![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2005, The National Academy of Sciences Anthropology Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World Laboratório
de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Genética e Biologia
Evolutiva, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo,
05508-090 São Paulo, Brazil * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: waneves@ib.usp.br. Edited by Richard G. Klein, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved October 28, 2005 Received August 18, 2005 This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Comparative
morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World
have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native
Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and
modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic
and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the
earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians,
Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania;
prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).
However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains
were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest
sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa
Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological
variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The
results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close
morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant
Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct
biological populations could have colonized the New World in the
Pleistocene/Holocene transition. Keywords: Paleoamericans, Paleoindian morphology, Paleoindians Information
derived from several comparative morphological studies of the earliest
human skeletons of the continent has suggested a complex scenario in
regards to the influx of humans to the New World (1, 2) (see Supporting Text, which is published as supporting information
on the PNAS web site, for recent support of the use of cranial
morphology as a legitimate tool to recover recent human evolutionary
history). Whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans
tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern
Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad
faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses) (3),
the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present
Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long
neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits
and noses) (2).
The latter is known in the literature as Paleoamerican morphology.
However, most studies carried out so far regarding the morphology of the
first Americans were based on small cranial samples because human
burials older than 8,000 years (8.0 kyr) are rarely found in the
Americas, especially in North and Central America (1).
In this paper, the morphological affinities of early South Americans
are assessed by using the largest sample of early American skulls ever
studied. All specimens were recovered in the Lagoa Santa region of
central Brazil. Because all human
populations present a high degree of internal morphological variability,
previous studies based on early Americans' cranial morphology were
unable to completely rule out sampling anomalies or outliers as an
explanation for the results they generated. Consequently, several
specialists have questioned whether the peculiar cranial pattern
described above for the first South Americans actually expressed the
central tendency of this population (4, 5). This controversy could be addressed by the use of large samples of early Americans, if available. Here
we use a sample of 81 Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene specimens from
the region of Lagoa Santa, central Brazil (described in Table 1)
to explore the extracontinental morphological affinities of the first
Americans. This unique sample results from a long-term research project
led by W.A.N. involving a major program of curating and dating museum
material, and fieldwork in Lagoa Santa. The Lagoa Santa karst, located
near the center of the State of Minas Gerais (Fig. 1), has been known since the 1840s (6) as a key area for the study of the first Americans.
Chronology of the Specimens Since
the excavations of Peter Lund at Sumidouro Cave in 1842/1843, the human
skeletal remains recovered in Lagoa Santa have been assumed to be of
great antiquity (6).
However, only very recently has this assertion proved to be correct.
From the original excavations of Lund until 1969, the only indication of
an early date for the human skeletons found in Lagoa Santa was the
cooccurrence in Sumidouro Cave of human and megafauna skeletal remains
apparently deposited in the same sedimentary levels (7). A similar phenomenon was also observed by Harold Walter in the inner chamber of Mortuaria cave in 1935 (8). The first professional archaeological excavations in Lagoa Santa were carried out by Wesley Hurt and Oldemar Blasi in 1956 (9).
They were unable to find any association between human and megafauna
remains in the seven rock-shelters excavated by them at Cerca Grande,
the largest limestone outcrop in the region. However, many years after
their fieldwork, two radiocarbon dates were reported by them (10).
These two dates (9,720 ± 128 and 9,028 ± 120), obtained in Rock-Shelter
6, were the first direct evidence that a large number of human
skeletons found in that area, including those uncovered by Hurt and
Blasi in Cerca Grande, could be in fact of final Pleistocene/Early
Holocene age. The next contribution
toward an improved chronological framework for the Lagoa Santa human
skeletal remains came from the excavations of Lapa Vermelha IV, in the
mid-1970s (11).
The now famous “Luzia” skeleton was uncovered by the excavators 12 m
below the surface of the rock-shelter, in a sedimentary deposit
estimated by 14C dates on charcoal to be of final Pleistocene age (12). Since
the work of Lund in Sumidouro Cave in 1842/1843 until the mid-1970s
when Luzia was found, at least 250 ancient human skeletons were
recovered in Lagoa Santa by naturalists, amateurs, and professional
archaeologists. Because the majority of the excavations were reported in
Portuguese in local publications, few North American and European
physical anthropologists were aware of this important material. For the
same reason, until recently, none of these human skeletons had been
directly dated by accelerator mass spectrometry to confirm their
antiquity. Because of the importance of
this unique material to the debate on the settlement of the New World,
W.A.N. has directed an extensive operation since 1994 to generate a
reliable chronological framework for the human skeletons of Lagoa Santa.
