17 Pages
English

Near Eastern Late Archaic Humans - article ; n°2 ; vol.21, pg 9-24

-

Gain access to the library to view online
Learn more

Description

Paléorient - Année 1995 - Volume 21 - Numéro 2 - Pages 9-24
Near Eastern late archaic humans represent a regional lineage of Late Pleistocene hominids, whose phylogenetic relationship to Near Eastern early modern humans is probably distant. Most of their postcranial features, plus some dental and facial ones, appear to be characteristic of non-habiline archaic Homo in general and are variably shared with Near Eastern early modern humans. They also show marked encephalization and associated pelvic and spinal canal changes, a decrease in facial robusticity, ecogeographical patterning in body shape, and regional features with affinities to the European Neandertals. Among the last is their maintenance of an enlarged nasal region and long face combined with the Late Pleistocene facial gracilization evident through time in the Near Eastern late archaic human sample. These hominids contrast with Near Eastern early modern humans in a mosaic pattern, depending upon the biological complex considered.
Les hommes archaïques tardifs du Proche-Orient constituent une lignée d'Hominidés du Pléistocène supérieur probablement sans relation phylogénétique étroite avec les hommes modernes anciens de la même région. La plupart de leurs caractères post-crâniens et certains de leurs caractères faciaux et dentaires semblent caractériser l'ensemble des représentants archaïques du genre Homo post-habilis et sont partagés de façon variable par les hommes modernes du Proche-Orient. Ces hommes montrent par ailleurs une encéphalisation marquée avec des modifications associées du canal spinal et de la région pelvienne, une réduction de la robustesse faciale, un modelage éco-géographique de la forme corporelle et des caractères régionaux qui les rapprochent des Néanderthaliens européens. Parmi ce dernier ensemble de caractères, on trouve la persistance d'une cavité nasale et d'une face allongée, à laquelle s'applique le phénomène de gracilisation faciale du Pléistocène supérieur, évident au cours du développement chronologique de la série des hommes archaïques tardifs du Proche-Orient. Ces Hominidés se distinguent des Hommes modernes anciens du Proche-Orient de façon variable, suivant les complexes biologiques considérés.
16 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

Published by
Published 01 January 1995
Reads 34
Language English
Document size 1 MB

Erik Trinkaus
Near Eastern Late Archaic Humans
In: Paléorient. 1995, Vol. 21 N°2. pp. 9-24.
Résumé
Les hommes archaïques tardifs du Proche-Orient constituent une lignée d'Hominidés du Pléistocène supérieur probablement
sans relation phylogénétique étroite avec les hommes modernes anciens de la même région. La plupart de leurs caractères post-
crâniens et certains de leurs caractères faciaux et dentaires semblent caractériser l'ensemble des représentants archaïques du
genre Homo post-habilis et sont partagés de façon variable par les hommes modernes du Proche-Orient. Ces hommes montrent
par ailleurs une encéphalisation marquée avec des modifications associées du canal spinal et de la région pelvienne, une
réduction de la robustesse faciale, un modelage éco-géographique de la forme corporelle et des caractères régionaux qui les
rapprochent des Néanderthaliens européens. Parmi ce dernier ensemble de caractères, on trouve la persistance d'une cavité
nasale et d'une face allongée, à laquelle s'applique le phénomène de gracilisation faciale du Pléistocène supérieur, évident au
cours du développement chronologique de la série des hommes archaïques tardifs du Proche-Orient. Ces Hominidés se
distinguent des Hommes modernes anciens du Proche-Orient de façon variable, suivant les complexes biologiques considérés.
Abstract
Near Eastern late archaic humans represent a regional lineage of Late Pleistocene hominids, whose phylogenetic relationship to
Near early modern humans is probably distant. Most of their postcranial features, plus some dental and facial ones,
appear to be characteristic of non-habiline archaic Homo in general and are variably shared with Near Eastern early modern
humans. They also show marked encephalization and associated pelvic and spinal canal changes, a decrease in facial
robusticity, ecogeographical patterning in body shape, and regional features with affinities to the European Neandertals. Among
the last is their maintenance of an enlarged nasal region and long face combined with the Late Pleistocene facial gracilization
evident through time in the Near Eastern late archaic human sample. These hominids contrast with Near Eastern early modern
humans in a mosaic pattern, depending upon the biological complex considered.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Trinkaus Erik. Near Eastern Late Archaic Humans. In: Paléorient. 1995, Vol. 21 N°2. pp. 9-24.
doi : 10.3406/paleo.1995.4614
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1995_num_21_2_4614;
eastern late archaic humans Near
E. TRINKAUS
Abstract : Near Eastern late archaic humans represent a regional lineage of Late Pleistocene hominids, whose phylogenetic
relationship to Near Eastern early modern humans is probably distant. Most of their postcranial features, plus some dental and
facial ones, appear to be characteristic of non-habiline archaic Homo in general and are variably shared with Near Eastern early
modern humans. They also show marked encephalization and associated pelvic and spinal canal changes, a decrease in facial
robusticity, ecogeographical patterning in body shape, and regional features with affinities to the European Neandertals. Among
the last is their maintenance of an enlarged nasal region and long face combined with the Late Pleistocene facial gracilization
evident through time in the Near Eastern late archaic human sample. These hominids contrast with Near Eastern early modern
humans in a mosaic pattern, depending upon the biological complex considered.
