Spencer, Smith 1981

8/8/2019 Spencer, Smith 1981

1/25

were finallycriticized an dt is neverthe-

the criminalwas alsoandNew Mex-wa s perhaps

of stratifiedin the

HootonIrish study,collaborativephysicalof th e Irishattempt tohistory

Iit iI-that enphysical andesign ofcomfort an dthe Hey-of theto pro-

during th elargepar-Corps in

in th ethis re

ha d ap-used it sand ha dheunder-Ma nsuspect,Sheldon,ad

andbut itman hee develop

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 56:435-459(19811

The Significance of Ales Hrdlicka's "NeanderthalPhase of Man": A Historical and Current AssessmentFRANK SPENCER AN D FRED H. SMITHDepartment olAnthropology. Queens College ol the City University ol Ne wYork, Flushing, Neu' York 11367 (PS) an d Department ol Anthropologv,Universitv ol Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37,916 (F.H.S)

KEY WORDS: Hrdlicka, Neandertal, Human evolution, HistoryABSTRACT Ales Hrdlicka's hypothesis on a Neandertal phase of humanevolution is examined in light of current data and interpretations on Neandertals.Hrdlicka's interpretations are related to his ideas regarding the peopling of th eN ~ World. A major early statement of Hrdlicka's views on Neandertal was hisHuxley Memorial Lecture of 1927. We assess this formulation and subsequentdevelopment of his hypothesis. Hrdlicka's position is compared with th e "presapiens" and "pre-neandertal" hypotheses on the basis of current theory and data.

In 1980-1981, physical anthropologistscelebrate two significant jubilees: the FiftiethAnnua! Meeting of the American Associationof Physical Anthropologists and th e 125th anniversary of th e discovery of the FeldhoferCave Neandertal. Certainly no single individual can be more intimately associatedwith both the study of Neandertals and thebirth of the AA PA than Ales Hrdlicka(1869-1943), the founder and first president ofthe association. Thus we felt that an appropriate way of marking the passage of both! jubilees would be an analysis of Hrdlicka's

ideas regarding the evolutionary significanceof Neandertals and how those ideas fare inlight of current evidence.Such an analysis of Hrdlicka's views is important and timely for several additionalreasons. First, during his lifetime, Hrdlickastood virtually alone in his support of a unilineal approach to human evolution, which included a "Neanderthal phase of man"(Hrdlicka, 1914, 1927, 1930), as an alternativeto the "pre-sapiens" hypothesis embraced bythe vast majority of his contemporaries. Inmany respects he should be considered thefounder of th e modern unilineal approach toLate Pleistocene fossil hominid evolution. Second, many recently trained scholars fail to fully comprehend and appreciate the degree towhich Hrdlicka's diverse and often seeminglyunrelated research interests and theoretical

II 0002-9483/81/5604-0435$07.00 1981 ALAN R. LlSS, INC._ _J_ _ - - - - : : - : : - : : -====- - - - - -

perspectives were both interrelated and interdependent - a fact clearly demonstrated bySpencer (1979) - and therefore often misunder-stand his ideas. For example, his "Neanderthalphase of man" concept, the focus of this paper,certainly does no t represent an isolated interest. bu t did, in fact, develop from his studyof and interest in the antiquity of humans inthe New World. Furthermore, his feelings onboth of these issues were inextricably entwined with his overall scheme for th e peopling of the earth. Also, the existence of an archaic morphological stage between "Pithecan-thropus" and recent humans was a necessaryoutgrowth of his interpretations of how th eevolutionary process operated. In the samevein, his belief in and use of what has come tobe called morphological dating - for which hehas been unjustly criticized (Stewart, 1949;see also Smith, 1977) - was clearly related tohis conception of the evolutionary process andwas not simply a convenient mechanism todisprove the antiquity of humans in the NewWorld. Recognition of the "interrelatedness"in Hrdlicka's work is particularly essential tounderstanding his perspectives on paleoanthropology. Finally, many of the pointsraised by Hrdlicka, particularly in his HuxleyMemorial Lecture of 1927, both in support of aNeandertal stage of human evolution as wellas in opposition to other existing hypotheseson the origin of modern humans. continue to

_


2/25

F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH436be valid and thus warrant discussion in thelight of more recent data on Late Pleistocenehominids in the Old World.A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NEANDERTAL DEBATE

By the time Hrdlicka entered the debate aconsiderable amount of controversy a ~ numerous changes of opinion regarding thephylogenetic significance of the Neandertalfoss!1 assemblage ha d already occurred.Durmg the initial phase of the debatescientific opinion ranged from the view thatNeandertal fossils represented an earlier stageof human evolution (e.g., Huxley, 1863; King,1864), to the view that they were simplyexamples of severe pathological conditions ofone form or another (e.g., Mayer, 1864; Virchow. 1872, 1882). By the turn of the century,however, enough Neandertal specimens wereknown and their probable antiquityestablished to the degree that most scholarsfollowed the general appraisal of GustavSchwalbe (1899,1901,1904,1906) that humanevolution had essentially proceeded in astepwise fashion through three distinctmorphological stages of development. withthe Neandertals representing the intermediary stage.

