Kent's Cavern 4: chronology and taxonomy questioned???

[Daryl Habel]

From: Churchill & Smith (2000). Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43: 61-115:

"A right maxilliary fragment (Kent's Cavern 4), preserving the canine, fourth premolar, and first molar (all heavily worn), was discovered stratigraphically below Aurignacian artifacts during excavations by A.H. Ogilvie in 1927 in Trench C in the cave's vestibule (Oakley et al., 1971; Hedges et al., 1989).  The "Aurignacoid" artifacts (Garrod, 1926) consist of several blades struck from opposed-platform cores (Hedges et al., 1989), which appear to represent  the Upper Paleolithic but which are insufficient for cultural diagnosis.  The hominid specimen was attributed to Homo sapiens sapiens by Keith (1927), and has since been direct-dated by AMS radiocarbon to 30.9 +/- 0.9 ky BP (Hedges et al., 1989).  Layer A2, from which both the hominid maxilla and the early Upper Paleolithic tools derive (Keith, 1927; Campbell and Sampson, 1971), was subsequently recognized as a debris flow (see Aldhouse-Green and Pettitt, 1998), which complicates the chronostratigraphic picture somewhat" (Churchill & Smith (2000:100).

In a news story today from This is Devon, UK:
CLICK HERE

ANCIENT JAW BONE RAISES QUESTIONS OVER EARLY MAN

11:00 - 23 April 2005  
New research has revealed Britain's oldest fragment of modern human - a jaw bone unearthed in the Westcountry - is 6,000 years older than previously thought. The findings raise questions about current thinking on when modern man first inhabited the country. Carbon dating had indicated the piece of jaw bone, with only three teeth, originated around 31,000 years ago. But the specimen was recently deemed suspect, because it had been strengthened with paper glue some time around its excavation from Kents Cavern, Torquay, in 1927.

The find was made by the Torquay Natural History Society, and identified by Sir Allen Keith, the top human anatomist of his day. But only in the 1980s was its significance recognised. Now, Dr Roger Jacobi of the British Museum and Dr Tom Higham from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit have conducted new research.

Their findings indicate the piece actually dates back between 37,000 and 40,000 years. The announcement coincides with an international conference on the History of Geological Speleology and Cave Finds held in Pengelly Hall in Torquay Museum this week.

(Snip)

"If, however, Keith was wrong and the jaw is from the human species known as the Neanderthals we will have the first direct evidence of Neanderthals on mainland Britain. We hope to resolve this problem by extracting ancient DNA from one of the teeth."

The Kent's Cavern 4 jaw has been direct-dated by AMS radiocarbon to 30.9 ka (Hedges et al., 1989; Churchill & Smith 2000:100), and this latest dating of "between 37,000 and 40,000 years apparently comes from the same laboratory, the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, so this has to be taken into account.  Although caution is required because this media account can only be considered as a preliminary release, it is reporting that concurrent with a chronological revision (questions here about the dating), there also is mounting interest in a taxonomic reassessment of the Kent's Cavern 4 maxilla.  Fascinating, since I've never before questioned the AMH attribution or whether it could be something else.      

Dar

[Robert Henvell]

There are three certainities in life--taxes,death and age revisions!!
If memory serves,no one has suggested that the teeth exhibited Neanderthal characteristics?Has anyone got informationon the analysis ofthe teeth?

[lagarvelho]

Robert and Dar:

From what I know of the Kent's Cavern material, I, too, always assumed it was a "modern" human.  But the
redating --- and I think this is the reason for raising the question of its affiliations --- *could* indicate that it might be late Neandertal.  Note here that I'm *not* saying it is, just that, theoretically, it could be.  Aside from this, I think it's more likely that it's "modern", but since no analysis of the teeth(that I know of) has been done, there's no way of knowing for sure.
Anne G

[Daryl Habel]

Well, I have to assume a few anthropologists have examined the KC4 maxilla and teeth since Sir Arthur Keith's assessment that it is AMH.  Churchill & Smith (2000:100) did not express any objection to AMH assignment, nor has anyone else (within my poor memory).  If KC4 is AMH and if the new 37-40 ka determination by Oxford is 14C AMS direct-dating of the maxilla, and if the old determination of 30.9 ka is rejected for some reason, KC4 might now represent the earliest known AMH fossil in Europe.   Lots of ifs to be answered in that sentence.

