Inside the Dinaledi chamber, cavers Hunter and Tucker have discovered a new specie under

the genus Homo. A specie never seen before that would change our conceptual perspective on the
evolution of man. With the discovery of Homo naledi, the supposed linear descent or evolution of
humans from both the primitive hominids and the Austrolopithicines was starting to crumble. The
discovery of this specie, the Homo naledi, has given rise to more analysis and increased possibility
on whether there was an early divergence of the evolutionary line, even as early as the time of the
Australopithecus afarensis, or simultaneously in the evolutionary process, a more primitive specie
had lived side-by-side with the recent Homo sapiens. As of now, without the release of an official
date, the more probable place in time where Homo naledi fits is between two to two and a half
million years ago which would then give Homo naledi the recognition as being the early homo, or
the root of our genus Homo.
Out of the numerous species that were discovered whether under the genus Homo or not,
what is it with Homo naledi that made its revelation so revolutionary? First of all is its state of being
a hybrid of Australopithecines and the modern human, the Homo sapiens. It is very perplexing, even
for the paleoanthropolgists, that Homo naledi was comprised of both modern and primitive
anatomical or physical features. The Homo naledis skull is actually advanced but its cranial cavity
is less than half that of a modern man. Their skeletal remains also showed that they have versatile
hands which suggests tool use, long and slender legs that have strong muscle attachments which is a
characteristic of a modern bipedal gait, and a humanlike feet which suggest efficient long-distance
strides. The molar crowns of Homo naledi were small with five cusps like the modern humans. On
the other side of the spectrum, certain skeletal features of the Homo naledi point towards the apelike
side of the Homo naledi. Such features include the shoulders of the Homo naledi which is
positioned in a way that would help in climbing, the flared pelvis which is a primitive trait,
premolar roots that were primitive, and curved fingers which would also aid in climbing.. These
Australopithecine features of Homo naledi are traits retained from its apelike ancestors while the
modern and advanced human features are results of the evolutionary process of the specie. The
apelike features of Homo naledi are really analogous to that of apes while the modern or Homo
features of the specie are also very like the modern humans in such that if one looks solely at the
foot skeleton of a Homo naledi, one might falsely recognize it to be the foot of a Bushman.
The Homo naledi possessed an endocranial volume at around 560 cubic centimeters for
males and 465 cubic centimeter for the females. Evidently and numerically comparing, the Homo
naledi indeed had a smaller braincase than the Homo erectus which had an average endocranial
volume of 900 cubic centimeters. But despite the fact that Homo naledi are small-brained creatures,

they manifested a certain ritual or practice of disposing the dead. Our knowledge on this kind of
ritualized treatment towards the dead is only limited to the Homo sapiens and other archaic humans.
More than just the amazement that such small-brained creatures exhibited complex behaviors of
disposing the dead, is the astonishment by the fact that the non-human Homo naledi actually had
sentiments, which in the first place are the hallmark of humanity. This ritual disposal of the dead
made the specie almost similar to humans because of the precursor, if not presence of culture traits
manifested in the ritual which is truly exclusive to human beings. If Homo naledi had cultural traits
analogous with that of the Homo sapiens, what are the differences between the two? Ultimately,
how does Homo naledi differ from its cousins, predecessor and descendants.
When we compare Homo naledi with Homo erectus, we could clearly see that there are
certain features of Homo naledi that would prove its primitiveness over the Homo erectus. The
molars of Homo naledi are simplified while they are invariably crenelated and complex in Homo
erectus. The Homo naledi does not have the elongated, low cranium of the Homo erectus, and in
addition, the post-cranial skeleton of both species differ significantly. As aforementioned, the Homo
erectus have more voluminous cranial cavity than the Homo naledi. With this being said, despite the
fact that Homo naledi have smaller brains, they seemed to be cognitive animals. The only thing that
would limit Homo naledi to become human, assuming that Homo sapiens and Homo naledi have
coexisted, is that the Homo sapiens were far more advanced than the Homo naledi, considering their
anatomical features and brain size. The Homo naledi were extinguished before they had enough
time to evolve as there was only room for one human or human-like specie for there was scarcity of
resources during that time. For Homo naledi to come near to being humans, their apelike features
need to evolve and at the same time, their brains must enlarge to have better chances of survival.
But speaking of their apelike features, Homo naledi differ from the Australopithecines because of
the presence of advanced physical features and also the manifestation of cultural traits which shows
higher cognition.
The discovery of Homo naledi is indeed an eye-opener to the fact that there are still a lot of
things out there that we have yet to discover. But in my personal analysis, the discovery of the
skeletal remains of Homo naledi is still vague enough that contentions still arise. This is due to the
fact that it is only the skeletons of disposed corpses that they have found. They have yet to find their
area of occupation where there would be supplementary evidences to strengthen the study on Homo
naledi. Such supplementary evidences would include the tools they used and also the remains of
meals. In addition, they have yet to chronometrically dated which would lead us to rely on the
estimates derived from the statistical analysis of cranial traits. There are still a lot that we have to

expedite and this openness to the fact that there might still be species that would be potential roots
of our genus implicitly means that the general information we have today is still inconclusive in the
sense that we are still uncertain what specie was the root of our genus, was there really branching in
the evolutionary process and such. Nevertheless, every new discovery only leads us a step closer on
finding our ancestors. And with the discovery of Homo naledi, we are venturing closer to knowing
our roots as only time can tell when.
************
ADDITIONAL NOTE
This paper was written considering the improbable conclusion that bodies of Homo naledi
were deliberately stocked inside the remote chamber. This was due to the fact that the argument that
water was the reason for the skeletons displacement seem illogical as in the article, it was stated
that no stones, rubble, plant material and other debris were found inside the fossil chamber. Another
possible point of debate why they were inside the hardly-reached chamber was that the Homo
naledis got trapped inside. But this is debunked by the fact that the distribution of bones indicate
that they had been deposited over a long time. There is just an unending amount of possible
explanations for this phenomena but following how Lee Berger considered it, the deposition of dead
bodies was taken to be the cause why there were fossils inside remote chambers in the context of
writing.

REFERENCES
Goldberg, S. (2015, October). Mystery Man. Almost Human, 228(4), 30-58.
Hawks, J. (2015, September 19). Is Homo naledi just a primitive version of Homo erectus?
Retrieved November 13, 2016, from http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/naledi/homo-naledihomo-erectus-2015.html
Homo naledi. (n.d.). Retrieved November 13, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Homo_naledi