Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e6 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol News and views Clarifying the context, dating and age range of the Gondolin hominins and Paranthropus in South Africa Andy I.R. Herries a,*, Justin W. Adams b a Australian Archaeomagnetism Laboratory, Department of Archaeology, Environment and Community Planning, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne Campus, Bundoora, 3086 VIC, Australia b Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, 3800 VIC, Australia article info Article history: necessary to reply on fauna estimations for the age of these de- Received 1 March 2013 posits based on correlations with the other end of the African Accepted 7 June 2013 continent; and with little data existing in between. Moreover, Available online xxx recent geochronological studies on the South African caves has shown that many dates based on biochronological analysis with Keywords: Geochronology sites in East Africa are up to half a million years too old (Herries Paranthropus et al., 2010; Herries and Shaw, 2011). This discordance may relate Gondolin to South Africa functioning as both a continuous population refuge Sterkfontein and geographic origin for several Pleistocene and extant lineages Palaeokarst (see summary in Lorenzen et al., 2012; also Pickford, 2004). This Swartkrans Electron spin resonance expanding dataset on the complex, dynamic biogeography of Af- rican mammals precludes assuming that the South and East African sites, separated by 3000e4000 km, had homologous first/last appearance dates of species/lineages. It also highlights the impor- tance of using the current chronometric dating framework of South African localities to establish revised, ‘local’ biochronological Introduction data; particularly given the recycling in the literature of early bio- chronological dates that, themselves, were based in part on In a recent article, Grine et al. (2012) provided a thorough South African site dates that have been revised in recent years. analysis of the GD A-2 Paranthropus robustus M , one of the two 2 Here we review the dated record of Paranthropus in South Africa hominin specimens recovered from the Gondolin palaeocave in the (2.0e<1.0 Ma, Table 1), including that of Gondolin (1.95ew1.78 Ma; northeastern corner of the UNESCO Cradle of Humankind World Table 1) and review chronometric ages that Grine et al. (2012) Heritage Site (‘Cradle’), South Africa (Menter et al., 1999). Although dismiss as unreliable, so that such errors are not left to propagate we appreciate the detailed approach of their research on the their way through the published literature. hominin specimen, we wish to clarify several incorrect citations of our work at the Gondolin site, including the probable origin of the hominin specimens and age of the deposits. Moreover, Grine et al. Recovery and depositional context of the Gondolin hominins (2012) suggest that Paranthropus occurs in South Africa between 1.9 fl and 1.5 million years ago (Ma), an age range that does not re ect the As is the case at most South African palaeocaves, the Gondolin ages produced by a number of dating studies on Paranthropus- site was mined for lime deposits during the early 20th century. The bearing sites and continues to argue for the reliability of bio- mining activity at Gondolin was particularly extensive and oblit- chronology based on correlations with East Africa over existing erated the central portions of the cave system, leaving only chronometric ages that exist for the sites. With recent advances in extensive ex situ dumpsites and partial in situ remnants of the a number of dating methods that are applicable to the South original karstic deposits along the margins of the open cast mine African caves and studies that show their accurate cross correlation (Menter et al., 1999; Herries et al., 2006a,b; Adams et al., 2007). One (Lacruz et al., 2002; Herries et al., 2010, 2013) it is no longer of these in situ remnant deposits, designated GD 2, preserves a dense accumulation of fossils in a red siltstone matrix (Watson, * Corresponding author. 1993; Menter et al., 1999). The GD 2 deposits were excavated in E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A.I.R. Herries). the late 1970s and yielded a rich faunal assemblage that was later 0047-2484/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.007 Please cite this article in press as: Herries, A.I.R., Adams, J.W., Clarifying the context, dating and age range of the Gondolin hominins and Paranthropus in South Africa, Journal of Human Evolution (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.007 2 A.I.R. Herries, J.W. Adams / Journal of Human Evolution xxx (2013) 1e6 Table 1 Age ranges for the South African Paranthropus bearing units (2.0e0.6 Ma) based on a combination of multiple dating methods (Palaeomagnetism, ESR, UePb). Site Unit Age Method Reference Swartkrans Member 1 hanging remnant 2.0e1.8 Ma UePb, ESR Pickering et al. (2011), Curnoe et al. (2001), This paper Swartkrans Member 1 lower bank Sometime between 2.3 and 1.6 Ma UePb Pickering et al. (2011) (likely contemporary with Hanging Remnant) Gondolin GD 1 w1.78 Ma Palaeomag. Fauna Herries et al. (2006), Adams et al. (2007) Gondolin GD 2 1.95e1.78 Ma (w1.8 Ma) Palaeomag. Fauna Herries et al. (2006), Adams et al. (2007) Gondolin GD A 1.95ew1.78 Ma Correlation/fauna Herries et al. (2006), Adams et al. (2007) Kromdraai B Member 3 1.8e1.6 Ma Palaeomag. Fauna Thackeray et al. (2002), Herries et al. (2009) Sterkfontein Member 5b 1.8e1.5 Ma Palaeomag. UePb, ESR Curnoe (1999), Pickering and Kramers (2010), Herries and Shaw (2011) Swartkrans Member 2 1.7e1.1 Ma UePb Balter et al. (2008) Cooper’s D Upper facies A and C <1.4 Ma UePb de Ruiter et al. (2009) Cooper’s D Lower facies A and C 1.6e1.4 Ma UePb de Ruiter et al. (2009) Drimolen All 2.0e<1.4 Ma Faunal estimate Keyser et al., 2000, This paper Swartkrans Member 3 1.3e0.6 Ma UePb, ESR Blackwell (1994), Balter et al. (2008) only partially described (Watson, 1993). Subsequent analysis of the processed fossils; a position that has not been advocated in any entire GD 2 assemblage (Adams and Conroy, 2005; Adams, 2006, prior publications on the Gondolin hominins or fossil deposits (e.g., 2010) failed to identify any primate remains among the 95,549 Menter et al., 1999; Adams and Conroy, 2005; Adams, 2006; Herries specimens recovered from the GD 2 sample. The only other in situ et al., 2006a,b; Adams et al., 2007; Adams, 2010). In sum, we wish to fossil-bearing deposits thus far identified at Gondolin, designated reinforce that: 1) the Dumpsite A ex situ calcified sediments have GD 1, occur along the western rim of the excavated cave system and never been described as being either largely or exclusively derived consist of a complex mix of grey breccia, conglomerates and other from deposits near the GD 1 datum point; 2) only the grey finer-grained clastic sediments that have become partially decal- ‘Conglomerate Unit’ ex situ blocks from Trench A are similar to cified through erosional dissolution (Adams et al., 2007). Excava- those in the GD 1 in situ deposits; 3) both of the ex situ Gondolin tion of these deposits and analysis of the 4843 specimens recovered hominin teeth were processed from ‘Finer Clastic Unit’ blocks that fossil assemblage also failed to identify any primate specimens and have a red siltstone matrix dissimilar to that of the GD 1 deposits the hominin remains are an oddity in this respect (Adams, 2006). (but resembling that near the northern [GD 2] and southern [GD 3] At present the only primate (including hominin) bearing deposit datum points); and 4) neither of the Gondolin hominin specimens at Gondolin is ‘Dumpsite A’, a massive ex situ pile of calcified sed- have been definitively associated with excavated in situ deposits at iments near the southwestern edge of the mined cave system the site (GD 1, GD 2). (Menter et al., 1999; Adams, 2006). Excavation in 1997 into the top of the dumpsite through two adjacent 1 m2 units to a depth of Dating of the Gondolin site deposits approximately 2 m (Trench A) yielded both the GD A-2 P. robustus M2, as well as a partial, indeterminate hominin lower molar (GD A- It has seemingly become the opinion that the South African 1) (Menter et al., 1999). In their description of the recovery of the palaeocave sites are too complex to understand and thus date two hominin specimens, Menter et al. (1999) noted the occurrence accurately. This is a view perpetuated by studies of, and arguments of at least two types of calcified sediment blocks within Dump A: a over, the dating and geology of complex multi-generational sites grey, clastic ‘breccia’ (Conglomerate Unit sensu Menter et al.) and a where multiple phases of karstification, infilling and erosion occur, fine, red siltstone with sporadic clasts (Finer Clastic Unit sensu such as Sterkfontein (Partridge, 2000; Clarke, 2007; Pickering and Menter et al.). Both hominin teeth were recovered from small Kramers, 2010). Moreover, mis-citation and continued misrepre- blocks attributed to this Finer Clastic Unit and no attempt was made sentation of dating methods in papers that are not fundamentally to specifically associate the ex situ blocks with the limited GD 1 or about dating, as is the case in Grine et al.