Protocol combining tree-based Maximum Parsimony and web-like Phylogenetic Networks analyses to investigate reticulate human evolution.

Our protocol combines Maximum Parsimony and Phylogenetic Networks approaches to understand the phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary processes of hominin species that might have shared inheritance from multiple ancestors. By addressing the questions of pattern and process in human phylogeny, the protocol can be used to clarify the taxonomic definition(s) of diverse hominin groups and ascertain whether or not the mode of evolution of genus Homo is reticulate. Using high quality and informative phenotypic data sets is necessary to yield meaningful results. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Caparros and Prat (2021).

A Phylogenetic Networks perspective on reticulate human evolution.

We present a methodological phylogenetic reconstruction approach combining Maximum Parsimony and Phylogenetic Networks methods for the study of human evolution applied to phenotypic craniodental characters of 22 hominin species. The approach consists in selecting and validating a tree-like most parsimonious scenario out of several parsimony runs based on various numerical constraints. An intermediate step from tree to network methods is implemented by running an analysis with a reduced apomorphous character dataset that generates multiple parsimonious trees. These most parsimonious trees are then used as input for a Phylogenetic Networks analysis that results in consensus and reticulate networks. We show here that the phylogenetic tree-like definition of the genus Homo is a relative concept linked to craniodental characters that come in support of hypothetical Last Common Ancestors of the most parsimonious scenario and infer that the Homo reticulate network concords with recent findings in paleogenomic research regarding its mode of evolution.

Brain, calvarium, cladistics: A new approach to an old question, who are modern humans and Neandertals?

The evolutionary history of the genus Homo is the focus of major research efforts in palaeoanthropology. However, the use of palaeoneurology to infer phylogenies of our genus is rare. Here we use cladistics to test the importance of the brain in differentiating and defining Neandertals and modern humans. The analysis is based on morphological data from the calvarium and endocast of Pleistocene fossils and results in a single most parsimonious cladogram. We demonstrate that the joint use of endocranial and calvarial features with cladistics provides a unique means to understand the evolution of the genus Homo. The main results of this study indicate that: (i) the endocranial features are more phylogenetically informative than the characters from the calvarium; (ii) the specific differentiation of Neandertals and modern humans is mostly supported by well-known calvarial autapomorphies; (iii) the endocranial anatomy of modern humans and Neandertals show strong similarities, which appeared in the fossil record with the last common ancestor of both species; and (iv) apart from encephalisation, human endocranial anatomy changed tremendously during the end of the Middle Pleistocene. This may be linked to major cultural and technological novelties that had happened by the end of the Middle Pleistocene (e.g., expansion of the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in Africa and Mousterian in Europe). The combined study of endocranial and exocranial anatomy offers opportunities to further understand human evolution and the implication for the phylogeny of our genus.

The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearance.

The timing of Neanderthal disappearance and the extent to which they overlapped with the earliest incoming anatomically modern humans (AMHs) in Eurasia are key questions in palaeoanthropology. Determining the spatiotemporal relationship between the two populations is crucial if we are to understand the processes, timing and reasons leading to the disappearance of Neanderthals and the likelihood of cultural and genetic exchange. Serious technical challenges, however, have hindered reliable dating of the period, as the radiocarbon method reaches its limit at ∼50,000 years ago. Here we apply improved accelerator mass spectrometry (14)C techniques to construct robust chronologies from 40 key Mousterian and Neanderthal archaeological sites, ranging from Russia to Spain. Bayesian age modelling was used to generate probability distribution functions to determine the latest appearance date. We show that the Mousterian ended by 41,030-39,260 calibrated years bp (at 95.4% probability) across Europe. We also demonstrate that succeeding 'transitional' archaeological industries, one of which has been linked with Neanderthals (Châtelperronian), end at a similar time. Our data indicate that the disappearance of Neanderthals occurred at different times in different regions. Comparing the data with results obtained from the earliest dated AMH sites in Europe, associated with the Uluzzian technocomplex, allows us to quantify the temporal overlap between the two human groups. The results reveal a significant overlap of 2,600-5,400 years (at 95.4% probability). This has important implications for models seeking to explain the cultural, technological and biological elements involved in the replacement of Neanderthals by AMHs. A mosaic of populations in Europe during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition suggests that there was ample time for the transmission of cultural and symbolic behaviours, as well as possible genetic exchanges, between the two groups.

Radiocarbon dating casts doubt on the late chronology of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in southern Iberia.

It is commonly accepted that some of the latest dates for Neanderthal fossils and Mousterian industries are found south of the Ebro valley in Iberia at ca. 36 ka calBP (calibrated radiocarbon date ranges). In contrast, to the north of the valley the Mousterian disappears shortly before the Proto-Aurignacian appears at ca. 42 ka calBP. The latter is most likely produced by anatomically modern humans. However, two-thirds of dates from the south are radiocarbon dates, a technique that is particularly sensitive to carbon contaminants of a younger age that can be difficult to remove using routine pretreatment protocols. We have attempted to test the reliability of chronologies of 11 southern Iberian Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites. Only two, Jarama VI and Zafarraya, were found to contain material that could be reliably dated. In both sites, Middle Paleolithic contexts were previously dated by radiocarbon to less than 42 ka calBP. Using ultrafiltration to purify faunal bone collagen before radiocarbon dating, we obtain ages at least 10 ka (14)C years older, close to or beyond the limit of the radiocarbon method for the Mousterian at Jarama VI and Neanderthal fossils at Zafarraya. Unless rigorous pretreatment protocols have been used, radiocarbon dates should be assumed to be inaccurate until proven otherwise in this region. Evidence for the late survival of Neanderthals in southern Iberia is limited to one possible site, Cueva Antón, and alternative models of human occupation of the region should be considered.