Morphological variation of the early human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico: Contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas.

The human settlement of the Americas has been a topic of intense debate for centuries, and there is still no consensus on the tempo and mode of early human dispersion across the continent. When trying to explain the biological diversity of early groups across North, Central and South America, studies have defended a wide range of dispersion models that tend to oversimplify the diversity observed across the continent. In this study, we aim to contribute to this debate by exploring the cranial morphological affinities of four late Pleistocene/early Holocene specimens recovered from the caves of Quintana Roo, Mexico. The four specimens are among the earliest human remains known in the continent and permit the contextualization of biological diversity present during the initial millennia of human presence in the Americas. The specimens were compared to worldwide reference series through geometric morphometric analyses of 3D anatomical landmarks. Morphological data were analyzed through exploratory visual multivariate analyses and multivariate classification based on Mahalanobis distances. The results show very different patterns of morphological association for each Quintana Roo specimen, suggesting that the early populations of the region already shared a high degree of morphological diversity. This contrasts with previous studies of South American remains and opens the possibility that the initial populations of North America already had a high level of morphological diversity, which was reduced as populations dispersed into the southern continent. As such, the study of these rare remains illustrates that we are probably still underestimating the biological diversity of early Americans.

Introduction

The human settlement of and dispersion across the Americas has been one of the most debated topics in archaeology and biological anthropology, with hundreds of articles published about the topic in the last decade alone. The initial occupation of the Americas has spun so much interest because the continent was the last large landmass on the planet to be occupied by humans, with a significant gap between the occupation of the other continental landmasses (~35 kya for the last regions of the old world: north Europe and Asia) and the initial crossing of human groups into the Americas (~20–15 kyr, according to [1]; but see [2-5] for suggestions of earlier occupations dates in North and South America).

The large scholarly interest in the occupation of the Americas also derives in equal measure from the historic events that led to the European colonization of the New World and the impact that North American academia has had in defining the mainstream research agenda in archaeology around the planet during the last century. The colonial interest in the origins of the Native American populations dates back to the initial decades of European presence in the continent (e.g., [6]), when the unknown origins of Native Americans in a land that was not seen as the birthplace of humankind invoked discussion about the origins of local native groups. To a large extent, this initial discussion set the tone for the centuries that followed, as the origins of Native Americans became an important mystery to be solved, leading to the establishment of numerous research projects to address the topic. As the United States assumed a role of leadership in archaeological research in the 20th and 21st centuries, this initial interest was translated into a large research program dedicated to the study of the settlement of the continent (see [7] for an early example).

From the inception of the academic discussion on the settlement of the Americas, the most important questions pursued regarded the timing, routes and biological origins of the first Americans. These three questions (when, where, and who) can be considered the broadest and most basal questions in understanding the process of human dispersion into the continent, and yet there is still a lack of consensus and considerable debate surrounding their answers (see, for example [1, 8]). Most certainly, an important factor contributing to this lack of consensus is that we are simplifying complex human processes into models that are not capturing the complex dynamics of human groups as they entered and occupied the continent. While creating models of dispersion is essential for us to be able to define testable hypotheses about the occupation of the continent, this practice also resulted in the establishment of oversimplified and, consequently, unrealistic models for the settlement of the Americas.

Take for example the discussion about the biological origins of Native American groups, since this is the focus of the present article. Genetic approaches to the study of human variation have shown conflicting results over the past several decades, with vastly different models previously defended to explain the biological diversity of Native American populations over the past 15 thousand years. The study of the biological diversity of the early occupants of the Americas has been approached indirectly, through the analysis of craniofacial [9-16], linguistic [17-19], and archaeological evidence [20, 21], as well as directly, with the study of DNA among modern Native American groups [22-25] and ancient remains [23, 26–28]. Over the past several decades, studies defended a wide array of scenarios, including a single migration into the continent [24, 25], two discrete early migrations into the continent [11, 12, 29], three dispersion events over the Holocene [17, 30], continuous gene-flow with Asia over the Holocene [9, 15], and different combinations of these [16, 27, 31]. Moreover, studies have defended different models of human dispersion after the initial process of settlement (e.g., [14, 23, 31]). This myriad of different scenarios speaks strongly of limitations to our ability to reconstruct reliable models for the settlement of and human dispersion across the Americas. These limitations result, in a large degree, from shortcomings inherent in our data, which result in hypotheses and models about the settlement of the Americas systematically underestimating the amount of biological diversity observed in the continent during the Holocene.

For genetic studies, these limitations usually refer to limited samples available for analysis and result in studies based on different datasets that defend significantly different scenarios (for a recent example, see [23] and [31]). For craniofacial studies, these limitations refer to the complex model of inheritance and development of the morphological phenotype, which is the result of stochastic inheritance [32, 33] combined with responses to specific environmental and developmental pressures (e.g., [34]). Nonetheless, the study of craniofacial variation has for a long time been suggesting that there is considerable biological diversity in the Americas over time [10, 12–14, 16, 35], something that has only recently started to be identified in the genetic studies of current and past groups on the continent (e.g., [23, 31]). Taken together, these studies indicate that we still do not have an accurate picture of the biological diversity in the Americas over time, and until we have a better understanding of this diversity, it will be impossible to create reliable models for the settlement of the Americas.

Here, we contribute to the study of biological diversity in the Americas through the analysis of a series of early fragmented skulls from the Quintana Roo region, Mexico. The Quintana Roo material is uniquely important for this discussion for several reasons: First, it represents some of the earliest human remains in the Americas (e.g., [36, 37]), dating to the final millennia of the Pleistocene and beginning of the Holocene. Second, their preservation is among the best in North America, representing the most abundant material available to study biological diversity in the northern continent. While early Holocene remains are more frequent in South America [38, 39], early human remains in North America are notoriously rare [40]. And finally, the Mexican territory represents a geographical funnel, connecting North to Central and South Americas, and as such probably played an important role in the dispersion process between the northern and southern continents. Indeed, several studies have shown very high levels of craniofacial diversity among late Holocene Mexican groups [35, 41], suggesting that the region retained high levels of biological diversity until the end of the Holocene. Therefore, we aim to contribute to the discussion about the settlement of the Americas by testing whether early Mexican populations fit easily in our current understanding of the biological diversity of early American populations.

The early human remains from Quintana Roo

The Quintana Roo subterraneous karst system is among the most extensive active cave systems worldwide (Fig 1), with a presumed extension of 700 km or more [42]. The cave system was carved mostly during the Pleistocene [43] by a series of sea level oscillations and changes in the overall hydrology, which intermittently exposed large parts of the cave system. When sea level rose at the end of the Pleistocene and the Early Holocene, between 13 and 7.6 kyr BP, this enormous karst labyrinth was flooded for the last time, preserving both archaeological and anthropological information [43].

Fig 1

Coast of the Mexican State of Quintana Roo with location of cenotes and caves containing sites with human skeletons and associated Pleistocene fauna.

The area is presently restricted to a 20 km North-South directed stretch close to Tulum and extends towards Playa del Carmen. All sites are between a few hundred meters to a maximum of 10 km from the recent coastline. Map created by JAO, using satellite image from USGS. Maps of the caves are available in [13].

