New study of an old discovery "Cave of the Old Woman", Romania

[Daryl Habel]

A media release from Washington University in St. Louis (USA) has announced the forthcoming publication of a new study (apparently by Eric Trinkaus and colleagues) of early modern human remains discovered in Romania in 1952, but largely ignored since that time.

October 12, 2006
Fossil remains show the merging of Neandertals, modern humans

By Neil Schoenherr

The early modern human remains from the Pestera Muierii (Cave of the Old Woman), Romania, which were discovered in 1952, have been poorly dated and largely ignored.
But recently, a team of researchers from the Anthropological and Archaeological Institutes in Bucharest, Romania, and from WUSTL has been able to directly date the fossils to 30,000 years ago. The fossils prove that a strict population replacement of the Neandertals did not happen.

"What these fossils show is that these earliest modern humans had a mosaic of distinctly modern human characteristics and other characteristics which align them with Neandertals, suggesting some combination of modern humans dispersing into Europe and interacting with and absorbing the Neandertal population," said Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., the Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor of physical anthropology in Arts & Sciences.

"These fossils have the potential to shed light on several issues regarding early modern Europeans."

The team's research will appear online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The human remains from the Pestera Muierii present a basically modern human-derived pattern, which is evident in discrete traits and metric aspects throughout the sample. It therefore joins the sample of human remains from the sites of Pestera cu Oase and Pestera Cioclovina in southeastern Europe, Mlade in Central Europe, and Brassempouy, La Quina Aval and Les Rois in western Europe in filling out the anatomy of the earliest of modern humans in Europe....(more)

The full WUStL media release can be read HERE.

At present, the promised research paper cannot yet be found online in the PNAS in either the current issue or the "Early Edition", but it should appear soon.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, an abstract page for a paper giving some background on the discovery and dating of the human remains from the "Cave of the Old Woman" (called here Baia de Fier) and another Romanian early modern human fossil discovered in 1942 in Cioclovina Cave (mentioned in the WUStL release) can be found HERE.

Note that the full paper (Olariuet al. 2002) can be downloaded free from a hyperlink on the abstract page above, or direct in pdf. (Adobe Reader required) CLICK HERE.

Or, if you would merely like to preview a jpg. look at the 30,000-year-old skull from the "Cave of the Old Woman", CLICK HERE, and for the 29,000 +/-700 BP skull from Cioclovina Cave, CLICK HERE.

Let's hope the PNAS paper won't take too long before appearing online.

Dar

[Martín Cagliani]

This is a very exiting news!
Recently had been publish a paper about the Neanderthal chingon (HERE.), and, why the Mladec hybrids yould be discarted, I hope this paper have interesting info about hybrids. Because the recent genetic dicoverys, don't thrill me.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

This is a very exiting news!
Recently had been publish a paper about the Neanderthal chingon (HERE.), and, why the Mladec hybrids yould be discarted, I hope this paper have interesting info about hybrids. Because the recent genetic dicoverys, don't thrill me.

Welcome to the PALANTH Forum, and thanks for bringing up the "chignon" paper. And, for people who do not have access to JHE, here is the full abstract:

Gunz, Philipp, and Katerina Harvati (in press). The Neanderthal “chignon”: variation, integration, and homology. Journal of Human Evolution.

Abstract:

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 assesses its degree of similarity to Upper Paleolithic ‘hemibuns.’ We measured the three-dimensional (3-D) 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 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.

Keywords: Middle Pleistocene, Cranial architecture, Human variation, Geometric morphometrics, Semilandmarks.

And, in passing, I tend to agree with you about the fact that (some of) the recent genetic discoveries are not exactly "thrilling". As a matter of fact, they are increasingly (contradictorily) confusing. So, for the time being, I think I'll stick with stones and bones.

Jacques

[Daryl Habel]

This is a very exiting news!
Recently had been publish a paper about the Neanderthal chingon (HERE.), and, why the Mladec hybrids yould be discarted, I hope this paper have interesting info about hybrids. Because the recent genetic dicoverys, don't thrill me.

Welcome to the PALANTH Forum, and thanks for bringing up the "chignon" paper. And, for people who do not have access to JHE, here is the full abstract:

Gunz, Philipp, and Katerina Harvati (in press). The Neanderthal “chignon”: variation, integration, and homology. Journal of Human Evolution.

