(R)Evolutionary News about Primate Ancestors

Figure 1: An artistic rendition of a Purgatorius species (Image Credit: Andrey Atuchin)

 

Today’s blog post will discuss some revolutionary news that has come out over the past few years in regards to primate ancestors, specifically those known as the plesiadapiforms (Figure 1).  For current and/or former students of physical anthropological or evolutionary biology courses this name should sound familiar.  There had been much previous study on these species, but this knowledge was based on small samples of largely fossilized teeth.  A recent discovery of tarsal (ankle) bones and teeth, however, has broadened our knowledge of these species and provides greater insights into the origins of all primates.

 

Plesiadapiforms belong to the genus known as Purgatorius.  It was originally believed that they evolved 66 million years ago (MYA), about 100,000 years after the extinction of the dinosaurs.  They were characterized as being small bodied primates with long snouts and specialized diets, subsisting on either insects or fruit based on extensive analyses of fossilized teeth.  They were also believed to have been largely terrestrial, a conclusion that was based on no substantive evidence as the teeth were the only remains discovered. 

 

That was until recently when the discovery of two tarsal (ankle) bones opened up new avenues of research that broadened the current understanding of Plesiadapiform species.  Extensive analysis of the tarsal bones demonstrate that these species were not terrestrial but instead arboreal, upending a long held assumption that primates evolved to be tree dwellers over time.  Instead, this evidence demonstrates that primates just adapted to be better able to navigate and survive in the trees, eventually moving onto land several millennia later.

 

Additional discoveries of new fossilized teeth also provided new insights into the plesiadapiforms, specifically in the identification of a new species and a more definitive timeline for when plesiadapiforms first evolved.  Teeth discovered in Montana confirmed the existence of a previously known species, Purgatorius janisae, but also led to the naming of a new species, Purgatorius mckeeveri.  The latter was named after the family who had been supporting area excavations for some time. 

 

Even more exciting was the discovery that these fossilized remains showed that plesiadapiforms were the oldest primates, and that these ancestral primates may have lived among dinosaurs prior to their extinction!  Unfortunately, this also may account for how and why the went extinct around 56 MYA.  This was most likely the result of being too adapted to their climatic and environmental conditions and being unable to adapt to the rapidly changing environmental conditions they existed in.  Regardless, these new pieces of evidence provide new information into primate origins and greater knowledge into what exactly makes up the Primate order.

 

Bibliography

Chester, S. G., Bloch, J. I., Boyer, D. M., & Clemens, W. A. (2015). Oldest known euarchontan tarsals and affinities of Paleocene Purgatorius to Primates. PNAS, 1487-1492.

News Staff. (2021, March 1). 65-Million-Year-Old Primate Fossils Uncovered in Montana. Retrieved from Sci News: http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/purgatorius-fossils-montana-09402.html

No Author. (2021, February 24). Earliest-known fossil primate discovered in Montana. Retrieved from The Leakey Foundation: https://leakeyfoundation.org/earliest-known-fossil-primate-discovered-in-montana/?fbclid=IwAR05TLfQNZbLaYmNrDjemMGr5PmhFsXqlUDb6WlGUjrNPp117bQt5_0UK-M

Shelton, J. (2015, January 19). Fossil ankles indicate Earth’s earliest primates lived in trees. Retrieved from Yale News: https://news.yale.edu/2015/01/19/fossil-ankles-indicate-earth-s-earliest-primates-lived-trees

 

Anthropologist Profile: Dr. Radhika Govindrajan, Cultural Anthropology & Animal Studies

Radhika Govindrajan (Source: University of Washington)

 

Today’s blog post is dedicated to discussing the pivotal and award winning work of Dr. Radhika Govindrajan, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Washington.  Her current research interests are situated in political anthropology and sex and sexuality throughout India.  It is her previous interests and work in the sociocultural study of animal studies that is the focus of today’s post.  This blog post will discuss her previous studies, how they led her to this research, and how this research is applicable to contemporary issues globally.

 

Govindrajan did not initially study anthropology.  In fact, she was a student of history, which is what her Masters degree is in (from Jawaharlal Nehru University).  It was while she was studying wildlife conservation issues during colonial India that she noticed that the contemporary debates on this topic were very similar to and embedded in the foundation of that period.  At the same time she was conducting her research there were political arguments in India that framed certain groups, particularly poor, rural populations as deviant, whereas richer, urban populations were characterized as lawful and better able to make decisions about animal conservation on public and private lands. 

 

The tension between rural and urban/rich and poor drew her to anthropological studies to further understand the complexities of these contemporary issues.  She completed her Doctoral Studies at Yale University, which led to the publication of her first book, Animal Intimacies.  This book explored various cultural aspects of human-animal relations, ranging from religious (e.g., the ethics of animal sacrifice), political (e.g., laws pertaining to animal protections), and social, among central Himalayan groups of India.  She takes an ethnohistorical approach within this text, addressing questions about how human-animal relationships influence various decisions concerning animals.  These include selecting certain animals for food versus companionship versus work, specifically in performative functions.  She also digs into the origins of these relationships, their cultural importance, and why they continue today.  She argues that these relationships and the ethic surrounding them are negotiated daily as new cultural values and influences pierce the social fabric of these central Himalayan groups.

