Ever since the Holen (2017) paper
describing human modified bone and stone tools from Southern California dated
to 130,000BP, I have been intrigued by the possibility that some form of human
was most likely well established in the Americas by this date.
But which one?
Previously I have detailed the
Holen et al. (2017) evidence here and here and reviewed the possibility that
the hominid could have been Homo erectus here.
I have also
considered the Denisovans as a candidate species (see here).
Now I am going to consider the
evidence that Homo neanderthalensis – Neanderthals were the species of hominin
in southern California 130,000BP.
The evidence that Neanderthals
reached America by 130,000 BP can be divided into two areas. Firstly, the
direct skeletal evidence and secondly the genetic or DNA evidence. The first I
will cover in depth, the second in overview.
Therefore, before we start, I
think a good look at Neanderthal anatomy would be informative. The most
strikingly different feature of the skeleton is the shape and proportions of
the skull:
Clockwise from top left:
Female Neanderthal (National
Geographic 2008), Male Neanderthal (Sci-News 2014) and Potter (2006).
Neanderthal skeletal features
1. Cranial features: Long flat
braincase, receding forehead, pronounced brow-ridge (supraorbital torus), large
nasal cavity, circular orbits, projecting midface and little or no chin. Distinct,
temporal labyrinth of ear
bones. Large anterior teeth
marked by strong shovelling, marked labial convexity, and prominent lingual
tubercles, postcanine teeth showing
taurodontism (enlarged pulp
chambers), the majority of specimens with a retromolar space.
2. Post cranial features: Conical
ridge cage (wider at bottom), limb bones thick walled and relatively short,
flaring hip bones, collar bone relatively long, trunk relatively short, hand
bones robust.
Human skeletal features
1. Cranial features: High rounded
braincase, vertical forehead, little or no brow-ridge (supraorbital torus), narrow
nasal cavity, variable orbit shape: angular, rectangular or round, little
projection of midface and pronounced chin. Temporal labyrinth of ear bones
metrically different from Neanderthals. Rear tooth arcade smaller in size than
Neanderthal, lack shovelling, reduced labial convexity (or smooth), and reduced
lingual tubercles, postcanine teeth showing no taurodontism, no retromolar
space.
2. Post cranial features: Cylindrical
ridge cage, limb bones thinner walled and relatively long compared to
Neanderthals, narrow hip bones, collar bone relatively short, trunk relatively long,
hand bones slender.
It should, therefore be easy to
differentiate between a Neanderthal skeleton and one of a modern human. And it
is. Unfortunately, full skeletal remains are rare. Often, all that
archaeologists discover are a partial skull or a few teeth or some portion of
the skeleton. Thus, identification to species may be far more difficult.
Furthermore, while exhaustive,
metric analyses have been looked at every comparative measurement of humans and
Neanderthals there is some overlap, in a large number of the measurements. This
can lead to extreme difficulty in species assignment, especially where the
bones found are small and/or fragmentary or from some non-diagnostic region of
the skeleton.
Lastly an unknown number of
hominin species were present across east Asia during the era in which
Neanderthals were present. Some of these are poorly represented in the fossil
record (e.g. Denisovans) or poorly delineated (e.g. ‘Archaic Homo Sapiens’/Homo
heidelbergensis) or unconfirmed as being present in the region – including
Neanderthals themselves! A thorny issue indeed, therefore.
Considering the fossil evidence,
one could quite reasonably conclude that it is unlikely that Neanderthals
reached America simply because their CONFIRMED geographic distribution is
limited to Western and Central Europe and central Asia as far as the Russian
Altai.
To address this problem, I have
sought out papers on skeletal remains from central Asia and China to try to
critically assess whether Neanderthals were present, sufficiently close to
Beringia to be considered likely candidates for the peopling of the Americas
prior to 130,000BP.
I have created a google map showing the distribution of fossils firmly or tentatively attributed to Neanderthals:
I have created a google map showing the distribution of fossils firmly or tentatively attributed to Neanderthals:
The Skeletal evidence
To assess the likelihood of
whether, Neanderthal reached America, I am going to consider, what I think are 5
key sites:
1. Denisova Cave, Russian Altai
2. Salkhit, Northeast Mongolia
3. Hetao Man, Ordos plateau,
Inner Mongolia
4. Xujiayao, Nihewan Basin, China
5. Jinsitai Cave, Inner Mongolia,
China
1. Denisova Cave, Russian Altai
As can be seen, the furthest
eastern, confirmed Neanderthal site is Denisova cave. This site is an extremely
rich one, having been occupied by Denisovans, Neanderthals and Anatomically
Modern Humans for up to 170a and 270ka approximately, although the scattered
literature does not make it easy to find unequivocal dates.
Dating
The dates at which each species
of hominin lived in the cave are actually, quite difficult to pin down.
Although quite a number, of papers and endless blog posts cover the discoveries
made at Denisova cave, the exact timings of each occupation are complex and
confusing. From the plethora of incomplete data, I have compiled this rough
chronology:
For a more complete explanation of how I arrived at these dates, including extensive references see my, later supplementary post.
The fossils
The actual, fossil, Neanderthal,
material found is quite disappointing. They consist of:
A toe phalanx – ‘Altai Neanderthal’ (Denisova 5)
Neanderthal toe phalanx from Prüfer
et al. (2014)
Denisova 11
A morphologically unremarkable
bone from the 2014 excavation, identified as Neanderthal by Brown et al. (2016)
using the collagen fingerprinting technique:
Denisova 11 from Brown et al.
(2016). Original caption reads: Figure
2. Photograph of DC1227, detailing each visible surface of the bone.
Additionally, two samples of
sediment from Denisova cave also yielded Neanderthal DNA. The analysis by Slon
et al. (2017), put Neanderthals in different parts of the cave and at different
times than any other archaeological evidence, has been able to, substantiate.
Discussion
These remains and the DNA samples
from soil, are the eastern-most unequivocally Neanderthal samples yet found.
Their dating puts Neanderthals in the region at ca. 110,000 years ago,
consequently they are slightly, too late to have been the ancestors of the
hominids that may have made it to America by 130,000BP. Whether their ancestors
were in the region, prior to this date as they were in Europe is an open
question.
2. Salkhit, Northeast Mongolia
The fossils
From Coppens (2008): “A skullcap was
discovered in northeastern Mongolia, during gold mining prospecting by the
Baidan-Erdes Company at the Salkhit site (Bian-Oulziit, Somon), in 2006. The bones were found by a worker, in a
pit at a depth of 6m. It is well-preserved, although fragmentary. This calvarium is composed of the
frontal squama, part of the nasal bones and of the parietals. In the pit wall,
can be seen a series of fluvial deposits interbedded with loess separated by a
relatively thick mass of fallen rocks, with angular fragments. The fossil would
rather come from the adjacent, river, terraces.”
The Salkhit skullcap from Coppens
(2008). Original caption reads: Fig. 2. Picture of the Salkhit skullcap in
norma frontalis (A), norma lateralis (B), norma verticalis (C), and norma
basilaris (D).
“Concerning the dating of the fossil, the attribution of the Salkhit calva to the Late Pleistocene has
been suggested based on faunal remains (woolly rhinoceros) found in possible
association.”
In Coppens’ study, its morphology
was compared by multivariate analysis, with a large sample (68 specimens) of
Pleistocene hominid skulls from Europe, Asia and Australia.
