Morphological and mtDNA analysis of Mezzena mandible

 

I've written about late Neandertals becoming more AMH-like, and a new study on an Italian specimen that postdates the arrival of AMH in Europe lends some further support to that idea.
The Mezzena jaw has Neandertal mtDNA and shares a number of morphological traits with other Neandertals, but its overall shape places it within the cluster of modern humans  (triangles; figure on the left). Notice also that Qafzeh 9 (Q9) and Shkul V (SV) are also within the cluster of modern humans, and Spy 1 (a Neandertal) is actually closer to modern humans than to other Neandertals.
From the paper:

The position on the scatter plot of our specimen of interest, Mezzena, has been calculated a posteriori. Unsurprisingly, the Mezzena mandible does not present any particular affinities with mid-Pleistocene specimens. It is most similar to AMHs being positioned within the H. sapiens cloud of points and the DFA classifies the specimen with modern humans (Table S7). Especially its shape is similar to that of Ohalo II and to a lesser extent to the recent modern human specimen China5. However, it should be noted that its position also indicates affinities with some Neanderthal specimens: the late Neanderthal Spy 1 and Saint-Césaire, the Near-East specimens Tabūn II and Amud 1, and to a lesser extent the classic Neanderthals La Ferrassie 1 and Guattari III (Figure 2).

According to the authors:

In this light, we can interpret the position of the Mezzena mandible which stands within the modern human shape space, while presenting strong shape similarities with some Neanderthal specimens. Such a conflicting taxonomical position is not surprising, considering the geological age of the mandible [30]. Indeed, numerous late Neanderthals such as Spy 1, Saint Césaire and the Near-East mandibles Amud 1 and Tabun II possess hints of a chin (i.e. tuber symphyseo) though not a true modern human morphology [37], [51]. Late Neanderthals lived in area where AMHs might have been already present [2], [23], [52], while the Levantine fossils are displaying a less derived Neanderthal morphology [35], [36]. 

Therefore, in our view, this change in morphology of the mandibular chin among the fossils of Mezzena and other late Neanderthals could have been the result of a small degree of interbreeding with AMHs.

It would be interesting to sequence Mezzena to confirm the existence of AMH admixture.
PLoS ONE 8(3): e59781. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059781
Possible Interbreeding in Late Italian Neanderthals? New Data from the Mezzena Jaw (Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy)
Silvana Condemi et al.
In this article we examine the mandible of Riparo Mezzena a Middle Paleolithic rockshelter in the Monti Lessini (NE Italy, Verona) found in 1957 in association with Charentian Mousterian lithic assemblages. Mitochondrial DNA analysis performed on this jaw and on other cranial fragments found at the same stratigraphic level has led to the identification of the only genetically typed Neanderthal of the Italian peninsula and has confirmed through direct dating that it belongs to a late Neanderthal. Our aim here is to re-evaluate the taxonomic affinities of the Mezzena mandible in a wide comparative framework using both comparative morphology and geometric morphometrics. The comparative sample includes mid-Pleistocene fossils, Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. This study of the Mezzena jaw shows that the chin region is similar to that of other late Neanderthals which display a much more modern morphology with an incipient mental trigone (e.g. Spy 1, La Ferrassie, Saint-Césaire). In our view, this change in morphology among late Neanderthals supports the hypothesis of anatomical change of late Neanderthals and the hypothesis of a certain degree of interbreeding with AMHs that, as the dating shows, was already present in the European territory. Our observations on the chin of the Mezzena mandible lead us to support a non abrupt phylogenetic transition for this period in Europe.
Link

Was Homo floresiensis a cretin?

 

From the paper:

We are therefore disturbed that Brown (2012), though selecting those features that imply to him that LB1 could not be a cretin, does not also cite the many features in those same publications that imply cretinism, nor does he cite the many more features, both observational and quantitative implying cretinism, in Oxnard (2008), Oxnard et al. (2011), and Dennison et al. (2012). What is sorely needed is an independent review of, and free access to, the Liang Bua material.

HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology
Volume 63, Issue 6, December 2012, Pages 407–412
More on the Liang Bua finds and modern human cretins
Charles Oxnard et al.
Brown (2012: LB1 and LB6 Homo floresiensis are not modern human (Homo sapiens) cretins, Journal of Human Evolution) makes errors of fact, omission and interpretation. Brown's comments refer, among others, to (1) delayed growth and development indicated by unfused epiphyses, (2) postcranial limb proportions: limbs to trunk, between limbs, and within limbs, (3) postcranial bone torsions and angles, (4) postcranial robusticity, real and apparent, (5) skull features, and (6) cretinism on Flores. In each of these areas, much information about cretins is incorrect and much information (Oxnard et al., 2010) comparing the Liang Bua remains with cretins is ignored.

Link

Abnormalities in Pleistocene Homo

 

An excess of congenital defects is certainly compatible with high levels of inbreeding, and the publication of the Denisova genome clearly suggested "extremely low" genetic diversity in that Pleistocene human. It'll be interesting to see if more ancient DNA data will reveal high levels of inbreeding consistent with the abundance of genetic abnormalities evident in the anthropological record.

PLoS ONE 8(3): e59587. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059587
An Enlarged Parietal Foramen in the Late Archaic Xujiayao 11 Neurocranium from Northern China, and Rare Anomalies among Pleistocene Homo

Xiu-Jie Wu et al.

We report here a neurocranial abnormality previously undescribed in Pleistocene human fossils, an enlarged parietal foramen (EPF) in the early Late Pleistocene Xujiayao 11 parietal bones from the Xujiayao (Houjiayao) site, northern China. Xujiayao 11 is a pair of partial posteromedial parietal bones from an adult. It exhibits thick cranial vault bones, arachnoid granulations, a deviated posterior sagittal suture, and a unilateral (right) parietal lacuna with a posteriorly-directed and enlarged endocranial vascular sulcus. Differential diagnosis indicates that the perforation is a congenital defect, an enlarged parietal foramen, commonly associated with cerebral venous and cranial vault anomalies. It was not lethal given the individual’s age-at-death, but it may have been associated with secondary neurological deficiencies. The fossil constitutes the oldest evidence in human evolution of this very rare condition (a single enlarged parietal foramen). In combination with developmental and degenerative abnormalities in other Pleistocene human remains, it suggests demographic and survival patterns among Pleistocene Homo that led to an elevated frequency of conditions unknown or rare among recent humans.

Link

Extreme mobility in the late Pleistocene (Shaw and Stock 2013)

The idea of Pleistocene remains having "extremely active and mobile lives" is consistent with the hypothesis that people moved around during prehistory, and did not simply grow roots after their initial colonization of the planet, as some models of "Paleolithic continuity" have affirmed.
Journal of Human Evolutiondoi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.01.004
Extreme mobility in the Late Pleistocene? Comparing limb biomechanics among fossil Homo, varsity athletes and Holocene foragers
Colin N. Shaw, Jay T. Stock
Descriptions of Pleistocene activity patterns often derive from comparisons of long bone diaphyseal robusticity across contemporaneous fossilized hominins. The purpose of this study is to augment existing understanding of Pleistocene hominin mobility patterns by interpreting fossil variation through comparisons with a) living human athletes with known activity patterns, and b) Holocene foragers where descriptions of group-level activity patterns are available. Relative tibial rigidity (midshaft tibial rigidity (J)/midshaft humeral rigidity (J)) was compared amongst Levantine and European Neandertals, Levantine and Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens, Holocene foragers and living human athletes and controls. Cross-country runners exhibit significantly (p < 0.05) greater relative tibial rigidity compared with swimmers, and higher values compared with controls. In contrast, swimmers displayed significantly (p < 0.05) lower relative tibial rigidity than both runners and controls. While variation exists among all Holocene H. sapiens, highly terrestrially mobile Later Stone Age (LSA) southern Africans and cross-country runners display the highest relative tibial rigidity, while maritime Andaman Islanders and swimmers display the lowest, with controls falling between. All fossil hominins displayed relative tibial rigidity that exceeded, or was similar to, the highly terrestrially mobile Later Stone Age southern Africans and modern human cross-country runners. The more extreme skeletal structure of most Neandertals and Levantine H. sapiens, as well as the odd Upper Palaeolithic individual, appears to reflect adaptation to intense and/or highly repetitive lower limb (relative to upper limb) loading. This loading may have been associated with bipedal travel, and appears to have been more strenuous than that encountered by even university varsity runners, and Holocene foragers with hunting grounds 2000–3000 square miles in size. Skeletal variation among the athletes and foraging groups is consistent with known or inferred activity profiles, which support the position that the Pleistocene remains reflect adaptation to extremely active and mobile lives.
Link