At least eight sites with human skeletal remains dating to the Pleistocene-Holocene transition (13–8 kyr BP) have been identified in the Tulum area of Quintana Roo (Fig 1). These sites range from a few hundred meters to a maximum of 10 km from the current coastline [36, 44–46]. The human skeletal remains in these sites were found in depths ranging from a few meters to over 40m of the submerged cave systems. These individuals were almost certainly deposited in their location before the caves were submerged, and as such are considered to have been in situ throughout the whole period in which the caves have been flooded. This information is important, as it ascertains the antiquity of the remains included in this study, and is supported by several complementary pieces of evidence: (a) the human skeletons discovered at Naharón, Las Palmas, Chan Hol I and II, El Templo, Muknal and El Pit (Fig 1) were discovered in deep parts of the caves, which were flooded during early stages of sea-level rise, and are located hundreds of meters away from the nearest modern sinkhole (cenote); (b) four human skeletons (El Templo, Las Palmas, Chan Hol I and II) were almost fully articulated (including carpals and tarsals) and almost complete (>80% of bones represented), without major bone displacement. This situation clearly indicates an in situ decay of the bodies, likely while the cave was still dry. And (c) the flexed positions of the Naharón, Las Palmas, Chan Hol I and Chan Hol II individuals suggest intentional deposition of the human remains, adding support to the hypothesis that the caves were dry at the time. Intentional placement of human bones is also indicated for the Muknal site discovered at 30 m water depth [47] (see also SI1). For the other individuals (El Pit, Chan Hol and El Templo), however, this situation is less clear and the final position of these skeletons appears to be the result of either accidental death in a cave (El Templo), or spreading as a result of intermittent floating in the water (El Pit; [44, 46]), which is similar to Black Hole site, documented recently by Chatters et al. [36].

The four crania from Quintana Roo included in this study (Fig 2; S1 Text) have been dated to the end of the Pleistocene/ beginning of the Holocene (Table 1). The absolute dating was accomplished by using different radiometric techniques (AMS and U/Th), both on bone and on charcoal. However, AMS dates on human bones must be taken with caution, as the amount of preserved collagen is very small in these cases [48], which can affect the accuracy of the date. For example, the Las Palmas individual was dated to 8,050+/-130 BP using AMS, and to 12,000–10,000 BP using U/Th techniques, illustrating the range of possible error. The Charcoal sample from Muknal was collected from inside the skull and is assumed to be contemporary or slightly younger than the bones, due to its preservation (it shows no evidence of weathering or degradation). The dating of the charcoal suggests an age older than 11,011 ± 133 BP ([47]; see also [44, 46] for additional charcoal dating of alleged fireplaces inside the caves). Therefore, there is strong support for the individuals of Quintana Roo to represent populations that occupied the area between the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene.

Fig 2

The early Quintana Roo specimens analyzed in this study.

Table 1

Radiometric dates of human bone and charcoal associated with the skeletons from submerged caves in the Tulum area, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Lab. Number	Individual	Sample	Laboratory	Radiocarbon Age BP ±1σ	Calibrated BP 2σ1
UCR4000A/CAMS-87301)	Naharón	14C AMS total amino acids from human bone	University of California Riverside	11,670±65	13,277–13,499
KIA435224	El Pit 1	14C on apatite from human bone	Kiel	11,332±64	13,073–13295
UGA6828	Las Palmas	14C AMS collagen from human bone	University of Georgia	8,050±130	8,587–9,306
Las Palmas/Oxford	Las Palmas	U/Th on human bone	Oxford University		10,000–12,000
UNAM1240	Muknal	14C on charcoal	LUR-UNAM	8,980±100	9,731–10290

1 Calibration according to CALIV REV7.1.0 using intcal13.14c.

A comprehensive description of the human material from the Yucatan submerged caves can be found in González et al. [44, 46] and Terrazas et al. [49]. Four individuals (Naharón, Las Palmas, El Pit I, Muknal) have crania sufficiently well preserved, and were included in the morphometric analyses presented here. For additional morphological information regarding this later individual, see Terrazas et al. [49] (see also [44-46]). The specific context of each of these individuals is also provided as Supplementary Information (S1 Text).

Materials and methods

In this study, we explore the morphological affinities of four crania recovered from the caves in Quintana Roo (Fig 2). The individuals come from Naharón (Specimen number: PAC2002-1(Na) B1a753), Las Palmas (specimen number: PAC2002-PALMAS-H-1), Muknal (PQR2011-PALMAS-H-2) and El Pit (Individual 1) (PQR2011- JACINTO PAT-1). All specimens are housed in the Laboratorio Arqueológico Xochimilco, Vivero Netzahualcóyotl, Calle Leandro Valle S/N, Col. Ciénega Grande, Delegación Xochimilco, Ciudad de México. All necessary permits were obtained from the Consejo de Arqueología of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (No. C.A.401-36/0960).

The skulls were CT-scanned and Type I and II landmarks representing their craniofacial morphology were collected from each individual by one of us (BH). The complete protocol of landmarks used for this study includes 76 type I and type II landmarks. However, the different states of preservation of the specimens precluded the use of the complete landmark set for the analyses. The number of landmarks collected for each individual is listed in Table 2 and range from 11 to 37 landmarks. Their values are reported in S1 Table. Unfortunately, there is only a small number of landmarks that are common across all specimens, so in this study we compare each specimen to the reference dataset individually. This limits our ability to explore the affinities among the Quintana Roo specimens, but such a comparison is not statistically feasible due to the lack of common landmarks across specimens. For similar reasons, there was no attempt to estimate missing values in the dataset, as the specimens are too few and incomplete to be used to infer missing landmarks with reliability. Given the problems derived from dealing with individual specimens (see below), the inference of landmarks would also potentially add another source of error for the analysis of morphological affinities.

Table 2

Landmarks available in each of the Quintana Roo specimens.

Landmark	ID1	Naharón	El Pit	Las Palmas	Muknal
Inion	1	X	X	X	X
Asterion R	2	X	X	X	X
Asterion L	3		X	X	X
Lambda	4		X	X	X
Basion	5			X
Opisthion	6			X
Hormion	9			X
Stylomastoid Foramen R	11	X		X	X
Porion R	16	X	X	X	X
Lat. Glenoid R	19	X	X	X	X
Frontomalare Posterior R	22			X	X
Stylomastoid Foramen L	23			X	X
Porion L	28		X	X	X
Lat. Glenoid L	31		X	X	X
Zyg-temp Suture Inf L	32			X
Zyg-temp Sututre Sup L	33			X
Frontomalare Posterior L	34			X	X
Bregma	50	X	X	X	X
Glabella	51	X		X	X
Nasion	52			X	X
Orbitale Superior Right	57	X		X	X
Dacryon R	58			X	X
Orbitale R	59			X	X
Zygoorbitale R	60			X	X
Frontomalare Orbitale R	61			X	X
Zygomaxillare R	63			X
Alare R	64			X	X
Jugale R	65				X
Stephanion R	66	X	X	X
Orbitale Superior Left	68	X		X	X
Dacryon L	69			X	X
Orbitale L	70			X
Zygoorbitale L	71			X
Frontomalare Orbitale L	72			X	X
Zygomaxillare L	74			X
Alare L	75			X	X
Jugale L	76			X	X
Stephanion L	77	X	X	X
Total		11	11	37	27

1–Landmark ID indicates the landmark number for the raw data in S1 Table.

The morphological affinities of the Quintana Roo specimens were assessed by comparing them to a reference sample of worldwide modern human populations [16, 50], comprised of 18 population samples (Table 3). The comparative dataset was collected by NvCT and has been used in previous studies exploring the morphological affinities of Early South American samples from Lagoa Santa, Brazil [16]. To date, it represents one of the largest comparative datasets for 3D craniofacial landmarks, and the only one that includes a reference sample from early Americans. All early Americans included in this series come from the region of Lagoa Santa, which represents the largest collection of early Holocene skulls in the Americas (details about the collection can be found in [11,16]).

