Dental remains from the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne)

Human remains associated with the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries are sparse. What is preserved is often fragmentary, making it difficult to accurately assign them to a particular species. For some time it has been generally accepted that Neandertals were responsible for the Chatelperronian and anatomically modern humans for the early Aurignacian industries. However, the recent re-dating of several of the more-complete modern human fossils associated with the early Aurignacian (e.g., Vogelherd) has led some to question the identity of the makers and the context of these early Upper Paleolithic industries. The Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure, France has yielded many hominin remains, from Mousterian, Chatelperronian, Aurignacian, and Gravettian layers. Previously, a child's temporal bone from the Chatelperronian Layer Xb was recognized as belonging to a Neandertal; however, most of the teeth from Chatelperronian layers VIII-X remain unpublished. We describe the dental remains from the Chatelperronian layers, place them in a comparative (Mousterian Neandertal and Upper Paleolithic modern human) context, and evaluate their taxonomic status. The teeth (n = 29) represent a minimum of six individuals aged from birth to adult. The permanent dental sample (n = 15) from the Chatelperronian layers of Arcy-sur-Cure exhibits traits (e.g., lower molar mid-trigonid crest) that occur more frequently in Neandertals than in Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Furthermore, several teeth show trait combinations, including Cusp 6/mid-trigonid crest/anterior fovea in the lower second molar, that are rare or absent in Upper Paleolithic modern humans. The deciduous teeth (n = 14) significantly increase the sample of known deciduous hominin teeth and are more similar to Mousterian Neandertals from Europe and Asia than to Upper Paleolithic modern humans. Thus, the preponderance of dental evidence from the Grotte du Renne strongly supports that Neandertals were responsible for the Chatelperronian industry at Arcy-sur-Cure.     

Epipaleolithic human appendicular remains from Ein Gev I,Israel

The Upper Paleolithic (Early Epipaleolithic/Kebaran; ∼ 19,000 cal BP) human skeleton, from Layer 3 of Ein Gev I on the western flanks of the Golan Heights adjacent to the Sea of Galilee, retains sufficient limb remains to permit assessment of its body size and proportions, as well as diaphyseal reflections of skeletal hypertrophy. The individual was of modest stature but average mass for a later Upper Paleolithic individual, providing it with the body mass-to-stature body proportions characteristic of later Upper Paleolithic and more recent circum-Mediterranean humans. The humeri exhibit unexceptional diaphyseal asymmetry and robustness for an Upper Paleolithic human, and the femur exhibits similar relative diaphyseal hypertrophy. The humeral midshafts are relatively round, but the femoral and tibial midshafts are pronounced anteroposteriorly. As such, Ein Gev 1 provides additional paleobiological data on the appendicular remains of these Southwest Asian humans prior to the increasing sedentism of the terminal Pleistocene.     

Middle Paleolithic human remains from the Gruta Da Oliveira (Torres Novas), Portugal

Additional Middle Paleolithic human remains from layers 17, 18, and 22 of the Gruta da Oliveira, Portugal consist of a proximal manual phalanx 2 (Oliveira 5), a partial postcanine tooth (Oliveira 6), a humeral diaphysis (Oliveira 7), a distal mandibular molar (Oliveira 8), and a mandibular premolar (P₃) (Oliveira 9). Oliveira 5, 6, and 8 are unremarkable for Late Pleistocene humans. The Oliveira 7 right humerus is moderately robust or the individual had the stocky body proportions of other European (including Iberian) Neandertals. The Oliveira 9 P₃ has a large and symmetrical crown and lacks a distal accessory ridge and accessory lingual cusps, overlapping both Neandertal and recent human ranges of variation. It contrasts with at least recent human P₃s in having relatively thin enamel. These join the Oliveira 1 to 4 remains in further documenting early MIS 3 Neandertal morphology in western Iberia. Am J Phys Anthropol 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Neandertal versus Modern Human Dietary Responses to Climatic Fluctuations

