Dangers in the Sky: Raptor Predation Cited as Cause of Death of Taung Child

 

Figure 1: Evidence of scratches and puncture wounds in the eye orbits of the Taung Child fossil (Source: Berger, Lee)

 

In 1925 Raymond Dart announced a discovery that would revolutionize the world of paleoanthropology: he announced the discovery of the Taung Child, the first species of Australopithecus africanus.  The Taung Child fossil is made up of the facial bones, portions of the temporal bones, mandible, and endocast of the brain.  Together, these pieces measure 5 inches long, 3 inches wide, and 4 inches wide, meaning they are very small.  The postcranial remains and remaining posterior elements of the brain case are missing.  Subsequent analysis of these remains rendered an age at death estimate of 3 years old, further supporting the small size of the Taung Child.  These fine details are important because they aid the conclusions reached by Lee Berger and collegues, who concluded that the Taung Child met its untimely death at the hand, or claws rather, of a large bird of prey.

 

Berger and R.J. Clarke initially announced their hypothesis that it was a large bird of prey (e.g., eagle, hawk, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, or owl) that was responsible for killing the Taung Child in 1995.  They cited various scratches and puncture wounds on the skull (Figure 1) as evidence to support this hypothesis, but this was insufficient evidence for the paleoanthropological community to accept this conclusion outright.  There were legitimate concerns about their idea, specifically in that there was no evidence that ancient birds of prey attacked hominid species.  Citing contemporary evidence that no ape species have been attacked, let alone killed, by birds of prey it seemed unlikely that a hominid species would meet a similar end.  It was a matter of size and the belief that hominid would have been too big and heavy for a large bird of prey to carry. 

 

There is substantial evidence, however, that demonstrates that various modern-day birds of prey will attack, kill, and consume small nonhuman primate species.  This has been readily observed and recorded by scholars over the decades (Figure 2).  The carrying capacity (weight limit) of modern birds of prey is approximately 13 kilograms (or just under 29 pounds).  While present day apes and humans are typically much larger than that it was assumed that birds of prey species of the past would have been leery or unwilling to attack a hominid species.

 

Figure 2: African crown eagle killing a vervet monkey (Source: Hugh Chittenden)

 

Berger and his colleagues, however, took the critiques and confronted them.  They conducted additional research on the Taung Child remains.  They recorded several scratches and puncture wounds across the fossilized remains, noting their present around and within the eye sockets, the forehead, and side of the skull.  They measured their depth and spacing to help them determine the cause of these marks, comparing them to other marks made by various other species (from eagles to rodents).  They also reviewed Raymond Dart’s notes about how he handled and studied the Taung Child’s remains when he came into custody of them. 

 

They ruled out several explanations for the marks, noting that they were less likely caused by rodents due to lack of uniformity and spacing and that Dart admitted to scratching the skull but only on one side, not both as evidenced on the fossilized remains.  When the marks on the Taung Child were compared to those present on small primate species and created by African crowned eagles it seemed that a large bird of prey was the likely culprit of the marks present on Taung.  Furthermore, Berger and his colleagues noted that similar marks were present on other nonhuman primate species found within the same contexts as Taung, further demonstrating that birds of prey were consuming nonhuman primate species well in the past. 

 

The scientific community seemed satisfied with these results, although Berger and others have admitted that they would like additional evidence to support their conclusions further.  This required evidence, however, may be difficult to collect as it would need to be additional juvenile hominid species.  These remains are difficult to recover in modern contexts, let alone in the paleolithic contexts, meaning it may be a long time before additional supporting evidence is available.  For now, however, it does appear that the Taung Child met its at the end of a bird of prey’s claws and beak.

 

Bibliography

Berger, L. (2006). Brief Communication: Predatory Bird Damage to the Taung Type-Skull of Australopithecus africanus Dart 1925. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 166-168.

Berger, L., & McGraw, W. (2007). Further evidence for eagle predation of, and feeding damage on, the Taung Child. South African Journal of Science , 496-503.

McGraw, W., & Berger, L. (2013). Raptors and Primate Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 280-293.

 

What the Duck? The Jeep Ducking Tradition

A "ducked" Jeep wrangler (Source: Bourdan)

 

Today’s blog post was inspired by the curiosity of this blog writer as they were wandering their local community and observed a pattern of behavior that they had not previously seen.  This was the number of rubber ducks on the dashboards of various Jeep Wranglers.  Jeep Wrangler and Jeep owners in general share a sense of identity and camaraderie, often participating in clubs and events to celebrate their shared passion for their Jeep vehicles.  While not a member of this group it is one familiar to this author through the friendships they have had with individuals who are either part of or are familiar with these clubs.  Despite this familiarity the rubber ducks were something new and intriguing, leading them to explore further about where, how, and why this new trend began and continues.

