Findings Strengthen Case for Signs of Early Life in Australian Rocks

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Over the last several billion years, sediments on the earth have been raised and lowered, cooled and heated, twisted and straightened. Any possible fossil traces of life from such dim reaches of time have become extremely difficult to distinguish from the surrounding rock. Indeed, all of the oldest putative signatures of life are smudged and disputed. But a new analysis claims to significantly bolster the theory that some peculiar rocks from Australia contain some of the first signs of life.

Abigail Allwood of Macquarie University and her colleagues studied a 10-kilometer stretch of rock in Australia's Pilbara region identified nearly 30 years ago as the remnants of stromatolites. These distinctive, layered mounds are the result of colonies of cyanobacteria or other microorganisms that have captured and cemented sediment and sand. But some researchers have challenged that theory, noting that chemical activity around hydrothermal vents could produce similar structures.

Allwood's team undertook a comprehensive survey of the disputed stromatolites, detailing the variety of shapes contained therein, the ancient setting revealed by the rocks as well as any similarities to present day microbial mats. They found more than seven types of rocks with different features corresponding to how the rock particles were deposited. Some have a surface resembling egg-carton ripples; others take the shape of large cones.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers argue that it is unlikely that purely inanimate processes produced this wide variety of markings in one, relatively small, area. Additionally, the cone-shaped formations show signs of grains being cemented to their sides, suggesting that microbes fixed them there. Areas between these cones, on the other hand, appear to contain only sediment deposited by waves in a shallow sea.

Because this fossil layer rests between two volcanic layers, it can be precisely dated to 3.43 billion years old. Thus, if Allwood and her collaborators are correct, the stromatolites rank among the oldest signs of life on the earth. "What is so striking about their scenario is that it is so 'normal'--in the sense that transgressive, tidally influenced carbonate platforms with stromatolites are common in the geologic record. Stromatolites are also known to form in similar environments today," argues Stanley Awramik in a commentary accompanying the paper in today's Nature. "This is not the first report on stromatolites from this formation and it probably won't be the last."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe