“CLASSIC” EUROPEANVS

“LEVANTINE” NEAR EASTERN NEANDERTHALS

Noelle Tankard

For Emergence of Modern Humans

University of Bristol, Dec 2010

Neanderthal type specimen

• found in Feldhoffer grotto, Neander Valley, 1857

• later excavations found associated zygomaticomaxillary fragment

Image from American Museum of Natural History, Ian Tattersall

Our understanding of Neanderthals

• Initially seen as a transitional stage through which humans passed

• primitive features emphasized, compared to chimpanzees

• Fossils found in other regions often labelled “Neanderthaloid” as a generic pre-Homo sapiens category in possession of prominent brow-ridges and low-vaulted brain cases

•“African Neanderthal” : Broken Hill skull, Zambia•“Eastern Neanderthals” : Solo skulls from Java

(Trinkaus 1979)

... and with time...• less biased interpretations grew as body of data increased

• definition based on from Western Europe; now consider the “classical” or European Neanderthals

•By early 80s, commonly seen as subspecies of H. sapiens

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

• Early genetic studies influenced trend to reconsider phylogenetic place relative to H. sapiens; differences from modern H. sap emphasized

• “… one can systematically examine the large corpus of Neanderthal fossils… [with] present knowledge of the anatomical functions of bone and muscle… against a fuller chronological background… the picture that emerges is quite clear: a human population complex with a special pattern of anatomical features that extends without interruption from Gibraltar across Europe into the Near East and Western Asia.”

(Trinkaus 1979, 91)

Classic Neanderthals

La Ferrassie, France: considered typical of “Classic” Neanderthals – also among largest in Europe

The Neanderthal “clade”• Whether species or subspecies, clear morphological group with characteristic traits

• “Classical Neanderthals” clearly distinct from: present day modern H. Sapiens contemporary African H. Sapiens European Upper Palaeolithic populations

Diagnostic traits of Neanderthals...

Neanderthal range & specimens• “Classical” Western Europe

– France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain– specimens in Italy and Greece sometimes referred to as “preNeanderthals”

• Eastern Europe– Croatia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Slovenia, Slovakia

•“Levantine” and Near East– tend to be younger than “Classical”– also younger than H. sap in region

• Central / Western Asia–Uzbekistan Teshik Tash, Uzbekistan

“Levantine” and Near Eastern Sites

• Term “Levantine” more common in non-English publications

– strictly: Israel, Palestine and Jordan while Near East stretches from Nile to northern Iran– Those who distinguish Levantine from other Near Eastern with intention to note Levant as “entry point” (from Europe) for Neanderthal migration “deeper” into the Near East (Vandermeesch 2007)

• Tabun, Amud, Kebara (Israel)• Shanidar (Iraq)• Dederiyeh (Syria)

Interest in the Levant…• Long recognized as most likely place to find evidence of

Neanderthal and H. sap interaction – behavioural and/or genetic

• Chronologically, H. sap populations older than Neanderthal• Therefore, most analysis and study aimed at Levantine

Neanderthals vs Levantine H. sapiens– Skhul and Qafzeh: debate over classification of fossils found, number of species represented

Shanidar

Shanidar 1

- 9 skeletons

Shanidar 135-40 yrs old at death

survived serious injuriesexcavated 50s-60s

ca 40-79 ky, but dates questionable

Amud 1

- 1.8 m tall, 1740 cc

-Approx 25 yrs at death

-ESR on mammal tooth at 40-50 kyr

-Affinity to Shanidar

-“Mosaic” features

Kebara1.7 m

25-35 yr at death

ca 60 ka

Possible burial

Similar to Amud, Shanidar,and Tabun but more robust

Hyoid bone

Tabun

• C2 Mandible– Ambiguous, but Neanderthal

affinities• Tabun C, partial skeleton of

female – Possibly oldest Near Eastern

Neanderthal– Excavated 1932; stratigraphic

position controversial and dating unclear

– Skull fractured

Dederiyeh

• Dederiyeh 1– Infant– ca 60 ky

Images from Akazawa’s website, reconstruction of find and “resuscitation” of find

Computer model of maturation ofDederiyeh infant (to adult based on Amud 1)

Vandermeesch 2007

• Majority of “Classic” traits – although not all to the same “degree of development”

• Several features characterized as “entering the range of modern human variation”– Higher skull– Transverse contour less oval

• Suprainiac fossa larger, less deep• Less occipital bunning than “Classical”

– occipital less convex and occipital torus less prominent– Overall “less stretched”

• Other features described as “intermediate” between “Classic” Neanderthal and mod H. sap

Less facial prognathism

Cranial capacityvaries widely

Males taller

From Trinkaus 1979

• Supraorbital torus• Occipital bunning• Facial prognathism• Long low brain case• Larger cranial capacity• Receding frontal• Suprainiac fossa• retromolar space

….. And others

•Not all of these traits appear in the same degree and same combination

•Homologous or derived?

•Absolute or continuum?

•Same “effect” can occur as a result of various “processes”: occipital bunning (Gunz 2007)

}…. Traits to distinguish from a H. sap

Further questions• What is the significance of these differences?

• How to explain them?– Temporal variation: co-evolution into

Neanderthal form separate from “Classical”: • Earlier split from pre-Neanderthal population?

– Geographical variation?• Reversal of “cold climate” traits?

– Hybridization with moderns?

• Are the Levantine Neanderthals more Homo sapiens – or simply less “Classical”?

Comparative analyses with Levantine H. sapiens specimens….

... fail to demonstrate clear and definitive difference between Neanderthals and “moderns”

Kramer 2001: tested null hypothesis of two clades in Levant (Amud/Tabun vs Qafzeh/Skhul)

Wolpoff 2001: failed to disprove null hypothesis that taxonomy did not explain variation of sample overall BUT that variation within Qafzeh/Skhul was greater than variation comparing that sample to Levantine Neanderthals

Issues

• Traits generally discussed as if a complete package, the Neanderthal “pattern” - specimens lacking all or some often dismissed as unclassifiable

• We are over-simplifying the situation by deliberately disregarding that which does not fit a perhaps arbitrary prefabricated designation

• How much variation within what level of taxonomic clade?