Table 3

Human population craniometric samples used as reference samples.

Population	Region	N	Lat, Long	Museum1
San	Africa	31	-21.0, 20.0	NHM, MH, AMNH, NHMW, DC
Biaka		21	4.0, 17.0	NHM, MH
Ibo		30	7.5, 5.0	NHM
Zulu		30	-28.0, 31.0	NHM
Berber		30	32.0, 3.0	MH
Italian	Europe	30	46.0,10.0	NHMW
Basque		30	43.0, 0.0	MH
Russian		30	61.0, 40.0	NHMW
Australian	Australo-Melanesia	30	-22.0, 126.0	DC
Andaman		28	12.4, 92.8	NHM
Mongolian	Asia	30	45.0,111.0	MH
Chinese		30	32.5,114.0	NHMW
Japanese		30	38.0,138.0	MH
Alaskan	Arctic North America	30	69.0, -158.0	AMNH
Greenland		30	70.5, -53.0	SNMNH
Hawikuh	Americas	30	33.5, -109.0	SNMNH
Chubut		30	-43.7, -68.7	MLP
Lagoa Santa	Early America	30	-19.4, -44.0	ZMD, RIO, BH, USP

1 NHM, Natural History Museum (London, UK); MH, Museé de l’Homme (Paris, France); AMNH, American Museum of Natural History (NY, USA); NHMW, Das Naturhistorische Museum, Wien (Vienna, Austria); DC, Duckworth Collection (Cambridge, UK); SNMNH, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (Washington, D.C., USA); Museo de la Plata (La Plata, Argentina); ZMD, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen (Denmark); RIO, National Museum, Federal University (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); BH, Museu de História Natural, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Belo Horizonte, Brazil); USP, University of São Paulo (Brazil).

The 3D landmarks for each of the Quintana Roo specimens were combined with the reference samples, and each of the final datasets was processed through Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to remove the effect of size, rotation and translation between specimens [51]. The data post-GPA was transformed into Principal Components, by decomposing the total covariance matrix into its eigenvalues and eigenvectors and rotating the original data according to the coordinates of the eigenvectors [52]. The transformation into Principal Components is important because it transforms the original 3D coordinates into scaled orthogonal variables, that are not correlated (i.e., they have variances = 1 and covariances = 0) and that concentrate most of the explanatory power of the data into fewer variables. That is, the first Principal Component explains the largest amount of variance present in the original data, and so forth. Moreover, the transformation into Principal Components is an essential step to compare the morphological affinities of individual specimens to the values of population centroids.

Comparing isolated specimens to reference series is not straightforward, since it is impossible to know a priori if the isolated specimens represent the average shape of its original population (i.e., if the specimen is close in shape to the morphological average of the population), or if it is an outlier in that population. This posits a serious problem in the analysis of individual specimens, as the relationship of affinities observed may not be representing the true population biological affinities of the specimens. However, transforming the original data into Principal Components and working with the most informative ones largely solves this problem, because the individual deviations from the population centroid will tend to be relegated to the less informative Principal Components. The morphology of any individual in a population can be described as the morphology of the group centroid (the average morphology of the population) plus an individual error. This error component, because it is unique to each individual, will tend to be relegated to the less informative Principal Components since the individual error has a small contribution to the overall shared variance in the data.

Therefore, to integrate individual specimens into larger comparative datasets, focusing on the most informative PCs is an effective solution to minimize the impact that the individual error has on the assessment of a specimen’s morphological affinities. Evidently, this is only true as long as the population from which the individual comes is represented within the morphological variance of the reference dataset. This is a reasonable assumption in our case, as the comparative dataset represents the overall morphological diversity of modern humans.

Following this rationale, for each of the analyses we chose the number of PCs that explained around 50% of the original variance in the dataset. Since each specimen has a different number of landmarks and they were compared to the reference dataset individually, the final number of PCs used for each specimen varied, as indicated in Table 3. The morphological affinities were explored through three complementary analyses. The analyses were based on Mahalanobis distances (D2) between series calculated from the Principal Components selected for each specimen (Table 3). Mahalanobis distances were used due to the prevalence of this distance in studies of morphological affinities (e.g., [10, 12, 35, 53]). However, it must be noted that in this case, D2 is the same as common Euclidean distances since the former corrects the contribution of each variable based on the variance/covariance matrix, which in this case is an identity matrix (all PCs have variance of 1 and covariances of 0). The first analysis consisted of the Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) of the D2 matrix, which generates the graphic representation of distances without assuming hierarchical relationships between them [52]. The goodness of fit for the MDS was calculated through the Kruskall’s measurement of Stress, which informs how much the distance matrix is being deformed to be represented in the number of dimensions (two in this case) of the MDS solution. Low stress levels indicate better fit between the MDS solution and the distance matrix, and stress levels equal or below to 10% are usually considered be fair representations of the distance matrix [53]. Secondly, we analyzed the D2 in a cluster analysis using Ward’s algorithm of aggrupation [54]. Ward’s method has been used in the past for studies about the morphological affinities of modern humans [10, 12, 55] and shows high consistency in the morphological affinities observed among populations in a global context. Finally, the third analysis consisted of the classification of the specimens into the reference populations, using both Posterior Probabilities and Typicalities [52]. The difference between these two measurements is that the former calculates the probability of an individual belonging to any of the reference samples assuming that it must belong to at least one of them, while the latter allows for the possibility that the individual can be considered as not belonging to any of the reference samples. The combination of the two probability measurements allows for the analysis of which is the closest population to the specimen and how likely the individual is to belong to that population.

Males and females were analyzed together, as the sexual dimorphism after size is controlled for (through GPA analysis) has been shown to be a non-significant source of variance, when compared to the scale of differences between populations [10, 13, 16, 56]. Despite the fact that the sex of some of the Quintana Roo specimens was able to be estimated from the skeletal remains, restricting the analysis to only males or females would reduce the sample size in most of the reference populations, which would add larger sources of error than the one generated by grouping sexes. All analyses were performed in R [57] with functions written by MH and complemented by the packages geomorph [58], vegan [59], and MASS [60].

Results

Naharón

The cranial remains from Naharón (Fig 2) are estimated to be from a young adult female (see SI 1 for details) and represent the oldest of the skeletal remains analyzed here (cal BP 13,277–13,499; Table 1). The cranial remains from Naharón are largely fragmented, representing only the calvaria (frontal, portions of the parietals, and most of the occipital) and only 11 landmarks that matched the reference dataset could be collected from this individual. The analysis of morphological affinities for Naharón were based on the first two principal components, which explain 59.2% of the variance present in the dataset.

Fig 3a shows the result of the Multidimensional Scaling, which illustrates the morphological affinities of the series represented in the D2 distance matrix. Because the Mahalanobis distances are based on only two dimensions (PCs), the MDS shows an almost perfect fit to the distance matrix (Stress = 0.008%). The plot shows worldwide patterns of clustering that have been previously described in the literature [61, 62]: there are clusters for each of the main continental regions reflected in the dataset (Africa, East Asia, Europe). Different from previous studies [10, 56, 63], in this analysis the Early Americans series of Lagoa Santa appears in the center of the plot, closer to other series from South America (Chubut), East Asia (Mongolia), and Australia. Interestingly, Naharón appears closely associated to arctic North American series (Greenland and Alaska), which have been described previously as robust cold adapted populations and quite distinct from Native Americans [9, 15, 64]. Previous studies have also found association between Early Americans and the arctic series [16, 64]. The Ward’s Cluster generated for Naharón (Fig 3b) corroborates the associations seen in the MDS, with Naharón and the arctic populations appearing as an outlier to the rest of the groups in the dataset. The classification of Naharón is shown in Table 4. As can be seen, the highest posterior probabilities are between Naharón and Greenland (p = 0.319) and Alaska (p = 0.252). The Typicality results show Naharón to be very close to the centroid of these arctic populations (p = 0.974 and p = 0.771, respectively). However, a cautionary note must be added to the interpretation of the morphological affinities observed here, as they are based on a very small number of anatomical landmarks.

