Hominin teeth from the early Late Pleistocene site of Xujiayao,Northern China

It is generally accepted that from the late Middle to the early Late Pleistocene (～340–90 ka BP), Neanderthals were occupying Europe and Western Asia, whereas anatomically modern humans were present in the African continent. In contrast, the paucity of hominin fossil evidence from East Asia from this period impedes a complete evolutionary picture of the genus Homo, as well as assessment of the possible contribution of or interaction with Asian hominins in the evolution of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Here we present a comparative study of a hominin dental sample recovered from the Xujiayao site, in Northern China, attributed to the early Late Pleistocene (MIS 5 to 4). Our dental study reveals a mosaic of primitive and derived dental features for the Xujiayao hominins that can be summarized as follows: i) they are different from archaic and recent modern humans, ii) they present some features that are common but not exclusive to the Neanderthal lineage, and iii) they retain some primitive conformations classically found in East Asian Early and Middle Pleistocene hominins despite their young geological age. Thus, our study evinces the existence in China of a population of unclear taxonomic status with regard to other contemporary populations such as H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. The morphological and metric studies of the Xujiayao teeth expand the variability known for early Late Pleistocene hominin fossils and suggest the possibility that a primitive hominin lineage may have survived late into the Late Pleistocene in China. Am J Phys Anthropol 156:224–240, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

The Homo sapiens ‘hemibun’: Its developmental pattern and the problem of homology

The occipital bun is widely considered a Neanderthal feature. Its homology to the ‘hemibun’ observed in some European Upper Palaeolithic anatomically modern humans is a current problem. This study quantitatively evaluates the degree of occipital plane convexity in African and Australian modern human crania to analyse a relationship between this feature and some neurocranial variables. Neanderthal and European Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens crania were included in the analysis as well. The results of this study indicated that there is a significant relationship between the degree of occipital plane convexity and the following two features in the examined crania of modern humans: the ratio of the maximum neurocranial height to the maximum width of the vault and the ratio of bregma–lambda chord to bregma–lambda arc. The results also revealed that some H. sapiens crania (modern and fossil) show the Neanderthal shape of the occipital plane and that the neurocranial height and shape of parietal midsagittal profile has an influence on occipital plane convexity in the hominins included in this study. This study suggests that the occurrence of the great convexity of the occipital plane in the Neanderthals and H. sapiens is a “by-product” of the relationship between the same neurocranial features and there is no convincing evidence that the Neanderthal occipital bun and the similar structure in H. sapiens develop during ontogeny in the same way.     

Playing with language,creating complexity: Has play contributed to the evolution of complex language?

We argue that enhanced play may have contributed to the emergence of complex language systems in modern humans (Homo sapiens). To support this idea, we first discuss evidence for an expansion of playing behavior connected to the extended childhood of modern human children, and the potential of this period for the transmission of complex cultural traits, including language. We then link two of the most important functions of play—exploration and innovation—to the potential for cumulative cultural evolution in general and for the emergence of complex language in particular. If correct, the shorter childhood of Neanderthals—involving restrictions on time to experiment and innovate—may have restricted their language (and other symbolic) system/s. Consequently, fully investigating the role that play may have had in the transmission of language and the development of symbolic cultures in both modern humans and Neanderthals provides a new avenue of research for Paleolithic archaeology and related disciplines.     

Mugharet el'Aliya: Affinities of an enigmatic north African Aterian maxillary fragment

Objectives

This study uses a virtual framework to examine the left maxillary fragment of the juvenile fossil from Mugharet el'Aliya, Morocco, found in association with an Aterian lithic industry. Previously, this fossil had been ascribed to modern humans or the Neanderthal lineage based on its “archaic”/“Neanderthal-like” features and apparent large size. Here, we conducted a novel 3D shape comparative analysis of the maxillary fragment to clarify its taxonomic affinities with regard to its size and ontogeny.

Materials and Methods

Eighty Computed Tomography and surface scans representing ontogenetic samples of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were used to capture species-specific differences. The toolkit of geometric morphometrics in combination with surface registration and an elastic iterative closest point algorithm were used to create a dataset of meshes with an identical number of corresponding vertices for the maxillae. Multivariate statistics were applied to Procrustes superimposed coordinates derived from the vertices of this dataset.

