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.     

Middle eastern origin model forHomo sapiens (Moderns & Neanderthals), language and modern behaviour

A new model may resolve the problem of when and where did appear anatomically modern humans. According to this model, Neanderthals were probably neither our ancestor nor different species.Homo sapiens appeared probably in the Middle East, approximately 150 ka ago and differentiated to anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals because of the genetic programme. The fossils older than 150 ka are probably not Neanderthal such as Zuttiyeh and Biache-Saint-Vaast specimens. Cultural capacities of Neanderthals were probably equivalent to Moderns. Most of pre-Homo sapiens populations may be extinct without replacement byHomo sapiens. Language and modern behaviour should have arisen with our own species.     

Facial ontogeny in Neanderthals and modern humans

One hundred and fifty years after the discovery of Neanderthals, it is held that this morphologically and genetically distinct human species does not differ from modern Homo sapiens in its craniofacial ontogenetic trajectory after the early post-natal period. This is striking given the evident morphological differences between these species, since it implies that all of the major differences are established by the early post-natal period and carried into adulthood through identical trajectories, despite the extent to which mechanical and spatial factors are thought to influence craniofacial ontogeny. Here, we present statistical and morphological analyses demonstrating that the spatio-temporal processes responsible for craniofacial ontogenetic transformations differ. The findings emphasize that pre-natal as well as post-natal ontogeny are both important in establishing the cranial morphological differences between adult Neanderthals and modern humans.     

Brain size and encephalization in early to Mid-Pleistocene Homo

Important changes in the brain have occurred during the course of human evolution. Both absolute and relative size increases can be documented for species of Homo, culminating in the appearance of modern humans. One species that is particularly well-represented by fossil crania is Homo erectus. The mean capacity for 30 individuals is 973 cm(3). Within this group there is substantial variation, but brain size increases slightly in specimens from later time periods. Other Middle Pleistocene crania differ from those of Homo erectus. Characters of the facial skeleton, vault, and cranial base suggest that fossils from sites such as Arago Cave in France, the Sima de los Huesos in Spain, Bodo in Ethiopia, Broken Hill in Zambia, and perhaps Dali in China belong to the taxon Homo heidelbergensis. Ten of these mid-Quaternary hominins have brains averaging 1,206 cm(3) in volume, and many fall beyond the limits of size predicted for Homo erectus of equivalent age. When orbit height is used to construct an index of relative brain size, it is apparent that the (significant) increase in volume documented for the Middle Pleistocene individuals is not simply a consequence of larger body mass. Encephalization quotient values confirm this finding. These changes in absolute and relative brain size can be taken as further corroborative evidence for a speciation event, in which Homo erectus produced a daughter lineage. It is probable that Homo heidelbergensis originated in Africa or western Eurasia and then ranged widely across the Old World. Archaeological traces indicate that these populations differed in their technology and behavior from earlier hominins.     

Archaic admixture in the human genome

One of the enduring questions in the evolution of our species surrounds the fate of 'archaic' forms of Homo. Did Neanderthals go extinct without interbreeding with modern humans 25-40 thousand years ago or are their genes present among modern-day Europeans? Recent work suggests that Neanderthals and an as yet unidentified archaic African population contributed to at least 5% of the modern European and West African gene pools, respectively. Extensive sequencing of Neanderthal and other archaic human nuclear DNA has the potential to answer this question definitively within the next few years.     

Human taxonomic diversity in the pleistocene: Does Homo erectus represent multiple hominid species?