Résumé : Les hommes archaïques tardifs du Proche-Orient constituent une lignée d'Hominidés du Pleistocene supérieur proba
blement sans relation phylogénétique étroite avec les hommes modernes anciens de la même région. La plupart de leurs caractères
post-crâniens et certains de leurs caractères faciaux et dentaires semblent caractériser l'ensemble des représentants archaïques du
genre Homo post-habilis et sont partagés de façon variable par les hommes modernes du Proche-Orient. Ces hommes montrent
par ailleurs une encéphalisation marquée avec des modifications associées du canal spinal et de la région pelvienne, une réduction
de la robustesse faciale, un modelage éco-géographique de la forme corporelle et des caractères régionaux qui les rapprochent des
N éanderthaliens européens. Parmi ce dernier ensemble de caractères, on trouve la persistance d'une cavité nasale et d'une face
allongée, à laquelle s'applique le phénomène de g racilisation faciale du Pleistocene supérieur, évident au cours du développement
chronologique de la série des hommes archaïques tardifs du Proche-Orient. Ces Hominidés se distinguent des Hommes modernes
anciens du Proche-Orient de façon variable, suivant les complexes biologiques considérés.
Key-words : Human paleontology, Late Pleistocene, Archaic Homo.
Mots clefs : Paléontologie humaine, Pleistocene supérieur, Homo archaïque.
The majority of these remains had been considered to be INTRODUCTION
closely related to the Neandertal lineage of central and west
ern Europe, due in part to the availability of comparable In the past decade, there has been a concerted effort to shed
material for most of the current century and in part to similight on the hominids that were associated with the emergence
larities in craniofacial structure between some of the Near of early modern humans across the Old World, with the Near
Eastern Middle Paleolithic hominids and the western EuroEast being one of the regions of primary focus. The interest
pean Neandertals. However, the two largest available samples, in the Near East is a product of its position as a geographical
those from Qafzeh and Skhul, are now recognized to be crossroads of the Old World, combined with the relative
craniofacial] y robust early modern humans, morphologically richness of the human fossil remains from its Middle Paleol
distinct from the Neandertals and other late archaic human ithic deposits. These fossil derive primarily from the
groups'. Consequently, considerations of the Near Eastern southern Levant (Israel), with additional material from the
Middle Paleolithic hominids consist primarily of deciphering more northern Levant (Lebanon and Syria) plus one large
the biological similarities and differences between these two sample and an isolated element from the northern Zagros
(Iraq and Iran). Given the abundance of associated partial
skeletons in this sample, these Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic
humans are one of the paleontologically best known samples 1. Howell, 1958; Stewart, 1960; Vandermeersch. 1981 Trinkaus, 1983,
1984a, 1993a; Rak, 1990; Holliday and Trinkaus, 1991. relevant to the nature and fate of regional late archaic humans.
Palécraent. vol. 21/2. p. 9-23. © CNRS Éditions. 1995 Manuscrit reçu le Ier août et accepté le 9 novembre 1995. ;
:
.
10 E. Trinkaus
hominid groups, one late archaic and the other early modern, The relative geochronology of these fossil human remains
as well as their temporal and phylogenetic relationships. In has changed considerably in recent years12 and continues to
light of this, I review here our current knowledge of one of be revised as additional chronological determinations are
these Near Eastern hominid samples, the late archaic one2. made. As a result, it is possible to assign the fossil human
remains from at least the seven primary paleontological sites
to Late Pleistocene time periods, with varying degrees of
THE SAMPLES confidence. Any such assignments are likely to be provisional,
especially given the degree to which the relative geochrono
Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic hominid remains currently logy of these samples have evolved in the past decade.
derive from 12 sites. Of these, three Israeli sites (Amud, However, it appears unlikely that further revisions will enti
Kebara and Tabun) and one Iraqi site (Shanidar) have yielded rely negate those interpretations presented here which are
late archaic human fossils, both isolated remains and asso dependent upon such a chronology.
ciated partial skeletons3. Abundant early modern human r Consequently, the late archaic human sample can be diviemains derive from two Israeli sites, Qafzeh and Skhul4. In ded into two chronological samples, a last interglacial sample addition, one Syrian site (Dederiyeh) has recently yielded an (which may well include specimens dated between the teimmature late archaic partial skeleton as well as isolated rminal Middle Pleistocene to the initial early last glacial) and elements5, and Shovakh (Shubbabiq) in Israel6 yielded r an early last glacial one. The former includes remains from emains which have been attributed to the late archaic human Tabun Layer С and the earlier horizon of Shanidar Layer D sample. Incomplete remains from four sites, Bisitun (Iran)7, (Shanidar 2, 4 and 6 to 9). The latter includes the Amud, Hayonim (Israel)8, Shukbah (Israel)9 and Ksar 'Akil (Leba Dederiyeh, Kebara, upper Layer D Shanidar (Shanidar 1, 3 non)10, are difficult to assign to one of these two samples. and 5) and Tabun Layer В human remains. These assignments
As a result of this, current analysis of the Near Eastern late are based primarily on ESR and TL determinations for the archaic human remains is primarily limited to the Middle Levantine sites and a long chronology for the Shanidar Layer Paleolithic material from Amud, Dederiyeh, Kebara, Shanidar D Middle Paleolithic stratigraphy. The Qafzeh and Skhul and Tabun, with most comparisons being made to the early samples appear to derive from the last interglacial, although modern human remains from Qafzeh and Skhul ] 1 it has been suggested13 that some of the Skhul sample might
date to the early last glacial.