This operation has involved four complementary lines of action: dating
directly as many human skeletons as possible by accelerator mass
spectrometry; generating minimum dates for some of the human skeletal
collections by dating cristaline calcite layers sealing archaeological
and paleontological deposits; excavating new archaeological sites to
increase the number of human specimens and to understand the details of
the local stratigraphic sequence; and visiting classical sites looking
for remnants of the original sediments to reconstruct the original
archaeological sequences. Few specimens could in fact be directly dated
by accelerator mass spectrometry, because absence of collagen in the
bones is the norm in Lagoa Santa. In
conjunction, these four lines of research have allowed for the
construction of a very solid chronological framework for the specimens
used in this work. Table 2, which is published as supporting information
on the PNAS web site, presents the absolute dates obtained for 22 human
skeletons uncovered from 11 classical sites in Lagoa Santa. Most of the
specimens are dated to Early Holocene, specifically between 8.5 and 7.5
kyr. Because these specimens can be assumed to represent a random
sample of the total universe of already institutionalized human skeletal
remains from Lagoa Santa, they can be taken to represent the burial
distribution along time in the region as a whole. A
few human skeletal remains dated to Late Holocene (last 2.0 kyr) were
also found in the rock-shelters of Lagoa Santa (data not shown). This
late material, very fragmented, was found, however, on the surface of
the shelters (sometimes deposited in urns) and not in stratigraphy, as
the early ones, and can be easily sorted out from the Early Holocene
specimens by means of taphonomical characteristics. Because
of its homogeneity, the burial pattern of the early settling of Lagoa
Santa can also be used as a complementary indicator of the chronology of
the human remains uncovered when neither stratigraphic control nor
direct methods of dating were available (13).
In general, the corpses were deposited in hyperflexed position in very
shallow graves topped by small blocks of limestone or quartz. Sometimes,
these blocks were also used to cover the lateral walls of the grave
pits. A small hearth was always established adjacent to the top of the
pit, and burning charcoals were thrown into the pit, before sealing.
Secondary burials were also popular in ancient days in the region. Red
pigment was vastly used in these cases. Because most naturalists and
amateurs described the burial conditions of the human skeletons they
recovered in Lagoa Santa, these descriptions can also be used, as a last
resource, to help to contextualize the old material in time. The
chronology assumed for the Lagoa Santa skulls used in this work is also
supported by what is known about cultural continuity and change in the
region. Humans were present in Lagoa Santa earlier than or at least as
early as Clovis in North America (14).
However, only two skulls in the studied sample date back to the final
Pleistocene. Dry climatic conditions apparently did now allow for a real
human settlement within the karst of Lagoa Santa during that period. As
it is widely known, karsts in general are rich in subterranean streams
but poor in surface water. During the last two millennia of the
Pleistocene, humans were not formally buried. Apparently, when a group
was crossing the area or sporadically exploring it, eventual casualties
were expediently treated: the corpse was simply laid down in extended
position in a natural protected niche within caves and cavities. This
was the case of Luzia (13) and possibly Confins Man (8). From
≈10.0 to 7.5 kyr, more humid conditions allowed for an intense
settlement within the karst itself, with the great majority of the local
rock-shelters already occupied by 9.6 kyr ago. For still unknown
reasons, formal burying in the rock-shelters started only around 8.5 kyr
ago and would be intensively practiced only until around 7.5 kyr ago.
Except for this, the other elements of the local lifestyle and material
culture did not change significantly. This phase of intensive use of the
karst by humans was followed by what is now known elsewhere in South
America as the “archaic gap.” Also because of drier conditions, humans
almost completely abandoned the region during the Middle Holocene.
Again, the rock-shelters were occupied only sporadically, as in the
final Pleistocene, and no human burial dated to between 7.0 and 3.0 kyr
has ever been found in Lagoa Santa. With a
local increase in humidity during the Late Holocene, the Lagoa Santa
Karst was again intensively occupied by human groups, this time with a
very different material culture and settlement-subsistence pattern when
compared to the Paleoindians. Slash-and-burn agriculture and pottery
making were part of the cultural repertory of the newcomers. Their dead
were buried mainly in urns, some of them deposited on the surface of the
rock-shelters. In summary,
although most of the human skeletons used in this work were not directly
dated by accelerator mass spectrometry (primarily because no collagen
was preserved in these specimens), one can surely assume that the 81
human crania (42 males and 39 females) used here pertain to one same
breeding population bracketed in time between 7.5 and 11.0 kyr (Table
2), with the vast majority (74 skulls) dating to between 8.0 and 8.5
kyr. Taking into account the biological and cultural continuity during
this time interval, the term Late Paleoindians is adopted in this work
to refer to these specimens collectively. Materials and Methods All specimens were measured by a single individual (W.A.N.), using W. W. Howells' protocol as craniometric standard (15), and the original data can be found in Data Set 1, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site. Howells' database (16)
was used as comparative material to assess the extracontinental
morphological affinities of the Lagoa Santa skulls. Howells' cranial
measurements and database have been extensively used in the literature
for similar purposes because all 2,524 individuals were measured by
Howells himself and the database contains skeletal samples from the five
continents. Two fairly recent Brazilian coastal samples from the late
archaic period [Tapera and Base Aérea; measured by Myia Pereira da Silva
(Musée de l'Homme, Paris) and W.A.N.] were also added to the analysis
to increase the number of comparative series from South America. To assess the morphological affinities of Lagoa Santa, three different multivariate tests were applied: (i) principal coordinates on heritability corrected data, (ii) principal components of the individual data of Lagoa Santa and Howells centroids, and (iii)
principal components of Lagoa Santa and Howells centroids. Multiple
quantitative techniques were used as a precaution, taking into account
that multivariate tests can produce slightly different results. The
first test is based on principal coordinate analyses, extracted from
distance matrices corrected for heritability. The second test explores
the individual dispersion of Lagoa Santa when compared to worldwide
population centroids. The third test is based on sample centroids, which
allowed us to include all of the 81 skulls available for Lagoa Santa
and to avoid replacement of missing values. Results The
morphological affinities of Lagoa Santa skulls were first analyzed
through principal coordinate analysis, with an assumed heritability of
0.55 [calculated by using rmet 5.0
(written by John H. Relethford and available on request)], applied to
“size and shape” and on “shape” information alone. Males and females
were analyzed separately. The influence of size was corrected by
dividing the values of each craniometric variable by the geometric mean
of all variables measured in one individual (17).
The heritability value expresses the average amount of the variation in
the skull morphology that is estimated to be due to genetic
contribution (18).
Only the 55 best preserved skulls from Lagoa Santa were used in this
analysis to minimize the replacement of missing values and to maximize
the number of variables. When necessary, missing values replacement was
done through multiple regressions of the means of each variable across
all populations included in the analyses. After the screening, only 25
variables could be used in the case of males, and only 17 variables, in
the case of females. Fig. 2
presents the positions of all series included in the analysis when
plotted in two-dimensional graphs defined by principal coordinates 1 and
2 (PCo1 and PCo2). The amount of information contained in each axis is
also presented in the figure. In Fig. 2 A
(males, size and shape), the sample from Lagoa Santa shows its
strongest morphological affinity with Tolai (a Melanesian sample from
New Britain), followed by the remaining Australian series. Fig. 2B (males, shape alone) shows a similar topology, with Lagoa Santa again close to Tolai. Fig. 2C
(females, size and shape) places the early Americans very close to
Tolai. Both series occupy the region of the graph dominated by
Australo-Melanesians. This pattern repeats itself in Fig. 2D
(females, shape alone). In the four graphs the reference samples taken
from Howells' database are, in general, grouped in accordance with
geography, as found by him in his seminal studies (3, 15).
The two Brazilian late archaic samples show a very different cranial
morphology when compared with the early South Americans. The samples
occupy a position in the multivariate space close to East Asians and/or
late Amerindians.
