comparisons and the case for interaction among neanderthals and

DANIEL KAUFMAN

COMPARISONS AND THE CASE FOR INTERACTION AMONGNEANDERTHALS AND EARLY MODERN HUMANS IN THELEVANT

Summary.There is good reason to believe that both archaic and anatomicallymodern humans occupied south-west Asia at the same time. On the assumptionthat this was indeed the case, this paper attempts to draw comparisonsbetween the Neanderthals and their modern contemporaries and to examinethe possibilities of interaction between the two.

South-west Asia is the only region in the world where two biologically distinct hominids areassociated with the Middle Palaeolithic. Thus, the region provides a unique opportunity tomake direct comparisons between archaic hominids, notably the Neanderthals, and earlyrepresentatives of anatomically modern humans. The primary question to be dealt with here iswhether these two populations, defined on the basis of their morphological characteristics, alsovaried with regard to their cultural and behavioral adaptations. In addition, as will be seen, thereis a strong possibility that both of the groups occupied the region simultaneously rather than inan alternating fashion, and this provides the opportunity to consider the question of possibleinteractions between them. In order to deal with these issues it is first necessary to present abrief overview of the Levantine Middle Palaeolithic with regard to assemblage types,chronology and hominid associations.

ASSEMBLAGE TYPES

The cave of Tabun on Mount Carmel, with its deeply stratified sequence, has long beenused as the type site for classifying Mousterian assemblages. The terminology follows thestratigraphic nomenclature set out by Garrod (Garrod and Bate 1937) resulting in three types ofMousterian assemblages: Tabun D type Mousterian, Tabun C type Mousterian and Tabun Btype Mousterian. Because these fall within a stratigraphic sequence from oldest (Layer D) toyoungest (Layer B), they are often referred to as phases within the Mousterian (e.g. Copeland1975 who proposed Phases 1 through 3 modeled on Tabun Layers D through B respectively).However, as will be outlined below, because some of them may actually overlap in time, theremay be good reason to adhere to the view proposed some years ago (Hourset al. 1973) and usethe term facies rather than phase for the different assemblage groups. Since there is a strongpossibility that at least two of the groups represent separate, partially parallel traditions withinthe Mousterian, it is proposed here to refer to each of the three groups as distinct culturalentities.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 20(3) 219–240 2001ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 219

More recently,therehavebeenattemptsto classifythe assemblagesthroughanalysesof the ‘chaıne operatoire’ or operationalsequenceof corereduction(Bar-YosefandMeignen1992; Meignen1995; Meignenand Bar-Yosef1988,1991,1992).This classification,whichcorrelatesclosely with the Tabun types, seestwo major groups. One incorporatesthoseassemblagesthatarecharacterizedby Levallois recurrentcentripetalmethods,similar to thosefound in Layer C of Tabun. The other, dominatedby Levallois recurrent unidirectionalmethods,is furthersubdividedinto two subgroups,onecorrespondingto LayerD of Tabunandthe secondto Layer B.

In theTabunD typeassemblages,thepredominanttechnologyis oneof unidirectionaland some bidirectional core reduction with little, if any, classic radial core preparation.Elongatedblanks characterizetheseassemblagesand the numerousbladesgenerally haveparallel or convergingedges.Levallois points are also elongatedwith length/width indicesapproaching2.5:1. Complexplatform preparationand faceting is rare. Typologically, pointsalways form an important componentof the tool kit and Upper Palaeolithictypes,suchasendscrapersandburins,alsoappearin significantquantities(Bar-Yosef1994;Bar-YosefandMeignen1992;Marks1981a,1988,1992a).In additionto Tabun,thisgroupincludessitessuchasRoshEin Mor andNahalAqev (Marks1981a),Ain Difla (Lindly andClark 1987),Abu Sif(Neuville 1934,1951)andHayonimLower E (Bar-Yosef1995;Meignen1995,1998)amongothers.

The Tabun C assemblages,as noted, are those describedas basedon Levalloisrecurrent centripetalmethods.Blanks tend to be relatively large and ovoid in shape,havingbeenstruckfrom radiallypreparedLevalloiscores.Bladesoccurin low frequenciesandthefewLevalloispointsthatappeartendto beshortandbroad.As expectedwith theradially preparedcores, there is a high incidenceof platform faceting. The most common tools are typicalMousteriantypes,especiallya wide varietyof sidescrapers,while UpperPalaeolithictypesandLevalloispointsarenotedby their scarcity(Bar-Yosef1994;Marks1988).Examplesof sitesofthis typebesidesTabunLayerC areSkhul (GarrodandBate1937),Qafzeh(Boutie1989)andHayonim UpperE (Meignen1998) in addition to sitesin Lebanonsuchas Ksar Akil XXVI(Meignen1995),Naame,Rasel Kelb andNahr Ibrahim (Copeland1975).

With theTypeB assemblagesthereis, again,anemphasison unilateralcorereductionmethods.In contrast to the techniqueof Type D assemblageswith their on-axis parallelremovals,theseare characterizedby high frequenciesof convergentremovals.It has beensuggestedthat this representsa very specific reductionprocessand is best describedas aunidirectionalconvergentrecurrent method(Meignen 1995; Meignen and Bar-Yosef 1988,1991).Theblanksproducedthroughthis procedurearegenerallyshort,broadandtriangularinshaperesulting in high frequenciesof Levallois points. Thesepoints have low length/widthindices and their maximum width is at the base.Well-pronouncedchapeaude gendarmestriking platformsarealsoa distinguishingcharacteristicof thesepoints.Radialpreparationofcoresoften accompaniesthe unidirectionalandbidirectionalproceduresof theseassemblages.Retouchedand unretouchedLevallois points are an important component of the toolassemblageasis avarietyof sidescrapersandothertypical Middle Palaeolithictools.An UpperPalaeolithic element is also relatively common. This type of assemblageis now welldocumentedat Kebara(Bar-YosefandMeignen1992;Meignen1995;MeignenandBar-Yosef1988, 1991) and, in addition to the Layer B of Tabun,other examplesare found at Amud(Ohnuma1992;Hovers1998),KeoueCavein Lebanon(NishiakiandCopeland1992)andKsarAkil XXVIII (Meignen1995).Theassemblagesfrom Tor FarajandTor Sabiha(Henry1995)in

NEANDERTHALSAND EARLYMODERNHUMANS

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY220 ß Blackwell PublishersLtd. 2001

southernJordan,originally placedwithin theTabunD typeof assemblageshaverecentlybeenreassignedto the Type B group(Henry 1998).

CHRONOLOGY

TheNearEasthasproducedsomeof themostsurprisingandcontroversialdatesfor theMiddle Palaeolithic and its associatedhominids. The application of techniquessuch asthermoluminescence(TL), electronspin resonance(ESR)anduraniumseriesat the importanthominid-bearingsitessuchasKebara,Tabun,Qafzeh,Skhul andAmud have,in manyways,revolutionizedthe thinking of the antiquity anddurationof the Middle Palaeolithic.The factthatsomeof thesiteshavebeendatedby morethanonetechniquehasproducedcorroborativeinformationandconfirmationfor what,atonetime,werethoughtto beaberrantdeterminations.

Kebarais perhapsthe bestexamplefor which the variousdating techniquesseemtocorrelatequite well. The first determinationsweremadeby Valladaset al. (1987)throughTLof burnedflints from LayersVI throughXII, the lowestof which containedthe Neanderthalburial. Subsequently,ESR determinationswere madeon tooth enamelof gazelleteethfromLayer X (Schwarczet al. 1989).Finally, Poratet al. (1994)appliedESRto the sameburnedflint samplesasusedby Valladaset al. (1987).The resultsarepresentedin Table1.

For theTL dates,Valladaset al. (1987)notethat thereis no systematicvariationwithdepthfor LayersX to XII indicatingfrequentoccupationof thecavearound60,000yearsago.LayerVII is somewhatyoungerthantheunderlyinglayersbut theauthorsfeel, giventheerrorsin the dates,that it cannot be stateddefinitely that therewasan occupationalhiatusbetweenLayersVIII andVII. In fact, drawingon the stratigraphicevidencefrom the cave,they arguefor a very rapid rate of accumulationfrom Layers XII to VII. Layer VI is quite young incomparisonto the other datesand it is possiblethat the samplesdatedwere in secondarypositiondueto erosionin thecave.Consideringtheexperimentalerrorsof thedates,it is safetosaythat thetwo seriesof ESRdeterminations,includingthosebasedon bothearlyuptake(EU)andlinearuptake(LU) models,correspondwell with theTL dates(Schwarczet al. 1989;Poratet al. 1994). The burial, then, can be dated to approximately60,000 yearsago while theMousteriansequenceat this site continuesto 50,000yearsago.

Turningto Qafzeh,with therecognitionthat the fossil hominidsfrom this sitewereofmodern anatomy, it was generally thought that they dated relatively late in the Middle

TABLE 1

Radiometricage(kyr) determinationsfor Kebaraa. The agesarethe averagesfor eachlevel

Level TL ESR ESRBurnedFlint BurnedFlint Tooth Enamel

VI 48.3� 3.5 53.9� 4.6VII 51.9� 3.4 66.7� 6.0VIII 57.3� 4.0 58.2� 5.4IX 58.4� 4.0X 61.6� 3.6 60� 6.0 (EUb

64� 6.0 (LU)b

XI 60� 3.5 65.1� 5.1XII 59.3� 3.5 58.9� 5.5

a Ater Poratet al.b EU is for early uptakemodelandLU is for linear uptakemodel.

DANIEL KAUFMAN

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGYß Blackwell PublishersLtd. 2001 221

Palaeolithicsequence,ca.40–50,000yearsago(Trinkaus1984)andthis wassupportedon thegroundsof archaeologicalevidence(Jelinek1982).Thefirst indicationthattheymayhavebeenconsiderablyolder,at leastgreaterthan85,000years,camefrom studiesof biostratigraphyofmicrofauna(Bar-YosefandVandermeersch1981;Tchernov1988,1994).Confirmationfor agreaterantiquity for the Mousterianof this cavehasnow comefrom TL, ESR and U-seriesdeterminations.The TL datesof burnt flints from Levels XVII through XXIII rangefrom85,000to 105,000years(Valladaset al. 1988).Thereis no systematicvariability with depthwhenexperimentalerrorsare takeninto consideration,supportingthe geologicalevidenceofvery rapid sedimentaccumulation.The averagedatefor all layerstogetheris 92,000� 5,000.ESRdeterminationson tooth enamel(Schwarczet al. 1988)from layersXV to XXI areverycloseto theTL dates.Here,theyrangefrom 73.7to 119kyr (EU) andbetween89.1to 143kyr(LU) with respectivemeansof 96 � 13 kyr and 115� 15 kyr. Even thoughthe EU datesoverlapwith the TL datesandthe LU determinationsareonly slightly older, the authorsfeelthat the averagebasedon the LU modelgivesa morereliableageestimate.However,astheystate,there is reasonto considera U-uptakehistory intermediatebetweenthe EU and LUprofileswhich ‘would alsogive agesthatoverlaptheerror limits on theTL age’ (Schwarczetal. 1988:736).

Furtherconfirmationof theTL dates,which alsotendto supporttheEU ageestimates,was obtainedfrom U-seriesanalysesof two tooth enamelsamplestaken from Level XIX(McDermottet al. 1993)which werealsousedin theanalysisdoneby Schwarczet al. (1988).ComparisonsbetweentheESRandU-seriesdatesarepresentedin Table2. It is noteworthythatthe368DEsampleprovidedessentiallyequivalentU-seriesandEU ages.For thesecondsamplethe U-seriesdate is slightly youngerthan that for EU but it is still within the error for thataverage.In sum,all threetechniquesplacethe Mousterianof Qafzehat around92,000yearsago.

Thesamethreetechniqueshavebeenappliedto thehominid-bearingLayerB of SkhulCave.In this case,however,theresultsarelessclear-cutthanin thepreviousexamples.This isduein part to thefact that thecavefill wascompletelyremovedby theoriginal excavatorsthusprecludingthe possibility of carryingout precisedosimetry.The first attemptto datethis sitewas doneby Stringeret al. (1989) throughESR of two bovid teeth.The resultingEU datesrangedfrom 54.6 to 101 kyr with an averageof 81 � 15 kyr while the LU determinations,between77.2to 119kyr averaged101� 12 kyr (Table3). It canbeseenin this tablethattherearesomediscrepanciesbetweenthe two teeth,a point that will be returnedto below.

Subsequently,six samplesof burnt flint were analyzedthrough TL (Mercier et al.1993).Thesegavedatesrangingfrom 99.4 to 166.8kyr which averaged119� 18 kyr andwhich agreeto somedegreewith theLU modelESRdates.McDermottet al. (1993)analyzedthe sametwo samplesstudiedby Stringeret al. in additionto threeotherteethfrom Layer B.

TABLE 2

Comparisonsof U-seriesandESRdates(kyr) from Qafzeh,Layer XIX a

Sample U-Series ESREU LU

371EN 88.6� 3.2 103.19� 19 125� 22368DE 106� 2.4 105� 02 115� 08

a After McDermottet al. 1983.



Their results,comparedto the ESRdeterminations,arepresentedin Table4. For sample521,theU-seriesandEU determinationsarein accordance.In addition,theU-seriesdatefor sample522 is considerablyyoungerthanthoseobtainedthroughESR.The duplicatedrunsof sample856matchwell with theEU estimateswhile thetwo 854samplesarealsoyoungerthantheEUdeterminations,but not by the sameorder of magnitudewhen comparingsample522. Theimplication is that theremaybesomedangerin averagingtheESRdatessince,asMcDermottet al. (1993) argue,it may be that two faunal stagesare presentat the site. This idea wasoriginally suggestedby McCownandKeith (1939).Theynotedthepossibilityof stratigraphicvariability betweenthe burialswith onegroupof hominids(3, and6–10)beingearlier thanasecondgroup(1, 4 and5). It seems,then,thatpartof theoccupationat Skhulcanbedatedto atleast100,000yearsago,if not a bit earlier,but oneshouldnot discountthepossibility that thecavewasutilized at a much later date,perhapsaround50,000yearsago.

SinceTabun,with its very longsequence(GarrodandBate1937;Jelinek1982;Jelineket al. 1973),is often usedasthe key site for drawingcorrelations,its chronologyis of criticalimportancebut, unfortunately,it is proving themostdifficult to dateasthevarioustechniquesdo not alwaysprovidecorroboratingdeterminations.Determinationswere first madethroughESR(Grun et al. 1991)andthe resultsfor the Mousterianlevelsof the cavearepresentedinTable5. While thereareconsiderabledifferencesbetweentheLU andEU dates(theformerareanywherefrom 17%to 20%older thanthelatter) theLU determinationswereconsideredto bethe morereliableestimatesin this particularstudy.

McDermottet al. (1993)suggestthat it is theEU dateswhich mostlikely representthetrue agesof the variouslevels.This is basedon what they seeasstrongcorrelationsbetween

TABLE 3

Early uptake (EU) andlinear uptake(LU) ESRages(kyr) for Skhul,Layer Ba

Sample EU LU

521a 88.1� 17.9 102.0� 22.7521b 86.1� 13.1 102.0� 18.1521c 94.9� 15.6 109.0� 20.5521d 101.0� 19.0 119.0� 25.1522a 68.0� 5.4 98.3� 10.6522b 73.0� 7.0 99.9� 12.4522c 54.6� 10.3 77.2� 15.7Average 81� 15 101� 12

a After Stringeret al. 1989.

TABLE 4

Comparisonsof U-seriesandESRdates(kyr) from Skhul, Layer Ba

Sample U-series ESREU LU

521DE 80.3� 0.6 88� 13 102� 18522EN 40.4� 0.2 68� 05 98� 11854DE 41.4� 0.4 55� 05 65� 05854EN 43.0� 0.5 55� 05 65� 05856DE(1) 43.5� 0.1 46� 05 66� 05856DE(2) 45.5� 0.7 46� 05 66� 05

a After McDermott et al. 1993.

DANIEL KAUFMAN


their U-seriesdatesand thosebasedon the early uptakeESR dates(Table 6). According totheseauthors,the datesfor the samplesfrom LayersC andD arewell within the error rangesfor theESRdeterminationsbasedon EU. Theyoffer no explanationfor thediscrepancyin theLayer B dates.

More recentlyMercier et al. (1995)havedatedthe Tabunsequencewith TL of burntflints resultingin datesthatvary considerablyfrom thoseprovidedthroughothermeans(Table7). The datesare shown in this table with regard to Jelinek’s (1982; Jelinek et al. 1973)stratigraphiccolumn and their correlationsto Garrod’slayers.Thesedatesare exceptionallyolderthananyof thosedeterminedby ESRor U-seriesandessentiallypushthebeginningof theMousteriansequencefrom Layer D into OxygenIsotopeStage8 with Layer C falling towardthe endof Stage7.

Within this context,mentionshouldbe madeof a site from the El-Kowm region ofSyria, Hummal (Copeland1985; Copelandand Hours 1983; Hours 1983).This assemblage,referredto asthe Hummalian,is found within a stratigraphicsequencesimilar to Layer D ofTabun,betweenYabrudianandType C Mousterianhorizons.The industry,like that of TabunD, is characterizedby a blade technologyand the productionof elongatedpoints but theLevallois techniqueis absent.ThreeTL determinationsfrom this layergaveanaveragedateof

TABLE 5

Averageearly uptake(EU) andlinear uptake(LU) ESRages(kyr) for the Mousterianlayersof TabunCavea

Layer EU LU

B 86� 11 103� 16C 102� 17 119� 11D 122� 20 166� 20

a After Grun et al. 1991.

TABLE 6

Comparisonsof U-seriesandESRdates(kyr) from TabunCavea

Layer/Sample U-series ESREU LU

B/550DE 590.7� 23 76� 14 85� 18C/552DE 105.4� 2.5 111� 30 113� 31C/551DE 101.7� 1.3 121� 29 134� 36C/551DE 97.8� 0.4 121� 29 134� 36D/556EN 110.7� 0.9 93� 12 152� 24

a After McDermottet al. 1993.

TABLE 7

AverageTL datesfor the Mousterianlevelsat TabunCavea

Jelinek’sUnit Garrod’sLayer Age

I C 171� 17II D/C 212� 22V D/C 244� 28IX D 263� 27

a After Mercier et al. 1995.



104� 9 kyr that is in agreementwith thedatesgivenby McDermottet al. (1993)for LayerDof Tabun.

Another hominid-bearingsite that hasbeendatedis Amud. The first ESR analyses(Grun andStringer1991)yieldeddatesof 42� 3.0 kyr (EU) and49� 4.0 and50� 4.0 kyr(LU). Theseare somewhatproblematicin that the preciseprovenanceof the samplesis notknown. Moreover,theseare in contrastto recentlyobtainedTL dates(Valladaset al. 1999)which indicatethat the entiresequencein the caveencompassesa rangeof 70,000to 50,000yearsandthelayerscontainingtheNeanderthalremainsaverageto approximately57,000yearsago.

Therearea few otherdatedassemblages.The Mousteriansite of Quneitra,locatedintheGolanHeights,hasprovidedanaveragelinearuptakeESRdateof 53.9� 5.9kyr (Ziaei etal. 1990).In addition,two assemblagesfrom southernJordan,Tor FarajandTor Sabiha,havebeendatedthroughaminoacidracemization(AAR) onostricheggshellto 69� 6.0kyr (Henryand Miller 1992). Th/U determinationson the samesamplesgave two aberrantdates(ca.30,000years)andone,62.4� 14 kyr, which is in agreementwith the AAR dateswhile threeTL determinationson burnedflint gaveresultsof 43.8� 2, 47.5� 3 and52.8� 3 kyr (Henry1988).Together,thedatesrangefrom 44–69kyr andhaveanaverageof ca.55,000years.Alsofrom Jordanis Site634(Ain Difla) thatcontainsa Middle Palaeolithicsequenceof greaterthantwo metersdepth.A TL dateof 105,000� 15,000hasbeenreportedfor thetopof thesequence(SchuldenreinandClark 1994).In addition,four ESRdatesfrom this site (Clark et al. 1997)haveyieldedanEU rangeof 88.3� 11.5to 114.9� 14.2kyr with anaverageof 102.9� 12.9kyr andanLU rangeof 142.8� 20.7to 185.6� 26.6kyr with anaverageof 162.2� 18.2kyr(LU). Thecombineddatesgive anoverall rangeof 90 to 180kyr. Thesiteof NahalAqev in thecentralNegevhasbeenindirectly dated.Artifact-bearingtravertinesin the vicinity of the sitewere datedthrough U-seriesand gave a probableage of 80 � 10 kyr for the Mousterianoccupationof the Negev(Schwarcz1979,1980).Finally, mentionshouldbemadeof recentlyobtaineddatesfor Layer E of Hayonim Cave (Bar-Yosef 1998; Schwarczand Rink 1998;Valladaset al. 1998). The lower part of this layer, with a Tabun D type of industry, hasprovidedaverageESRdatesof 241� 11 (EU) and257� 6 (LU) kyr while theupperpart,withanassemblagelike thatof TabunC, gaveaveragedatesof 164� 15 (EU) and171� 17 (LU)kyr. Thermoluminescencedatingof burnedflint yieldedaveragesof ca.200,000and150,000yearsfor the lower andupperportionsrespectively.