Fig 3

Morphological affinities between Naharón and reference series according to Mahalanobis distances of the first two Principal components.

A) Multidimensional Scaling. B) Ward’s Cluster.

Table 4

Posterior probabilities and typicalities calculated for the classification of each of the Quintana Roo specimens into the reference series.

Reference series	Region	Naharón		El Pit I		Las Palmas		Muknal
		Posterior Prob1	Typicality2	Posterior Prob1	Typicality2	Posterior Prob1	Typicality2	Posterior Prob1	Typicality2
San	Africa	0.018	0.054	0.038	0.217	0.001	0.024	<0.001	<0.001
Biaka		0.004	0.012	0.089	0.514	0.017	0.166	<0.001	<0.001
Ibo		0.009	0.028	0.051	0.292	0.031	0.252	<0.001	<0.001
Zulu		0.055	0.168	0.009	0.050	0.006	0.080	<0.001	<0.001
Berber		0.007	0.021	0.047	0.269	0.019	0.184	<0.001	<0.001
Italian	Europe	0.004	0.014	0.123	0.709	0.009	0.111	0.001	0.007
Basque		0.002	0.005	0.158	0.910	0.003	0.041	<0.001	0.003
Russian		0.001	0.002	0.146	0.838	0.017	0.172	0.004	0.016
Australian	Australo-Melanesia	0.089	0.271	0.025	0.142	0.006	0.077	<0.001	<0.001
Andaman		<0.001	0.001	0.125	0.719	0.102	0.522	0.001	0.003
Mongolian	Asia	0.056	0.172	0.025	0.144	0.003	0.045	0.097	0.190
Chinese		0.038	0.115	0.014	0.080	0.066	0.408	0.084	0.171
Japanese		0.002	0.006	0.102	0.584	0.111	0.546	0.106	0.201
Alaska	Arctic North America	0.252	0.771	0.001	0.007	0.053	0.356	0.225	0.329
Greenland		0.319	0.974	<0.001	<0.001	0.003	0.042	0.063	0.140
Hawikuh	Americas	0.014	0.043	0.020	0.117	0.013	0.142	0.053	0.124
Chubut		0.067	0.204	0.018	0.101	0.196	0.717	0.317	0.406
Lagoa Santa	Early America	0.065	0.198	0.010	0.057	0.345	0.882	0.048	0.115

1–The three highest posterior probabilities for each group are highlighted in bold.

2–Typicalities above 0.5 are highlighted in bold; typicalities below 0.05 are highlighted in italics.

El Pit I

The cranial remains from El Pit I (Fig 2) are also highly fragmented, with only the calvaria preserved enough for analysis. The individual has been dated to a similar time period as Naharón (cal BP 12,073–13,295; Table 1). El Pit I is estimated as a probable male and possibly died in the early stages of adulthood (see a complete description in SI 1). Only 11 of the landmarks available in the comparative dataset could be collected from this specimen.

The morphological affinities between El Pit I and the reference series are based on the first two Principal Components, which explain 55.0% of the variance in the dataset. Its relationship to the series is represented graphically through the MDS analysis (Fig 4a) and Ward’s Cluster (Fig 4b). As in the case for Naharon, the MDS show an almost perfect representation of the Mahalanois distances (Stress = 0.01%). The same regional patterns of morphological affinities observed before are clear in these analyses. However, El Pit I shows stronger morphological affinities with European populations, which is a pattern of association not previously seen between early Americans and reference series (although Kennewick Man was initially described as sharing strong morphological affinities with Ainu, Polynesian and European populations [65]). The Cluster analysis supports this association, showing that El Pit shares the larger cluster of European populations, and does not show any strong affinities with early or late American series. The classification analysis results (Table 4) shows that El Pit I has the highest Posterior Probabilities of being classified with the three European series and with Andaman. However, these probabilities never surpass 0.16, suggesting that El Pit I has relatively weak affinities with several series, rather than a strong affinity with one. The Typicality results (Table 4) support this interpretation, as only two of the reference series (Greenland and Alaska) can be considered statistically different (p<0.05) from this specimen, even though it is located close to the centroids (p>0.70) of the three European and Andaman series. El Pit I has a very different cranial vault morphology from the other Quintana Roo specimens (see SI1 for details), being the only individual that is brachiocephalic in the series. However, as was the case with Naharón, the morphological affinities of Pit I must be taken with caution, as the incomplete state of the specimen precludes any reliable conclusion of its relationship to the worldwide series.

Fig 4

Morphological affinities between El Pit I and reference series according to Mahalanobis distances of the first two Principal components.

A) Multidimensional Scaling. B) Ward’s Cluster.

Las Palmas

The remaining two individuals from Quintana Roo (Las Palmas and Muknal) are considerably more complete, and as such should be considered as the most reliable specimens for the study of morphological affinities. Las Palmas (Fig 2) was estimated to be a mid-adult female at the time of her death, based on traits observable on the cranial and post-cranial skeleton. A complete description of the individual is presented in S1 Text. Las Palmas’ chronology puts her at the boundary between the Pleistocene and Holocene, although the dates generated through AMS and U/Th show quite different time ranges (Table 1). The completeness of the individual allowed us to collect 37 landmarks in common with the reference dataset.

The morphological analyses for Las Palmas are based on the first five Principal Components, which explain 54.4% of the variance in the dataset. The morphological affinities between Las Palmas and the reference series is presented through the MDS analysis (Fig 5a) and the Ward’s Cluster (Fig 5b). With the increased number of variables contributing to the Mahalanobis distances, the MDS solution shows higher levels of stress (10.8%), but still within an acceptable range [53]. The MDS analysis shows the same regional patterns observed before, and Las Palmas appears strongly associated to the Paleoamerican series, suggesting strong morphological affinities between the early American series included in this study. Interestingly, both series appear in a central position in the plot, and the typical association between Paleoamerican and Australian populations is not clear in this analysis. In fact, the Ward’s Cluster shows that the two series share a cluster with Asian and Native American series and show no strong morphological affinities with the cluster from Africans and Australians. Finally, this association with the Lagoa Santa series is evident in the classification analysis (Table 4), as Las Palmas has its highest Posterior Probability of being part of the Lagoa Santa population (p = 0.345), followed by smaller probabilities of being part of Chubut (p = 0.196) and Japanese (p = 0.111). The Typicality shows that Las Palmas is very close to the Lagoa Santa centroid (p = 0.882), but also have moderately high typicalities with Chubut (p = 0.717) and Japanese (p = 0.546).

Fig 5

Morphological affinities between Las Palmas and reference series according to Mahalanobis distances of the first five Principal components.

A) Multidimensional Scaling. B) Ward’s Cluster.