This .appraisal was strongly opposed byMarcellm Boule, who emphasized certain "simian" as well as other unique and primitivea s p e ~ t s of Neandertals in his analysis of thespeCImen from La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Houle,1911-1913; Boule and Anthony, 1911) andconcluded that Neandertals were no t a reasonable antecedent of modern humans in Europe(see also Boule, 1921). Furthermore, Boulesuggested. initially on the basis of some of theremains from Grotte des Enfants at Grimaldi(Boule. 1914), that more modern hominids ha dlived contemporaneously with Neandertals inEurope and that this "sapiens" lineage couldbe traced, independently of Neandertals to anearlie.r period. The subsequent d i s c o v ~ r y ofthe llltamous Piltdown remains providedBoule with a possible precursor of the "sapiens" lineage.Following in th e wake of Boule's analysis ofthe La Chapelle skeleton and the discoveriesat Piltdown (1911-1916) there wa s a generalretreat from th e Neandertal hypothesis in supp o r ~ of what later became known as the presap.lens theory (see below). This theory remamed the most popular view of later hominidevolution until well after the Second WorldWar.

There were those, however, who for variousreasons continued to support some form of a?asically unilineal concept and rejected theI d ~ a of a separate pre-sapiens lineage. AmongthIS rather small group of workers - which included Rene Verneau (1924), Franz Weidenreich (1928,1943, 1947" and Hans Weinert(1932,:. 1953, 1955) -was, of course, AlesHrdlicka (1914,1927, 1930i.Fo r reasons far too complex to discuss iJ;i thisbrief synopsis, a "compromise" interpretationof th e origins of modern humans began toemerge in the thinking of many scientists inth e years between the two world wars. Thiscompromise, later known as the pre-neandertalh;vp?,thesis, postulated that certain "progressive Neandertal groups were conceivablyancestral to modern humans but that othergroups (especially the western EuropeanWiirm Neandertals) were noL. The fundamental difference between this theory and thepre-sapiens theory is that the latter placed th edivergence of lineages leading to Neandertalsand modern llomo sapiens at an earlier date.'While this approach is first encountered in thewritings of Grafton Elliot Smith (1924), it didno t become popular until the late 1940s andearly 1950s and is perhaps best represented byth e work of Sergio Sergi (1953a.b) and F. ClarkHowell (1951, 1952, 1957). rThe volume commemorating th e 100th anrriversa:y of the 1856 Neandertal discovery (vonK08mgswald. 1958) and other publications of (this period (e.g., Boule and Vallois, 1957;Howells, 1959,1962; Patte, 1955) demonstrateboth the continued lack of consensus among (supporters of the pre-sapiens and various pre-neandertal hypotheses and the virtual absenceof ~ n i l i n e a l i s t views (harring those of Wcinertlwhich postdate Weidenreich's writings and thelast opinion of Sir Arthur Keith (1949). In theearly 1960s, however, C. Loring Brace (1962a.1964) resurrected t he unilineal approach, andf r o ~ ~ h i s point on through to the present.varIatIOns of all three of these major orientations have had their supporters. Bu t in spite ofth e continuing lack of consensus among paleoanthropologists regarding tbe phylogeneticsignificance of the European Neandertals,Hrdlicka's views, though now necessarilysomewhat dated. nevertheless continue to be

I T ~ w viewc: of Vv'eincrl. (19;)3. 19;)5) an d \Veidcnreit:h (1947, 19191c a ~ . m s o ~ n ~ ways be considerprl prencandertal rather than strictly~ T I 1 I J n e a . l .J",n persvective. And in samf' regards, the same can he ,s


3/25

437II v

variousrejected th e

AmonginFranz WeiWeinertcourse, Ales

iJ.J. thisbegan toscientists in

This

conceivablyt that otherEuropeanThe fundath eplaced th eNeandertals

date.th eit di dan dbyand F. Clark100th an n i-

(vonof

1957;among

various preabsenceand th eIn the

an dth e present,orienta

t in spite ofamong paleophylogeneticNeandertals,necessarilyto be

rather than strictlysame can be saidcertain Neandertal

HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MANI cited regularly, no t only in historical but alsoI in analytical contexts, by virtually all studentsof the later phases of human evolution.IvTHE D E V E L O P M ~ ~ N T OF HRDLICKA'S UNIFIEDI HYPOTHESIS ON THE PEOPLING OF THE WORLD

