Trinkaus on Early Modern Humans

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

The following fell on my electronic lap, early this morning, thanks to G. Hanenburg, on Mikey Brass’ PALAEOANTHRO list. Upon a first quick read of the paper, it appears to be a very thorough and reasonable review of how we all came about, not to mention the impressive list of references that is likely to be put to good use by many, in the years ahead.

Trinkaus, Erik. 2005. Early Modern Humans. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 207–30. [First published online as a Review in Advance on June 14, 2005].

Key Words:
human paleontology, Late Pleistocene, Africa, Eurasia

Abstract:
Perceptions of the emergence and spread of modern humans have changed recently through the reanalysis of fossils, an improved geochronological framework, and the discovery of a few specimens. Early modern humans in various portions of the OldWorld exhibit complex and varying mosaics of archaic, modern, and regional morphological characteristics. On the basis of this pattern, in conjunction with the emerging chronology of the earliest modern humans, the paleontological data indicate an assimilation model for modern human origins, in which the earliest modern humans emerged in eastern Africa, dispersed brie•y into southwestern Asia, and then subsequently spread into the remainder of Africa and southern Asia, eventually into higher latitude Eurasia. The earliest modern humans outside of the core area of eastern Africa can be understood only if a variable degree of admixture with regional groups of late archaic humans occurred. Current and expected fossil and molecular data are unlikely to illuminate the degree of assimilation that took place in most regions of the OldWorld. However, the current chronological and phylogenetic framework provides the basis for ongoing investigation of the nature of this Late Pleistocene transitional period.

For access to the full paper, you can click HERE or become a member of PALAEOANTHRO.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[shenzhou]

thanks for bringing this interesting paper to my attention. I was struck by this paragraph at the end:

"The state of adequate published paleontological description of most early modern
human and many late archaic human fossils, even for the time periods in which they
were discovered, is pathetic. A concerted effort needs to be made to integrate fully
the morphology and paleobiology of the known sample into the field. Scholars who
control access to fossils and are unable or unwilling to provide these descriptions
should invite other qualified paleontologists to undertake the task."

Does anyone have any comments, are things really this bad? and how much work needs to be done to get all of the specimens described in a satisfactory way?

[AWSX]

First let me echo my thanks to Jacques for bringing this paper to our attention.

I am not a professional physical anthropologist but I have become interested in the physical traits of the few Paleoindians  discovered in the Americas. It has been extremely difficult to find any photographs and physical descriptions of these remains. There are numerous references to these remains in various craniometric studies but those studies never include any descriptions or photographs.

A classic example is the 'Lund collection' of 17 crania found in the mid 1800s in Sumidomo Cave in Brazil and now in a museum in Copenhagen, Denmark.  These human remains were found associated with extinct Pleistocene fauna and supposedly exhibit archaic traits. The only reference that I have found on this collection was a study by Poch in 1938 and I have been unable to locate his report.