https://www.sciencealert.com/this-may-be-the-oldest-fragment-of-modern-humans-in-europe-or-something-even-rarer

An ancient jawbone previously thought to have belonged
to a Neanderthal may force a rethink on the history of
modern humans in Europe.

A new analysis of the broken mandible reveals that it
has nothing in common with other Neanderthal remains.
Rather, it could belong to a Homo sapiens – and, since
it's dated to between 45,000 to 66,000 years ago, might
be the oldest known piece of our species' anatomy on
the European continent.
....

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001518

Abstract
Since the discovery of a human mandible in 1887 near
the present-day city of Banyoles, northeastern Spain,
researchers have generally emphasized its archaic
features, including the lack of chin structures, and
suggested affinities with the Neandertals or European
Middle Pleistocene (Chibanian) specimens. Uranium-series
and electron spin resonance dating suggest the mandible
dates to the Late Pleistocene (Tarantian), approximately
ca. 45–66 ka. In this study, we reassessed the taxonomic
affinities of the Banyoles mandible by comparing it to
samples of Middle Pleistocene fossils from Africa and
Europe, Neandertals, Early and Upper Paleolithic modern
humans, and recent modern humans. We evaluated the
frequencies and expressions of morphological features and
performed a three-dimensional geometric morphometric
analysis on a virtual reconstruction of Banyoles to
capture overall mandibular shape. Our results revealed no
derived Neandertal morphological features in Banyoles.
While a principal component analysis based on Euclidean
distances from the first two principal components clearly
grouped Banyoles with both fossil and recent Homo sapiens
individuals, an analysis of the Procrustes residuals
demonstrated that Banyoles did not fit into any of the
comparative groups. The lack of Neandertal features in
Banyoles is surprising considering its Late Pleistocene
age. A consideration of the Middle Pleistocene fossil
record in Europe and southwest Asia suggests that Banyoles
is unlikely to represent a late-surviving Middle Pleistocene
population. The lack of chin structures also complicates an
assignment to H. sapiens, although early fossil H. sapiens
do show somewhat variable development of the chin structures.
Thus, Banyoles represents a non-Neandertal Late Pleistocene
European individual and highlights the continuing signal of
diversity in the hominin fossil record. The present situation
makes Banyoles a prime candidate for ancient DNA or proteomic
analyses, which may shed additional light on its taxonomic
affinities.

Lord knows, you're not bright, but let me share a rather "Insightful"
way to read the following. It'll grant you perspective even if you'll
ignore it.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Primum Sapienti wrote:
> A new analysis of the broken mandible reveals that it
> has nothing in common with other Neanderthal remains.

Translation: "Jawbone looks nothing like a Neanderthal's jawbone
and nobody noticed even after 100 years of study."

> Rather, it could

What does the would "Could" mean in your native tongue?

> might be

What does "Might be" mean in your native tongue?

> the oldest known piece of our species' anatomy on
> the European continent.

Last I heard there is no test for "Species." That, such a dividing
line, if it exists at all, between two very closely related
populations, is problematic under the best of circumstances.
THE BEST, and many will tell you it's not very good but THE
BEST test for determining if two groups are the same species
is interbreeding.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703387388268953600

Op maandag 12 december 2022 om 06:30:19 UTC+1 schreef Primum Sapienti:

