Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Commentary

Hand morphology, manipulation, and tool use in


Neandertals and early modern humans of the
Near East
Steven E. Churchill*
Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708

B etween 140,000 and 50,000 years ago,


both Neandertals and early modern
humans periodically inhabited the
coastal woodlands and inland steppe of
the Near East. The archeological rem-
nants of the behavior of these two
groups—mostly in the form of stone
tools and animal bones—are so similar
that were it not for the fact that both
groups occasionally buried their dead in
the caves in which they lived, we would
not have known that they derived from
more than one population. Although
morphologically and taxonomically dis-
tinct, both types of human are associated

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.

www.pnas.org兾cgi兾doi兾10.1073兾pnas.061032198 PNAS 兩 March 13, 2001 兩 vol. 98 兩 no. 6 兩 2953–2955


hand that was, like ours, well adapted to associated Neandert al fossils) and lack of sharpening retouch remains enig-
withstand forces acting on the hand dur- Qafzeh (with associated modern human matic, the greater attention that modern
ing oblique power gripping (as in grip- fossils) caves in Israel (some of what is humans paid to shaping the tool initially
ping a hammer handle). Neandertals, in identified as haft wear, however, may be may ref lect a concern for fitting the lithic
contrast, had hands well suited to force- the result of prehension with gritty fin- into a prefabricated handle.
ful transverse power grips (as when grip- gers, and thus differences in the fre- The Levallois point兾lithic core ratio
ping a hammerstone), as indicated by the quency of hafting still may have existed also has been argued to differ systemat-
greater leverage of their thumbs, en- between groups). What may have dif- ically between Neandertal and early
larged crests for the muscles of finger fered between these groups then was not modern human Mousterian sites in the
f lexion, broad finger tips, and lack of the ability to produce composite tools Near East (17). Assuming this ratio
specializations in the midhand (carpo- but rather the importance of this tech- ref lects the intensity of point produc-
metacarpal joints) to resist obliquely ori- nology. Given the increased mechanical tion relative to production of all tools,
ented reaction forces (Fig. 1). advantage of hafted over hand-held tools higher point兾core ratios in Neandertal-
The small joints between the bones of in butchery, wood working, hide prepa- associated assemblages have been inter-
the hand must withstand both violent ration, and other tasks, such a difference preted as ref lecting greater hunting in-
forces (such as impact forces from strik- may ref lect contrasts in the relative tensity by them than by modern humans
ing a hammerstone on a f lint core) and amount of muscular effort that each (17). Variation in these ratios, however,
repetitive loading. For these reasons, group devoted to economic and techno- can result from multiple factors includ-
articular cartilage in the wrist and hand logical activities. A more profitable use ing differential loss of points from
is prone to degeneration, and osteoar- of leverage by the Skhu៮ l兾Qafzeh modern residential sites (18). The use of fore-
thritis is found often in the hands of humans would be consistent with aspects shafts on hunting spears, for example,
foraging people (7, 8). The debilitating of their upper-limb morphology that de- may allow for the quick replacement
pain of osteoarthritis note reduced me- (and discard) of damaged points in the
and reduced mobility chanical loads rela- field, whereas points hafted directly to
of the thumb and fin- tive to, and ar m the spear may have been transported
gers certainly would Niewoehner concludes that positions dif ferent more often back to camp before being
have interfered with from, the Neandertals removed and discarded. This example
an individual’s ability important manipulative (4, 14). highlights the complicating effects
to manufacture tools differences existed between Hafting seems to that hafting and retooling can have
and procure edible have been relatively on the archeological record (19) and
Neandertals and Near Eastern
resources. The associ- c ommon during illustrates the complexity inherent in
ated reduction in fit- modern humans— differences Mousterian times in trying to interpret behavior from lithic
ness creates selection not in dexterity but in grip the Near East. Traces assemblages.
for joint configura- of bitumen adhesive Perhaps it is just my bias as a paleon-