It is anunderstatementto saythat therearediscrepanciesin thesedates,discrepanciesthat lead to severalscenariosof interpretation.Oneapproachto be takenis that proposedbyMcDermottet al. (1993)whoseestrongcorrelationsbetweenearlyuptakeESRdatesandthosederivedfrom U-series.Thereis somemerit to suchanapproachsincesuchcorrelationstendtovalidateandconfirm the dates.This would placethe TabunD assemblagein OxygenIsotopeStage5. On the assumptionthat the TL and ESR dates for Ain Difla and the U-seriesdeterminationsfor Nahal Aqev are reliable, the implication is that the Type D Mousterianlastedfor a considerabletime continuinginto stage4 to approximately80,000yearsago.TheType C Mousterian,asseenin Layer C of Tabun,QafzehandSkhul alsoappearsin stage5around100,000yearsagobut hasa considerablyshorterspan,alsoendingnear80,000yearsago.The fact that thesetwo groupsof industriesareat leastpartially contemporaneousis ofsignificanceand is counterto someother interpretations.Bar-Yosef(1994),for example,hasproposedusing the sequencefrom Tabunas a basisfor correlationwith other sites.On thisbasishearguesthat theNegevassemblagesshouldbeviewedascontemporaneouswith Tabun

DANIEL KAUFMAN


D becauseof thesimilaritiesbetweenthelithic assemblages,leadingto thesuggestionthatsitessuchasRoshEin Mor andNahalAqev shouldfall within stage6 or 8 (Bar-Yosef1992,1995).Thereseemsno reason,however,to reject totally the later datesfor the NegevandJordaniansites and that contemporaneitybetweentwo cultural traditions should be seenas a viableinterpretationof the availableinformation. It is generallyacceptedthat this part of the worldsawat leasttwo parallel traditionsduring theUpperPalaeolithic(Gilead1981,Marks1981b),the Ahmarianandthe Aurignacian,andit seemsreasonableto expecta similar picturefor theMiddle Palaeolithic.If very early radiometricdatesfor the Negevsiteswereto be obtainedatsomepoint in the future, thenBar-Yosef’sproposalwould seemto be the moreacceptable.

Anotherapproachwould beto acceptthevery earlyTL datesfor Tabunandplacethebeginningof this sequenceinto stage8. This would meanthat the temporalrangefor this kindof industrywould beextendedconsiderably,againon theassumptionthat theNegevdatesarecorrect.This scenario,too,would call for somelevel of contemporaneitybetweentheD andCtypesof Mousterian.Thereis at leastonemajor reservation,though,which makesacceptingthis approachdifficult. It is only at TabunwherethediscrepanciesbetweenTL andESRdatesareof suchan orderof magnitude.At no othersite datedthroughboth techniqueshavetherebeendifferencesof closeto 100,000years.At thesametime, theseearlydeterminationscannotberejectedout of handbecausesimilar dateshaverecentlybeenreportedfor the lower partofLayerE of HayonimCave,which alsocontainsa TabunD typeassemblage(Bar-Yosef1998;Valladaset al. 1998).

Mention hasyet to be madeof the Type B Mousterianas representedat Layer B ofTabun,Kebara,Quneitra,Amud, Tor FarajandTor Sabiha.Exceptfor Tabun,thesesitesarestrongevidencethat this type of assemblageis the latestMiddle Palaeolithicmanifestationintheregion,moreor lessbridgingstages4 and3 of theoxygenisotoperecord.This would meanthat it doesnot really overlapwith the othertwo assemblagegroups.The difficulty lies in theplacementof LayerB of Tabun.TheESRdateswouldplaceit within thesamerangeasQafzeh,Skhul, and Ain Difla, and only slightly youngerthan Layer C of Tabun.This, again,mayindicatecontemporaneitybetweenthethreetypesof assemblages.On theotherhand,thesingleU-series date from this level is more in line with the Kebara and other similar lithicassemblagessuggestingthat this layer, too, belongsto the later part of the sequence.

In spiteof the numerousdatesavailableandattemptsat cross-validationthroughtheapplicationof multiple techniques,it is notyetpossibleto saythatthechronologicalframeworkfor the Middle Palaeolithicof the Levant is well established.There do seemto be enoughconsistencies,however,to statethat the relativechronologicalplacementof the threeculturalentitiesis fairly well set.Evenif thesequencedoesbeginsomewhereduringstage8, theTypesD andC Mousterianwould still partially overlapandit would not beanoverwhelmingsurpriseif suchearly dateswerefound for Type C assemblages.Establishingthe initial appearanceofthe Mousterianin this region, then, is of major concernas is further verification of existingdates.Clearly, thereis a needto refine the techniquesemployedandsearchfor explanationswhy, in somecases,relatively strongcorrelationscanbe found betweenthemwhile in othersthe deviationsbetweenthemareso greatthat they tendto negateeachother.

HOMINID ASSOCIATIONS

Giventhis generalcultural/chronological framework,the issueto bedealtwith now iswhereto fit the variousfossil hominidsinto the picture.Perhapsit is bestto beginwith what,



for thepresent,is definite.To date,thereareno humanremains,neitherNeanderthalsnor earlymoderns,associatedwith theTypeD Mousterianassemblages.Eventhis absenceof dataraisessome interestingscenarios.If the more conservativedating schemeis accepted,then it ispossiblethateitheror bothof theknownhominidsof theperiodwereresponsiblefor this groupof assemblages.On theotherhand,if theassignmentof theseassemblagesto stage8 shouldbeconfirmed,the possibility of early modernsbeingpresentwould be negated:this simply pre-datestheappearanceof anatomicallymodernhumansanywherein theworld by some150,000years.It is worth noting herethat technologiesemphasizingbladeproductionareknownfromthe Middle Palaeolithic of Europe (Conard 1990; Cook 1989; Otte 1990; Revillion andTuffreau 1994) first appearingin stage6 and being especiallywell documentedin stage5.Chronologically,thesedo not approachthe early Tabundatesbut they considerablypre-datethe appearanceof anatomicallymodernhumansin Europe.

Whenconsideringthosesitesandassemblagesthathaveyieldedhominidremains,thesituationis morecomplex.Some,suchasBar-Yosef(1994),haveproposedcorrelationsthatwould attribute Neanderthalsto Type B assemblagesand anatomicallymodernsto Type Cassemblages.This is basedon the associationof Neanderthalsat KebaraandAmud (Type B)andof earlymodernsat SkhulandQafzeh(TypeC). Thereis somemerit in sucha proposalforit offers a possible explanation for the technological variability seen between the twoassemblagegroups.On the assumptionthat anatomicallydiffering populationswould exhibitvarying behaviors,it could be expectedthat eachwould manipulateraw materialsandderiveproductionstrategiesaccordingto their own needsandpreferences.

The questionis how well this proposedcorrelationholds up and, once again, it isTabunthatpresentsdifficulties. Thefinds from LayerC of thecave(McCownandKeith 1939)includethe TabunI partial femaleskeleton,the TabunII completemandible,a femoralshaft(Tabun III) and wrist and hand bones(Tabun IV–VI). The debatecenterson the Tabun Iskeleton,not on its recognition as a Neanderthal,rather with regard to its stratigraphicplacement.Garrod(GarrodandBate1937)assignedit to LayerC butstatedthat,becauseit wasnearthetopof thelayer,it couldwell beintrusivefrom theoverlyingLayerB, aninterpretationmostrecentlypresentedby Bar-YosefandCallender(1999).Jelinek(Jelineket al. 1973),hasarguedthat this sameskeletoncould haveoriginatedin LayerD. Jelinek’sthinking wasbasedon the fact that the Skhul assemblagewassimilar to that from Layer C of Tabun.Sincetheformer was associatedwith anatomically modern humans, and on the assumptionthatNeanderthalsprecededanatomicallymodernhumans,thenTabunI mustpredateboththeSkhulandLayer C assemblages.Historically, then, this particularfind hasbeenmoving within theMousteriansequenceof the cave. A very possiblesolution has been offered by Trinkaus(1993a)who has examinedthe right hand and wrist bones,Tabun IV–VI. In that they areessentiallymirror-imagesof the sameleft handbonesfrom Tabun I, the indication is verystrongthat the skeletondoes,indeed,belongto Layer C.

The Tabun II mandible is also controversial.In this case, there is no argumentregardingits provenanceand it definitely belongswithin Layer C. However,thereare those(McCown andKeith 1939:StefanandTrinkaus1998;Trinkaus1983,1987,1993a)who seethis specimenasrepresentinga Neanderthalwhile others(QuamandSmith 1998;Rak 1998)arguethat it more closely resemblesthe Skhul/Qafzehhominidsand shouldbe classedwiththem. There is also no debateconcerningthe location of the femoral shaft that is quitedefinitely that of a Neanderthal(Trinkaus 1976). More recently, a premolar with typicalNeanderthalfeatureshasbeenreportedfrom this samelayer (Jelinek1992).

DANIEL KAUFMAN


Consideringthefemur,the toothand,moresignificantlyTrinkaus’arguments,thereisnodoubtthatNeanderthalsaredefinitely associatedwith aTypeC assemblage.Theuncertaintyregardingthetaxonomicplacementof themandiblepresentsanotherdilemma.Classifyingit asthat of a Neanderthalwould addfurther confirmationto the abovestatement.If, on the otherhandit doesrepresentananatomicallymodernhuman,thentherewould bea strongargumentfor contemporaneitybetweenthe two populations.In addition,regardlessof their stratigraphicposition, this scenariowould also provide the only cavein which the two typesof hominidoccurtogetherwithin a Mousteriancontext.In all othercases,only oneor theotheris present.Finally, it is worth noting that,accordingto Garrod’s(GarrodandBate1937)description,themandibleis only some85 centimetersbelowtheskeletonsoit is not likely that thereis a greatdifferencein their agesgiven the availableradiometricdates.

