21. Archaeologist Ralph Solecki’s 1971 book, Shanidar: The First Flower People, was seminal in the consensus change on Neanderthal intelligence. Solecki’s article based on the book is available in Science 190 as “Shanidar IV, a Neanderthal Flower Burial in Northern Iraq” (880–881). The abstract reads: “The discovery of pollen clusters of different kinds of flowers in the grave of one of the Neanderthals, No. IV, at Shanidar Cave, Iraq, furthers our acceptance of the Neanderthals in our line of evolution. It suggests that, although the body was archaic, the spirit was modern.”
Since then, a stream of studies supporting this hypothesis have been published, establishing Neanderthals as not only socially intelligent, compassionate, and sensitive humans, but also as culturally and technologically advanced and artistic. For evidence of Neanderthal social intelligence, compassion, and sensitivity, see Penny A. Spikins, Holly E. Rutherford, and Andy P. Needham, “From Homininity to Humanity: Compassion From the Earliest Archaics to Modern Humans,” Time and Mind 3.3 (2010), 303–325; William Rendu et al., “Evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.1 (2014), 81–86; Penny Spikins et al., “The cradle of thought: growth, learning, play and attachment in Neanderthal children,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33.2 (2014), 111–134; Erik Trinkaus and Sébastien Villotte, “External auditory exostoses and hearing loss in the Shanidar 1 Neandertal,” PloS one 12.10 (2017), e0186684; Penny Spikins et al., “Calculated or caring? Neanderthal healthcare in social context,” World Archaeology (2018), 1–20; A. Gómez-Olivencia et al, “La Ferrassie 1: New Perspectives on a ‘classic’ Neandertal,” Journal of Human Evolution 117 (2018), 13–32.
For Neanderthal cultural and technological advancement, art, and symbolism see Karen Hardy et al. “Neanderthal medics? Evidence for food, cooking, and medicinal plants entrapped in dental calculus,” Naturwissenschaften 99.8 (2012), 617–626; Ruggero D’Anastasio et al., “Micro-biomechanics of the Kebara 2 hyoid and its implications for speech in Neanderthals,” PLoS One 8.12 (2013), e82261; Jacques Jaubert et al., “Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in southwestern France,” Nature 534.7605 (2016), 111; A. C. Sorensen et al., “Neandertal fire-making technology inferred from microwear analysis,” Scientific reports 8.1 (2018), 10065; Ana Majkić et al., “A decorated raven bone from the Zaskalnaya VI (Kolosovskaya) Neanderthal site, Crimea,” PloS one 12.3 (2017), e0173435; Biancamaria Aranguren et al., “Wooden tools and fire technology in the early Neanderthal site of Poggetti Vecchi (Italy),” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018), 201716068; Dirk L. Hoffmann et al., “U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art,” Science 359.6378 (2018), 912–915; Dirk L. Hoffmann et al., “Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals 115,000 years ago,” Science advances 4.2 (2018), eaar5255.
The recent and pivotal turning point in our understanding of Neanderthals as intelligent beings is marked by A. Lawler, “Neanderthals, Stone Age People May Have Voyaged the Mediterranean,” Science (April 24, 2018), “The recent evidence from the Mediterranean suggests purposeful navigation,” the article reads. “The orthodoxy until pretty recently was that you don’t have seafarers until the early Bronze Age,” adds archaeologist John Cherry of Brown University, an initial skeptic. “Now we are talking about seafaring Neandertals. It’s a pretty stunning change.”
22. Derevianko, Shunkov, and Volkov, “A Palaeolithic Bracelet from Denisova Cave,” 3.
23. Ibid., 15.
24. Ibid., 24. Emphasis added.
25. Ibid., 18.
26. Ibid., 24.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. See also Alexandra Buzhilova, Anatoly Derevianko, and Michael Shunkov, “The Northern Dispersal Route: Bioarchaeological Data from the Late Pleistocene of Altai, Siberia,” Current Anthropology 58, Suppl. 17 (December 2017), S500: “Archaeological data suggest that the first Denisovans arrived in the Altai around 300 ka, with continuous cultural development for a long time. The genetic data confirm that Denisovans were present in the area at least twice and possibly over a long period of time. Thus, we have adequate data to evaluate the hypothesis of continuous cultural and physical development of Denisovans over time. The similar morphology of two upper hominin molars from Denisova Cave, separated by a thick deposit and tens of thousands of years, also supports this idea.”
31. Derenanko, Shunkov, and Volkov, “A Paleolithic Bracelet from Denisova Cave,” 22.
32. Ibid., 22–23.
33. Ibid., 17.
34. Ibid., 20.
35. Ibid., 24.
36. Ibid., 21.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 21–22.
39. Ibid., 33–34.
40. Ibid., 13 and 15. See also 16: “a date of 29,200 ± ± 360 BP (AA-35321) on charcoal from the border zone between strata 11 and 10.”
41. Ibid., 24.
42. This conversation took place at the institute on September 14, 2017.
43. M. Kozlikin quoted in “World’s Oldest Needle Found in Siberian Cave That Stitches Together Human History,” Siberian Times, August 23, 2016, http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds-oldest-needle-found-in-siberian-cave-that-stitches-together-human-history/.
44. Email correspondence with Maxim Kozlikin on February 21, 2018: “The needle you’re talking about was found in the Central Chamber of the cave in 2016. So far, these materials have been published only in Russian.”
45. “World’s Oldest Needle Found in Siberian Cave That Stitches Together Human History.”
46. Ibid.
47. Derevianko, Shunkov, and Volkov, “A Palaeolithic Bracelet from Denisova Cave,” 15.
48. A. P. Derevianko and E. P. Rybin, “The Oldest Evidence for Symbolic Behavior of the Palaeolithic Men in Gorny Altai,” Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia 3, no. 15 (2003), 27–50.
49. Or, to be more precise, to 48,650 years old plus or minus somewhere between 2,380 and 1,840 years ago. Derevianko, Shunkov, and Volkov, “A Palaeolithic Bracelet from Denisova Cave,” 15.
50. “World’s Oldest Needle Found in Siberian Cave”: “The bracelet was exhibited in Paris this year, carrying a label showing it to be 50,000 years old with the approval of scientists.”
51. “Is This Stunning Bracelet Made by Paleolithic Man for His Favourite Woman Really 70,000 Years Old?” Siberian Times, August 2, 2017, http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/could-this-stunning-bracelet-be-65000-to-70000-years-old/.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Which Middle Pleistocene species of human the Sima de los Huesos (SH) hominins of Spain belonged to—either the Denisovans of southern Siberia or the Neanderthals of western Eurasia—adds an interesting nuance to the archaeological evasiveness of the Denisovans, however. While the SH hominins share morphological features and nuclear DNA with Neanderthals, the mtDNA of one SH individual is more closely related to the mtDNA of Denisovans than to that of Neanderthals. Whether or not the Denisovans can be termed a separate species to the Neanderthals and SH hominins has therefore been put to doubt.
For studies concluding upon the morphological affinity of the SH hominins to Neanderthals, see I. Martínez and J. L. Arsuaga, “The Temporal Bones from Sima de los Huesos Middle Pleistocene Site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain): A Phylogenetic Approach,” Journal of Human Evolution 33 (1993), 283–318; M. Martinón-Torres et al., “Morphological Description and Comparison of the Dental Remains from Atapuerca-Sima de los Huesos Site (Spain),” Journal of Human Evolution 62 (2012), 7–58; J. L. Arsuaga et al., “Neanderthal Roots: Cranial and Chronological Evidence from Sima de los Huesos,” in Science 44, no. 6190 (2014); R. Quam et al., “The Bony Labyrinth of the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos Hominins (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain),” Journal of Human Evolution 90 (2016), 1–15.
For sequencing r
esults that link the nDNA of the SH hominins to Neanderthals, see M. Meyer et al., “Nuclear DNA Sequences from the Middle Pleistocene Sima de los Huesos Hominins,” Nature 531 (March 24, 2016).
For results that link the mtDNA of SH hominins with Denisovans, see M. Meyer et al., “A Mitochondrial Genome Sequence of a Hominin from Sima de los Huesos,” Nature 505 (January 16, 2014). There has also been speculation surrounding the mysterious 105–125 ky skulls excavated in Xuchang, China, which from the perspective of Martinón-Torres “definitely” fit what one expects from Denisovans: “something with an Asian flavor but closely related to Neandertals.” But because the investigators have not extracted DNA from the skulls, “the possibility remains a speculation” (Martinón-Torres quoted in A. Gibbons, “Ancient Skulls May Belong to Elusive Humans Called Denisovans,” Science News [March 2, 2017]).
56. See Anne Gibbons, “Siberian Cave Was Home to Generations of Ancient Humans,” Science (September 15, 2015), http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/09/siberian-cave-was-home-generations-mysterious-ancient-humans.
57. Viviane Slon et al., “The Genome of the Offspring of a Neanderthal Mother and a Denisovan Father,” Nature (August 22, 2018).
58. Reich et al., “Genetic History of an Archaic Hominin Group from Denisova Cave in Siberia,” 1053. And see J. Krause et al., “The Complete Mitochondrial DNA Genome of an Unknown Hominin from Southern Siberia,” Nature 464 (2010), 894–897.
59. The earlier date of 430,000 years ago is based on the fossil record (Arsuaga et al., “Neanderthal Roots”), whereas genomic results have indicated a divergence window of between 550,000 and 765,000 years ago (Prüfer et al., “The Complete Genome Sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains”).
60. Martin Kuhlwilm et al., “Ancient Gene Flow from Early Modern Humans into Eastern Neanderthals,” Nature 530 (February 25, 2016), 429.
61. Qin and Stoneking, “Denisovan Ancestry in East Eurasian and Native American Populations,” 2665, Figure 4.
62. A. Cooper and C. B. Stringer, “Did the Denisovans Cross Wallace’s Line?” Science 342 (October 18, 2013), 321.
63. Reich et al., “Genetic History of an Archaic Hominin Group from Denisova Cave in Siberia,” 1053.
64. Qin and Stoneking, “Denisovan Ancestry in East Eurasian and Native American Populations,” 2665. See also Sharon Browning et al., “Analysis of Human Sequence Data Reveals Two Pulses of Archaic Denisova Admixture,” Cell 173 (March 22, 2018), 1–9. Apart from Papuans, highest levels of introgressed Denisovan DNA have been found in Southern Han Chinese, Chinese Hai, Han Chinese, Bengali, Gujarati Indian, Japanese, Kinh individuals (all East, Southeast, and Central Asia). See p. 7, Figure. 5. Also see p. 7: “We found evidence for two waves of Denisovan admixture, one from a population closely related to the Altai Denisovan individual, and one from a population more distantly related to the Altai Denisovan. The component closely related to the Altai Denisovan is primarily present in East Asians, whereas the component more distantly related to the Altai Denisovan forms the major part of the Denisovan ancestry in Papuans and South Asians.”
65. Cooper and Stringer, “Did the Denisovans Cross Wallace’s Line?” 322.
66. Ibid.
67. See G. Hancock, Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization (Three Rivers Press, 2002) and S. Oppenheimer and I. Syahrir, Eden in the East (Ufuk Press, 2010).
9: THE STRANGE AND MYSTERIOUS GENETIC HERITAGE OF NATIVE AMERICANS
1. Particularly by the Human Genome Project from 1990 to 2003. For accessible information on DNA sequencing technologies, see J. U. Adams et al., “DNA Sequencing Technologies,” Scitable (Nature Education, 2008), https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-sequencing-technologies-690.
2. For a good overview of the influence of DNA studies on ancient population history, see S. Subramanian, “Ancient Population Genomics,” in Encyclopaedia of Life Sciences (Wiley, 2001).
3. M. M. Houck and J. A. Siegel, “Chapter 11—DNA Analysis,” in Fundamentals of Forensic Science, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, 2015), 261–290, esp. 282.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 283.
6. Ibid.
7. For further discussion, see National Human Genome Research Institute, “Chromosomes” (last updated June 16, 2015), https://www.genome.gov/26524120/chromosomes-fact-sheet/. Also see Genetics Home Reference, “What Is Genetic Ancestry Referencing?” (May 15, 2018), https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/ancestrytesting.
8. Christy G. Turner et al., Animal Teeth and Human Tools: A Taphonomic Odyssey in Ice Age Siberia (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 177G; I. Medvedev, “Upper Paleolithic Sites in South-Central Siberia” in The Paleolithic of Siberia: New Discoveries and Interpretations, ed. A. P. Derev’ianko, D. B. Shimkin, and W. R. Powers (University of Illinois Press, 1998), 122–132.
9. Maanasa Raghavan et al., “Upper Palaeolithic Siberian Genome Reveals Dual Ancestry of Native Americans,” Nature 505 (January 2, 2014), 87.
10. Ibid.
11. Turner et al., Animal Teeth and Human Tools, 173; Peter N. Peregrine and Melvin Ember (eds.), Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 2: Arctic and Subarctic, Volume 6, p. 194.
12. BBC News, “Ancient DNA from Siberian Boy Links Europe and America,” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25020958.
13. “24,000-Year-Old Body Shows Kinship to Europeans and American Indians,” New York Times, November 21, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/science/two-surprises-in-dna-of-boy-found-buried-in-siberia.html.
14. Peregrine and Ember, Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 2: Arctic and Subarctic, 194.
15. Specifically between “24,423–23,891 calendar years before present;” see Raghavan et al., “Upper Palaeolithic Siberian Genome,” 87.
16. Ibid.
17. Morten Rasmussen et al., “The Genome of a Late Pleistocene Human from a Clovis Burial Site in Western Montana,” Nature 506 (February 13, 2014), 225ff; Stuart J. Fiedel, “The Anzick Genome Proves Clovis Is First After All,” Quaternary International (June 20, 2017), 4ff.
18. As of July 2018, it has been known that a species of Homo reached central China by 2.12 million years ago (Z. Zhu et al., “Hominin Occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau Since About 2.1 Million Years Ago,” Nature [July 11, 2018]). Whether this species of Homo migrated there from Africa or originated somewhere in East Asia, perhaps even China, is up for debate. What is for certain, is that evidence for the advanced exploratory abilities of the most ancient hominins like Homo erectus is mounting and becoming harder to deny. For the most comprehensive documentation of Homo erectus and other early hominin technological—most notably maritime—abilities, see R. Bednarik, “The Maritime Dispersal of Pleistocene Humans,” Migration and Diffusion 3, no. 10 (2002), 6–33; R. G. Bednarik, “The Beginnings of Maritime Travel,” Advances in Anthropology 4, no. 4) (2014), 209; and R. G. Bednarik, “An Experiment in Pleistocene Seafaring,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27, no. 2 (1998), 139–149.
For the viability of early hominin maritime dispersal, consult work by Sue O’Connor, for example, S. O’Connor et al., “Hominin Dispersal and Settlement East of Huxley’s Line: The Role of Sea Level Changes, Island Size, and Subsistence Behavior,” Current Anthropology 58, no. S17 (2017), S567–S582; S. Kealy, J. Louys, and S. O’Connor, Reconstructing Palaeogeography and Inter‐Island Visibility in the Wallacean Archipelago During the Likely Period of Sahul Colonization, 65–45,000 Years Ago,” Archaeological Prospection 24, no. 3 (2017), 259–272.
Finally, for conclusive evidence of ancient hominin marine capability, see T. F. Strasser et al., “Dating Palaeolithic Sites in Southwestern Crete, Greece,” Journal of Quaternary Science 26, no. 5 (2011), 553–560. Crete has been separated from mainland Greece since the Miocene 6 million to 5 million years ago, so the presence of Pleistocene-age arteiacts there proves conclusively that early hominins were able to—and indeed did—make substantial sea crossings and explore more of the world than we hitherto gave them credit for.
19. “About 1/3 of the genome of all native Americans comes from Mal’ta or a population closely related to it. Importantly however Anzick is just like other Native Americans in this regard, not anything special.” Personal communication (by email) from Professor Eske Willerslev, Prince Philip Professor of Ecology and Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, February 23, 2018. See also Rasmussen et al., “The Genome of a Late Pleistocene Human,” 225–226; Raghavan et al., “Upper Palaeolithic Siberian Genome Reveals Dual Ancestry,” 87–88.
20. Rasmussen et al., “The Genome of a Late Pleistocene Human,” 225.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid. Emphasis added.
23. Raghavan et al., “Upper Palaeolithic Siberian Genome Reveals Dual Ancestry,” 87.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Fiedel, “The Anzick Genome Proves Clovis Is First After All,” 4.
31. Rasmussen et al., “The Genome of a Late Pleistocene Human,” 225.
32. Fiedel, “The Anzick Genome Proves Clovis Is First After All,” 5.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Lorena Becerra-Valdivia et al., “Reassessing the Chronology of the Archaeological Site of Anzick,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (June 18, 2018), 1. And see D. J. Stanford and B. A. Bradley in Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture (University of California Press, 2012), 180.
America Before Page 55
