DeGusta D (2003) Aubesier 11 is not evidence of Neanderthal conspecific care. Journal of Human Evolution 45:831-834. [PDF]
Abstract -
The Aubesier 11 partial mandible cannot be used to infer an increased level of conspecific care in Middle Pleistocene hominids relative to other primates (DeGusta, 2002). The arguments to the contrary put forth in Lebel and Trinkaus (2002) are flawed. The level of tooth loss seen in the Aubesier 11 partial mandible is also seen in some wild adult non-human primate specimens. Such primates also sometimes survive other serious injuries and illnesses, such as malaria, polio, and gunshot wounds (DeGusta, 2002). Thus the occasional survival, for a limited period of time, of similar pathological conditions by Middle Pleistocene hominids cannot be taken as an indication of greater conspecific care. In the case of the Aubesier 11 partial mandible in particular, there is no evidence that the individual could not have obtained soft foods on his/her own, or processed foods using stone tools on his/her own. Based on multiple lines of evidence, the hypothesis that Aubesier 11 is evidence of increased conspecific care in Middle Pleistocene hominids is falsified.