Anatomically Modern Humans(like us)are the product of millions of years of evolution. In the levant the Neandertal line of the human species and the Modern line of humans coexisted. The place of the Neandertal is not fully understood. That the Neandertals (as a distinct lineage) disappeared is not an issue; the issue is where did they go?

There are two conflicting school of thought on the Neandertal issue, they are:

1. Replacement of Neandertal populations with Modern populations without cross breeding, 2. Continuity through either 'direct' evolution or gene flow between the groups.

Both schools of thought use the same data sets to achieve their viewpoints. In this paper I will outline the main points of each.

There are two data sets to look at. The first is biological, the traits that (depending on one's viewpoint) divide or tie the two groups together. The second is archaeological - it includes tools and the possible behavioral and subsistence systems the groups may have had.

The new dates of sites have caused a great deal of re-evaluation of the sites. Anatomically Modern fossils have been found at Mount Carmel in Quafzeh and Skhul cave sites. TL and ESR dates place the occupation of these sites between 80,000 and 110,000 YA (Lieberman and Shea, 1994). Sites attributed to Classic Neandertals i.e. Kebara, Shanidar, and other sites date to around 40,000 to 60,000 YA (Clark and Lindley, 1989). When looking at the dates alone the solution should be simple, Modern humans could not evolve directly from Neandertals. This argument, although logical, does not mean that Neandertals did not breed with Anatomically Modern Homo sapiens. Even if the dates were problematic, a 50,000 year difference is a very, very large margin of error. The direct linear evolution argument, in my opinion, is eliminated on the basis of dates alone. The possibility of Diffusion and the possibility of Replacement still remain. Dates cannot give all the insights needed to study the place of Neandertals in our history.

The Neandertals are more robust than the Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH). Limbs are shorter (known as Allens Rule: In a cold climate short and stocky adaptation are to retain body heat). Neandertal teeth tend to show more wear and are broken at a higher rate than AMH specimens (Clark and Lindley, 1989). The cranium of Neandertals tends to be long and quite low. The Neandertal fossils came from places that may be temporally contemporary to AMH fossils the levels of sites do not show mixing of the species. Milford Wolpoff believes that in the levant the Neandertal/AMH division of traits was not a division at all. Wolpoff's argument is that variation of species is wide in the levant and the cluster of traits known as Neandertal are not presently clustered into one species, they are mixed into the genetic makeup of people around the world. Wolpoff uses specific traits on specific fossils to demonstrate how individual traits of AMH people do appear in Neandertals. These traits are those that make up the 'progressive Neandertals' in the levant.

While Wolpoff and his associates believe in diffusion of traits and continuity of species, there are those who disagree. Dr. Phillip Lieberman has done work reconstructing the vocal tract of Neandertal and AMH fossils from the levant and Europe. His results are:

1. The Neandertal vocal apparatus is not like that of AMH tracts. Neandertals vocal structure was more like that of a Chimpanzee. 2. The vowel sounds [a], [I], and [u] could not be produced by a Neandertal vocal tract. 3. Giving the Neandertal a more modern vocal tract places the larynx in the chest cavity. No mammals have their larynx in the chest cavity. 4. AMH reconstructions do not have the same vocal restrictions (Lieberman, 1991).

Lieberman's results do not mean Neandertals could or did not communicate, but I believe that without communication, inter-species interactions would be very limited and cross-breeding would be very unlikely.

The technologies of the Neandertal and AMH people of the levant are similar, the difference seems to be in the frequency of specific tools (Lieberman and Shea, 1994). Neandertal tool industries are characterized by long, narrow flakes, and short, broad Levallois points from uni-directionally or radially prepared cores (Bar-Yosef, 1992). AMH tool kits pre-date the Neandertal (Tabun B, or Mousterian Phase 3) tools and are characterized by ovate radially prepared Levallois flakes and low frequencies of points (these tools are labelled Tabun C, Mousterian Phase 2) (Bar-Yosef, 1992). By the Upper Paleolithic the Neandertals were gone, therefore the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition must be considered.

