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Xb was recognized as belonging to a Neandertal; however, most of the teeth from Chatelperronian layers VIII-X remain unpublished.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.     

Neandertals,competition, and the origin of modern human behavior in the Levant

The East Mediterranean Levant is a small region, but its paleoanthropological record looms large in debates about the origin of modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. For most of the twentieth century, the Levantine paleoanthropological record supported models of continuity and evolutionary transition between Neandertals and early modern humans. Recent advances in radiometric dating have challenged these models by reversing the chronological relationship between Levantine Neandertals and early modern humans. This revised chronostratigraphy for Levantine Middle Paleolithic human fossils raises interesting questions about the evolutionary relationship between Neandertals and early modern humans. A reconsideration of this relationship moves us closer to understanding the long delay between the origin of morphologically modern‐looking humans during the Middle Paleolithic (>130 Kyr) and the adaptive radiation of modern humans into Eurasia around the time of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic (50 to 30 Kyr).     

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.     

Is human longevity a consequence of cultural change or modern biology?

Increased longevity, expressed as the number of individuals surviving to older adulthood, represents a key way that Upper Paleolithic Europeans differ from earlier European (Neandertal) populations. Here, we address whether longevity increased as a result of cultural/adaptive change in Upper Paleolithic Europe, or whether it was introduced to Europe as a part of modern human biology. We compare the ratio of older to younger adults (OY ratio) in an early modern human sample associated with the Middle Paleolithic from Western Asia with OY ratios of European Upper Paleolithic moderns and penecontemporary Neandertals from the same region. We also compare these Neandertals to European Neandertals. The difference between the OY ratios of modern humans of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic is large and significant, but there is no significant difference between the Neandertals and early modern humans of Western Asia. Longevity for the West Asian Neandertals is significantly more common than for the European Neandertals. We conclude that the increase in adult survivorship associated with the Upper Paleolithic is not a biological attribute of modern humans, but reflects important cultural adaptations promoting the demographic and material representations of modernity.     

Early Upper Paleolithic Man and Late Middle Paleolithic Tools

The appearance of anatomically modern Homo sapiens in Europe, the Near East, and Africa must represent either an in situ evolution of Neandertals or a migration. Those who suggest the latter claim a sudden replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern Homo sapiens. However, the "evidence" actually cited claims only the sudden replacement of Middle by Upper Paleolithic industries. We criticize the migration explanation on two grounds. (1) There is no "sudden replacement" of Middle Paleolithic by Upper Paleolithic industries, but rather a gradual change in the frequencies of already present tools. Numerous sites in these areas exhibit transitional industries. (2) Concomitantly, there is no morphological evidence indicating a "sudden replacement" of hominids. There is no absolute association between anatomically modern Homo sapiens and Upper Paleolithic industries. Instead, the evidence clearly shows that early anatomically modern Homo sapiens is a late Middle Paleolithic local phenomenon .     

Morphological affinities of the Sal'a 1 frontal bone

The human frontal bone from Sal'a, Slovak Republic, has previously entered into discussions of the morphological patterns of Central European Neandertals and the origins of early modern humans in that region. A morphological reassessment of its supraorbital region and a morphometric analysis of its overall proportions indicate that it falls well within expected ranges of variation of Late Pleistocene Neandertals and is separate from European earlier Upper Paleolithic early modern human crania. It is similar to the Qafzeh-Skhul sample in some metrical and supraorbital robusticity measures, but it contrasts with them in mid-sagittal curvature and supraorbital torus morphology. In the context of its probable oxygen isotope stage 5 age based on inferred biostratigraphic associations, it should not be employed directly for arguments relating to the emergence of modern humans in Central Europe.     

