthropologist when we try to fix them in a Jigsaw puzzle, they fail in completing the conditions of various hypotheses weaved around them.

There are two conclusive pieces of evidence and numerous hypotheses to mark this distinction of Homo Naledi from other primitive species like genus Homo and others like Australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus. [unique_solution]The first evidence was of four skeletons that were found in the cave of rising star, the hands of these skeletons were fit to do some mechanical activities, these skeletons show that they were physically more active and enabled in comparison with many previous species that were a part of the chain of evolution (Stringer, 2015).  The size of teeth found was smaller in comparison with previous species, it was an indication that their food habits were different, the findings of the skull size also placed them in a league of different species in the process of evolution, the structure of the cave and hypotheses related to the placement of the bodies in a narrow cave with a small chute to make an entry clearly indicates that Homo Naledi was following certain social customs. The condition of the corpse indicates no accident or death caused unnatural reasons like collapse, crushing or injury; instead it confirms a natural death.

Many experts are inconclusive about the rampant existence of Homo Naledi because unlike other contemporary species, their remains are not present in the other places of the African continent. When we check about the links of other intermediate species we find multiple places to explore their existence, it also indicates a larger number of populations. Homo Naledi fails in this aspect.  Another issue is related to the failure of the carbon dating, most of the remains of Homo Naledi are still not carbon dated, and the lack of this substantive proof also brings the status of this race under oblivion

However, the absence of some vital clues cannot deny the evidence of a symbolic behavior that can be compared with the custom of burial when we compare it with modern-day customs. The corpse of the skeletons was found in a cave that was not fit for the living of a human. Many anthropologists believe that it was a place of a burial or a mortuary. It was a symbolic behavior of that species that shows abstract nature of humans ahead of all the animals surviving amidst nature. The moment we consider it as a case of burial or the disposal ground of dead human bodies, this type of symbolic abstract and social behavior challenges the conventional thinking of the modern human beings about a probable distinction between modern humans and primitive humans. At the levels of carnal desire, modern humans imitate primitive humans whereas examples like Homo Naledi indicate that at the level of social and symbolic behaviors primitive humans were at par with modern humans.

References

Madison, Paige, C. (2015). Who First Buried the dead. aeon, https://aeon.co/essays/why-we-should-bury-the-idea-that-human-rituals-are-unique.

Randolph, P. (2015). A new star rising: Biology and mortuary behavior of Homo Naledi. South African Journal of Science , Retrieved from: Http//:www.sajs.co.za.

Stringer, C. (2015). The many mysteries of Homo. eHuman , eLife 2015;4:e10627. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.10627.