416 BOOK REVIEWS The authors recommend expressing a pa- from the book’s chief aim, but those seeking tient’s measurements as z-scores. The book guidance on the role of variation in clinical would have been more useful if the composi- application will have to look elsewhere. tion of the sample providing the data for RICHARD L. JANTZ z-score computation had been specified and Department of Anthropology the means and standard deviations pre- University of Tennessee sented. These limitations do not detract Knoxville, Tennessee

NEANDERTALS AND MODERN HUMANS IN WEST- nience of the Tabun woman in the cave, and ERN ASIA. Edited by Takeru Akazawa, her age, address the problem implicit in the Kenichi Aoki, and Ofer Bar-Yosef. 1998. title of this volume. The relationship be- New York: Plenum Press. 552 pp. ISBN tween Neandertals and moderns in the Le- 0-306-45924-8. $79.50 (cloth). vant, even if these labels are valid descrip- tions of the hominids found there (this is ‘‘Not another one?’’ you ask. ‘‘Yes, another questioned by Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen’s one,’’ I reply. More focused in region and insightful paper, ‘‘Sapiens and Neander- topic perhaps, and this is an important tals’’), must fundamentally depend on their region and a reasonable topic, but indeed dating. So after more than a half century of here is another volume on modern human dating and analysis, it is fair to ask how old origins, the same opera performed with the the Tabun woman is. Prior to this conference same parts being sung. The four sections of two problems confused this. First, differing this volume, based on a November 1995 interpretations of Garrod’s excavations conference held at the University of Tokyo placed the woman’s skeleton alternatively in Museum, cover a broad range of related Tabun layers D, C, or B. As Stringer notes topics, including: 1) issues of evolution and (‘‘Chronological and Biogeographic Perspec- chronology, 2) substantial writings on the tives on Later Human Evolution’’), this has archaeology of the region with cultural inter- not yet been clarified. Bar-Yosef (‘‘The Chro- pretations and subsistence strategies, and nology of the Middle Paleolithic of the Le- 3) views of cultural and human evolution vant’’) believes she is a burial from layer B, from neighboring regions. The focus in this although there is a widespread assumption review will be on the issues of Levant paleo- that she was found in layer C (she is, after anthropology.Assuming familiarity with the all, usually designated as the C1 hominid), conferences of the past decade, we might ask and thereby penecontemporary with the what progress there has been in understand- Tabun 2 mandible. Second, the dating at- ing the paleoanthropological issues that this tempts based on different techniques were new compendium reflects. The answer is, providing widely variable results. Just focus- not as much as hoped. ing on previously published layer C dates, To cite one example, let us look at the the electron spin resonance (ESR) models question of when the Tabun woman died. gave 102 and 119 kyr, the uranium series Tabun is the key site for understanding gave 101.6 kyr, and the weighted thermo- Levant archaeology, as it continuously spans luminescence (TL) average was 110 kyr the entire archaeological sequence that is (the probable error ranges are purposefully only represented piecemeal elsewhere in the left off these figures, which vary by much region. The Tabun woman is one of the three more than the error ranges encompass). fairly complete Levantine specimens identi- Papers in this volume do not hint that there fied as Neandertal, and not far from it was is yet a more confident answer, and esti- found Tabun 2, a mandible that some regard mates of the woman’s age are more dis- as an early ‘‘modern human.’’ Thus the prove- persed than ever. The paper by Valladas et BOOK REVIEWS 417 al. (‘‘GIF Laboratory Dates for Middle Paleo- number and most varied set of features, and lithic Levant’’) gives a TL date of 171 kyr for concluded, ‘‘its assignment to an early phase layer C, while Schwarcz and Rink (‘‘Progress of the Near Eastern late archaic human in ESR and U-Series Chronology of the lineage [is] the most parsimonious solution’’ Levantine Paleolithic’’) give a direct gamma- (p. 465). They quite specifically note that it ray spectrometry estimate of 60 kyr from ‘‘can be categorically separated from the elements of the skeleton. Subsequently this Qafzeh-Skhul (and European earlier Upper was published as 33 kyr (Simpson et al., Paleolithic) hominids.’’ We might be able to 1998). One can now wonder whether the 50 untangle these contradictory interpreta- kyr date of Jelinek (1982) was wrong. tions if we accept Otte’s (‘‘Turkey as a Key’’) The situation for the possibly-and-possi- view that modernity is a myth, a mirror bly-not-contemporary Tabun 2 mandible is opposite of the 18th century’s ‘‘primitive equally confusing, although for different rea- man’’ that should be replaced with the under- sons. Rak (‘‘Does Any Mousterian Cave Pre- standing that ‘‘one does not find the abrupt sent Evidence of Two Hominid Species?’’) is appearance of a Modern Man, or of new quite specific about its modernity. In sup- behavior, but rather processes of a slow port, he uses: 1) characteristics of the shape evolution that are distinct and complex.’’ and position of the mandibular notch, 2) the This would reconcile all the interpretations chin (while Lieberman hints here, and subse- of Tabun 2 quite well, by removing the quently argues elsewhere (Lieberman, 1999), taxonomic question it is constantly used to that various Late Pleistocene hominid chins address. are not homologous, his arguments are un- However, less taxonomizing is hardly the convincing), and 3) the endlessly-discussed direction of paleoanthropology’s latest lurch. retromolar space which Rak measures in a Howell’s introductory paper (‘‘Evolutionary quite ingenious way that does not involve Implications of Altered Perspectives on the space at all. For Rak, the mandible is Hominine Demes and Populations in the evidence of two hominid species in the Tabun Later Pleistocene of Western Eurasia’’) pro- cave, an interpretation that he regards as vides an example. In it, he proposes a unit of leading to the fewest problems, although I analysis for paleontological problems, the would have thought there were some sizable paleo-deme or p-deme, that is meant to lie archaeological ones (but see below). Quam between the individual and the species. P- and Smith (‘‘A Reassessment of the Tabun demes are described as the essential compo- C2 Mandible’’) would agree that the chin of nents for the recognition of species, the basis Tabun 2 is not homologous, but this is for assessing phylogenetic affinities, for rec- because key elements are made of plaster. ognizing evolutionary trends, for studying Relying on a different, more phenetic, ap- dispersals and extinctions, and much more. proach than Rak’s, they nonetheless reach a But for what are they? Howell writes, ‘‘past similar conclusion about the mandible’s mo- hominine demes are denominated as p- dernity. Quam and Smith interpret this in demes’’ and a deme is ‘‘a communal inter- an evolutionary context, concluding that this breeding population within a species.’’ The is the earliest mandible with unequivocally trouble is that populations do not persist as modern features, but because there is only such; they endlessly expand and divide, or one example, it is not possible to choose merge with other populations, or become between explanations for it based on homo- extinct (Moore, 1994; Templeton, 1998). And plasy, an early origin for modern anatomy if there are more problems. While p-demes are not for moderns, or hybridization. Finally, meant to reduce the ‘‘emphasis on incom- Stefan, writing with Trinkaus (who is repre- plete/ambiguous specimens,’’ one p-deme sented in this volume but addresses other Howell names is the Dmanisi mandible, issues), examined a number of discrete man- while another is the femur fragment from dibular traits and some morphometric as- Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. He insists on using pects of the Tabun 2 dentition (Stefan and phylogenetic procedures for establishing Trinkaus, 1998). They analyzed the largest their relationship, even though p-demes can 418 BOOK REVIEWS and do reticulate. But it is also possible that importance lies in the fact that, as she the approach would be more useful if the points out, all prior discussions of the birth information it contained was more accurate. characteristics of Neandertal pelvic anatomy In discussing the ‘‘Cro-Magnon p-deme,’’ for have been