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 place of Neandertals in the evolution of hominid patterns of growth and development

This study uses the two developmental fields of dental maturation and femoral growth to determine if the pattern of growth and development in Neandertals (archaic Homo sapiens) was intermediate between that of Homo erectus and recent modern humans. Specimens used in the analysis included Neandertals and Upper Palaeolithic early modern Homo sapiens from Europe and individuals from two recent modern human populations. Ontogenetic data for the H. erectus adolescent KNM-WT 15000 and for Gorilla gorilla were included for comparison. Previous reports have indicated that H. erectus demonstrates a pattern of ontogeny characterized by earlier and more rapid linear growth than in modern humans. Results reported here demonstrate that Upper Paleolithic early modern Homo sapiens display a growth trajectory indistinguishable from that of recent modern humans. The pattern of Neandertal ontogeny is not intermediate between the pattern displayed in H. erectus and the derived pattern seen in the modern reference samples and the early modern H. sapiens sample. The Neandertal growth trajectory is consistent with either slow linear growth or advanced dental development.     

Morphological affinities of the al’a 1 frontal bone

The human frontal bone from al’a, Slovak Republic, has previously entered into discussions of the morphological patterns of Central European Neandertals and the origins of early modern humans in that region. A morphological reassessment of its supraorbital region and a morphometric analysis of its overall proportions indicate that it falls well within expected ranges of variation of Late Pleistocene Neandertals and is separate from European earlier Upper Paleolithic early modern human crania. It is similar to the Qafzeh-Skhul sample in some metrical and supraorbital robusticity measures, but it contrasts with them in mid-sagittal curvature and supraorbital torus morphology. In the context of its probable oxygen isotope stage 5 age based on inferred biostratigraphic associations, it should not be employed directly for arguments relating to the emergence of modern humans in Central Europe.     

Diagnostic differences in mandibular P4 shape between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans

This study uses elliptical Fourier analysis to quantify shape differences observed in the P(4) crown of Neandertals and anatomically modern humans. Previously, P(4) shape was assessed qualitatively, and results suggested marked differences between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans (Bailey [2002] New Anat. 269:148-156). The goal of this study was to investigate the P(4) shape in more detail, quantifying it in order to determine its utility for taxonomic classification and phylogenetic analysis. A comparison of mean shapes confirms that the mesiolingual portion of the P(4) is truncated in Neandertals, and that this produces a distinctively asymmetrical P(4). A randomization test confirms that the shape difference between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans is significant. Principal component and discriminant function analyses indicate that the relative size of the lingual portion of the tooth also affects tooth shape, with the lingual portion of the Neandertal P(4) being narrower than that of anatomically modern humans. Classification of P(4) crown shapes using discriminant functions analysis is far from perfect. While 86.4% of the teeth were correctly classified, classification was much better for anatomically modern humans (98.1%) than it was for Neandertals (65%). Fortunately, crown shape is but one of several diagnostic characters of the P(4) crown. P(4) crown asymmetry can be added to the growing list of dental morphological characters distinguishing Neandertals from anatomically modern humans. Moreover, based on a comparison of mean tooth shapes in fossil and recent humans, symmetry, rather than asymmetry, appears to be the primitive state, and the high frequency of P(4) asymmetry is likely derived in Neandertals.     

A morphometric analysis of maxillary molar crowns of Middle-Late Pleistocene hominins

This study explores the significance of shape differences in the maxillary first molar crowns of Neandertals and anatomically modern humans. It uses morphometric analysis to quantify these differences and to investigate how the orientation of major cusps, relative cusp base areas and occlusal polygon area influence crown shape. The aims of this study were to 1) quantify these data to test whether the tooth shapes of Neandertals and anatomically modern humans differ significantly and 2) to explore if either of the shapes is derived relative to earlier fossil hominins. Data were collected from digital occlusal photographs using image-processing software. Cusp angles, relative cusp base areas and occlusal polygon areas were measured on Neandertals (n=15), contemporary modern humans (n=62), Upper Paleolithic humans (n=6), early anatomically modern humans (n=3) and Homo erectus (n=3). Univariate and multivariate statistical tests were used to evaluate the differences between contemporary modern humans and Neandertals, while the much sparser data sets from the other fossil samples were included primarily for comparison. Statistically significant differences reflecting overall crown shape and internal placement of the crown apices were found. Neandertals are distinguished from contemporary humans by possessing maxillary first molars that 1) are markedly skewed; 2) possess a narrower distal segment of the occlusal polygon compared to the mesial segment; 3) possess a significantly smaller metacone and a significantly larger hypocone; and 4) possess a significantly smaller relative occlusal polygon area reflecting internally placed cusps. Differences in relative cusp base areas of the hypocone and metacone may contribute to the shape differences observed in Neandertals. However, early anatomically modern humans possessing a pattern of relative cusp base areas similar to Neandertals lack their unusual shape. That the morphology observed in non-Neandertal fossil hominins is more anatomically modern human-like than Neandertal-like, suggests that this distinctive morphology may be derived in Neandertals.     

