Not of African Descent: Dental Modification among Indigenous Caribbean People from Canímar Abajo, Cuba

Dental modifications in the Caribbean are considered to be an African practice introduced to the Caribbean archipelago by the influx of enslaved Africans during colonial times. Skeletal remains which exhibited dental modifications are by default considered to be Africans, African descendants, or post-contact indigenous people influenced by an African practice. Individual E-105 from the site of Canímar Abajo (Cuba), with a direct 14C AMS date of 990– 800 cal BC, provides the first unequivocal evidence of dental modifications in the Antilles prior to contact with Europeans in AD 1492. Central incisors showing evidence of significant crown reduction (loss of crown volume regardless of its etiology) were examined macroscopically and with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to determine if the observed alterations were due to deliberate modification or other (unintentional) factors considered: postmortem breakage, violent accidental breakage, non-dietary use of teeth, and wear caused by habitual or repeated actions. The pattern of crown reduction is consistent with deliberate dental modification of the type commonly encountered among African and African descendent communities in post-contact Caribbean archaeological assemblages. Six additional individuals show similar pattern of crown reduction of maxillary incisors with no analogous wear in corresponding mandibular dentition.The research was funded under SSHRC Standard Research Grant SSHRC - 410-2011-1179 to MR and IR (http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/homeaccueil-eng.aspx).http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.015353

The Curious Case of Homo floresiensis: A New Perspective on Hominin Migrations

In 2004 a paleoanthropology team discovered the remains of an extinct and curiously unique hominin species on the isolated Indonesian island of Flores. This find has proven to be among the most compelling hominin specimens since the discovery of “Lucy”, an iconic early australopithecine. Homo floresiensis, nicknamed the “hobbit” due to its extremely small stature has shaken the typically accepted evolutionary paradigms. The holotype specimen LB1 has been subject to intense research in efforts to determine its true taxonomic relationship within the hominin family tree. This little species exhibits an extremely small brain size and body stature which parallels that of our distant australopithecine ancestors such as “Lucy”, however unlikely Homo floresiensis persisted until the recent past and likely lived contemporaneously with Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis.More compelling than its late survival is its small cranial capacity and its curious mix of primitive and independently derived characters. Some researchers have attempted to reconcile LB1 as a pathologically microcephalic or pygmoid Homo sapiens or Homo erectus individual, while others believe it represents an isolated, newly identified, early Homo species. The cranial and limb morphology of the holotype LB1 and subsequent specimens on Flores proves that Homo floresiensis is a unique species and not a biologically anomalous modern human. Homo floresiensis demonstrates the true morphological and adaptive range of our genus. With its small brain, comparable in size to an australopithecine, Homo floresiensis was capable of producing a tool technology which demonstrates sophisticated cognitive abilities. Traditionally, brain size has been at the core of arguments regarding behavioural output. This “hobbit” may force us to re-examine our view of early hominins and the biological requirements for modern behaviour and cognition

Early Stone Tool Use and the Evolution of Human Cognition

Modern humans display a unique degree of social and cognitive complexity. As species we are capable of creating diverse and complex technologies to overcome the limitations of our biology and our external environments. This observed mental uniqueness, has led many researches to coin behavioural and cognitive complexity as the ‘hallmark of humanity’ and ‘behavioural modernity’. Human intelligence has evolved through time and selection, and we as a species owe our current abilities to the evolutionary precursors which came before us. Researchers in the burgeoning field of paleocognition have sought to identify the emergence of our human-like cognition within our hominin lineage through the analysis of the hominin brain size and stone tool technologies produced by extant hominins. Paleocognitive researchers have begun to systematically approach such complex issues as defining human cognition, testing long held assumptions about great ape and human cognitive analogies, and ultimately identifying the evolution of our uniquely human intelligence

Modified central incisors of the individual E-105.

<p>Modified central incisors of the individual E-105 from the OC component, dated to 990–800 cal BC: a) labial view; b) lingual view (Photo by W. Hiebert, University of Winnipeg).</p

Labial surface of the maxillary central incisors of E-105.

<p>Labial surface of the maxillary central incisors of E-105a) under 20x magnification captured by digital microscope; b) composite image captured by an SEM microscope at 80x magnification. White arrows indicate the site of conchoidal fractures; black arrows indicate the pits on the enamel above the conchoidal fractures.</p

Modified maxillary central incisors of the individual E-92.

<p>Modified maxillary central incisors of the individual E-92 from the YC component dated to cal AD 600–800: a) labial view; b) lingual view (Photo by W. Hiebert, University of Winnipeg); c) taphonomic changes observed on the labial surface of the modified right maxillary central incisors of the individual E-92 from the YC component dated to cal AD 600–800 (images captured by Keyance digital microscope (VHX-5000 series) at 30x and 100x magnification).</p

Individuals with identified deliberate dental reduction of central and lateral incisors.

<p>Individuals with identified deliberate dental reduction of central and lateral incisors.</p

Location of the site of Canímar Abajo and the distribution of burials.

<p>The site of Canímar Abajo: a) location of the site at the Bay of Matanzas and on the map of Cuba (outlined in the lower left corner). Reprinted from [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0153536#pone.0153536.ref018" target="_blank">18</a>] under a CC BY licence with permission from the University of Arizona, original copyright (2015); and uses the open source satellite map (<a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/" target="_blank">http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/imagepolicy/</a>); b) horizontal distribution of burials on the excavation grid of the site and the location of individuals discussed in the text: black dots represent Older Cemetery (OC) burials; gray rhombs represent Younger Cemetery (YC) burials; c) schematic representation of the profile of Canímar Abajo with dated burials discussed in the text. Black dots indicate OC burials; gray rhombs indicate YC burials. ¹⁴C laboratory numbers are given with their corresponding dates.</p