Results

Our analysis showed affinities of the Mugharet el'Aliya individual with our H. sapiens sample, especially with a subadult individual from Qafzeh. No size-independent affinities with Neanderthals of comparable dental age could be identified.

Discussion

Our results add to the evidence connecting fossils from western Asia, especially Qafzeh and Skhul, and the North African Aterian. Furthermore, Mugharet el'Aliya adds to our knowledge of the ontogenetic development of adult morphology that is frequently used to characterize hominin groups, for example, Neanderthals and modern humans.     

Middle pleistocene humans from africa

Patterns of human evolution in the Middle Pleistocene remain poorly understood. There is general consensus that by the onset of this time period, populations ofHomo erectus were dispersed from Africa into Eurasia, including the Far East. In the western part of this range (perhaps in Africa),Homo erectus then produced a daughter lineage exhibiting more advanced characters of the face, braincase and cranial base. How this new species should be defined is currently debated. In my view, fossils from sites such as Bodo and Broken Hill in Africa may be lumped with material from earlier Middle Pleistocene localities in Europe. Such a taxon is appropriately namedHomo heidelbergensis. Whether the hypodigm should be extended to include fossils from China is another question. In any case, this group of hominids is plausibly ancestral to both the specialized Neanderthals of Europe and more modern humans of the later Middle Pleistocene.     

Neanderthal Skeletal Structure and the Place of Homo neanderthalensis in European Hominid Phylogeny

Although the debate rages on over whether the Neanderthals merit their own species status or should be viewed as an odd variant of Homo sapiens, recent evidence has accumulated that overwhelmingly supports the former interpretation. Among this evidence is a recent full-body skeletal reconstruction that not only highlights the extreme differences between the highly apomorphic H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis in the construction of the thorax and pelvic girdle, but strongly suggests significant gait differences between the two species that add to the probability that the two kinds of hominid would not have recognized each other as breeding partners. This is hardly surprising since the two species possessed a relatively remote common ancestry, and it is indeed suggested here that Homo neanderthalensis was merely one species embedded within a diverse and endemic middle Pleistocene European hominid radiation. Clearly more than one lineage of hominids simultaneously occupied Europe during the middle Pleistocene.     

The Neanderthal taxonomic position: models of intra- and inter-specific craniofacial variation

The Neanderthal taxonomic position is a matter of wide disagreement among paleoanthropologists. Some workers consider this fossil human group to represent a different species, Homo neanderthalensis, while others see it as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. This study developed two models of morphological variation to be applied to a comparison between Neanderthals and modern humans: modern human populations provided a measure of intra-specific variation, while the species and subspecies of Pan provided measures of both intra- and inter-specific morphological differences. Although such an approach has been advocated strongly, it has not been systematically undertaken until recently. The techniques of geometric morphometrics were used to collect data in the form of three-dimensional coordinates of craniofacial landmarks. The data were processed using generalized procrustes analysis, and analyzed by an array of multivariate statistical methods, including principal components analysis, canonical variates analysis and Mahalanobis D(2). The morphological distances between Neanderthals and modern humans, and between Neanderthals and Late Paleolithic/early anatomically modern specimens, are consistently greater than the distances among recent human populations, and greater than the distances between the two chimpanzee species. Furthermore, no strong morphological similarities were found between Neanderthals and Late Paleolithic Europeans. This study does not find evidence for Neanderthal contribution to the evolution of modern Europeans. Results are consistent with the recognition of Neanderthals as a distinct species.     

Who Killed the Neanderthals?

Homo neanderthalensis, evolved from the European populations of H. heidelbergensis, and shows some special morphological traits, probably due to an adaptation to particular climatic conditions. It also appears that H. neanderthals had a specialized diet which was mostly carnivorous. Anatomically modern humans of the European Upper Palaeolithic seem to differ from the alimentary behaviour that characterized the Neanderthals; their diet was more varied, with a greater contribution from freshwater alimentary resources (molluscs and fishes). Comparison between the various strategies of subsistence adopted by the two species allows us to propose a hypothesis about the extinction of H. neanderthalensis.     