At this stageit doesnot seempossibleto assignparticularhominidsspecifically to aparticulartypeof assemblage.Sofar, it is only Neanderthalsthatareassociatedwith theTypeB assemblagesbut, as arguedabove,they can also be attributedto the Type C Mousterian,togetherwith anatomicallymodernhumans.This, togetherwith the radiometricchronology,would stronglyindicateat leastpartial temporaloverlap,if not full contemporaneity,betweenthe two populations.

There is anothersolution to the problem of associatinghominids and assemblages.This is basedon the idea that, rather than dealing with two distinct populations,all of theLevantine Middle Palaeolithic hominids belong to one, very heterogeneouspopulation(ArensburgandBelfer-Cohen1998).If this is thecase,thenthe technologicalandtypologicaldifferenceswouldbetheresultof adegreeof culturalvariability within abiologicalpopulation,exactlyas is the casefor modernhunter-gatherers.

COMPARISONS

In a recentreview of the evidence(Kaufman1999) it was arguedthat the culturaladaptationsof LevantineMiddle Palaeolithichominidswere,in everysense,fully modernandthere was no possibility to characterize their behaviors as archaic or proto-cultural.ComparisonsbetweenNeanderthalsand anatomicallymodernhumanthrough evaluationoflithic technology, subsistencestrategies,mobility patterns,burial customs and symbolicbehaviorshowedfew, if any,major behavioraldifferencesbetweenthem.Sucha conclusion,however,varieswith the assumptionthat biologically distinct groupswould exhibit varyingcultural adaptations.Even though the archaeologicaldata do not reflect this, there isosteologicalevidencethatdoesindicatevariability in thewaysthetwo groupswereadaptingtotheir surroundings.

Most of thesedatahavebeencompiledby Trinkaus(1976,1983,1984,1992,1993b)whohasdrawncomparisonsbetweenthetwo on thebasisof morphologicalcharacteristicssuchasscapularbreadth,radialcurvature,ulnararticulations,femoralneckanglesandfemoralshaftrobusticityandshape.Thesetraits arenot, accordingto Trinkaus,geneticallydeterminedbuttheyarehighly plastic.Morphologicalvariability within eachis theresultof thelevelsof stressandmechanicalloadduringstagesof developmentandnot onceadulthoodhadbeenachieved.In other words, the morphologicalcomparisonsprovide information on varying degreesoflocomotor and manipulativeactivity levels of juveniles and young adolescentsthat reflectbehavioraldifferences.The generalconclusionsdrawnfrom thesecomparisonsis that the latearchaicNeanderthalchildrenweresubjectedto moreconstantandhigher levelsof stressand



mechanicalload thanwereanatomicallymodernhumans.At the sametime, ‘it is likely thatadult activity levels contrastedonly in relatively subtle ways betweenthesetwo groups’(Trinkaus1993b:408–409).

How canthis variability be explained?A clue may be found in a recentethnographicstudy(Hawkeset al. 1995)dealingwith children’s roles in foragingamongstmobile hunter-gatherers.Theresearchcenteredon Hadzachildrenwith comparisonsmadeto !Kung children.It was found that Hadzachildren, from an ageof about3–4 years,takea very active part indaily foragingactivities,bothneartheir campsandat somedistancefrom them.Theyregularlyaccompaniedadultson forays of 10–15km on a daily basis.!Kung youngsters,on the otherhand,participatelittle, if atall, in theacquisitionof fooduntil theyarewell into their teens.Thevariability is partially explainedin termsof thekindsandavailability of resourcesaswell asthereturnsgainedfrom thevaryingresourcessothatthedifferencesbetweenthetwo groupsreflectdiverseculturaladaptationsto specificenvironmentalconditions.It would beinterestingto seeif morphologicaltraits, suchas thosestudiedby Trinkaus,covarywith thesetwo subsistencestrategies.It would not be expectedthat the same ranges of variability seen betweenNeanderthalsandmoderns,but somelevel of differentiationwould stronglysupportTrinkaus’conclusions.In any case,while not specifically mentionedin Hawkes et al., there is animplication that different things were expectedof children in eachof the cultures,lendingcredenceto thevery reasonablesuggestionthatthedifferencesbetweenNeanderthalsandearlymoderns‘may well lie more in the social organizationalspherethan in the archaeologically-more-visibletechnologicalandsubsistencepatterns’(Trinkaus1993b:411). In this regard,iftheargumentpresentedby ArensburgandBelfer-Cohen(1998)is accepted,we areseeinghereanotherform of cultural variability within a single biological populationin addition to thetechnologicalandtypologicalvariability referredto earlier.

In this samepaperTrinkaus(1993b)offersanotherexplanationrelatedto differentialsin duration of occupation at sites inhabited by members of each group. Analyses ofmicromammalianfaunal assemblages(Tchernov 1984, 1991, 1998) showed much higherfrequenciesof commensalrodentsat Qafzehthanat Middle Palaeolithicsiteswith associatedNeanderthalssuchas Kebaraor Tabun.Their relatively high frequenciesat Qafzehindicatelongerperiodsof occupationat this site.Theconclusionis thattheoccupantsof Qafzeh,andbyassociationSkhul, were considerablyless mobile on a daily basis than were the archaichominidsof KebaraandTabun.

Drawing on Trinkaus’ studies,Lieberman and Shea (1994) have offered anotherexplanationfor the observedmorphologicalvariability that alsoinvolvesconceptsof mobilityandsettlement.The model they presentincorporatesearlierworks on seasonality(Lieberman1993)andlithic assemblages(Shea1988,1989).The analysisof tooth cementumincrementsfrom samplesof gazelle,reddeer,fallow deerandaurochsallow estimatesof theseasonduringwhich the animalswerehunted.On this basisit wasfound that the occupationsat somesites(TabunC andQafzehXVI–XXI) wereof relatively short,single-seasondurationwhile others(TabunB andKebaraVII–X andQafzehXV) indicatedmulti-seasonoccupations.Theanalysisof the assemblageswas specifically intendedto provide a measureof the dependencyonhuntingdonefrom thevarioussites.Thiswasdeterminedthroughcomparingthefrequenciesofimpact fractureson tools and the ratios of Levallois points to other Levallois elements.Thehighest incidenceof impact fracturesand points occurredat KebaraIX–XII, Tabun B andQafzehXV, while suchimplementswerelesswell representedat TabunC andQafzehXVII–XXIV.

DANIEL KAUFMAN


There is an apparentcorrelation, then, betweenhunting intensity and duration ofoccupation,with considerablemorehuntingtakingplacefrom multi-seasonsites.This leadstothesuggestionthatmulti-seasoncampswerepartof radiatingor logistically organizedsystemswhile the single seasonsites indicate a systemof circulating, residentialmobility. Finally,Liebermanand Sheaattemptto correlatefossil hominidswith this dichotomyand placetheNeanderthalswithin a logistical systemandanatomicallymodernhumanswithin a circulatingsystem.Theysuggestthatthereducedmobility levelsthatcharacterizelogisticalsystemswouldrequire‘significantly higherdaily expendituresof effort to acquirelesspredictableresourcessuchas game’ (Liebermanand Shea1994:319) and that this is reflectedin the documentedmorphologicalvariability. More frequentandgreaterrelianceon huntingamongstthe archaichumanswouldresultin higherlevelsof stressandsubsequentmuscularhypertrophy.Sincetheycharacterizea circulating systemas being more energeticallyefficient, they contend thatanatomicallymodern humansspent less time and expendedless energy in the pursuit ofnutrition.

Therearesomegeneralparallelsbetweenthe Trinkaus’ modeland that proposedbyLiebermanandSheabut, moreimportantly,therearesomesignificantcontrasts.For example,thereis agreementthat thedatafrom the lower levelsof Qafzeharesuggestiveof lower levelsof energyexpenditure.However, they arrive at this conclusionon very different grounds.Recall that Trinkaus,drawingon the micromammalianassemblages,arguesfor a long-lastingoccupationthatwould resultin reducedmobility thusindicatingthata radiatingor logisticallyorganizedsystemis themoreefficient.This is in directoppositionto thereasoningpresentedbyLiebermanandSheawho arguethat the samelayersat Qafzehareassociatedwith circulatingmobility that, for them, is the most energyefficient. Part of the problem here is with theseeminglack of correspondencebetweenthe seasonalitydataobtainedfrom the analysisofcementumintervalsandthosefrom the micromammals(Tchernov1984,1991).The former isphrasedin termsof seasonalitywhile the latter refersto durationof occupation.It could beexpectedthatthemulti-seasonpatternis theresultof numerous,short-termreoccupationsin thecavethroughoutthe yearwhile a singleseasonoccupationcould be of considerableduration.An additionalparadoxis the interpretationregardingenergyefficiency when comparingthetwo systemsof mobility. Thereis no agreementasto which requiresgreaterexpenditureon aregulardaily basisresultingin higher levelsof stress.

This is notmeantto negatetheexistenceof differentkindsof settlementsystemsin theMiddle Palaeolithic.Thereis archaeologicalevidencefor them(Kaufman1999,andreferencestherein)andfor a mix of the two strategies.This hasalsobeendocumentedethnographically(Binford 1980)andappliesto Qafzeh,aswell. RecallingthatLayerXV of QafzehwasseenbyLiebermanand Sheaas representinga lessmobile setting,then it must be assumedthat, forsomereason,mobility patternsshiftedthroughtime.As thereis noevidencefor Neanderthalsatthis site, this shift mustbeattributedto anatomicallymodernhumanswho wereableto utilizeboth levelsof mobility whenneeded.

