“CLASSIC” EUROPEAN

VS
“LEVANTINE” NEAR EASTERN
NEANDERTHALS

Noelle Tankard
For Emergence of Modern Humans
University of Bristol, Dec 2010
 Neanderthal type specimen
• found in Feldhoffer grotto,
Neander Valley, 1857

• later excavations found

associated
zygomaticomaxillary
fragment

Image from American Museum of Natural

History, Ian Tattersall
 Our understanding of Neanderthals
• Initially seen as a transitional stage through which humans
passed

• primitive features emphasized, compared to chimpanzees

• Fossils found in other regions often labelled

“Neanderthaloid” as a generic pre-Homo sapiens category in
possession of prominent brow-ridges and low-vaulted brain
cases
•“African Neanderthal” : Broken Hill skull, Zambia
•“Eastern Neanderthals” : Solo skulls from Java
(Trinkaus 1979)
 ... and with time...
• less biased interpretations grew as body of data
increased

• definition based on from Western Europe; now

consider the “classical” or European Neanderthals

•By early 80s, commonly seen as subspecies of H.

sapiens

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

• Early genetic studies influenced trend to

reconsider phylogenetic place relative to H.
sapiens; differences from modern H. sap
emphasized
• “… one can systematically examine the large
corpus of Neanderthal fossils… [with] present
knowledge of the anatomical functions of bone
and muscle… against a fuller chronological
background… the picture that emerges is quite
clear: a human population complex with a special
pattern of anatomical features that extends
without interruption from Gibraltar across Europe
into the Near East and Western Asia.”
(Trinkaus 1979, 91)
 Classic Neanderthals

La Ferrassie, France: considered typical of “Classic”

Neanderthals – also among largest in Europe
 The Neanderthal “clade”
• Whether species or subspecies, clear morphological group
with characteristic traits

• “Classical Neanderthals” clearly distinct from:


present day modern H. Sapiens

contemporary African H. Sapiens

European Upper Palaeolithic populations
Diagnostic traits of Neanderthals...
 Neanderthal range & specimens
• “Classical” Western Europe
– France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain
– specimens in Italy and Greece sometimes referred to as “preNeanderthals”

• Eastern Europe
– Croatia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Slovenia, Slovakia

•“Levantine” and Near East

– tend to be younger than “Classical”
– also younger than H. sap in region

• Central / Western Asia

–Uzbekistan Teshik Tash, Uzbekistan
 “Levantine” and Near Eastern Sites
• Term “Levantine” more common
in non-English publications
– strictly: Israel, Palestine and
Jordan while Near East stretches
from Nile to northern Iran
– Those who distinguish Levantine
from other Near Eastern with
intention to note Levant as “entry
point” (from Europe) for
Neanderthal migration “deeper” into
the Near East (Vandermeesch 2007)

• Tabun, Amud, Kebara (Israel)

• Shanidar (Iraq)
• Dederiyeh (Syria)
 Interest in the Levant…
• Long recognized as most likely place to find evidence of
Neanderthal and H. sap interaction – behavioural and/or
genetic
• Chronologically, H. sap populations older than Neanderthal
• Therefore, most analysis and study aimed at Levantine
Neanderthals vs Levantine H. sapiens
– Skhul and Qafzeh: debate over classification of fossils found, number of
species represented
 Shanidar
- 9 skeletons

Shanidar 1
35-40 yrs old at death

survived serious injuries

excavated 50s-60s

ca 40-79 ky, but dates

questionable

Shanidar 1
Amud 1

- 1.8 m tall, 1740 cc

Approx 25 yrs at death

-

ESR on mammal tooth at

-

40-50 kyr

Affinity to Shanidar
-

“Mosaic” features
-
 Kebara
1.7 m

25-35 yr at death

ca 60 ka

Possible burial

Similar to Amud, Shanidar,

and Tabun but more robust

Hyoid bone
 Tabun
• C2 Mandible
– Ambiguous, but Neanderthal
affinities
• Tabun C, partial skeleton of
female
– Possibly oldest Near Eastern
Neanderthal
– Excavated 1932; stratigraphic
position controversial and dating
unclear
– Skull fractured
Dederiyeh
• Dederiyeh 1
– Infant
– ca 60 ky

Images from Akazawa’s website, reconstruction of find and “resuscitation” of find

Computer model of maturation of
Dederiyeh infant (to adult based
on Amud 1)
 Vandermeesch 2007
• Majority of “Classic” traits – although not all to the same
“degree of development”
• Several features characterized as “entering the range of
modern human variation”
– Higher skull
– Transverse contour less oval
• Suprainiac fossa larger, less deep
• Less occipital bunning than “Classical”
– occipital less convex and occipital torus less prominent
– Overall “less stretched”
•
Other features described as “intermediate” between
“Classic” Neanderthal and mod H. sap

Less facial
prognathism

Cranial capacity
varies widely

Males taller

From Trinkaus 1979

 …. Traits to distinguish from a H. sap

}
• Supraorbital torus
Not all of these traits appear in
•

• Occipital bunning
the same degree and same
• Facial prognathism
combination
• Long low brain case
• Larger cranial capacity
Homologous or derived?
•

• Receding frontal
•
Absolute or continuum?
•
Suprainiac fossa
• retromolar space
Same “effect” can occur as a
•

….. And others

result of various “processes”:
occipital bunning (Gunz 2007)
 Further questions
• What is the significance of these differences?

• How to explain them?

– Temporal variation: co-evolution into
Neanderthal form separate from “Classical”:
• Earlier split from pre-Neanderthal population?
– Geographical variation?
• Reversal of “cold climate” traits?
– Hybridization with moderns?
• Are the Levantine Neanderthals more Homo
sapiens – or simply less “Classical”?
Comparative analyses with Levantine
H. sapiens specimens….
... fail to demonstrate clear and definitive difference
between Neanderthals and “moderns”

Kramer 2001: tested null hypothesis of two clades in

Levant (Amud/Tabun vs Qafzeh/Skhul)

Wolpoff 2001: failed to disprove null hypothesis that

taxonomy did not explain variation of sample overall BUT
that variation within Qafzeh/Skhul was greater than
variation comparing that sample to Levantine
Neanderthals
 Issues
• Traits generally discussed as if a complete package, the
Neanderthal “pattern” - specimens lacking all or some
often dismissed as unclassifiable

• We are over-simplifying the situation by deliberately

disregarding that which does not fit a perhaps arbitrary
prefabricated designation

• How much variation within what level of taxonomic clade?