based on males. What allows her instance, Howell describes it as being ‘‘intru- to do this is her comparisons with the ar- sive (with the Aurignacian technocomplex),’’ chaic Chinese pelvis from Jinniushan, dis- echoing similar statements by Kozlowski cussed here. But the fact is that there has (‘‘The Middle and the Early Upper Paleo- been a fairly complete Neandertal female lithic Around the Black Sea’’) and Mellars pelvis all along, i.e., Tabun, and its analysis (‘‘The Impact of Climatic Changes on the has been ignored. Tabun has pubic length Demography of Late Neandertal and Early characteristics and pelvic inlet dimensions Anatomically Modern Populations in Eu- that scale to a modern woman of her size: rope’’). Yet, we might ask, is there any nothing unusual, at least as far as the birth evidence linking the origin of modern Euro- process is concerned, according to Rosen- peans to the beginnings of the European berg. The male pelves are indeed different, Aurignacian? Howell admits that most hu- but not just Kebara; note also Skhul 9. Rak man remains are associated with the ‘‘Middle (1993) to the contrary notwithstanding, this Aurignacian,’’ not with the first occurrences is yet to be explained in a biomechanical or of the industry, and although in a detailed behavioral context. Rosenberg suggests, but and complex discussion of the problem he subsequently rejects, the idea that perhaps provides dates for the earliest members of selection on females resulted in a correlated the p-deme, they are from sites where the response (see Lande 1980) in males, in a specimen associations with the dated mate- sense ‘‘dragging them along.’’ Her data sug- rials are uncertain. Howell describes speci- gest an intriguing variation of this; perhaps mens from sites such as Mlade as having selection on male pelves, especially on the ‘‘nothing ‘transitional’ or ‘intermediate’ with pubic region, created a correlated response respect to their morphology in any instance,’’ in the females, in effect dragging them along. contradicting authors who have studied the Trinkaus, Ruff, and Churchill (‘‘Upper remains (Frayer, 1986; Jelı´nek, 1983). Other Limb Versus Lower Limb Loading Patterns specimens with various combinations of Among Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic ‘‘unique’’ Neandertal features associated with Hominids’’) examine a different aspect of Aurignacian tools from levels Gl and Fd at postcranial adaptation. They do cross-sec- the Vindija cave in Croatia are not men- tional strength analysis for the humerus, tioned, even when the associations are with femur, and tibia, and some of their results middle-range Aurignacian levels, as are the are unexpected. One point that could poten- Fd teeth. There are reasons to believe that tially confuse comparisons is the fact that p-demes are no more than an added level of they include Shanidar in a ‘‘Near Eastern’’ unnecessary taxonomic burden, but it could sample, while some other authors do not and also be said that the p-deme approach has restrict their archaic (or Neandertal) sample not been given a fair chance. only to the Levant hominids. In the forearm Perhaps no chance could be fair enough they show that the archaic sample (Shani- because our information is just not good dar, Amud, Tabun) is both stronger than enough. Lovejoy often says in lecture that Skhul/Qafzeh and has a higher magnitude understanding the form and function of cra- of strength-related asymmetry, so that the nia is much more difficult than understand- most significant differences are in the right ing postcrania, and it is Rak (p. 353) who arms. In the legs, however, there are no quipped, ‘‘the jaw is the work of the Devil.’’ significant differences in strength. This is Analysis of postcranial evidence seems to be important because it addresses the climatic much more straightforward, but perhaps variation hypothesis. If the differences be- also with more surprising conclusions. tween these samples do not signify different Rosenberg (‘‘Morphological Variation in West strengths as the result of locomotor-related Asian Postcrania’’) provides a long-awaited activities, they might instead reflect differ- discussion of female pelvic anatomy, whose ences in climate in the regions where the BOOK REVIEWS 419 populations originated. Since the longer dis- at Hayonim Cave’’) and Klein (‘‘Why Ana- tal limbs at Skhul/Qafzeh are supposed to be tomically Modern People Did Not Disperse a consequence of their tropical origins, this From Africa 100,000 YearsAgo’’) address the looks good for an African Origins hypothesis. significant question of population size and It does not look as good for explaining the its increase towards the end of the Late similarities in the archaeology and other Pleistocene. Klein, not writing about either evidence of behavior, and these authors Neandertals or the Middle Paleolithic, found puzzle over why ‘‘a series of archaeological evidence of increasing population density in studies has failed to demonstrate major southern Africa, beginning some 50 kyr ago, behavioral differences,’’ like ones that should in the decreasing size of tortoises and mol- result from the forearm comparisons. lusks at the Late Stone Age sites. Stiner and One explanation is that there may be a Tchernov found the same evidence of low snake in this picture of Eden. Direct compari- harvesting rates of easily gathered species, sons of limb proportions do not clearly sup- which they interpret to imply low popula- port a climatic explanation of their varia- tion density, but in this case in the Middle tion. For instance, Skhul 4 and 5 are quite Paleolithic at Hayonim. In both areas subse- different in the distal-to-proximal propor- quent changes happened at about the same tions of both arm and leg bones, and Amud’s time and reflect increasing population densi- crural index of 80 can no more be said to ties and not new technology or organization. reflect a cold adaptation than Skhul 5’s does. What is significant at Hayonim is the fact The strength comparisons are also problem- that the striking increases in population atic. Trinkaus, Ruff, and Churchill use the density were within the Middle Paleolithic area moment of inertia for strength estima- of the Levant, over a period when archaeolo- tion, and this moment is scaled to body size gists such as Bar-Yosef suggest Neandertals by dividing by the 4th power of bone length were prevailing at the expense of ‘‘moderns.’’ (a 5th power denominator for the tibia). If so, it was the Neandertal populations These adjustments were developed from undergoing the expansion, and this under- beam analysis equations that assume struc- cuts the suggestion of replacement-archae- tures with regularity in form and material ologists such as Mellars (p. 499) that replace- distribution and density. There is no reason ment was easy in Europe because Neandertal to be sure that the same approach can be population densities were low. used to compare structures that vary differ- Neandertals continue to exceed paleoan- ently in shape, and the distribution and thropological expectations, coming up as density of material. And the consequences of similar to ‘‘early modern humans’’ in their this adjustment should be clear. Elevated by behaviors so often that one might wonder if the 4th or 5th power, the estimates of it is not time to disentangle their behavior strength are extremely sensitive to limb from their biology, which of course would be length differences, and the Skhul/Qafzeh another example of being similar to modern skeletons have longer limbs, especially dis- humans. The fact is, as Trinkaus, Ruff, and tal limbs. If this is overcompensation, it is Churchill, Lieberman, and others in this possible that the actual forearm strengths volume note, Neandertal and Skhul/Qafzeh and loading patterns of the two groups are behaviors in the Levant are not archaeologi- more similar (this would not affect the dimor- cally distinct. Henry (‘‘Intrasite Spatial Pat- phism comparison as greatly), while leg terns and Behavioral Modernity’’) concludes: strength could be greater in the Skhul/ ‘‘Clearly, the hominids who occupied these Qafzeh sample. Such a result would be more sites some 70K years ago had the capacity to in line with the locomotor implications of both anticipate needs beyond their immedi- differences in leg proportions and limb length ate future and to significantly alter their differences, and with the archaeological data. adaptive strategies in response to differ- And what are these archaeological data? ences in their environment. The rather de- They are mostly about Neandertals and tailed reconstructions of their inter- and their behaviors. In interesting papers, Stiner intrasite patterns fail to show any signifi- and Tchernov (‘‘Pleistocene Species Trends cant differences with those of fully modern 420 BOOK REVIEWS humans’’ (p. 141). Speth and Tchernov (‘‘The reliable source of information to assess Role of Hunting and Scavenging in Neander- their systematic relationships. Neander- tal Procurement Strategies’’) note that ‘‘fail- tals and early modern humans most likely ing to find major behavioral contrasts be- belong to separate taxa because each have tween the two hominid taxa [of the Levant] a unique set of derived characters (autapo- reflected in their stone tools or burials, some morphies). (p. 272) archaeologists have turned to the faunal Fair enough. Lieberman mentions several remains, suggesting that AMH were skilled and Hublin (‘‘Climatic Changes, Paleogeog- hunters of large, often dangerous prey, raphy, and the Evolution of the Neander- whereas Neandertals . . . were opportunistic tals’’) lists 25 of these autapomorphies in a scavengers’’ (p. 224). But these authors pro- table, while Rak adds mandibular features vide evidence that archaeologists such as to the list, making a most impressive render- Ambrose (‘‘Prospects for Stable Isotopic ing which, if correct, could lend powerful Analysis of Later Pleistocene Hominid Diets support to the notion that Neandertals are a in West Asia and Europe’’) are incorrect in distinct taxon. But are they correct? The the supposition that Neandertals were for assertion that Neandertals have unique the most part scavengers, and only ineffi- shared derived features, or autapomorphies, cient hunters, and ‘‘had predation patterns has not held up to scrutiny. Creed-Miles et like those of carnivores rather than hu- al. (1996), Frayer (1993, 1997), Szilva´ssy et mans’’ (p. 286). To the contrary, Speth and al. (1987), Tillier (‘‘Ontogenetic Variation in Tchernov show that Neandertals leaving Late Pleistocene Homo sapiens From the their debris at Kebara were fully effective Near East: Implications for Methodological hunters, ‘‘preferentially targeting large, and Bias in Reconstructing Evolutionary Biol- potentially dangerous, prime adult prey’’ (p. ogy’’), and others show that for case after 236). Finally, writing on Levant Neandertal case this is not the case. cultural and mental capacities, Goren-Inbar Tillier’s argument is based on ontogenetic and Belfer-Cohen (‘‘The Technological Abili- comparisons of European Neandertal and ties of the Levantine Mousterians’’) discuss Upper Paleolithic children, with the Skhul 1 the modularity and flexibility of the raw child. She shows that ontogenetic compari- material choices and technology at Levant sons are necessary, and that adult anatomy sites. For them, the mosaic nature of the generally is not reflected in the anatomy of various cultural attributes reflects modern children, but at the same time the results of mental capacity and processes, and ‘‘endeav- ontogenetic comparisons depend largely on ors to explain the cultural variability . . . as the comparative sample employed. They also reflecting the ‘demise’ of Neandertals and depend on an accurate assessment of the their failure to compete with their mentally range indicated by the comparative sample. better-equipped Homo sapiens sapiens con- For instance, in the analysis of Skhul 1, temporaries seem to belong to the realm of Tillier shows that its cranial breadth is low fiction rather than that of science’’ (p. 218). relative to its age, when compared with Yet what are the implications of these European Neandertal children, and even behavioral similarities? Lieberman (‘‘Nean- lower than Predmosti 6, one of the Upper dertal and Early Modern Human Mobility Paleolithic children in the sample. But the Patterns’’) would have us believe there are distribution of breadths for the fossil chil- just about none. dren is well within the range of the modern If Neandertals and early modern humans comparative sample, a point made all the [in the Levant] were behaviorally more more significant by the uncertainties in age similar to each other than either are to assessment for the fossils, and a null hypoth- recent modern humans, should we place esis of no significant difference cannot be them in the same taxon as some research- rejected. This conclusion, and approach, are ers argue? The answer is clearly no.... quite different from the analysis of the Ded- Morphological characteristics, not ar- eriyeh infant by Dodo, Kondo, Muhesen, and chaeological residues, are the . . . most Akazawa (‘‘Anatomy of the Neandertal In- BOOK REVIEWS 421 fant Skeleton From Dederiyeh Cave’’). When their bearers, that is the Neandertalians, these authors make comparisons with a must have been extinguished without leav- modern sample, it is with Japanese chil- ing any descendants. But already at the dren. Just to look at one consequence of this, time when this feature was claimed as an the 2-year-old Dederiyeh infant has a pari- example of specialization, it was known etal breadth of less than 130 mm, which is that both presuppositions were errone- well above both the Japanese mean of 118 ous. Typical taurodontism occurs in orang- mm for 2-year-olds and even the 2-year-old utan and chimpanzee and, on the other maximum of 125 mm. However, it is much hand, is not rare among certain races of closer to Tillier’s Slovakian comparative sam- modern mankind, as for instance, Eski- ple (mean of 126 mm, with a 75% range that mos and Bushmen. Thus [it might be includes Dederiyeh). Minugh-Purvis (‘‘The possible] . . . that the European Neander- Search for the Earliest Modern Europeans’’) talian inherited it from an orang-like an- compares Skhul 1 and the Krapina 1 child, cestor and transmitted it to the Eskimo. in an analysis that exposes an additional But in no case could it be concluded from key variable, i.e., uncertainty in age determi- these facts that the Neandertal man had nation. Her assessment of the Skhul 1 age is disappeared from the surface of the earth 4.5 years, considerably older than Tillier’s 3 without descendants. (1943a) years. The Krapina 1 age is even more The constant repetition of autapomorphic difficult to estimate, as there are no associ- lists as in the Lieberman, Rak, and Hublin ated facial or dental remains. More problem- papers provides its own best, and in many atic is the fact that while Minugh-Purvis cases its only, supporting evidence. As far claims the sagittal length of the parietal as the validity of a Neandertal species de- most strongly separates Neandertal and mod- fined by autapomorphies is concerned, ‘‘if ern samples, this is the cranial dimension in repetition could make a thing true, then it which Krapina 1 is very much like Skhul 1. would be most emphatically and wonder- It can hardly be a modern autapomorphy. In fully true . . .’’ (Hertzberg 1998, p. 5). all, without really meaning to pun, it could In any event, the idea that species can be be said that in some respects ontogenetic defined by autapomorphies in closely re- studies of fossil remains are in their infancy. lated groups has been proposed before, and Alleging the presence of autapomorphies it is problematic. Using similar criteria, Hill that aren’t autapomorphies is not a new (1940) concluded, ‘‘it is impossible to escape thing. More than a half-century ago, Weiden- the view that there are several ‘species’ of reich (1943a, 1947), addressed this and com- living man, and several more fossil kinds.’’ mented on one of the autapomorphies that He proposed to restrict Homo sapiens either Hublin lists: to ‘‘white man,’’ or to some even more specific [It is] a sport of a certain group of authors group of Europeans, to which Weidenreich to search for the skeletal parts of Neander- (1943b, p. 245) responded with more sar- tal Man for peculiarities which could be casm, this time about how one could account for different living human species: claimed as ‘‘specialization,’’ thereby prov- ing the deviating course this form has Modern taxonomists consider ‘‘sexual aver- taken in evolution. (1947) . . . Adloff and sion’’ a sufficient specific difference. Now, Keith found that the molar teeth of Euro- why not extend this to political aversion pean Neandertal Man are characterized also? In recent history political aversion by a particular spaciousness of the pulp has assumed the form of sexual aversion cavity which, according to them, was (see some sorts of Whites and colored thought missing in anthropoids, as well as peoples, or ‘‘Aryans’’ and ‘‘Non-Aryans’’). H. sapiens. The authors, therefore, consid- There is indeed a parallelism between . . . ered taurodontism an expression of spe- two bird groups which are specifically cialization