 

The act of placing a duck on a random Jeep Wrangler is known as “Jeep Ducking” or “Duck Duck Jeep”.  While it was not directly stated it appears that this latter phrase may be a play on the “Duck Duck Goose” game, wherein an individual will pick someone to be the “goose” and engage in a game of chase.  This mimics someone “choosing” a Jeep to place a random duck on. 

 

This trend, although I dare say tradition since it has become an institutionalized ritual among Jeep owners and enthusiasts, began in the summer of 2020.  Allison Parliament, a resident of a small town in Ontario (Canada), had just experienced a negative situation. This inspired her to spread a little joy in the world despite all the negativity going on just then and around the world (as summer 2020 was a tumultuous time due to the Covid-19 pandemic and sociopolitical upheaval occurring across the globe).  She took a yellow rubber duck and placed it on a Jeep Wrangler that reminded her of her own.  The duck was accompanied by a short note meant to bring some positivity to the Jeep owner.

 

It is not quite clear how specifically this small act of kindness spread from Parliament’s first act, but it did spread very quickly as other Jeep owners followed suit by also placing rubber ducks on other people’s vehicles.  This pattern of behavior may have occurred from Parliament discussing it online.  She is also credited with coming up with the “rules” for placing a duck on another vehicle.  These informal rules include suggestions on placing the duck and note on an obvious and external part of the vehicle, such as the hood, so the Jeep owner can easily see the duck and not miss it.  Originally, it was suggested that yellow ducks being used as they were easily visible and could be customized, but as quickly as this tradition began so did the mass production of various types of rubber ducks that people can purchase.  These can still be customized or purchased as is and left as gifts for other owners. 

 

What started out as a small act of kindness has exploded into a global phenomenon.  There are unsubstantiated stories all over the internet about how people of all ages engage in this activity, all of which are meant to be heartwarming and further spread joy to the readers.  This tradition has also spread among not just Jeep owners but also Mini Cooper owners, who have a similar group mentality for their vehicles.  It is said that Ed Smith, a Mini Cooper owner, appropriated this tradition for the Mini Cooper fan base.  Ultimately, Jeep ducking shows how easily and quickly some actions can become ritualized and traditions in any given society or culture, as well as demonstrate the values of said groups.

 

Works Cited

Bourdon, Stuart. "What in the Duck Is Jeep Ducking?" Motortrend Magazine 4 March 2024. Electronic.

Jeep Gowan Auto. Jeep Ducking. 2026. Electronic. 8 June 2026.

Sleepy Hollow Auto Group. "What's Up With Jeep Ducks?" 24 February 2025. Sleepy Hallow Auto Group. Electronic. 8 June 2026.

Traveling the High Seas: Evidence of Seafaring among Early Anatomically Modern Humans

Approximately 35,000 to 40000 years ago the Philippine Islands were geographically isolated and difficult to reach, but there was evidence derived from archaeological investigations completed in 1969 and 1970 that demonstrated that the earliest Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) occupation of the islands was anywhere between 10,000 to 39,000 years ago.  This begged the question as to how AMH reached the islands.  An article published in 2025 is answering that question, while also introducing new ones, particularly related to the creative ingenuity of early AMH.  It also provided greater insights into the timeline of human occupation of the Philippine Islands. 

 

Research derived from the Mindoro Archaeology Project built upon previously completed research concerning AMH occupation of the Philippine Islands.  The previous evidence showed that two sites, one located at Tabon Cave and another nearby site, demonstrated AMH occupation, but there were conflicting dates between the artifacts and human remains.  This is why there is a large chronological time scale of potential AMH occupation of the Philippines.  Researchers associated with the Mindoro Archaeology Project wanted to narrow that timeline further, so they set out to investigate seven additional, previously understudied or unstudied cave and rock shelter sites.  Of the seven five yielded evidence of AMH occupation, which included evidence of shell that was manipulated for food consumption and tool construction, oceanic fish that demonstrated evidence of being used for food, human burials, lithics, and pottery. 

 

Even more interesting was that the radiometric dating of these pieces of evidence showed continually use of the sites, meaning they were visited frequently despite their geographic distance from each other.  This, coupled with the inclusion of deep water fish resources, suggested that the AMH populations of the region were accessing the islands in some way other than by foot.  They possibly had the creative ingenuity to make boats.  The worked shell evidence suggests that the AMH populations were working wood, although it is unclear if that was specifically to make boats.  Unfortunately, given the preservation issues in the region wooden artifacts do not preserve well.  Thus far the evidence provided at these sites suggests that seafaring was the most likely means of travel to and from the sites, as well as reoccupation of the sites over the years.  This ultimately demonstrates that early AMH populations were far more creative and adept at problem solving and technology creation than many previously gave them credit for, demonstrating the breadth of intellect among humans throughout time.

