Comparative Skeletal Pathology and the Case for Conspecific Care in Middle Pleistocene Hominids

Abstract

Lebel et al. (2001, Proc Natl Acad Sci 98, 11097) claim that the pathological alterations to the Aubesier 11 partial mandible demonstrate that Middle Pleistocene hominid populations, “had achieved a level of sociocultural elaboration sufficient to maintain debilitated individuals and to provide the motivation to do so”. This hypothesis is tested here by comparing the pathological processes seen in the Aubesier 11 hominid specimen with those evident in wild non-human primate skeletal material. A variety of wild non-human primates have similar pathological processes of equal or greater severity than that seen in Aubesier 11. There is also no evidence of any condition in Aubesier 11 which would have prevented that individual from providing for himself/herself. Therefore the Aubesier 11 partial mandible cannot be taken as evidence for an increased level of conspecific care in Middle Pleistocene hominids, contra Lebel et al. (2001). This illustrates the importance of a comparative approach to palaeopathology.