The Neandertal lineage developed successfully throughout western Eurasia and effectively survived the harsh and severely changing environments of the alternating glacial/interglacial cycles from the middle of the Pleistocene until Marine Isotope Stage 3. Yet, towards the end of this stage, at the time of deteriorating climatic conditions that eventually led to the Last Glacial Maximum, and soon after modern humans entered western Eurasia, the Neandertals disappeared. Western Eurasia was by then exclusively occupied by modern humans. We use occlusal molar microwear texture analysis to examine aspects of diet in western Eurasian Paleolithic hominins in relation to fluctuations in food supplies that resulted from the oscillating climatic conditions of the Pleistocene. There is demonstrable evidence for differences in behavior that distinguish Upper Paleolithic humans from members of the Neandertal lineage. Specifically, whereas the Neandertals altered their diets in response to changing paleoecological conditions, the diets of Upper Paleolithic humans seem to have been less affected by slight changes in vegetation/climatic conditions but were linked to changes in their technological complexes. The results of this study also indicate differences in resource exploitation strategies between these two hominin groups. We argue that these differences in subsistence strategies, if they had already been established at the time of the first contact between these two hominin taxa, may have given modern humans an advantage over the Neandertals, and may have contributed to the persistence of our species despite habitat-related changes in food availabilities associated with climate fluctuations.     

Who made the Aurignacian and other early Upper Paleolithic industries?

The Aurignacian is typically taken as a marker of the spread of anatomically modern humans into Europe. However, human remains associated with this industry are frustratingly sparse and often limited to teeth. Some have suggested that Neandertals may, in fact, be responsible for the Aurignacian and the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries. Although dental remains are frequently considered to be taxonomically undiagnostic in this context, recent research shows that Neandertals possess a distinct dental pattern relative to anatomically modern humans. Even so, it is rare to find mandibles or maxillae that preserve all or most of their teeth; and, the probability of correctly identifying individuals represented by only a few teeth or a single tooth is unknown. We present a Bayesian statistical approach to classifying individuals represented exclusively by teeth into two possible groups. The classification is based on dental trait frequencies and sample sizes for ‘known’ samples of 95 Neandertals and 63 Upper Paleolithic modern humans. In a cross validation test of the known samples, 89% of the Neandertals and 89% of the Upper Paleolithic modern humans were classified correctly. We then classified an ‘unknown’ sample of 52 individuals: 34 associated with Aurignacian or other (non-Châtelperronian) early Upper Paleolithic industries, 15 associated with the Châtelperronian, and three unassociated. Of the 34 early Upper Paleolithic-associated individuals, 29 were assigned to modern humans, which is well within the range expected (95% of the time 26-33) with an 11% misclassification rate for an entirely modern human sample. These results provide some of the strongest evidence that anatomically modern humans made the Aurignacian and other (non-Châtelperronian) early Upper Paleolithic industries.     

Diet of upper paleolithic modern humans: Evidence from microwear texture analysis

This article presents the results of the occlusal molar microwear texture analysis of 32 adult Upper Paleolithic modern humans from a total of 21 European sites dating to marine isotope stages 3 and 2. The occlusal molar microwear textures of these specimens were analyzed with the aim of examining the effects of the climatic, as well as the cultural, changes on the diets of the Upper Paleolithic modern humans. The results of this analysis do not reveal any environmentally driven dietary shifts for the Upper Paleolithic hominins indicating that the climatic and their associated paleoecological changes did not force these humans to significantly alter their diets in order to survive. However, the microwear texture analysis does detect culturally related changes in the Upper Paleolithic humans' diets. Specifically, significant differences in diet were found between the earlier Upper Paleolithic individuals, i.e., those belonging to the Aurignacian and Gravettian contexts, and the later Magdalenian ones, such that the diet of the latter group was more varied and included more abrasive foods compared with those of the former. Am J Phys Anthropol 153:570–581, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