2. These comments represent a state-of-the-art summary of a long-term and
currently ongoing research program into the paleobiology of Near Eastern
and 231, and especially La Quina 9 [Martin, 1926; Sergi and Ascenzi, Middle Paleolithic hominids. Consequently, details are likely to be modified
1956; Heim, 1976; Wolpoff et ai, 19811). The mandibular incisure crest as our paleontological knowledge increases and the geochronological and position relative to the condylar process is diagnostic only if the crest position archeological contexts of the human remains are refined.
is considered relative to the entire process, since all of the Near Eastern late 3. McCown and Keith, 1939; Suzuki and Takai, 1970; Trinkaus, 1983; archaic humans except Shanidar 2 (83.3 %, N = 6) have or appear to have Bar-Yosef and Vandermeersch, 1991 ; Rak et ai, 1994.
(given damage) a crest in the middle third of the process, as do 83.3 % (N 4. McCown and Keith, 1939; Vandermeersch, 1981.
= 9) European Neandertals but only 38.9 % (N = 9) of European Middle 5. Akazawa et al., 1993, 1995. Pleistocene humans and none of the Qafzeh-Skhul humans (N = 3). However, 6. Trinkaus, 1987a.
if the crest position is considered relative to the articular head only, thereby 7. Coon, 1951; n.b. the Bisitun incisor is bovid, and the Tamtama femur removing from consideration variation in the development of the lateral is cervid.
tubercle for the fibrous capsule, only Kebara 2 and Shanidar 1 of the Near 8. Arensburg et ai, 1990. Eastern late archaic humans (40.0 %, N = 5) exhibit a middle condylar 9. Keith, 1931.
position of the crest, a pattern seen in only 35.0% (N = 10) of European 10. Ewrwc, 1963.
Neandertals, 38.9 % (N = 9) of European Middle Pleistocene humans, and 11. The Tabun C2 mandible has been variously considered as a late archaic none of the Qafzeh-Skhu) specimens (N = 3). A symmetrical mandibular or an early modern human. Traits that appear to align it with early modern
incisure shape appears to be plesiomorphic for Late Pleistocene humans (Rak, humans include its possession of a prominent mental trigone, a symmetrical
1995), and in recent humans it is apparently a secondary consequence of mandibular incisure and a mandibular incisure crest located laterally relative
relative coronoid to condylar process height. Consequently, it is best to view to the condylar process (Rak, 1995 Smith, 1995; see also Rak and Kimbel, the Tabun C2 mandible as a late archaic human but one not necessarily 1995). However, it also possesses several "Neandertal" features, including a aligned with the European Neandertals, an interpretation that is also approposteriorly located mental foramen, a horizontal -oval mandibular foramen, a priate for Shanidar 2 and 4 and Tabun Cl (Trinkaus, 1991; see text). Tabun prominent retromolar space, a narrow ramus relative to mandibular length, C2 is therefore included here in the "last interglacial" late archaic human large anterior teeth relative to its postcanine dentition, and an accelerated
sample. rate of dental attrition (Smith, 1978; Trinkaus, 1987b, 1993b, 1993c;
12. Valladas et al., 1987, 1988; Schwarcz et al., 1988; Stringer et al, Bytnar et al., 1994). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the above symphyseal
1989; Grún et ai, 1991; Trinkaus, 1991 ; Mercier, 1992; McDermott et and ramal features are adequately diagnostic of the Neandertals versus early ai, 1993; Mercier et al., 1995. modern humans. A prominent mental trigone is known, if rare, among
13. McDermott et al., 1993. European late archaic humans (e.g., La Ferrassie 1, Guattari 3, Vindija 206
Paieraient, vol. 21/2. p. 9-23 © CNRS Éditions 1995 eastern late archaic humans II Near
In these chronological assignments, it is fully recognized Middle Paleolithic early modern humans from the sites of
that the framework provided here is tentative in some respects. Qafzeh and Skhul, and 3) Middle and Early Pleistocene
For example, Shanidar Layer D has yielded radiometric dates non-habiline members of the genus Homo.