To
consider the individual variability of the Lagoa Santa sample,
principal components analyses were applied to the same set of 55 best
preserved skulls used in the principal coordinate analyses, and to the
centroids of Howells and late archaic Brazilian series. By doing this,
we were able to assess the morphological dispersion of the individual
skulls of Lagoa Santa in relation to the central tendencies of the world
comparative populations. The results (Fig. 3)
show a tendency for late Americans and Asian centroids to remain
outside of the 95% confidence ellipses of the individual dispersion of
Lagoa Santa. Fig. 3A
(males, size and shape) shows that, whereas most of the world series
fall within the dispersion of Lagoa Santa, none of the five late
American samples used are part of the Paleoindian dispersion. When size
effect is corrected (Fig. 3B),
fewer series can be found within the Paleoindian dispersion. These are
mainly Australian and African samples, although some Polynesian (Guam
and North Maori) and American series (Eskimo and Base) can be found in
the extremity of Lagoa Santa's 95% confidence dispersion. Fig. 3C
(females, size and shape) shows that the majority of the series within
the Paleoindian dispersion are Australo-Melanesians and Africans. With
the exception of Eskimo, no other late American series are found within
Lagoa Santa's female dispersion. The same can be said when size is
corrected (Fig. 3D).
To
take into account the information provided by all 81 Lagoa Santa skulls
and not only the 55 best preserved specimens, the centroids (averages)
of all series were analyzed by using a conventional principal component
analysis applied to the raw database (50 variables, uncorrected for
heritability). The graphs based on the first two principal components
are shown in Fig. 5, which is published as supporting information
on the PNAS web site. These analyses did not significantly change the
topologies generated by the principal coordinate analyses. Discussion and Conclusions The
three different quantitative analyses undertaken in this study
demonstrate that the first South Americans exhibit a cranial morphology
that is very different from late and modern Northeastern Asians and
Amerindians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic faces; and
relatively high and narrow orbits and noses) but very similar to present
Australians/Melanesians and Africans, especially with the former
(narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low
and broad orbits and noses). Taking into account the large number of
early specimens used in this study, this trend is unlikely to be a
result of sample bias. The phenomenon cannot, as well, be said to
represent the result of microevolutionary processes restricted to Lagoa
Santa because the same cranial pattern has already been described in
places as distant and as ecologically different as Southern Chile
[Magellan's Strait (19)], Colombia [Sabana de Bogotá (20, 21)], Mexico [Mexico Basin (22) and Baja California (23)], United States [Florida (24)], and elsewhere in Brazil [Bahia (25) and São Paulo (26)] (Fig. 4).
Two
different hypotheses can be proposed to explain the morphological
differences observed between early and late Native South Americans (27). One is a local microevolutionary process that transformed, in situ,
the Paleoamerican morphology into that prevailing today among Native
Americans. The other is that the Americas were successively occupied by
two morphologically differentiated human stocks, with the Paleoamerican
morphology entering first. We believe the
second hypothesis is more plausible for three reasons: first, it would
be very unlikely that the same evolutionary event (directional
morphological change) happened in the Americas and in East Asia in
parallel at approximately the same time (the parsimony principle) (28);
second, because in South America, at least, the transition between the
two morphological patterns was, as far as we know, abrupt (29);
and third, cranial morphology has recently been shown to respond
adaptatively only to extreme environmental conditions, being therefore
much less plastic than originally thought (30).