A new middle Miocene pliopithecid from Inner Mongolia, China

In addition to the new fragments of the Omo I skeleton, renewed fieldwork in the Kibish Formation along the lower reaches of the Omo River in southwestern Ethiopia has yielded new hominin finds from the Kibish Formation. The new finds include four heavily mineralized specimens: a partial left tibia and a fragment of a distal fibular diaphysis from Awoke's Hominid Site (AHS), a parietal fragment, and a portion of a juvenile occipital bone. The AHS tibia and fibula derive from Member I and are contemporaneous with Omo I and II. The other specimens derive from Chad's Hominid Site (CHS), and derive from either Member III or IV, which constrains their age between approximately 8.6 and approximately 104ka.     

Is Central Asia the eastern outpost of the Neandertal range? A reassessment of the Teshik‐Tash child

Since its discovery in southeastern Uzbekistan in 1938, the Teshik-Tash child has been considered a Neandertal. Its affinity is important to studies of Late Pleistocene hominin growth and development as well as interpretations of the Central Asian Middle Paleolithic and the geographic distribution of Neandertals. A close examination of the original Russian monograph reveals the incompleteness of key morphologies associated with the cranial base and face and problems with the reconstruction of the Teshik-Tash cranium, making its Neandertal attribution less certain than previously assumed. This study reassesses the Neandertal status of Teshik-Tash 1 by comparing it to a sample of Neandertal, Middle and Upper Paleolithic modern humans, and recent human sub-adults. Separate examinations of the cranium and mandible are conducted using multinomial logistic regression and discriminant function analysis to assess group membership. Results of the cranial analysis group Teshik-Tash with Upper Paleolithic modern humans when variables are not size-standardized, while results of the mandibular analysis place the specimen with recent modern humans for both raw and size-standardized data. Although these results are influenced by limitations related to the incomplete nature of the comparative sample, they suggest that the morphology of Teshik-Tash 1 as expressed in craniometrics is equivocal. Although, further quantitative studies as well as additional sub-adult fossil finds from this region are needed to ascertain the morphological pattern of this specimen specifically, and Central Asian Middle Paleolithic hominins in general, these results challenge current characterizations of this territory as the eastern boundary of the Neandertal range during the Late Pleistocene.     

The oldest anatomically modern humans from far southeast Europe: direct dating, culture and behavior

Background

Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) are known to have spread across Europe during the period coinciding with the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. Whereas their dispersal into Western Europe is relatively well established, evidence of an early settlement of Eastern Europe by modern humans are comparatively scarce.

Methodology/Principal Finding

Based on a multidisciplinary approach for the study of human and faunal remains, we describe here the oldest AMH remains from the extreme southeast Europe, in conjunction with their associated cultural and paleoecological background. We applied taxonomy, paleoecology, and taphonomy combined with geomorphology, stratigraphy, archeology and radiocarbon dating. More than 160 human bone remains have been discovered. They originate from a well documented Upper Paleolithic archeological layer (Gravettian cultural tradition) from the site of Buran-Kaya III located in Crimea (Ukraine). The combination of non-metric dental traits and the morphology of the occipital bones allow us to attribute the human remains to Anatomically Modern Humans. A set of human and faunal remains from this layer has been radiocarbon dated by Accelerator Mass Spectrometry. The direct-dating results of human bone establish a secure presence of AMHs at 31,900+240/−220 BP in this region. They are the oldest direct evidence of the presence of AMHs in a well documented archeological context. Based on taphonomical observations (cut marks and distribution of skeletal elements), they represent the oldest Upper Paleolithic modern humans from Eastern Europe, showing post-mortem treatment of the dead as well.

Conclusion/Significance

These findings are essential for the debate on the spread of modern humans in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic, as well as their cultural behaviors.     

