What ever happened to Little Foot?

Little Foot in Sterkfontein Cave, Photo: V. Mourre, CC BY-SA 3.0

Just this morning, I was taking stock of my hominin work (which is continuing behind the scenes), and I checked yet again for progress on the deservedly famous fossil Little Foot.  To refresh your memory, Little Foot is the most complete skeleton (by far) of an Australopithecus.  It was found in the South African cave Sterkfontein, which is around the corner from the Rising Star cave where Homo naledi was discovered.  The skeleton took some twenty years to excavate from the cave, and the mostly finished preparation was revealed in December, 2018.  I previously covered the fossil here:

• Little Foot at last
• It's a girl!  Early lessons from Little Foot
• The Skull: Early lessons from Little Foot
• Little Foot update

My last update on the subject was December 13, 2018, which was 21 months ago.  So what happened?  I don't really know, but I can summarize what's publicly available.

A collection of papers describing Little Foot were to be published in the Journal of Human Evolution in a special issue devoted to the subject.  There are currently only three papers listed in that special issue, but there are more online.  Here's what's in the press for Little Foot:

1. Excavation, reconstruction and taphonomy of the StW 573 Australopithecus prometheus skeleton from Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa
2. The endocast of StW 573 (“Little Foot”) and hominin brain evolution
3. The bony labyrinth of StW 573 (“Little Foot”): Implications for early hominin evolution and paleobiology
4. The skull of StW 573, a 3.67 Ma Australopithecus prometheus skeleton from Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa
5. The long limb bones of the StW 573 Australopithecus skeleton from Sterkfontein Member 2: Descriptions and proportions
6. A multiscale stratigraphic investigation of the context of StW 573 ‘Little Foot’ and Member 2, Sterkfontein Caves, South Africa
7. The atlas of StW 573 and the late emergence of human-like head mobility and brain metabolism

The first six all appeared in JHE in 2019, and the last one was published by Scientific Reports in March, 2020.  There are additional papers posted to BioRxiv:

1. Functional Anatomy, Biomechanical Performance Capabilities and Potential Niche of StW 573: an Australopithecus Skeleton (circa 3.67 Ma) From Sterkfontein Member 2, and its significance for The Last Common Ancestor of the African Apes and for Hominin Origins
2. Bilateral Asymmetry of the Forearm Bones as Possible Evidence of Antemortem Trauma in the StW 573 Australopithecus Skeleton from Sterkfontein Member 2 (South Africa)

And that's it.  These other papers seem to be in publication limbo right now.

I found all of these papers very strange in different ways.  In addition to my previous comments on the strange taxonomy, here are a few points I posted to Facebook in 2018.

On the excavation paper: "The paper is a strange one. Mostly a qualitative description of the excavation. I would describe it as an apologetic for why it took 20 years to get the skeleton out of the ground. I don't think I like the explanation either. Evidently only three people worked on this excavation at a time. Clarke did much of the work himself. Because of their fears of damaging other bones in the deposit, they chose to excavate it from the ground with airscribes that they brought into the Grotto where the bones were found. The bones were evidently very fragile and required a chemical stabilizer as they were exposed, and weather turned out to be problematic on occasion as water drained right onto the excavation site. Still, I don't understand why only three people excavated. As a perfectionist myself, I understand the drive to be in control, but I'm also impatient. Twenty years is too long."

On the bony labyrinth paper: "On the inner ear: "Cochlear morphology in StW 573 is similar to that of other Australopithecus as well as to Paranthropus specimens included in this study, but it is substantially different from early Homo." Sample table lists 17 from Australopithecus and Paranthropus compared to TWO early Homo. What kind of sample size is that? They're all South African specimens. Why? That may be statistically significant but biologically irrelevant."

So that's where things stand.  I'm itching to learn more, but until additional studies start appearing, I guess I'll have to wait.

Unless I can glean something from the published material...  Sounds like a fun project.

Feedback? Email me at toddcharleswood [at] gmail [dot] com. If you enjoyed this article, please consider a contribution to Core Academy of Science. Thank you.

Have you read my book?  You should check that out too!