Occipital bunning among later pleistocene hominids

Occipital bunning is a posterior projection of the occipital squama, which occurs in varying frequencies in samples of archaic Homo sapiens, Upper Pleistocene anatomically modern humans, and recent humans. It can be best interpreted as a product of the timing of posterior cerebral growth relative to the growth of the cranial vault bones. It is not a feature that was unique to the Neandertals.     

Variations and asymmetries in regional brain surface in the genus Homo

Paleoneurology is an important field of research within human evolution studies. Variations in size and shape of an endocast help to differentiate among fossil hominin species whereas endocranial asymmetries are related to behavior and cognitive function. Here we analyse variations of the surface of the frontal, parieto-temporal and occipital lobes among different species of Homo, including 39 fossil hominins, ten fossil anatomically modern Homo sapiens and 100 endocasts of extant modern humans. We also test for the possible asymmetries of these features in a large sample of modern humans and observe individual particularities in the fossil specimens.This study contributes important new information about the brain evolution in the genus Homo. Our results show that the general pattern of surface asymmetry for the different regional brain surfaces in fossil species of Homo does not seem to be different from the pattern described in a large sample of anatomically modern H. sapiens, i.e., the right hemisphere has a larger surface than the left, as do the right frontal, the right parieto-temporal and the left occipital lobes compared with the contra-lateral side. It also appears that Asian Homo erectus specimens are discriminated from all other samples of Homo, including African and Georgian specimens that are also sometimes included in that taxon. The Asian fossils show a significantly smaller relative size of the parietal and temporal lobes. Neandertals and anatomically modern H. sapiens, who share the largest endocranial volume of all hominins, show differences when considering the relative contribution of the frontal, parieto-temporal and occipital lobes. These results illustrate an original variation in the pattern of brain organization in hominins independent of variations in total size. The globularization of the brain and the enlargement of the parietal lobes could be considered derived features observed uniquely in anatomically modern H. sapiens.     

The Neanderthal lower arm

Neanderthal forearms have been described as being very powerful. Different individual features in the lower arm bones have been described to distinguish Neanderthals from modern humans. In this study, the overall morphology of the radius and ulna is considered, and morphological differences among Neanderthals, Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens and recent H. sapiens are described.Comparisons among populations were made using a combination of 3D geometric morphometrics and standard multivariate methods. Comparative material included all available complete radii and ulnae from Neanderthals, early H. sapiens and archaeological and recent human populations, representing a wide geographical and lifestyle range.There are few differences among the populations when features are considered individually. Neanderthals and early H. sapiens fell within the range of modern human variation. When the suite of measurements and shapes were analyzed, differences and similarities became apparent. The Neanderthal radius is more laterally curved, has a more medially placed radial tuberosity, a longer radial neck, a more antero-posteriorly ovoid head and a well-developed proximal interosseous crest. The Neanderthal ulna has a more anterior facing trochlear notch, a lower M. brachialis insertion, larger relative mid-shaft size and a more medio-lateral and antero-posterior sinusoidal shaft. The Neanderthal lower arm morphology reflects a strong cold-adapted short forearm. The forearms of H. sapiens are less powerful in pronation and supination. Many differences between Neanderthals and H. sapiens can be explained as a secondary consequence of the hyper-polar body proportions of the Neanderthals, but also as retentions of the primitive condition of other hominoids.     

A deterministic model of admixture and genetic introgression: the case of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon

There is an ongoing debate in the field of human evolution about the possible contribution of Neanderthals to the modern human gene pool. To study how the Neanderthal private alleles may have spread over the genes of Homo sapiens, we propose a deterministic model based on recursive equations and ordinary differential equations. If the Neanderthal population was large compared to the Homo sapiens population at the beginning of the contact period, we show that genetic introgression should have been fast and complete meaning that most of the Neanderthal private alleles should be found in the modern human gene pool in case of ancient admixture. In order to test/reject ancient admixture from genome-wide data, we incorporate the model of genetic introgression into a statistical hypothesis-testing framework. We show that the power to reject ancient admixture increases as the ratio, at the time of putative admixture, of the population size of Homo sapiens over that of Neanderthal decreases. We find that the power to reject ancient admixture might be particularly low if the population size of Homo sapiens was comparable to the Neanderthal population size.     