which only provide a minimum age for the top of the Middle The first two groups are well-defined and easily delimited,
Paleolithic deposits and do not date the significantly older temporally, geographically and morphologically. The third
levels in the middle of Layer D, and every technique which group is more diffuse in all three aspects and far less complete
has been applied to the Tabun Middle Paleolithic levels paleontologically ; it nonetheless provides, depending upon
(Layers В, С and D) provides strongly contrasting results. preservation of anatomical regions, an ancestral baseline
Nonetheless, currently available data suggests that major re against which to compare the Late Pleistocene samples. Yet,
visions in the relative chronological positions of these late even by geographically and temporally expanding this "an
archaic humans are unlikely. cestral" sample, a number of relevant aspects of morphology
Middle Pleistocene human remains from the Near East are remain unknown or poorly known for these earlier members
of the genus Homo; 29.0 % of the 62 traits listed are unknown scarce, consisting of three femoral diaphyses (from Gesher
for these "ancestral" hominids, and 12.9 % of them can only Benot Ya'acov and Tabun Layer E), a molar (Tabun Layer
be approximated (Tables 1 to 9). E) and an upper facial piece (Zuttiyeh) 14. All are clearly
archaic with affinities primarily to Middle Pleistocene human Within the late archaic human sample, there appears to
remains from elsewhere in the Old World, even though the have been stasis in most aspects of dental and postcranial
Zuttiyeh specimen has engendered considerable speculation anatomy and paleobiology 16; these aspects of morphology
as to its possible more specific relationships15. As a result, are therefore assessed by comparing the pooled Near Eastern
assessments of the probable ancestral form of Near Eastern late archaic sample to other samples. However, there are clear
late archaic humans must draw more generally upon Middle trends in craniofacial form between the last interglacial and
and Early Pleistocene non-habiline members of the genus early last glacial samples 17, making it appropriate to separate
Homo. In this, it is recognized that regional patterns of at them for the craniofacial comparisons. least cranio-facial morphology were present across these scat
The skeletal and dental traits listed include primarily those tered hominid groups, and that significant trends in at least
which have been shown to exhibit significant evolution during encephalization and some aspects of postcranial morphology
the Pleistocene genus Homo and either provide contrast betook place through the Early and Middle Pleistocene genus
tween at least two of the Late Pleistocene samples and/or Homo. This should not, however, affect the degree to which
contrast them collectively with earlier Pleistocene or Holo- biological aspects of the Near Eastern late archaic human
cene human groups. The tables include some features which sample are viewed as derived versus ancestral relative to their
appear to be primarily of phylogenetic relevance and whose poorly known Middle Pleistocene ancestors.
functional significance is either low or unknown. At the same
time, a number of the features are known to be highly plastic
COMPARATIVE METHODS dev el opmen tally and/or throughout the life cycle and primar
ily reflect relative levels and patterns of biomechanical loa
Since all assessments of morphology, and by inference phy- ding of the skeleton during the individual's life. To these are
logenetic and paleobiological affinities, are comparative, the added two dental features, anterior dental wear and enamel
Near Eastern late archaic humans are here compared (Tables 1 hypoplasias, which reflect solely forces acting upon the ito 9) to three Pleistocene fossil hominid samples. These ndividual during life. The appropriate relevances of these traits, comparisons are intended as a summary of the morphological to phylogenetic versus paleobiological considerations, are evisimilarities and differences between the Near Eastern late
dent from the regional anatomical and phylogenetic discusarchaic humans and the most relevant fossil samples. Those
sions below. samples consist of 1) the late archaic humans from Europe,
For clarity, the comparisons provided in the tables are in the Neandertals to whom the Near Eastern late archaic hu
terms of similarity ("+") or contrast ("-") between the sam- mans have been most frequently compared, 2) the Levantine
14. Keith, 1927; McCown and Keith, 1939; Geraads and Tchernov, 1983. 16. Trinkaus, 1983, 1991.
15. see review in Sohn and Wolpoff, 1993. 17.1983. 1987b; Trinkaus et aL 1996a.
Paléoíient. vol. 21/2. p. 9-23 О CNRS Editions 1995 12 E. Trjnkaus
Table 1 : Body size and proportions of Near Eastern late archaic humans relative to contemporaneous and earlier samples of the genus
Homo. See text for an explanation of the assumptions inherent in the table. For the European Neandertal, Near Eastern early modern
human, and "ancestral" Homo samples, "+" indicates similar to the Near Eastern late archaic humans, "—" indicates an overall
contrast between the samples, "+/— " indicates variability within the comparative sample with both similarities and contrasts with the
Near Eastern late archaic human sample, and "?" indicates an absence of adequate comparative data. For variability within the Near
"+" indicates significant variation with respect to the other samples, and "—" indicates similar or Eastern late archaic human sample,
modest levels of variation. The number in the last column provides the number of Near Eastern late archaic individuals furnishing data
for the variable.
Near East Middle/ Near East
European late archaic early Early
Neandertals modern Pleistocene human
humans Homo variability
_ Stature + + + (10)
+ + + Body mass + (12)
+/- +/- Low brachial indices 7 + (4)
- + 7 Low crural indices -(4) - ? + Long clavicles -(2) - + 7 Broad bi-iliac breadth ? (I)
pies; these are based on assessments of distributions of va published in a series of monographs on the Amud, Kebara,
Qafzeh, Shanidar, Skhul and Tabun samples. This has been riation within and between the samples, with the degree of
extensively supplemented and updated by observations from difference in cases of contrast varying between minimal over
ongoing research and recent discoveries (see references). lap to complete separation of the ranges of variation. In
addition, for some traits either the Near Eastern late archaic
human sample and/or one or more of the other samples exhibit
BODY SIZE AND PROPORTIONS (Table 1) "+/-" for the considerable variation; this is indicated by
comparative samples. When there is a high degree of variation The Near Eastern late archaic humans exhibit a body size within the Near Eastern late archaic human sample, the "+/-" range that maintains a pattern evident throughout archaic
primarily reflects that variation (the exceptions being brachial Homo, with females (or probable females) having statures
indices and M. obturator internas sulcus position). between ca. 150 and 160 cm, and males (or probable males)
Sample sizes for each morphological complex vary from having statures between ca. 165 and 185 cm18. In this, the
one (bi-iliac breadth and last interglacial mid-occipital torus tallest Near Eastern late archaic human male, Amud 1, is
morphology) to 16 (teeth sufficient to observe the pre slightly shorter than some of the tall earlier archaic Homo
sence/absence of caries). For the postcranial and dental fea males (e.g., KNM-WT 15000, Berg Aukas 1 and Boxgrove
tures for which all of the Near Eastern late archaic humans 1 19) but close to them. There is also a suggestion that the
are considered together, the number of individuals providing Near Eastern late archaic human males are slightly taller than
observations is 6.0 ± 2.8 (N = 48 variables) (Tables 1 to 5). their European Neandertal counterparts, but the two ranges
For the 14 neurocranial and facial features for which the of variation overlap considerably and are insignificantly dif
sample is divided into last interglacial and early last glacial ferent. In contrast, most of these archaic humans contrast with
samples, the number of individuals providing data is 2.9 ± the very tall values available for the Qafzeh-Skhul sample20,
0.8 (N = 28 variables) (Tables 6 to 9). Even though these in which the female average (ca. 170 cm) is similar to late
samples are modest, most of the features exhibit consistency archaic male values and the male average (ca. 185 cm)
within the relevant samples. Furthermore, among archaic Ho matches the archaic Homo maximum values.
mo samples which are similarly circumscribed chronologically
and geographically, only the western European Neandertals 18. Trinkaus, 1 983 ; Vandermeersch, 1991; Vandermeersch and Trin-
provide larger samples for some (but not all) of these features. kaus, 1995.
19. Ruff and Walker, 1993; Grine et al., 1995; Stringer and Trinkaus, The comparisons in the tables and text are based on n.d..
detailed morphological analyses of the fossil human remains, 20. Trinkaus, 1983.
Paléorient, vol. 21/2, p. 9-23 © CNRS Editions 1995 1
Near eastern late archaic humans 13
Table 2 : Lower limb morphological characteristics of Near Eastern late archaic humans relative to contemporaneous and earlier
samples of the genus Homo. See text for an explanation of the assumptions inherent in the table and Table I for the symbols employed.
"+?" indicates strongly suggestive but inadequate data for similarity between the Near Eastern late archaic humans and the
comparative sample.
Near East Middle/ Near East
European late archaic early Early Characteristic ^eandertals human modern Pleistocene
humans Homo variabi lity
Broad pedal phalangeal diaphyses - (5) + +?
Talo-crural articular robusticity + + - (6)
- - (4) Amygdaloid tibial diaphyses + +
9 - Non-crested fibular + -C5)
Large M. quadriceps moment arm + + ? -(3)
- (8) Robust femoral & tibial diaphyses + + +
Small osteon area ? + + ? -(5) 9 Low bone formation rate + + ? - (5)
- - (7) Non-pilastric femoral diaphyses + +
_ Pronounced gluteal tuberosity + + - (5)
- 9 Absence of fossa + - (4)
Low femoral neck-shaft angle + + -Í3)
Modest iliac pillar
+/- +/- +/- M. obt. int. sulcus on ischial tub. + (2)
+ - (5) Medio-laterally long pubic ramus + ?
9 - Thinned superior pubic ramus -Í6)
At the same time, as indicated primarily by lower limb In contrast, the Qafzeh-Skhul sample exhibits strongly linear
(hence weight-bearing) articular dimensions, there are no clear bodies with narrow trunks and long limbs, a pattern which
differences between any of these samples in overall body aligns them most consistently with equatorial populations24.
mass. There is a suggestion of slightly smaller body mass Stature and body mass, and skeletal reflections of them,
per stature ratios for the Near Eastern late archaic humans are developmental ly highly plastic ; they therefore reflect en
compared to the European Neandertals (primarily evident in vironmental influences as much, if not more, than underlying
femoral head to length distributions) 2]. genetic similarities and differences across the samples. Howe
This pattern of similar body mass but similar or contrasting ver, body proportions are genetically stable over modest
statures reflects patterns of body proportions in the Late (10-20 millennia) periods of time and are well correlated with
Pleistocene samples. The Near Eastern late archaic humans regional climatic regimes25. Consequently, it is likely that the
share with European Neandertals relatively modest brachial more or less cold adapted body proportions of the Near
(radius / humérus length) and low crural (tibia / femur length) Eastern late archaic humans reflect less effective cultural
indices, high claviculo-humeral indices, and high bi- iliac buffering to the temperate climates which they inhabited, and
breadths22. The Near Eastern late archaic human sample is hence steeper clines in body proportions than are evident
less extreme in brachial indices, but all of these ratios indicate among Holocene humans26. Yet, the equatorial proportions
relatively broad trunks and short distal limb segments, all of the Qafzeh-Skhul sample suggest, in contrast, a geologic
evidence (in Holocene human terms) of a hyper-arctic body ally recent more tropical ancestry for them.
form. Nonetheless, multivariate consideration of Near Eastern
late archaic human body proportions indicate that they are
considerably less "polar" than the European Neandertals23.
24. Trinkaus, 1981; Holliday. 1995.
25.Ruff. 1991, 1994: Holliday, 1995.