Recently, nomina such as “Homo heidelbergensis” and “H. ergaster” have been resurrected to refer to fossil hominids that are perceived to be specifically distinct from Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. This results in a later human fossil record that is nearly as speciose as that documenting the earlier history of the family Hominidae. However, it is agreed that there remains only one extant hominid species: H. sapiens. Has human taxonomic diversity been significantly pruned over the last few hundred millennia, or have the number of taxa been seriously overestimated? To answer this question, the following null hypothesis is tested: polytypism was established relatively early and the species H. erectus can accommodate all spatio-temporal variation from ca. 1.7 to 0.5 Ma. A disproof of this hypothesis would suggest that modern human polytypism is a very recent phenomenon and that speciation throughout the course of human evolution was the norm and not the exception. Cranial variation in a taxonomically mixed sample of fossil hominids, and in a modern human sample, is analyzed with regard to the variation present in the fossils attributed to H. erectus. The data are examined using both univariate (coefficient of variation) and multivariate (determinant) analyses. Employing randomization methodology to offset the small size and non-normal distribution of the fossil samples, the CV and determinant results reveal a pattern and degree of variation in H. erectus that most closely approximates that of the single species H. sapiens. It is therefore concluded that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Endocranial capacity of the bodo cranium determined from three-dimensional computed tomography

The 600,000-year-old cranium from Bodo, Ethiopia, is the oldest and most complete early Middle Pleistocene hominid skull from Africa. "Virtual endocast" models created by three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) techniques indicate an endocranial capacity of about 1,250 cc for this cranium (with a reasonable range between approximately 1,200-1,325 cc, depending on how missing portions of the basicranial region are reconstructed). From these determinations, several important implications emerge concerning current interpretations of "tempo and mode" in early hominid brain evolution: 1) already by the early Middle Pleistocene, at least one African hominid species, Homo heidelbergensis, had reached an endocranial capacity within the normal range of modern humans; 2) in spite of its large endocranial capacity, estimates of Bodo's encephalization quotient fall below those found in a large sample of Homo sapiens (both fossil and recent) and Neandertals; and 3) the greatest burst of brain expansion in the Homo lineage may not have been in the last several hundred thousand years, but rather much earlier in the Lower to early Middle Pleistocene.     

To what extent did Neanderthals and modern humans interact?

Neanderthals represent an extinct hominid lineage that existed in Europe and Asia for nearly 400,000 years. They thrived in these regions for much of this time, but declined in numbers and went extinct around 30,000 years ago. Interestingly, their disappearance occurred subsequent to the arrival of modern humans into these areas, which has prompted some to argue that Neanderthals were displaced by better suited and more adaptable modern humans. Still others have postulated that Neanderthals were assimilated into the gene pool of modern humans by admixture. Until relatively recently, conclusions about the relationships between Neanderthals and contemporary humans were based solely upon evidence left behind in the fossil and archaeological records. However, in the last decade, we have witnessed the introduction of metagenomic analyses, which have provided novel tools with which to study the levels of genetic interactions between this fascinating Homo lineage and modern humans. Were Neanderthals replaced by contemporary humans through dramatic extinction resulting from competition and/or hostility or through admixture? Were Neanderthals and modern humans two independent, genetically unique species or were they a single species, capable of producing fertile offspring? Here, we review the current anthropological, archaeological and genetic data, which shed some light on these questions and provide insight into the exact nature of the relationships between these two groups of humans.     

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.     

Does Homo neanderthalensis play a role in modern human ancestry? The mandibular evidence

Data obtained from quantifying the upper part of the mandibular ramus (the coronoid process, the condylar process, and the notch between them) lead us to conclude that Neanderthals (both European and Middle Eastern) differ more from Homo sapiens (early specimens such as Tabun II, Skhul, and Qafzeh, as well as contemporary populations from as far apart as Alaska and Australia) than the latter differs from Homo erectus. The specialized Neanderthal mandibular ramus morphology emerges as yet another element constituting the derived complex of morphologies of the mandible and face that are unique to Neanderthals. These morphologies provide further support for the contention that Neanderthals do not play a role in modern human biological ancestry, either through "regional continuity" or through any other form of anagenetic progression.     

