Reply to Martinón-Torres et al. and Higham and Douka: Refusal to acknowledge dating complexities of Fuyan Cave strengthens our case

Martinon-Torres et al. (1) present a flawed reinterpretation of our work which demands correction. FY-HT-1 and FY-HT-2 were collected from the section walls of the 2011–2013 excavations; details of provenience were provided (2). All of the lingual and much of the occlusal and mesial surfaces of FY-HT-2’s enamel is missing (Fig. 1 A ). Therefore, reconstructions of “deer-like” wear (1) simply bear no resemblance to the preservational reality of the tooth. Also disconcerting is their comparison of FY-HT-2 with images of various deer incisors (Fig. 1 A and ref. 1). Confirmation bias aside, a proper comparison would have indicated affinities to recent humans (Fig. 1 A ), as confirmed by DNA analyses (2). Regarding FY-HT-1, its preservation is visually indistinct from existing samples (see ref. 3). But within-sample variation is clear, and expected, given nonuniform taphonomic processes within the context of a dynamic sedimentary history, as we have demonstrated at Fuyan Cave (2). Fig. 1. ( A ) Fuyan Cave tooth FY-TH-2 ( i ), a recent human from the Foyemiaowan Han Tomb ( ii ), and deer of Martinon-Torres et al. (1) ( iii ). Right column adapted with permission from ref. 1. ( B ) Number of sequences overlapping each position in the FY-HT-2 mitochondrial genome (coverage, Left ) and percentage of sequences carrying an identical base ( Right ). ( C ) Frequencies of nucleotide substitutions at the start and end positions of sequences from the FY-HT-2 library. Martinon-Torres et al. (1) and Higham and Douka (4) challenge our AMS 14C dating. We describe our accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 14 … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: darrencurnoe{at}icloud.com. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1