21. Trinkaus, 1980, 1983; Francisco, 1989. 26. The only evidence lor Middle Pleistocene body proportions comes from
22. 198L; Ruff, 1991, 1994: Holliday, 1995; Vandermeersch scaling of the Broken Hill E691 and Boxgrove tibiae, whose proportions
and Trinkaus, 1995. indicate that such steep ecogeographical clines date back to at least the earlier
23. Holliday, 1995. Middle Pleistocene (Trinkaus et al.. 1996b).
Paléorient, vol. 21/2. p. 9-23 <D CNRS Éditions 1995 14 E. Trinkaus
Table 3 : Upper limb morphological characteristics of Near Eastern late archaic humans relative to contemporaneous and earlier
samples of the genus Homo. See text for an explanation of the assumptions inherent in the table and Table I for the symbols employed.
Near East Middle/ Near East
European late archaic early Early V_^I Veil <Л\^\-\^1. líUv Neandertals modern Pleistocene human
Homo humans variability
+ Expanded distal apical tufts + -(8)
- Subequal pollical phalanx lengths + 7 -(3) - Large Mm. opponens crests + + + (8)
- Enlarged carpal tuberosities + 7 -(7) - Sagittal MC2 capitate facet + 7 -(5)
Small MC3 styloid process + + +? -(5) +/- +/- Pronounced radial bowing 7 + (5)
+/- Ant. oriented ulnar trochlear notch + + -(6) - + +? Medially oriented radial tuberosity -(9)
- Humeral diaphyseal robusticity + 7 -(6) - 9 Large M. pectoralis major tuberosity +
Narrow scapular glenoid fossa 7 + 7 -(4) - 9 High % dorsal axillary border + (7)
- + 7 Broad scapula -(5)
may well reflect adjustments of a H. erectus form of pelvis31 LOCOMOTOR ANATOMY
to the exceptional encephalization which took place during
The overall pattern evident in Near Eastern late archaic human the Middle and early Late Pleistocene32. Some of the
lower limb remains is one of elevated robusticity, in response contrasts in lower limb diaphyseal shape, especially non-pi-
to habitually elevated mechanical loads on the lower limbs lastric femoral diaphyses (shared with earlier Homo), may be
(Table 2). This is reflected in a variety of features which are related to these pelvic contrasts. However, other features
developmentally plastic and (to variable extents) remain so which contrast the Near Eastern late archaic human sample
throughout the life cycle. These include broad proximal pedal with either European Neandertals (absence of a gluteal tube
phalangeal diaphyses, large talocrural articulations, robust rosity fossa) or Near Eastern early modern humans (tibial and
femoral and tibial diaphyses, small femoral osteons with a fibular shaft shapes and pubic ramus thinning) are more
high bone formation rate, and pronounced M quadriceps difficult to explain and remain primarily morphological traits
femoris moment arms and gluteal tuberosities27. This is that serve to align or distinguish samples33.
combined with low femoral neck angles indicating high ac
tivity during development28, but with modest iliac pillars
MANIPULATIVE ANATOMY contrasting with the massive ones of Middle and Early Pleis
tocene Homo. In all of these for which data are available, The manipulative anatomy of the Near Eastern late archaic
the Near Eastern late archaic humans are similar to European humans is reflected primarily in their upper limb remains,
Neandertals and contrast minimally with earlier Homo. They but there are additional manifestations of it in their necks
are also quite similar in these features to the Qafzeh-Skhul and thoraxes (given the attachments of shoulder muscles to
sample, which (contrary to earlier assessments29) exhibits cervical spinous processes, occipital bones and ribs) and in
elevated overall lower limb robusticity. their anterior dentitions (Tables 3 to 5). The overall pattern
This pattern is overlain with a pattern of pelvic proportions
(including especially a markedly elongated pubis)30, which
31. Ruff, 1995.
32. Trinkaus and Wolpoff, 1992; Trinkaus, 1995b.
33. One pelvic feature which has been used to distinguish late archaic from
27. Rhoads and Trinkaus, 1977; Trinkaus, 1983 ; Ruff et al., 1993 ; Abbott early modern humans, the presence of an M obturator internus sulcus on the
et al., 1996; Trinkaus and Hilton, 1996. ischial tuberosity (Rak, 1990), is variable within Middle Pleistocene, Euro
28. Trinkaus, 1 993a. pean and Near Eastern late archaic human and Near Eastern early modern
29.1976a, 1983. human samples (McCown and Keith, 1939; Trinkaus, n.d. ; Table 2) and
30. Trinkaus, 1976b, 1984b; Rak, 1991. hence is not a diagnostic character of any of these groups.
Paléorient, vol. 21/2, p. 9-23 © CNRS Éditions 1995 ;
i
,
.
1
.
;
.
!
.
|
-
:
'
\

!
i
i
!
i
j
;
S
i
í
i
i
Near eastern late archaic humans 15
Table 4 : Axial skeleton morphological characteristics of Near Eastern late archaic humans relative to contemporaneous and earlier
samples of the genus Homo. See text for an explanation of the assumptions inherent in the table and Tables I and 2 for the symbols
employed. The comparisons of the spinal canal dimensions for earlier Homo are exclusively to the early H. erectus KNM-WT 15000
specimen.
Near East Near East Middle/
European late archaic early Early
Neandertals modern Pleistocene human
humans Homo variability
- - (5) Enlarged thoracic spinal canal + +
- (5) Large caudal cervical spinal canal + +
- (3) Horizontal caudal cervical spines + +
- - (4) Robust caudal cervical spines +
i - ribs + + (7)
Table 5 : Morphological and paleobiological characteristics of the dentition of Near Eastern late archaic humans relative to
contemporaneous and earlier samples of the genus Homo. See text for an explanation of the assumptions inherent in the table and
Table 1 for the symbols employed.