Associated cranial and forelimb remains attributed to Australopithecus afarensis from Hadar, Ethiopia

A partial skeleton from Hadar, Ethiopia (A.L. 438-1) attributed to Australopithecus afarensis is comprised of part of the mandible, a frontal bone fragment, a complete left ulna, two second metacarpals, one third metacarpal, plus parts of the clavicle, humerus, radius, and right ulna. It is one of only a few early hominin specimens to preserve both cranial and postcranial elements. It also includes the first complete ulna from a large A. afarensis individual, and the first associated metacarpal and forelimb remains. This specimen, dated to approximately 3Ma, is among the geologically youngest A. afarensis fossils and is also one of the largest individuals known. Its ulnar to mandibular proportions are similar to those of the geologically older and much smaller A.L. 288-1, suggesting that body size increased without disproportional enlargement of the mandible. Overall, however, analysis of this large specimen and of the diminutive A.L. 288-1 demonstrates that the functional morphology of the A. afarensis upper limb was similar at all body sizes; there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that more than one hominin species is present at Hadar. Morphologically, all apparent apomorphic traits of the elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand of A.L. 438-1 are shared uniquely with humans. Compared to humans, A.L. 438-1 does have a more curved ulna, although A.L. 288-1 does not, and it appears to have had slightly less well-developed manipulatory capabilities of its hands, although still more derived than in apes. We conclude that selection for effective arboreality in the upper limb of Australopithecus afarensis was weaker than in non-hominins, and that manipulative ability was of greater selective advantage than in extant great apes.     

辽宁建平古人类肱骨形态结构分析

1957年,在辽宁省建平县发现了一根古人类肱骨化石,编号PA103。通过同一批龙骨中筛选的哺乳动物化石,吴汝康推断PA103应该为更新世晚期古人类,并对该化石进行了表面形态特征观察和描述。为了对PA103化石的内外结构进行更全面的了解,除了线性测量数据的对比,本文还通过计算机断层扫描技术,结合生物力学和形态示量图分析对建平古人类右侧肱骨化石PA103进行了分析。通过本研究发现,PA103骨干横断面的生物力学粗壮度和力学形状指数明显小于尼安德特人,而与同时期欧亚大陆古人类不利手侧最为接近,这说明建平人右侧肱骨可能不是惯用手,同时,建平人的行为活动应该与同时期同地区的古人类处于同一水平,而小于尼安德特人。整体来看,PA103骨干骨密质厚度和截面惯性矩与近现代人的分布模式较为接近,除局部数值增大外,其整体数值小于近现代人的平均水平,这可能与遗传或行为活动有关,由于缺少古人类化石对比数据,更详细的了解还需后期开展更多相关的研究。     

Human remains from the Austrian Gravettian: the Willendorf femoral diaphysis and mandibular symphysis

Early excavations at the Willendorf site complex in Austria yielded a femoral diaphysis collected between 1883 and 1887 and a mandibular symphysis discovered in 1908--1909. The femoral section, Willendorf 1, derives from the Willendorf I site and direct AMS (14)C dating (24,250+/-180 years B.P.) assigns it to layer 9. The Willendorf 2 mandibular piece was excavated from layer 9 of the Willendorf II site, which is AMS (14)C dated to 24,000--23,900 years B.P. The Willendorf 1 femoral piece is relatively small and exhibits a pronounced pilaster and linear aspera, moderately elevated relative cortical area, and a level of diaphyseal robusticity in the middle of the European earlier Upper Paleolithic human range of variation, assuming similar body proportions. The Willendorf 2 mandibular symphysis has an inferior lingual torus, a planum alveolare, and a mental trigone with indistinct lateral tubercles, a clear fossa mentalis and a midline basilar rounding. In these features it is close to the majority of European earlier Upper Paleolithic mandibles.     