Late Middle Pleistocene teeth from South China (Liu et al. 2013)

From the paper:

The Panxian Dadong P3 falls in the upper left quadrant, an area that, with the exception of two out of the nine Atapuerca-SH specimens and S7-34, is exclusively occupied by recent humans. Thus this geometric morphometric analysis indicates that the general crown conformation of the Panxian Dadong P3 resembles some European Middle Pleistocene hominins, Chinese Upper Pleistocene hominins, and particularly the recent human specimens. 

According to the above comparisons, the Panxian Dadong P3 preserves some primitive and highly polymorphic traits, but in general its conformation is derived. Its occlusal morphology is simple, and the contour is symmetrical with a lingual cusp that is narrower than the buccal one. All these features make the Panxian Dadong P3 most similar to Upper Pleistocene hominins and recent humans in our comparative samples.

I suspect that the age of these teeth will render them useless for ancient DNA work.
Journal of Human Evolution doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.10.012
Late Middle Pleistocene hominin teeth from Panxian Dadong, South China
Wu Liu et al.
The hominin teeth and evidence of hominin activities recovered from 1991 to 2005 at the Panxian Dadong site in South China are dated to the late Middle Pleistocene (MIS 8–6 or ca. 130–300 ka), a period for which very little is known about the morphology of Asian populations. The present study provides the first detailed morphometric description and comparisons of four hominin teeth (I1, C1, P3 and P3) from this site. Our study shows that the Panxian Dadong teeth combine archaic and derived features that align them with Middle and Upper Pleistocene fossils from East and West Asia and Europe. These teeth do not display any typical Neanderthal features and they are generally more derived than other contemporaneous populations from Asia and Africa. However, the derived traits are not diagnostic enough to specifically link the Panxian Dadong teeth to Homo sapiens, a common problem when analyzing the Middle Pleistocene dental record from Africa and Asia. These findings are contextualized in the discussion of the evolutionary course of Asian Middle Pleistocene hominins, and they highlight the necessity of incorporating the Asian fossil record in the still open debate about the origin of H. sapiens.
Link

Doubt cast on Tam Pa Ling age

For reference, see the post on the original article:

• Tam Pa Ling: modern humans in Southeast Asia at 63-46ka

From a criticism of the original paper:

Hence, contrary to the authors' assertion that TPL1 has a “minimum secured age of 46 ka and a maximum age of ∼63 ka”, the published stratigraphy, if correct, indicates that the TPL1 specimen is no older than 46 ka. TPL1’s status as “the earliest well-dated modern human fossil east of the Jordan Valley” also appears weak compared with the Liujiang specimen dated to ∼153 ka (3), the Callao Cave fossil in the Philippines dated to 67 ka (4), and, above all, the ∼100 ka modern fossil from Zhirendong (5), discovered only 484 km northeast of Tam Pa Ling in Southern China.

Irreconcilable differences between stratigraphy and direct dating cast doubts upon the status of Tam Pa Ling fossil

Alain Pierret et al.

Link

... and from a reply to the criticism by the authors:

They question the validity of the dating because of an apparent “reverse stratigraphy” (Fig. 1), whereby “older” dates are located higher in the section [i.e., 51.4 (14C) at 2.1 m] and “younger” dates are at the bottom of the section [i.e., 48 ka (optically stimulated luminescence [OSL]) and >49.2 ka (14C) at 4.3 m] (2). This criticism ignores the presented SEs (table 2 and table S1 in ref. 1), which make the results statistically equivalent (Table 1). More importantly, they ignore that the radiocarbon results are well beyond the accepted radiocarbon barrier of ∼40 ka (3), indicating that the charcoal has a minimum age of ∼40 ka. Bearing in mind these problems, we have conservatively estimated the burial age to be ∼46 ka according to the luminescence dating of the sediments. As the luminescence results are stratigraphically consistent, we perceive no irreconcilable differences between the stratigraphy and dating.