 

References:

Pawlik, Alfred F.; Riczar B. Fuentes; Marie Grace Pamela G. Faylona; Trishia Gayle R. Palconit; Tanya Uldin. Chronology and ecology of early islanders in the Philippines: The Mindoro Archaeology Project. Archaeological Research in Asia, Volume 42. 2025. doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2025.100616.

Gone But Not Forgotten: The Extinct Language of Berbice Creole Dutch

Rita and Amy Thomas, two of the last Berbice Creole Dutch speakers

 

This blog has covered the impacts of language loss on cultural groups around the world, as well as the various conservation efforts that have been implemented to stop their extinction.  While several of these programs and initiatives have been successful there are some that have not been, leading to the extinction of a language (and the culture associated with it).  Today’s blog post will address a language made recently extinct as its last speaker passed away.  In this post you will learn about Berbice Creole Dutch.

 

Berbice Creole Dutch was one of several Dutch Creole languages spoken in what is today known as the country of Guyana in South America.  This language was spoken in an area along the Berbice River, of which the private colony of Berbice (and the language itself) derived their names.  When the colony was first established in 1627 under the permission of the Dutch West India Company its population consisted of primarily White European (Dutch) and a small proportion of enslaved Africans.  As the Berbice plantations multiplied the population demographics shifted considerably.  More Africans, particularly from East Africa, were forced to work on the plantations, alongside a small proportion of Lokono (commonly referred to as Arawak) Amerindians.  The White Dutch population was the minority in size. 

 

Because of their sociopolitical power the White Dutch population dominated the area, and they realized the need to communicate with the enslaved Black and Amerindian populations.  This led to the creation of the Berbice Creole Dutch language, which was derived from Eastern Ijo languages of Africa, Dutch of Europe, and Lokono, the local language of the indigenous Amerindians.  Based on linguistic studies of Berbice Creole Dutch 1/3 of the language’s lexicon (vocabulary) comes from Eastern Ijo languages, and no more than 10% of the lexicon comes from Lokono.  The rest is made up of Dutch words.  Despite the contribution of Lokono to its vocabulary it did not contribute to the grammatical structure of the language.  This is made up of the grammatical rules from the Eastern Ijo and Dutch languages. 

 

Beginning in the 1800s when the colony came under the control of the British the bovianders, the name of the descendants of the Dutch, enslaved Africans, and Lokono peoples, came under scrutiny and were quickly the victims of discrimination.  Their culture, which included animistic religious practices derived from Africa, the construction and habitation of simple but effective thatch-roofed homes, and hunting of local bush meat, was viewed as inferior, and the bovianders were strongly encouraged to assimilate to British colonial practices. 

 

Over time, generations of bovianders gave into that pressure.  When Berbice Creole Dutch was first studied very little of it was able to be documented due to native speakers being fearful of sharing their language or flatly refusing to do so.  They did not want to be judged harshly by linguistic scholars, who were often foreigners, as they were already judged by local populations.  As time went on and fewer and fewer native speakers remained there was a greater push among both linguists and the bovianders to document the language.  Unfortunately, social attitudes hampered preservation efforts, and in 2005 when Albertha Bell, the last remaining Berbice Creole Dutch speaker passed away at the age of 103, the language was deemed extinct. 

 

Her death did not just mark the extinction of a language, however.  It also provided lessons on the effects of language death.  Because of the sociocultural attitudes that harshly and negatively viewed the bovianders they lived their last years primarily isolated from others.  Their family members moved away and eventually stopped visiting them due to the view of the bovianders as “backwards” individuals who were too stubborn and ignorant to “evolve” and modernize.  This attitude also contributed to other, nonfamily members from interacting with them.  As stated at the beginning of this post these actions led not only to the extinction of a language but the culture that went with it.  An unfortunate end to a culture that thrived despite extreme challenges, only to be exterminated in large part by itself.

  

Works Cited

Jamaican Language Unit, University of the West Indies, Mona. "Berbice Dutch Creole." 2007. Caribbean Indigenous and Endangered Languages. Electronic. 8 June 2026.

Kouwenberg, Silvia. "Berbice Dutch: a language in South America." 10 October 2025. Lingo Blog. Electronic. 8 June 2026.

Kouwenberg, Silvia. "Survey chapter: Berbice Dutch." Michaelis, Susanne Maria, et al. The survey of pidgin and creole languages. In "The survey of pidgin and creole languages". Volume 1: English-based and Dutch-based Languages. . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.