Vindija cave and the modern human peopling of Europe

Vindija cave in Croatia has yielded the youngest securely dated Neandertal skeletal remains in Central/Eastern Europe. In addition, these remains have been found in association with archaeological material exhibiting Upper Paleolithic elements. Due to its geographic location and date, the Vindija remains are particularly crucial for the understanding of initial modern human peopling of Europe and the nature of the Neandertal demise. The significance of archaeological and paleontological finds and hominin fossils from this site is discussed in the light of new finds at Vindija and recent developments in the fields of paleoanthropology and prehistoric archaeology. Furthermore, the impact of revised chronology for several crucial specimens and sites throughout Europe, including Vindija, is discussed.     

Stress physiologique et état de santé des plus anciens Hommes anatomiquement modernes du sud-est de l’Europe (données dentaires,couche 6-1, Buran-Kaya III,Crimée)

Buran-Kaya III site, in Crimea, provides an exceptional stratigraphic sequence, extending from Middle Paleolithic to Neolithic. Among the archaeological layers allocated to the Gravettian (sensu lato), more than 170 anthropological remains have been discovered in the layer 6-1. They represent the oldest Upper Paleolithic modern humans from Eastern Europe in a well-documented archaeological context. The aim of this article, based on dental remains and enamel dental hypoplasias in particular, is to evaluate the health of the modern humans, which lived more than 32,000 years BP ago in Crimea. This study puts into the light the low frequency of hypoplasias (occurring in the two youngest individuals). This article complete the rare studies concerning the presence of this physiological stress during the Early Upper Paleolithic and confirm the scarcity of enamel dental hypoplasias and dental pathologies, such as caries, at this period.     

An azhdarchid humerus (Pterosauria,Azhdarchidae) from the Upper Cretaceous of Saratov Region

A proximal humerus fragment referred to as Azhdarchidae indet. from the Rybushka Formation (Upper Cretaceous, Lower Campanian) of the Beloe Ozero locality in Saratov Region is described. The proximal articular surface is not saddle-shaped, has a weakly convex profile in the frontal section. The most posteriorly projecting part of the proximal articular surface is displaced ventrally. A large pneumatic foramen is located on the anterior surface ventral to the base of deltopectoral crest and close to the proximal articular surface. The humeral head is slightly declined from the diaphysis and only slightly overhangs the diaphysis posteriorly. This proximal humerus fragment possibly belongs to Volgadraco bogolubovi Averianov, Arkhangelsky et Pervushov, 2008, described from the Rybushka Formation of the Shirokii Karamysh 2 locality in Saratov Region.     

Throwing in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: inferences from an analysis of humeral retroversion

When in evolutionary history did long-range projectile weapons become an important component of hunting toolkits? The archeological evidence for the development of projectile weaponry is complex and generally indirect, and has led to different conclusions about the origin and spread of this technology. Lithic evidence from the Middle Stone Age (MSA) has led some researchers to suggest that true long- range projectile weaponry developed in Africa perhaps as early as 80,000 years ago, and was part of the subsistence toolkit carried by modern humans who expanded out of Africa after 50,000 years ago. Alternatively, temporal patterns in the morphology of pointed lithics has led others to posit an independent, convergent origin of projectile weaponry in Africa, the Near East, and Europe during the interval between 50,000-40,000 years ago. By either scenario, projectile weapons would not have been a component of the hunting arsenal of Neandertals, but may have been in use by European early modern humans and thus, projectile technology may have entered into the competitive dynamics that existed between these two groups. The origins of projectile weapons can be addressed, in part, through analyses of the skeletal remains of the prehistoric humans who made and used them. Habitual behavior patterns—including those related to the production and use of technology—can be imprinted on the skeleton through both genetic and epigenetic pathways. Recent studies in the field of sports medicine indicate that individuals who engage in habitual throwing have increased humeral retroversion angles in their throwing arms and a greater degree of bilateral asymmetry in retroversion angles than do non-throwers. This contribution investigates humeral torsion through analysis of the retroversion angle in samples of Eurasian Neandertals, European early modern humans of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic, and comparative samples of recent humans. This analysis was conducted under the assumption that if throwing-based projectile weaponry was used by early modern Europeans but not Neandertals, Upper Paleolithic samples should be similar to recent human groups engaged in habitual throwing in the degree of humeral retroversion in the dominant limb and in bilateral asymmetry in this feature. Neandertals on the other hand, would not be expected to show marked asymmetry in humeral retroversion. Consistent with other studies, Neandertals exhibit increased retroversion angles (decreased humeral torsion or a more posteriorly oriented humeral head) relative to most modern human samples, although this appears more likely related to body form and overall activity levels than to habitual throwing. Although Neandertals with bilaterally preserved humeri sufficient for measurement are rare (consisting of only two males and one female), levels of bilateral asymmetry in humeral retroversion are low, suggesting a lack of regular throwing. While patterning across fossil and comparative samples in levels of humeral retroversion was not clear cut, males of both the middle and late Upper Paleolithic demonstrate a high level of bilateral asymmetry, comparable to or in excess of that seen in samples of throwing athletes. This may indicate habitual use of throwing-based projectile weaponry by middle Upper Paleolithic times. Small sample sizes and relatively great variance in the fossil samples makes these results, however, suggestive rather than conclusive.     