tions that best limit strength . . . on tools from Hum- tologist, but I feel strongly that function-
damaging forces in mal and Umm El Tlel al-morphological interpretations of Near
the context of com- (Syria; ref. 15), as well Eastern Mousterian human behavior,
monly used grips and manipulative ac- as the recovery of a broken Levallois such as the work of Niewoehner (6), rest
tivities. For these reasons, the results point embedded in a cervical vertebra of on epistemologically firmer ground than
reported by Niewoehner are likely to a wild ass at Umm El Tlel (16) and the do inferences derived from typological
ref lect real and meaningful differ- edge wear analyses reported by Shea, and technological analyses of lithic as-
ences in manipulation between groups. attest to a level of reliance on hafted semblages (20, 21). If recent suggestions
But what is the significance of these tools sufficient to have made this behav- (22) that Neandertals and early modern
differences? ior archeologically visible. Unfortu- humans are associated uniquely with dif-
Living humans commonly use oblique nately, without direct evidence in the ferent variants of the Levantine Moust-
power grips when using tools set in han- form of human fossils, we cannot know erian (Tabun B and Tabun C, respec-
dles. Hafting of lithic tools into wooden which group left these remains, and eval- tively) can be supported, then traditional
or bone handles was likely a part of the uating the importance of hafting in the modes of addressing variation in lithic
technological repertoire of early modern two groups remains difficult. assemblages may yet reveal adaptive dif-
humans. Mastic (gum) was used as a Two indirect lines of archeological ev- ferences between groups. Until then, ap-
hafting adhesive during the Middle Pa- idence hint that hafting may have played proaches that focus on adaptively mean-
leolithic at Apollo 11 Cave in Namibia a more important role in the economic ingful and generally more subtle aspects
(9), which is precisely the region of the and technological realms of early mod- of the lithic record, such as the work
world in which modern human anatomy ern humans in the Levant. Although discussed above, hold more promise for
and many aspects of modern behavior wear attributed to hafting occurs with generating testable inferences about pre-
are thought to have arisen first (10). equal frequency at Kebara and Qafzeh historic behavior. Although differences
However, hafting seems to have been (13), there is a marked contrast between in retouch frequencies and point兾core
part of the Neandertal repertoire as well. the sites in the extent of retouch on the ratios are admittedly weak lines of evi-
Haft polish has been observed on lithics used tools. Only about 20% of the used dence for differences in the use of haft-
from the European Mousterian (before tools from Kebara exhibited retouch, ing between groups, they do constitute
the arrival of modern humans; ref. 11), compared with 64% of those from archeological signatures of behavioral
and solidified pieces of resin bearing Qafzeh (13). Sharpening retouch is to be differences (although we are still far
imprints of the stone tools and wooden expected with hafted tools, because it’s f rom confidently identif ying those
hafts have been recovered from the easier usually to resharpen an edge than differences).
Mousterian of Germany (12). Shea (13) to replace the lithic. However, retouch A hand better suited to oblique power
also reported edge wear attributable to on the tools from Qafzeh seems to have grips as found by Niewoehner (6), and a
hafting in roughly equal frequencies on been used more to shape the lithics than greater use of hafting, are not in them-
Mousterian lithics from Kebara (with to resharpen them (13). Although the selves adaptive innovations sufficient to

2954 兩 www.pnas.org兾cgi兾doi兾10.1073兾pnas.061032198 Churchill


have given modern humans a competi- greater use of task-specific tools, more I thank Mary Carmichael, Laura Gruss, and
tive edge over indigenous archaic popu- complex composite tools, greater plan- Todd Yokley for helpful comments, Erik
lations. Rather, these differences are ning depth and logistical complexity to Trinkaus for kindly providing the figure, and
likely part of an emerging modern hu- foraging, and increased social complex- Michael Black for comments and help with
man adaptive system that involved ity (10). graphics.

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

Churchill PNAS 兩 March 13, 2001 兩 vol. 98 兩 no. 6 兩 2955

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen