Cited by 123Pleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyMorphological variations and asymmetryForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

The Neanderthal taxonomic position: models of intra- and inter-specific craniofacial variation

Harvati, Katerina·2003·Journal of Human Evolution

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

Crossref · 10.1016/s0047-2484(02)00208-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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