What is modern behaviour?

What is modern behaviour? DANIEL KAUFMAN. Archaeological perspectives on the origins ofmodern humans: a view from the Levant Levant(ləvănt`)[Ital.,=east], collective name for the countries of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean from Egypt to, and including, Turkey. . xii+141 pages, 5 figures, 10tables. 1999. Westport (CT): Bergin & Garvey; 0-89789-578-9 hardback$72.95. OFER BAR-YOSEF Ofer Bar-Yosef (born 1937) is an Israeli archaeologist whose main field of study has been the Palaeolithic period.He was Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the institution where he originally studied archaeology at undergraduate and & DAVID PILBEAM David Pilbeam is the Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University and curator of paleoanthropology at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology a nd Ethnology. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He received his Ph.D. from Yale University. (ed.). The geography ofNeandertals and Modern humans in Europe and the greater Mediterranean(Peabody Museum The Peabody Museum can refer to several museums founded by or dedicated to George Peabody: George Peabody House Museum at his birthplace in Peabody, Massachusetts Peabody Leather Museum in Peabody, Massachusetts Bulletin 8). x+197 pages, 69 figures, 31 tables. 2000.Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology ethnology(ĕthnŏl`əjē), scientific study of the origin and functioning of human cultures. It is usually considered one of the major branches of cultural anthropology, the other two being anthropological archaeology and ;0-87365-958-9 paperback $25. C.B. STRINGER, R.N.E. BARTON & J. FINLAYSON (ed.). Neandertalson the edge: papers from a conference marking the 150th anniversary ofthe Forbes' Quarry discovery, Gibralt ar. xi+267 pages, 150 figures,36 tables. 2000. Oxford: Oxbow; 1-84217-015-5 hardback 45 [poundssterling]. It is now some 20 years since the `Out of Africa' hypothesisimpacted on our views of modern human origins. The arrival of thesethree volumes together provides a timely opportunity to examine how farour understanding has developed since then. The volumes contrast in thatone is a personal essay on the subject, one derives from a brief seminarand the third from a more formal conference with a theme derived fromthe anniversary of the Gibraltar skull finds. Despite this difference,there is much to be gained by reading them in conjunction, not least abetter understanding of where these studies have reached. It is clear,for example, that the application of radiometric dating has opened upquestions of contemporaneity between Neanderthals and modern humans andclarified the relationships between different lithic lith¡¤ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. li thic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" industries. It alsoshows the complexity of addressing behaviour and ecology across a mosaicof landscapes. In the elapsed time, the use of DNA DNA:see nucleic acid. DNAor deoxyribonucleic acidOne of two types of nucleic acid (the other is RNA); a complex organic compound found in all living cells and many viruses. It is the chemical substance of genes. for examining therelationships between hominids has also been informative: allowing forconcern over extrapolating from a small sample, the mitochondrial DNAstudy of the Neander Valley specimen strongly suggests that Neanderthalsare a separate species from ourselves. Equally important are therefinements in our understanding of the environmental changes sinceOxygen Isotope Stage (OIS Noun 1. OIS - agency that oversees the intelligence relationships of the Treasury's offices and bureaus and provides a link between the Intelligence Commu nity and officials responsible for international economic policyOffice of Intelligence Support ) 5. There were clearly times at: which therate of change would have been memorable to generations of humans--thepicture of huge ice masses and environmental turnover becomes, at times,of a human scale. It remains the challenge for these studies to identifywhat a `human' scale might be. A flier for one of the DalrympleLectures of 2001 by Professor Stringer read `even if the Neanderthalswere not our ancestors, they were fully human'. As ever, the debateabout Neanderthals falls quickly into the most fundamentalquestion--what defines a `human'? The question as to what is `human' behaviour is one touched onin most detail by Kaufman who, on the basis of lithic technology andecology as interpreted from the archaeological record in the Levant,suggests that there was very little to separate Neanderthals fromourselves. In a well-ordered and thoughtful essay, he presents aposition where the cultural similarities between Middle EasternNeanderthals and Modern Humans are believed to be too close to disregardtheir potential interaction. Although he recognises the DNA evidence Among the many new tools that science has provided for the analysis