I In order to understand more clearlyHrdlicka's interpretation of the Europeanfossil hominid record and it s relevance to hist h e s i ~ on the peopling of the Western Hemisphere, it is necessary to first consider the salient features of his particular conception of th eevolutionary process,

The theoretical basis of Hrdlicka's viewson human evolution

Succinctly, Hrdlicka was convinced thatmodern humans were the product of what hecalled "an extraordinary progressive differentiation from some anthropogenic stock, whichdeveloped somewhere in the later Tertiary,among th e primates" (Hrdlicka, 1912a:2; seealso Hrdlitka, 1907:9). But unlike th e vast majority of his contemporaries who saw this process terminating mysteriously at some undetermined point in the late Tertiary or lowerQuaternary (e.g., Kollmann, 1884; Wallace,1887, 1889)2, Hrdlicka was of the opinion thatit was an ongoing process ie.g., Hrdlicka,1907:12-13,1908. 1912a:3-5, 1918:21, 1921b),and for this reason he regarded human skeletaldiversity (both contemporary and historic) as areflection of the inherent "instability" of thehuman constitution. "Every organic feature,"he wrote:

of whatever consistency or importance,is the result of all th e factors bywhich it is affected. With th e skeletalparts, by far the strongest of thesefactors, in itself a very composite one,is the potentiality of heredity, next towhich in importance comes habitualmuscular action, particularly muscular use due to long established habitsof whole groups of people. Heredity,however, especially in so far as it applies to th e latest acquired characteristics of the skeleton, is subject to incidental irregularities as well as togradual modifications. Habits ofmuscle action, on th e other hand,change with environment and culture; such changes in activities maytake place much more slowly in somelocalities than in others, yet they are

bound to manifest themselves everywhere in th e course of ages and to befollowed by corresponding and recurring structural alterations. The greatskeletal diversity of mankind todaycan be accounted for in no other manner (Hrdlicka, 1907:12-13).

Taken at face value this statement can be interpreted either in a Mendelian or Lamarckiansense. However, it is evident that Hrdlickabelonged to neither camp. Essentially, he advocated the reduction of environmental influences to the status of modifying ratherthan formative factors. That is to say, insteadof employing Mendelian concepts to buttressessentially pregenetic racial generalizations,he was toying with th e notion of how thegenetic material of an organism is affected bythe multitudinous forces of the environment.The causes of this "instability," he later explained:

are on the one hand, the nature of th ehuman organism, which like everyother organism is in its ultimateanalysis a chemical complex, livingby chemical change and subject tophysical and chemical influences, andon the other the variability of theseinfluences. So long as th e chemicalstatus of th e organism, especially' that of the developing organism andof the perpetuating or generative elements of the species, is no t in absolute and lasting harmony with theenvironment, so long it is safe to say,will absolute fixedness of structureand form be impossible (Hrdlicka,1912a:5).Besides the general implications of his earlierwork in the New York asylums (e.g., Hrdlicka,1898) and the American Southwest (e.g.,Hrdlicka, 1908), the major evidence Hrdlickaused to support his argument against theprevailing notion of the "permanence of the

modem human type" was from a study he hadmade at the Cairo Medical Museum, Egypt, in2When Alfred Russel Waltace (l ~ 8 7 ) examint:'d th e evid('nce for

human antiquity in the New Vv'arld. he saw not only considerable antiquity for the specimens bu t also a continuity of type. Attempting toequate this finding with e v o l u t i o n a r ~ v theory, Wallace (1889) suggested that once ma n had become morphologically differentiatedfrom his "apish kin" (apparently in th e mid-Tertiary), he had remainedphysically stable. This he justified by arguing that with theemergence of tbe human brain, Homo sapiens had become essenLiallyimpervious to the whims of natural selection, and thereby became aspecial creature in the biotic realm.


4/25

F. SPENCER AND F,H. SMITH438 HRDLIC1909.3 This study of a human skeletal collectionexcavated from cemeteries (representing a timespan from predynastic times to the early Copticperiod) at Lisht and Nagaed-Der , enabled him towrite with conviction:

the susceptibility of the human organism to modification, even under . . .exceptionally uniform environmentalconditions, has not been overcome, andnumerous changes in the Egyptianskeleton between the predynastic andmiddle dynastic, and again betweenthat and the Coptic period, excludingfrom consideration the influence ofnegro infusion, are perceptible(Hrdlicka, 1912a:5, see also Hrdlicka,1909).