...

Finally, we interpret TPL1 as the earliest human fossil that is both well-dated and fully modern in morphology. Zhirendong demonstrates a mixture of archaic and modern traits, making it significant but not fully modern in appearance (4). Similarly, the metatarsal from Callao Cave is only diagnostic to the genus Homo given that it falls within “the morphological and size ranges of Homo habilis and H. floresiensis” (ref. 5, p. 123). Although the modernity of the Liujiang fossil is not questioned, it has no direct date and no secure stratigraphic provenance. It has been variably dated to ca. 20 ka, ca. 67 ka, 111 to 139 ka, and >153 ka (6), and this uncertain stratigraphic context has prevented many scholars from accepting any of the dates currently attributed to it (6).

Reply to Pierret et al.: Stratigraphic and dating consistency reinforces the status of Tam Pa Ling fossil

Fabrice Demeter et al.

Link

Early modern human burials in Eurasia

Early modern human burials in Eurasia

Early human burials varied widely but most were simple

"We don't know why some of these burials were so ornate, but what's striking is that they postdate the arrival of modern humans in Eurasia by almost 10,000 years," said Julien Riel-Salvatore, Ph.D., assistant professor of anthropology at CU Denver and lead author of the study. "When they appear around 30,000 years ago some are lavish but many aren't and over time the most elaborate ones almost disappear. So, the behavior of humans does not always go from simple to complex; it often waxes and wanes in terms of its complexity depending on the conditions people live under."

The study, which examined 85 burials from the Upper Paleolithic period, found that men were buried more often than women. Infants were buried only sporadically, if at all in later periods, a difference that could be related to changes in subsistence, climate and the ability to keep babies alive, Riel-Salvatore said.

It also showed that a few ornate burials in Russia, Italy and the Czech Republic dating back nearly 30,000 years are anomalies, and not representative of most early Homo sapiens burial practices in Eurasia.

Human mobility at the start of Balkan Neolithic

Human mobility at the start of Balkan Neolithic

Link to press release.

PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211474110

Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic

Dušan Borić and T. Douglas Price

Questions about how farming and the Neolithic way of life spread across Europe have been hotly debated topics in archaeology for decades. For a very long time, two models have dominated the discussion: migrations of farming groups from southwestern Asia versus diffusion of domesticates and new ideas through the existing networks of local forager populations. New strontium isotope data from the Danube Gorges in the north-central Balkans, an area characterized by a rich burial record spanning the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition, show a significant increase in nonlocal individuals from ∼6200 calibrated B.C., with several waves of migrants into this region. These results are further enhanced by dietary evidence based on carbon and nitrogen isotopes and an increasingly high chronological resolution obtained on a large sample of directly dated individuals. This dataset provides robust evidence for a brief period of coexistence between indigenous groups and early farmers before farming communities absorbed the foragers completely in the first half of the sixth millennium B.C.

Link

Balanica BH-1: 397-525 thousand years old

Balanica BH-1: 397-525 thousand years old

The occurrence of derived Neandertal traits in Sima vs. their absence in penecontemporaneous samples from  southeastern Europe is fairly interesting. It might suggest that the Neandertal suite of traits first appeared in western Europe.

We tend to think of Old World H. heidelbergensis as a parental species which produced -at least in the western part of the Old World- two descendant species, sapiens and neanderthalensis, but clearly that is not the whole story. Unrelated to the current paper, but perhaps worthy of note is that these two descendant species make their appearance far apart in time, with Neandertaloid traits already in evidence very early in Europe, and modern human ones late in east Africa. We may wonder about what was taking place in the temporal gap between 600 and 200 thousand years ago, and the spatial gap between Europe and Africaa.

PLoS ONE 8(2): e54608. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054608

New Radiometric Ages for the BH-1 Hominin from Balanica (Serbia): Implications for Understanding the Role of the Balkans in Middle Pleistocene Human Evolution

William J. Rink et al.