Muknal

The last individual included in this study was recovered from Muknal and represents another well-preserved skull. Muknal (Fig 2) is estimated to have been a male individual, who died within the range of a mid-adult (30–45 years). A detailed description of this individual is provided in the S1 Text. Muknal shares the same chronological window as Las Palmas, with calibrated AMS dates ranging from 9,731 to 10,290 years BP (Table 1). Due to the good preservation of the cranium, 27 landmarks in common with the reference series were collected from this specimen.

The morphological analyses of Muknal are based on five Principal Components, which explain 53.9% of the variance in the dataset. The morphological affinities of Muknal in comparison to the reference series can be observed in Fig 6a (MDS) and 6b (Ward’s Cluster). The MDS stress in this analysis is also within an acceptable range (8.4%). Different from Las Palmas, Muknal does not show strong morphological affinities with Paleoamericans and appears at the extreme of the morphological diversity in the MDS, with no clear pattern of morphological affinities. On the Ward’s Cluster analysis (Fig 6b), Muknal appears associated with the arctic series, in a similar pattern to what is observed with the Naharón skull. This association, however, is less strong than the one observed for Naharón, as the closest group to this individual in the Classification analysis is the South American series of Chubut (Table 4), with a Posterior Probability of 0.317, followed by Alaska (p = 0.225) and Japanese (p = 0.106). However, Muknal is the strongest outlier of all the Quintana Roo specimens, as indicated by the typicality results (Table 4), where the highest typicality reported is quite low (0.406 for Chubut), and ten of the reference series (all Africans, all Europeans and all Australo-Melanesians) are statistically different (p<0.05) from this specimen. Therefore, the morphological associations of the Muknal skull are not strongly defined, as the individual is a relatively strong outlier within the morphospace shared by several of the American and Asian series in the reference dataset.

Fig 6

Morphological affinities between Muknal and reference series according to Mahalanobis distances of the first five Principal components.

A) Multidimensional Scaling. B) Ward’s Cluster.

Discussion and conclusions

Most of the studies that analyzed the morphological affinities of early Americans have shown that these populations do not share strong morphological affinities with Native American populations [9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 41, 63]. While there is immense debate about the reason for these differences (e.g., [9, 10, 15, 16, 56, 64]), there is substantial support that there is a significant shift in the cranial morphological pattern of Native American populations during the Holocene. Indeed, the morphological diversity seen in the continent over time is of the same magnitude as the difference observed between Australo-Melanesian and East Asian modern populations, which represent the most distinct regions on the planet in term of cranial morphological patterns [61, 62]. The early American morphology, commonly referred to as the Paleoamerican morphology [15, 63], seems to characterize most of the Native American populations during the last millennia of the Pleistocene and initial millennia of the Holocene [66]. After that, the morphological pattern that characterizes modern Native Americans becomes predominant, even though instances of the survival of the Paleomerican morphology have been reported across the continent [10, 38], including in the modern Mexican territory [40].

The early skulls from Quintana Roo fit well within this general pattern, as none (with a possible exception of Muknal) of them show a strong morphological affinity with more recent subarctic Native Americans series. As far as we can infer, based on the analysis of the individuals presented here, the early remains from the Quintana Roo follow the pattern of other early American series, in that they do not present a strong and evident association with later Native American series.

What distinguishes the Quintana Roo crania from other early American series is the degree of morphological diversity observed among them. In South America, where early American remains are more abundant, previous studies have shown a strong and consistent pattern of association with Australo-Melanesian and African series [10-12], as well as Late Pleistocene specimens from Europe and Asia [13]. This pattern has been explained as the result of early Americans retaining the ancestral morphology that characterized early modern human groups. For North America, the material available has shown less consistent patterns of morphological affinities [36, 65, 67, 68], although they have been described as having different morphological patterns from recent Native Americans [41, 68].

The Quintana Roo skulls do not seem to fit easily within the South American pattern, given that they show a remarkable degree of morphological diversity, each of them showing a different pattern of morphological affinities when compared to our reference series. Even though two of the specimens (Naharón and El Pit I) are very fragmented, and their morphological affinities should be considered less reliable, the two more complete skulls (Muknal and Las Palmas) show very different patterns of morphological affinities, suggesting that the observed morphological diversity is not just a result of the fragmented nature of the material. For most of the Quintana Roo skulls, we observe patterns of association that have been described before in the analysis of early American remains: Naharón and Muknal show a stronger affinity with North American arctic populations (Alaska and Greenland), which have been previously associated morphologically with early series from South America [16, 63]. Las Palmas also shows strong similarities with South American Paleoamericans, connecting this individual to the Paleoamerican morphological pattern [12, 38, 69]. As such, these crania demonstrate a strong affinity with populations that share a more generalized cranial morphology, as described in previous studies (e.g., [13]). The only exception to this is the individual from El Pit, which appears strongly associated with European series and shows a different overall cranial vault shape from the other Quintana Roo individuals (SI1). This pattern of association has not been observed before for South Paleoamericans (but see [65]), but some North American Early and Archaic skulls show stronger affinities with European series [41]. As such, the Quintana Roo specimens demonstrate an unexpected level of morphological diversity when compared with South Paleoamericans.

The high morphological diversity among the early Mexican material marks an interesting counterpoint to previous interpretations of early American diversity and as such has important implications for our understanding of the processes of early human movement across the continent. At the very least, it provokes researchers to reevaluate the validity of extrapolations made in the past. Since the beginning of the debate surrounding the settlement of the Americas, there has been a strong emphasis on grouping the human processes happening in the northern and southern continent as being similar. As such, most of the studies focusing on North America tend to assume that the occupation of South America can be extrapolated linearly from the northern continent (e.g., [17, 23, 25, 30]), while studies focusing on South America often assume that what is observed in that continent was also true for North America (e.g., [9, 15, 56, 63]), effectively ignoring the difference in archaeological evidence and eco-geographical realities between the two hemispherical regions for the sake of broad generalized models of human dispersion into the Americas.

The diversity seen in the Quintana Roo material suggests that, already at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, Native American individuals showed high morphological diversity, supporting studies of the few early specimens available from North America [41]. Moreover, this high diversity is not only restricted to the early populations, since recent groups in the Mexican region have also been described as presenting high morphological diversity [35, 41]. Together, these studies point to the Mexican territory being highly diverse across the entire time humans occupied it. In Baja California, the morphological affinities between the Pericues and Paleoamericans has been explained as the result of the former being isolated from other Native American populations during most of the Holocene [41]. However, in central Mexico, gene-flow barriers are not good explanations for the degree of morphological diversity reported by Herrera and colleagues [35], who suggest high diversity being present in the territory over longer periods of time.

It is hard to speculate at this point on the reasons why the Mexican territory would show a high degree of cranial morphological affinities over time, as this could be the result of a combination of different factors, including a) long-term gene-flow barriers between populations, established by either eco-geographical or cultural reasons; b) constant influx of new genetic diversity from the northern portion of the continent due to stronger gene-flow with those regions; and c) local processes of adaptation to different environmental conditions or life-style habits. Combinations of these different processes have been shown to be able to promote the appearance of morphological diversity among modern human populations over time [32, 33, 70–72]. Unfortunately, with only a few specimens available, it is impossible to test the contribution of any of these processes for the early Quintana Roo remains. However, while we cannot at this point contribute to the discussion on the possible origins of the high morphological diversity among early Mexican populations, establishing its presence allow us to put into question several aspects of the general views about the settlement of the Americas.

