![]() |
||||||||||||||
|
Australia: The Land Where Time Began |
||||||||||||||
|
Human Remains from the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition,
Southwest China, Apparent Complex Evolutionary History for East Asians
Human evolution in Late
Pleistocene
in East Asia is still poorly understood as a result of a scarcity of
fossils that are well described, classified reliably and dated
accurately. Genetic research has indicated that southwest China is a
hotspot of human diversity, containing lineages of ancient mtDNA and
Y-DNA, as well as producing a number of human remains believed to derive
from deposits of Pleistocene age. Curnoe et al.1 say they have
prepared, reconstructed, described and dated a new partial skull from
the sediment block that has been consolidated that was collected in 1979
from Longlin Cave, Guangxi Province. New excavations at Maludong, Yunnan
Province were undertaken by the authors1 to clarify the
stratigraphy and dating of a large sample of human remains from the site
that are mostly undescribed.
A detailed comparison was undertaken by the authors1 of
crania, including a virtual endocast from the Maludong calotte,
mandibular remains from these 2 localities, both samples probably being
derived from the same population, which exhibited an unusual combination
of traits of modern humans, characters which are probably plesiomorphic
for later
Homo, as well as some
unusual features. They dated charcoal by the AMS radiocarbon and
speleothem method with the U-series technique, the results showing that
both samples were from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition: ̴ 14.3-11.5
ka.
There are 2 plausible explanations that are suggested by this analysis
of the morphology sampled at Longlin Cave and Maludong. The first
explanation is that a late-surviving population may possibly parallel
the situation of the Dar-es-Soltane and Tamara, North Africa, and maybe
also in southern China and Zhirendong. An alternative possibility is
that during the Pleistocene multiple waves may have colonised East Asia,
with the morphology from Longlin and Maludong possibly reflecting deep
population substructure in Africa prior to the dispersal of modern
humans into Eurasia.
Europe, Africa and the Levantine corridor connecting them has
historically been the focus of human evolution fossil research,
resulting in the role of the vast continent of Asia being virtually
unknown with regard to the fossil record of humans during this time of
the evolution of modern humans. In South Asia the fossil record from the
Upper Pleistocene of known human remains contains few human fossils;
those that have been found are confined to 2 sites that date from
possibly within the 33-25 ka range (Trinkhaus, E., 2005). Human fossils
are more numerous in East Asia (Wu, X. & Poirier, 1995), though it has
been difficult to assess the significance of these fossils because of
the poor knowledge of their geological context and inadequate dating (Trinkhaus,
E., 2005, 2-3). East Asia is considered to comprise the region that is
bordered by the Ural Mountains in the west, in the southwest by the
Himalayan Plateau, Bering Strait in the northwest, as well as extending
into island southwest Asia.
The Liujiang skeleton from southern China has been discussed widely as a
candidate for the oldest human in East Asia (Wu, X & Poirier, F.E.,
1995), though the geological age of this individual has “an everlasting
dispute since the discovery of the fossil in 1958” (Brӓuer, G. &
Mímisson, K., 2004, p. 62) because of lack of documentation regarding
the exact stratigraphic position of the human remains.
Other similarly problematic specimens are the fossils from the Upper
Cave, Zhoukoudian, that have been a major source of uncertainty since
their discovery in the 1930s, estimates range from ̴33-10 ka (Wu, X &
Poirier, F.E., 1995, Brӓuer, G. & Mímisson, K., 2004). Also, the
provenance of the child from Niah Cave in East Malaysia is uncertain
(Barker et al., 2007). A
proposed age of ̴45-39 ka for the cranium has been suggested for this
cranium (Barker et al., 2007)
as the result of a recent field and lab program that was aimed at
assessing the stratigraphy and dating of the deposits at this site.