No transoceanic migration is necessary to explain our findings, because
Paleoamerican-like humans were also present in East Asia during the
final Pleistocene (31–35)
and could perfectly well have entered the New World across the Bering
Strait. A final solution to this dilemma will depend of course on a
better understanding of what was happening in North America at the same
time. Recent archaeological data can be used to support a dual occupation of the New World, either directly or indirectly. Dixon (36),
for example, analyzed the diversity of the projectile points found in
the earliest sites of North America and concluded that two different and
independent cultural traditions (or cultures) entered the continent in
the final Pleistocene. According to Dixon, bow-and-arrow technology was
brought to the Americas only by the second tradition, because the atlatl
was the primary hunting weapon of the first. A pre-Clovis occupation of the New World, as strongly suggested by recent findings in South America (37, 38),
would not strictly be requisite to accommodate our findings. However,
it would make them more plausible. The deeper the chronology of the
settlement of the Americas, the more plausible the entrance of humans
exhibiting a more generalized cranial morphology in the New World. Our
results and interpretation are more difficult to reconcile with
information coming from molecular biology. As recently summarized by
several leading scholars in the field (39, 40),
DNA analyses (mainly mtDNA and Y chromosome) have generated very
different scenarios for the occupation of the Americas. As to the number
of migrations, the proposals have oscillated from one to four. As to
time of entrance, figures as distant in time as 12.0 to 35.0 kyr ago
have been proposed. There is, however, a recent trend toward a small
number of migrations (one to two) and time depths more compatible with
the archaeological findings (ca. 15 kyr). The lack of a perfect
match between morphological and molecular information can be easily
explained by a very frequent event in molecular evolution: loss of DNA
lineages throughout time. An example of this loss is the X mitochondrial
haplogroup. Nowadays it is completely absent among the Indians of South
America (41), whereas a couple of millennia ago it could still be found in the subcontinent (42). More light on this subject will be certainly shed when Paleoindian DNA fragments are recovered and analyzed. Supporting Information
Acknowledgments This
paper is dedicated to L. L. Cavalli-Sforza. We express our deepest
gratitude to the curators who facilitated our access to the human
skeletons from Lagoa Santa: Kim Aaris-Sørensen (Zoological Museum,
University of Copenhagen), Chris Stringer (Natural History Museum,
London), Ricardo Ventura Santos and Hilton Pereira da Silva (National
Museum, Rio de Janeiro), André Prous and Cláudia Cardoso (Museum of
Natural History, Belo Horizonte), and Cybelle Ipanema (Historic and
Geographic Institute, Rio de Janeiro). Robert Kruszynski, Knud
Rosen-lund, Abdi Hedayat, Sheila Mendonça de Souza, and Claudia Carvalho
were extremely helpful during our museum operations. We are also
grateful to Luis Beethoven Piló, Astolfo Araujo, and Renato Kipnis, with
whom we share the Lagoa Santa Project, and to Hector Pucciarelli and
Joseph Powell. Peter Rowley-Conwy, Tim White, and Diogo Meyer gave
insightful comments on early versions of the manuscript. This research
reported was funded by FAPESP (Fundação de Amparoà Pesquisa do Estado de
São Paulo) through Grants 99/00670-7 and 04/01321-6 (to W.A.N.) and a
Doctoral Scholarship (to M.H.; Process 04/01253-0). W.A.N. also holds a
research scholarship from CNPq (Brazilian National Science Foundation;
Process 305918/85-0). Notes Author
contributions: W.A.N. designed research; W.A.N. and M.H. performed
research; M.H. analyzed data; and W.A.N. and M.H. wrote the paper. Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared. This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office. Abbreviations: kyr, thousand years; PCo1 and PCo2, principal coordinates 1 and 2. References 1. Jantz, R. L. & Owsley, D. W. (2001) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 114, 146–155. [PubMed] 2. Neves, W. A., Prous, A., González-José, R., Kipnis, R. & Powell, J. (2003) J. Hum. Evol. 45, 19–42. [PubMed] 3. Howells, W. W. (1995) Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA), Vol. 82. 4. Dillehay, T. D. (2001) The Settlement of the Americas (Basic Books, New York). 5. Roosevelt, A. C., Douglas, J. & Brown, L. (2002) in The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, ed. Jablonsky, N. G. (California Academy of Science, San Francisco), pp. 159–223. 6. Mello e Alvim, M. C. (1977) Arq. Mus. Hist. Nat. Univ. Fed. Minas Gerais 2, 119–174. 7. Lund, P. W. (1844) Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasileiro 6, 334–342. 8. Walter, H. V., Cathoud, A. & Mattos, A. (1937) in Early