Near East Middle/ Near East
European Early late archaic ear] у V^. i 1 h 1 ťi tu т* «V я г* tf^v LCI 1 l> с X 11V i ř* Neandertals modern Pleistocene human
humans Homo variability _ — _____ _ — _ — _____ _. ___ - —. _
large anterior dentition + +? - (8) Relatively +/- + - (8) Shovel shaped maxillary incisors +
_ Pronounced I lingual tubercles +/- - (7) +
+/- Modest molar dimensions + -СП)
- Accelerated anterior dental wear + + -(11)
- Elevated % enamel hypoplasias + ? (8)
+/- il 6) Presence of dental caries +
is one of elevated use of the anatomy to accomplish tasks, broad scapulae34. This is combined with increased moment
but it remains uncertain whether the mechanical loads applied arms for muscles, reflected in their sub-equal pollical phalanx
were occasional high peak loads, habitually elevated levels, lengths, radial bowing, radial tuberosity orientation, broad
or some combination of the two. In these features, the Near scapulae, and long clavicles35. Reflections of persistently high
levels of force are present in their robust caudal cervical Eastern late archaic humans show close similarity to the
European Neandertals and earlier Homo (the latter for the spinous processes, strong occipital tori (at least for the last
interglacial sample), usually robust ribs, humeral diaphyseal minority of features that are known for it) and consistently
contrast with the Qafzeh-Skhul sample. The exceptions to robusticity and expanded apical tufts36, but their clavicles,
these Near Eastern late archaic - early modern human radii, ulnae and metacarpals show little elevation of diaphys
contrasts are metacarpal 3 styloid process size, radial bowing eal robusticity.
(due to Near Eastern late archaic human variation) and ulnar Possible differences in habitual loading positions, suggest
trochlear notch orientation (due to Near Eastern early modern ing less extreme medial and lateral rotation of the shoulder,
human variation). greater loading of the elbow in flexion, and less use of oblique
power grips, are indicated by their narrow glenoid fossae, The upper limbs of Near Eastern late archaic humans
consistently exhibit muscular hypertrophy. This is reflected
in the enlargements of muscular attachment areas, including
34. Trinkaus, 1983: Hambucken. 1993; Churchill. 1994: Vandermeersc M. opponens pollicis and M. opponens digiti minimi crests,
and 1995. large carpal tuberosities (of the scaphoid, trapezium, hamate 35. Trinkaus. 1983: Trinkaus and Villemeur. 1991.
and pisiform), wide M. pectoralis major tuberosities and 36.1983: Churchill. 1994: Trinkaus et al.. 1994.
Paléorient. vol. 21/2. p. 9-23 <0 CNRS Editions 1995 i
S
I
16 E. Trinkaus
Table 6 : Morphological characteristics of the facial skeleton of last interglacial Near Eastern late archaic humans relative to
contemporaneous and earlier samples of the genus Homo. See text for an explanation of the assumptions inherent in the table and
Table I for the symbols employed.
Near East Middle/ Near East
European late archaic early Early Characteristic Neandertals modern Pleistocene human
humans Homo variability
Long facial skeleton -(4)
Elevated facial robusticity
High % retromolar spaces (4)
Anterior zygomatic root position -(2)
Angled region Non- "inflated" infraorbital maxilla -(2)
Large and projecting nasal region -(3)
Projecting supraorbital torus glabellar region + (3)
Table 7 : Morphological characteristics of the facial skeleton of early last glacial Near Eastern late archaic humans relative to
contemporaneous and earlier samples of the genus Homo. See text for an explanation of the assumptions inherent in the table and
Table I for the symbols employed.
Near East Middle/ Near East
European late archaic early Early
Neandertals modern human Pleistocene
humans Homo variability
Long facial skeleton
Elevated facial robusticity
High % retromolar spaces
Posterior zygomatic root position
"Retreating" region
"Inflated" infraorbital maxilla
Large and projecting nasal region
Projecting supraorbital torus
(Projecting glabellar region
their anteriorly oriented ulnar trochlear notches and medially tively larger anterior teeth, despite little difference in absolute
oriented radial tuberosities, and their sagittal metacarpal 2 individual dental dimensions between these Late Pleistocene
capitate facets and small metacarpal 3 styloid processes, samples38. This is combined with a high frequency of maxil
respectively37. However, all of these may be indirect reflec lary incisor shoveling and large lingual tubercle development.
tions of altered force trajectories given differences in robus Furthermore, all Near Eastern late archaic human individuals
ticity and body proportions. This latter explanation also exhibit accelerated wear of the anterior teeth relative to the
post-canine teeth39 but manifest an incisor beveling pattern undoubtedly accounts for their high frequency of axillary
border dorsal sulci (or pronounced dorsal axillary buttresses). paralleling that of recent humans40. Given the overall struc
ture of the facial skeletons of Neandertals (and most Near The relatively abundant associated dentitions for Near
Eastern late archaic humans), it is unlikely that this wear was Eastern late archaic humans, as well as of the two Late
created by elevated levels of incisor bite force41, making Pleistocene comparative samples, make it possible to assess
persistent attrition with low levels of bite force responsible patterns of anterior dental (incisor and canine) dimensions
for the pronounced anterior wear of these hominids. and wear relative to those of their post-canine teeth. In this,
the Near Eastern late archaic humans consistently have
38. Bytnar et al., 1994.
39. Tkinkaus, 1992.
37. Trinkaus, J983; Trinkaus and Churchill, 1988; Churchill and 40. Fennell et ai, 1995
kaus, 1990; Ntewoehner et ai, 1995. 41. Anton, 1994.