Transition is distinct at different sites, but do end up with a similar result. At the site K'sar Akil the Tabun C type industry changes to a true blade industry. At Boker Tachtit the Levallois industry gives way to a platform blade technology, which gives way to a true blade industry. Over the entire levant the Levallois to true blade (Akhmerian) industries (Clark and Lindley, 1989).

Behavior of the different groups may be inferred by the archaeological record. The burials of the Neandertals tend to be in the caves occupied by the group. The burial practices of AMH groups uses 'cemeteries' that are on the terraces of the caves in tighter clusters than the Neandertal burials. Other behavioral differences between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic are: production of bore and antler objects, use of worked marine shells, rare art objects, use of red ochre, presence of grinding tools, stone encircled hearths (Bar-Yosef, 1992).

Settlement patterns appear to vary between the Neandertal and AMH populations. The patterns are Circulating and Radiating. A Circulating pattern is one of many sites of approximately equal size and artifact inventories. A radiating pattern is one in which there is a central large site surrounded by special use or limited activity sites (Clark and Lindley, 1989).

For Hunter-gatherers to use a circulating strategy, they need to be able to anticipate diminishing resources. Circulating Hunter-gatherers will leave less at sites because they will not be able to carry as much. Tabun C and the Quafzeh groups are inferred to have used the Circulating pattern (these are AMH groups) (Lieberman and Shea, 1994). Bar-Yosef notes that Upper Paleolithic sites show less frequent occupation and therefore more mobility of AMH groups.

Seasonability is central to the Circulating pattern. Fauna can be studied to look for seasonal patterns in hunting. Cenentium is a bone-like tissue that fills the voids between a tooths roots and the gums. Simply put, the amount and type of Cenentium built up on an animals tooth will vary according to the season (Lieberman and Shea, 1994). Tests done at AMH sites (Quafzeh, and Tabun Level C) show that there is definitely seasonal hunting of local animals. A Radiating pattern does not cover as much area as a Circulating pattern. There will be more artifacts found at sites and fauna will not be as seasonal as at a Circulating site (Lieberman and Shea, 1994). The Middle Paleolithic has these traits. Sites associated with Neandertals (Tabun level B and Kebara) show a lack of 'seasonal' faunal remains and heavier deposits of artifacts.

The Neandertal, in my opinion was replaced by AMH populations. The dates showing 'classic' Neandertals at around 50,000 YA in the levant and AMH populations at around 100,000 YA show that regional continuity is not possible. The continuity model thus, is dependant on finding fossils that show a mixing of Neandertal and AMH traits. I do not believe this has been done. The work of Dr. Phillip Lieberman is very significant in that it shows biological differences in the soft tissue of the two groups. This biological difference would have made communication problematic at best. The skeletal features of Neandertals do not vary much from Europe to the levant, i.e. Le Chapelle to Kebara fossils (Lieberman, 1991). If mixing of genes is occuring, AMH specimens with Neandertal traits should show up. Continuity supporters focus on Neandertal with 'progressive' traits, which is only half of the issue. Behaviorally, the abrupt change is also quite evident. Lithic technologies varied widely in the Middle Paleolithic. The transitions all ended up with true blade type tool kits; this demonstrates a new way to deal with the environment. The Circulating Mobility Strategy associated with AMH groups demonstrates the ability to predict and understand the environment. Radiating patterns (like those associated with Tabun B and Kebara) do not demonstrate the environmental understanding associated with Circulating type sites.

From the readings I have done, the differences both with Neandertals and AMH, outweigh the similarities. The Neandertal was a successful Hominid and would have had to have a fairly advanced group structure to survive the cold, harsh environment they were adapted to. Without any good transitional fossils or better sites to show continuity, it seems clear that the Neandertals were out-competed and replaced by a more adaptable type of Hominid that did not have the Neandertals morphological and mental limitations. 

Complete references available. Complete parer NOT available