late pleistocene population interaction in western europe

assumes that the Upper Paleolithic was essentially a modern human phenomenon
corresponding to the demise of Neandertals and Australasian archaic sapiens (Stringer
and Andrews 1988; Mellars 1996). An additional complication comes from Australia.
The LM3 individual from Lake Mungo, an anatomically modern human whose DNA has
been discussed in our review of the genetic evidence, is approximately 60 ky old, thereby
giving a minimum date for the colonization of Australia (Thorne et al. 1999; Grün et al.
2000). This is confounding because Neandertals are present at Kebara at Amud at
approximately the same time. Then, how can we explain that modern humans were
successful in replacing archaic populations who occupied Asia and Australia but did not
outcompete Neandertals in the Levant, an obligate corridor during the dispersal out of
Africa? Obviously, the replacement model runs into many problems in Australasia.
Several publications have contrasted cognitive abilities and adaptation between
Neandertals and modern humans (e.g., White 1982; Binford 1982; Trinkaus 1986;
Mellars 1989a, 1989b, 1996; Stringer and Gamble 1993; Soffer 1994; Lieberman and
Shea 1994; Shea 1998; Gamble 1999). In these models, biological and cultural features
are often put forward to explain the purported Neandertal extinction. For instance, it has
been claimed that the Neandertals were not able to speak or had only a rudimentary
language (Lieberman and Crelin 1971; Milo and Quiatt 1993; Stringer and Gamble
1993). Specialists have since shown, however, that these claims are baseless (Holloway
1985; Arensburg et al. 1989). Contrasting the adaptation of these two populations is,
however, a difficult task. This is because many studies collapse time periods when
presenting modern humans, a problem that plagues our understanding of the transition.
This problem, glanced at in our discussion of Boule’s Pre-sapiens hypothesis, extends
63