Thus, in contradistinction to workers suchas Franz Boas (1911, 1912), who tended toemploy the environment to the virtual exclusion of genetics, Hrdlitka was endeavoring todevelop a concept (albeit a primitive one) ofmutational theory to account for the apparent"instability" of the human organism (seeHrdlicka, 1935).

Applying these ideas to th e question ofearlier hominid evolution, it was Hrdlicka'sdeveloping conviction that there was a roughcorrelation between morphology and chronology. According to this view Hrdlicka saw themodern human form slowly dissolving in amosaic of primitive features as one proceededback through time. As such the Neandertalfossils appeared to represent a phase in thisgradual transformation to a more pithecoidform represented in the fossil record byDubois's Pithecanthropus. This being thecase, Hrdlicka believed that a closer examination of the European fossil hominid recordwould reveal the existence of a distinct morphological gradient between the hominidpopulations of the Middle-Late Pleistoceneand the early Holocene (Hrdlicka, 1907:12) - inwhich the morphological trend in the formerwould be seen to be in the general direction of"zoological inferiority, while in the latter therewould be a tendency toward the modernhuman form. Hence, on the basis of these "authenticated" and "geologically ancient crania"(which incidentally he did not examine firsthand until 1912), he felt justified in claimingthat "the greater the separation of two skeletalpopulations in time, the more distinct wouldbe the somatological differences betweenthem" (Hrdlicka, 1907:12).

This predicted morphological gradient waslater confirmed, so Hrdlicka believed, by theskeletons found at Predmosti by Karel Maska(see Hrdlicka, 1912a, 1914; Matiegka, 1934,1938), These fossils, he felt, partially bridgedthe morphological hiatus between Neandertals and other Aurignacian-associated (butless Neandertal-like) specimens.In the meantime, pursuing th e above themeof functional adaptation in his work-particularly his studies on the Eskimo of SmithSound (Hrdli'l:ka, 1910) and the natives of theKharga Oasis (Hrdlicka, 1909:143-144,1912b) - it occurred to Hrdlicka that perhapsone of th e underlying mechanisms impingingon the evolution of the human skull had been achange in "masticatory function," namely, aprogressive change in human diet and dietarypractices. In a nutshell, he believed that as aresult of improved tool use and other technicocultural techniques there had been a demonstrable reduction in th e size of teeth in humanevolution and an accompanying change in thesize an d conformation of the human jawand cranium.

Following a preliminary study (HrdliCka,1911), in which he presented an outline of theabove "dietary hypothesis," Hrdlicka embarked on a lengthy program of researchdesigned to demonstrate the evolutionary significance of human dentition (see Spencer,1979)4. Although all of this research isgermane to Hrdicka's Neandertal hypothesis,of particular interest are his initial observations on shovel-shaped incisors (e.g., Hrdlicka ,1907:55, 1908:562, 1910:251, 266) and hissubsequent demonstration of their phyloge'netic significance (Hrdlicka, 1920). Throughthis study, along with his concurrent comparative studies of hominid and hominoiddentition (HrdJicka, 1921a, 1922, 1923a,b,1924), he was able to advance not only his casefor a Neandertal phase of human evolution butalso his hypothesis which attempted to reconstruct th e events leading up to th e emergence,

3Hrdli(:'ka's reaSOL1:; for choosing to do research in Egypt are notwithout his oriorge\'lorton had used a collection of embalmed heads from Egyptiant:atacombs to substantiate his thesis on the "immutability" and"plurality'" of the human races (Morton, 1844). the skeletal ~ a t e r i a l from the Nile valley had been frequently cited as an example of thehistoric continuity ofihe human type (e.g., SchmidL1872; Thompsonan d Handall Mac1ver, 1905),

~ T h i s work, which \\/as carried ou t between 191;') and 1925, con-stitutes a major contribution to the development of modern dentalanthropology. Besides developing a rigorous method of measuringteeth with calipers of his own design, which are still in use today,Hrdli'C'ka'.


5/25

1v

gradient wasby theby Karel MaSka1934,bridged

Neander(butabove themehis work-parof Smith

natives of the1909:143-144,that perhapsimpingingskull had been anamely, adietarythat as aother technicodemonteeth in human

change in th ehuman ja w

(Hrdli(;ka,th eHrdlicka em

researchSpencer,research ishypothesis,observaHrdlicka,and hi s

their phylogeThroughcompara

d hominoidhis case

evolution butreconthe emergence,

Egypt are no twhen Samuel George

heads from Egyptian"immutability" an d

the skeletal materialas an example of th e

Thompson~ U 1 d 1925, conmodern dental

method ot" measuringare still in use today,the utilit.v of

as encouragingdental features.

HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MANI 439I dispersion, and differentiation of modern 1912a:3-5). Using these criteria, HrdlickaHomo sapiens in th e Old World.I Hrdlitka's rejection of glacial manin the New World

When Hrdlitka began his career inanthropology at the close of the nineteenthcentury there was already a considerableaccumulation of evidence that seeminglysupported the arrival of ma n in the New Worldduring either glacial or preglacial times (e.g.,Abbott, 1872, 1888; Ameghino, 1878, 1879,1908,1909; Lyell, 1863; Mercer, 1892: Putnam,1897, 1906, 1909; Salisbury, 1897; Wright,1892, 1897; Whitney, 1879). Although thefavorable reception received by these earlydiscoveries in the Western Hemisphere wasundoubtedly encouraged by the fact that th ebattle for "Glacial Man" in Europe had beenessentially fought and won, it appears that thewillingness with which workers from thisperiod engaged in enthusiastic and oftenreckless speculation about the age of humanbones and implements found in apparentassociation with extinct faunal remains wasdue largely to a lack of understanding of eithercontinental or regional geology (Hrdlicka,1907-1912a; see also Clewlow, n.d.; Willey,1968; Wilmsen, 1965).Between 1899 and 1912 Hrdlicka made athorough study of all th e available evidenceattributed to early man in the New World. Theresults of this protracted investigation weresummarized in two major works published in1907 and 1912. From this investigation Hrdlicka realized quite correctly that archeologistshad developed little in the way of methodologyduring th e past century and as such were

largely responsible for the plethora of unsubstantiated claims and absurd opinions thatabounded in the literature on the subject ofearly man in the New World. In an effort tocorrect this state of affarrs, he mounted anenergetic campaign during the first quarter ofthis century, calling for the institution of morerigorous scientific methods and recommended,among other things, the enlisted aid of otherdisciplines.Juch as geology and paleontology(e.g., HrdlIcka, 1907:11-12, 56-57, 1912a:5597,99-125, 1917l.The prescription Hrdli


6/25

F. SPENCER AND F.Il. SMITH440for strengthening the dentition" - but with the region that the first Americans had enteredgradual improvement in food preparation th e New World,techniques and tool technology, the need for Hrdlicka's scheme for the peopling of the u'orldstronger incisors steadily decreased, leadingto their subsequent replacement with the During the first three decades of this century"weaker" flat-surfaced tooth (Hrdlicka, 1920: the idea that Asia had been the officina gentium,464-465). Hence, since th e expectation was to the "cradle and nursery" of the genus Homo, hadfind lower frequencies of shoveling ulllOng the been popular among both American and Europedescendants of those people who had solved, an paleoanthropologists, particularly afterby cultural means, the problems that shovel Boule's censure of the European Neandertals andshaped incisors had solved biologically, and insistence that modem Homo sapiens hadwho had done so for the longest period of time, evolved outside of Europe, pr obably somewhereto Hrdlicka the only satisfactory explanation in Central Asia. Indeed, it had been largely forfor the present high frequency of the trait this reason that Davidson Black (e,g" 1925) hadamong the peoples of Asia and the New World been so eager to work in China, and why Hemywa s that these groups must have remained Fairfield Osborn had vigorously promoted palecommitted to an Upper Paleolithic way of life ontological research in Mongolia (see Andrews,long after those groups in the western sector 1926),of the Old World (Hrdlicka, 1920:465). By 1920 the case for an Asiatic origin ofUnfortunately, because Hrdlicka failed to Homo rested on the evidence of Dubois'selaborate on this latter point, the reader unfa Pithecanthropus and a scant collection of anmiliar with his work will miss th e implication thropoid fossils from the Siwalik Hills inof this statement. However, given his commit northwest India. According to Guy E. Pilgrimment to the notion that Europe had been the (1915), the PU:1j ab fossils represented two"cradle" and site of dispersion of the human clistinct types of Miocene apes. One, he claimed,genus, the inference of the above statement closely resembled the European dryopithecinebecomes that much more apparent. As will be material and morphologically stood muchdiscussed in the next section, it was Hrdlicka's closer to th e modern hominoids, whereas thecontention that Asia and the New World had other possessed a number of anatomical fea-been peopled exclusively from the western sec tures which placed it directly in th e hominidto r of the Old World, principally Europe. Ac line of primate evolution. In fact, Pilgrimcording to Hrdlicka's scheme, some of these (1915:2) even went so far as to suggest that itearly itinerant populations from Europe had had been from this latter stock that Dubois'smoved slowly northeastward across th e Pithecanthropus had been derived,Siberian tundra into East Asia, and from there While no t denying the evolutionary signiinto the New World, while others moved east ficance of either Dubois's or Pilgrim's speciward to the south of the Himalayas. Thus, in mens, Hrdlicka was nonetheless strongly op-marked contrast to those populations south of posed to the idea that Asia had been thethe Himalayas, this northern branch of "cradle-land" of the genus Homo. In his opinhumanity had, because of prevailing environ ion all of the available evidence pointed to amental conditions, remained committed to a western rather than an eastern origin. Thisway of life not far removed from that of their opinion was based on two simple facts: (1) thatwestern Paleolithic ancestors (Neandertals). after "Pithecanthropus the next beings in theAfter 1920, Hrdlicka's researches were di line of man's ascent" were confined to Europe,rected primarily to the task of vindicating the and (2) that there had not been a single piece"Neanderthal phase of man" and thereby dem of evidence recovered thus far on the Asiaticonstrating that the emergence and dispersion mainland suggesting the presence of manof modern Homo sapiens had occurred during prior to the Neolithic period (Hrdlicka, 1921b:the terminal stages of the Pleistocene in 536). In the light of these apparent facts,Europe, and that it was no t until after this Hrdlicka conceded two possible arguments toevent that man had entered Asia and the New account for the presence of Dubois's Pithecan-World. The results of this work were summa thropus in Southeast Asia. First, it could berized in his 1927 Huxley Memorial Lecture. argued that for reasons "doubtless environFollowing this summation, the focus of mental" the "Pithecanthropines" ha d beenHrdlicka's work shifted to Beringia, where he prompted to migrate westward into Europe,assigned his efforts to th e pursuit of evidence where they underwent subsequent developto document the thesis that it had been in this ment. Although willing to admit that such a

------------------ -----IHRDL

migration was not beyond the rbility, noting that there was sseparating "Pithecanthropus" frbeing in the line of man's asce"Homo heidelbergensis"- for theevolved from the former, H r d l i doubted that this had been theopinion, a more plausible explanatthe "Pithecanthropines" had not b to Southeast Asia but had been wuted throughout the Old World. "Uorigin should be regarded as a pwhich seems unjustifiable," he Swell be assumed that conditiofavored the differentiation fromtowards ma n in one locality, exother regions" (Hrdlicka, 1921b:ing this to be the case, Hrdlickaable to propose that the eas1canthropines" never acquired ahold in Asia, and that in all prob2been a "Pithecanthropine" populsomewhere in Africa from which 1humanity, represented in the Emhominid record, had sprung.Essen tially, Hrdlicka's reasonding the demise of Dubois's Pithwas because its geographical loc2th e door to the possible arrival oBering landbridge at a time muchhe was willing to entertain, Althological evidence at this time evideed the possibility of a northernhominid populations during theperiod ( H r d l i ~ k a , 1921b:536), Hrdevidence from which to argue thconditions had prevailed during tand as he well realized, there wastion that Dubois's Pithecanaemerged in Java during the latefact it was precisely for thisHrdlitka (1930l had rejected Davi


7/25

1ha d entered

of the worldcentury

gentium,Homo, hadan and Europe

afterandhadly somewhere(e.g., 1925) ha dhy Henry

p a l ~ -Isee Andrews,origin ofDubois'sn of anHills inGuy E. Pilgrim

tw odryopithecinestood muchwhereas th ethe hominidfact, Pilgrim

suggest that itthat Dubois'ssigni

strongly op-had been th e

In his opinpointed to aThis(1) thatbeings in th e

to Europe,piece

the Asiaticof mandlicka, 1921b:arguments to

Pithecan-it could be

environhad beeninto Europe,developthat such a

. v 441RDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MANII migration was no t beyond the realm of possibility, noting that there was sufficient timeI separating "Pithecanthropus" from the "nextI being in the line of man's ascent" - that is,"Homo heidelbergensis" - for the latter to haveevolved from th e former, Hrdli


8/25

442 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH HRDstudy of the European Neansi a Minor, and (2) a northern route into theCaucasus and th e Caspian-Aral-Turkestanregion. In the third stage, those populations

which had entered Asia via the northern routemoved slowly eastward where they eventuallypopulated northeast Asia and the New World,while those populations in Asia Minor gradually spread south into the Arabian peninsulaand Northwest India. In India some of theseearly itinerant populations either moved further south or continued their trek eastwardthat was to terminate with their arrival in thegeographic cul-de-sac of Australia. The finalstage in H rdliXka's scheme involved the peopling of Micronesia and Polynesia, and th econtinuing differentiation of the peoples of theOld and New World into their present ethnicunits.

The Piltdown obstacleAt the beginning of th e twentieth century

there was considerable support for Neandertals representing a phylogenetic intermediarybetween Pithecanthropus an d modern Homosapiens (e.g., Gorjanovic-Kramberger, 1906;Keith, 1911; Schwalbe, 1899, 1901, 1904.1906; Sollas, 1908). However. by the beginning of the second decade this trend wasdramatically reversed. To a large extent thisreversal in scientific opinion can be traced toth e influence of Marcellin Boule. though it isalso evident that th e discovery of the Piltdown "fossils" was also an important contributing factor in that it essentially consolidatedRoule's "pre-sapiens" position.

As mentioned earlier, Boule's contributionto the Neandertal debate dates essentiallyfrom 1908 when he was charged with the analysis of the recently discovered Neandertalskeletons of La Chapelle-aux-Saints (1908) andLa Ferrassie (1909-1910). In a series of communications extending through the sixth,seventh, and eighth volumes of the Annales dePaleontologie, and culminating in their republication as a large independent monograph in1913, Boule established th e classic descriptionof a Neandertal (Boule, 1908, 1911-1913; seealso Boule and Anthony. 1911).6 Summarizingthis work in a paper presented at the XIVthInternational Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology in Geneva in 1912.Boule (1914) contended that th e Neandertalswere an archaic and extinct species, andtherefore urged their immediate removal fromthe human phylogenetic tree. At the sametime he axed Dubois's Pithecanthropus,declaring the specimen to be nothing morethan a giant gibbon!

At this juncture Boule left the question ofthe precursor of modern Humo sapiens inabeyance. However, following the announcement of the discoveries at Piltdown, Boule lostno time in endorsing these "fossils," which he iaid, established th e fact that there had no tbeen one, bu t two "races of man" living in thelower Pleistocene - one being the "Piltdownrace," and the other the "Heidelberg race" (represented by the Mauer jaw). Of these two so- Icalled races, Boule said: "The Piltdown raceseems to us the probable ancestor in the directline of th e recent species of man. Homo sa-piens; while the Heidelberg race may be considered, until we have further knowledge, as apossible forerunner of Homo neanderthalen-sis" (Boule, 1913:245-246). I t is interesting tonote, however, that Boule was among the fewEuropean workers at this time to question ifthe Piltdown cranial remains and ja w belonged to the same individual (Boule, 19171.

From the outset Hrdlitka had viewed thePiltdown "fossils" with considerable skepticism (Hrdli((ka, 1914:501-509). Aside from thenagging doubt of the reliability of the midTertiary geologic age assigned to thespecimens (Woodward, 1913), there was the"insurmountable problem" of equating whatwas an essentially modern-looking skullcapwith an entirely apelike jaw. Had this jawarticulated with an equally primitive skullcaplike that of Pithecanthropus. then this wouldhave been an entirely different matter altogether. But as it was, this "monstrous hybrid"demanded th e existence in Tertiary times of ahominid precursor with a modern high forehead and overall cranial vault. FromH r d l i ~ k a ' s standpoint this was completely atvariance with his understanding of biomechanics and the evolution of hominid craniofacial morphology (e.g., Hrdlicka, 1911). Bu twhile, for obvious reasons, doubting the antiquity of the cranial fragments, Hrdlickanevertheless regarded the jaw as a "trulyremarkable specimen" and morphologicallycommensurate with it s suggested geologicalage (see H r d l i ~ k a , 1911:501-509, 1930:86).

After the First World War, Hrdli((ka made adetailed study of the Piltdown "fossils" in anattempt to discredit the association of th e jawand calotte. At the same time he reopened his

;'SignificanLl.\'. l f r d J : ~ k a ' : : ; desLripLion of the La Chapellt' skelNonboth in his 1914 an d 19;10 monographs were esscnLially very .similarto tho-se of Boule. In his 1914 draft. however, Hrdlitka not.ed t.hatmany of Uoulc's sLatements on t.he "inferior characteristics" of LaChapl.:lIe had been "some'what over- emphasized, " and lhat most (if notall) 01 these features could ht' dUIJlicaLed in modern skeletal samples.Bu t for reasons which appear to have been e.ntirdy political, these, , , m m ~ , , "'CO ,,,,,,. ;'''00 "'" ""'0"'" e," ,,",,,em eo M _l

suIts of this work were presentscientific reports published inAmerican Juurnal of PhysicaiHrdlitka. 1922, 1923a,b. 19nated with his now classic paderthal Phase of Man," whichthe Huxley Memorial Lecture

