The Neanderthal taxonomic position: models of intra- and inter-specific craniofacial variation
Abstract
The Neanderthal taxonomic position is a matter of wide disagreement among paleoanthropologists. Some workers consider this fossil human group to represent a different species, Homo neanderthalensis, while others see it as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. This study developed two models of morphological variation to be applied to a comparison between Neanderthals and modern humans: modern human populations provided a measure of intra-specific variation, while the species and subspecies of Pan provided measures of both intra- and inter-specific morphological differences. Although such an approach has been advocated strongly, it has not been systematically undertaken until recently. The techniques of geometric morphometrics were used to collect data in the form of three-dimensional coordinates of craniofacial landmarks. The data were processed using generalized procrustes analysis, and analyzed by an array of multivariate statistical methods, including principal components analysis, canonical variates analysis and Mahalanobis D(2). The morphological distances between Neanderthals and modern humans, and between Neanderthals and Late Paleolithic/early anatomically modern specimens, are consistently greater than the distances among recent human populations, and greater than the distances between the two chimpanzee species. Furthermore, no strong morphological similarities were found between Neanderthals and Late Paleolithic Europeans. This study does not find evidence for Neanderthal contribution to the evolution of modern Europeans. Results are consistent with the recognition of Neanderthals as a distinct species.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Modern humans have a high degree of cranial variation exceeding that found in other primate species, with the face being an important contributor to this variation.
“modern humans have a high degree of cranial variation exceeding that found in other primate species, with the face being an important contributor to this variation 75,76”
From The evolutionary history of the human face (2019) · cites this paper as [75]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 86 · Cited by 123
- Authors
- Harvati, K.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Harvati, Katerina
- ORCID
- Harvati, Katerina
- Venue
- Journal of Human Evolution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-132
- ISSN
- 0047-2484 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2111846352
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 86
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 42.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Human Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Keywords
- Neanderthals, taxonomic status, craniofacial morphology, morphological variation, Neanderthal admixture, chimpanzee comparison, morphological distance
- MeSH terms
- Anatomy, Comparative, Animals, Cephalometry, Pan troglodytes, Craniology, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Models, Anatomic, Skull, Species Specificity, Hominidae
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review