“This
preliminary study of a human skullcap discovered at Salkhit, Northeast
Mongolia, in 2006, shows a mosaic of traits. Plesiomorphies can be seen on the
frontal bone: developed brow ridges and a keeled squama. Apomorphies can be
observed: high and back-located parietal eminences and absence of a sagittal
keel. The skullcap seems to share also some features with Neanderthals that can
be observed on the lower part of the frontal bone and in the nasal and orbital
region such as a supratoral sulcus, a prominent glabella, prominent rounded
lateral supraorbital margins, and a well-defined inward nasion. The comparison
of the dimensions of the skullcap with those of skullcaps of a reference sample
by multidimensional scaling analysis shows similarities with Neanderthals,
Chinese Homo erectus and West/Far East Archaic Homo sapiens.”
Multivariate plot from Coppens et al. (2008). Original
caption reads:
Fig. 3. Multidimensional scaling of the fossils considered
in this study. The plot was computed on a distance matrix between all the 68
specimens, which considers 11 measures of length, width, height of the
calva.
In terms of which metric
measurements were used in the comparison the authors say: “Concerning the
metrical aspect of this study, 11 traditional measurements have been considered
(LGL, WMX, WFS, WFI, AFR, APA, CFR, CPA, WBO, WIO, WOG/D) on the 68 skulls
(including the Salkhit calva), whose area of
interest had been reduced to the calva.”
As can be seen from the diagram
above, the Salkhit skullcap groups with several well-known Neanderthal fossils.
These include the original Neanderthal from Feldhofer grotto in the Neander Valley, Germany; La
Ferrassie and La Chapelle-Aux-Saints both in France; Guattari 1 from Monte Circeo, Italy; Šaľa Slovakia; Krapina,
Croatia; Teshik Tash, Uzbekistan and the slightly controversial Amud 1 from
Israel.
It also groups with some skulls
attributed to Homo heidelbergensis such as Arago, France; Broken Hill, Zambia;
Petralona, Greece; Steinheim, Germany and Zuttiyeh from Israel.
It also groups with a loose group
of ‘Archaic Modern humans’ including the Czech specimens from Předmostí, and
the material from Djebel Irhoud in Morocco.
Finally, In the same grouping are
the Zhoukoudian 2, 3 and ‘reconstruction’ specimens from China – all Homo
erectus.
Whilst, the majority, of the
specimens that the Salkhit skullcap group with are Neanderthal (n = 8/18) and
within the body of the paper, note the similarities with H. neanderthalensis the
authors seem to deliberately avoid assigning the Salkhit skullcap to this
species. Instead they note its affinities with Chinese H. erectus, and West/Far
East Archaic H. sapiens and unaccountably
conclude: “we cautiously attribute the Salkhit calva to an archaic Homo
sapiens.”
By this I can only assume they
mean the group of specimens including the remains from Petralona and Steinheim,
a group of specimens, which, most workers in the field assign to H.
heidelbergensis. In fact, these two specimens are the closest to the Salkhit
skullcap on their multidimensional scaling plot. So, their assignment of the
specimen to this group does have some logic. However, I find it extraordinary
that the authors do not explicitly acknowledge to which group they are
assigning the fossil! In fact, the words ‘Homo heidelbergensis’ appear nowhere
in the paper.
Other evidence brought forward in
the paper, but not explicitly stated to inform the tentative, diagnosis is that
drawn from the endocast of the interior of the skull. The authors state: “The study of the silicone endocast shows a
clearly marked vascular system, although unbalanced between frontal and
parietal areas. The anterior meningeal branches at the frontal area show tiny
reticulations unequally developed on the left and right sides. In contrast, the
posterior branches are strongly marked and more developed. Unfortunately, the
fragmentary state of the calva does
not allow the complete study of the posterior meningeal branches, which are
only preserved on the half of their length.”
As the paper, does not explicitly
say how this evidence relates to species identification, I did a little
research. From Píšová (2017)
“A second difference in the middle meningeal
vessel traces among hominids concerns the relative proportions of the anterior
and posterior branches (Grimaud-Hervé, 2004; Saban, 1995). Many archaic
specimens (generally included in the Homo
erectus hypodigm) exhibit posterior dominance of the network, where the
posterior branch is more reticulated than the anterior. By contrast, most
Neanderthals and modern humans exhibit anterior dominance of the middle
meningeal branches.”
It therefore, seems that evidence
from the specimen more closely aligns it with Homo heidelbergensis, or as the
authors put it ‘archaic Homo sapiens’. Having said that some features certainly indicate a relationship
with Neanderthals, Coppens again: “Lastly, in the nasal area, the clear
inward position of the frontonasal suture outlines a well-defined inward
nasion. On the endocast, the absence of the sphenoparietal sinus has to be
mentioned.
This particular sinus has
commonly been proposed as a Neanderthal autapomorphic trait, since it is more
rarely observed in modern populations and poorly expressed in Asian H. erectus.”
Another paper by Lee (2015) has
this to say: "The Salkhit skullcap
has a mostly complete frontal, two partially complete parietals, and nasals.
While no chronometric date has been published, the presence of archaic features
has led to a potential affiliation with archaic hominin species. If it is
indeed Homo erectus or archaic Homo sapiens, Salkhit implies a much earlier
spread of hominins farther north and inland Asia than previously thought. In
this paper, the nature of the archaic features in Salkhit is investigated. The
Salkhit skullcap morphology and metrics were compared with Middle and Late
Pleistocene hominin fossils from northeast Asia: Zhoukoudian Locality 1, Dali,
and Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. Results show an interesting pattern: on one hand,
the archaic features that Salkhit shares with the Zhoukoudian Locality 1 sample
also are shared with other later hominins; on the other hand, Salkhit is
different from the Middle Pleistocene materials in the same way later hominins
differ from the Middle Pleistocene sample, in having a broader frontal and
thinner supraorbital region. This may reflect encephalization and
gracilization, a modernization trend found in many places. It is concluded that
the archaic features observed in Salkhit are regionally predominant features
rather than diagnostic features of an archaic species."
Dating
From Coppens et al. (2008): “Concerning the dating of the fossil, the
attribution of the Salkhit calva to
the Late Pleistocene has been suggested based on faunal remains (woolly
rhinoceros) found in possible association. Nevertheless, this assumption,
currently based on biochronology, needs to be confirmed by further fieldworks
and absolute dating.”
And from Lee (2015): “No
chronometric dating has been published yet, and suggested dates range from
early Middle Pleistocene to terminal Late Pleistocene.”
Given the internationally
accepted dates for the Pleistocene are:
Early Pleistocene: 2.6M BP –
781,000BP
Middle Pleistocene: 781,000BP –
126,000BP
Late Pleistocene: 126,000BP –
11,700BP
This gives us a range of 781,000
to 11,700BP! Extremely unhelpful. Even the associated faunal bones do not tell
us much: Woolly Rhinoceros were around from about 3.6M years ago with the last
population, so far discovered going extinct ca. 10,000 years ago in western
Siberia.
From the position of the find
under 6m of sediment, which in itself, probably represented redeposition from
its original position, my opinion (for what it is worth) based on sedimentation
rates and morphological similarities to the Petralona and Broken Hill specimens
of Homo heidelbergensis, is that the fossils range from ca. 300,000 to 100,000
years old.
Other evidence - lithics
Finally, lithics discovered in
the immediate vicinity by Teyssandier et al. (2014) may give some further clues
to the identity of the hominin represented by the Salkhit skullcap: "We report here preliminary results of an
on-going international project triggered by the discovery of the Anatomically
Modern Human skullcap from Salkhit, in Northeast Mongolia. The survey led to
the discovery of the Havstgayt Valley ca. 20 km to the South-East of Salkhit.