OtherquestionsariseconcerningtheLieberman/Sheahypothesis.Oneof theserelatesto their inclusionof TabunLayerB in their study.Theproblemhereis that this layermaynotrepresentanoccupation.Jelinek(Jelineket al. 1973)notedthatduringthetime of depositionofthis layer,thechimneyof thecavehadachievedits full dimensionsmakingthecavemuchlesssuitablefor habitation.He arguesthat the site hadshiftedfunction andhadbecomea huntingstation,with animalsbeingdriven into the chimney.This certainly correspondswith the factthat the lithic assemblagefrom Layer B has the highest frequenciesof points and impact



fracturedtools(LiebermanandShea1994)andthatthefaunalassemblageis heavilydominated(> 75%) by fallow deer(Garrard1982;GarrodandBate1937).That huntingtook placeherethroughoutthe year is highly probablebut this doesnot meanthat peoplewere living in thecavefor extendedperiodsat this time. If this is thecase,it wouldcounterthosearguments(Bar-Yosef andCallander1999) that the Neanderthalburial in Layer C is intrusivefrom Layer B.

Finally, there are problemsin correlating hominid taxa with contrastingmobilitystrategies(Belfer-Cohen1993;Trinkaus1993a).For example,at leastsome,if not all of thehominidremainsfrom LayerC of TabuncanbeclassifiedasNeanderthals.However,thefaunaland lithic characteristics,accordingto Liebermanand Sheahave all the hallmarks of anadaptivestrategycorrespondingto anatomicallymodernhumans.This would lendcredencetotheideathatanyof thehominidscouldvery well haveusedeitheror bothof thesetwo systemsin varyingmixes.Therefore,thereis no possibility to assigna particularhominidgroupto anyof thosesitesfrom which no humanremainshavebeenrecovered.

So, is there a cultural/behavioralexplanationfor the morphologicalvariability thatdistinguishesbetween archaic and early modern humans?The conflicting evidence andapproachespresentedabovewould indicatethat we haveyet to resolvethis problemandthatthesolutionis not necessarilyto befoundwith direct referenceto subsistenceandprocurementstrategiesor patternsof mobility. Bar-Yosef(1993:134)hasmadetheobservationthatthebio-mechanicaldifferencesbetweenthe two groups‘resultedfrom activities not registeredin thearchaeologicalrecord.’ For the moment, it seemsthat Trinkaus’ (1993b: 411) statementreferredto earlier that the key is to be found in the realm of social organizationwithin theframeworkof subsistenceactivitiesis supportedby thecomparisonsdrawnbetweentheHadzaand!Kung.

INTERACTIONS

With regardto thequestionof interactions,thereis no questionthatbothearlymodernandarchaichominidswerepresentduringthelongMiddle Palaeolithicperiodin theLevantandthepossibilityof themcominginto contactmustbetakeninto account.Onepoint to bestressedis that at all thosesites from which hominids have been found, the remainswere of onepopulationor theother.The notableexampleis Layer C of Tabunwherethereis a continuingdebateover the taxonomicplacementof the isolatedmandible(Trinkaus1983,1987,1993a;Rak 1998).The apparentpatternis onesuggestingsomedegreeof separation,at leastto thepoint that burial placeswerenot shared.Thereis no reasonto assumethat Neanderthalswereburyingtheirdeadin sitesoccupiedby earlymoderns,or thereverse,andit seemsreasonabletoinfer that the burials representthe living populationsof eachsite. A degreeof segregationregarding some cultural behaviorsdoes not necessarilyimply complete isolation. As anillustration, we can return to the three industrial variants or facies recognizedwithin theLevantine Middle Palaeolithic.It was shown earlier that each tendedto emphasizeratherspecifictechnologicalorientationsbut,at thesametime, therewerecommonelementsamongstthem. Further, the chronologicalevidencestrongly suggeststhat there was at least partialcontemporaneitybetweenthe TypesD and C, on the one hand,and someoverlapbetweenTypesB andC. The point is that thosecommontechnologicalcharacteristicscould very wellhavebeenthe resultof themovementof ideasandevenmaterialsbetweendifferentgroups.Itmust be emphasizedthat this does not prove or disprove that the interactionstook placebetweenthe two hominid taxa involved becauseof the lack of correlationbetweentaxa and

DANIEL KAUFMAN


assemblagetypes.There is simply no way of knowing if communicationwas, or was not,restrictedto those of similar appearance.The fact that the manufacturersof the Type Dassemblagesare unknownfurther complicatesthis issue.The availableinformation from theregiondoesnot yet allow for a resolutionof this problem.

However,thereare intriguing bits of evidenceand ideasfrom Europethat may shedlight on theLevantinesituation.Theserelateto thechronologicaloverlap(Bischoffet al. 1989;Cabreraand Bischoff 1989; Harrold 1989; Leroyer 1983; Mercier et al. 1991; Otte 1990)betweentheChatelperronianandtheearlyAurignacianandtheoccurrenceof itemsof personaldecorationin each.Therearethosewhowould explainawaythis phenomenonassimply a caseof acculturationwith the Neanderthalsadoptinga numberof cultural conceptsandbehaviorsfrom their culturally advancedAurignacianneighbors(DeMarsandHublin 1989;Farizy1990;Harrold 1989; Mellars 1989; Stringer and Gamble1993; and seeAllsworth-Jones1990 forsimilar argumentsconcerningcentralandeasternEurope).Mellars(1989:376),for example,inrejectingthepossibility that itemsof personaladornmentwerespontaneousinnovationsof theChatelperronians,arguesthat their appearanceimplies ‘at leastsomeform of socialor culturalinteraction betweenthe Aurignacian and Chatelperronianpopulations’ (italics in original).Unfortunately,we do not yet know who thoseAurignacianswere,asskeletalremainsfrom theearliestphaseof this period are lacking (Gambier1989; Frayerand Wolpoff 1993; Wolpoff1994).While laterstagesof thisperiodareassociatedwith anatomicallymodernHomosapiens,this doesnot automaticallymeanthat thoseof the early stageweremorebiologically evolvedthantheir Chatelperroniancounterparts.Wolpoff (1994:99) hassuggestedthat thereis a realpotential for future discoveries of Neanderthalsin early Aurignacian contexts, sinceanatomically modern remains have never been associatedwith this period. If the earlyAurignacianwasthe handiworkof late Neanderthalgroups,then the distinctionbetweenthislithic tradition and the Chatelperronianis indicative of technologicalvariability andadaptiveflexibility beingexhibitedby a singlebiological population(Kaufman1999).

Allsworth-Jones(1990), on the other hand, makes a very strong argument ofcontemporaneitybetweenthe Szeletianof easternEuropeand the early Aurignaciantogetherwith anequivalentoverlapof their respectivehominidremains,Neanderthalsandmoderns.Hesuggeststhat, like the Chatelperronianandprobablythe Uluzzianof Italy, the ‘Szeletianwasthe productof an acculturationprocessat the junction of the Middle andUpperPalaeolithic’(Allsworth-Jones1990:235).

Thereare,then,indicationsfor interactionandcommunicationbetweenNeanderthalsandtheir contemporariesin Europe.In this regard,though,mentionmustbe madeof a recentreassessmentof Chatelperronianand Aurignacianchronologies(d’Errico et al. 1998; Zilhaoandd’Errico 1999).TheseauthorsarguethattheChatelperronianprecededtheAurignacianandthat therewasno overlapbetweenthe two. This would lendcredenceto theargumentthat theNeanderthalsassociatedwith theChatelperronianhadattaineda fully modernlevel of culturaland cognitive developmentwithout input from anatomically modern hominids (Kaufman1999).This furthersupportstheargumentmadeabovethat thereis a strongbasisto arguethatthecultural adaptationsof bothof theLevantineMiddle Palaeolithichominid groupscouldbeconsideredas fully modern(Kaufman1999), indicating no differenceswith regardto mentalandcognitivecapabilities.

On theassumptionthat thenotionof socialandcultural interactionis correct,possiblyfor Europeandmorelikely for theLevant,mustit alsobeassumedthat theexchangeof ideasflowed in one direction only? Could not the early Aurignacians(assumingthey were indeed



anatomicallymoderns)haveadoptedsomeof the conceptsof personaladornmentfrom theNeanderthalsof the Chatelperronian?Couldnot the early anatomicallymodernhumansof theLevant acquireideasof technologyand burial customsfrom their Neanderthalcounterparts?Most anthropologicaldefinitions of acculturationnote that cultural traits are passedin bothdirections, even when one group is dominant (Howard and Dunaif-Hattis 1992) and, ascorrectlynotedby Graves,acculturation‘suggestsa socioculturallevel of recognitionandthatthe two populationshad similar cognitive capacities’(1991: 525). In this regard,Harrold’s(1989: 702, Table 33.8) comparisonsof the Chatelperronianand Early Aurignacianare ofrelevance.Coloring materialsare more abundantin Chatelperronianassemblagesand theycontaintypesof incisedstoneandpendantsthatarenot foundin theAurignacian.In that theselatter items are unique, they cannot be viewed as the productsof borrowing. Further, asBednarik(1992)andMarshack(1988)haveshown,thereareexamplesof objectslikely to haveservedas items of personaldecorationdating well into the Middle Palaeolithic,indicating atradition of long history.While theseitemsarerelatively rare,thereseemsno reasonto rejectthemout of hand;it maywell be that their relativescarcityanduniquenessarewhatbestowedvalueandsignificanceon suchobjects(Kaufman1999).In this regard,it is worth recallingthatBordes(1972)wasable to demonstratetechnologicaland typological continuity betweentheChatelperronianandits Middle Palaeolithicpredecessors.If theseNeanderthalswerecapableofpassingon and varying their lithic traditions, then they were just as able to passon othercultural traditionsand there is no needto arguethat thesetraits were simple emulationsofAurignacianbehaviors.

It seems, then, that there is every possibility for cultural interaction betweenbiologically differing groups.Significantly, for the caseof southwestAsia, suchinteractionswould havefulfilled anessentialadaptiverole.Again,on theassumptionthatNeanderthalsandanatomicallymodernhumansweresympatricspecies,theywould havebeenin competitionforavailableresourcesplacingeachat risk. However,social interactionswould haveallowedfortheestablishmentof reciprocalobligationswith mutualreciprocityservingto guaranteeaccessto resourcesand reducingrisk (Cashdan1983; Root 1983; Wiessner1982a,b). It must berememberedthat we are dealingherewith large-brained,intelligent hominidsthat exhibitedfully modernmodesof cultural behavior(Kaufman1999).Thereseemsno reasonto rejectthenotion that, ratherthancompetingwith eachother,they were fully capableof cooperatinginorderto ensuremutualsurvival.Thisseemsevenmorelikely if weacceptthehypothesisof onesinglebiological populationaspresentedby ArensburgandBelfer-Cohen(1998).

