Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija G1 and Velika Pec´ina Late Pleistocene hominid remains Fred H. Smith*†, Erik Trinkaus‡§, Paul B. Pettitt¶ʈ, Ivor Karavanic´**, and Maja Paunovic´†† *Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115; ‡Department of Anthropology, Campus Box 1114, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130; §Unite Mixte de Recherche 5809 du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Laboratoire d’Anthropologie, Universite´de Bordeaux I, 33405 Talence, France; ¶Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3QJ, United Kingdom; ʈKeble College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PG, United Kingdom; **Arheolosˇki Zavod, Filozofskog Fakulteta Sveucˇilisˇta u Zagrebu, I. Lucˇic´a 3, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia; and ††Zavod za Paleontologiju i Geologiju Kvartara Hrvatske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Ulica A. Kovacˇic´a 5/II, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia Contributed by Erik Trinkaus, August 20, 1999 New accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dates taken di- demonstrate varying degrees of regional continuity in Eurasia, rectly on human remains from the Late Pleistocene sites of Vindija linking the Neandertals in western Eurasia to early modern and Velika Pec´ina in the Hrvatsko Zagorje of Croatia are presented. humans (9–12). Such studies frequently place the Neandertals Hominid specimens from both sites have played critical roles in the within Homo sapiens and promote some degree of ancestral development of current perspectives on modern human evolution- status for the Neandertals. Still other studies, although not ary emergence in Europe. Dates of Ϸ28 thousand years (ka) before necessarily taking positions on issues of systematics, have chal- the present (B.P.) and Ϸ29 ka B.P. for two specimens from Vindija lenged the validity of many of the proposed autapomorphies that G1 establish them as the most recent dated Neandertals in the were used to distinguish the Neandertals from other late Pleis- Eurasian range of these archaic humans. The human frontal bone tocene groups (13–16). from Velika Pec´ina, generally considered one of the earliest rep- Partially because of the differing interpretations of morpho- resentatives of modern humans in Europe, dated to Ϸ5 ka B.P., logical patterns, genetic studies have exerted an important rendering it no longer pertinent to discussions of modern human influence on current interpretations of Neandertal evolutionary origins. Apart from invalidating the only radiometrically based history. Data on the mtDNA structure of a single Neandertal example of temporal overlap between late Neandertal and early individual (17, 18) and the patterns of variation of mtDNA and modern human fossil remains from within any region of Europe, other genetic systems in recent human samples (19–21) have these dates raise the question of when early modern humans first been presented as refuting any Neandertal contribution to dispersed into Europe and have implications for the nature and western Eurasian early modern human gene pools. It is often geographic patterning of biological and cultural interactions be- implied that there is unanimity among geneticists in support of tween these populations and the Neandertals. these interpretations; but several researchers have questioned these conclusions, arguing that the genetic data are also com- ͉ ͉ ͉ Neandertals early modern humans Croatia Europe mensurate with models of Late Pleistocene human phylogeny, involving varying degrees of regional continuity (22–25). he nature of the biological relationship between Neandertals A reasoned consideration of these debates and of the human Tand early modern humans remains highly contentious in paleontological and molecular arguments finds that the analyses paleoanthropology (1). The fundamental questions have of both sets of data have serious limitations. Both data sets are changed little since the debates surrounding the initial Nean- restricted in terms of sample size, completeness, and distribu- dertal discoveries during the last half of the 19th century (2–4); tions in time and space, and the associated analyses contain they focus on the taxonomy, phylogenetic position, and ‘‘human- layered a priori assumptions, some of which can be refuted, and ness’’ of these archaic people. Although these questions have not many of which are currently untestable. Increasing recognition changed, the complexity and diversity of the data, methodolo- of these ambiguities has led to a softening of positions regarding gies, and models used to approach them have increased signif- modern human origins and the fate of the Neandertals. icantly. In addition to the accumulation of pertinent fossil remains