There is also a problem with most other candidates for the earliest
humans in East Asia. The only specimen that is taxonomically diagnostic
among the human remains that were recovered from Tabon Cave,
Philippines, is a frontal bone that has been assigned to
H. sapiens (Dizon, E. et
al., 2002), that has been dated to 16.5 ± 2 ka (Détroit et al., 2002).
Also, the oldest specimen from the site that has been directly dated to
47+11/-10 ka (Détroit, F. et al.,
2004), could possibly be from an orang-utan (Dizon, E. et al., 2002). A
hominin metatarsal recovered from Callao Cave, Luzon, has been directly
dated to an estimated 66.7 ± 1 ka (Mijares A.M., et
al., 2010), though it has
been difficult to classify this specimen reliably, which has made its
assignment to
H. sapiens uncertain
(Mijares A.M., et al., 2010).
Recently an individual recovered from Tianyuan Cave, not far from
Zhoukoudian town, northeast China, has been estimated to be ̴42-36 ka
(Shang, H. et al., 2007). The partial skeleton from Tianyuan is
comprised of 34 pieces that appear to be from the same individual, the
femur of which has been dated directly to 40,328 ± 816 cal. yr BP. The
best candidate for the earliest modern human in East Asia appears to be
provided by this specimen, though it is significantly younger (>20 kya)
than estimates from genetic clocks for the colonisation of the region.
Finally, in Zhirendong, southern China, a mandibular fragment has been
recovered that has been dated to more than 100 ka based on stratigraphic
grounds, though the specimen is fragmentary and is comprised of a mosaic
of archaic and modern characters that make its taxonomic status unclear
(Liu, W., et al., 2010; Dennell, R., 2010).
Palaeoanthropologists have needed to rely on of genetic sequencing
results of samples from living populations to attempt to reconstruct the
origins of humans in East Asia because of the uncertainties concerning
the human fossil record. It is suggested by genetic research that the
earliest modern humans dispersed from Africa into Eurasia about 70-60 ka,
after which they spread rapidly into Southeast Asia and Australia
(Zhong, H., 2011; Kong, Q-P., 2011; Stoneking M. & Delfin, F., 2010;
Rasmussen et al., 2011). Later migrations involved spreading within
Eurasia after 40-30 ka adding the founding populations of modern
Northeast Asians and Europeans (Rasmussen, M. et
al., 2004). The authors1also
suggest that there seem to have been several migrations later within the
region, some of which were associated with the Neolithic (Zhong, H.,
2011; Kong, Q-P., 2011; Stoneking M. & Delfin, F., 2010), and finally a
hominin fossil from Denisova Cave, Central Asia, belonging with the
Neanderthal lineage that shares features exclusively with Aboriginal
Southeast Asians and Australasians (Reich, D. et
al., 2010; Reich, D. et al.,
2011; Abi-Rached, L., 2011). An interpretation of this has been as 1)
evidence that interbreeding occurred between Denisovans and the earliest
modern humans colonising the region; and 2) implying that this archaic
population occupied Southeast Asia during the Upper Pleistocene (Reich,
D. et al., 2010; Reich, D. et
al., 2011).
The authors1 began a collaborative research project in 2008
aimed at age determination and to provide detailed comparisons of human
remains in southwest China that were possibly from the Pleistocene, as
the fossils from East Asia are considered to be of central importance to
the testing of the regional and global scenarios of the evolution of
humans. In this paper the authors1 have focused on the human
remains recovered from 2 localities: Longlin Cave (Longlin or LL) and
Malu Cave (Maludong or MLDG).