Another clear Upper Paleolithic component has been discovered, in the vicinity
of, the rock shelter. Massive and convergent blades with facetted platforms
have been collected along a gentle slope. They are consistent with an
attribution to the Initial Upper Paleolithic technocomplex. Although the latter
is well known in the Siberian Altai, in the Transbaikal and in North-Central
Mongolia, Havstgayt currently stands as one of the easternmost localities that
document such technical tradition." These lithics could be associated
with a range of hominins, although the connection with the Altai lithics is
suggestive of either Neanderthals, Denisovans or ‘archaic Homo sapiens’.
Discussion
On a personal note, looking at
the shape of the orbits, visible in the photograph from the paper, I am struck
by the similarity with two specimens, of Homo heidelbergensis from Rightmire
(2017):
Strikingly, similar, don’t you
think? Enough said.
In assigning the specimen to ‘archaic
Homo sapiens’ instead of
Homo heidelbergensis or Neanderthals, one could conjecture, that both Coppens
and Lee did so because of the preferred theory of evolution, that their hosts,
the Chinese, prefer.
Put simply, the prevailing theory
in China, as insisted on by the government is a revised version of the
“Multi-regional Evolution” referred to as “Continuity with Hybridization. This
explanation of human origins was initially put forward by Wu, (1998) and updated by Gao, et
al. (2010).
This theory holds that after,
Homo erectus left Africa, perhaps as long ago as 2 million years ago, modern
humans evolved separately in different parts of the world from more primitive
hominids. In this so-called “multiregional” scenario, Australian
Aboriginals are derived from Java man (i.e., Javanese H.
erectus), modern Chinese from Peking man (Chinese H. erectus),
today’s Europeans from the Neanderthals (H. neanderthalensis) with some
admixture from Cro-Magnon.
Whilst this theory, has been
disproved by multiple lines of evidence, over the last two decades, Chinese
politicians still insist that their scientist continue promulgate this
profoundly flawed theory.
What species of hominin this
specimen represents: Neanderthal, Early/proto-Neanderthals, Homo
heidelbergensis or so-called ‘archaic Homo sapiens’ is an open, question.
3. Hetao Man, Ordos plateau, Inner Mongolia, China
A partial skull and various post
cranial, discovered at various times, on the edge of the Ordos Plateau, Inner
Mongolia, have been variously attributed to Archaic Homo sapiens,
‘transitional’ Homo erectus and controversially (for the Chinese) Neanderthals.
The location, exact nature of the
human remains, their dates and the type of hominid the bones represent
discovered at this site on the Salawusu river were extremely difficult to pin
down and are ALL uncertain!
Firstly, as noted by Gilbert (2017) “Actual position of cranium is not published” It gives the following
“Location: Salawusu, Xarusgol (originally
called Sjara-osso-gol and also Salawusu) River, Uxin Qi (Dabqig) County, Inner
Mongolia, Mongolia” but suggests that the coordinates for Milanggouwan
section in Zhou et al. (2002) are pretty close. In their paper, they give the
coordinates as 38.75N, 108.5833E.
This turns out to be in an unlikely location well away from any river course
and hence must be incorrect! Looking further into the location of the
Milanggouwan section further I found a second paper, this time by Wen et al.
(2009) that clearly identifies the exact spot this stratigraphic section is found in: 37.75795N,
108.53582E. Furthermore, Liu and Lai (2012) identify the same location in their
map and name it as the “archaeological Salawusu site”, its identity and
geographical location, therefore seems certain. Consequently, I have used those
coordinates on my map of Neanderthal sites. Additionally, Shang, Liu and Wu (2006), give this useful map of the various sites in the area:
For those interested in greater precision, I have converted the above into a Google Map:
For those interested in greater precision, I have converted the above into a Google Map:
The name of the site has also been variously recorded.
Initially called the Sjara-osso-gol site after the then name of the river by
Teilhard De Chadin and Licent (1924) it changed to the Salawusu river site.
Most recently named the Xarusgol Valley site. The river name has, unfortunately also had a number, of
name changes from the Sjara-osso-gol,
to the Salawusu to the modern Wuding or Wuding He river. To compound matters,
the section of the Wuding river shown on Google maps abruptly changes to the
Honglui river without apparent reason. The site under any name is unsearchable
in any case on either Google Earth or Google Maps.
Then there is the further complication that the Yongding
(or Yongding He!) river in Shanxi Province, is sometimes known as the Wuding river
and flows northeast through Inner Mongolia before heading southeast into Hebei
Province.
The fossils
The fossils from the site in were discovered over three
stages:
Firstly, De Chadin recovered an early Homo sapiens tooth in 1922. The authors
– Licent et. al. (1927) describe the discovery thus: “In the course of, our excavations of 1922-23 in the
Sjara-osso-golpalaeolithic levels, no human bony remains had been noticed,
except one femur and some other pieces of very doubtful origin. Recently, while
examining occasionally a residuous material of those excavations, we were
surprised to notice, amongst Gazella teeth and pieces of Struthiolithus, a
human upper incisive, strongly fossilized. The great antiquity of this tooth is
not absolutely, certain, because it was collected (as the associated fossils)
in a place where Pleistocene sands are more or less mixed with the basal
gravels of a modern terrace of the Sjara-osso-gol. Nevertheless, the grade of
fossilization of the specimen and the fact that it has been found in
association with a large number of, undoubtedly fossil bones (Rhinoceros,
Elephas, etc.) made us fairly sure that it is of Pleistocene age. The place of
the find (which occurred in August 1922) is only 500 meters distant from the
point where palaeolithic implements and numerous kitchen remains were dug out,
and on the same level.”
A description of the tooth is given in Derevianko and Lü
(1993): “The tooth is very well preserved;
the crown has not been eroded and the root has not reached maturity; it is
similar to that of a modern child. Because of the protrusion of the two sides
of the lingual surface of the molar, the centre of this surface is concave, or
shovel-shaped and bears the characteristics of present-day Mongolian teeth. D.
Black has done preliminary research on this tooth and named it Hetao man.”
Next, in 1957, according to,
Derevianko and Lü (1993), workers from the Inner Mongolian Museum found a
section of parietal bone and a portion of a femur in the terrace deposits near
the village of Dishaogouwan: “The
thickness of the parietal indicates that it approximates to that of Neanderthal
man and is larger than that of contemporary man. Traces of pressure of the
artery branches on the inside of the parietal bone were greater on the back
branch than on the front, further indicating primitivity. The wall of the femur
is thick and the marrow cavity small, representing only a third of the
diameter.”
In Wu and Poirier (1995) the
discovery is however credited to Yupin Wang of the Bureau of Cultural Affairs
of Nei Mongol Autonomous Region, who published a description of this and a
second parietal in 1961 [Wang (1961)].
Between the mid 1950’s and 1980, several,
surface finds were made, presumably washed out of the sediments of the Salawusu
formation. These however, are not obviously, in good archaeological context
have and cannot therefore give an indication of the site’s antiquity without
direct radiometric (14C) dating.
Finally, in 1980, as reported by
Shang and colleagues (2006) a human scapula was found in situ in the lower part of the Salawusu formation in. They
include an image of the shoulder blade:
Original caption reads:
Fig. 2. Fossil human scapula from
Salawusu site. (a) Frontal view; (b) lateral view: glenoid fossa; (c) occipital
view; (d) lateral view: the axillary border.