and traditional morphological and morphometric anal- Chronology and Perspectives on Neandertal Phylogeny yses of both fossil and recent human skeletal series, studies of Morphological and genetic studies appear to be the driving genetic variability in recent and ancient humans are seen fre- forces molding current interpretations of Late Pleistocene hu- quently as having revolutionized scientific perspectives on Late man evolution in general and the fate of the Neandertals in Pleistocene human evolution. Although not as widely acknowl- particular. It is important to realize that changes in the chrono- ANTHROPOLOGY edged, changes to the chronological framework of the Late logical framework in which the fossil evidence is interpreted have Pleistocene hominid remains and archeological complexes that been equally critical, although often less overtly so, to the current have resulted from the application of several chronometric state of scientific perspectives on these issues (26). This impact methods have also fundamentally impacted perspectives on the is best documented by the fact that, up through the mid-1980s, Neandertals and their role in modern human origins. it was not possible to demonstrate conclusively either a differ- Analyses of morphology and morphometrics have constituted ential temporal pattern for the appearance of modern human the core of the debates on fossil human systematics, and continue morphology across the Old World or a temporal overlap of early to drive current perspectives on the Neandertals. For example, modern and archaic humans in any specific region (27, 28). several recent morphological studies have rekindled the search ͞ Beginning in the last half of the 1980s, the application of for anatomical features or and complexes that represent thermoluminescence (TL), ESR, uranium series, and accelerator uniquely derived (autapomorphic) characters for Neandertals mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating to pertinent sites (5–8). These studies normally also advocate that such features establish Neandertals as a species distinct from Homo sapiens and that the Neandertals had, at best, marginal biological input Abbreviations: AMS, accelerator mass spectrometry; ka, thousand years; TL, thermolumi- into early modern human populations in Eurasia. Alternatively, nescence. analyses of specific aspects of morphology have been argued to †To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. PNAS ͉ October 26, 1999 ͉ vol. 96 ͉ no. 22 ͉ 12281–12286 Downloaded by guest on October 2, 2021 Table 1. Non-Croatian European sites Site (Country) Specimens present Cultural association Dating technique Date (ref.) Neandertal St. Ce´saire (France) Adult partial skeleton Chaˆtelperronian TL* 36.3 Ϯ 2.7 ka (48) Arcy-sur-Cure (France) Teeth, subadult Chaˆtelperronian AMS* 33.82 Ϯ 0.72 ka (37) temporal Probable Neandertal Bacho Kiro (Bulgaria) Fragmentary pieces Bachokirian 14C* Ͼ43 ka (44, 45) of maxilla and mandible, teeth Early Modern Human Vogelherd (Germany) Two adult calvaria, Aurignacian 14C* 31.9 Ϯ 1.1 ka (47, 49) humerus, mandible, vertebrae Kent’s Cavern (England) Maxilla British Upper AMS† 30.9 Ϯ 0.9 ka (50) Paleolithic Hahno¨fersand (Germany) Adult frontal None 14C, AAR† 36.3 Ϯ 0.6 ka, 36.0 ka (51) Kelsterbach (Germany) Adult calvarium None 14C, AAR† 31.2 Ϯ 0.6 ka, 32.0 ka (52) Probable Early Modern Human Ista´llo´sko¨(Hungary) Molar germ Aurignacian 14C 30.9 Ϯ 0.6 ka (53) Non-Croatian European sites (Ն 30 ka B.P.) with either direct chronometrically-dated human skeletal remains (†) or with associations between human skeletal remains and chronometrically-dated Upper Paleolithic contexts (*). TL, Thermoluminescence; 14C, conventional radiocarbon; AMS, accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon; AAR, amino acid racemization. and specimens resulted in significant changes to this chronolog- Europe. The Aurignacian Upper Paleolithic complex is always ical framework. associated with early modern human remains when there are In 1988, early modern humans in western Asia were dated to diagnostic fossils securely associated with the archeological Ϸ90 thousand years (ka) B.P. at the site of Qafzeh, based on their remains (41, 43), but so far the earliest phases of the Aurignacian association with TL determinations on burned flint (29). This have failed to yield diagnostic human remains. date provided the first conclusive evidence for the existence of In central and eastern Europe, human remains have been an early modern human morphological pattern in excess of ϳ40 recovered in association with early Upper Paleolithic assem- ka B.P. anywhere in the world. In the previous year, a date of Ϸ60 blages at Bacho Kiro (Bulgaria), dated to Ͼ43 ka B.P. by ka B.P. was obtained for the Kebara 2 Neandertal skeleton, also conventional