Abstract:
Snipped by Dar

And, in passing, I tend to agree with you about the fact that (some of) the recent genetic discoveries are not exactly "thrilling". As a matter of fact, they are increasingly (contradictorily) confusing. So, for the time being, I think I'll stick with stones and bones.

Jacques

The "chignon" paper (Gunz and Harvati, in press) has been mentioned as a promised forthcoming publication in a previous Palanth forum discussion titled  "occipital buns" HERE.  In fact, I'd been thinking of posting the abstract of the "chignon" paper in the "occipital buns" thread, but now I think I'll wait until it no longer is "in press".

Insofar as molecules, stones, and bones are concerned, I totally agree with Martin and Jacques about the less-than-thrilling, confusing and often contradictory genetic papers recently published.  And lately I've been investing my time mostly with the evidence from the  stones (artifacts and geological context),  but I'm looking forward to this PNAS paper and what Trinkaus has to say about these early modern human bones from Romania, and hoping he will include mention and an opinion on additional fossil humans of late MP/early UP contexts in the wider geographical realm.  Until then....

Dar   

[Martín Cagliani]

Sorry if it's not permited, delete this post if I cant post it, but if you want to read the full paper, here I share it with who want to read it
HERE (pdf).

[lagarvelho]

Martin:

Oh(sniff, sob!)  I thought for a moment you had a copy of the Trinkaus paper.  Because I have the "chignon" paper although I haven't had time to read it yet.  .  Oh well.  I guess, like Dar and Jacques, I'll have to wait for a while. for that.
Anne G

[Martín Cagliani]

Ohh, sorry! Jaja. The Trinkaus paper it will be out in PNAS, free. In the news it said that it will be out these days. I guess in the Early Edition. Yesterdey and today I dindn't see it :( I'm also dying to read it, jeje.

[Martín Cagliani]

The paper is out but not yet at PNAS. Here you can see it:
http://www.esnips.com/web/MundoNeandertal

It looks a little disapointing. The primitive traits are the same of Mladec, occipital bun, and a few strange traits, that they call intermediate. What do you think?

[lagarvelho]

Martin and all:

well, I just downloaded the paper, so I can't make any "final judgments", but it sure *looks* interesting. . . .
Anne G

The paper is out but not yet at PNAS. Here you can see it:
http://www.esnips.com/web/MundoNeandertal

It looks a little disapointing. The primitive traits are the same of Mladec, occipital bun, and a few strange traits, that they call intermediate. What do you think?

[Daryl Habel]

Just for the record, the new paper is:

Early modern humans from the Pestera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania, by Andrei Soficaru, Adrian Dobos, and Eric Trinkaus.

The abstract reads:

The early modern human remains from the Pestera Muierii, Romania have been directly dated to ~30,000 radiocarbon years before present (~30 ka 14C BP)(~35 ka cal BP)("calendrical" age; based on CalPal 2005) and augment a small sample of securely dated, European, pre-28 ka 14C BP (~32.5 ka cal BP) modern human remains.  The Muierii fossils exhibit a suite of derived modern human features, including reduced maxillae with pronounced canine fossae, a narrow nasal aperture, small superciliary arches, an arched parietal curve, zygomatic arch above the auditory porous, laterally bulbous mastoid processes, narrow mandibular corpus, reduced anterior dentition, ventral-to-bisulcate scapular auxillary border, and planoclave tibial and fibular dyaphyseal surfaces.  However, these traits co-occur with contextually archaic and/or Neandertal features, including a moderately low frontal arc, a large occipital bun, a high coronoid process and asymmetrical mandibular notch, a more medial mandibular notch crest to condylar position, and a narrow scapular glenoid fossa.  As with other European early modern humans, the mosaic of early modern human and archaic/Neandertal features, relative to their potential Middle Paleolithic ancestral populations, indicates considerable Neandertal/modern human admixture.  Moreover, the narrow scapular glenoid fossa suggests habitual movements at variance with the associated projectile technology.  The reproductive and scapulo-humeral functional inferences emphasize the subtle natures of behavioral contrasts between Neandertals and these early modern Europeans.

As Martin has mentioned, the article is scheduled to appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's online "Early Edition", but still is not there.  Nevertheless, it is being 'passed around' and I've read it.   It is short, only six pages incl. references and I must admit I was hoping for a bit more.  There is mention of '"supporting information on the PNAS website", but since that does not yet seem available, I'd rather wait until after a look at that before rendering a final verdict.