Their conclusions were: “Based on the comparisons between this
scapula and the scapulae of Neanderthals, Skhul/Qafzeh fossils, Eurasian Upper
Paleolithic specimens and recent, modern humans on the glenoid fossa,
axillo-spinal angle, axillary border and other features, the present authors
arrived at a preliminary conclusion that this Salawusu scapula is characterized
by modern features of Upper Pleistocene humans mixed with a Neanderthal-like
feature.”
Dating
Tooth and Femur
Teilhard de Chadin ca. 275 years old [Keates and colleagues
(2007)].
Parietal with Neanderthal features Museum of Inner Mongolia 30,000-50,000BP based on position of
find in the stratigraphic section [Shang, Wei and Wu (2006)]
Scapula 70.9±6.2ka BP to
124.9±15.8 ka BP by TL method [12]. Dates from 44±7 ka BP to 63±3 ka BP
[13], 35.34±2 ka BP [14]and 61―68 ka BP [15] are obtained for the
lower part of this layer by 230Th,
IRSL and 14C respectively. [Shang and Colleagues (2006)]. I have absolutely no
idea which the best date is so let us average them all! Average date = ca. 64,000BP with a range of 33,000-140,000BP.
Other evidence – lithics
A large, number of, lithic tools
have been recovered from 6km length of riverbank. A number, of papers, in
Chinese have been published on these but the technical details of these is
unavailable in English.
Discussion
The original tooth and femur
found in 1922 by Teilhard de Chadin and colleagues have been proven to be 17th
century by Keates et al. (2007). The
authors note “We conclude this report by
emphasizing the importance of the direct dating of human fossils in East Asia
and elsewhere. We caution scholars not to rely on dating results determined by
the age of organic materials inferred to be associated with bones or to be
unduly influenced by the fossilized appearance of human bones.”
Not surprisingly the Chinese
authorities have been quite reticent about having any more of the human fossils
from this site directly dated. Their policy now seems to be to date the
sediments in which the fossils are found. Presumably this strategy is designed
to avoid any unwelcomely late dates for what the Chinese state contends are early
Pleistocene Homo sapiens. Some have
postulated that this is due to a desire to not have hard data conflict with
‘Continuity with Hybridisation’ model of human evolution.
As previously mentioned, the
Chinese state supports scientists who publish papers that bring forward
evidence that could support the idea that the Chinese are descended from
hominins that evolved in situ in
China to form an entirely separate lineage of modern humans. In short, the
Chinese today do NOT descend from humans from Africa. Therefore, evidence must
be found to support this theory. Conversely evidence which contradicts this
position is most unwelcome, for instance Keates’ dating of the 1922 femur.
Looking at these fossils in a
broader context of human evolution, one must see that Neanderthal skeletal
material – a European and west Asian species - would also be MOST unwelcome in
the light of the prevailing state sponsored theory of Chinese origins.
Which is the whole point in
including these specimens in my review of which species could have made it to
America by 130,000BP. We have Neanderthals in the Altai of Russia, and now
almost certainly in China, but how much further did they disperse?
4. Xujiayao, Nihewan Basin,
China
.
The Chinese palaeontological,
site of Xujiayao is situated approximately 200km due west of Beijing on the north-western edge of the Nihewan
Basin. Lying on the west bank of the Liyi River, a tributary of
the Sanggan River, it actually consists, of two localities: 73113 a little
north of Xujiayao Village in Yanggao County, Shanxi Province, and 74093
south-east of Houjiayao Village in Yangyuan County, Hebei Province. The
northern site [73113] was discovered first in 1974.
Excavated in 1976, 1978 and 1979
and once more to secure additional dating samples in 2007 and 2008. The
majority of, the ca. 30,000 lithics, a vast array of animal bones and most
importantly a number of hominid fossils were recovered from locality 74093. In
total 20 finds were made: Twelve parietals, one temporal, two occipitals, one
juvenile maxilla, one mandible, two isolated left upper molars and one lower
molar. Of the hominid fossils recovered 19 came from the southern locality
while one single find was made at the northern one. Unfortunately, I have been
unable to determine which, lone, fossil came from the northern locality.
Dating
In terms of the dating, the
latest paper by Tu et al. (2015) give a weighted mean age of 0.24 ±
0.05 Ma.
The fossils
Temporal Bone
The temporal bone is that area of
the skull containing the ear bones, it is of particular, interest, to
palaeologists as the form of the inner ear or in technical terms, the temporal
labyrinth, is different in Neanderthals compared to other Pleistocene and recent
human species.
The positions of the temporal
bone and inner ear bones (temporal labyrinth) can be seen at left and right
below (adapted from Biology Study Guides (2009) and Didier Descouens (2018)
respectively):
A view of the fossil temporal
bone, CT image and computer extracted view of inner ear bones superimposed on a
view of the Xujiayao site from Phys.org (2014).
Original caption reads: The
Xujiayao 15 late archaic human temporal bone from northern China, with the
extracted temporal labyrinth, is superimposed on a view of the Xujiayao site.
Credit: Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Palaeoanthropology, Chinese
Academy of Science.
A detailed view of the temporal
bone from Wu et al. (2014):
Original caption: Figure S2. The Xujiayao 15 temporal
bone, in lateral (a), medial (b), posterior (c) and inferior (d) views.
The posterior view is slightly
posteroinferior. Note that a sutural ossicle in the region of pterion, along
the anterior squamous portion, is
absent, such that the original squamous contour was probably more rounded anteriorly.
On micro CT scan the temporal
bone or inner ear of the fossil Xujiayao 15 was noted to be unusual for eastern
mid-Pleistocene hominids. Metric comparisons were therefore made and the
results were clear. The morphology of the temporal labyrinth
of Xujiayao 15 and the relative
proportions of their anterior, posterior, and lateral canals are consistent
with Neanderthal traits.
In particular, Neanderthals, have been noted to
have relatively small anterior and large lateral canal radii, which this
specimen exhibits. Secondly, it has a more inferior position of the posterior
canal relative to the lateral canal. This can be clearly seen in Fig. 1 from Wu, et al. (2014):
Original caption reads: Reconstructed
temporal labyrinths of East Asian Pleistocene humans from Lantian 1 (reversed),
Hexian 1, Xujiayao 15, and Liujiang 1 (reversed), in lateral (Upper) and
superior (Lower) views.
The authors, did note however,
that in external morphology the Xujiayao temporal bone had a number of
morphological dissimilarities to those from Neanderthal specimens. They were
also outside the range of variation of Homo erectus [Lantian and Hexian
specimens this study] and modern humans [Liujiang this study].
Having noted these differences,
the discussion section raises some interesting thoughts: “It is therefore unclear whether the Neanderthal labyrinthine
configuration, and by extension that of Xujiayao 15, can be attributed to other
aspects of their biology. Moreover, the overall cranial morphology of the
Xujiayao sample is incompletely known and their postcrania are unknown. These
considerations of the Xujiayao 15 labyrinth also raise questions regarding the
use of individual features (whether morphological or molecular), in the absence
of relatively complete paleontological remains, to identify the presence of
Neandertals in regions outside of their well-documented core area of western
Eurasia (west of ∼45°
E, versus ∼70° E for
Obi- Rakhmat and ∼114°
E for Xujiayao).”