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 modern human humerus from the early aurignacian of Vogelherdhöhle (Stetten, Germany)

Implicit in much of the discussion of the cultural and population biological dynamics of modern human origins in Europe is the assumption that the Aurignacian, from its very start, was made by fully modern humans. The veracity of this assumption has been challenged in recent years by the association of Neandertal skeletal remains with a possibly Aurignacian assemblage at Vindija Cave (Croatia) and the association of Neandertals with distinctly Upper Paleolithic (but non-Aurignacian) assemblages at Arcy-sur-Cure and St. C?esaire (France). Ideally we need human fossil material that can be confidently assigned to the early Aurignacian to resolve this issue, yet in reality there is a paucity of well-provenanced human fossils from early Upper Paleolithic contexts. One specimen, a right humerus from the site of Vogelherd (Germany), has been argued, based on its size, robusticity, and muscularity, to possibly represent a Neandertal in an Aurignacian context. The morphological affinities of the Vogelherd humerus were explored by univariate and multivariate comparisons of humeral epiphyseal and diaphyseal shape and strength measures relative to humeri of Neandertals and Early Upper Paleolithic (later Aurignacian and Gravettian) modern humans. On the basis of diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry, deltoid tuberosity morphology, and distal epiphyseal morphology, the specimen falls clearly and consistently with European early modern humans and not with Neandertals. Along with the other Vogelherd human remains, the Vogelherd humerus represents an unequivocal association between the Aurignacian and modern human morphology in Europe.     

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.     

Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications

The craniometric affinities among Neandertals. Upper Palcolithic Europeans, early anatomically modern Southwest Asians, and archaic and modern Africans are investigated using univariate and multivariate methods. For the first time, it is possible to analyse the North African finds Dar-es-Soltane 5, Nazlet Khater, and Wadi Kubbaniya. It was not possible to include the Neandertals from Central Europe due to their poor state of preservation. The results point to, first, a basic distinction between Neandertals on the one hand and modern humans from all geographic regions on the other, and, secondly, to great similarities between modern African and European populations. Late archaic sapiens specimens from Africa were more similar to Upper Paleolithic Europeans than were the Neandertals. The results do not support the hypothesis that a regional evolution giving rise to modern humans took place in Europe. The results are, however, consistent with the hypothesis that modern populations originated in Africa and spread to Europe from there.     

The Date of Interbreeding between Neandertals and Modern Humans

Comparisons of DNA sequences between Neandertals and present-day humans have shown that Neandertals share more genetic variants with non-Africans than with Africans. This could be due to interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans when the two groups met subsequent to the emergence of modern humans outside Africa. However, it could also be due to population structure that antedates the origin of Neandertal ancestors in Africa. We measure the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the genomes of present-day Europeans and find that the last gene flow from Neandertals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000–86,000 years before the present (BP), and most likely 47,000–65,000 years ago. This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neandertals as they expanded out of Africa.     

New data on the late Neandertals: Direct dating of the Belgian Spy fossils

In Eurasia, the period between 40,000 and 30,000 BP saw the replacement of Neandertals by anatomically modern humans (AMH) during and after the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. The human fossil record for this period is very poorly defined with no overlap between Neandertals and AMH on the basis of direct dates. Four new ¹⁴C dates were obtained on the two adult Neandertals from Spy (Belgium). The results show that Neandertals survived to at least ≈36,000 BP in Belgium and that the Spy fossils may be associated to the Lincombian–Ranisian–Jerzmanowician, a transitional techno‐complex defined in northwest Europe and recognized in the Spy collections. The new data suggest that hypotheses other than Neandertal acculturation by AMH may be considered in this part of Europe. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.