First, the high diversity in Quintana Roo, when compared to South American early remains, suggests that South America may have been occupied by groups carrying only a smaller portion of the total biological diversity in North America. This scenario is also supported by the study of early North Americans remains, which show different patterns of morphological affinities from what is observed in South America [41, 68]. This would explain the relative morphological homogeneity of South Paleoamericans, and also fits well with recent genetic data that shows Paleoamericans and other South American native groups share a common ancestor in North America [23]. Consequently, these results suggest that the abrupt change observed in the morphological pattern in South America does not need to be true in North America, and previous models of population replacement or multiple migration waves may only be applicable to South America.

Second, the Quintana Roo diversity supports previous studies that suggested similar levels of diversity in other parts of North America [41]. In other words, these individuals demonstrate that there is no reason to expect that all North American early individuals will share the Paleoamerican morphological pattern. In fact, this helps to contextualize some of the debated results found for some of the few early North American skulls, like Kennewick Man [65]. While this individual does not classify clearly with recent Native Americans, his morphology has been previously associated with Polynesian and European populations. It is important to clarify here that association with specific populations in the reference series does not imply a direct gene-flow or migration between them. In other words, strong morphological affinities between El Pit I (or other early North American specimens) with European populations does not imply that there was a migration from Europe to the Americas. It implies an unexpected level of morphological diversity, but it is not enough to establish ancestor-descendent relationships between reference series and the specimens analyzed.

Third, the identification of high morphological diversity among the Quintana Roo material, and even some of the unexpected morphological affinities between some of them and the reference series, demonstrates that we are still underestimating the degree of biological diversity observed in the continent. Bringing back the point made in the introduction of this article, until there is a reliable understanding of the biological diversity in the continent, broad spectrum models will always fall short in explaining the origins of Native American populations. As such, our results serve as a cautionary note to researchers building models based on evidence from only a few regions in the continent and encourage the continuous pursuit of new archaeological evidence of early populations in areas understudied in the continent.

Finally, our conclusions are based on the assumption that the individuals from Quintana Roo accurately represent the morphological diversity from their original population. While we were conscious of the fact that we are working with individuals, and adopted analytical strategies that try to control for the possible error caused by outlier individuals, it is hard to completely rule out that our overall results are being skewed by some of the individuals not being good representatives of their average population morphological pattern. For example, it has been suggested that Naharón possibly suffered from Klippel-Feil syndrome (see details in SI1), which may have produced variations in the shape of the skull that are unknown to us. Future analyses of this material should consider other sources of data to have a better understanding of the morphological relationships among the early populations of the continent. Detailed analyses of non-metric and other morphoscopic traits, like the morphology of the posterior portion of the skull, should be incorporated as the analysis of these specimens continues. For instance, Naharón and El Pit I present a common plane in the occipito-parietal suture and a pronounced supramastoid crest that extends beyond the parietomastoid suture over the posterior region of the temporal. Both individuals share a very developed mastoid process, which is associated to the formation of a distinct supramastoid sulcus. These traits not only show some degree of relationship between these specimens that cannot be easily assessed in a craniometric analysis like the one presented here, but they tie these specimens closely to other Paleomerican groups, as these traits are common in early specimens and absent in prehispanic Mayan populations (AT direct observation).

Despite their limitations, isolated specimens have always been important sources of information in the discussion of modern human expansion across the planet (e.g., [13, 67, 73]), contributing to the discussion of the pattern of mobility and migration between and within continents. As such, we believe that the material of Quintana Roo, even though fragmentary and represented by isolated specimens, is of special importance for the discussion about the processes of human occupation of the Americas, and that they allow us to propose new hypotheses and models, to be tested and refined with new findings in the future. At the very least, these specimens represent now one of the best human remains collection known from the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary in North America, and they demonstrate patterns of morphological affinities that do not fit easily in our current models of human occupation of the continent.

Landmark coordinates for each Quintana Roo specimen.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Detailed context of the Quintana Roo specimens.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

18 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-23710

Morphological variation of the Early Human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico: contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hubbe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers thought that this paper had merit, and I would like to see it published in PLOS ONE.  Reviewer 1, in particular, provides a series of comments and recommendations that are reasonable.  I would recommend paying attention to recommendations for improvement of the Materials and Methods section and treatment of statistical results.  Reviewer 2 calls for referencing of a key publication and raises a point about further clarification and elaboration about expectations and outcomes.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael D. Petraglia, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS ONE's requirements for paleontology and archaeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This research article presents an analysis of 3D geometric morphometric data collected from four late Pleistocene/early Holocene cranial specimens recovered from cave contexts in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Patterns of biological (morphological) distance and population affinity are generated and analyzed though use of an existing global reference sample. Specifically, the authors explore the relationship between individual specimens and the global samples with reference to Mahalanobis distances (Euclidian distances based on PC scores) via multidimensional scaling, hierarchical clustering, and classification (Posterior Probabilities and Typicalities). Results markedly differ from specimen to specimen, indicating a high degree of morphological diversity for early human occupants of Mexico. The authors conclude that current models of population origin, replacement, and migration are limited in that they significantly underestimate biological diversity in the Americas throughout the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.

This research article presents novel data on the early human occupation of Mexico. My overall impression of the paper is positive. The researchers clearly outline the importance of the Quintana Roo remains as some of the earliest dated on the continent and as geographically associated with a transcontinental “funnel” between North and South America. I believe the article is relevant to the journal’s readership and may be of interest to scholars of modern human migration histories, Paleoamerican population origins/dynamics, and global variation (esp. cranial shape/morphology). However, there are a few key issues the authors should address prior to publication. I recommend the research article be accepted once the authors make these revisions.

My recommendation is primarily based upon questions I have related to a) the presentation of global reference data, and b) MDS results as presented/interpreted. I would also ask that the authors clarify certain aspects of the study and results. Below I outline general and specific (primarily copy editing related) issues that the authors should address prior to resubmission.

General Comments:

1.Introduction, Page 2, Paragraph 2: I appreciate that the authors acknowledge the colonial and US-centric perspectives of early (and in many cases, current) academic pursuits of this topic. Introspection within our field, especially on these topics, is rarely presented in research articles, but hopefully that is changing.

2.Materials and Methods, Page 7, Paragraph 3 (and Table 3): The authors are interested in comparing the Quintana Roo sample to global series of varied temporal/biogeographic origin. The authors give general temporal/biogeographic “groupings” for these different samples, but do not discuss their composition in detail. This is not an issue for the more recent samples, but it may be necessary to outline the composition of the Paleoamerican series given the focus of this paper.

-Based on previous publications (and the paucity of Paleoamerican skeletal remains), it is likely the reference Paleoamerican series originates from one South American site. In their discussion, the authors mention limited morphological diversity of South Paleoamericans generally, but do not refer back to their reference sample specifically. Understanding the composition of the Paleoamerican series up-front would help to contextualize the results, which (for some skulls) are unexpected. However, if we understand the Paleoamerican sample to represent early human occupants of South America, and we can think of Mexico as a geographic “funnel” for population movement and migration patterns in the Americas, the results make more sense.

-Or perhaps this series includes Paleoamerican material from sites across North and South America—if so, the interpretation of the results would change. This is all to say, it would be helpful if you indicate the composition (site location/time period) of the Paleoamerican sample in the Materials and Methods section and/or Table 3.

3.Materials and Methods, Page 7, Paragraph 2: This paragraph is somewhat redundant in its justification for the use of PCA. Some of this paragraph can be condensed or cut. This discussion continues onto Page 8, Paragraphs 1 and 2. Again, some of this can be cut or condensed.

