A reappraisal of the Border Cave 1 cranium (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa)

Recruiting a skeleton crew—Methods for simulating and augmenting paleoanthropological data using Monte Carlo based algorithms

“…Fossil sample size is also very much affected by the difficulty in finding either homologous specimens, or specimens that preserve conspicuous portions for morphological, or any other type, of quantitative analysis that might require the integrity of specific bone areas. Two procedures are available in these cases; researchers might opt for restricting the area of study and sample size to incorporate only original data in their analysis (Almécija et al, 2013, 2019; Beaudet et al, 2018; Daver et al, 2018; Lague, 2015; Lague et al, 2019a; Lague et al, 2019b; Ruff et al, 1999; Tallman, 2012, 2014; Tallman et al, 2013; Trinkaus et al, 1998), or they can reconstruct the missing or deformed bone portions through (TPS) estimations and/or mirroring and merging tools in case of symmetric structures (Beaudet, d'Errico, et al, 2022; Beaudet, Dumoncel, et al, 2022; Claxton et al, 2016; Davis et al, 2021; Freidline et al, 2012; Gunz et al, 2009; Gunz et al, 2020; Gunz & Harvati, 2007; Mori et al, 2020), before data collection for statistical analysis and comparison.…”

“…While this is an inevitable phenomenon, especially for sites of older geological age, sample size conditions the quality of the analyses and results that can be extracted from fossil data. This is increasingly relevant in contemporary research, where data science and advanced statistics are at the forefront of virtual paleoanthropological analyses (e.g., Almécija et al, 2019; Beaudet, d'Errico, et al, 2022; Beaudet, Dumoncel, et al, 2022; Marcé‐Nogué et al, 2020; Zanolli et al, 2022).…”

“…(e.g., Almécija et al, 2019;Beaudet, d'Errico, et al, 2022;Beaudet, Dumoncel, et al, 2022;Marcé-Nogué et al, 2020;Zanolli et al, 2022).…”

Border Cave: A 227,000-year-old archive from the southern African interior

“…The cranial morphology of BC1, which was attributed to the MSA, albeit that it was found out of context (Cooke et al, 1945;Beaumont et al, 1978;Beaumont, 1980), is characterised by a broad frontal, glabellar protrusion, and prominent superciliary eminences (Beaudet et al, 2022). It has been interpreted as similar in morphology to extant Homo sapiens (de Villiers, 1973;Rightmire, 1979;Houghton and Thackeray, 2011) and different from them (Campbell, 1984;Ambergen and Schaafsma, 1984;Van Vark et al, 1989;Corruccini, 1991).…”

Evolution of Homo in the Middle and Late Pleistocene

“…While the Neanderthal lineage has been characterized by an extensive list of derived features, or combinations of features, on which their diagnosis can be based (see review in Harvati, 2015 ), early (e.g., Day and Stringer, 1982 , 1991 ) and more recent (e.g., Tattersall and Schwartz, 2008 ) attempts of developing diagnostic criteria for H. sapiens in the fossil record were shown to be too restrictive when compared to geographic or temporal variation of recent humans (see discussions in Pearson, 2008 ; Stringer, 2016 ). Nevertheless, a commonly cited set of H. sapiens traits based on the morphology of all living people includes increased skeletal gracility, an orthognathic face with reduced brow ridge and dentition, the presence of a bony chin throughout ontogeny, a large and globular neurocranium with elevated basicranial flexion, as well as aspects of dental microstructure, pelvic shape and, possibly, inner ear morphology (e.g., Stringer and Andrews, 1988 ; Stringer and Buck, 2014 ; Stringer, 2016 ; Beaudet et al., 2022 ). As with the Neanderthal lineage, these typical traits do not all occur at the same time in the fossil record, making the attribution of specific fossils to our own lineage increasingly difficult with increasing time depth ( Stringer, 2016 ; Bergström et al., 2021 ).…”