In 1979 a petroleum geologist, Li Changquing, discovered the human
remains opportunistically in a cave near De’e, Longlin County, Guangxi
Zhuang Autonomous Region, Guangxi Province. A short time after the
discovery a block of consolidated fine-grained sediment that contained
the human remains were taken to Kunming in the neighbouring province of
Yunnan. At the time it was taken to Kunming a partial mandible and some
post-cranial bone were prepared from the block (Wu, X & Poirier, 1995),
the remainder of the skull and more post-cranial bones were prepared
from the sediment by the authors1 team in 2010. A thin
flowstone was found that was adhering to the surface of the vault of the
partial LL 1 skeleton, and fragments of charcoal were recovered from the
sediment within the endocrinal cavity. The association of the cranium,
mandible and postcranial elements, all with similar preservation, in a
small block of sediment, less than 1 m3 in volume, suggests
there was limited post-depositional disturbance. The cave has been
closed to the public and the authors1 have not been able to
carry out the research needed to clarify the stratigraphy and geological
context of the human remains.
Located near the city of Mengzi, Honghe Prefecture, Hani and Yi
Autonomous Region, to the southeast of Yunnan Province, Maludong is a
cave that has been partially mined (Wu, X & Poirier, 1995; Zhang et al.,
1991). A Chinese team that included 1 of the Authors’1 team,
BZ, originally excavated the site in 1989, at which time most of the
fossil and archaeological material were recovered (Zhang et al., 1991).
A re-evaluation of the remaining stratigraphic section and the
collection of a number of samples that were to be used for dating and
archaeomagnetic analysis were allowed by excavations undertaken in 2008
by several of the present authors (DC, JX, AH, BK, BZ, ZY and LY).
During the current study more human remains were recovered, both during
the small-scale excavation by the authors1, 50x50x370 cm, for
stratigraphic analysis, as well as from unstudied and unsorted fossils
that were recovered during the 1989 field season.
Discussion
A range of individual features and a composite of characters that have
not been seen among populations from the Pleistocene or
recent
H. sapiens populations are presented
by the human skull recovered from Longlin Cave, and the human calotte,
partial mandibles and teeth from Maludong. According to the authors1
the remains share no particular affinity with either East Asians from
the Pleistocene, such as Liujiang or Upper Cave 101, or recent East
Asians. It is also suggested that these features belong to multiple
developmental-functional complexes (Enlow, D.H. & Hans, M.G., 2008),
which span the neurocranial vault, and include endocranium, cranial
base, facial skeleton, mandible and dentition. Where they can be
assessed, the metrical dimensions that are involved are mostly
characterised by moderate to high heritability (Sjøvold T., 1984; Carson
A.E., 2006; Sherwood R.J. et al.,
2008; Townsend GC, Brown T., 1978). It seems likely that both samples
are from the same population, given their morphological similarity,
close geographical proximity, less than 300 km apart, and a geological
age that is younger, Pleistocene-Holocene transition.
Multivariate analysis of the shape of the vault, a method which has been
shown to track neutral genetic distances (Weaver, T.D., Roseman, C.C. &
Stringer, C.B., 2007), indicates that a picture that is somewhat mixed
with respect to the phonetic affinities of LL 1 and MLDG 1704. The first
principal component, which accounts for 45-46 % of the total variance,
indicates that the dominanent phenetic signal in these analyses shows that
LL 1 and MLDG 1704 are at the edge of variation within
H. sapiens from the
Pleistocene, and in some analyses they are also shown to be on the edge
of variability of
H. erectus. Principal
component 3 in particular, ̴12-14 % of total variance, shows them to
exhibit a cranial shape that is unique among all hominins from the
Pleistocene.
This conclusion that these remains show affinities with
H. sapiens is supported
by a range of features:
Neurocranium:
Moderately projecting and laterally thin supraorbital part, which has
the bipartite form in MLDG 1704; frontal bone with a moderate chord and
arc length, but broad maximum width; and an endocast with long, broad
and tall frontal lobes.
Viscerocranium:
Superior facial breadth is narrow; facial skeleton is vertically short
(superior facial height and orbit height and nasal length; and nasal
breadth relative to height is moderate.
Mandible:
Mental foramen is in mesial position; and a medial pterygoid tubercle is
absent.
Dentition:
Anterior dental crowns are small (narrow).
