Is the suprainiac fossa a Neandertal autapomorphy? A complementary external and internal investigation

Balzeau, Antoine; Rougier, Hélène

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.05.016

Cited by 40 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Rosas et al, 2006), as well as in subadults Krapina cranium E and Le Moustier 1 (Smith and Ranyard, 1980). The suprainiac fossa of young Neandertals such as Dederiyeh 1 and 2, Roc de Marsal and La Chaise Suard 51, young children and juveniles including Engis 2, La Quina 18, and Cova Negra 42170-7312, and subadult Le Moustier 1, has been reported to correspond to those adults (Hublin, 1980;Tillier, 1983Tillier, , 1996Madre-Dupouy, 1991, 1992Akazawa et al, 1995;Arsuaga et al, 2007;Balzeau and Rougier, 2010). A posteriorly positioned mental foramen position typical of adults characterized immature Neandertals (Coqueugniot and MinughPurvis, 2003).…”

Section: Craniofacial Growth and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postnatal craniofacial ontogeny in neandertals and modern humans

Williams

Cofran

2016

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth during adolescence appears to be fundamental in the expression of some Neandertal anatomies. Neandertal upper facial and nasal breadths appear to have expanded rapidly after puberty to account for differences between preadolescents and adults, and Neandertals and humans. Mandibular growth differences may relate to anterior tooth use to process foods and paramastication during Neandertal maturation.

show abstract

Section: Craniofacial Growth and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postnatal craniofacial ontogeny in neandertals and modern humans

Williams

Cofran

2016

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although apparently similar areas of bone depression and resorption have been described in specimens that are attributed to modern humans (Frayer et al 2006;Sofícaru et al 2007;Trinkaus 2002) as well as even earlier taxa (Trinkaus 2004), this does not appear to be a homologous structure to the suprainiac fossa in Neandertals (Balzeau and Rougier 2010). The early ontogenetic appearance of this feature in Neandertals (Hublin 1980;Madre-Dupouy 1992), as well as its antiquity in the Neandertal evolutionary lineage (Arsuaga erally believed to be primitive for the genus Homo, a few derived Neandertal features, and some features that are more commonly found among H. sapiens.…”

Section: Possible Associationsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Untitled

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The site of Petit-Puymoyen has yielded several Neandertal fossils as well as Mousterian stone tools. The anatomy of the PPm1 mandible has been the subject of comment in the past because it has been described as showing a combination of primitive and derived features. Examination of the original fossil confirms the presence of some individual chin elements on the external aspect of the symphysis and superior and inferior transverse tori on the internal aspect. However, this specimen can be comfortably accommodated within the known Neandertal range of variation. Both the PPm1 and PPm3 mandibles show a more modest degree of midfacial prognathism than most Neandertals. In addition, the PPm3 individual possesses a P 3 which shows multiple roots. While a division of the pulp chamber can occasionally be found in Neandertal specimens, complete separation of the roots, as in PPm3, has not been reported in any other Neandertal individual, and represents a primitive feature only rarely found in specimens attributed to the genus Homo. A previously unpublished fragment of human occipital bone also was recognized within the sample of human fossils from the site. The presence of unfused sutures and the low thickness values for the bone suggest it represents a late adolescent or young adult individual. The presence of a suprainiac fossa suggests Neandertal affinities for this specimen. INTRODUCTIONT he site of Petit-Puymoyen is located in the region of Charente in southwest France and is well known for its Mousterian deposits (Duport and Vandermeersch 1962;Vandermeersch 1965) and Neandertal remains (Gabis 1956;Piveteau 1957;Siffre 1908). The most complete published inventory of the human remains from the site of Petit-Puymoyen (Vandermeersch 1976) lists six individuals (Table 1). Two fragmentary mandibles and a number of teeth (PPm1-4) were discovered during archaeological excavations carried out at the site in 1907 by A. Favraud (1908). Additional human remains were subsequently discovered by O. Boeuf (1969) during revision of the faunal collection. These include an infant temporal bone (PPm5), recently described by Elyaqtine (1997), as well as a right capitate and left hamate (PPm6) (Oakley et al. 1971). In addition, a left cuboid and left medial cuneiform and two incisors, a right I 2 and unsided I 1 , have been reported but never described (Boeuf 1969;Oakley et al. 1971). During more recent excavations of Petit-Puymoyen, two different areas were established within the site (Duport and Vandermeersch 1962;Vandermeersch 1965). The first of these is a rock shelter, designated the Abri Commont, which is located in front of the present day cave mouth and whose sediments were covered by large limestone blocks corresponding to the periodic collapse of the cave roof. The second area is represented by the present day cave and corresponds to a narrow 13m long passage. PPm1-4 were recovered from a brecciated level in the rock shelter portion of the site. In contrast, the temporal bone (PPm5) and incisors come from the interior...

show abstract

“…For example, multiregionalists propose a single, diverse species from 41 Ma onwards, with significant gene flow between regions preventing speciation (e.g., Wolpoff et al, 1994). The species is diagnosed cranially by a long, low cranium, distinctive occipital morphology (Stringer, 1985;Vandersmeersch, 1985;Balzeau and Rougier, 2010), mid-facial prognathism with large nose and swept-back cheek bones (Stringer, 1985), and large, double-arched browridges (Stringer, 1985;Tattersall and Schwartz, 2006). Recent genetic analyses (see above) have shown that living humans retain small contributions from extinct species, thus the currently most plausible explanation of H. sapiens origins is one of African beginnings and 'leaky replacement' of regional, preexisting non-sapiens populations .…”

Section: Homo Sapiensmentioning

confidence: 99%