Man: As Depicted by Leading Authorities at the International Symposium
of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, March 1937, ed. McCurdy, E. (Lippincott, London). 9. Hurt, W. R. & Blasi, O. (1969) Arq. Mus. Paranaense Nova Sér. Arqueol. 4, 1–63. 10. Hurt, W. R. (1964) Am. Antiq. 29, 25–33. 11. Laming-Emperaire, A. (1979) Rev. Pré-História 1, 54–89. 12. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. & Ozolins, E. G. (1999) Homo 50, 263–282. 13. Prous, A. & Fogaça, E. (1999) Quat. Int. 53/54, 21–41. 14. Kipnis, R. (1998) Antiquity 72, 581–592. 15. Howells, W. W. (1973) Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA), Vol. 67. 16. Howells, W. W. (1996) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 101, 441–442. [PubMed] 17. Darroch, J. N. & Mosimann, J. E. (1985) Biometrika 72, 241–252. 18. Relethford, J. H. (1994) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 95, 53–62. [PubMed] 19. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. & Ozolins, E. G. (1999) Interciência (Venezuela) 24, 258–263. 20. Neves, E. G. & Pucciraelli, H. M. (1991) J. Hum. Evol. 21, 261–273. 21. Munford, D. (1999) Master's thesis (Univ. of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil). 22. Gonzalez-José, R., Neves, W. A., Lahr, M. M., González, S., Pucciarelli, H., Martinez, M. H. & Correal, G. (2005) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., in press. 23. González-José, R., González-Martin, A., Hernandez, M., Pucciarelli, H., Sardi, M., Rosales, A. & Van der Molen, S. (2003) Nature 425, 62–65. [PubMed] 24. Powell, J. F., Neves, W. A., Ozolins, E. & Pucciarelli, H. M. (1999) Antropol. Fisica Latinoam. 2, 7–22. 25. Hubbe, M., Neves, W. A., Atui, J. P. V., Cartelle, C. & Silva, M. P. (2004) Curr. Res. Pleist. 21, 77–81. 26. Neves, W. A., Hubbe, M., Okumura, M. M. M., González-José, R., Figuti, L., Eggers, S. & De Blasis, P. A. D. (2005) J. Hum. Evol. 48, 403–414. [PubMed] 27. Powell, J. F. & Neves, W. A. (1999) Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 42, 153–188. 28. Lahr, M. M. (1995) Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 38, 163–198. 29. Munford, D., Zanini, M. C. & Neves, W. A. (1995) Brazilian J. Genet. 18, 673–688. 30. Roseman, C. C. (2004) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 12824–12829. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 31. Wright, R. V. S. (1995) J. Hum. Evol. 29 181–183. 32. Kamminga, J. & Wright, R. V. S. (1998) J. Hum. Evol. 17, 739–767. 33. Lahr, M. M. (1996) The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA). 34. Neves, W. A. & Pucciarelli, H. M. (1998) J. Hum. Evol. 34, 219–220. [PubMed] 35. Cunningham, D. L. & Jantz, R. L. (2003) J. Hum. Evol. 45, 1–18. [PubMed] 36. Dixon, E. J. (2001) Quat. Sci. Rev. 20, 277–299. 37. Dillehay, T. (2000) The Settlement of the Americas (Basic Books, New York). 38. Roosevelt,
A. C., Costa, M. L., Machado, C. L., Michab, M., Mercier, N., Valladas,
H., Feathers, J., Barnett, W., Silveira, M. I., Henderson, A., et al. (1996) Science 272, 373–384. 39. Schurr, T. G. (2004) Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 33, 551–583. 40. Zegura, S. L., Karafet, T. M., Zhivostovsky, L. A. & Hammer, M. F. (2004) Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 164–175. [PubMed] 41. Dornelles, C. L., Bonatto, S. L., Freitas, L. B. & Salzano, F. M. (2005) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 127, 439–448. [PubMed] 42. Ribeiro-dos-Santos, A. K., Santos, S. E. B., Machado, A. L., Guapindaia, V. & Zago, M. A. (1996) Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 101, 29–37. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001 Feb; 114(2):146-55.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 2001]J Hum Evol. 2003 Jul; 45(1):19-42.
[J Hum Evol. 2003]Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Nov; 101(3):441-2.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996]Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994 Sep; 95(1):53-62.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 1994]Nature. 2003 Sep 4; 425(6953):62-5.
[Nature. 2003]J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr; 48(4):403-14.
[J Hum Evol. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 31; 101(35):12824-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]J Hum Evol. 2003 Jul; 45(1):1-18.
[J Hum Evol. 2003]Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jan; 21(1):164-75.
[Mol Biol Evol. 2004]Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005 Aug; 127(4):439-48.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 2005]Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Sep; 101(1):29-37.
[Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996]