Genetics and modern human origins

The past decade has brought considerable debate on the subject of modern human origins. The nature of the transition from Homo erectus to archaic Homo sapiens to modern H. sapiens has been examined primarily in terms of the relative contribution of archaic populations to later moderns, both within and among geographic regions. The recent African origin model proposes that modern humans appeared first in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, and then spread through the rest of the Old World, replacing preexisting populations.^1–6 This model has been referred to by a variety of names, including “replacement”, “Garden of Eden”, “Noah's Ark”, and “out of Africa”. The recent African origin model contrasts with the multiregional model, which proposes a species-wide transition to modern humans throughout the Old World during the past million years or more.^7–10 Indeed, some proponents of the multiregional model advocate placing Homo erectus and all subsequent species of Homo in the evolutionary species Homo sapiens.¹¹ This contrasts with the view that there were multiple hominid species during the Middle Pleistocene. The debate continues.^12,13 Although the multiregional model is often portrayed as proposing a simultaneous transition to anatomically modern humans in different geographic regions, it explicitly allows for varying degrees of continuity across time and space.¹⁰ This model, in the broad sense, does not rule out the possibility that modern human morphology appeared first in Africa and then spread through the rest of the Old World through gene flow. However, not all advocates of the multiregional model adhere to this specific subset of the general model.⁹ Comparison of the African and multiregional models is complicated by considering other, less extreme, hypotheses. Some versions of the recent African origin model imply a speciation event associated with the initial origin of modern humans. Another version, which suggests the possibility of some admixture between “moderns” leaving Africa and preexisting “archaics” elsewhere in the Old World,^14,15 is similar to some variants of the multiregional model, which also suggest that modern morphology appeared first in Africa, but involved admixture with other Old World populations.¹⁶ The major difference between these views appears to be the extent of admixture, although the exact level is never specified. A further complication is the possibility that multiple dispersals from Africa produced a more complicated pattern of worldwide variation.¹⁷     

Fossil Humankind and Other Anthropoid Primates of China

More than 70 sites have yielded human fossils in China. They are attributed to Homo sapiens erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens. The earliest one is possibly about 1.7 Ma. A series of common morphological features, including shovel-shaped incisors and flatness of the face, characterize them. There is a morphological mosaic between H. s. erectus and H. s. sapiens in China. The existence of common features and the morphological mosaic suggest continuity of human evolution in China. That there are a few features which are more commonly seen in the Neanderthal lineage, occurring in a few Chinese fossil skulls, probably suggests gene flow between China and the West. Based on them, in 1998 I proposed an hypothesis—continuity with hybridization—for human evolution in China. The hypothesis is supported by paleolithic archeology, and it supports the multiregional evolution hypothesis of modern human origins. The anatomically modern humans of East Asia originated most probably in China. Although some nonhuman anthropoid primates of China—Gigantopithecus, Sivapithecus, Ramapithecus and Lufengpithecus—have been suggested as the direct ancestors of human beings, the discovery of more specimens and further studies do not support these suggestions. Therefore, it is most probable that the transition between apes and humans did not occur in China.     

Neanderthals

Neanderthals are a group of fossil humans that inhabited Western Eurasia from approximately 300 to 30,000 years ago (ka). They vanished from the fossil record a few millennia after the first modern humans appeared in Europe (ca. 40 ka BP). They are characterized by a unique combination of distinctive anatomical features, and are found with stone tools of the Mousterian stone tool industry. Current consensus views them as a distinct Eurasian human lineage isolated from the rest of the Old World and sharing a common ancestor with modern humans sometime in the early Middle Pleistocene. The extreme cold of the European Ice Ages is considered at least partly responsible for the evolution of some of the distinctive Neanderthal anatomy, although other factors (functional demands, effects of chance in small populations) were probably also important. The causes for the Neanderthal extinction are not well understood. Worsening climate and competition with modern humans are implicated. Neanderthals were our sister species, much more closely related to us than the chimpanzees, our closest living relatives are today.     

