An early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China

Abstract

Thirty-four elements of an early modern human (EMH) were found in Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China in 2003. Dated to 42,000 -39,000 calendrical years before present by using direct accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon, the Tianyuan 1 skeleton is among the oldest directly dated EMHs in eastern Eurasia. Morphological comparison shows Tianyuan 1 to have a series of derived modern human characteristics, including a projecting tuber symphyseos, a high anterior symphyseal angle, a broad scapular glenoid fossa, a reduced hamulus, a gluteal buttress, and a pilaster on the femora. Other features of Tianyuan 1 that are more common among EMHs are its modest humeral pectoralis major tuberosities, anteriorly rotated radial tuberosity, reduced radial curvature, and modest talar trochlea. It also lacks several mandibular features common among western Eurasian late archaic humans, including mandibular foramen bridging, mandibular notch asymmetry, and a large superior medial pterygoid tubercle. However, Tianyuan 1 exhibits several late archaic human features, such as its anterior to posterior dental proportions, a large hamulus length, and a broad and rounded distal phalangeal tuberosity. This morphological pattern implies that a simple spread of modern humans from Africa is unlikely.Late Pleistocene ͉ Neandertals ͉ mandible ͉ postcrania ͉ paleopathology

A Genetic Focus on the Peopling History of East Asia: Critical Views

“…Given the estimated time ranges, the oldest dates inferred from genetic studies are compatible with old settlements of modern humans in East Asia attested by fossil or archaeological remains (Fig. 3) (Chen et al 1989;Mijares et al 2010;Shang et al 2007;Shen et al 2002;Sun et al 2000;Vasil'ev 1993;Wu et al 2006). However, ancient molecular lineages may just represent limited heritages of undefined ancestral populations rather than real indications on the origin and migration history of present populations.…”

Late Pleistocene adult mortality patterns and modern human establishment

“…Yet, there were decreases or stasis in the incidence of both forms of lesions among both Middle Paleolithic and earlier Upper Paleolithic modern humans relative to the late archaic humans (33,35,37,38). This paleopathological shift is not likely to reflect differential survival, given the survival of individuals with serious developmental and degenerative abnormalities in both groups (6,37,(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45).…”

“…The division here between young and old of approximately 40 y postnatal, however, should be before significant geriatric loss of skeletal matrix, especially in robust nonmechanized humans (48). Indeed, the older adults in the sample exhibit robust remains with little cortical bone loss (6,39,43,(49)(50)(51). Moreover, as principally teeth in maxillae or mandibles are included, nonrecognition of individuals represented paleontologically only by heavily worn teeth should not be a factor.…”

“…ref. 7), to whatever degree those early modern humans exhibit morphological characteristics of late archaic humans not present in the earliest modern human samples (3,4,6,(8)(9)(10). Their ancestry must therefore have been predominantly that of expanding populations of early modern humans rather than of late archaic humans.…”

European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals

“…However, resolution of this issue lies more with their potential issue, the early modern Europeans. And despite steadily growing numbers of samples of late archaic and especially early modern human fossils elsewhere in the Old World (7,13,14), it is principally within Europe that the best fossil record exists to evaluate what happened, in at least one region, when early modern humans dispersed across Eurasia. …”