Confirming the age of Mladeč

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

All,

For your information:

Wild, Eva M., Maria Teschler-Nicola, Walter Kutschera, Peter Steier, Erik Trinkaus, and Wolfgang Wanek. 2005. Direct dating of Early Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Mladeč. Nature435: 332-335.


The human fossil assemblage from the Mladeč Caves in Moravia (Czech Republic)1 has been considered to derive from a middle or later phase of the Central European Aurignacian period on the basis of archaeological remains (a few stone artefacts and organic items such as bone points, awls, perforated teeth)2, despite questions3 of association between the human fossils and the archaeological materials and concerning the chronological implications of the limited archaeological remains4. The morphological variability in the human assemblage, the presence of apparently archaic features in some specimens, and the assumed early date of the remains have made this fossil assemblage pivotal in assessments of modern human emergence within Europe5–7. We present here the first successful direct accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating of five representative human fossils from the site. We selected sample materials from teeth and from one bone for 14C dating. The four tooth samples yielded uncalibrated ages of 31,000 14C years before present, and the bone sample (an ulna) provided an uncertain more-recent age. These data are sufficient to confirm that the Mladeč human assemblage is the oldest cranial, dental and postcranial assemblage of early modern humans in Europe and is therefore central to discussions of modern human emergence in the northwestern Old World and the fate of the Neanderthals.

The full article can be accessed HERE. Note that the paper is also accompanied by “Supplementary material” entitled:

Supplementary Table 1: Radiocarbon ages determined for the animal remains from the Mladeč site.

Also available on the Web are two media pieces (clearly coming from the same source) that summarize (?) the above. They can be read HERE and HERE

Not that it matters much, but it appears that the authors did not have the opportunity to include in their discussion the revised age (estimate) of the Kent’s Cavern maxillary (recently discussed HERE.)

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[lagarvelho]

Jacques:

I don't know whether the authors noted it(since I haven't had time to read the paper yet, but the Dsscover news article shows a side view of one of the Mladec skulls(if it's one that has been redated).  This side view appears to show a definite "bunning".  But then, I'm no expert on these things.  Still, it sure looks like a "possible "mixture"
Anne G

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Just a few additional points (or questions) I would like to bring up regarding the reporting of “dates”.

I feel that the authors should have done a better job in comparing and presenting their new Mladeč dates with those obtained from other early (so-called transitional) sites. I am specifically concerned about  the lack of clear identification of calibrated vs. uncalibrated dates (as per the following quote:

(France)12 and La Rochette (France)13 to the Gravettian period. The only directly dated European modern human fossils of Aurignacian age are the Pestera cu Oase (Romania) mandible and cranium at ≈35,000 14Cyears before present (that is, ≈35 14Ckyr BP), the Kent’s Cavern (UK) maxilla at ≈31 14Ckyr BP, the Pestera Muierii (Romania) remains at ≈30 14Ckyr BP, and the Pestera Cioclovina (Romania) cranium at ,29 14Ckyr BP, none of which has a secure and diagnostic archaeological association. Moreover, at least the Oase fossils overlap in time with late Neanderthals from for example, Vindija (Croatia), which is at present dated to ≈29 14Ckyr BP and Arcy-sur-Cure (France) at ≈34 14Ckyr BP [p.332]

The only date that is clearly presented (in the text) as calibrated is the one from Pestera cu Oase (≈35 14Ckyr BP). In other words, anyone who happens to be curious about what is being compared has to go into a research mode that, at the very best, can be rather frustrating.

For example, what about the Kent’s Cavern date on a maxillary that may or may not be representative of an early modern dispersal across Europe, and that is reported as being ≈31 14Ckyr? When checking the various 14C dabases that are now available (.e.g. HERE), one finds out that the bone in question is, when calibrated, 34923 years old. Given the relatively high levels of uncertainty associated with dates in this time range and obtained from bones with a rather lengthy and, at times, obscure curatorial history, I don’t think it would be too unparsimonious to suggest that the dates in question are essentially the same, i.e., about 35000. And this only  if we do not take into consideration the recent cryptic report regarding the substantial “aging” of the Kent’s Cavern specimen that was brought up earlier (HERE).

As I have said before, “all dates are not born equal” and should be played with accordingly, i.e., with great caution and with an eye on what’s around the corner.

Jacques Cinq-Mars

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Jacques:

I don't know whether the authors noted it(since I haven't had time to read the paper yet, but the Dsscover news article shows a side view of one of the Mladec skulls(if it's one that has been redated).  This side view appears to show a definite "bunning".  But then, I'm no expert on these things.  Still, it sure looks like a "possible "mixture"
Anne G

Anne,

As far as I can tell the only reference to “bunning” is found in the following (p. 333):

The purportedly archaic, or Neanderthal, features include aspects of the sagittal cranial profile and robust supraorbital regions in the Mladeč 5 and 6 males, distinctive occipital bunning in Mladeč 3, 5 and 6, large palatal and dental dimensions of Mladeč 8 (Fig. 1a), the large crowns of the Mladeč 9a, 10 and 51 canines, and articular hypertrophy of some of the postcrania.Moreover, although they are robust compared to recent females, the Mladeč 1 (Fig. 1b) and 2 crania exhibit few of these features5,6.

The illustration presented in the actual paper is that of Mladeč 1 (a female cranium) and, given your obvious interest in "buns", I attach a low resolution, somewhat enhanced "visual quotation"

Jacques

PS   It goes without saying that if this discussion is to drift away from strict matters of chronology, into Neanderthal “buns” & al., it should be done in the Human Palaeontology Board.