Position chronologique des sites de l’Homme moderne en Chine d’après la datation U-Th

The origin and evolution of modern Homo sapiens has been the subject of an intensive debate between exponents of two competing hypotheses, multiregional origins and “recent out of Africa”. This paper presents a synthesis of the chronological studies on seven hominid sites in China based on the U-series dating, five of them of intercalated speleothem calcites and other two of fossil materials. The results show that modern humans were present in China about 100 ka ago, much earlier than previously estimated, and that the so-called “temporal gap” of human presence in China between 40 and 100 ka is most probably nothing but an artifact caused by systematic errors of the dating methods. Further multidisciplinary studies on hominid sites in China may provide important evidence for resolving the hotly debated issues concerning the origin of modern humans.     

The prehistory of handedness: Archaeological data and comparative ethology

Homo sapiens sapiens displays a species wide lateralised hand preference, with 85% of individuals in all populations being right-handed for most manual actions. In contrast, no other great ape species shows such strong and consistent population level biases, indicating that extremes of both direction and strength of manual laterality (i.e., species-wide right-handedness) may have emerged after divergence from the last common ancestor. To reconstruct the hand use patterns of early hominins, laterality is assessed in prehistoric artefacts. Group right side biases are well established from the Neanderthals onward, while patchy evidence from older fossils and artefacts indicates a preponderance of right-handed individuals. Individual hand preferences and group level biases can occur in chimpanzees and other apes for skilled tool use and food processing. Comparing these findings with human ethological data on spontaneous hand use reveals that the great ape clade (including humans) probably has a common effect at the individual level, such that a person can vary from ambidextrous to completely lateralised depending on the action. However, there is currently no theoretical model to explain this result. The degree of task complexity and bimanual complementarity have been proposed as factors affecting lateralisation strength. When primatology meets palaeoanthropology, the evidence suggests species-level right-handedness may have emerged through the social transmission of increasingly complex, bimanually differentiated, tool using activities.     

Human evolution

The common ancestor of modern humans and the great apes is estimated to have lived between 5 and 8 Myrs ago, but the earliest evidence in the human, or hominid, fossil record is Ardipithecus ramidus, from a 4.5 Myr Ethiopian site. This genus was succeeded by Australopithecus, within which four species are presently recognised. All combine a relatively primitive postcranial skeleton, a dentition with expanded chewing teeth and a small brain. The most primitive species in our own genus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, are little advanced over the australopithecines and with hindsight their inclusion in Homo may not be appropriate. The first species to share a substantial number of features with later Homo is Homo ergaster, or ‘early African Homo erectus’, which appears in the fossil record around 2.0 Myr. Outside Africa, fossil hominids appear as Homo erectus-like hominids, in mainland Asia and in Indonesia close to 2 Myr ago; the earliest good evidence of ‘archaic Homo’ in Europe is dated at between 600–700 Kyr before the present. Anatomically modern human, or Homo sapiens, fossils are seen first in the fossil record in Africa around 150 Kyr ago. Taken together with molecular evidence on the extent of DNA variation, this suggests that the transition from ‘archiac’ to ‘modern’ Homo may have taken place in Africa.     

Homo erectus: Ancestor or evolutionary side branch?

Controversies in paleoanthropology wax and wane, but substantial interest is currently focused on Homo erectus. This species has traditionally been regarded as a member in good standing of the human family, where it is placed as an evolutionary intermediate between earlier Homo habilis and later Homo sapiens. Recently, however, some workers have questioned whether the species exists at all. If its populations have been transformed slowly toward the modern condition, and if continuity with living people can be demonstrated in many geographic regions, then any separation of Homo erectus from Homo sapiens must be largely arbitrary. In that case, only one species should be recognized and this slowly changing lineage would have to be called Homo sapiens. Other paleontologists adopt a different view, arguing that Homo erectus is not only anatomically distinctive but also restricted in its geographic distribution. They claim that the fossils from Java and China are so specialized in appearance that they cannot lie in the mainstream of human evolution. Homo erectus, strictly defined as limited to the Far East, probably went extinct without issue. If so, more modern populations must have evolved from another source, perhaps one outside of Asia altogether.