> https://www.sciencealert.com/this-may-be-the-oldest-fragment-of-modern-humans-in-europe-or-something-even-rarer
> An ancient jawbone previously thought to have belonged
> to a Neanderthal may force a rethink on the history of
> modern humans in Europe.
> A new analysis of the broken mandible reveals that it
> has nothing in common with other Neanderthal remains.
> Rather, it could belong to a Homo sapiens – and, since
> it's dated to between 45,000 to 66,000 years ago, might
> be the oldest known piece of our species' anatomy on
> the European continent. ...
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248422001518
> Since the discovery of a human mandible in 1887 near
> the present-day city of Banyoles, northeastern Spain,
> researchers have generally emphasized its archaic
> features, including the lack of chin structures, and
> suggested affinities with the Neandertals or European
> Middle Pleistocene (Chibanian) specimens. Uranium-series
> and electron spin resonance dating suggest the mandible
> dates to the Late Pleistocene (Tarantian), approximately
> ca. 45–66 ka. In this study, we reassessed the taxonomic
> affinities of the Banyoles mandible by comparing it to
> samples of Middle Pleistocene fossils from Africa and
> Europe, Neandertals, Early and Upper Paleolithic modern
> humans, and recent modern humans. We evaluated the
> frequencies and expressions of morphological features and
> performed a three-dimensional geometric morphometric
> analysis on a virtual reconstruction of Banyoles to
> capture overall mandibular shape. Our results revealed no
> derived Neandertal morphological features in Banyoles.
> While a principal component analysis based on Euclidean
> distances from the first two principal components clearly
> grouped Banyoles with both fossil and recent Homo sapiens
> individuals, an analysis of the Procrustes residuals
> demonstrated that Banyoles did not fit into any of the
> comparative groups. The lack of Neandertal features in
> Banyoles is surprising considering its Late Pleistocene
> age. A consideration of the Middle Pleistocene fossil
> record in Europe and southwest Asia suggests that Banyoles
> is unlikely to represent a late-surviving Middle Pleistocene
> population. The lack of chin structures also complicates an
> assignment to H. sapiens, although early fossil H. sapiens
> do show somewhat variable development of the chin structures.
> Thus, Banyoles represents a non-Neandertal Late Pleistocene
> European individual and highlights the continuing signal of
> diversity in the hominin fossil record. The present situation
> makes Banyoles a prime candidate for ancient DNA or proteomic
> analyses, which may shed additional light on its taxonomic
> affinities.

Thanks, yes, Banyoles was not Hn, probably not even Hs, yet his enamal damage shows he ate (smoked) fish: another Homo who didn't run after antelopes or mammoths... :-DDD

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks, yes, Banyoles was not Hn, probably not even Hs, yet his enamal damage
> shows he ate (smoked) fish: another Homo who didn't run after antelopes or
> mammoths... :-DDD

It does look Neanderthal and most similar to a hybrid found elsewhere.

Again, it was known & studied for a century before anyone tried to claim it
was Hss and not Hsn.

Even the piece cited is anything but confident in it's claims, using words like
"Could" and "Might be."

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703387388268953600

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> An ancient jawbone

I think you should do what I do: Concern yourself with models, an
overview -- the big picture -- HOW all the indisputable facts fit
together, and leave it to the smarter folks to quibble over the
minutia.

For most of the threads around here, it's like two guys robbed a
bank and you're claiming we can't solve the crime, identify the
criminals, unless we can "Prove" which gun they got first, or the
significance of the color of the getaway car...

This jawbone, for example: How does it fit into Out of Africa
purity? What does it say about dating, for example? How does
THAT dating align with other sites, other evidence/finds?

Of course, this is assuming that everyone agrees that it's Hss
and not Hsn, something everyone does not agree on and your
citation backs away from claiming... "Could"... "Might be."

But why even bother with any of that? Whatever we call it,
whatever we identify it as, it STILL has to fit a model here, a
model for human origins/dispersal. Unless you're pretending
that Hss arose in Africa, built a plane and then paradropped
into Spain. Otherwise you need a path which this supposed
Hss population took to reach that point.

Correct?

If you want to argue "Hybrid," which I get -- it does look very
similar to a later hybrid jaw found a long ways off -- that DOES
explain it. It is a model. Of sorts. Particularly if you want to
claim the low end of the date range. It even makes sense, moves
from "Game Changer" to "Predicted."

And this is why models are important. You don't have to fill in
all the blanks. You don't have to know everything. All you need
to know is if what your claiming makes sense along side all
the other evidence/observations, or if it looks like a cheap
rationalization.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/703387388268953600