Mandible
Adapted Image of the partial
mandible, adapted from figs. 1 and 2 Wu and Trinkaus (2014):
Original captions read:
Fig. 1. Views of the Xujiayao 14
mandibular ramus. Above left: lateral; above right: superior; below left:
medial; below right: posterior and slightly inferior. The condyle and the
anterosuperior margin of the mandibular foramen (with the lingula) were lost
postmortem. The coronoid tip was reduced antemortem, such that the original tip
should have been higher and slightly more anterior.
Fig. 2. Ramal discrete traits, indicated on the
Xujiayao 14 mandible. A: mandibular notch (asymmetrical); B: mandibular foramen
posterior mar-gin (open); C: superior medial pterygoid tubercle (enlarged); D:
notch crest to condyle (lateral); E: gonion (everted); F-F: minimum ramus
breadth.
From their conclusion: “The early Late Pleistocene mandibular ramus
from Xujiayao, Xujiayao 14, presents a wide ramus combined with several
generalized archaic Homo discrete features of the ramus (asymmetrical
mandibular notch, lateral notch crest on the condyle, open mandibular foramen
and everted gonion). It exhibits features that are known principally among the
western Eurasian Neandertals, an enlarged superior medial pterygoid tubercle in
the context of small inferior ones, plus an inferred retromolar space. As the
only available eastern Eurasian late archaic human mandible, and hence an N =
1, it cannot resolve the affinities among late archaic humans across Eurasia.
However, rather than simply suggesting Neandertal affinities for this eastern
contemporary of them, it raises questions regarding the distribution and
significance of purported regional morphological variants among Pleistocene
archaic humans.”
Looking at this second piece of
evidence, critically, once again, another part of the skull exhibits
Neanderthal features.
Partial Maxilla and dentition
From Xing, et al. (2015) abstract: “It
is generally accepted that from the late Middle to the early Late Pleistocene (∼340–90 ka BP), Neanderthals were
occupying Europe and Western Asia, whereas anatomically modern humans were
present in the African continent. In contrast, the paucity of hominin fossil
evidence from East Asia from this period impedes a complete evolutionary
picture of the genus Homo, as well as assessment of the possible contribution
of or interaction with Asian hominins in the evolution of Homo sapiens and Homo
neanderthalensis. Here we present a comparative study of a hominin dental
sample recovered from the Xujiayao site, in Northern China, attributed to the
early Late Pleistocene (MIS 5 to 4). Our dental study reveals a mosaic of
primitive and derived dental features for the Xujiayao hominins that can be
summarized as follows:
i) they are different from archaic and recent modern humans,
ii) they present some features that are common but not exclusive to the
Neanderthal lineage, and
iii)
they retain some primitive conformations classically found in East Asian Early
and Middle Pleistocene hominins despite their young geological age. Thus, our
study evinces the existence in China of a population of unclear taxonomic
status, with regard to, other contemporary populations such as H. sapiens and
H. neanderthalensis. The morphological and metric studies of the Xujiayao teeth
expand the variability known for early Late Pleistocene hominin fossils and
suggest the possibility that a primitive hominin lineage may have survived late
into the Late Pleistocene in China.”
Xing et al. (2015) Fig 1.
Original caption reads:
The Xujiayao immature left
partial maxilla (PA 1480) with partial left maxillary dentition (I: top view;
II: bottom review; III: tomographic slice obtained from micro-CT scanning)
Once again a further piece of the
collected remains exhibits Neanderthal traits. Although it is tempting for me
to hypothesise, that these remains represent Neanderthals in China, I will
leave the last word to Ao (2017):
“Recent studies of the Xujiayao Homo fossils (Wu et al., 2012, 2014; Wu
and Trinkaus, 2014; Xing et al., 2015) indicate that they are more similar to
Neanderthals than to H. heidelbergensis or H. erectus. For example, the
bi-level nasal floor in the maxilla of Xujiayao individual I (PA1480) and the
presence of a well-developed medial pterygoid tubercle, a retromolar space, and
an asymmetrical mandibular notch in the Xujiayao 14 mandibular ramus are
typical characteristics of Neanderthals (Wu et al., 2012; Wu and Trinkaus,
2014). The morphology of the temporal labyrinth of Xujiayao 15 and the relative
proportions of their anterior, posterior, and lateral canals are consistent
with Neanderthal traits (Wu et al., 2014). Likewise, the Xujiayao teeth have
some Neanderthal features (e.g., high degrees of shovel shape and labial
convexity for anterior dentition and continuous distal trigonid crests in the
molar teeth; Xing et al., 2015). However, several other features that are
common to H. erectus and modern H. sapiens (Jia and Wei, 1976; Jia et al.,
1979; Wu, 1980; Bae, 2010; Wu et al., 2012, 2013, 2014; Wu and Trinkaus, 2014;
Xing et al., 2015) prevented studies from affiliating the Xujiayao hominin to
the classic European Neanderthals.
The authors go on to discuss the
evidence with reference to the Denisovans and comment: “it is possible that the Xujiayao hominins were early Denisovans, just
as the Sima de los Huesos hominins were ancestral to Neanderthals in Europe.
Furthermore, molar teeth of Xujiayao hominins (Xing et al., 2015) have
massively flaring roots and relatively large and complex crowns (Fig. 3b),
which are reminiscent of Denisovans (Sawyer et al., 2015). Our updated age of
370e260 ka for the Xujiayao hominins is also consistent with the time (~430 ka)
when early Denisovans appeared and colonized eastern Eurasia.”
Not, withstanding, the new dates
for the cultural levels of the site from Tu et al. (2015), their postulations
have merit. It is entirely conceivable that the Xujiayao fossil remains
represent Denisovans. Alternatively, and particularly unpalatably, to the
Chinese, these fossils may represent eastern Neanderthals.
Other evidence
1. Taphonomic analysis of the non-hominin
bone assemblage
A great many fossil bones
generated by hominid hunting/scavenging activity. From Li; J.S.; et al. (2018):
“The faunal assemblage recovered from
Xujiayao includes 21 taxa and is dominated by equid remains (including Equus
przewalskii and Equus hemionus; Jia et al., 1979). Taphonomic analyses show
that Xujiayao hominins had primary access to high utility long bones”. In
other words, the horses were mainly hunted not scavenged. This is an unusual
assemblage for China. From Gao (2017): “Only
a few localities (e.g. Xujiayao, Shanxi) provide evidence of intensive hunting
practices; a circumstance very different than what has been documented in
Pleistocene-age archaeological assemblages in Europe, the Americas, and
Australia. These characteristics, of course, reflect the principal underlying
living and subsistence strategies of populations that created them, namely
adjusting behaviour to environmental circumstances, taking strategic advantage
of available resources and seldom exploiting resources to exhaustion.”
2. Lithics
Again, from Gao et al.: “A recent study of 1765 artifacts unearthed
at Xujiayao in 1977 indicates that the assemblage includes cores, flakes,
retouched pieces, chunks and debris. Lithic raw materials were mainly quartzite
and quartz pebbles selected from nearby riverbeds. Simple hard-hammer direct
percussion was used for primary core reduction, and a certain number of
discoidal and polyhedral cores were left behind. About half the of the
retouched pieces are small side scrapers made on flake blanks and spheroids
constitute 27% of the assemblage, a very distinctive characteristic of the
Xujiayao assemblage. Other tool types include points, notches, denticulates,
chopper-chopping tools, burins and drills. Some bone tools have been
identified. Because of the large number of horse and rhinoceros bones and
artifacts recovered, particularly stone spheroids and bone tools, Xujiayao has
been interpreted as a horse kill site.”