Paléorient, vol. 21/2, p. 9-23 © CNRS Éditions 1995 Near eastern late archaic hl.vians 17
In these upper limb and dental features, the Near Eastern aperture, probably related to the persistence of an archaic
late archaic human sample is similar to the European Nean- Homo nasal size through the Near Eastern late archaic humans
dertals and most earlier Homo, but contrasts in most aspects (see below).
with the Qafzeh-Skhul sample. Consequently, despite some In these features, the Near Eastern late archaic humans
similarities between these archaic samples and the Near East exhibit a trend in morphology which parallels the contempor
ern early modern human remains (e.g., horizontal cervical ary one seen in European Neandertals45. Furthermore, it is
spines, small metacarpal 3 styloid processes, some maxillary these reflections of masticatory reduction, in association with
incisor shoveling), the overall pattern is one of considerable persistently large nasal regions and long faces, which appear
contrast between the archaic and early modern humans in to be primarily responsible for the emergence, among Near
skeletal and dental reflections of manipulative behavior. This Eastern late archaic humans as well as among the European
is all the more surprising given the association of the Near Neandertals, of the "classic Neandertal" mid-facially progna-
Eastern late archaic and early modern humans with Middle thic facial skeleton during the Late Pleistocene46.
Paleolithic lithic technologies which current analyses42 have
not been able to separate consistently along any behavi orally
significant axes of variation. RESPIRATORY ANATOMY
Despite early comments to the contrary47, there is no costal
FACIAL STRUCTURE evidence to indicate that the Near Eastern late archaic humans
exhibited rib cages significantly different from those of most
Despite stasis in anterior dental relative dimensions and pat recent humans in terms of overall shape. This is based on
terns of attrition and in maintained facial length within the the relatively complete costal skeletons of Shanidar 3 and
Near Eastern late archaic humans through the last interglacial Kebara 2, as well as elements of Tab un Cl48. Furthermore,
and early last glacial, there is a pattern of decreasing facial the lengths of the mesosterna of Kebara 2, Shanidar 4/6 and
"Neandertalization" of the facial robusticity and increasing Tabun Cl, scaled to vertebral and/or upper limb dimensions,
skeleton (Tables 6 and 7). The decreasing robusticity is evi are similar to those of Holocene humans49.
dent in mandibular corpus robusticity, masticatory muscle Despite this, these late archaic humans maintained the
marking rugosity on the mandible and zygomaxillary regions, enlarged nasal cavities and apertures characteristic of earlier
and the overall thickness of the lateral facial regions (zygo archaic Homo (Tables 6 and 7)50. This is reflected most in matic and supraorbital). This is associated with directional their broad skeletal nasal apertures, but it is evident as well
change through time within the Near Eastern late archaic in the dimensions (height, breadth and length) of their internal
humans involving a combination of a more posterior positio nasal cavities. This suggests that, while lung volume is scaling ning of the anterolatera! masticatory muscle attachments (an to overall body size, they maintained the ancestral condition terior ramus for M. temporalis and zygomatic root for M. of noses capable of effectively transmitting and processing mas set er) and a slight shortening of the dental arcade43. large volumes of air. This large nasal size is likely to be a
These overall facial changes contribute to the more fr reflection of the elevated activity levels implied by their lower
equent and larger retromolar spaces and more "posterior" limb robusticity, a pattern shared by most archaic Homo.
(relative to the dentition) positioning of the anterior zygomatic At the same time, given the developmental primacy and
root44. They are also associated with a decreased angulation stability of the nasal capsule, it is likely that the maintained of the anterolateral zygomatic region and with the "inflation"
of (or loss of an anterior concavity to) the infraorbital region.
In addition, the projection of glabella from the coronal plane 45. Trinkai:.s. 1987b: Condf.mi. 1992.
46. These trends in Near Eastern late archaic human facial evolution are of the supraorbital torus goes from variable to consistently
dependent upon the relative chronology described above. H the relative present. Yet, there is little change in the presence of a swelling chronology of the fossils were to change significantly, these trends might
of the region between the inferior orbital margin and the nasal disappear and the samples of late archaic humans from the Late Pleistocene
might become highly variable in these features. However, the associations
between these facial features would remain the same.
47. McCown and Keith. 1939.
42. e.g.. Meignen and Bar-Yoshf. 1988. 1989: Shea. 1991. 48. Trinkai.'.s. 1983: Arensbtrg. 1991: Franciscts. pers. comm.
43. Trinkaus. 1991: Trinkals et al.. 1996a. 49. Franc ïscls. 1989: Arensbcrg. 1991.
44. Franc isct's and Trinkacs. 1995: Trinkals et al.. 1996a. 50. Francisci's. 1995.
Paléorienl. vol. 21/2. p. 9-23 "0 CNRS Éditions 19У5