An interesting rock from Krapina

Symbolic items are seldom associated with Neandertals and, when they are, many paleoanthropologists consider them to be Neandertal imitations from modern Homo sapiens. At the Croatian site of Krapina dated to MIS 5e or about 130,000 years ago, among many items, a split limestone rock was excavated by Dragutin Gorjanović-Kramberger between 1899-1905. This brownish rock reveals many dark dendritic forms in cross- and longitudinal section. Of more than 1000 lithic items at Krapina, none resemble this specimen and we propose it was collected and not further processed by the Neandertals because of its aesthetic attributes. Along with other examples from sites in western and central Europe and the recent discovery of eight modified white-tailed eagle talons from Krapina, this unique item suggests that Neandertals were capable, on their own, of incorporating symbolic objects into their culture.     

Evidence for Neandertal Jewelry: Modified White-Tailed Eagle Claws at Krapina

We describe eight, mostly complete white-tailed eagle (Haliaëtus [Haliaeetus] albicilla) talons from the Krapina Neandertal site in present-day Croatia, dating to approximately 130 kyrs ago. Four talons bear multiple, edge-smoothed cut marks; eight show polishing facets and/or abrasion. Three of the largest talons have small notches at roughly the same place along the plantar surface, interrupting the proximal margin of the talon blade. These features suggest they were part of a jewelry assemblage, --- the manipulations a consequence of mounting the talons in a necklace or bracelet. An associated phalanx articulates with one of the talons and has numerous cut marks, some of which are smoothed. These white-tailed eagle bones, discovered more than 100 years ago, all derive from a single level at Krapina and represent more talons than found in the entire European Mousterian period. Presence of eight talons indicates that the Krapina Neandertals acquired and curated eagle talons for some kind of symbolic purpose. Some have argued that Neandertals lacked symbolic ability or copied this behavior from modern humans. These remains clearly show that the Krapina Neandertals made jewelry well before the appearance of modern humans in Europe, extending ornament production and symbolic activity early into the European Mousterian.     

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.     

Lower limb entheseal morphology in the Neandertal Krapina population (Croatia, 130,000 BP)

Although the Neandertal locomotor system has been shown to differ from Homo sapiens, characteristics of Neandertal entheses, the skeletal attachments for muscles, tendons, ligaments and joint capsules, have never been specifically investigated. Here, we analyse lower limb entheses of the Krapina Neandertal bones (Croatia, 130,000 BP) with the aim of determining how they compare with modern humans, using a standard developed by our research group for describing modern human entheseal variability. The entheses examined are those of the gluteus maximus, iliopsoas and vastus medialis on the femur, the quadriceps tendon on the patella, and soleus on the tibia. For the entheses showing a different morphological pattern from H. sapiens, we discuss the possibility of recognising genetic versus environmental causes. Our results indicate that only the gluteus maximus enthesis (the gluteal tuberosity), falls out of the modern human range of variation. It displays morphological features that could imply histological differences from modern humans, in particular the presence of fibrocartilage. In both H. sapiens and the Krapina Neandertals, the morphological pattern of this enthesis is the same in adult and immature femurs. These results can be interpreted in light of genetic differences between the two hominins. The possibility of functional adaptations to higher levels of mechanical load during life in the Neandertals seems less likely. The particular morphology and large dimensions of the Krapina enthesis, and perhaps its fibrocartilaginous nature, could have been selected for in association with other pelvic and lower limb characteristics, even if genetic drift cannot be ruled out.     

Is the late Neandertal mandibular sample from Vindija Cave (Croatia) biased?

The late Neandertal sample from Vindija (Croatia) has been described as transitional between the earlier Central European Neandertals from Krapina (Croatia) and modern humans. However, the morphological differences indicating this transition may rather be the result of different sex and/or age compositions between the samples. This study tests the hypothesis that the metric differences between the Krapina and Vindija mandibular samples are due to sample bias. Mandibles are the focus of this paper because past studies have posited this region as particularly indicative of the Vindija sample's transitional nature. The results indicate that the metric differences between the Krapina and Vindija mandibular samples are not due to sample bias. This conclusion is consistent with an earlier analysis of sample bias for the Vindija supraorbital sample.     

Evolution of the supraorbital region in Upper Pleistocene fossil hominids from South-Central Europe

South-Central European fossil hominids dated to the Upper Pleistocene exhibit a distinct morphological and metric continuum in supraorbital form from early Neandertal (Krapina), through late Neandertals (Vindija), to early Upper Paleolithic hominids. The supraorbital morphologies pertinent to this continuum are documented, and the alterations in size and morphology are discussed ralative to the function of supraorbital superstructures and their relationship to overall craniofacial form. It is concluded that this continuum most likely reflects localized transition between Neandertals and modern man in this region of Europe.     

Krapina 1: a juvenile Neandertal from the early late Pleistocene of Croatia

The juvenile A Skull from Krapina, Croatia (Krapina 1) has been the subject of considerable debate since B. Skerlj first suggested that it might not be a Neandertal. Although widely known by its original designation, the Krapina A Skull was recatalogued, along with all of the Krapina hominids, in the 1980's (Radovcic, et al., [1988]. The Krapina Hominids: An Illustrated Catalog of Skeletal Collection. Zagreb; Mladost). It is now catalogued as Krapina 1 in the archives of the Hrvatski Prirodoslovni Muzej, Zagreb, Croatia. We present a detailed, morphometric analysis of this specimen, comparing it to other Krapina specimens, juvenile late Pleistocene hominids (including Neandertals), and subadult recent humans. This analysis demonstrates that Krapina 1 possesses morphological features that are primitive retentions; others that represent derived Neandertal specializations; and still others that are typical for all European late Pleistocene humans. Morphological features associated with the browridges are intermediate between Neandertal and early modern European form. Nevertheless, a thorough analysis of the morphology of this specimen, in ontogenetic and regional contexts, leads to the conclusion that it cannot be excluded from the Neandertal range of variation. We conclude that the most parsimonious explanation for this 130 ka specimen is that it should be regarded as a Neandertal.     

The Incidence of Enamel Hypoplasia among the Krapina Neandertals

Developmental defects of teeth often appear as a record of metabolic disturbances during growth. One defect in particular, enamel hypoplasia, has been described among recent prehistoric human populations, but few analyses have been made of fossil hominids. This study describes the enamel quality of the dental remains of the Krapina Neandertals. Of the 18 individuals represented by dental arch fragments, 13 showed evidence of one or more teeth with enamel defects described as hypoplasia. This was a high frequency of occurrence when compared to Bronze and Copper Age populations in Central Europe or Woodland and Mississippian populations in North America. The reason for the higher incidence among the Neandertals is not fully explainable given the data available. However, there is a suggestion that fluorosis could be a factor that reduced the expression of enamel hypoplasia in the European populations.     

The late Neandertal supraorbital fossils from Vindija Cave,Croatia: a biased sample?

The late Neandertal sample from Vindija (Croatia) has been described as transitional between the earlier Central European Neandertals from Krapina (Croatia) and modern humans. However, the morphological differences indicating this transition may rather be the result of different sex and/or age compositions between the samples. This study tests the hypothesis that the metric differences between the Krapina and Vindija supraorbital samples are due to sampling bias. We focus upon the supraorbital region because past studies have posited this region as particularly indicative of the Vindija sample's transitional nature. Furthermore, the supraorbital region varies significantly with both age and sex.We analyzed four chords and two derived indices of supraorbital torus form as defined by Smith & Ranyard (1980, Am. J. phys. Anthrop.93, pp. 589-610). For each variable, we analyzed relative sample bias of the Krapina and Vindija samples using three sampling methods. In order to test the hypothesis that the Vindija sample contains an over-representation of females and/or young while the Krapina sample is normal or also female/young biased, we determined the probability of drawing a sample of the same size as and with a mean equal to or less than Vindija's from a Krapina-based population. In order to test the hypothesis that the Vindija sample is female/young biased while the Krapina sample is male/old biased, we determined the probability of drawing a sample of the same size as and with a mean equal or less than Vindija's from a generated population whose mean is halfway between Krapina's and Vindija's. Finally, in order to test the hypothesis that the Vindija sample is normal while the Krapina sample contains an over-representation of males and/or old, we determined the probability of drawing a sample of the same size as and with a mean equal to or greater than Krapina's from a Vindija-based population. Unless we assume that the Vindija sample is female/young and the Krapina sample is male/old biased, our results falsify the hypothesis that the metric differences between the Krapina and Vindija samples are due to sample bias.     

Size variation in early human mandibles and molars from Klasies River,South Africa: Comparison with other middle and late Pleistocene assemblages and with modern humans

Previous studies of the Middle Stone Age human remains from Klasies River have concluded that they exhibited more sexual dimorphism than extant populations, but these claims have not been assessed statistically. We evaluate these claims by comparing size variation in the best‐represented elements at the site, namely the mandibular corpora and M₂s, to that in samples from three recent human populations using resampling methods. We also examine size variation in these same elements from seven additional middle and late Pleistocene sites: Skhūl, Dolní Věstonice, Sima de los Huesos, Arago, Krapina, Shanidar, and Vindija. Our results demonstrate that size variation in the Klasies assemblage was greater than in recent humans, consistent with arguments that the Klasies people were more dimorphic than living humans. Variation in the Skhūl, Dolní Věstonice, and Sima de los Huesos mandibular samples is also higher than in the recent human samples, indicating that the Klasies sample was not unusual among middle and late Pleistocene hominins. In contrast, the Neandertal samples (Krapina, Shanidar, and Vindija) do not evince relatively high mandibular and molar variation, which may indicate that the level of dimorphism in Neandertals was similar to that observed in extant humans. These results suggest that the reduced levels of dimorphism in Neandertals and living humans may have developed independently, though larger fossil samples are needed to test this hypothesis. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Le Moustérien en Croatie

This paper summarises results of the research on Middle Paleolithic of Croatia with a focus on Mousterian industry. The Hrvatsko zagorje (northwestern, continental part of Croatia) and Adriatic coast with its hinterland are physically divided by the Dinarid mountains, and present two different landscapes for the adaptation of Mousterian people. The sites in northwestern Croatia are represented by cave sites, while in Dalmatia, where the climate is milder, open-air sites are more frequent than the caves. During the early Mousterian of northwestern Croatia, Levallois method at Krapina and Vindija sites and cobble wedge method at Krapina [Journal of human evolution 32 (1997) 561-75] were used. Levallois debitage was also present in the late Mousterian assemblages from eastern Adriatic sites, but is absent in the late Mousterian of Hrvatsko zagorje. Sites on the eastern Adriatic coast are often characterized by tools of small size (like the ones of the so-called Micromousterian) and significant presence of denticulates and notched pieces. In both northwestern Croatia and Dalmatia Mousterian people effectively exploited local raw material sources and successfully adapted to different environmental conditions of these regions.     

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.     

Do modern humans and Neandertals have different patterns of cranial integration?

Studies of cranial differences between modern humans and Neandertals have identified several characteristics for which the two groups differ in their mean values, the proportional relationships with other traits, or both. However, the limited number of fairly complete Neandertals has hindered investigations into patterns of integration – covariance and correlation among traits – in this fossil group. Here, we use multiple approaches specifically designed to deal with fragmentary fossils to test if metric cranial traits in Neandertals fit modern human patterns of integration. Based on 37 traits collected from a sample of 2524 modern humans from Howells’ data set and 20 Neandertals, we show that overall patterns of cranial integration are significantly different between Neandertals and modern humans. However, at the same time, Neandertals are consistent with a modern human pattern of integration for more than three-quarters of the traits. Additionally, the differences between the predicted and actual values for the deviating traits are rather small, indicating that the differences in integration are subtle. Traits for which Neandertals deviate from modern human integration patterns tend to be found in regions where Neandertals and modern humans are known to also differ in their mean values. We conclude that the evolution of patterns of cranial integration is a cause for caution but also presents an opportunity for understanding cranial differences between modern humans and Neandertals.     

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.     

Mortuary practices at the Krapina Neandertal site

It has often been reported that the Krapina Neandertal remains bear incised linear striations which appear to be cutmarks. Here, the plausibility of the striations as cutmarks is tested by comparing them to Mousterian butchery marks on large fauna and to cutmarks on modern human skeletons known to have been defleshed with stone tools. The anatomical location, gross appearance, and frequency of occurrence of the striations on the Krapina material do not resemble Mousterian butchery marks on reindeer. The Krapina striations do closely match authenticated cutmarks on 22 modern human skeletons defleshed with stone tools after partial decomposition, preparatory to secondary burial. Data are presented supporting the hypothesis that the striations on the Krapina Neandertal remains are consistent with postmortem processing of corpses with stone tools, probably in preparation for burial of cleaned bones.     

Unique ramus anatomy for Neandertals?

The ramus of Neandertal mandibles is said to show a suite of uniquely Neandertal character states that demonstrate the independent course of Neandertal evolution. This is the latest of numerous attempts to define cranial and mandibular autapomorphies for Neandertals. We examine variation in the four presumably autapomorphic ramal features and show they are neither monomorhic within Neandertals (to the contrary Neandertals are at least as variable as other human samples) nor unique to Neandertals, since they regularly appear in populations predating and postdating them. Neandertals differ from other human populations, both contemporary and recent, but the question of whether this fact reflects a divergent evolutionary trajectory must be addressed by the pattern of differences. In this case, as in the other attempts to establish Neandertal autapomorphies, rather than showing restricted variation and increased specialization, the Neandertal sample shows that the range of human variation in the recent past encompasses, and in some cases exceeds, human variation today, even in the very features claimed to be autapomorphic.