of forensic evidence is the powerful and controversial analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, the material that makes up the genetic code of most organisms. asimportant, interaction in the cultural sphere is stressed with all the`modern' cultural traits present in homini ds by OIS 5. DidNeanderthals give us something other than genes? What is important inthis essay is the suggestion that although there appears to be rapiddrawing together of `modern' cultural traits, this is because of acommon and ancient ancestry belonging in the Lower Palaeolithic. Thisshould become a wonderful starting point for a review of the Acheuleanand is a challenge that now needs to be met. Bar-Yosef & Pilbeam draw together a number of separ ate paperson the geography of Neanderthals and modern humans in the `GreaterMediterranean'. It is a shame that much of North Africa is dealtwith so briefly in chapters 6 (Bar-Yosef) and 7 (Hublin), but this is areflection of the need for more research in that area. What makes it allthe more potentially interesting is the late survival of Neanderthals inSpain below the Ebro Valley, where it seems populations of modern humanswere kept out for some 5-10,000 years. The Middle Palaeolithicindustries of southern Spain have been likened to those of NorthAfrica--flake cleavers, tanged pieces, etc.--does the new evidencerefute these suggested links? Recent work by Barton et al. (2001) inMorocco has great potential to address some of these issues. The paper by Carbonell et al. in this volume is a very usefulsynthesis of the new data but this issue is not dealt with effectively.It is, however, raised in the Gibraltar volume (Stringer et al.) where anumber of papers present a wide rang e of data and discussion on the Ebrofrontier theory and its implications (Zilhao, Raposo, Cabrera et al.)with more specific data presented by a number of other authors (Pachecoet al., Pan et al., Pasto et al. and Sanchez). The Iberian evidenceshows a lag in colonization by modern humans and suggests theAurignacian is intrusive, Neanderthals using Mousterian technology wereable to compete for many generations and it is only with a significantand long-term environmental change that modern humans replace them. The `classical' area of France is dealt with in both volumesby Mellars, who presents the chronological and lithic data and itsimplications in his usual clear manner. At the Gibraltar conferenceMellars is complemented by a paper on the southern Mousterian by Szmidt,an area outside Mellars' key concern and supported by Rigaudworking mostly within the Perigord. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithictransition is seen as a revolution with the Chatelperronian beingascribed to Neand erthals adopting modern behaviour. Indeed, it is aquestion as to whether there is a `transition' or a replacement.Discussion of the Italian evidence matches that for France, with theearliest Upper Palaeolithic, the Ulluzian, being considered the productof acculturation acculturation,culture changes resulting from contact among various societies over time. Contact may have distinct results, such as the borrowing of certain traits by one culture from another, or the relative fusion of separate cultures. (Kuhn & Bietti in Bar-Yosef & Pilbeam). Kozlowski's paper in the latter covers a large geographicalarea with significant archaeological variability, and pattern seen to bedifficult to discern. The paper would benefit from a little moreintrusive editing. It is likely that this area is the origin of theAurignacian and thus the pivotal location for understanding theMiddle-Upper Palaeolithic transition. There does seem to a chronologicalpattern of east-west spread of the A urignacian into western Europeassociated with modern humans, but hominid hominidAny member of the zoological family Hominidae (order Primates), which consists of the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) as well as human beings. fossils are rare and thisstill needs to be tested. The Afterword in the Bar-Yosef & Pilbeamvolume presents summary maps for this that are useful (as indeed aremuch of the data presented in that work). The importance of the Levant for this debate is unquestionable andthe evidence is ably summarized by Bar-Yosef in both volumes. Thecomparison of this cultural `revolution' with a later one (theNeolithic) in the Gibraltar work is an interesting method of addressingthe issues and of considering the nature of cultural change. In theGeography volume a great deal of useful data is described and madeaccessible. It should be stressed that this volume concentrates on thedrawing together of much data so that an effective geography of t hearchaeology of Neanderthals and modern humans can be discussed. In thisit is most successful. Whilst it raises significant questions, this workis an effective attempt at synthesizing material so that furtherinvestigation can be attempted. A most significant question is that of Neanderthal/modern humaninteractions