The fossils from Longlin and Maludong also have many features that are
either rare or missing from H.
sapiens from either the Pleistocene or the present, many of
which are plesiomorphies included among later
Homo, including :
Neurocranium:
Endocranial volume is moderate; frontal squama high arched; parietal
bones are short; short parietal lobes on endocast; postorbital region is
narrow; and bipartite supraorbital morphology is lacking in LL 1.
Cranial base:
In LL 1 only there is a long mandibular fossa (A-P), broad (M – L) and
deep (S – I).
Viscerocranium:
In LL 1 only: alveolar prognathism is strong; mid-face is flat at both
the nasal root and zygomatic process of the maxilla; facial skeleton is
broad (interorbital, bizygomatic and bimaxillary); nasal bones very
narrow; piriform aperture is broad; canine fossa lacking and deep
sulcus maxillaris is present;
laterally flared zygomatic arch; strongly angled zygomatic to the extent
that its inferior margin is well lateral to the superior part; small
zygomatic tubercle that is lateral to a line project from the orbital
pillar (anterior aspect); attachment area of anterior masseter marked by
broad deep sulcus; lateral orbital pillar (lateral aspect) has strong
transverse incurvation; anterior wall of the zygomaticoalveolar root
placed anteriorly (above P4/M1).
Mandible:
Sagittal keel and distinct Lateral tubercles absent; chin small (MLDG
1706 Rank 3, LL 1 Rank ?3); mandibular foramen bridging (MLDG 1706);
transverse tori thickened; mandibular notch asymmetrical (MLDG 1679);
lateral positioning of retromolar space, crest of mandibular notch (MLDG
1679); and anterior symphyseal angle is low (MLDG 1706).
Dentition;
Post-canine crowns broad (BL diameters large); and molars are taurodont.
See Source 1 for a detailed description of features supporting the
inclusion of these remains in
H. sapiens.
It is unusual, especially in Eurasia to find human remains with such a
combination of modern human (H.
sapiens) and archaic (putative plesiomorphic) characters. There
are several Pleistocene remains in Africa that also display a
combination of modern features with plesiomorphies of putative later
Homo; from Klasies River
Mouth Cave (Smith F.H., 1992) and Hofmeyr (Crevecoeur, I. et al., 2009),
South Africa, Iwo Eleru, Nigeria (Harvati, K. et
al., 2011), Nazlet Khater,
Egypt, and Dar-es-Soltane and Témara, Morocco (Trinkhaus, E., 2005;
Trinkhaus, E., 2007; Crevecoeur, I. et al., 2009). Though most of them
are much older than Longlin and Maludong: Dar-es-Soltane and Témara are
not dated, but they are associated with Aterian lithic assemblages dated
recently to between 107 ± 3 ka and 96 ± 4 ka at another site in Morocco,
La Grotte des Contrebandiers, (Jacob, Z., et al, 2011); the remains from
Klasies River Mouth are from 2 units dating to more than 101 ka and more
than 104-64 ka (Millard, A.R., 2008); Nazlet Khater 2 is possibly ≈ 42
ka (Millard, A.R., 2008); and Hofmeyr 36.2 ± 3.3 ka (Grine, F.E. et
al., 2007). The Iwo Eleru
calvaria has, however, been dated to ~ 16.3-11.7 ka (Harvati, K. et al.,
2011), and the authors1 say it is clearly of similar age to
the remains from China.
Outside of Africa there are various fossils from the Upper Pleistocene
that have also been described as exhibiting an unusual mosaic or
characters (e.g. Trinkhaus, e., 2007). Some of them, such as from
Israel, Skhul and Qafzeh, and in Romania, Pestera cu Oase were included
in the analyses carried out by the authors1, and overall they
appear to be metrically well within the range for
H. sapiens from the
Pleistocene. The former (Levantine) samples, however, exhibit some
similarities, in univariate comparisons, to LL 1 and MLDG 1704.
The problem that needs to be answered is how to explain this unusual
morphology that is present in the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in
East Asia. The authors1 suggest the Longlin and Maludong
remains could represent individuals that were very robust within an
Epipalaeolithic population that was previously unknown in southwest
China. They also consider this explanation to be unsatisfactory because
there are several features that are apparently unique that are present,
which are combined with an unusual mix of modern and archaic features is
seen in several specimens spanning multiple developmental-functional
complexes, as mentioned above. The authors1 suggest that this
hypothesis could be invoked as an explanation for the morphology seen in
the remains recovered from Klasies River Mouth Cave, Hofmeyr, Iwo Eleru,
Nazlet Khater, Dar-es-Soltane, Témara and Zhirendong, though it has not
been because many of their archaic features are rare or not present
among
H. sapiens. As is
indicated strongly here, the same situation applies to the remains from
Longlin and Maludong.
The authors1 suggest there are explanations that are more
plausible, a possibility being that the remains from Longlin and
Maludong represent an archaic population that were late surviving,
possibly similar to that sampled at Dar-es-Soltane, Témara (Trinkhaus,
E., 2005; Trinkhaus, E., 2007; Crevecoeur, I. & Trinkhaus, E., 2004)
There is problem with this suggestion as the morphology of these remains
from North Africa is not well known, and their affinities and taxonomy
are uncertain (Trinkhaus, E., 2005; Trinkhaus, E., 2007; Crevecoeur, I.
& Trinkhaus, E., 2004). In East Asia the Zhirendong mandibular fragment
that has been described recently also has a mosaic of modern and
plesiomorphic characters that causes problems with the taxonomy of the
fossil (Kaifu, Y. & Fujita, M., 2012; Liu, W. et al., 2010; Dennell, R.,
2010). Though it has been dated based on stratigraphy to more than 100
ka (Liu, W. et al., 2010),
which is of a similar age to that of the Aterian assemblage from North
Africa, but much older than Longlin and Maludong. The site at Salkhit,
Mongolia, contains another specimen that has also been described
recently has also been described as being of an archaic taxon that is
unspecified (Coppens, Y. et al., 2008). A preliminary date of ~20 ka has
apparently been reported, though dating is uncertain (Kaifu, Y. &
Fujita, M., 2012). Also, there have been expressions of doubts about its
archaic affinities (Kaifu, Y. & Fujita, M., 2012), and the authors1
could not include this specimen in their analyses because they found
errors in the measurements in this and other specimens in Table 1 of
Coppens et al. Coppens, Y. et
al., 2008).
It is also possible that the Longlin and Maludong remains retained a
large number of ancestral polymorphisms in a population of
H. sapiens. Where
features of interest are also present in allopatric populations of the
same taxon the concept of lineage sorting that is incomplete is often
invoked as an explanation (Mavárez, J. &
Linares, M., 2008). Related to this it has been suggested by
recent morphological studies that
H. sapiens were deeply
geographically subdivided in the Pleistocene within Africa prior to its
dispersal into Eurasia (Gunz, P. et al., 2009). The same explanation has
also been invoked to explain the unusual morphology of the Iwo Eleru
calvaria (Harvati, K. et al., 2009). At Longlin and Maludong the
morphology that has been documented might be interpreted with this
hypothesis, the remains from China possibly sampling a human population
that was unknown previously (or a migration?) that may not have
contributed genetically to recent East Asians. Attempts to extract DNA
from a Maludong specimen has to date been unsuccessful, as there is a
lack of recoverable genetic material.
Either way, the unusual morphology sampled at Longlin and Maludong
during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition indicates that in East Asia
human history is more complex than has been suspected previously. It
also highlights the need for more research in the region.
PLoS ONE 7(3):
e31918. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031918
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Author: M.H.Monroe Email: admin@austhrutime.com Sources & Further reading | ||||||||||||||