The origin of Neandertals

Morphological description and comparison of the dental remains from Atapuerca-Sima de los Huesos site (Spain)

“…Alternatively, the highly derived and Neanderthal character of the Sima de los Huesos dentitions, if we accept the early Middle Pleistocene date attributed to the site, might suggest that SH has played a major role as a core or source population for the Nean derthal gene pool, particularly in the frame of an evolutionary scenario with common bottlenecks, as has been suggested for this lineage (see Hublin, 1996Hublin, , 2009Hublin and Roebroeks, 2009). In this scenario, Neanderthals would be a terminal species belonging to a wider European hominin radiation (Schwartz and Ta ttersall, 2005), and SH (but not other Middle Pleistocene European pop ulations) would be at the root of the classic Neanderthal group.…”

“…In particular, their dental morphology has been widely analyzed (e.g., Boule, 1923;Keith, 1924Keith, , 1925Krogman, 1927;Weidenreich, 1937;Boule and Vallois, 1957;Patte, 1959), and, beyond the high fr equencies of taurodontism (e.g., Keith, 1924;Hillson, 1986;Klein, 1999) or pronounced shovel shape (e.g., Mizoguchi, 1985;Crummett, 1995;Bailey, 2002a), other dental traits have been identified as "unique" to this species (e.g., Zubov, 1992a,b;Bailey, 2002a,b;Martinon-Torres et al, 2007a,b;Gomez-Robles et al, 2007, 2011Bailey et al, 2011 ). However, a true assessment of Neanderthal "uniqueness" and its evolutionary significance requires comparison to European Middle Pleistocene populations, considered by many researchers as the direct ancestors of the classic Neanderthals (e.g., Hublin, 1982Hublin, , 1984Hublin, , 1996Hublin, , 2009Stringer, 1985Stringer, , 1993Arsuaga et al, 1993Arsuaga et al, , 1997c. In this context, the Sima de los Huesos dental sample has enriched the European Pleistocene fo ssil record in an extraordinary manner, representing more than the 90% of the Middle Pleistocene world wide human fossil record and becoming a crucial sample for understanding a possible neanderthalization process.…”

“…However, it is also important to remember that not all the skeletal parts show the same degree ofneanderthalization ofthe dentition, and these differences were the reason behind excluding the SH fo ssils from H. neanderthalensis (Arsuaga et al, 1991(Arsuaga et al, , 1993(Arsuaga et al, , 1997c. In contrast, the unclear boundary between the pre Neanderthal and Neanderthal populations has led some researchers to suggest that all the Middle and Upper Pleistocene populations showing Neanderthal traits should be included in the H. neanderthalensis lineage (Hublin, 2009). …”

“…Thus, H. heidelbergensis could be defined by a combination of primitive traits (plesiomor phies) not fo und in later Neanderthals, incipient Neanderthal-like traits (mesomorphies), and typical Neanderthal traits (apomor phies) (Arsuaga et al, 1997c). It has also been suggested that many of the so-called typical Neanderthal traits are not Neanderthal autapomorphies but primitive fe atures that, because of their high frequencies and degrees of expression, and their distinctive combination, become typical of H. neanderthalensis species (e.g., Patte, 1962;Franciscus and Trinkaus, 1995;Bailey, 2002a;Martinon-Torres et al, 2006;Bailey et al, 2009;Hublin, 2009). Thus, the origin of the Neanderthal lineage would imply increasing frequencies of Neanderthal traits throughout time, favored by isolation due to glacial conditions (Arsuaga et al, 1993;Hublin, 1996Hublin, , 1998Dean et al, 1998).…”

Reassessment of the La Ferrassie 3 Neandertal ossicular chain

“…This suggestion is further supported by the analysis of the auditory capacities in the Middle Pleistocene Atapuerca (SH) hominins, since a close phylogenetic relationship is widely recognized between these two groups of hominins (Arsuaga et al .. 1997;Hublin. 2009).…”