Onefurther scenarioconcerninginteractionsmustbe considered.Let us assumethatRak (1998) and Quamand Smith (1998) are correct in assigningthe TabunC mandibletoanatomicallymodernhumans.In addition to confirming contemporaneitybetweenthem, itwould enhancethoseargumentsfor interactionbetweenthe two populations.In this caseitwould meanthat, not only were ideasandtechnologicalconceptsbeingexchanged,but therewas intercommunalmovementof peopleand somefluidity in group composition.Certainly,additionalco-occurrencesof the two hominid typesin a singlecontextare requiredto verifythis, but it mustbe takenasa distinct possibility.

This, in turn, raisesonefurtherquestion.If peopleweremovingabout,weretheyalsoexchanginggenesin additionto the materialandbehavioralaspectsof their culture?This is adebateof long standing,centeringon thequestionof whetheror not moderngenotypesaretheresultof a Neanderthalcontribution.If interbreedingdid takeplaceandviable offspring wereproducedthentheNeanderthalsandtheir partnerswould haveto beconsideredasmembersof

DANIEL KAUFMAN


the samebiological species.Unfortunately,there is no consensusof opinion regardingthisquestion,with geneticstudiesresultingin interpretationswhich differ from thosederivedfromanalysesof the skeletalmaterials.

Recently, Krings et al. (1997) concludedthat the Neanderthalswere geneticallydistinct from modernhumans.In this study a mitochondrialDNA (mtDNA) sequencewassuccessfully extracted from the Neanderthal bones discovered in Germany in 1856.Comparisonsshowedthat the Neanderthalsequencelay well outside the rangeof modernhumanmtDNA variability, indicatingthatfor this partof themoderngeneticmakeuptherewasno possibility for a Neanderthalcontribution:all of which supportsthe notion of separateanddistinct species.

On theotherhand,thereis therecentlydiscoveredskeletonof a child foundwithin anUpperPalaeolithiccontextin Portugal(Duarteet al. 1999).Theskeletonis exceptionalin thatit exhibitsa uniquemosaicof botharchaicandmoderntraits.Theauthorsconcludethatsuchacombinationof morphologicalcharacteristicscanbestbeexplainedthroughadmixturebetweenearlymodernhumansandNeanderthals.Theyfurtherstressthatthechild wasnot theresultof arareNeanderthal/earlymodernunion but the descendantof extensivelyadmixedpopulations,implying a long history of hybridization.

CONCLUSIONS

If the notion of biological incompatibility betweenNeanderthalsand anatomicallymodernhumansis accepted,it may explainin part the degreeof isolationismnotedaboveforthe Levant, at leastas far as the exclusiveuseof cavesis concerned.However,it doesnotnegatethepossibilityof otherkindsof interactionbetweenthetwo hominid types,particularlywith regardto the establishmentof systemsof reciprocity. Alternatively, if one acceptsthepossibility of biological compatibility, the casefor social interactionbecomesevenstrongerand providessupportfor inter-groupmovementas suggestedfor the caseof humanremainsfrom TabunLayer C.

In sum,severalscenarioshavebeensuggestedwhich may describeand explain themorphologicalvariability andpossibleinteractionsbetweentwo hominidtaxa.For themoment,sinceit is yet impossibleto fully confirm or refuteany of them,all mustbe viewedasviableoptions.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thankmy colleaguesMina EvronandAvrahamRonenfor their constructivecommentson anearlierversionof this manuscript.Also, partof theresearchfor this paperwascarriedout while onsabbaticalat theDepartmentof Anthropology,Universityof NewMexicoandmy appreciationis giventoall membersof the departmentfor their hospitality and interest in the project. Partial funding wasprovidedby the ZinmanInstituteof Archaeologyandthe ResearchAuthority of Haifa University.

ZinmanInstituteof ArchaeologyUniversityof Haifa

Mount Carmel,Haifa 31905Israel



REFERENCES

ALLSWORTH-JONES,P 1990:TheSzeletianandthestratigraphicsuccessionin centralEuropeandadjacentareas:Main trends,recentresults,andproblemsfor resolution.In Mellars, P. (ed.), TheEmergenceofModernHumans:An ArchaeologicalPerspective(Ithaca,Cornell University Press),160–242.

ARENSBURG,B. andBELFER-COHEN,A. 1998:SapiensandNeanderthals:RethinkingtheLevantineMiddlePaleolithichominids.In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. andKimura, T. (eds.),TheEvolutionand DispersalofModernHumansin Asia (Tokyo, Hokusen-Sha),311–322.

BAR-YOSEF,O. 1992:Middle Paleolithichumanadaptationsin theMediterraneanLevant.In Akazawa,T.,Aoki, K. and Kimura, T. (eds.),The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humansin Asia (Tokyo,Hokusen-Sha),189–215.

BAR-YOSEF,O. 1993:The role of westernAsia in Modernhumanorigins. In Aitken, M.J., Stringer,C.B.and Mellars, P.A. (eds.), The Origin of Modern Humansand the Impact of ChronometricDating(Princeton,PrincetonUniversity Press),132–147.

BAR-YOSEF,O. 1994:Thecontributionsof southwestAsia to thestudyof theorigin of modernhumans.InNitecki, M.H. and Nitecki, D.V. (eds.),Origins of AnatomicallyModernHumans(New York, PlenumPress),23–66.

BAR-YOSEF,O. 1995:The Lower andMiddle Palaeolithicin the MediterraneanLevant:Chronology,andcultural entities. In Ullrich, H. (ed.), Man and Environmentin the Palaeolithic (Liege, Universite deLiege, Etudeset RecherchesArcheologiquesno. 62), 247–263.

BAR-YOSEF,O. 1998:The chronologyof the Middle Paleolithicindustriesin the NearEast.In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. Kimura, T. (eds.), The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humansin Asia (Tokyo,Hokusen-Sha),39–56.

BAR-YOSEF, O. and CALLAND ER, J. 1999: The woman from Tabun: Garrod’s doubts in historicalperspective.Journal of HumanEvolution37, 879–885.

BAR-YOSEF,O. and MEIGNEN, L. 1992: Insightsinto LevantineMiddle Paleolithiccultural variability. InDibble, H.L. and Mellars, P. (eds.), The Middle Paleolithic: Adaptation, Behavior and Variability(Philadelphia,University Museum,University of Pennsylvania),163–182.

BAR-YOSEF,O. andVANDERMEERSCH, B. 1981:Notesconcerningthepossibleageof theMousterianlayersat QafzehCave.In Cauvin,J. andSanlaville,P. (eds.),Prehistoire de Levant(Paris,CNRS),555–569.

BEDNARIK, R.G. 1992:Palaeoartandarchaeologicalmyths.CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal2, 27–57.

BELFER-COHEN, A. 1993:Comment.Current Anthropology34, 614–615.

BINFORD,L.R. 1980:Willow smokeanddogstails: hunter-gatherersettlementsystemsandarchaeologicalsite formation.AmericanAntiquity 45, 4–20.

BISCHOFF,J.L., SOLAR, N. MAROTO, J. and JULIA, R. 1989: Abrupt Mousterian/Aurignacianboundaryat c.40ka bp: Accelerator14C datesfrom L’Abreda Cave (Catalunya,Spain).Journal of ArchaeologicalScience16, 563–576.

BORDES, F. 1972:Du Paleolithique moyenau Paleolithique superieur, continuiteou discontinuite? In F.Bordes(ed.),TheOrigin of Homosapiens(Paris,UNESCO),211–218.

BOUTIE, P. 1989: Etude technologiquede l’industrie mousterienne de la Grotte de Qafzeh (pres deNazareth,Israel). In Bar-Yosef, O. and Vandermeersch,B. (eds.), Investigationsin SouthLevantinePrehistory(Oxford, BAR InternationalSeries497), 213–230.

CABRERA, V. and BISCHOFF, J.L. 1989: Accelerator 14C dates for early Upper Palaeolithic (BasalAurignacian)at El Castillo Cave(Spain).Journal of ArchaeologicalScience16, 577–584.

CASHDAN, E. 1983: Territoriality amonghumanforagers:ecologicalmodelsand an applicationto fourBushmangroups.Current Anthropology24, 47–66.

CLARK, G.A., SCHULDENREIN, J., DONALDSON, M.L., SCHWARCZ, P., RINK, W.J. and FISH, S.K. 1997:Chronostratigraphiccontextsof Middle Paleolithichorizonsat the ‘Ain Difla rockshelter(WHS 634),

DANIEL KAUFMAN


west-centralJordan.In Gebel,H.G.K.,Kafafi, Z. andRollefson,G.O.(eds.),ThePrehistoryof Jordan, II.Perspectivesfrom 1997 (Berlin, Ex Oriente), 77–100.

CONARD,N.J.1990:Laminarlithic assemblagesfrom thelastinterglacialcomplexin northwesternEurope.Journal of AnthropologicalResearch46, 243–262.

COOK,J. 1986:A bladeindustryfrom Stoneham’sPit, Crayford.In Collcutt, S.N. (ed.),ThePalaeolithicof Britain and it NearestNeighbours:RecentTrends(Sheffield:University of Sheffield),16–19.

COPELAND, L. 1975: The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanonand Syria in the light of recentresearch.In Wendorf,F. andMarks, A.E. (eds.),Problemsin Prehistory:North Africa and the Levant(Dallas,SouthernMethodistUniversity Press),317–350.

COPELAND,L. 1985:The pointedtools of Hummal Ia (El Kowm, Syria).Cahiersde l’Euphrate 4, 177–189.

COPELAND,L. andHOURS,F. 1983:Le Yabroudiend’El Kowm (Syrie)et saplacedansle PaleolithiqueduLevant.Paleorient 9, 39–54.

DEMARS, P.-Y. andHUBLIN, J.-J.1989:La transitionNeandertaliens/Hommesde type moderneen Europeoccidentale:aspectspaleontologiqueset culturels.In Otte, M. (ed.), L’Hommede Neandertal, Vol. 6:L’extinction (Liege: Etudeset RecherchesArcheologiquesde l’Universite de Liege) 23–27.

D’ERRICO,F.,ZILHA O, J.,JULIEN, M., BAFFIER, D. andPELEGRIN,J. 1998:Neanderthalacculturationin westernEurope?A critical reviewof theevidenceandits interpretation.CurrentAnthropology39 (Supplement),1–44.