and this is addressed by Hublin in the Geography. The roleof geography in these interactions is considered and identified forlithic technology but the notion that Homo neanderthalensis is aseparate species is presented as a conclusion. The author believes therewas cultural interaction but no significant genetic contribution. The Gibraltar conference has many papers on the current worklinking the Gibraltar sites to southern Iberia (Findlayson &Pacheo), summarizing the status of the skull and Neanderthal studies(Stringer), the dating of the sites and its implications (Pettitt &Bailey, Volterra et al. and Rink et al.). Taphonomy ta¡¤phon¡¤o¡¤my?n.1. The st udy of the conditions and processes by which organisms become fossilized.2. The conditions and processes of fossilization. and environmentalevidence is well presented and important at these sites, showing therole of different agencies in creating the deposits, the environmentsavailable to the inhabitants and the nature of the occupations (papersby Fernandez & Andrews, Macphail & Goldberg and Currant currant,northern shrub of the family Saxifragaceae (saxifrage family), of the same genus (Ribes) as the gooseberry bush. The tart berries of the currant may be black, white, or red; the white gooseberry becomes purple when mature. ).Particularly informative are papers on the charred remains (Gale &Carruthers) and hearths (Barton), giving a rare insight into the use offire in food processing. The introduction of quantities of shellfish tothe site is also of interest--they must have come from an estuarine es¡¤tu¡¤a¡¤rine?adj.1. Of, relating to, or found in an estuary. 2. Geology Formed or deposited in an estuary.Adj. 1. estuarine - of or relating to or found in estuariesestuarial context some distance away. A discussion of containers and their role inboth transport and storage is lacking but will no doubt be included inthe on-going studies. A paper on chert chert:see flint. sourcing (Volterra et al.) is ofinterest but the work is still at a preliminary stage. Also relativelynew is the use of computer-assisted methods of reconstructingNeanderthal morphpology. Two papers on this demonstrate the potential ofthe techniques for extracting additional information from knownspecimens (de Leon et al. and Thompson & Illerhaus). A paper byTrinkaus on robusticity across the Neanderthal/modern human`transition' shows the subtle nature of morphological changes witha mosiac of differences across the skeleton relating to differentelements. The final paper addresses the suggestion of craniofacial craniofacial/cra¡¤nio¡¤fa¡¤cial/ (kra?ne-o-fa¡äsh'l) p ertaining to the cranium and the face. cra¡¤ni¡¤o¡¤fa¡¤cialadj.Of or involving both the cranium and the face. ontogeny ontogeny:see biogenetic law. OntogenyThe developmental history of an organism from its origin to maturity. It starts with fertilization and ends with the attainment of an adult state, usually expressed in terms of both maximal body , the differential rates of growth and development of the skullbetween Neanderthal and modern examples. The first paper in the Gibraltar volume examined environmentalchange (Davies et al.) and I review it last as it has implications farbeyond Gibraltar. The contrast between different stages of the lastglacial and the highly variable rates of those changes must be stressed.The subtle development of the unique environments that earlier humansexploited is clear and the challenge now is to draw the fullest pictureof this ecology. Only once this is done can the true nature of theinteractions between Neanderthals and modern humans be e ffectivelyunderstood geographically. The importance of Neanderthal/modern human studies lies in theessence of understanding the origins of ourselves. It is the one periodof history where we, as anthropologists, can study both ourselves andanother hominid in close juxtaposition. It is a testing ground for theapplicability of both method and theory and should challenge ourconsideration of who and what we are. It should require us to examinenot just the data but the underlying philosophies of what anthropologyis attempting, how and why. The question referred to but neversatisfactorily answered is what is `modern' behaviour? Kaufman refers to this often whilst the other volumes present aconsiderable amount of valuable new studies with less synthesis. All arereadable, valuable for the data presented and thought provoking. It is acliche that it is the victors that write history; what these volumescannot do is tell us whether, in this case, the losers could havewritten it! Refer ence BARTON, R.N.E., et al. 2001. Bridging the gap: new fieldwork innorthern Morocco, Antiquity 75: 489-90. Tim Reynolds, County Archaeology Office, ELH ELH English Literary HistoryELH North Eleuthera, Bahamas (Airport Code)ELH Entity Life History (database)ELH Early Life HistoryELH Epic Level Handbook (Dungeons and Dragons)1108 Castle Court,Shire Hall, Cambridge CB3 0AP, England.tim.reynolds@cambridgeshire.gov.uk