4.Results (Figures 3-6): The presented MDS plots include stress values as a measure of goodness of fit. I assume these are Kruskal stress values, but it is unclear (especially from the discrepancies from Figures 3-4 to Figures 5-6, whether these are presented as raw values or percentages. If they are presented as raw values, my concern is for the loss of information in the Figure 5 and 6 MDS plots. Optimally, stress values should fall below 0.15, although there is no hard and fast rule. Even if the stress value is high, my concern is that the values are so different across the four analyses, making direct comparison of MDS-based results difficult (the relationships presented in the Figure 5 and 6 MDS are almost certainly distorted relative to those in the Figure 3 and 4 MDS).

-I would first recommend that the authors explicitly state their goodness of fit measure and how it is presented (raw value or percentage).

-If this is a raw Kruskal stress value, I would recommend the authors increase dimensionality of the Figure 5 and 6 plots to improve fit. A 3D MDS plot might provide a more accurate reflection of the relationships in the two final analyses.

-At a minimum, I would acknowledge the poor fit of the Figure 5 and 6 MDS output, as well as the related interpretive limitations.

5.Discussion, Page 17, Paragraph 1: The authors mention that Naharón may have suffered from Klippel-Feil syndrome. This seems to come out of nowhere at the end of the paper and is not accompanied by a reference to previous studies and/or the supplemental files. After reviewing the supplemental material, I realized it was mentioned, but I would suggest adding a reference to the supplemental files when first mentioning it in the text of the paper.

Specific Comments:

1.Abstract, Page 1: Please change the phrase “…already shared a higher degree…” to “already shared a high degree…”.

2.Materials and Methods, Page 6, Paragraph 2: Please change the sentence “While this limits our ability to explore the affinities among the Quintana Roo specimens, such a comparison…” to “This limits our ability to explore the affinities among the Quintana Roo specimens; such a comparison…”.

3.Materials and Methods, Page 8, Paragraph 2: Please change the phrase “…for each of the analyses done we chose…” to “…for each of the analyses we chose…”.

4.Materials and Methods, Page 8, Paragraph 2: When explaining why Mahalanobis distances calculated from PC scores are technically Euclidean distances, perhaps it would be useful to indicate in the paragraphs preceding that PCA results in orthogonal, uncorrelated variables (thus the variance of 1, covariances of 0).

5.Materials and Methods, Page 8, Paragraph 2: There is no mention of goodness of fit tests for multidimensional scaling. From the figures it appears that stress values were referenced. I am assuming these were Kruskal stress values, but no “cut off” for fit is mentioned. This brings me to my more general comment listed above.

6.Materials and Methods, Page 9, Paragraph 1: The sentence that begins “In all analyses, males and females…” is grammatically incorrect. Please edit this sentence.

7.Results, Page 10, Paragraph 1: Please change the phrase “The Typicality results show Naharón to be very close from the centroid…” to “The Typicality results show Naharón to be very close to the centroid…”.

Reviewer #2: There is no citation to Jantz and Owsley (2001; AJPA) who perform a similar analysis of 11 Paleoindian/early archaic skulls. They even do a somewhat similar analysis, calculating distances of each skull from worldwide samples and providing typicality probabilities along with the distance. Their findings support your argument. You should acknowledge this. Also, even though dealing with recent skeletons, WW Howells often found Native Americans clustered with Europeans, not Asians or Pacific populations. In general, my students and I have done similar analyses and often find strange assignments based on craniometric dimensions. I'm unclear as to how your findings diverge from your expectations. Some elaboration on that point would help the reader.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

11 Dec 2019

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS:

Reviewer #1: This research article presents an analysis of 3D geometric morphometric data collected from four late Pleistocene/early Holocene cranial specimens recovered from cave contexts in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Patterns of biological (morphological) distance and population affinity are generated and analyzed though use of an existing global reference sample. Specifically, the authors explore the relationship between individual specimens and the global samples with reference to Mahalanobis distances (Euclidian distances based on PC scores) via multidimensional scaling, hierarchical clustering, and classification (Posterior Probabilities and Typicalities). Results markedly differ from specimen to specimen, indicating a high degree of morphological diversity for early human occupants of Mexico. The authors conclude that current models of population origin, replacement, and migration are limited in that they significantly underestimate biological diversity in the Americas throughout the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.

This research article presents novel data on the early human occupation of Mexico. My overall impression of the paper is positive. The researchers clearly outline the importance of the Quintana Roo remains as some of the earliest dated on the continent and as geographically associated with a transcontinental “funnel” between North and South America. I believe the article is relevant to the journal’s readership and may be of interest to scholars of modern human migration histories, Paleoamerican population origins/dynamics, and global variation (esp. cranial shape/morphology). However, there are a few key issues the authors should address prior to publication. I recommend the research article be accepted once the authors make these revisions.

My recommendation is primarily based upon questions I have related to a) the presentation of global reference data, and b) MDS results as presented/interpreted. I would also ask that the authors clarify certain aspects of the study and results. Below I outline general and specific (primarily copy editing related) issues that the authors should address prior to resubmission.

RESPONSE: WE TRULY APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE REVIEWER AND HER/HIS SUPPORT FOR OUR WORK. WE ADDRESSED ALL THE SUGGESTIONS MADE, AND WE BELIEVE THE MANUSCRIPT IS CLEARER THANKS TO THE SUGGESTIONS MADE.

General Comments:

1.Introduction, Page 2, Paragraph 2: I appreciate that the authors acknowledge the colonial and US-centric perspectives of early (and in many cases, current) academic pursuits of this topic. Introspection within our field, especially on these topics, is rarely presented in research articles, but hopefully that is changing.

RESPONSE: WE APPRECIATE THE COMMENT BY THE REVIEWER, AND AGREE THAT THIS IS AN ASPECT OF THE STUDY OF THE PAST THAT SHOULD BECOME MORE EXPLICIT IN OUR STUDIES.

2.Materials and Methods, Page 7, Paragraph 3 (and Table 3): The authors are interested in comparing the Quintana Roo sample to global series of varied temporal/biogeographic origin. The authors give general temporal/biogeographic “groupings” for these different samples, but do not discuss their composition in detail. This is not an issue for the more recent samples, but it may be necessary to outline the composition of the Paleoamerican series given the focus of this paper.

-Based on previous publications (and the paucity of Paleoamerican skeletal remains), it is likely the reference Paleoamerican series originates from one South American site. In their discussion, the authors mention limited morphological diversity of South Paleoamericans generally, but do not refer back to their reference sample specifically. Understanding the composition of the Paleoamerican series up-front would help to contextualize the results, which (for some skulls) are unexpected. However, if we understand the Paleoamerican sample to represent early human occupants of South America, and we can think of Mexico as a geographic “funnel” for population movement and migration patterns in the Americas, the results make more sense.

-Or perhaps this series includes Paleoamerican material from sites across North and South America—if so, the interpretation of the results would change. This is all to say, it would be helpful if you indicate the composition (site location/time period) of the Paleoamerican sample in the Materials and Methods section and/or Table 3.

RESPONSE: THE ENTIRE SERIES OF PALEOAMERICANS CONSISTS OF INDIVIDUALS FROM THE LAGOA SANTA REGION IN BRAZIL, MEASURED BY NVCT. THIS REPRESENTS THE LARGEST AND PROBABLY ONLY COLLECTION OF EARLY AMERICANS IN THE CONTINENT THAT PERMIT THE INFERENCE OF POPULATIONAL PARAMETERS. WE CLARIFIED THIS IN THE MANUSCRIPT, AND CHANGED FIGURES AND TABLES, WHICH NOW PRESENT THIS SERIES AS LAGOA SANTA, INSTEAD OF PALEOAMERICANS.