DUARTE, C.,MAURICIO, J.,PETTITT,P.B.,SOUTO, P.,TRINKAUS, E.,VAN DERPLICHT, H. andZILHAO, J. 1999:Theearly UpperPaleolithichumanskeletonfrom the Abrigo do LagarVelho (Portugal)andmodernhumanemergencein Iberia. Proceedingsof the National Academyof Sciences96: 7604–7609.

FARIZY, C. 1990: The transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic at Arcy-sur-Cure(Yonne, France):technological,economicandsocialaspects.In Mellars,P. (ed.),TheEmergenceof ModernHumans:AnArchaeologicalPerspective(New York, CambridgeUniversity Press),303–326.

FRAYER, D.W. andWOLPOFF,M.H. 1993:Comment.Current Anthropology34, 582–584.

GAMBIER, D. 1989:Fossilhominidsfrom theearlyUpperPaleolithic(Aurignacian)of France.In Mellars,P. and Stringer, C. (eds.),The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectiveson theOrigins of ModernHumans(Princeton,PrincetonUniversity Press),194–211.

GARRARD,A.N. 1982:Theenvironmentalimplicationsof a reanalysisof thelargemammalfaunafrom theWadi el-Mughara caves, Palestine. In Bintliff, J.L. and Van Zeist, W. (eds.), Palaeoclimates,PalaeoenvironmentsandHumanCommunitiesin theEasternMediterraneanRegionin Later Prehistory(Oxford, BAR InternationalSeries133),165–187.

GARROD,D.A.E. andBATE, D.M. 1937:TheStoneAgeof Mount Carmel (Oxford, Clarendon).

GILEAD, I. 1981: Upper Paleolithic tool assemblagesfrom the Negev and Sinai. In Cauvin, J. andSanlaville,P. (eds.),Prehistoire du Levant(Paris,CNRS)331–342.

GRUN, R., MELLARS, P. and LAVILLE, H. 1991: ESR dating of a 100,000year archaeologicalsequenceatPechde l’Aze II, France.Antiquity 65, 544–551.

GRUN, R., STRINGER, C.B. and SCHWARCZ, H.P. 1991: ESR dating of teeth from Garrod’s Tabun Cavecollection.Journal of HumanEvolution20, 231–248.

HARROLD,F.B. 1989:Mousterian,ChatelperronianandEarlyAurignacianin westernEurope:continuityordiscontinuity?In Mellars,P.andStringer,C. (eds.),TheHumanRevolution:BehaviouralandBiologicalPerspectiveson the Origins of ModernHumans(Princeton,PrincetonUniversity Press),677–713.

HAWKES, K., O’CONNEL, J.F. and BLURTON JONES, N.G. 1995: Hadza children’s foraging: juveniledependency,socialarrangements,andmobility amonghunter-gatherers.CurrentAnthropology36, 688–700.

HENRY, D.O. 1995:PrehistoricCultural Ecologyand Evolution (New York, PlenumPress).



HENRY,D.O. 1998:TheMiddle Paleolithicof Jordan.In Henry,D.O. (ed.),ThePrehistoricArchaeologyofJordan (Oxford, BAR InternationalSeries705),23–38.

HENRY, D.O. and MILLER, G.H. 1992: The implications of amino acid racemizationdatesof LevantineMousteriandepositsin southernJordan.Paleorient 18(2), 45–52.

HOURS,F. 1983:Quatrecolloquesrecentesur la Prehistoiredu Levant.Paleorient 9, 110–111.

HOURS,F., COPELAND,L. andAURENCHE, O. 1973:Les industriespaleolithiquesdu Proche-Orient,essaidecorrelation.L’Anthropologie77, 229–280,437–496.

HOVERS,E. 1998:The lithic assemblagesof Amud Cave:Implicationsfor understandingthe endof theMousterianin theLevant.In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. andBar-Yosef,O. (eds.),NeanderthalsandModernHumansin WestAsia (New York, PlenumPress),143–163.

HOVERS,E., RAK, Y., LAVI, R. andKIMBEL, W.H. 1995:Hominid remainsfrom Amud Cavein thecontextofthe LevantineMiddle Paleolithic.Paleorient 21: 47–61.

HOWARD, M.C. andDUNAIF-HATTIS, J. 1992:Anthropology:UnderstandingHumanAdaptation(New York,HarperCollins).

JELINEK, A.J. 1982:The TabunCaveandPaleolithicmanin the Levant.Science216,1369–1375.

JELINEK, A.J. 1992:Problemsin thechronologyof theMiddle Paleolithicandthefirst appearanceof earlymodernHomosapiensin southwestAsia. In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. andKimura,T. (eds.),TheEvolutionand Dispersalof ModernHumansin Asia (Tokyo, Hokusen-Sha),253–275.

JELINEK, A.J., FARRAND, W.R., HAAS, G., HOROWITZ, A. and GOLDBERG, P. 1973: New excavationsat theTabunCave,Mount Carmel,Israel:a preliminary report.Paleorient 1, 151–183.

KAUFMAN, D. 1999: ArchaeologicalPerspectiveson the Origins of Modern Humans:A View from theLevant(Westport,BergenandGarvey).

KRINGS,M., STONE,A., SCHMITZ, R.W.,KRAINITSKE, H., STONEKING, M. andPAABO, S. 1997:NeanderthalDNAsequencesandthe origin of modernhumans.Cell 90, 19–30.

LEROYER,C. 1983:L’Aurignacio-Pergordien:Apportdela Palynologie(Perigueux:CentredeRecherchesPrehistoriques,Cahier9).

LIEBERMAN, D.E. 1993: The rise and fall of seasonalmobility amonghunter-gatherers.The caseof thesouthernLevant.Current Anthropology14, 599–631.

LIEBERMAN, D.E. andSHEA, J.J.1994:Behavioraldifferencesbetweenarchaicandmodernhumansin theLevantineMousterian.AmericanAnthropologist96, 300–332.

LINDLY, J. andCLARK, G. 1987:A preliminarylithic analysisof theMousteriansiteof Ain Difla (WHSsite634) in the Wadi Ali, west-centralJordan.Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety53, 279–292.

MARKS, A.E. 1981a:The Middle Paleolithicof the Negev,Israel. In J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville(eds.),Prehistoire du Levant(Paris,CNRS),287–298.

MARKS, A.E. 1981b:TheUpperPaleolithicof theNegev.In J.CauvinandP.Sanlaville(eds.),Prehistoiredu Levant(Paris,CNRS),343–352.

MARKS, A.E. 1988: Early Mousteriansettlementpatternsin the central Negev, Israel: their social andeconomicimplications.In Otte,M. (ed.),L’HommedeNeandertal, Vol. 6: La Subsistance(Liege,Etudeset RecherchesArcheologiquesde l’Universite de Liege), 115–126.

MARKS, A.E. 1992a:Typological variability in the LevantineMiddle Paleolithic. In Dibble, H.L. andMellars, P. (eds.),The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation,Behavior and Variability (Philadelphia,TheUniversity Museum,University of Pennsylvania),127–142.

MARSHACK, A. 1988: The Neanderthalsand the humancapacity for symbolic thought: cognitive andproblemsolving aspectsof Mousteriansymbol. In Otte, M. (ed.),L’Hommede Neandertal, Vol. 5: LaPense´e (Liege, Etudeset RecherchesArcheologiquesde l’Universite de Liege), 57–91.

McDERMOTT, F., GRUN, R., STRINGER, C.B. andHAWKESWORTH,C.J.1993:Mass-spectrometricU-seriesdates

DANIEL KAUFMAN


for Israeli Neanderthal/earlymodernhominid sites.Nature363,252–255.

McCOWN,T.D. andKEITH, A. 1939:TheStoneAgeof MountCarmelII: Thefossilhumanremainsfrom theLevalloiso-Mousterian(Oxford, ClarendonPress).

MEIGNEN, L. 1995:Levallois lithic productionsystemsin the Middle Palaeolithicof the NearEast.Thecase of the unidirectional method. In Dibble, H.L. and Bar-Yosef, O. (eds.), The Definition andInterpretationof LevalloisTechnology(Madison,PrehistoryPress),361–379.

MEIGNEN, L. 1998: Hayonim Cave lithic assemblagesin the context of the Near EasternMiddlePaleolithic.In Takeru,A., Aoki, A. andBar-Yosef,O. (eds.),NeanderthalsandModernHumansin WestAsia (New York, PlenumPress),165–180.

MEIGNEN, L. andBAR-YOSEF,O. 1988:Variabilite technologiqueau Proche-Orient:l’examplede Kebara.In Otte, M. (ed.), L’Homme de Neandertal, Vol. 4: La Technique(Liege, Etudes et RecherchesArcheologiquesde l’Universite de Liege), 81–95.

MEIGNEN, L. andBAR-YOSEF,O. 1991:Le outillageslithiquesmousteriensdeKebara(fouilles 1982–1985).In Bar-Yosef,O., andVandermeersch,B. (eds.),Le squelettemouste´rien deKebara 2 (Paris,CahiersdePaleoanthropologie,EditionsCentreNationalde la RechercheScientifique),49–75.

MEIGNEN, L. andBAR-YOSEF,O. 1992:Middle Paleolithiclithic variability in KebaraCave,Mount Carmel,Israel. In Akazawa,T., Kenichi, A. and Tasuku,K. (eds.),The Evolution and Dispersal of ModernHumansin Asia (Tokyo, Hokusen-Sha),129–148.

MELLARS, P. 1989:Major issuesin theemergenceof modernhumans.CurrentAnthropology30,349–385.

MERCIER, N., VALLAD AS, H., BAR-YOSEF, O., VANDERMEERSCH, B., STRINGER, C. and JORON, H.L. 1993:Thermoluminescencedate for the Mousterian burial site of es-Skhul, Mt Carmel. Journal ofArchaeologicalScience20, 169–174.

MERCIER, N., VALLADAS, H., JORON, J.L., REYSS, J.L., LEVEQUE, F. and VANDERMEERSCH, B. 1991:Thermoluminescencedatingof the late Neanderthalremainsfrom Saint-Cesaire.Nature, 351,737–739.

MERCIER, N., VALLADAS, H., REYSS,J.-L., JELINEK, A., MEIGNEN, L. andJORON, J.L. 1995:TL datesof burntflints from Jelinek’sexcavationsat Tabunandtheir implications.Journalof ArchaeologicalScience22,495–509.