The Neanderthal "chignon": variation, integration, and homology

The occipital bun ("chignon") is cited widely as a Neanderthal derived trait. It encompasses the posterior projection/convexity of the occipital squama and is associated with lambdoid flattening on the parietal. A 'hemibun' in some Upper Paleolithic Europeans is thought by some authors to indicate interbreeding between Neanderthals and early modern Europeans. However, 'bunning' is difficult to measure, and the term has been applied to a range of morphological patterns. Furthermore, its usefulness in phylogenetic reconstruction and its homologous status across modern and fossil humans have been disputed. We present a geometric morphometric study that quantitatively evaluates the chignon, assesses its usefulness in separating Neanderthals from modern humans, and its degree of similarity to Upper Paleolithic 'hemibuns.' We measured the three-dimensional coordinates of closely spaced points along the midsagittal plane from bregma to inion and of anatomical landmarks in a large series of recent human crania and several Middle and Late Pleistocene European and African fossils. These coordinate data were processed using the techniques of geometric morphometrics and analyzed with relative warps, canonical variates, and singular warps. Our results show no separation between Neanderthals and modern humans, including early modern Europeans, when the shape of the occipital plane midsagittal-profile is considered alone. On the other hand, Neanderthals are well separated from both recent and fossil modern humans when information about the occipital's relative position and relative size are also included. Furthermore, the occurrence of a highly convex and posteriorly projecting midline occipital profile (interpreted as the occipital bun) is highly correlated (>0.8) with a flat parietal midsagittal profile and with antero-superiorly positioned temporal bones across both our recent and our fossil human samples. We conclude that the shape of the occipital profile alone should not be considered an independent trait, as it is very tightly integrated with braincase shape. Our analysis does not support differences in integration of the posterior midsagittal profile and the cranial base in Pleistocene and recent humans.     

Dental tissue proportions and enamel thickness in Neandertal and modern human molars

The thickness of dental enamel is often discussed in paleoanthropological literature, particularly with regard to differences in growth, health, and diet between Neandertals and modern humans. Paleoanthropologists employ enamel thickness in paleodietary and taxonomic studies regarding earlier hominins, but variation in enamel thickness within the genus Homo has not been thoroughly explored despite its potential to discriminate species and its relevance to studies of growth and development. Radiographic two-dimensional studies indicate that Neandertal molar enamel is thin relative to the thick enamel of modern humans, although such methods have limited accuracy. Here we show that, measured via accurate high-resolution microtomographic imaging, Neandertal molar enamel is absolutely and relatively thinner than modern human enamel at most molar positions. However, this difference relates to the ratio of coronal dentine volume to total crown volume, rather than the quantity of enamel per se. The absolute volume of Neandertal molar enamel is similar to that of modern humans, but Neandertal enamel is deposited over a larger volume of coronal dentine, resulting in lower average (and relative) enamel thickness values. Sample sizes do not permit rigorous intragroup comparisons, but Neandertal molar tissue proportions evince less variation than the modern human sample. Differences in three- and two-dimensional enamel thickness data describing Neandertal molars may be explained by dimensional reduction. Although molar tissue proportions distinguish Neanderthals from recent Homo sapiens, additional study is necessary to assess trends in tissue proportions in the genus Homo throughout the Pleistocene.     

The stem species of our species: a place for the archaic human cranium from Ceprano, Italy

One of the present challenges in the study of human evolution is to recognize the hominin taxon that was ancestral to Homo sapiens. Some researchers regard H. heidelbergensis as the stem species involved in the evolutionary divergence leading to the emergence of H. sapiens in Africa, and to the evolution of the Neandertals in Europe. Nevertheless, the diagnosis and hypodigm of H. heidelbergensis still remain to be clarified. Here we evaluate the morphology of the incomplete cranium (calvarium) known as Ceprano whose age has been recently revised to the mid of the Middle Pleistocene, so as to test whether this specimen may be included in H. heidelbergensis. The analyses were performed according to a phenetic routine including geometric morphometrics and the evaluation of diagnostic discrete traits. The results strongly support the uniqueness of H. heidelbergensis on a wide geographical horizon, including both Eurasia and Africa. In this framework, the Ceprano calvarium--with its peculiar combination of archaic and derived traits--may represent, better than other penecontemporaneous specimens, an appropriate ancestral stock of this species, preceding the appearance of regional autapomorphic features.     

