Brief communication: Investigation of the semicircular canal variation in the Krapina Neandertals

Previous studies comparing bony labyrinth morphology in geographically‐dispersed samples of Neandertals and modern Homo sapiens (H. sapiens) showed that Neandertals generally have smaller semicircular canals than modern H. sapiens (Hublin et al., 1996 ; Spoor et al., 2003 ; Glantz et al., 2008 ). Here we analyze the morphology of a single group of Neandertal specimens from one locale, the Krapina site, to determine the intraspecific variation in Neandertal semicircular canal sizes. Dimensions of the semicircular canals were collected from computed tomography scans of nine temporal bones. With the rare exception, the dimensions of the semicircular canals in the Krapina sample are similar to those previously reported across a geographically‐dispersed sample of Neandertals, further supporting previous studies that suggest low levels of variation in the semicircular canals for Neandertals. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:302–306, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Unconstrained cranial evolution in Neandertals and modern humans compared to common chimpanzees

A variety of lines of evidence support the idea that neutral evolutionary processes (genetic drift, mutation) have been important in generating cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans. But how do Neandertals and modern humans compare with other species? And how do these comparisons illuminate the evolutionary processes underlying cranial diversification? To address these questions, we used 27 standard cranial measurements collected on 2524 recent modern humans, 20 Neandertals and 237 common chimpanzees to estimate split times between Neandertals and modern humans, and between Pan troglodytes verus and two other subspecies of common chimpanzee. Consistent with a neutral divergence, the Neandertal versus modern human split-time estimates based on cranial measurements are similar to those based on DNA sequences. By contrast, the common chimpanzee cranial estimates are much lower than DNA-sequence estimates. Apparently, cranial evolution has been unconstrained in Neandertals and modern humans compared with common chimpanzees. Based on these and additional analyses, it appears that cranial differentiation in common chimpanzees has been restricted by stabilizing natural selection. Alternatively, this restriction could be due to genetic and/or developmental constraints on the amount of within-group variance (relative to effective population size) available for genetic drift to act on.     

Neandertal energetics and foraging efficiency

Mechanical interpretations of Neandertal skeletal robusticity suggest extremely high activity levels compared to modern humans. Such activity patterns imply high energy requirements; yet it has been argued that Neandertals were also inefficient foragers. The present study addresses this apparent conflict by estimating energy needs in Neandertals and then evaluating those estimates in the context of energetic and foraging data compiled for contemporary human foragers and nonhuman primates. Energy demands for Neandertals were determined by first predicting basal metabolic rates (BMR) from body weight estimates using human standards developed by the World Health Organization [FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) Energy and Protein Requirements. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Export Committee, Geneva: WHO]. Total daily energy expenditure (kcal/day) was then estimated assuming high levels of physical activity (i.e., 2--3 x BMR), comparable to those observed among subsistence-level populations today. These estimates of energy requirements (ranging from 3000--5500 kcal/day) were then used to determine Neandertal foraging efficiency assuming (1) minimal survival-level foraging returns, and (2) daily foraging times longer than those observed among any contemporary foraging group and comparable to a nonhuman primate. Even with these extremely conservative parameters, estimates of Neandertal foraging efficiency (approximately 800--1150 kcal/h foraged) were comparable to those observed among living hunter-gatherers. These results indicate that if Neandertals did have heavy activity levels, as implied by their skeletal robusticity, they would have required foraging efficiencies within the range observed among modern groups. Thus, Neandertals could have been either highly active or poor foragers, but they could not have been both.     

On the meaning of increased fluctuating dental asymmetry: a cross populational study.

Suarez reports a greater magnitude of fluctuating dental asymmetry for Neandertal sample when compared with a sample of modern Ohio whites. He postulates that this greater antimeric variance could be due to a greater degree of inbreeding in the Neandertal populations. In the present investigation, the magnitude of fluctuating dental asymmetry is evaluated for Eskimo and Pueblo populations. These populations were found to exhibit dental variance of equal magnitude to that of the Neandertal population. As these populations are not highly inbred, a stress related mechanism is suggested to explain these observations and the inbreeding hypothesis is rejected. The implications of this mechanism to Brace's Probable Mutation Effect are discussed.     

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.     

Did the lateral enamel of Neandertal anterior teeth grow differently from that of modern humans?

The formation of lateral enamel in Neandertal anterior teeth has been the subject of recent studies. When compared to the anterior teeth of modern humans from diverse regions (Point Hope, Alaska; Newcastle upon Tyne, England; southern Africa), Neandertal anterior teeth appear to fall within the modern human range of variation for lateral enamel formation time. However, the lateral enamel growth curves of Neandertals are more linear than those of these modern human samples. Other researchers have found that the lateral enamel growth curves of Neandertals are more linear than those of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic modern humans as well. The statistical significance of this apparent difference between Neandertal and modern human lateral enamel growth curves is analyzed here. The more linear Neandertal enamel growth curves result from the smaller percentage of total perikymata located in the cervical halves of their teeth. The percentage of total perikymata in the cervical halves of teeth is therefore compared between the Neandertal sample (n=56 teeth) and each modern human population sample: Inuit (n=65 teeth), southern African (n=114 teeth), and northern European (n=115 teeth). There are 18 such comparisons (6 tooth types, Neandertals vs. each of the three modern human populations). Eighteen additional comparisons are made among the modern human population samples. Statistically significant differences are found for 16 of the 18 Neandertal vs. modern human comparisons but for only two of the 18 modern human comparisons. Statistical analyses repeated for subsamples of less worn teeth show a similar pattern. Because surface curvature is thought to affect perikymata spacing, we also conducted measurements to assess surface curvature in thirty teeth. Our analysis shows that surface curvature is not a factor in this lateral enamel growth difference between Neandertals and modern humans.     

Brief communication: The distribution of perikymata on Qafzeh anterior teeth

Recent studies have suggested that Neandertals and modern humans differ in the distribution of perikymata (enamel growth increments) over their permanent anterior tooth crowns. In modern humans, perikymata become increasingly more compact toward the cervix than they do in Neandertals. Previous studies have suggested that a more homogeneous distribution of perikymata, like that of Neandertals, characterizes the anterior teeth of Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus as well. Here, we investigated whether Qafzeh anterior teeth (N = 14) differ from those of modern southern Africans, northern Europeans, and Alaskans (N = 47–74 depending on tooth type) in the percentage of perikymata present in their cervical halves. Using the normally distributed modern human values for each tooth type, we calculated Z‐scores for the 14 Qafzeh teeth. All but two of the 14 Qafzeh teeth had negative Z‐scores, meaning that values equal to these would be found in the bottom 50% of the modern human samples. Seven of the 14 would be found in the lowest 5% of the modern human distribution. Qafzeh teeth therefore appear to differ from those of modern humans in the same direction that Neandertals do: with generally lower percentages of perikymata in their cervical regions. The similarity between them appears to represent the retention of a perikymata distribution pattern present in earlier members of the genus Homo, but not generally characteristic of modern humans from diverse regions of the world. Am J Phys Anthropol 2010. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The medial pterygoid tubercle in the Atapuerca Early and Middle Pleistocene mandibles: Evolutionary implications

Numerous studies have attempted to identify the presence of uniquely derived (autoapomorphic) Neandertal features. Here, we deal with the medial pterygoid tubercle (MTP), which is usually present on the internal face of the ascending ramus of Neandertal specimens. Our study stems from the identification of a hypertrophied tubercle in ATD6‐96, an Early Pleistocene mandible recovered from the TD6 level of the Atapuerca‐Gran Dolina site and attributed to Homo antecessor. Our review of the literature and study of numerous original fossil specimens and high quality replicas confirm that the MTP occurs at a high frequency in Neandertals (ca. 89%) and is also present in over half (ca. 55%) of the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos (SH) hominins. In contrast, it is generally absent or minimally developed in other extinct hominins, but can be found in variable frequencies (<ca. 25%) in Pleistocene and recent H. sapiens samples. The presence of this feature in ATD6‐96 joins other traits shared by H. antecessor, the SH hominins and Neandertals. Since the TD6 hominins have been attributed either to MIS 21 or to MIS 25, it seems that a suite of assumed derived Neandertal features appeared in the Early Pleistocene, and they should be interpreted as synapomorphies shared among different taxa. We suggest that H. antecessor, the SH hominins and Neandertals shared a common ancestor in which these features appeared during the Early Pleistocene. The presence of the MTP in taxa other than H. neanderthalensis precludes this feature from being a Neandertal autapomorphy. Am J Phys Anthropol 156:102–109, 2015 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.     

A uniquely modern human pattern of endocranial development. Insights from a new cranial reconstruction of the Neandertal newborn from Mezmaiskaya

The globular braincase of modern humans is distinct from all fossil human species, including our closest extinct relatives, the Neandertals. Such adult shape differences must ultimately be rooted in different developmental patterns, but it is unclear at which point during ontogeny these group characteristics emerge.Here we compared internal shape changes of the braincase from birth to adulthood in Neandertals (N = 10), modern humans (N = 62), and chimpanzees (N = 62). Incomplete fossil specimens, including the two Neandertal newborns from Le Moustier 2 and Mezmaiskaya, were reconstructed using reference-based estimation methods. We used 3D geometric morphometrics to statistically compare shapes of virtual endocasts extracted from computed-tomographic scans. Throughout the analysis, we kept track of possible uncertainties due to the missing data values and small fossil sample sizes.We find that some aspects of endocranial development are shared by the three species. However, in the first year of life, modern humans depart from this presumably ancestral pattern of development. Newborn Neandertals and newborn modern humans have elongated braincases, and similar endocranial volumes. During a ‘globularization-phase’ modern human endocasts change to the globular shape that is characteristic for Homo sapiens. This phase of early development is unique to modern humans, and absent from chimpanzees and Neandertals.Our results support the notion that Neandertals and modern humans reach comparable adult brain sizes via different developmental pathways. The differences between these two human groups are most prominent directly after birth, a critical phase for cognitive development.     

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.     

No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to early modern humans

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these results do not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool. A further concern is that if some Neandertals carried mtDNA sequences similar to contemporaneous humans, such sequences may be erroneously regarded as modern contaminations when retrieved from fossils. Here we address these issues by the analysis of 24 Neandertal and 40 early modern human remains. The biomolecular preservation of four Neandertals and of five early modern humans was good enough to suggest the preservation of DNA. All four Neandertals yielded mtDNA sequences similar to those previously determined from Neandertal individuals, whereas none of the five early modern humans contained such mtDNA sequences. In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.     

Prevalence and the duration of linear enamel hypoplasia: a comparative study of Neandertals and Inuit foragers

As a dental indicator of generalized physiological stress, enamel hypoplasia has been the subject of several Neandertal studies. While previous studies generally have found high frequencies of enamel hypoplasia in Neandertals, the significance of this finding varies with frequencies of enamel hypoplasia in comparative samples. The present investigation was undertaken to ascertain if the enamel hypoplasia evidence in Neandertals suggests a high level of physiological stress relative to a modern human foraging group, represented here by an archaeological sample of Inuit from Point Hope, Alaska. Unlike previous studies, this study focused specifically on linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH), emphasizing systemic over localized causes of this defect by considering LEH to be present in an individual only if LEH defects occur on two anterior teeth with overlapping crown formation periods. Moreover, this study is the first to evaluate the average growth disruption duration represented by these defects in Neandertals and a comparative foraging group. In the prevalence analysis, 7/18 Neandertal individuals (from Krapina and southern France) and 21/56 Neandertal anterior teeth were affected by LEH, or 38.9% and 37.5% respectively. These values do not differ significantly from those of the Inuit sample in which 8/21, or 38.1% of individuals, and 32/111, or 28.8% of anterior teeth were affected. For the growth disruption duration analysis, 22 defects representing separate episodes of growth disruption in Neandertals were compared with 22 defects in the Inuit group using three indicators of duration: the number of perikymata (growth increments) in the occlusal walls of LEH defects, the total number of perikymata within them, and defect width. Only one indicator, the total number of perikymata within defects, differed significantly between the Inuit and Neandertal groups (an average of 13.4 vs. 7.3 perikymata), suggesting that if there is any difference between them, the Inuit defects may actually represent longer growth disruptions than the Neandertal defects. Thus, while stress indicators other than linear enamel hypoplasia may eventually show that Neandertal populations were more stressed than those of modern foragers, the evidence from linear enamel hypoplasia does not lend support to this idea.     

Allometry,merism, and tooth shape of the upper deciduous M2 and permanent M1

The aims of this study were to investigate the effect of allometry on the shape of dm² and M¹ crown outlines and to examine whether the trajectory and magnitude of scaling are shared between species. The sample included 160 recent Homo sapiens, 28 Upper Paleolithic H. sapiens, 10 early H. sapiens, and 33 H. neanderthalensis (Neandertal) individuals. Of these, 97 were dm²/M¹ pairs from the same individuals. A two‐block partial least squares analysis of paired individuals revealed a significant correlation in crown shape between dm² and M¹. A principal component analysis confirmed that Neandertal and H. sapiens dm² and M¹ shapes differ significantly and that this difference is primarily related to hypocone size and projection. Allometry accounted for a small but significant proportion of the total morphological variance. We found the magnitude of the allometric effect to be significantly stronger in Neandertals than in H. sapiens. Procrustes distances were significantly different between the two tooth classes in Neandertals, but not among H. sapiens groups. Nevertheless, we could not reject the null hypothesis that the two species share the same allometric trajectory. Although size clearly contributes to the unique shape of the Neandertal dm² and M¹, the largest H. sapiens teeth do not exhibit the most Neandertal‐like morphology. Hence, additional factors must contribute to the differences in dm² and M¹ crown shape between these two species. We suggest an investigation of the role of timing and rate of development on the shapes of the dm² and M¹ may provide further answers. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:104–114, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Were neandertal and modern human cranial differences produced by natural selection or genetic drift?

Most evolutionary explanations for cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans emphasize adaptation by natural selection. Features of the crania of Neandertals could be adaptations to the glacial climate of Pleistocene Europe or to the high mechanical strains produced by habitually using the front teeth as tools, while those of modern humans could be adaptations for articulate speech production. A few researchers have proposed non-adaptive explanations. These stress that isolation between Neandertal and modern human populations would have lead to cranial diversification by genetic drift (chance changes in the frequencies of alleles at genetic loci contributing to variation in cranial morphology). Here we use a variety of statistical tests founded on explicit predictions from quantitative- and population-genetic theory to show that genetic drift can explain cranial differences between Neandertals and modern humans. These tests are based on thirty-seven standard cranial measurements from a sample of 2524 modern humans from 30 populations and 20 Neandertal fossils. As a further test, we compare our results for modern human cranial measurements with those for a genetic dataset consisting of 377 microsatellites typed for a sample of 1056 modern humans from 52 populations. We conclude that rather than requiring special adaptive accounts, Neandertal and modern human crania may simply represent two outcomes from a vast space of random evolutionary possibilities.     

North African Populations Carry the Signature of Admixture with Neandertals

One of the main findings derived from the analysis of the Neandertal genome was the evidence for admixture between Neandertals and non-African modern humans. An alternative scenario is that the ancestral population of non-Africans was closer to Neandertals than to Africans because of ancient population substructure. Thus, the study of North African populations is crucial for testing both hypotheses. We analyzed a total of 780,000 SNPs in 125 individuals representing seven different North African locations and searched for their ancestral/derived state in comparison to different human populations and Neandertals. We found that North African populations have a significant excess of derived alleles shared with Neandertals, when compared to sub-Saharan Africans. This excess is similar to that found in non-African humans, a fact that can be interpreted as a sign of Neandertal admixture. Furthermore, the Neandertal''s genetic signal is higher in populations with a local, pre-Neolithic North African ancestry. Therefore, the detected ancient admixture is not due to recent Near Eastern or European migrations. Sub-Saharan populations are the only ones not affected by the admixture event with Neandertals.     

Brief communication: paleoanthropology and the population genetics of ancient genes

The Mezmaiskaya cave mtDNA is similar in many ways to the Feldhofer cave Neandertal sequence and the more recently obtained Vindija cave sequence. If we accept the contention that the Mezmaiskaya cave specimen is a Neandertal infant, its mtDNA provides no new information about the fate of the European Neandertals. However, there is reason to believe that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal, and this places its importance in another light, because it delimits the possible hypotheses of Neandertal and recent human genetic relationships. One possibility is a that the pattern found in ancient mtDNA results from the replacement of an isolated gene pool (Neandertals) by one of its contemporaries (modern humans). A second possibility is natural selection expressed as the substitution of an advantageous mtDNA variant within a single large species, including both Neandertals and modern humans. The geologic, archaeological, and dating evidence shows the Mezmaiskaya cave infant to be a burial from a level even more recent than the Upper Paleolithic preserved at the site, and its anatomy does not contradict the assessment that the Mezmaiskaya cave infant is not a Neandertal. Therefore, the second pattern can be favored over the first.