2021
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.24252
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Axlor's level IV human remains are convincingly Neanderthals: A reply to Gómez‐Olivencia et al.

Abstract: Gómez-Olivencia et al., (2020) recently published a description and interpretation of human remains (teeth and a parietal fragment) found in 1967-1974 at the site of Axlor in northern Iberia. Some of these teeth were previously described and referred to Neanderthals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In their reply, González-Urquijo et al (2021) do not present any new information that contradicts the description made by de Barandiarán or by González-Urquijo's own team in previous reports and publications (Barandiarán, 1980;González Urquijo et al, 2006;Rios Garaizar et al, 2003). Moreover, some of the interpretations and data presented by González-Urquijo et al (2021) As stated in our original publication, the body of evidence points to a modern human classification for these teeth, with very high probabilities in one of the most informative teeth, the M 1 . Though speciesspecific morphologies exist, dental size and shape are variable in both species and unable to unquestionably discriminate between them, particularly for specimens that do not show the most extreme species-specific traits.…”
Section: Regardingmentioning
confidence: 53%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In their reply, González-Urquijo et al (2021) do not present any new information that contradicts the description made by de Barandiarán or by González-Urquijo's own team in previous reports and publications (Barandiarán, 1980;González Urquijo et al, 2006;Rios Garaizar et al, 2003). Moreover, some of the interpretations and data presented by González-Urquijo et al (2021) As stated in our original publication, the body of evidence points to a modern human classification for these teeth, with very high probabilities in one of the most informative teeth, the M 1 . Though speciesspecific morphologies exist, dental size and shape are variable in both species and unable to unquestionably discriminate between them, particularly for specimens that do not show the most extreme species-specific traits.…”
Section: Regardingmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Additionally, González-Urquijo et al (2021) estimate that between 30% and 37% (between 9 and 11) of the outline semilandmarks are missing in Axlor's M 1 (see their Figure 1, where they provide a new outline for Axlor's M 1 ). This outline assumes that landmarks 22-28 are affected by wear, and thus the suggested outline enlarges both the metacone and, especially, the hypocone.…”
Section: Regardingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These recent analyses identified two teeth stemming from Layers IV and V as belonging to Neanderthals and also confirmed the taxonomic and stratigraphic identification of a Neanderthal cranial fragment from Layer VIII identified during the Barandiarán excavations (Gómez-Olivencia et al, 2020). Other hominin remains, described initially by Basabe (1973), have recently come under debate, with some researchers suggesting a Homo sapiens taxonomic identification and an origin from the upper layers of the stratigraphy that may have been redeposited due to earlier disturbances of the site during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Gómez-Olivencia et al, 2020, 2023), while others support the original assignment to Neanderthals and argue against any influence of disturbance (González-Urquijo et al, 2021). A recent reply to the latter marks the end of this debate (Gómez-Olivencia et al, 2023), which will likely only be definitively solved using biomolecular evidence and direct dating.…”
Section: The Site Of Axlormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Chronology Layers III to VIII of Axlor have previously been suggested to have formed during early MIS 3 and earlier, but the Beta dates generated from the site were produced without ultrafiltration removal of possible contaminants-the standard method currently applied in Middle Palaeolithic sites with a chronology close to the limit of the radiocarbon-and lack provenance information within the site (Ríos-Garaizar, 2017;Gómez-Olivencia et al, 2018;Marín-Arroyo et al, 2018;González-Urquijo et al, 2021;Sánchez Hernández, 2021; Table 1). An additional two infinite radiocarbon ages from Layer IV, produced by Marín-Arroyo et al (2018), already indicated that the sequence may be older than previously suggested.…”
Section: Reconstructing the Environmental And Ecological Setting Of T...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The initial numerical ages obtained for Axlor during the recent excavations were based on 14 C dating of bone (outlined in the Supporting Information; Table ). These results suggested that the upper part of the Middle Palaeolithic sequence (levels F–B) ranged between ~42 and >47.5 (uncalibrated) 14 C ka bp , with several samples yielding infinite and stratigraphically inverted calibrated age ranges indicative of potential contamination issues (González‐Urquijo, et al, 2005; González‐Urquijo et al, 2021). As it appeared that the archaeological sequence extended beyond the upper age limit of 14 C dating (~50 ka), the technique was not applied to the underlying levels (S–M).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%