Genomic differentiation of Neanderthals and anatomically modern man allows a fossil-DNA-based classification of morphologically indistinguishable hominid bones

Southern blot hybridizations of genomic DNA were introduced as a relatively simple fossil-DNA-based approach to classify remains of Neanderthals. When hybridized with genomic DNA of either human or Neanderthal origin, DNA extracted from two Neanderthal finds-the Os parietale, from Warendorf-Neuwarendorf, Germany, and a clavicula, from Krapina, Croatia-was shown to yield hybridization signals that differ by at least a factor of two compared to the signals obtained with the use of fossil DNA of an early Homo sapiens from the Vogelherd cave (Stetten I), Germany. When labeled chimpanzee DNA was used as a probe, Neanderthal and human DNA, however, revealed hybridization signals of similar intensity. Thus, the genome of Neanderthals is expected to differ significantly from the genome of anatomically modern man, because of the contrasting composition of repetitive DNA. These data support the hypothesis that Neanderthals were not ancestors of anatomically modern man.     

Les origines de l’art et les théories sur l’évolution humaine : le cas français

In recent years, we have witnessed an international debate about the question of the origins of art. On the one hand, some specialists have suggested that art appeared for the first time at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic associated to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens. From this point of view, Paleolithic art as well as other hallmarks of behavioral modernity were exclusive to anatomically modern humans. On the other hand, some scholars have put into question the traditional paradigm concerning the origins of art and have suggested that artistic objects arose over a long period of time among different species, including Neanderthals. In order to contextualize this debate, we analyze in this article the history of the different interpretations and controversies concerning the question of the origins of art. Taking as reference the French case, we examine the connections between the different theories about art's origins suggested by Pleistocene art specialists during the last century and the dominant paradigms in human paleontology during the same period. Informed by one another, the question of the origins of art and that of human evolution seems to be inextricable linked.     

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.     

Mandibular condyle traits in Neanderthals and other Homo: a comparative,correlative, and ontogenetic study

The relationship between the mandibular condyle and the crest of the mandibular notch (CMN) has historically entered into discussions of Neanderthal characteristics and was recently suggested to be autapomorphic in Neanderthals. The Neanderthal CMN has been described as intersecting the condyle in the middle, while the modern human CMN runs to the condyle's lateral end. A large lateral condylar tubercle (LCT) has also been observed in Neanderthals and thought to be related to medial (or less lateral) CMN position. In addition, the presence of a less lateral CMN early in ontogeny, as seen in the Amud 7 infant, has been argued to demonstrate great evolutionary divergence in Neanderthals. Using a scoring system for each trait, this study first examines the expression of CMN position and LCT size in 102 adult modern humans and in samples of Neanderthals and other fossil Homo. Then, CMN position is scored in 208 subadult modern humans to elucidate the ontogeny of this trait. Results show that CMN position is not autapomorphic in Neanderthals, but Neanderthals have significantly more CMNs in the least-lateral score category than does the modern human sample. Large LCTs are found to be strongly predictive of less lateral CMN position, although less lateral CMN position may exist in the absence of a large LCT. The complex ontogenetic pattern of CMN expression observed indicates that features of subadult and adult condylar morphology cannot be constructively compared without first considering subadult morphology on its own functional and developmental terms.     

Rapid ecological turnover and its impact on Neanderthal and other human populations

The latter part of the last glaciation, 50,000-12,000 years ago (kya), was characterized by a rapidly changing climate, cold conditions and corresponding vegetation and faunal turnover. It also coincided with the extinction of the Neanderthals and the expansion of modern human populations. Established views of modern human superiority over Neanderthals as the cause of their extinction are under attack as recent work shows that Neanderthals were capable of behaviour that is regarded as modern. As we discuss here, the exact nature of biological and cultural interactions between Neanderthals and other human groups between 50 kya and 30 kya is currently hotly contested. The extinction of the Neanderthals, and other modern human lineages, now appears to have been a drawn-out, climate-related affair.     

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.     

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.