Newly obtained ages, based on electron spin resonance combined with uranium series isotopic analysis, and infrared/post-infrared luminescence dating, provide a minimum age that lies between 397 and 525 ka for the hominin mandible BH-1 from Mala Balanica cave, Serbia. This confirms it as the easternmost hominin specimen in Europe dated to the Middle Pleistocene. Inferences drawn from the morphology of the mandible BH-1 place it outside currently observed variation of European Homo heidelbergensis. The lack of derived Neandertal traits in BH-1 and its contemporary specimens in Southeast Europe, such as Kocabaş, Vasogliano and Ceprano, coupled with Middle Pleistocene synapomorphies, suggests different evolutionary forces acting in the east of the continent where isolation did not play such an important role during glaciations.

Link

Late Neandertal survival in Iberia questioned

Late Neandertal survival in Iberia questioned

Neanderthal remains point to earlier extinction

In the latest study1, Higham and his former graduate student Rachel Wood, now at the Australian National University in Canberra, tried to date remains from 11 sites on the Iberian Peninsula using their decontamination methods. Previous efforts put the remains as young as 36,000 years old.

However, Wood and Higham found that just two of the sites — Jarama, outside Madrid, and Cueva del Boquete de Zafarraya, near the southern tip of Spain — contained bones with enough carbon to be dated. Their work suggests that these remains are more than 45,000 years old, with some older than 50,000 years, the practical limit of carbon dating. Wood says that the team’s study calls into question evidence that the last populations of Neanderthals found refuge in the Iberian Peninsula.

PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1207656110

Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberia

Rachel E. Wood et al.

It is commonly accepted that some of the latest dates for Neanderthal fossils and Mousterian industries are found south of the Ebro valley in Iberia at ca. 36 ka calBP (calibrated radiocarbon date ranges). In contrast, to the north of the valley the Mousterian disappears shortly before the Proto-Aurignacian appears at ca. 42 ka calBP. The latter is most likely produced by anatomically modern humans. However, two-thirds of dates from the south are radiocarbon dates, a technique that is particularly sensitive to carbon contaminants of a younger age that can be difficult to remove using routine pretreatment protocols. We have attempted to test the reliability of chronologies of 11 southern Iberian Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites. Only two, Jarama VI and Zafarraya, were found to contain material that could be reliably dated. In both sites, Middle Paleolithic contexts were previously dated by radiocarbon to less than 42 ka calBP. Using ultrafiltration to purify faunal bone collagen before radiocarbon dating, we obtain ages at least 10 ka 14C years older, close to or beyond the limit of the radiocarbon method for the Mousterian at Jarama VI and Neanderthal fossils at Zafarraya. Unless rigorous pretreatment protocols have been used, radiocarbon dates should be assumed to be inaccurate until proven otherwise in this region. Evidence for the late survival of Neanderthals in southern Iberia is limited to one possible site, Cueva Antón, and alternative models of human occupation of the region should be considered.

Link

"In Africa" project

"In Africa" project

The new 5-year "In Africa" project headed by Marta Mirazon Lahr has a wonderful website filled with information. From the Aims section:


"The project hopes to achieve five main goals:

1. to increase significantly the number of human and other mammalian fossils in East Africa dating to the last 250,000 years;
2. to map changes in human morphology, behaviour and occupation in different basins of East Africa in the period before and after the main modern human dispersals across and out of Africa;
3. to map the character and timing of the Middle to Later Stone Age transition in the Central Rift Valley;
4. to integrate the human prehistoric record with local palaeoenvironmental data to explore the role climate change and its expression in the African tropics may have played in our recent evolutionary history;
5. to increase the scientific and public awareness of how important it is to understand what happened in Africa in order to understand why Homo sapiens and its diversity evolved."

An example of the information that can be found in this site is this list of Middle Pleistocene Sub-Saharan African fossils (pdf). Please note that some of the given dates (such as that of Broken Hill/Kabwe) are controversial. The e-library is also full of a large number of  papers and is a very useful resource.

Bulging modern human foreheads

Bulging modern human foreheads

AJPA DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22202

Geometric variation of the frontal squama in the genus homo: Frontal bulging and the origin of modern human morphology

Emiliano Bruner et al.