characteristic of Neandertal different, because they do not interbreed Man. Since the peculiarity would not ap- under natural conditions—attitude in pub- pear in modern Man, they concluded that lic in the case of the human examples— 422 BOOK REVIEWS but do so in captivity—private life atti- Pilbeam also wrote, ‘‘most [modern hu- tude. man origins models] are clustered toward the ‘replacement’ end of the spectrum.... More than a half-century after Weiden- We have evidence for the youth and unity of reich wrote, he is not out of date. Can the living humans’’ (p. 526). Apart from confus- same be said for the contents of this much ing the fact that there are only two modern more recent conference? Certainly even as human origins models, replacement and mul- the dates oscillate like the vibrating elec- tiregional evolution (so they can hardly clus- trons that many of them are based on, ter at different ends of a spectrum), the nothing substantive has changed in the fos- years have not treated the contention of sil record of the region. The Tabun skeleton youth for the human species particularly still has too many dates, and if anything, well. Comparisons of autosomal and haploid more than ever before. Systematic anatomi- systems in the same individuals (Hey, 1997; cal and archaeological comparisons of the Jorde et al., 1995) rule out the recent single several remaining contenders for the earli- population size bottleneck interpretation of est modern human (Qafzeh, Klasies, and genetic variation that Stringer posits, and Omo Kibish) are yet to be made, and the that the replacement explanation and youth- whole idea that some humans 100,000 years ful species interpretation requires. If mod- ago can be interpreted as more primitive ern humans only lately began as a new than others because of their anatomy or species evolving from a small isolated popu- archaeology is yet to be reconciled with the lation, we would expect autosomal and hap- implications of making such statements to loid variation to have been reset to a very describe the equivalent range of anatomy low magnitude at that time. The haploid and behavior today. variation should have recovered much more But the genetics—ah, that is another story. quickly and reached equilibrium sooner. But In the 4 years since this conference, the it is the autosomal genes that are variable landscape of genetic interpretations has and in mutation-drift equilibrium today, changed quite considerably (Bower, 1999; while nonrecombining systems, including Strauss, 1999). Pilbeam, in his postconfer- the haploid mtDNA, lack variation and are ence afterword, notes that ‘‘the Neandertal out of equilibrium. nonmodern population was genetically quite Trying to account for this, the long-necked different from modern humans, at least as bottle theory of Harpending et al. (1998) different as the central and eastern subspe- solves some of these problems, although by positing a long period of very small popula- cies of chimpanzee are from each other’’ (p. tion for human ancestors. This would allow 252). On the one hand this is more different autosomal and haploid systems to coalesce than modern human races are from each at different times; the haploid coalescence is other (Templeton, 1998), but on the other a quarter the time of the autosomal coales- hand, as Pilbeam notes, it is like variation cence, since haploid population size is one within a higher primate species, in particu- quarter. But this interpretation is incompat- lar the one most closely related to us, and in ible with a recent bottleneck. Furthermore, chimpanzees this variation is expressed it requires that for a million years the across a limited portion of Africa. This does ancestral population of humans lived in not support the contention, repeated several isolation ‘‘in an African area the size of times in this volume, that Neandertals must Rhode Island or Swaziland’’ (p. 1967). Such be interpreted as a separate species. It is not an Eden began a long time ago. It would clear what it does support, though, as the have to be small and African and isolated, genetic comparisons are between a single and is unlikely to have been located in the ancient sample and many existing ones, and Levant, at the African gateway to the rest of not between the ancient sample and its the world, which the volume editors describe contemporaries, and this makes a difference as a ‘‘crossroads.’’ In other words, if such an (Nordborg, 1998). Eden existed, it was not in Western Asia. BOOK REVIEWS 423 It is always possible that what we need is Jorde LB, Bamshad MJ, Watkins WS, Zenger R, Fraley another conference. AE, Krakowiak PA, Carpenter KD, Soodyall H, Jen- kins T, Rogers AR. 1995. Origins and affinities of MILFORD H. WOLPOFF modern humans: a comparison of mitochondrial and Paleoanthropology Laboratory nuclear genetic data. Am J Hum Genet 57:523–538. Department of Anthropology Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292– University of Michigan 305. Ann Arbor, Michigan Lieberman DE. 1999. Homology and hominid phylog- eny: problems and potential solutions. Evol Anthropol LITERATURE CITED 7:142–151. Moore JH. 1994. Putting anthropology back together Bower B. 1999. DNA’s evolutionary dilemma. Sci News again: the ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory.Am 155:88. Anthropol 96:925–948. Creed-Miles M, Rosas A, Kruszynski R. 1996. Issues in Nordborg M. 1998. On the probability of Neanderthal the identification of Neandertal derivative traits at ancestry. Am J Hum Genet 63:1237–1240. early post-natal stages. J Hum Evol 30:147–153. Rak Y. 1993. Morphological variation in Homo neander- Frayer DW. 1986. Cranial variation at Mlade and the thalensis and Homo sapiens in the Levant: a biogeo- relationship between Mousterian and Upper Paleo- graphical model. In: Kimbel WW, Martin LB, editors: lithic hominids. In: Novotny´ VV, Mizerova´ A, editors. Fossil man. New facts, new ideas. Papers in honor of Species, species concepts and primate evolution. New Jan Jelı´nek’s life anniversary. Anthropos (Brno) 23: York: Plenum Press. p 523–536. 243–256. Simpson HP, Schwarcz JJ, Stringer CB. 1998. Neander- Frayer DW. 1993. Evolution at the European edge: thal skeleton from Tabun: U-series data by gamma- Neanderthal and Upper Paleolithic relationships. Pre- ray spectrometry. J Hum Evol 35:635–645. hist Europ 2:9–69. Stefan VH, Trinkaus E. 1998. Discrete trait and dental Frayer DW. 1997. Perspectives on Neanderthals as morphometric affinities of the Tabun 2 mandible. J ancestors. In: Clark GA, Willermet CM, editors. Con- Hum Evol 34:443–468. ceptual issues in modern human origins research. Strauss E. 1999. Can mitochondrial clocks keep time? New York: Aldine de Gruyter, p 220–234, and com- Science 283:1435–1438. bined bibliography, p 437–492. Szilva´ssy J, Kritscher H, Vle`ek E. 1987 Die Bedeutung Harpending S, Batzer MA, Gurven M, Jorde LB, Rogers ro¨ntgenologischer Methoden fu¨ r anthropologische Un- AR, Sherry ST. 1998. Genetic traces of ancient demog- tersuchung ur- und fru¨ hgeschichtlicher Gra¨berfelder. raphy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:1961–1967. Ann Vienna Nat Hist Mus 89:313–352. Hertzberg H. 1998. What it’s about. New Yorker, Aug Templeton AR. 1998. Human races: a genetic and evolu- 17:4–5. tionary perspective. Am Anthropol 100:632–650. Hey J. 1997 Mitochondrial and nuclear genes present conflicting portraits of human origins. Mol Biol Evol Weidenreich F. 1943a. The ‘‘Neanderthal man’’ and the 14:166–172. ancestors of ‘‘Homo sapiens.’’ Am Anthropol 45:39–48. Hill WCO. 1940. Anthropological nomenclature. Nature Weidenreich F. 1943b. The skull of Sinanthropus pekin- 145:260–261. ensis: a comparative study of a primitive hominid Jelinek AJ. 1982. The Tabun cave and Paleolithic man in skull. Palaeontol Sin, NS. D, No. 10 (whole series No. the Levant. Science 216:1369–1375. 127). Jelı´nek J. 1983. The Mlade finds and their evolutionary Weidenreich F. 1947. Facts and speculations concerning importance. Anthropologie (Brno) 21:57–64. the origin of Homo sapiens. Am Anthropol 49:187–203.

BOOKS RECEIVED Omoto K, and Tobias PV (eds.) (1998) The Origins and Past of Modern Humans— Duncan RJ (1998) The Ceramics of Ra´quira, Towards Reconciliation. River Edge, NJ: Colombia: Gender, Work, and Economic World Scientific Publishing. 267 pp. $76.00 Change. Gainesville, FL: University Press (cloth). of Florida. 233 pp. $49.95 (cloth). Redmond EM (ed.) (1998) Chiefdoms and Ghiglieri MP (1999) The Dark Side of Man: Chieftancy in the Americas. Gainesville, Tracing the Origins of Violence. Reading, FL: University of Florida Press. 303 pp. MA: Perseus Books. 320 pp. $25.00 (cloth). $55.00 (cloth).