 

Animal Intimacies went on to be awarded two prestigious prizes: the 2017 American Institute of Indian Studies Edward Cameron Dimock Prize in the Indian Humanities and the 2019 Gregory Bateson Prize, by the Society for Cultural Anthropology.  The award announcements note the parallels between the book’s subject matter in understanding human-animal relations globally.  Govindrajan remarked on this in an interview she conducted wherein she noted how the same issues that exist at her field site in India exist within the million-dollar pet industry and animal husbandry industries in the United States.  She also commented on what she believed readers could learn from the book, which was:

“Writing this book gave me new appreciation for the ways in which our lives are constantly shaped by encounters with animals. It could give readers avenues to think about their own ways of being in the world, and what discussions of living ethically might look like. This book demonstrates how people live their lives through their relationships with others. There are relationships you might have with a particular animal that change the way you are oriented in the world. There’s something really powerful in that.”

 

References

Devrim Gürsel, Zeynep. "Radhika Govindrajan Awarded the 2019 Bateson Prize." 19 September 2019. Society for Cultural Anthropology. Electronic. 5 May 2022.

Eckart, Kim. "Anthropology professor focuses book on the bonds between humans, animals ." 12 June 2018. UW News. Electronic. 2 May 2022.

No Author. "Radhika Govindrajan." 2020. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington . Electronic. 5 May 2022.

King Tut's Cosmic Blade

 

Figure 1: King Tut's cosmic blade (Image Source: New York Post)

 

It should come to no surprise to many that humans have had a long history with attempting to understand what is above them in the skies and in the heavens.  On this blog there have been various posts about this topic, from a discussion of solar eclipses and what they meant to past populations; the Aztec’s dedication to their primary deity, the Sun God; to modern religious conceptions centering on celestial events.  Today’s blog post continues in that same vein, albeit in a different way.  Today’s blog post will address the cosmic creation of King Tutankham’s blade (Figure 1).

 

King Tutankham, or simply known as King Tut, ruled over Egypt from 1361-1352 B.C., proceeding his father’s reign.  Tut’s reign coincides with the Bronze Age, a period characterized by the widespread use of bronze for metal artifacts.  There were some iron artifacts manufactured and used during this period, but the production of iron was in its infancy and therefore iron artifacts were reserved for ritual, ceremonial, or ornamental purposes.  Typically, iron artifacts were found with high status individuals, such as King Tut, who happened to be buried with several iron artifacts. 

 

One such artifact, an iron blade with an ornamental gold hilt, has been widely studied over the years, particularly because of its rarity but more because of the origins of the iron blade itself.  The iron used to create the blade was not of Earthly origins but instead believe to have been from a meteorite.  Early studies of the blade did not disclose the specific methods used to assess the origins of the blade, leading scholars to be skeptical of the results.  It was not until 2006 in a study conducted by Comelli et al. that the origins of the blade were finally identified.  Using X-ray Fluorescence (XRF), a nondestructive analysis, the components of the iron ore in the blade were exhaustively analyzed, and the scholars reached a number of important conclusions about the blade.  First, they realized that the blade was fashioned from a meteorite.  Subsequent study expanded on this conclusion to add that the smelting process required low level heat to appropriately work the metal.  Comelli et al. also concluded that the blade was manufactured outside of Egypt, most likely in Anatolia where the earliest iron smelting occurred.  This conclusion was supported by archaeological records, specifically the Armarna Letters, which detailed the receipt of gifts from outside kingdoms to the Egyptian pharaohs.  It seems that the blade buried with King Tut was originally gifted to his grandfather.  How and why it was interred with him as part of his burial shroud remains unknown.

 

The discovery of the cosmic origins of King Tut’s blade provides greater insights into early life throughout the Old World, but it also clarifies early records found throughout ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.  Scholars noted that these civilizations recorded events, such as meteor showers, and connected iron with coming from the sky.  Initially, there were and continue to be debates about the meaning of this phrasing, specifically in referencing meteorites that were collected and smelted in the early iron smelting process or if ancient peoples believed all iron came from the heavens.  While this remains under debate the identification of King Tut’s blade as being derived from a meteor demonstrates that ancient peoples were collecting meteorites and manipulating them for high value items.  This is in line with discoveries across the globe wherein meteorites were used to create a variety of objects, often associated with sacred or ritual contexts.

 

References

Comelli, D., D'Orazio, M., Folco, L., El-Halwagy, M., Frizzi, T., Alberti, R., . . . Valentini, G. (2016). The meteoritic origin of Tutankhamun’s iron dagger blade. Meteoritics & Planetary Science 1–9 (2016), 1-9.

Johnson, D., Tyldesley, J., Lowe, T., Withers, P. J., & Grady, M. M. (2013). Analysis of a prehistoric Egyptian iron bead with implications for the use and perception of meteorite iron in ancient Egypt. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 997–1006.

Matsui, T., Moriwaki, R., Zidan, E., & Arai, T. (2022). The manufacture and origin of the Tutankhamen meteoritic iron dagger. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 1-12.