We'll have to wait for more information from Oxford on the new age determination (after all, this is only a news report), but in the meantime it would behoove us to look more closely into the dental morphology of KC4, in order to verify the probable AMH assignment or assess the possibility of Neanderthal.  Unfortunately, I have nothing on it at present.

Dar

(corrected 4/26/05, both here and in initial post, from KC4 "mandible" to KC4 "maxilla", thanks to note from John Hawks below.)

[Daryl Habel]

Given by Churchill & Smith (2000:100), the reference to Keith's assignment of KC4 to Homo sapiens sapiens is:

Keith A. 1927. Report on a fragment of a human jaw found at a depth of (10 1/2 ft) 3.2 m in the cave earth of the vestibule of Kent's Cavern. Trans Proc Torquay Nat Hist Soc 5: 1-2.

Rather difficult of access, I reckon, but perhaps there are others more recent.

Dar  

[John Hawks]

You can find a picture of the Kent's Cavern maxilla (not a mandible) at the Torquay Museum site. A look at what is there is just about enough to answer the question. I can't say for sure without seeing a couple of different angles, but I don't think there is likely to be anything diagnostic about it.

It seems to me like one of those entries in a list of early modern humans that no one really cared that much to check out, until suddenly it was the only one left...

--John

[Daryl Habel]

You can find a picture of the Kent's Cavern maxilla (not a mandible) at the Torquay Museum site. A look at what is there is just about enough to answer the question. I can't say for sure without seeing a couple of different angles, but I don't think there is likely to be anything diagnostic about it.

It seems to me like one of those entries in a list of early modern humans that no one really cared that much to check out, until suddenly it was the only one left...

--John

Thank you for the correction re the KC4 maxilla (I don't know how mandible got stuck in my mind) and I've applied the correction to my previous posts.  That is a very nice photograph, but, different angles notwithstanding, what traits might be considered diagnostic in such a fragment of maxilla with teeth?  Some measurements would help if they are available somewhere.

Dar 

[John Hawks]

Thank you for the correction re the KC4 maxilla (I don't know how mandible got stuck in my mind) and I've applied the correction to my previous posts.

Hey, I've only ever heard it described as a "jaw" which naturally made me think "mandible," too. Imagine my surprise when I took a look!

That is a very nice photograph, but, different angles notwithstanding, what traits might be considered diagnostic in such a fragment of maxilla with teeth?  Some measurements would help if they are available somewhere.

Unless the teeth are really quite small, they are likely to overlap with both Neandertals and Early Upper Paleolithic, because those samples overlap extensively in dental dimensions. No occlusal detail on the teeth is present; they are all worn flat (I have another, occlusal view). This leaves the details of the root of the zygomatic process, including whether any sign of a canine fossa or maxillary notch can be detected. From the portion preserved, it seems really unlikely that this would be preserved (this tends to lie superior to the molar roots), but you'd have to see the lateral side to be sure. Even so, unless the anatomy were crystal clear I think it would be equivocal.

--John

[SteveF]

I saw Roger Jacobi and Tom Higham discuss their new C14 techniques at the Quaternary Research Association meeting in January.  Its certainly interesting stuff and could well prove to be very important, though in the talk I'm not sure they adequately differentiated between precision and accuracy. 

From what I remember, assessment of accuracy was rather subjective; for example a revised C14 date was presented on hyaena (I think) material that previously was stuck right at the height of the last glaciation but pre-dates it slightly with the new technique.  The new date is deemed more reliable because it makes more sense in a palaeoecological sense, however this is essentially subjective and based on pre-concieved notions.

I haven't read the papers in Radiocarbon and the talk was a while back so don't take my word as gospel.  However I think its fair to say that we shouldn't be absolutely convinced yet about the chronology. 

[Daryl Habel]

Welcome new member Steve,

Thanks for passing this along.  Jacobi and Higham are, of course, at the center of this, and I agree with you that there are questions which remain unanswered before I'm going to be convinced by the proposed chronological revision.   There was a BBC article which appeared today, providing some details on the dating (Thanks to Dave Timpe, who posted the info first on Palanthsci).  

CLICK HERE FOR BBC NEWS STORY

According to the BBC reporter, Paul Rincon, "...the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit have obtained new radiocarbon dates for animal bones in cave sediments just above and just below where the jaw fragment was found..."

I'm guessing these are AMS dates on animal bone which bracket the age of the hominid-bearing sediment to between 37,000 and 40,000 years ago.  Oxford does good reliable work but, by itself, this relative-dating of the sediments doesn't necessarily invalidate the AMS direct-dated KC4 maxilla. On this (Glue contamination), Paul Rincon (the BBC reporter) wrote: "...However, the recent discovery that the bone had been strengthened with paper glue (probably soon after it was excavated) placed that radiocarbon age in doubt..."

Well, maybe.  I think we'll need more information about this.  I don't think the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit publishes their results in Radiocarbon.  Oxford publishes these papers in (I think, IIRC) the Oxford Journal of Archaeology (but I'll check this).  I'd like to know more about this possible "glue contamination" before outright rejection of the 30.9 K direct-dated age.  On that  possibility,  however, I'm not qualified to offer an opinion.  I expect (bold prediction here) we'll hear a few qualified opinions before this matter is settled.  

The BBC News story also mentioned that Chris Stringer and Erik Trinkaus will carry out a new physical examination of KC4, and that tooth samples were to be sent to the Max Planck Institute (Leipzig, Germany) for DNA analysis (whatever that will 'prove' regarding the taxonomy of KC4).    

I saw Roger Jacobi and Tom Higham discuss their new C14 techniques at the Quaternary Research Association meeting in January.  Its certainly interesting stuff and could well prove to be very important, though in the talk I'm not sure they adequately differentiated between precision and accuracy.  

From what I remember, assessment of accuracy was rather subjective; for example a revised C14 date was presented on hyaena (I think) material that previously was stuck right at the height of the last glaciation but pre-dates it slightly with the new technique.  The new date is deemed more reliable because it makes more sense in a palaeoecological sense, however this is essentially subjective and based on pre-concieved notions.

I haven't read the papers in Radiocarbon and the talk was a while back so don't take my word as gospel.  However I think its fair to say that we shouldn't be absolutely convinced yet about the chronology.  

Regards,
Dar

[Daryl Habel]

...I think we'll need more information about this.  I don't think the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit publishes their results in Radiocarbon.  Oxford publishes these papers in (I think, IIRC) the Oxford Journal of Archaeology (but I'll check this)....  

After a check, I think I was wrong about Oxford Journal of Archaeology.  Most Oxford AMS system radiocarbon results have been published in the journal Archaeometry.

Dar

[Dale Hoogeveen]

(snip)

The BBC News story also mentioned that Chris Stringer and Erik Trinkaus will carry out a new physical examination of KC4, and that tooth samples were to be sent to the Max Planck Institute (Leipzig, Germany) for DNA analysis (whatever that will 'prove' regarding the taxonomy of KC4).    

Regards,
Dar

Hi Dar,

All that could be established would be a Neanderthal identity, if and only if Neanderthal mtDNA were found in the mix.  My understanding is that it is next to impossible to keep some modern mtDNA contamination out, especially in this case where the fossil fragment has been exposed for a long time, handled an unknown number of times, and has been "stabilized" with foreign material that had to have been handled as well.  It is likely to be heavily contaminated.  So it would be pretty hard to make any kind of final identification on genetic testing, unless they are able to find Neanderthal mtDNA.

IIRC Stringer has cited this fragment a number of times.  If he is now going back to reexamine it, instead of immediately defending it as AMH, it is going to be interesting to see what is found this time around.

Dale

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dar, Jim & al.,

First, apologies for this late intrusion in a most interesting discussion.

Thanks to Dar for picking this up and passing it on. I did try to check the references provided by Churchill and Smith in the short paragraph you posted. Not much success there, especially when one doesn’t have physical access to a library, old and/or good enough to have in its holdings a set of the Trans Proc Torquay Nat Hist Soc (!) and copies of Garrod (1926) and Oakley & al. (1971). As for the more recent Hedges & al. (1989) Archaeometry paper and Aldhouse and Pettitt (1998) Antiquity one, I was also -- despite my valuable electronic access -- out of luck. As far as I can tell, these publishers have yet to proceed with the online archiving of their pre-2000 issues.

Thanks also to Jim for his brief comments and the picture. All in all, there appears to be little hope, at this time, of getting this specimen to be very eloquent, morphologically speaking. As for the mention that mtDNA characterization will be attempted, well, given the likely complex curatorial history of the specimen and all that implies in terms of potential contamination, I wish them luck. In this context, it is likely that any “positive” result will be, at the very best, highly questionable.

Assuming that the 14C date is correct, and from what has been discussed so far, it seems that what we are left with is the oldest unidentifiable, European “transitional” person who may or may not be clearly associated with (see the reference to Aldhouse-Green and Pettitt 1998, in the initial quote from Churchill and Smith 2000, re: debris flow) and, therefore, not necessarily the maker or carrier of a lithic assemblage that is viewed by some as somewhat undiagnostic and that only rates an “Aurignacoid” label (see brief comments in Churchill and Smith 2000).

But then, here is some additional, possibly useful, complementary information that I just found in my copy of the new encyclopedia (“Dictionnaire”) I mentioned ELSEWHERE

Summarized by Denis Vialou (from Dowie and Ogivie 1927, and Jacobi 1990), the Kent’s Cave reconstituted stratigraphy/cultural sequence reads more or less as follows (apologies for the quick translation):

- Acheulean in an area [of the cave] called the “Long Arcade”;

- Mousterian, at the base of the “Great Chamber” deposit;

- Lincombian, above the Mousterian, in the “Great Chamber” and in the “Gallery” and adjacent “conduits”, dated to between 38,000 and 28,000  BP;

- Aurignacian above the Lincombian, in the “Great Chamber” and the “Vestibule”, dated to around 28,000 BP;

- Maisierian, in the “SouthWest Chamber”, dated to between 28,000 and 22,000 BP;

- Lower Creswellian (around 14,000 BP) and Upper Creswellian (around 12,000 BP), both found above the Aurignacian, in the “Vestibule”.

As for  the human fossil under consideration, here is what Vialou has to say:

A fragment of human maxillary, Homo sapiens sapiens was discovered in 1927, at a depth of 3.20 m, along the north wall of the “Vestibule” and has been dated at 30,900 +/- 900 (OxA 1621). Found in a portion of the deposit that predates the formation of a stalagmitic floor, it is [must be ?] associated with the Lincombian.

This last part is quite revealing in that the Lincombian (from Lincombe Hill where is located Kent’s Cavern) has been clearly identified as the westernmost member of a “family” of techno-complexes labelled Jerzmanovician. Mostly known from Central and Eastern Europe these lithic assemblages have provided dates in the 40 - 38 kya range and are viewed by many as expressions of a technological “transition” between a number of preceding MP industries and later, full-fledged EUP manifestations. Since this particular aspect of the Kent’s Cavern evidence would best be discussed in the Prehistory Board, I’ll leave it at that at this time. [Note, also, that this particular topic was somewhat extensively covered in the later days of the late PALANTH-L].

At any rate, this contextual information -- not mentioned in the press releases and barely alluded to in what Churchill and Smith (2000) had to say about the Kent’s Cavern early human remain -- puts in a clearer context the importance of this new date.

In addition to the references provided by Churchill and Smith (2000), others that would be worth checking in order to get a better, interdisciplinary understanding of the identity and significance of the Kent’s Cavern person, are the at the very least, Campbell (1977, 1980), Dowie and Ogilvie (1927), and Jacobi (1980 and 1990).

Aldhouse-Green, S, and P. Pettitt. 1998. Paviland Cave: contextualizing the “Red Lady”. Antiquity 72:756–772.

Campbell, J.B. 1980. Le problème des subdivisions du Paléolithique supérieur britannique dans son cadre européen. Bulletin de la Société royale belge d’anthropologie et de préhistoire 91: 39-77.

Campbell, J.B. 1977. The Upper Plaeolithic of Britain: A Study of Man and Nature in the Late Ice Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Oxford University Press).

Churchill, S.E. and F.H. Smith. 2000. Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43: 61–115.

Dowie, H.G. and A.H. Ogilvie. 1927. Kent’s Cavern, Torquay, Leeds. Report of the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1927: 303-306.

Garrod, D.A.E. 1926. The Upper Palaeolithic age in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hedges, R.E.M, R.A. Housley, I.A. Law, and C.R. Bronk. 1989. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: archaeometry datelist 9. Archaeometry 31:207–234.

Jacobi, R.M. 1980. The Upper Palaeolithic of Britain with
special reference to Wales. In: Taylor JA, editor. Culture
and environment in prehistoric Wales: Oxford. British archaeological reports. p 15–100.

Jacobi, R.M. 1990. Leaf-points and British Early Upper Palaeolithic. In: Feuilles de Pierre, p. 271-289.

Keith A. 1927. Report on a fragment of a human jaw
found at a depth of (101⁄2 ft) 3.2 m. in the cave earth of
the vestibule of Kent’s Cavern. Trans Proc Torquay
Nat Hist Soc 5:1–2.

Leroi-Gourhan (Ed.). 1998. Dictionnaire de la Préhistoire. Paris: PUF.

Oakley KP, Campbell BG, Molleson TI. 1971. Catalogue
of fossil hominids. Part II: Europe. London: British
Museum (Natural History).

Vialou, Denis (Ed.). 2004. La Préhistoire -- Histoire et Dictionnaire. Paris: Laffont.

Jacques

[SteveF]

I meant to bring a copy of the Higham abstract from the QRA meeting and type out some of the salient points.  As I completely forgot, I thought I'd post the following reference which describes some of the work Higham and chums are doing at Oxford:

Ramsey C. B., Higham T., Bowles A. and Hedges R.  (2004) Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford.  Radiocarbon, 46, 155-163.

<Bone is one of the most widely used materials for dating archaeological activity. It is also relatively difficult to pretreat effectively and new methods are an area of active research. The purpose of the chemical pretreatment of bone is to remove contaminants present from burial and to do so in a way which does not add any additional laboratory contaminant. To some extent, these two aims must be balanced since, on the whole, the more complex the procedure and the more steps included, the greater the chance for contamination. At the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU), the method used is a continuous-flow or manual acid/base/acid (ABA) treatment followed by gelatinization and ultrafiltration (based on Brown et al. [ 1988]; documented in Bronk Ramsey et al. [2000]). We find this overall method is very effective at removing more recent contamination in old bones. However, two aspects of the method have recently been improved and are reported here: the redesign of ORAU's continuous flow pretreatment and a new protocol in our pretreatment ultrafiltration stage.>

There is other interesting work being done at Oxford by the archaeologists on Bayesian stats and C14 dating, an interesting development given that archaeologists haven't always been noted for their love of chronology (its a 'bolt on extra.'  sigh).  Oh and look out for tephra; its the next big thing!

[Daryl Habel]

I meant to bring a copy of the Higham abstract from the QRA meeting and type out some of the salient points.  As I completely forgot, I thought I'd post the following reference which describes some of the work Higham and chums are doing at Oxford:

Ramsey C. B., Higham T., Bowles A. and Hedges R.  (2004) Improvements to the pretreatment of bone at Oxford.  Radiocarbon, 46, 155-163.

[Snip abstract]
There is other interesting work being done at Oxford by the archaeologists on Bayesian stats and C14 dating, an interesting development given that archaeologists haven't always been noted for their love of chronology (its a 'bolt on extra.'  sigh).  Oh and look out for tephra; its the next big thing!

Steve,

Thanks for the Radiocarbon reference and abstract.  This is very interesting.  These AMS  "improvements to the pretreatment of bone..." are what's (maybe?) lacking for the 30.9 kya directly-dated KC4 (corrected later from "LB4") maxilla, and why in their opinion we should suspect, because of possible glue contamination (reject?), the 30.9 kya dating in favor of the 37-40 kya bracketed AMS dates on animal bone above and below the hominid-bearing deposits.

We'll have to see about that (are the animal bones obviously human modified? cutmarked or split for marrow, etc.?)  but, in any case, to stay within the limits of the Palanth forum guidelines, these "improvements to the pretreatment of bone", as well as any future news I should look for on "tephra" (and I would be interested in these) should probably be discussed as a new Topic on the Archaeometry and Chronostratigraphy Board.  I'm interested in these "improvements", but my knowlege of the intricate procedures of AMS radiocarbon dating is very limited, at which point I have to rely on the opinion of experts.

The topic here is Human Paleontology and the Kent's Cavern 4 maxilla identity.  The  issue of favoring dating KC4 to 37-40 kya [bracketed] and casting the 30.9 kya direct-dating as suspect because of (possible) glue contamination is a topic I'd also favor moving to the Archaeometry and Chronostratigraphy Board for further discussion.  

I'd be happy to see further discussion of these subjects.        

Best,
Dar