A critical review of the German Paleolithic hominin record

We review the hominin fossil record from western Central Europe in light of the recent major revisions of the geochronological context. The mandible from Mauer (Homo heidelbergensis), dated to circa 500,000 years ago, continues to represent the earliest German hominin and may coincide with the occupation of Europe north of the high alpine mountain chains. Only limited new evidence is available for the Middle Pleistocene, mostly in the form of skull fragments, a pattern that may relate to taphonomic processes. These finds and their ages suggest the gradual evolution of a suite of Neandertal features during this period. Despite new finds of classic Neandertals, there is no clear proof for Neandertal burial from Germany. Alternatively, cut marks on a skull fragment from the Neandertal type site suggest special treatment of that individual. New Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dates of previous finds leave little reliably dated evidence for anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Europe before 30,000 BP; the remains from Hahn?fersand, Binshof-Speyer, Paderborn-Sande, and Vogelherd are now of Holocene age. Thus, a correlation of AMH with the Aurignacian remains to be proven, and the general idea of a long coexistence of Neandertals and AMH in Europe may be questioned. In western Central Europe, evidence of Gravettian human fossils is also very limited, although a new double grave from lower Austria may be relevant. The only dated burial from the German Upper Paleolithic (from Mittlere Klause) falls into a time period (circa 18,600 BP) represented by only a few occupation sites in western Central Europe. A number of human remains at Magdalenian sites appear to result from variable (secondary) burial practices. In contrast, the Final Paleolithic (circa 12,000-9600 cal. BC) yields an increase of hominin finds, including multiple burials (Bonn-Oberkassel, Neuwied-Irlich), similar to the situation in western and southern Europe.     

First Partial Skeleton of a 1.34-Million-Year-Old Paranthropus boisei from Bed II,Olduvai Gorge,Tanzania

Recent excavations in Level 4 at BK (Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania) have yielded nine hominin teeth, a distal humerus fragment, a proximal radius with much of its shaft, a femur shaft, and a tibia shaft fragment (cataloged collectively as OH 80). Those elements identified more specifically than to simply Hominidae gen. et sp. indet are attributed to Paranthropus boisei. Before this study, incontrovertible P. boisei partial skeletons, for which postcranial remains occurred in association with taxonomically diagnostic craniodental remains, were unknown. Thus, OH 80 stands as the first unambiguous, dentally associated Paranthropus partial skeleton from East Africa. The morphology and size of its constituent parts suggest that the fossils derived from an extremely robust individual who, at 1.338±0.024 Ma (1 sigma), represents one of the most recent occurrences of Paranthropus before its extinction in East Africa.