| Literature DB >> 27381450 |
Hélène Rougier1, Isabelle Crevecoeur2, Cédric Beauval3, Cosimo Posth4,5, Damien Flas6, Christoph Wißing7, Anja Furtwängler4, Mietje Germonpré8, Asier Gómez-Olivencia9,10,11,12, Patrick Semal8, Johannes van der Plicht13,14, Hervé Bocherens7,15, Johannes Krause4,5,15.
Abstract
Almost 150 years after the first identification of Neandertal skeletal material, the cognitive and symbolic abilities of these populations remain a subject of intense debate. We present 99 newEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27381450 PMCID: PMC4933918 DOI: 10.1038/srep29005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Neandertal remains from the Troisième caverne of Goyet (Belgium).
*Designates the specimens that have been directly dated. Scale = 3 cm.
Sample information and results of the 14C and genetic analyses of the Neandertal remains from Goyet.
| Specimen | Radiocarbon dating | Genetic analyses | Anthropogenic marks | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID | Description | Lab # | 14C age (BP) | Calibrated age (calBP) 95% probability | ||
| 2878–2D | Lower lt P2 (mandible 2878–8) | GrA-54028 | 32,190 +200, −190 | 36,510–35,630 | − | − |
| C5–1 | Lt parietal frag. | − | − | − | Nean | − |
| Q53–4 | Rt humerus diaph. frag. (humerus III) | GrA-54022 | 39,870 +400, −350 | 44,330–42,920 | − | − |
| Q55–1 | Lt clavicle frag. | GrA-54257 | 37,860 +350, −310 | 42,650–41,700 | − | C |
| Q55–4 | Rt tibia diaph. frag. (tibia IV) | − | − | − | Nean | C + N + P + R |
| Q56–1 | Rt femur diaph. frag. (femur I) | GrA-46170 | 38,440 +340, −300 | 43,000–42,080 | 1 | C + N + P |
| Q57–1 | Lt tibia diaph. frag. (tibia II) | GrA-46173 | 41,200 +500, −410 | 45,630–43,910 | 2 | C + N |
| Q57–2 | Rt femur diaph. frag. (femur II) | GrA-54024 | 36,590 +300, −270 | 41,800–40,620 | 2 | C + N + P |
| Q57–3 | Rt tibia diaph. frag. (tibia VI) | GrA-60019 | 38,260 +350, −310 | 42,900–41,960 | 2 | C + N |
| Q119–2 | Lt rib 7? frag. | − | − | − | Nean | − |
| Q305–4 | Lt tibia diaph. frag. (tibia I) | GrA-46176 | 40,690 +480, −400 | 45,150–43,430 | 3 | C + N |
| Q305–7 | Rt tibia diaph. frag. (tibia III) | − | − | − | 1 | C + N + P + R |
| Q374a–1 | Rt tibia diaph. frag. (tibia V) | − | − | − | 1 | C + N + P + R |
| Q376–1 | Hand prox. phalanx 2-4 | GrA-46178 | 39,140 +390, −340 | 43,650–42,440 | − | − |
| Q376–20 | Rt humerus diaph. frag. (humerus II) | GrA-60018 | 37,250 +320, −280 | 42,240–41,290 | − | C + N? |
*This specimen may have been varnished resulting in a young age (Supplementary Note S6). For the calibration of the 14C ages, see Supplementary Note S6. Genetic analyses: 1–3 represent three distinct Neandertal mtDNA lineages, Nean: Neandertal status confirmed; Anthropogenic modifications: C: cutmarks, N: percussion notches, P: percussion pits, R: retoucher traces. All of the specimens are part of the RBINS collections and were excavated by E. Dupont in 1868.
Figure 2Maximum parsimony tree for the seven analysed Goyet samples that produced complete or almost complete mitochondrial genomes compared to 63 published modern human, Neandertal and Denisovan mtDNAs.
Numbers at the main branch nodes represent bootstrap values after 1,000 iterations.
Figure 3Overview of the anthropogenic modifications observed on the Neandertal remains from the Troisième caverne of Goyet (Belgium).
See Supplementary Fig. S8 for individual Neandertal bones with anthropogenic modifications. Skeleton diagrams modified from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_skeleton_front_en.svg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_skeleton_back_en.svg using Adobe Illustrator CS4 v. 14.0.0.
Figure 4Retouching marks (b1,b2) and cutmarks (c1,c2) present on the Goyet Neandertal bones (example of femur III).
(a) femur III in anterior view; (b1,c1) close-up photos; (b2,c2) images obtained using a minidome (see Methods).
Figure 5Percussion pits (b1,b2) and percussion notch (c1,c2) present on the Goyet Neandertal bones (example of femur I).
(a) femur I in posterior view; (b1,c1) close-up photos; (b2,c2) images obtained using a minidome (see Methods).
Numbers and proportions of Neandertal, horse, reindeer and carnivore remains bearing anthropogenic modifications and toothmarks in the Goyet assemblage.
| Nean dertal | Horse | Reindeer | Carnivore | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NISP Cutmarks | 31 (32%) | 85 (19%) | 126 (44%) | 3 (3%) |
| NISP Percussion Notches | 20 (21%) | 107 (24%) | 151 (53%) | 0 |
| NISP Percussion Pits | 10 (10%) | 6 (1%) | 1 (0.3%) | 0 |
| NISP Retoucher Traces | 5 (5%) | 22 (5%) | 58 (20%) | 0 |
| NISP Toothmarks | 1 (1%) | 27 (6%) | 4 (1%) | 17 (19%) |
Carnivores include bear (Ursus spelaeus or Ursus arctos), fox (Vulpes vulpes or Vulpes lagopus), a large canid (Canis sp.), hyaena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea), and badger (Meles meles). The observed faunal specimens were identified among a sample of Dupont’s collection from FBL 2 and 3 (Supplementary Table S5). Note that the high percentage of retouchers made on reindeer bones is most likely related to the under-representation of fragments less than 55 mm long in our sample.
Description of the Neandertal bone retouchers from Goyet using the criteria of Mallye et al. 40 and Daujeard et al. 41.
| Femur III anterior area | Femur III medial area | Tibia III posterior area | Tibia IV posterior area | Tibia V medial area | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Area | Length (mm) | 14.6 | 19.2 | 11.4 | 17.0 | 20.9 |
| Width (mm) | 4.4 | 7.5 | 9.0 | 5.8 | 13.2 | |
| Preparatory scraping | no | no | no | no | no | |
| Morphology (if concentrated and superposed traces) | − | hatched | − | − | hatched | |
| Marks | Orientation (to the long axis of the fragment) | oblique | transverse | transverse | transverse | transverse, slightly oblique |
| Position | centered | centered? | centered | centered | centered | |
| Concentration | dispersed | concentrated and superposed | dispersed | dispersed | concentrated and superposed | |
| Morphology | rectilinear - smooth | rectilinear - rough | rectilinear - smooth | rectilinear - smooth and rough | rectilinear - smooth |