From Dani et al. (1994) “The Xujiayao stone spheroids are of particular interest. They may be
divided into three categories according to size. It is thought that they may
have been used as bolas or missile stones.”
Discussion
The morphological features of the
temporal bone, mandible, ramus and dentition all show Neanderthal traits. In
other words, EVERY skeletal element recovered, so far from Xujiayao has
Neanderthal traits.
Add to this the unusual bone
accumulation produced by horse hunting – a rarity in china where these kill
sites are extremely rare as opposed to Neanderthal inhabited Europe where they
are much, more frequent. Add again the
unusual projectile weaponry these hominids, presumably, used to bring down
their prey and one is forced to conclude that whoever these ancestors of ours
were, they are a distinct population, with unusual physical and cultural aspects
to consider.
Were the Xujiayao hominids
Neanderthals or some other hominids? Were they indeed Denisovans, the sister
group to Neanderthals and thus shared some of their skeletal, morphological
traits? Or were they what the what the Chinese like to refer to as archaic Homo
sapiens with some traits gained via hybridisation from Neanderthals? All of
these, are possibilities.
5. Jinsitai Cave, Inner Mongolia, China
Jinsitai Cave is a site in Inner Mongolia, China without
diagnostic Neanderthal fossils or soil DNA traces of their presence. What it
does have are Mousterian tools. Except for a few instances of use by
anatomically modern humans, this technology is almost entirely used by
Neanderthal, hence the inclusion of the site in this review.
Li et al. Fig 1. Original caption
reads: a) Geographical location of Jinsitai (JST) Cave. Neanderthal and
Mousterian sites in Central Asia and Siberia are marked on the map, as well as
early modern human sites in China. 2 = Denisova, 3 = Okladnikov, 4 =
Chagyrskaya, 5 = Obi-Rakhmat, 6 = Teshik-Tash, 7 = Zhiren, 8 = Fuyan, 9 =
Tianyuan. The red stippled line circumscribes the area with known Neanderthals
associating with Mousterian industries. b) View of the entrance to JST Cave.
Initial excavations in 2000 and again in 2001,
by a joint team from the Inner Mongolia Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology,
Jilin University, Xilin Gol League Cultural Relics Station and Cultural Relics
Administration of East Wuzhumuqin Banner, revealed the multiple culture layers
of Bronze Age, Neolithic and Palaeolithic Age. The rich finds included evidence
of cooking fires, stone tools and animal fossils, from Palaeolithic period.
Whilst cultural remains were recovered from 8 layers also included bone tools,
beads and charcoal samples for C14 dating the excavation was not particularly
systematic, with records of the finds limited to stratigraphic level only.
Crucially no grid system was set up.
Excavation at Jinsitai Cave from
Lang (2013).
Lithic assemblage from Jinsitai Cave from Lang (2013).
Eventually, news of the finds
spread more widely within China and the cave was re-excavated in 2012 by more
senior scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate
Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology (IVPP) Beijing, led by Feng Li.
From the Li, et al. (2018) abstract:
“The dispersal of Neanderthals and their genetic and cultural
interactions with anatomically modern humans and other hominin populations in
Eurasia are critical issues in human evolution research. Neither Neanderthal
fossils nor typical Mousterian assemblages have been reported in East Asia to
date.
Here
we report on artifact assemblages comparable to western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic
(Mousterian) at Jinsitai, a cave site in North China. The lithic industry at
Jinsitai appeared at least 47e42 ka and persisted until around 40e37 ka. These
findings expand the geographic range of the Mousterian-like industries at least
2000 km further to the east than what has been previously recognized. This
discovery supplies a missing part of the picture of Middle Paleolithic
distribution in Eurasia and also demonstrates the makers' capacity to adapt to
diverse geographic regions and habitats of Eurasia.”
Lithics collected 2012-2013 from Jinsitai Cave from Li et
al. (2018) figure 4.
Original caption reads:
Photographs of stone artifacts from layers 8 and 7 of
Jinsitai Cave. 1, 3, 4) Levallois points; 2) Levallois flake; 5, 6) Transverse
scrapers; 7) Dejete scraper. 1 and 2 from layer 7, 3-7 from layer 8.
Orientation and direction of the blanks are indicated for retouched tools (5-7).
Dating
A total of 27 charcoal and bone
samples were collected from the lowest cultural levels, namely levels 7 and 8.
These were subjected to C14 testing. Many of the charcoal samples were of much
younger ages than the bone samples. As no indication of the use of fire were
found in either of these levels, the authors concluded that the minute flecks
of charcoal collected were intrusive from levels 5 and 6 as these levels had a
fireplace and a concentration of ash. Additionally, the dates from charcoal
from these areas matched that of the minute flakes from layer 7 and 8. For this
reason, the charcoal dates were discarded.
Dates on bone from level 8 were 44,289
to 42,306 cal. yr BP, whilst those from level 7 were 40,286 to 38,664 cal. yr
BP.
Discussion
Despite it being a slightly heretical statement for Chinese
scientists to express, they make a direct link to Neanderthal occupation near
the end of their paper:
“The discoveries at Jinsitai supply a missing part of the picture of
Middle Paleolithic distribution in Eurasia. The Jinsitai assemblages resemble
the ‘Sibiryachikha’ Mousterian in the Altai Mountains of Siberia, and probably
together represent a regional Mousterian variant in Northeast Asia. The
presence at Jinsitai of assemblages that so closely resemble the late
Mousterian assemblages from several parts of western and central Eurasia expands
the geographic range of this package of lithic technological traits at least
2000 km further to the east.
Theoretically, one may argue that the features of the Jinsitai
assemblages could be the result of
convergent evolution or continuous development from local lithic
industries in North China. However, the existence of the whole suite of
features, with few or no clear antecedents in the local area, weighs against
this hypothesis. The contemporaneous late Middle and early Late Pleistocene
assemblages from China lack the distinctive Mousterian-like features of the
Jinsitai assemblages. A much more reasonable interpretation is that the
Jinsitai industry is a result of population dispersal or technological
diffusion from the Altai Mountains of Siberia, where populations making similar
artifact assemblages existed earlier.
Associating lithic assemblages with hominin taxa is always a
probabilistic and problematic endeavour. Although early AMHs are found with
Mousterian assemblages in North Africa and Levant, Neanderthal remains are
associated with classic Mousterian industries at dozens of sites in Europe, the
Caucasus, and Central Asia. Mousterian industries from sites in the Siberian
Altai are exclusively associated with Neanderthals based on genetic and/or morphological
analyses of the human fossils. This increases the likelihood that the
Mousterian industry at Jinsitai was also produced by Neanderthals or hominins
with Neanderthal ancestry,..”
The DNA evidence
Comparison of Neanderthal and
human DNA really, began with a paper by Green et al. (2010).
A detailed analysis of a draft
Neanderthal genome and five low-coverage (4×) human sequences estimated that
Neanderthals made a 1–4% contribution to the gene pool of modern non-African
population. The presence of
“Neanderthal DNA” in East Asians and Melanesians was initially surprising
because the archaeological record shows that Neanderthals and early modern
humans coexisted only in Europe and western Asia. Green and colleagues
hypothesized that Neanderthals and modern humans came into contact and
interbred in the Middle East ∼50–80 KYA, prior to the divergence
of modern-day European and Asian populations.