I'll just enumerate the Pestera Muierii fossils as consisting of six elements: Muierri 1 (the cranium in the photograph that was in the Olariu et al. 2002 paper I referenced at the beginning of this thread) consists of four elements (crania, mandible, scapula, and tibia) found in the Galeria Musterania; Muierii 2 is a left temporal bone (of unknown proveniance) which, because of size and morphological comparison to the right-side of the Muierii 1 cranium, is considered a second individual, and Muierri 3 is a fibula (of unknown proveniance) which cannot be assigned to either Muierii 1 or 2, but could be from either.   The paper does a good job with the preliminary descriptions of these and reporting of new AMS direct dating of the Meurii 1 cranium and the Muierii 2 temporal.  These are Oxford AMS dates, 29,930 +/- 170 (OxA-15529) and 29,110 +/- 190 (OxA-16252), respectively, which compare well with the previous dates reported by Olariu et al. paper, referenced here as 30,150 +/- 908 (LuA-5228) on the Muierii scapula and tibia.  Calibrated to calendar years, the dating is about 34-35 ka.

The PNAS paper compares the Pestera Muierii dating with that of other European early modern human remains, and compares the morphology with "...four Late Pleistocene samples: Middle Paleolithic Neandertals; Middle Paleolithic ancestral "African" early modern humans (Aduma, Bouri, Herto, Omo-Kibish, Qafzeh and Skhul), middle Upper Paleolithic (>28 ka 14C BP) European modern humans, and early Upper Paleolithic (>28 ka 14C BP) European modern humans (primarily from Cioclovina, Mladec, and Oase)..."

Essentially, the conclusion is contained in the abstract of the paper.  I'm an assimilationist, but I'm not sure the paper presents enough data in the comparisons to 'prove'  the conclusion true (as reported in some media accounts)

Dar

[lagarvelho]

Dar:

I *still* haven't had a moment to read the paper, but from what I know of Trinkaus, I thinkk he may be trying to show(contra some of his fellow paleoanthropologists) that there was a trend toward very early "integration" of Neandertals into the "rest" of humanity.  I suspect he's also attempting to create a sort of "data file" of fossils that show or seem to show a mixture of Neandertal and "modern" traits.  He evidently thinks this reexamination will prove to be one of them.
Anne G

[Daryl Habel]

Dar:

I *still* haven't had a moment to read the paper, but from what I know of Trinkaus, I thinkk he may be trying to show(contra some of his fellow paleoanthropologists) that there was a trend toward very early "integration" of Neandertals into the "rest" of humanity.  I suspect he's also attempting to create a sort of "data file" of fossils that show or seem to show a mixture of Neandertal and "modern" traits.  He evidently thinks this reexamination will prove to be one of them.
Anne G

Hi Anne,

You possibly are correct that Trinkaus has in mind the creation of a "data file" to show admixture in the Early Upper Paleolithic, but this recent PNAS paper seems concerned  only with the evidence from Pestera Muierii, and I was hoping for a bit more discussion of possible admixture in some of the other EUP fossils from Romania (Cioclovina and Oase), Mladec, and Western Europe.  These others get brief mention in the PNAS paper, but no discussion of possible evidence for admixture. I reckon, given all the media hype, my expectations were over-optimistic.

As noted by you on your Yahoo palanthsci group, John Hawks has weighed in on the PNAS paper, HERE, with comment that addresses the question of admixture in the EUP fossil sample at least as well as the arguments presented in the PNAS paper.

And finally, the paper has made its appearance on the PNAS webpage for the "Early Edition".  Hawks references the paper at the end of his blog comment with the DOI link, which can be used to access the abstract, as well as the (free access) "supporting figures" I previously mentioned as not being available.

Trinkaus will probably, in the future, get around to making a better argument for admixture in the EUP, but this new PNAS paper doesn't quite provide the 'proof' that is advertised in the media.

Dar

[lagarvelho]

Dar:

I think you are probably right about Trinkaus's latest analysis of EUP "modern" human remains.  Problem with a lot of them is that their characteristics can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on who is doing the interpreting.  I'm sure somebody will try to challenge the latest Trinkaus analysis.  However, I don't think that's going to stop him, or anybody else involved in this, to try to assemble some sort of "transition" database that would show admixture.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future.
Anne G