The majority of studies of frontal bone morphology in paleoanthropology have analyzed the frontal squama and the browridge as a single unit, mixing information from different functional elements. Taking into account that the bulging of the frontal bone is often described as a species-specific trait of Homo sapiens, in this article we analyze variation in the midsagittal profile of the genus Homo, focusing on the frontal squama alone, using landmark-based superimpositions and principal components analysis. Our results demonstrate that anatomically modern humans are definitely separated from extinct human taxa on the basis of frontal bulging. However, there is minor overlap among these groups, indicating that it is necessary to exercise caution when using this trait alone to make taxonomic inferences on individual specimens. Early modern humans do not show differences with recent modern humans, and “transitional” individuals such as Jebel Irhoud 1, Maba, and Florisbad, show modern-like frontal squama morphology. The bulging of the frontal squama in modern humans may represent a structural consequence of more general cranial changes, or it could be a response to changes in the morphology of the underlying prefrontal brain elements. A subtle difference between Neandertals and the Afro-European Middle Pleistocene Homo sample is associated with flattening at bregma in the former group, a result that merits further investigation.

Link

Body form variation of prehistoric Jomon (Fukase et al. 2012)

Body form variation of prehistoric Jomon (Fukase et al. 2012)

Am J Phys Anthropol DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22112

Geographic variation in body form of prehistoric Jomon males in the Japanese archipelago: Its ecogeographic implications 

Hitoshi Fukase et al.

Diversity of human body size and shape is often biogeographically interpreted in association with climatic conditions. According to Bergmann's and Allen's rules, populations in regions with a cold climate are expected to display an overall larger body and smaller/shorter extremities than those in warm/hot environments. In the present study, the skeletal limb size and proportions of prehistoric Jomon hunter-gatherers, who extensively inhabited subarctic to subtropical areas in the ancient Japanese archipelago, were examined to evaluate whether or not the inter-regional differences follow such ecogeographic patterns. Results showed that the Jomon intralimb proportions including relative distal limb lengths did not differ significantly among five regions from northern Hokkaido to the southern Okinawa Islands. This suggests a limited co-variability of the intralimb proportions with climate, particularly within genealogically close populations. In contrast, femoral head breadth (associated with body mass) and skeletal limb lengths were found to be significantly and positively correlated with latitude, suggesting a north-south geographical cline in the body size. This gradient therefore comprehensively conforms to Bergmann's rule, and may stem from multiple potential factors such as phylogenetic constraints, microevolutionary adaptation to climatic/geographic conditions during the Jomon period, and nutritional and physiological response during ontogeny. Specifically, the remarkably small-bodied Jomon in the Okinawa Islands can also be explained as an adjustment to subtropical and insular environments. Thus, the findings obtained in this study indicate that Jomon people, while maintaining fundamental intralimb proportions, displayed body size variation in concert with ambient surroundings.


Link

Earliest sapiens remains in Europe

Earliest sapiens remains in Europe

From the BBC:

They may be yellowed and worn but these ancient teeth and jaw fragment have something very revealing to say about how modern humans conquered the globe.

The specimens, unearthed in Italy and the UK, have just been confirmed as the earliest known remains of Homo sapiens in Europe.

Careful dating suggests they are more than 41,000 years old, and perhaps as much as 45,000 years old in the case of the Italian "baby teeth".
...

The re-assessments have further importance because palaeoanthropologists can now put modern humans in the caves at the same time as the stone and bone tool technologies discovered there.

There has been some doubt over who created the so-called Aurignacian artefacts at Kents Cavern and the slightly older Uluzzian technologies at Grotta del Cavallo. It could have been Neanderthals, but there is now an obvious association in time with Homo sapiens.

From the NY Times:

They had in fact discovered the oldest known skeletal remains of anatomically modern humans in the whole of Europe, two international research teams reported Wednesday.

The scientists who made the discovery and others who study human origins say they expect the findings to reignite debate over the relative capabilities of the immigrant modern humans and the indigenous Neanderthals, their closest hominid relatives; the extent of their interactions; and perhaps the reasons behind the Neanderthal extinction. The findings have already prompted speculation that the Homo sapiens migrations into Europe may have come in at least two separate waves, rather than just one.

