The Fate of the "Classic" Neanderthals: A Consideration of Hominid Catastrophism [and Comments and Reply]

Brace, C. Loring; Agogino, George A.; Brothwell, Don; Coon, Carleton S.; Farmer, Malcolm F.; Givens, R. Dale; Howell, F. Clark; Howells, W. W.; Koenigswald, G. H. R. von; Kurth, Gottfried; Montagu, Ashley; Müller-Beck, Hansjürgen; Narr, Karl J.; Thoma, Andor; Tobias, Phillip V.; Weckler, J. E.

doi:10.1086/200440

Cited by 176 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together, these signatures of anterior tooth use suggest that Neandertals were using their mouths like a vise. The anterior dental loading hypothesis extends this idea by proposing that Neandertal facial form, and perhaps other cranial features, are adaptations to dissipate the high mechanical loads produced by this behavior (47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52). Because Neandertal facial features appear early in development, they cannot be direct mechanical responses to anterior dental loading.…”

Section: Single Features Vs Complexes Of Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The meaning of Neandertal skeletal morphology

Weaver

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A procedure is outlined for distinguishing among competing hypotheses for fossil morphology and then used to evaluate current views on the meaning of Neandertal skeletal morphology. Three explanations have dominated debates about the meaning of Neandertal cranial features: climatic adaptation, anterior dental loading, and genetic drift. Neither climatic adaptation nor anterior dental loading are well supported, but genetic drift is consistent with the available evidence. Climatic adaptation and activity patterns are the most discussed explanations for Neandertal postcranial features. Robust empirical relationships between climate and body form in extant humans and other endotherms currently make climatic adaptation the most plausible explanation for the wide bodies and relatively short limbs of Neandertals, and many additional postcranial features are likely secondary consequences of these overall skeletal proportions. Activity patterns may explain certain Neandertal postcranial features, but unlike the situation for climate, relationships in extant humans between morphology and activities are typically not well established. For both the cranium and the postcranium, changes in diet or activity patterns may underlie why Neandertals and Pleistocene modern humans tend to be more robust than Holocene humans.cranium ͉ human evolution ͉ modern human origins ͉ postcranium

show abstract

Section: Single Features Vs Complexes Of Featuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The meaning of Neandertal skeletal morphology

Weaver

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vallois (1949Vallois ( , 1954Vallois ( , 1958 argued that its thin-walled gracile morphology and lack of a browridge indicated a non-Neanderthal "presapiens" morphology. Against this, it was argued that such a morphology could be found in immature Neanderthal individuals (Howell, 1957;Brace, 1964;Trinkaus, 1973;Vandermeersch et al, 1976). However, Vallois believed the large interorbital breadth and frontal sinus development of the specimen precluded this possibility.…”

Section: Fonthhevade (Churente France)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the chronology of the European Middle Pleistocene hominid record

Cook

Stringer

Currant

et al. 1982

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last seventy years, European hominid fossils and associated archaeological remains have been dated by reference to the classical, fourfold glacialhnterglacial subdivision of the Pleistocene. This method seemed relatively straightforward and precise especially as new discoveries were fitted into the schemes, apparently strengthening the correlations and increasing their validity. However, recent studies of deep-sea cores and terrestrial deposits, combined with new developments in relative and absolute dating, have shown that the fourfold schemes are oversimplified. This paper critically reviews some of the dating evidence from sites with hominid remains generally considered as Middle Pleistocene (ca. 700,000-128,000 BP). The hominid and archaeological remains are shown to require independent dating and a cautious approach is adopted towards the use of mammalian faunal remains as chronological indicators. The techniques and results of absolute dating are discussed with reference to present problems and future prospects. At a time of transition from an old framework to new correlations, it is inevitable that some conclusions seem tentative and others rather negative. Nevertheless, the Middle Pleistocene in Europe is more fully understood and better dated than the equivalent period in other parts of the world.Prior to the discoveries made in East Africa since 1959 (Oakley et al., 1977), most palaeoanthropologists concentrated their studies and built their phylogenies around European fossils that consequently assumed great, and perhaps undue significance in studies of human evolution. For many years, these fossils and archaeological remains were dated directly from the alternating series of lithostratigraphic stages supposedly representing cold and warm periods of the fourfold glaciaYinterglacia1 schemes designated in the Alps, northern Europe, or Britain (Table 1)) or indirectly from the biostratigraphic effects of such climatic changes. These schemes seemed to provide a relatively straightforward and secure chronological framework and continued to be used in spite of the recognition of shortcomings, such as gaps in terrestrial sequences

show abstract

“…Middle Paleolithic tools were associated with the hominid remains GorjanoviC-Kramberger, 1913;Malez, 1970~). The Krapina hominids are commonly considered a sample of an archaic European population of Homo sapiens informally known as Neandertals (Campbell, 1964;Brace, 1962Brace, , 1964Smith, 1976;Day, 1977;Wolpoff, 1979Wolpoff, , 1980Trinkaus, 1975Trinkaus, , 1983Trinkaus, , 1985.The external surfaces of Pleistocene bone from Krapina are often well preserved and intact, but most specimens are very fragmentary. The relatively complete hominid vaults (crania A, B, C, and E) are reconstructed from scores of small pieces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone breakage in the Krapina hominid collection

Russell

1987

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fragmentary condition of the Krapina Neandertal remains has been offered as one line of evidence for the hypothesis that these hominids were the victims of cannibals seeking marrow and brains. Two other hypotheses regarding the causes of the framentation have been raised: a substantial portion of the breakage in the Krapina collection is attributable to excavation damage; and the rest of the breakage is attributable to sedimentary pressure and to natural rock falls that occurred during the site's prehistory. The purpose of this paper is report on tests of these three hypotheses concerning the cause of breakage in the Krapina material. Microscopic inspection of all Krapina hominid specimens showed that 23% of the material was inadvertantly broken during excavation or during quarrying that took place at the end of the last century. The morphology of the prehistoric breakage is inconsistent with the cannibalism hypothesis and supports the hypothesis that prehistoric breakage was caused by sedimentary pressure and/or roof falls.

show abstract

The Fate of the "Classic" Neanderthals: A Consideration of Hominid Catastrophism [and Comments and Reply]

Cited by 176 publications

References 0 publications

The meaning of Neandertal skeletal morphology

The meaning of Neandertal skeletal morphology

A review of the chronology of the European Middle Pleistocene hominid record

Bone breakage in the Krapina hominid collection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About