Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COMMENTARY
with Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian)
stone-tool assemblages that cannot be
differentiated clearly on the basis of
technological and formal typological at-
tributes (1, 2). But although the archeo-
logical record indicates behavioral simi-
larit y, and by inference adaptive
similarity, between Neandertals and Fig. 1. Fossil hands of Near Eastern Mousterian humans. (Left) Palmar view of the left hand of the
early modern humans at this time, func- Shanidar 4 Neandertal. (Right) Palmar view of the right hand metacarpal and phalangeal skeleton of the
tional morphological studies of the hu- Qafzeh 9 early modern human The two hands are not to the same scale. (Reprinted with permission from
man skeletons suggest quite a different E. Trinkaus and Israel Department of Antiquities).
story. Detailed study of parts of the
skeleton that alter their material and
geometric properties during life in re-
sponse to activity or that show degener- mans (such as Africa) with subsequent characteristics of both groups of Mous-
ative changes from wear and tear suggest geographic expansion of modern humans terian humans.
important behavioral differences be- and replacement of indigenous archaic On the basis of a multivariate analysis
tween these groups (3, 4). This situation populations (such as the Neandertals) of three-dimensional landmark data
raises perplexing questions. If both tool rely on the notion of adaptive superiority from carpal and metacarpal joint sur-
assemblages and the malleable aspects of of the invading modern humans. Might faces of Neandertals and Near Eastern
the skeletons of the humans who made, there then be indicators of a competitive early modern humans, Niewoehner (6)
used, and discarded those tools are mon- edge to early modern human adaptive concludes that important manipulative
itoring prehistoric behavior (5), why do differences existed between them—
strategies in the Near East? By focusing
these two data sets produce such con- differences not in dexterity but in grip
on skeletal morphology that ref lects ma-
trasting interpretations of that behavior? strength and the ability to resist forces
And if behavioral contrasts did exist, did n ipulative behav ior, the paper by
Niewoehner (6) in this issue of PNAS incurred in certain grip positions. These
these contrasts serve to give one group a differences indicate contrasts in the ha-
competitive advantage? This later ques- provides an important connection be-
tween morphology and the production bitual manipulative repertoires of the
tion is important, because many see the two groups. Specifically, details of the
Near Eastern early modern humans as and use of technology. Although many
questions yet remain, this study repre- form of the base of the thumb, index, and
the source population from which mod- middle finger in the modern humans
ern humans migrated into Europe ap- sents an important step in resolving con-
from Skhu l and Qafzeh Caves indicate a
proximately 36,000 years ago—leading to tradictions in our behavioral interpreta-
the extinction of the Neandertals soon tions of the fossil and archeological
after. Evolutionary models that posit a records of the Near Eastern Middle Pa- See companion article on page 2979.
single center of origins for modern hu- leolithic and in delineating the adaptive *E-mail: churchy@duke.edu.
1. Bar-Yosef, O. (1989) in The Human Revolu- 6. Niewoehner, W. A. (2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Evol. 31, 213–237.
tion, eds. Mellars, P. & Stringer, C. B. USA 98, 2979–2984. 15. Boëda, E., Connan, J. & Muhesen, S. (1998) in
(Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh), pp. 589 – 7. Merbs, C. F. (1983) Patterns of Activity-Induced Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia,
610. Pathology in a Canadian Inuit Population (Natl. eds. Akazawa, T., Aoki, K. & Bar-Yosef, O.
2. Quam, R. M. & Smith, F. H. (1998) in Neandertals Mus. Canada, Ottawa). (Plenum, New York), pp. 181–204.
and Modern Humans in Western Asia, eds. Aka- 8. Larsen, C. S. (1997) Bioarchaeology: Interpreting 16. Boëda, E., Geneste, J. M., Griggo, C., Mercier, N.,
zawa, T., Aoki, K. & Bar-Yosef, O. (Plenum, New Behavior from the Human Skeleton (Cambridge Muhesen, S., Reyss, J. L., Taha, A. & Valladas, H.
York), pp. 405–421. Univ. Press, Cambridge). (1999) Antiquity 73, 394–402.
3. Trinkaus, E. (1992) in The Evolution and Dispersal 9. Wendt, W. E. (1976) S. Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 31, 5–11. 17. Shea, J. J. (1998) Curr. Anthropol. 39, S45–S78.
of Modern Humans in Asia, eds. Akazawa, T., 10. McBrearty, S. & Brooks, A. S. (2000) J. Hum. Evol. 18. Hovers, E. (1998) Curr. Anthropol. 39, S65–S66.
Aoki, K. & Kimura, T. (Hokusen-sha, Tokyo), pp. 39, 453–563. 19. Keeley, L. (1982) Am. Antiquity 47, 798–809.
277–294. 11. Beyries, S. (1990) Aun 14, 71–76. 20. Churchill, S. E. (1997) in Conceptual Issues in
4. Trinkaus, E., Ruff, C. B. & Churchill, S. E. (1998) 12. Mania, D. & Toepfer, V. (1973) Königsaue: Glie- Modern Human Origins Research, eds. Clark,
in Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western derung, Oekologie und mittelpaläolithische Funde G. A. & Willermet, C. M. (de Gruyter, New
Asia, eds. Akazawa, T., Aoki, K. & Bar-Yosef, O. der Letzten Eiszeit (VEB Deutscher, Berlin). York), pp. 202–219.
(Plenum, New York), pp. 391–404. 13. Shea, J. J. (1989) in The Human Revolution, eds. 21. Mithen, S. (1998) Curr. Anthropol. 39, S67–S69.
5. Harrold, F. B. (1992) in Continuity or Replacement: Mellars, P. A. & Stringer, C. B. (Edinburgh Univ. 22. Lieberman, D. E. (1998) in Neandertals and Mod-
Controversies in Homo sapiens Evolution, eds. Press, Edinburgh), pp. 611–625. ern Humans in Western Asia, eds. Akazawa, T.,
Bräuer, G. & Smith, F. H. (Balkema, Rotterdam), 14. Churchill, S. E., Pearson, O. M., Grine, F. E., Aoki, K. & Bar-Yosef, O. (Plenum, New York),
pp. 219–230. Trinkaus, E. & Holliday, T. W. (1996) J. Hum. pp. 263–275.
COMMENTARY