I'll add the abstracts later. This certainly seems to be incompatible with substantial Neandertal interbreeding. If humans and Neandertals were genetically compatible species, then why would they maintain very separate morphological populations for ~10ka? We would expect the two populations to quickly merge into one. Moreover, a longer period of interbreeding in West Eurasia would have left an excess of "Neandertal" ancestry in modern West Eurasians, something we simply don't observe.

Press release:

"What the new dates mean", Benazzi summarised, "is that these two teeth from Grotta del Cavallo represent the oldest European modern human fossils currently known. This find confirms that the arrival of our species on the continent – and thus the period of coexistence with Neanderthals – was several thousand years longer than previously thought. Based on this fossil evidence, we have confirmed that modern humans and not Neanderthals are the makers of the Uluzzian culture. This has important implications to our understanding of the development of 'fully modern' human behaviour. Whether the colonisation of the continent occurred in one or more waves of expansion and which routes were followed is still to be established."

Nature (2011) doi:10.1038/nature10484

The earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in northwestern Europe

Tom Higham et al.

The earliest anatomically modern humans in Europe are thought to have appeared around 43,000-42,000 calendar years before present (43-42 kyr cal BP), by association with Aurignacian sites and lithic assemblages assumed to have been made by modern humans rather than by Neanderthals. However, the actual physical evidence for modern humans is extremely rare, and direct dates reach no farther back than about 41-39 kyr cal BP, leaving a gap. Here we show, using stratigraphic, chronological and archaeological data, that a fragment of human maxilla from the Kent’s Cavern site, UK, dates to the earlier period. The maxilla (KC4), which was excavated in 1927, was initially diagnosed as Upper Palaeolithic modern human1. In 1989, it was directly radiocarbon dated by accelerator mass spectrometry to 36.4-34.7 kyr cal BP2. Using a Bayesian analysis of new ultrafiltered bone collagen dates in an ordered stratigraphic sequence at the site, we show that this date is a considerable underestimate. Instead, KC4 dates to 44.2-41.5 kyr cal BP. This makes it older than any other equivalently dated modern human specimen and directly contemporary with the latest European Neanderthals, thus making its taxonomic attribution crucial. We also show that in 13 dental traits KC4 possesses modern human rather than Neanderthal characteristics; three other traits show Neanderthal affinities and a further seven are ambiguous. KC4 therefore represents the oldest known anatomically modern human fossil in northwestern Europe, fills a key gap between the earliest dated Aurignacian remains and the earliest human skeletal remains, and demonstrates the wide and rapid dispersal of early modern humans across Europe more than 40 kyr ago.

Link

Nature (2011) doi:10.1038/nature10617

Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal behaviour

Stefano Benazzi et al.


The appearance of anatomically modern humans in Europe and the nature of the transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic are matters of intense debate. Most researchers accept that before the arrival of anatomically modern humans, Neanderthals had adopted several transitional technocomplexes. Two of these, the Uluzzian of southern Europe and the Châtelperronian of western Europe, are key to current interpretations regarding the timing of arrival of anatomically modern humans in the region and their potential interaction with Neanderthal populations. They are also central to current debates regarding the cognitive abilities of Neanderthals and the reasons behind their extinction1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. However, the actual fossil evidence associated with these assemblages is scant and fragmentary7, 8, 9, 10, and recent work has questioned the attribution of the Châtelperronian to Neanderthals on the basis of taphonomic mixing and lithic analysis11, 12. Here we reanalyse the deciduous molars from the Grotta del Cavallo (southern Italy), associated with the Uluzzian and originally classified as Neanderthal13, 14. Using two independent morphometric methods based on microtomographic data, we show that the Cavallo specimens can be attributed to anatomically modern humans. The secure context of the teeth provides crucial evidence that the makers of the Uluzzian technocomplex were therefore not Neanderthals. In addition, new chronometric data for the Uluzzian layers of Grotta del Cavallo obtained from associated shell beads and included within a Bayesian age model show that the teeth must date to ~45,000-43,000 calendar years before present. The Cavallo human remains are therefore the oldest known European anatomically modern humans, confirming a rapid dispersal of modern humans across the continent before the Aurignacian and the disappearance of Neanderthals.

Link