There evidence was: First, they
found that the three sampled non-African genome sequences (from a French, a Han
Chinese, and a Papua New Guinean) are more similar to the Neanderthal sequence
than is either of the two sampled African sequences (from a San and a Yoruban).
Second, they identified several
haplotypes that are in low frequency in Europeans, absent from Africans, and
present in the Neanderthal sequence, which suggests those haplotypes were
derived from Neanderthals.
Third, they found many more
genomic fragments in a European genome than in an African genome that have low
divergence to the Neanderthal genome.
The research continued. I have quoted
sections, directly from the papers concerned, to show its progress:
Wall, et al. (2013)
“We also confirm the conclusions of Yang et al. and Sankararaman et al. that
the similarity of both Europeans and East Asians to Neanderthals is the result
of recent admixture and not ancient population subdivision. Finally, we used
the high-coverage Denisova sequence of Meyer et al. to determine that the
admixture rate (f) into East Asians is ∼40%
higher than into Europeans. “Neanderthal haplotypes” were at higher
frequency in the East Asians than in the Europeans (9.6% vs.6.4%).
Our results and those of Meyer et al. imply that the
relatively simple admixture scenario proposed by Green et al.
needs to be altered. At least two separate episodes of admixture between
Neanderthals and modern humans must have occurred, and at least one of those
episodes must have occurred after the separation of the ancestors of modern
Europeans and East Asians. Rather than have two distinct episodes of admixture,
it seems more plausible that admixture took place over a protracted period
50–80 KYA. During that period the ancestors of Europeans diverged and
subsequently experienced less admixture than the ancestors of East Asians.”
Vernot and Akey (2015).
“In summary, by focusing on putatively neutral regions of the genome, we
have shown that the observed patterns of Neandertal ancestry in Europeans and
East Asians are not consistent with a simple one-pulse model of admixture.
Thus, differences in the efficiency of purifying selection among populations
are unlikely to account for higher levels of Neandertal ancestry in East Asians
than in Europeans.”
Kim and Lohmueller (2015)
“In sum, our simulations suggest that across a wide range of
biologically realistic models, a single pulse of Neandertal admixture, combined
with the reduced efficacy of purifying selection against weakly deleterious
alleles in East Asians, cannot explain the R values observed in empirical data.
Instead, more complex demographic scenarios, possibly including an additional
pulse or wave of Neandertal admixture into East Asian populations, must be
invoked. Such two-pulse models have been shown to fit the observed data, better
than the single-pulse-with-migration model, even when only the genomic regions
most likely to be neutrally evolving are considered.25 In our simulations,
across a range of different values for the strength of selection acting on
Neandertal ancestry, a two-pulse model with realistic admixture proportions, 25
could generate the R values observed in the actual data, suggesting that such a
model is the one viable explanation for differential patterns of Neandertal
ancestry between East Asian and European populations.”
The key points to take from these
papers are:
- Neanderthal remains are concentrated in Europe and as far east as central Asia (Russian Altai
- Neanderthals and humans interbred at approximately 50-80Kya, just after the Out of Africa event
- People in East Asia carry 15 to 30% more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans, this must mean the ancestors of East Asians interbred for a second after their split from the ancestors of Europeans, possibly in Central Asia
- It suggests Neanderthals spread far further east than originally thought
- Some authors have postulated that Neanderthals in the East Asia may have outlived those in Europe
Conclusion
We can summarise the evidence
from these 5 sites and the DNA evidence thus:
1. Neanderthal occupation is
definitively known from the Russian Altai, but their earliest occurrence in the
region is ca. 110,000BP.
2. The Salkhit skullcap exhibits
some Neanderthal traits and is dated, approximately mid-Pleistocene. As such it
may represent a proto-Neanderthal or their direct ancestor Homo heidelbergensis.
3. ‘Hetao man’ - the scapula and parietal
from the edge of the Ordos plateau, Inner Mongolia, China, date to about
70,000-125,000BP (maximum range 55-140ka) and 30,000-50,000BP respectively and
both have Neanderthal features.
4. The array of hominid fossils,
from Xujiayao in China, all exhibit Neanderthal features. The temporal bone, in
particular, being, morphologically indistinguishable from classic, European
Neanderthals. Some external features of this specimen, however are not in
accordance with Neanderthal metrics.
This site is also notable for
accumulation of Equus and other mammalian bones found, which indicated a kill
site.
The significant element of the
type of lithics found, namely the spheroids seem to indicate a unique hunting
technique was used. All this evidence taken together strongly indicate that a
community of hominins, possibly Neanderthal or with Neanderthal ancestry lived
in this part of China at ca. 250,000BP.
5. The lithics from Jinsitai Cave
are unequivocally Mousterian. Dated to approximately 43,000BP they are however
too late to support the hypothesis that Neanderthals were in Southern
California 130,000BP.
6. The DNA evidence, however, may
suggest that, Neanderthals spread far further east than originally thought
Taking all the evidence into
account, it seems that if Neanderthals were in the Americas at a date in
accordance with that established by Holen et al. (2017), they must have been
Early or proto-Neanderthals with features inherited from their ancestors, Homo heidelbergensis.
If so, are they really,
Neanderthals? Perhaps we should consider that, although this lineage may have
made it to America prior to 130,000 years ago we should define them
differently? Perhaps Archaic Homo sapiens
or as the rest of the scientific community defines them Homo heidelbergensis were the hominins
that were the first in America?
Whatever the case, it seems
unlikely that Neanderthals in the classic sense whether from Europe or the
Altai were the hominins in Southern California 130,000BP.
References
Ao, H., et al. 2017. An updated
age for the Xujiayao hominin from the Nihewan Basin, North China: Implications
for Middle Pleistocene human evolution in East Asia. Journal of human
evolution, 106, pp.54-65.
Biology Study Guides. 2009. Bones
of the Human Skull. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.alyvea.com/biologystudyguides/bones-human-skull.php.
[Accessed 4 April 2018].
Brown, S., Higham, T., Slon, V.,
Pääbo, S., Meyer, M., Douka, K., Brock, F., Comeskey, D., Procopio, N.,
Shunkov, M. and Derevianko, A., 2016. Identification of a new hominin bone from
Denisova Cave, Siberia using collagen fingerprinting and mitochondrial DNA
analysis. Scientific reports, 6, p.23559.
Coppens, Y., et al., (2008).
Discovery of an archaic Homo sapiens skullcap in Northeast Mongolia,
Comptes Rendus Palevol 7(1),
pp.51-60.
Dani, A.H., Lorenzo, J.L., Nunoo, R.B. and de Laet, S.J. eds.,
1994. History of humanity: prehistory and the beginnings of
civilization. Unesco 1994, p442.
De Chadin, Teilhard and Licent F.
(1924) On the Discovery of a Palæolithic Industry in Northern China Acta Geologica Sinica (English edition) 3.1
(1924): 45-50.
Descouens, D. (2018). Retrieved
from:
https://yusron.loan/go/ear-semicircular-canals.html
[Accessed 0.04.18].
Derevianko A. P. and Lü Zun, E
(1993) Upper Palaeolithic Cultures in
History of Civilizations of Central Asia: Dawn of Civilization - Earliest Times
to 700 B.C v. 1. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural, Chapter 4:
p99-100.
Gao, X., et al. 2010. Revisiting
the origin of modern humans in China and its implications for global human
evolution. Science China Earth Sciences, 53(12), pp.1927-1940.