3.Materials and Methods, Page 7, Paragraph 2: This paragraph is somewhat redundant in its justification for the use of PCA. Some of this paragraph can be condensed or cut. This discussion continues onto Page 8, Paragraphs 1 and 2. Again, some of this can be cut or condensed.

RESPONSE: THE PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN CONDENSED AND REDUNDACIES REMOVED.

4.Results (Figures 3-6): The presented MDS plots include stress values as a measure of goodness of fit. I assume these are Kruskal stress values, but it is unclear (especially from the discrepancies from Figures 3-4 to Figures 5-6, whether these are presented as raw values or percentages. If they are presented as raw values, my concern is for the loss of information in the Figure 5 and 6 MDS plots. Optimally, stress values should fall below 0.15, although there is no hard and fast rule. Even if the stress value is high, my concern is that the values are so different across the four analyses, making direct comparison of MDS-based results difficult (the relationships presented in the Figure 5 and 6 MDS are almost certainly distorted relative to those in the Figure 3 and 4 MDS).

-I would first recommend that the authors explicitly state their goodness of fit measure and how it is presented (raw value or percentage).

-If this is a raw Kruskal stress value, I would recommend the authors increase dimensionality of the Figure 5 and 6 plots to improve fit. A 3D MDS plot might provide a more accurate reflection of the relationships in the two final analyses.

-At a minimum, I would acknowledge the poor fit of the Figure 5 and 6 MDS output, as well as the related interpretive limitations.

RESPONSE: WE CLARIFIED THAT WE ARE USING KRUSKAL’S STRESS AS A MEASUREMENT OF GOODNESS OF FIT. THIS IS EXPLAINED IN M&M, ON PAGE 9 OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT. HOWEVER, WE DID NOT PRESENT 3D MDS SOLUTIONS FOR THE MOST COMPLETE SKULLS, FOR TWO REASONS:

1. THE STRESS LEVEL FOR THE 2D MDS STILL FALLS WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THE DISTANCE MATRIX (~10%). THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ON PAGE 9 OF THE NEW MANUSCRIPT AS WELL.

2. THE 3D MDS SOLUTION, WHILE REDUCING STRESS LEVEL TO ~5% ON BOTH ANALYSIS, DID NOT CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY THE AFFINITIES OBSERVED IN THE 2D SOLUTION. BECAUSE THE REPRESENTATION OF 3D PLOTS ON 2D SPACE IS ALWAYS AWKWARD, WE CHOSE TO MAINTAIN THE 2D SOLUTION, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER ANALYSES.

WE ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN STRESS LEVELS IS A RESULT OF THE NUMBER OF PCS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISTANCE MATRIX. AS THE FIRST TWO SPECIMENS ARE REPRESENTED BY ONLY TWO DIMENSIONS (PCS) IN THE DISTANCE MATRIX, THE STRESS OF THE 2D MDS IS NEAR ZERO. THIS HAS BEEN CLARIFIED IN THE RESULTS AS WELL (SEE ADDITIONS TO RESULTS, PAGES 10-13 OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT).

5.Discussion, Page 17, Paragraph 1: The authors mention that Naharón may have suffered from Klippel-Feil syndrome. This seems to come out of nowhere at the end of the paper and is not accompanied by a reference to previous studies and/or the supplemental files. After reviewing the supplemental material, I realized it was mentioned, but I would suggest adding a reference to the supplemental files when first mentioning it in the text of the paper.

RESPONSE: WE FOLLOWED THE REVIEWER’S SUGGESTION AND REFERRED THE READER TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

Specific Comments:

RESPONSE: ALL SUGGESTIONS BELOW HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE MANUSCRIPT. ONCE MORE, WE THANK THE REVIEWER FOR THE CAREFUL READ OF THE MANUSCRIPT.

1.Abstract, Page 1: Please change the phrase “…already shared a higher degree…” to “already shared a high degree…”.

done

2.Materials and Methods, Page 6, Paragraph 2: Please change the sentence “While this limits our ability to explore the affinities among the Quintana Roo specimens, such a comparison…” to “This limits our ability to explore the affinities among the Quintana Roo specimens; such a comparison…”.

3.Materials and Methods, Page 8, Paragraph 2: Please change the phrase “…for each of the analyses done we chose…” to “…for each of the analyses we chose…”.

4.Materials and Methods, Page 8, Paragraph 2: When explaining why Mahalanobis distances calculated from PC scores are technically Euclidean distances, perhaps it would be useful to indicate in the paragraphs preceding that PCA results in orthogonal, uncorrelated variables (thus the variance of 1, covariances of 0).

5.Materials and Methods, Page 8, Paragraph 2: There is no mention of goodness of fit tests for multidimensional scaling. From the figures it appears that stress values were referenced. I am assuming these were Kruskal stress values, but no “cut off” for fit is mentioned. This brings me to my more general comment listed above.

6.Materials and Methods, Page 9, Paragraph 1: The sentence that begins “In all analyses, males and females…” is grammatically incorrect. Please edit this sentence.

7.Results, Page 10, Paragraph 1: Please change the phrase “The Typicality results show Naharón to be very close from the centroid…” to “The Typicality results show Naharón to be very close to the centroid…”.

Reviewer #2: There is no citation to Jantz and Owsley (2001; AJPA) who perform a similar analysis of 11 Paleoindian/early archaic skulls. They even do a somewhat similar analysis, calculating distances of each skull from worldwide samples and providing typicality probabilities along with the distance. Their findings support your argument. You should acknowledge this. Also, even though dealing with recent skeletons, WW Howells often found Native Americans clustered with Europeans, not Asians or Pacific populations. In general, my students and I have done similar analyses and often find strange assignments based on craniometric dimensions. I'm unclear as to how your findings diverge from your expectations. Some elaboration on that point would help the reader.

RESPONSE: WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THE REFERENCE PROVIDED BY THE REVIEWER. INDEED JANTZ AND OWSLEY IS AN IMPORTANT REFERENCE THAT WE MISSED. THE REFERENCE WAS INTRODUCED AND WE UPDATED THE DISCUSSION TO INCORPORATE A BROADER PICTURE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN EARLY CRANIAL DIVERSITY. PLEASE REFER TO THE CHANGES MADE TO THE DISCUSSION (PAGES 14-18 OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT).

AS THIS STUDY IS FOCUSED ON AN EXPLORATORY EVALUATION OF THE QUINTANA ROO MATERIAL, WE AVOIDED BUILDING UP EXPLICIT EXPECTATIONS FOR THE MATERIAL (IN LIGHT OF THE POINTS MADE ON THE INTRODUCTION AS WELL), REASON WHY WE DID NOT DEVELOP FURTHER ON HOW RESULTS DIVERGE FROM EXPECTATION. WE HOPE, HOWEVER, THAT THE NEW ADDITIONS TO THE DISCUSSION BRING THE RESULTS TO A BROADER CONTEXT OF MEANING.

19 Dec 2019

Morphological variation of the early Human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico: contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas

PONE-D-19-23710R1

Dear Dr. Hubbe,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Michael D. Petraglia, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for their thoughtful responses to my comments. I recommend the paper be accepted for publication.

I thank the Editor for the opportunity to review this paper, and look forward to serving the journal in the future.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

7 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-23710R1

Morphological variation of the early Human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico: contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas

Dear Dr. Hubbe:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Michael D. Petraglia

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE