Abstract:Gómez-Olivencia et al., (2020) recently published a description and interpretation of human remains (teeth and a parietal fragment) found in 1967-1974 at the site of Axlor in northern Iberia. Some of these teeth were previously described and referred to Neanderthals
“…In their reply, González-Urquijo et al (2021) do not present any new information that contradicts the description made by de Barandiarán or by González-Urquijo's own team in previous reports and publications (Barandiarán, 1980;González Urquijo et al, 2006;Rios Garaizar et al, 2003). Moreover, some of the interpretations and data presented by González-Urquijo et al (2021) As stated in our original publication, the body of evidence points to a modern human classification for these teeth, with very high probabilities in one of the most informative teeth, the M 1 . Though speciesspecific morphologies exist, dental size and shape are variable in both species and unable to unquestionably discriminate between them, particularly for specimens that do not show the most extreme species-specific traits.…”
Section: Regardingmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Additionally, González-Urquijo et al (2021) estimate that between 30% and 37% (between 9 and 11) of the outline semilandmarks are missing in Axlor's M 1 (see their Figure 1, where they provide a new outline for Axlor's M 1 ). This outline assumes that landmarks 22-28 are affected by wear, and thus the suggested outline enlarges both the metacone and, especially, the hypocone.…”
In 2020, we published a study that described all the human remains found during J. M. de Barandiarán's excavations in Axlor (Dima, Biscay). Our study first presented two deciduous teeth and a parietal fragment found in an undisturbed Mousterian context, all of which show morphological features consistent with a Neandertal classification (G omez-Olivencia et al., 2020). Our study also reassessed the human remains previously described by Basabe (1973), likely belonging to a single individual and traditionally classified as a Neandertal (see e.g., Rostro Carmona, 2013). However, our metric and morphological assessment suggested stronger affinities with modern humans.Recently, a reply to our article has been published, focusing on the remains previously published by Basabe (1973). In their reply, González-Urquijo et al. (2021, p. 553) state that "Axlor's level IV human remains are convincingly Neanderthals," thus concluding that our taxonomic classification "is not supported by the anatomical evidence" and that the "balance of the evidence-morphological and stratigraphic-is most consistent with a Neandertal classification for these teeth" (González-Urquijo et al., 2021, p. 557). These authors take issue with two aspects: the taxonomic classification of the human remains found in 1967 and the discussion and reinterpretation of the stratigraphic context of these remains.Here, we address the points raised by González-Urquijo et al.(2021) regarding the taxonomic attribution of the human remains found in 1967, the dental morphological analysis and the stratigraphic study.The human remains found in 1967 comprise four teeth (left P 4 -M 3 ) found on September 7, 1967 in the square 13F at a depth of 265 cm. Two of these teeth (M 1 and M 2 ) were found in a maxillary fragment. Additionally, a left canine was found on September 8 in the square 13 E at a depth of 285 cm (G omez-Olivencia et al., 2020: figure S6). Two of these teeth (the C 0 and the M 2 ) are currently lost, and therefore, our taxonomic assessment was based on the P 4 , M 1 and M 3 . All these remains were originally attributed to the Mousterian
“…In their reply, González-Urquijo et al (2021) do not present any new information that contradicts the description made by de Barandiarán or by González-Urquijo's own team in previous reports and publications (Barandiarán, 1980;González Urquijo et al, 2006;Rios Garaizar et al, 2003). Moreover, some of the interpretations and data presented by González-Urquijo et al (2021) As stated in our original publication, the body of evidence points to a modern human classification for these teeth, with very high probabilities in one of the most informative teeth, the M 1 . Though speciesspecific morphologies exist, dental size and shape are variable in both species and unable to unquestionably discriminate between them, particularly for specimens that do not show the most extreme species-specific traits.…”
Section: Regardingmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Additionally, González-Urquijo et al (2021) estimate that between 30% and 37% (between 9 and 11) of the outline semilandmarks are missing in Axlor's M 1 (see their Figure 1, where they provide a new outline for Axlor's M 1 ). This outline assumes that landmarks 22-28 are affected by wear, and thus the suggested outline enlarges both the metacone and, especially, the hypocone.…”
In 2020, we published a study that described all the human remains found during J. M. de Barandiarán's excavations in Axlor (Dima, Biscay). Our study first presented two deciduous teeth and a parietal fragment found in an undisturbed Mousterian context, all of which show morphological features consistent with a Neandertal classification (G omez-Olivencia et al., 2020). Our study also reassessed the human remains previously described by Basabe (1973), likely belonging to a single individual and traditionally classified as a Neandertal (see e.g., Rostro Carmona, 2013). However, our metric and morphological assessment suggested stronger affinities with modern humans.Recently, a reply to our article has been published, focusing on the remains previously published by Basabe (1973). In their reply, González-Urquijo et al. (2021, p. 553) state that "Axlor's level IV human remains are convincingly Neanderthals," thus concluding that our taxonomic classification "is not supported by the anatomical evidence" and that the "balance of the evidence-morphological and stratigraphic-is most consistent with a Neandertal classification for these teeth" (González-Urquijo et al., 2021, p. 557). These authors take issue with two aspects: the taxonomic classification of the human remains found in 1967 and the discussion and reinterpretation of the stratigraphic context of these remains.Here, we address the points raised by González-Urquijo et al.(2021) regarding the taxonomic attribution of the human remains found in 1967, the dental morphological analysis and the stratigraphic study.The human remains found in 1967 comprise four teeth (left P 4 -M 3 ) found on September 7, 1967 in the square 13F at a depth of 265 cm. Two of these teeth (M 1 and M 2 ) were found in a maxillary fragment. Additionally, a left canine was found on September 8 in the square 13 E at a depth of 285 cm (G omez-Olivencia et al., 2020: figure S6). Two of these teeth (the C 0 and the M 2 ) are currently lost, and therefore, our taxonomic assessment was based on the P 4 , M 1 and M 3 . All these remains were originally attributed to the Mousterian
“…These recent analyses identified two teeth stemming from Layers IV and V as belonging to Neanderthals and also confirmed the taxonomic and stratigraphic identification of a Neanderthal cranial fragment from Layer VIII identified during the Barandiarán excavations (Gómez-Olivencia et al, 2020). Other hominin remains, described initially by Basabe (1973), have recently come under debate, with some researchers suggesting a Homo sapiens taxonomic identification and an origin from the upper layers of the stratigraphy that may have been redeposited due to earlier disturbances of the site during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Gómez-Olivencia et al, 2020, 2023), while others support the original assignment to Neanderthals and argue against any influence of disturbance (González-Urquijo et al, 2021). A recent reply to the latter marks the end of this debate (Gómez-Olivencia et al, 2023), which will likely only be definitively solved using biomolecular evidence and direct dating.…”
During the last glacial period, rapidly changing environments posed substantial challenges to Neanderthal populations in Europe. Southern continental regions, such as Iberia, have been proposed as important climatic “buffer” zones during glacial phases. Contextualising the climatic and ecological conditions Neanderthals faced is relevant to interpreting their resilience. However, records of the environments and ecosystems they exploited across Iberia exhibit temporal and spatial gaps in coverage. Here we provide new evidence for palaeotemperatures, vegetation structure, and prey herbivore ecology during the late Pleistocene (MIS 5–3) in northern Spain, by applying multiple stable isotope tracers (δ18O, δ13C, δ15N, δ34S) to herbivore skeletal remains associated with Neanderthal occupations at Axlor Cave, Bizkaia. The results show little change over time and indicate stable climatic conditions and ecosystems across different occupations. Large within-layer isotopic variability in nitrogen and sulphur suggests the presence of a mosaic environment and a variety of isotopic ecotones that were exploited by Neanderthals and their prey. We implement a combination of carbonate and phosphate δ18O measurements to estimate palaeotemperatures using a cost-effective workflow. We show that the targeted use of phosphate δ18O measurements to anchor summer peak and winter trough areas enables high-precision seasonal palaeoclimatic reconstructions.
“…25 , 26 , 27 The sequence contains about ten Neanderthal human remains, frequently dental; two of them, a young adult premolar and a decidual canine of a child around 10–12 years old were recovered in Level N, the subject of this study. 28 , 29 Figure 1 Study site and profiles location (A) Map showing the location of Axlor Cave in the northern Iberian Peninsula and plan view of the excavated area showing the location of the West profile. (B) West profile showing the location of the micromorphological and biomarker samples included in this study (AX-18-1 and AX-18-2).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