Gao, X., Guan, Y., Xu, X. and Olsen J.W., (2017). Chapter 18, Paleolithic
Research in China in Handbook of East and Southeast Asian Archaeology. Lape,
P.V. and Olsen, J.W. eds. pp 255 and 270. Springer.
Gilbert, H. 2014. HERC Ordos Fossils. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.fossilized.org/Human_paleontology/_sites_expanded.php?primy_key=2002.
[Accessed 26 June 2017].
Green, R.E., et al. 2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome.
science, 328(5979), pp.710-722.
Hall, S. S., 2008. Last of the
Neanderthals. National Geographic, Vol. 214 Issue 4 Oct, 35-59.
Keates, S. G., Hodgins, G. W. L.,
Kuzmin, Y. V., & Orlova, L. A. (2007). First direct dating of a presumed
Pleistocene hominid from China: AMS radiocarbon age of a femur from the Ordos
Plateau. Journal of human evolution, 53(1)
Kim, B.Y. and Lohmueller, K.E., 2015. Selection and reduced population
size cannot explain higher amounts of Neandertal ancestry in East Asian than in
European human populations. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 96(3),
pp.454-461.
Lang, L. IA CASS. 2013. The New Excavation and
Result of Jinsitai Site of Inner Mongolia 2012. [ONLINE] Available
at: http://www.kaogu.cn/en/News/New_discoveries/2013/1026/43245.html.
[Accessed 6 April 2018].
Lee, S.H., 2015. Homo erectus in
Salkhit, Mongolia?. HOMO-Journal of Comparative Human Biology, 66(4),
pp.287-298
Li, F., et al., 2018. The
easternmost Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) from Jinsitai Cave, North
China. Journal of Human Evolution, 114, pp.76-84.
Li, J.S., et al., 2018. Equid
prey acquisition and Archaic Homo adaptability at the early Late Pleistocene
site of Xujiayao, China. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 28(1),
pp.75-82.
Licent E, Teilhard de Chardin P,
Black D. 1927. On a presumably Pleistocene human tooth from the Sjarra-osso-gol
(South-Eastern Ordos) deposits. Bulletin of the Geological Society of
China V:285–90.
Liu K. and Lai, Z. 2012.
Chronology of Holocene sediments from the archaeological Salawusu site in the
Mu Us Desert in China and its palaeoenvironmental implications. Journal
of Asian Earth Sciences, 45 (2012), 247–255
Potter, J. Wikimedia. 2006. Neanderthal
Cranial Anatomy. [ONLINE] Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ANeanderthal_cranial_anatomy.jpg.
[Accessed 10 March 2018].
Phys.org. 2014. Discovery
of Neanderthal trait in ancient skull raises new questions about human
evolution. [ONLINE] Available at: https://phys.org/news/2014-07-discovery-neandertal-trait-ancient-skull.html.
[Accessed 4 April 2018].
Píšová, H., et al. 2017.
Craniovascular traits in anthropology and evolution: from bones to
vessels. Journal of anthropological sciences = Rivista di antropologia:
JASS.
Prüfer, K., Racimo, F.,
Patterson, N., Jay, F., Sankararaman, S., Sawyer, S., Heinze, A., Renaud, G.,
Sudmant, P.H., De Filippo, C. and Li, H., 2014. The complete genome sequence of
a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains. Nature, 505(7481),
p.43.
Rightmire, G.P., 2017. Middle
Pleistocene Homo Crania from Broken Hill and Petralona: Morphology, Metric
Comparisons, and Evolutionary Relationships. In Human Paleontology and
Prehistory (pp. 145-159). Springer, Cham.
Sci News. 2014. 100,000-Year-Old
Human Skull with Neanderthal-Like Inner Ear Found in China. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-human-skull-neanderthal-inner-ear-china-02047.html.
[Accessed 10 March 2018].
Shang H., Liu W., Wu X. and G.
Dong. 2006 Upper Pleistocene human
scapula from Salawusu, Inner Mongolia, China. Chinese Science Bulletin 2006 Vol. 51 No. 17 2110—2115.
DOI: 10.1007/s11434-006-2063-7
Download available from: http://www.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/fileup/PDF/06ky2110.pdf
Shang H., Wei Q. and X. Wu. 2006. An issue on the date of fossil Human
remains from Salawusu, Inner Mongolia. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 25(1):82-86.
Abstract available at: http://159.226.74.2/wxdata/En/Show.asp?id=7290
Slon, V., Hopfe, C., Weiß, C.L.,
Mafessoni, F., de la Rasilla, M., Lalueza-Fox, C., Rosas, A., Soressi, M.,
Knul, M.V., Miller, R. and Stewart, J.R., 2017. Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA
from Pleistocene sediments. Science, 356(6338),
pp.605-608.
Teyssandier, N., et al. (2014). Sixth Worldwide Conference of the Society for
East Asian Archaeology 6-10 June 2014, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, Paper and
Poster Abstracts. Archaeological Survey and Upper
Paleolithic Assemblages in North-Eastern Mongolia: Introducing the Havstgayt
Valley. Accessed 18.03.2018 at: http://www.seaa-web.org/arc-con-mon-abs.htm
Tu, H., et al., 2015. 26Al/10Be
burial dating of Xujiayao-Houjiayao site in Nihewan Basin, northern
China. PloS one, 10(2).
Vernot, B. and Akey, J.M., 2015. Complex history of admixture between
modern humans and Neandertals. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 96(3),
pp.448-453.
Wall, J.D., et al., 2013. Higher levels of Neanderthal
ancestry in East Asians than in Europeans. Genetics, 194(1), pp.199-209.
Wang, Y. (1961). New materials of
paleolithic cultural remains in Yimeng, Inner Mongolia. Kaogu Xuebao,
(10):552-554 (in Chinese).
Wen, X., Li, B., Zheng, Y.,
Zhang, D. D. and Ye, J. 2009. Climate variability in the Salawusu River valley
of the Ordos Plateau (Inner Mongolia, China) during Marine
Isotope Stage 3. J. Quaternary
Sci., Vol. 24 pp. 61–74. ISSN 0267-8179.
Download available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.1180/epdf
Woo J. Fossil human parietal bone
and femur from Ordos, Inner Mongolia. Vertebrata PalAsiatica. 1958; 2: 208–212.
pmid:13502449N e 50110 4800; E 19490 5400)
Wu, X and F. E. Poirier (1995)
Human Evolution in China, A Metric Description of the Fossils and a Review of
the Sites OUP New York. p170
Download available here: https://archive.org/details/HumanEvolutionInChina
Wu, X. (1998). "Origin of modern humans of China viewed from
cranio-dental characteristics of late Homo sapiens". Acta Anthropologica
Sinica. 17: 276–282.
Wu, X.J. and Trinkaus, E., 2014.
The Xujiayao 14 mandibular ramus and Pleistocene Homo mandibular
variation. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 13(4), pp.333-341.
Wu, X.J., et al. 2014. Temporal labyrinths of eastern
Eurasian Pleistocene humans.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(29),
pp.10509-10513.
Xing, S., et al. (2015). Hominin
teeth from the early Late Pleistocene site of Xujiayao, Northern China. American
journal of physical anthropology 156.2: 224-240.
Zhou, W. J., Dodson, J., Head, M.
J., Li, B. S., Hou, Y. J., Lu, X. F., et al. (2002). Environmental variability
within the Chinese desert-loess transition zone over the last 20000 years. The
Holocene, 12(1), 107
No comments:
Post a Comment