NEUVILLE, R. 1934:Le prehistoirede Palestine.RevueBiblique 43, 237–259.

NEUVILLE, R. 1951:Le Paleolithiqueet le MesolithiquedeDesertdeJudee. (Paris,Archivesdel’Institutede Paleontologiehumaine,memoire 24. Massonet Cie).

NISHIAKI, Y. andCOPELAND, L. 1992:KeoueCave,northernLebanon,andits placein the contextof theLevantineMousterian.In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. andKimura, T. (eds.),TheEvolutionand DispersalofModernHumansin Asia (Tokyo, Hokusen-Sha)107–127.

OHNUMA, K. 1992:Thesignificanceof LayerB (Square8–19)of theAmud Cave(Israel)in theLevantineLevalloiso-Mousterian:a technologicalstudy. In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. and Kimura, T. (eds.),TheEvolutionand Dispersalof ModernHumansin Asia (Tokyo, Hokusen-Sha),83–106.

OTTE,M. 1990:FromtheMiddle to theUpperPaleolithic:Thenatureof thetransition.In Mellars,P.(ed.),TheEmergenceof ModernHumans:An ArchaeologicalPerspective(Ithaca,Cornell University Press),438–456.

PORAT, N., SCHWARCZ, H.P., VALLADAS, H., BAR-YOSEF, O. and VANDERMEERSCH, B. 1994: Electron spinresonancedatingof burnedflint from KebaraCave,Israel.Geoarchaeology9, 393–407.

QUAM, R.M. andSMITH, F.H. 1998:A reassessmentof theTabunC2 mandible.In Takeru,A., Aoki, A. andBar-Yosef,O. (eds.),NeanderthalsandModernHumansin WestAsia (New York, PlenumPress),405–421.

RAK, Y. 1998:DoesanyMousteriancavepresentevidenceof two hominidspecies?In Takeru,A., Aoki,A. andBar-Yosef,O. (eds.),NeanderthalsandModernHumansin WestAsia(New York, PlenumPress),353–377.



RAK, Y., KIMBEL, W.H. and HOVERS, E. 1994: A Neanderthalinfant from Amud Cave,Israel.Journal ofHumanEvolution26, 313–324.

REVILLION, S. and TUFFREAU, A. (eds.)1994: Les IndustriesLaminairesau Paleolithique Moyen(Paris,CNRS).

ROOT, D. 1983: Information exchangeand the spatialconfigurationsof egalitariansocieties.In Moore,J.A. andKeene,A.S. (eds.)ArchaeologicalHammersand Theories(New York, AcademicPress),193–219.

SCHULDENREIN,J. and CLARK, G.A. 1994: Landscapeand prehistoricchronologyof west-centralJordan.Geoarchaeology9, 31–55.

SCHWARCZ, H.P.,BLACKWELL, B., GOLDBERG, P. andMARKS, A.E. 1979:Uraniumseriesdatingof travertinefrom archaeologicalsites,NahalZin, Israel.Nature277,558–560.

SCHWARCZ, H.P.,BUHAY, W.M., GRUN, R., VALLADAS, H., TCHERNOV, E., BAR-YOSEF,O. andVANDERMEERSCH,B. 1989:ESRdatingof theNeanderthalsite,KebaraCave,Israel.Journalof ArchaeologicalScience16,653–659.

SCHWARCZ, H.P.,GOLDBERG,P. andBLACKWELL, B. 1980:Uraniumseriesdatingof archaeologicalsitesinIsrael. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences29, 157–165.

SCHWARCZ, H.P.,GRUN, R., VANDERMEERSCH, B., BAR-YOSEF,O., VALLADAS, H. andTCHERNOV, E. 1988:ESRdatesfor the hominid burial site of Qafzehin Israel.Journal of HumanEvolution17: 733–737.

SCHWARCZ, H.P. and RINK, W.J. 1998: Progressin ESR and U-series chronology of the LevantinePaleolithic.In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. and Bar-Yosef,O. (eds.),Neanderthalsand ModernHumansinWestAsia (New York, PlenumPress),57–67.

SHEA,J.J.1988:Spearpointsfrom theMiddle Paleolithicof theLevant.Journalof Field Archaeology15,441–450.

SHEA,J.J.1989:A functionalstudyof the lithics associatedwith hominid fossilsin theKebaraandQafzaCaves,Israel.In Mellars,P. andStringer,C. (eds.),TheHumanRevolution:BehaviouralandBiologicalPerspectiveson the Origins of ModernHumans(Princeton,PrincetonUniversity Press),611–625.

STEFAN, V. and TRINKAUS, E. 1998: Discrete trait and dental morphometricaffinities of the Tabun 2mandible.Journal of HumanEvolution34, 443–468.

STRINGER, C.B. andGAMBLE, C. 1993: In Searchof the Neanderthals. London,ThamesandHudson.

STRINGER, C.B.,GRUN, R., SCHWARCZ, H.P. andGOLDBERG,P. 1989:ESRdatesfor thehominidburial siteofes-Skhulin Israel.Nature338,756–758.

TCHERNOV, E. 1984:Commensalanimalsandhumansedentismin the Middle East.In Clutton-Brock,J.andGrigson,C. (eds.),AnimalsandArchaeology.Part 3. Early Herdersandtheir Flocks(Oxford,BARInternationalSeries202),91–115.

TCHERNOV, E. 1988: Biochronologyof the Middle Paleolithicand dispersaleventsof hominids in theLevant.In Otte,M. (ed.),L’Hommede Neandertal, Vol. 2: L’Environment(Liege, Etudeset RechercheArcheologiquesde l’Universite de Liege), 153–168.

TCHERNOV, E. 1991:Of mice andmen.Biological markersfor long-termsedentism:a reply. Paleorient17: 153–160.

TCHERNOV, E. 1994:New commentson the biostratigraphyof the Middle andUpperPleistoceneof thesouthernLevant.In Bar-Yosef,O. andKra, R.S.(eds.),LateQuaternaryChronologyandPaleoclimatesof the EasternMediterranean(Tucson,RadiocarbonDepartmentof Geosciences,The University ofArizona), 333–350.

TCHERNOV, E. 1998:The faunalsequenceof SouthwestAsian Middle Paleolithicin relation to hominiddispersalevents.In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. andBar-Yosef,O. (eds.),NeanderthalsandModernHumansin WestAsia (New York, PlenumPress),77–90.

TRINKAUS, E. 1976: The evolution of the hominid femoral diaphysisduring the Upper Pleistocenein

DANIEL KAUFMAN


Europeandthe NearEast.Zeitschrift fur Morphologieund Anthropologie67, 291–319.

TRINKAUS, E. 1983:TheShanidarNeanderthals(New York, AcademicPress).

TRINKAUS, E. 1984:WesternAsia. In Smith,F.H. andSpencer,F. (eds.),TheOrigins of ModernHumans(New York, Alan R. Liss), Inc. 251–293.

TRINKAUS, E. 1987:The Neanderthalface:evolutionaryandfunctionalperspectiveson a recenthominidface.Journal of HumanEvolution16, 429–443.

TRINKAUS, E. 1992: Morphological contrastsbetweenthe Near EasternQafzeh-Skhuland late archaichumansamples:Groundsfor a behaviouraldifference?In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. andKimura, T. (eds.),TheEvolutionand Dispersalof ModernHumansin Asia (Tokyo, Hokusen-Sha),277–294.

TRINKAUS, E/. 1993a:Comment.Current Anthropology34, 620–622.

TRINKAUS, E. 1993b:Femoralneck-shaftanglesof theQafzeh-Skhulearlymodernhumans,andactivity-levelsamongimmatureNearEasternMiddle Paleolithichominids.Journalof HumanEvolution25,393–416.

VALLADAS, H., JORON,J.-L., VALLADAS, H., ARENSBURG,B., BAR-YOSEF,O., BELFER-COHEN,A., GOLDBERG,P.,LAVILLE, H., MEIGNEN, L., RAK, Y., TCHERNOV, E., TILLIER, A.M. and VANDERMEERSCH, B. 1987:Thermoluminescencedatesfor the Neanderthalburial site at Kebarain Israel.Nature330,159–160.

VALLADAS, H., JORON,J.-L., VALLADAS, H., BAR-YOSEF,O. andVANDERMEERSCH, B. 1988:Thermolumines-cencedating of Mousterian‘Proto-Cro-Magnon’remainsfrom Israel and the origin of modernman.Nature331,614–616.

VALLADAS, H., MERCIER,N., FROGET,L., HOVERS,E.,JORON,J.-L.,KIMBEL, W.H. andRAK, Y. 1998:TL datesforthe Neanderthalsite of the Amud Cave,Israel.Journal of ArchaeologicalScience26, 259–268.

VALLADAS, H., MERCIER, N., JORON, J.-L., VALLAD AS, H., BAR-YOSEF, O. and VANDERMEERSCH, B. 1998:Thermoluminescencedatesfor thePaleolithicLevant.In Akazawa,T., Aoki, K. andBar-Yosef,O. (eds.),Neanderthalsand ModernHumansin WestAsia (New York, PlenumPress),69–75.

WIESSNER,P. 1982a:Beyondwillow smokeanddogs’ tails: a commenton Binford’s analysisof hunter-gatherersettlementsystems.AmericanAntiquity 47, 171–78.

WIESSNER,P. 1982b:Risk, reciprocityandsocialinfluenceson !Kung Saneconomics.In Leacock,E. andLee,R.B. (eds.)Politics andHistory in BandSocieties(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress),61–84.

WOLPOFF,M.H. 1994:The calm beforethe storm.CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal 4, 97–103.

ZIAEI, M., H.P. SCHWARCZ, C.M. HALL and R. GRUN 1990: Radiometricdating of the Mousteriansite atQuneitra.In N. Goren-Inbar(ed.),Quneitra:A MousterianSiteon theGolanHeights(Jerusalem,Qedem,Monographsof the Instituteof Archaeology,The HebrewUniversity), 232–235.

ZILHA O, J. and D’ERRICO, F. 1999: The chronologyand taphonomyof the earliestAurignacianand itsimplicationsfor the understandingof Neanderthalextinction.Journal of World Prehistory13, 1–68.



comparisons and the case for interaction among neanderthals and

Documents