Palaeoanthropology: return of the last Neanderthal.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Animals↗
Biomedical subjects
Katerina Harvati
Publications and source records attributed to Katerina Harvati.
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.
Animals↗
Quantitative analysis of human mandibular shape using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics.
Human mandibular morphology is often thought to reflect mainly function, and to be of lesser value in studies of population history. Previous descriptions of human mandibles showed variation in ramal height and breadth to be the strongest difference among recent human groups. Several mandibular traits that differentiate Neanderthals from modern humans include greater robusticity, a receding symphysis, a large retromolar space, a rounder gonial area, an asymmetric mandibular notch, and a posteriorly positioned mental foramen in Neanderthals. Nevertheless, the degree to which these differences are part of modern human variation and/or are related to size and function remains unclear. The aim of this study was to document geographic and functional patterning in the mandibular shape of recent humans, to assess the effects of allometry on mandibular form, and to quantitatively evaluate proposed "Neanderthal" mandibular traits through comparison with samples of geographically diverse recent humans. Data were collected in the form of three-dimensional coordinates of 28 landmarks. Unlike previous studies, this analysis found that modern human mandibular shape exhibits considerable geographic patterning, with some aspects of mandibular morphology reflecting a climatic gradient, and others, a functional specialization. Population history is also reflected in mandibular form, albeit relatively weakly. Proposed "Neanderthal" traits were found to separate Neanderthal from modern human mandibles successfully in the statistical analysis. Of these, the retromolar gap was found to be related to increased mandibular size in modern humans. The status of this trait as a Neanderthal autapomorphy should therefore be treated with caution.
Anatomy, Comparative↗
Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures.
Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations. Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction.
Acclimatization↗
Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered: implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences.
The taxonomic status of Neanderthals lies at the center of the modern human origins debate. Proponents of the single-origin model often view this group as a distinct species with little or no contribution to the evolution of modern humans. Adherents to the regional continuity model consider Neanderthals a subspecies or population of Homo sapiens, which contributed significantly to the evolution of early modern Europeans. Paleontologists generally agree that fossil species should be equivalent to extant ones in the amount of their morphological variation. Recognition of fossil species therefore hinges on analogy to living species. A previous study by one of the authors and recent work by other researchers [Schillachi, M. A. & Froelich, J. W. (2001) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 115, 157-166] have supported specific status for Neanderthals based on analogy to chimpanzees and Sulawesi macaques, respectively. However, these taxa may not be the most appropriate models for Pleistocene humans. Here we test the hypothesis that Neanderthals represent a subspecies of H. sapiens by comparing the degree of their morphological differentiation from modern humans to that found within and between 12 species of extant primates. The model taxa comprised >1,000 specimens, including phylogenetic (modern humans and African apes) and ecological (eight papionin taxa) models for Pleistocene humans. Morphological distances between model taxon pairs were compared to the distances between Neanderthals and modern humans obtained by using a randomization technique. Results strongly support a specific distinction for Neanderthals.
Animals↗
Quantitative analysis of Neanderthal temporal bone morphology using three-dimensional geometric morphometrics.
The temporal bone is the location of several traits thought to differentiate Neanderthals from modern humans, including some proposed Neanderthal-derived traits. Most of these, however, are difficult to measure and are usually described qualitatively. This study applied the techniques of geometric morphometrics to the complex morphology of the temporal bone, in order to quantify the differences observed between Neanderthal and modern human anatomy. Two hundred and seventy modern human crania were measured, representing 9 populations of 30 individuals each, and spanning the extremes of the modern human geographical range. Twelve Neanderthal specimens, as well as Reilingen, Kabwe, Skhul 5, Qafzeh 9, and 4 Late Paleolithic European specimens, were included in the fossil sample. The data were collected in the form of three-dimensional (3-D) landmark coordinates, and specimen configurations were superimposed using generalized Procrustes analysis. The fitted coordinates were then analyzed by an array of multivariate statistical methods, including principal components analysis, canonical variates analysis, and Mahalanobis D(2). The temporal bone landmark analysis was very successful in separating Neanderthals from modern humans. Neanderthals were separated from modern humans in both the principal components and canonical variates analyses. They were much further in Mahalanobis distances from all modern human populations than any two modern human groups were from each other. Most of the previously described temporal bone traits contributed to this separation.
Animals↗
First Neanderthal remains from Greece: the evidence from Lakonis.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Animals↗
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.
Anatomy, Comparative↗