The Huxley 1vfemorialBy 1926, when Hrdli6ka wm

liver the Huxley Lecture ofacutely aware of the fact thalmost alone in consideringancestral stage in human evothe roster of scientists Opposinterpretation was impressiv(among others): Boule (19231.Burkitt (1921), Elliot Smith(1921), Gregory (1927; see alsMcGregor, 19261, Giuffrida-RHill-Tout (1921,1924), Lull ( 1 9 (1924), Moir (1926), Morant(1916, 1926, 1927), Todd (19(1926), an d Woodward (19231. Ttheory was now even beingformer supporters of a unilinealKeith, 1912, 1915, 1925; Sollas,of the weight of opinion againsimportance of the unilineal U

I I . I I , ~ L ' SI.ll-!;,.' II) ( iJ .1CI,l! iPIlIIII IlL.' I .ll'Iy (i!dLl,d ('(lllJpln

Fig. 20 Hrdl icka's version of Pleistoclon HrdliCka. 19271.


9/25

443the question of

Homo sapiens inthe announcePiltdown, Boule lost

which hethat there had no tman" living in th e

the "Piltdownrg race" (repthese two so-

Piltdown racein the directHomo sa

race may be conknowledge, as aneanderthalen-I t is interesting toamong the fewto question ifand ja w be(Boule, 1917).

had viewed theskepti

theth e midto th ethere was th eequating what

skullcapHa d this jawitive skullcap

then this wouldmatter altohybrid"

times of a high forevault. From

completely athominid crani

1911). Butth e antiHrdlitkajaw as a "trulymorphologically

Hrdlitka made ain anthe ja w

reopened hisLa Chapelle skeleton

very similarHrdlicka noted that

chmacteristics" of Laand that most (if no tmodern skeletal samples.

entirely political, thesetex: (Spencer. 1979).

HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN

study of the European Neandertals. The results of this work were presented in a series ofscientific reports published in his journal, theAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology(Hrdlitka, 1922, 1923a,b, 1924), and culminated with his now classic paper, "The Neanderthal Phase of Man," which he prepared asthe Huxley Memorial Lecture of 1927.The Huxley Memorial Lecture

By 1926, when Hrdlitka was invited to deliver the Huxley Lecture of 1927, he wasi acutely aware of the fact that he was nowalmost alone in considering Neandertals anI ancestral stage in human evolution. Indeed,the roster of scientists opposed to such anI interpretation was impressive and included(among others): Boule (1923), Broom (1918;,I Burkitt (1921), Elliot Smith (1924), Fleurej (1921), Gregory (1927; see also Gregory andMcGregor, 1926), Giuffrida-Ruggeri (19181,

I( Hi11-Tout (1921, 19241, Lul1 (1922), MacCurdy(1924), Moir (1926), Morant (1927), Osborn(1916, 1926, 1927;, Todd (1914a,b;, Wilder(1926;, and Woodward (1923;. The pre-sapienstheory was now even being espoused byformer supporters of a unilineal approach (e.g.,I Keith, 1912, 1915, 1925; Sollas. 1924). In viewof the weight of opinion against him, and theimportance of the unilineal approach to his

II}IIII

general conception of evolution and his ideasregarding th e peopling of the earth, HrdliCkadecided to use this prestigious occasion tosystematically defend his position thatNeandertals ha d no t become "extinct withoutissue," bu t ha d in fact been gradually transformed into modern Homo sapiens.

In his defense of a "Neanderthal phase ofman," Hrdliha (1927, see also 1930:319-349)presented his classic definition of Neandertalsas "the ma n of th e Mousterian culture"(1927:251) and outlined their geographicaldistribution (Europe, western Asia, and NorthAfrica; and paleontological and geologicalcontext. The latter (Fig. 20; he determinedfrom a consideration of the work by Bayer,Boule, Breuil, MacCurdy, and Peyrony(Spencer, 1979).

From the analysis of 360 known Paleolithicsites in Europe, HrdliCka found that as oneproceeded from the Pre-Chellean on throughthe Acheulean to the Mousterian there was adramatic decrease in the number of openliving sites. This suggested to him that duringPre-Chellean and Chellean times th e climatehad been more temperate - namely that thesecultures had flourished during the "MainInterglacial Stage." The gradual decrease inthe number of open sites in the Acheulean heinterpreted as a direct response to changingenvironmental conditions, and for this reason

45 35 , ) 1511111.'l()r;

7

I I .11 . ~ ' ( S t , l ~ ( \)f ( iL IU. l l l l l l l'"

11111lI,11) 11\


10/25

vF. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH44he considered the Acheulean must havestraddled the tail end of th e interglacial periodan d th e opening stages of th e last glacialcomplex. By comparison, Hrdlicka found thatwell over two-thirds of th e Mousterian siteswere confined to either rock shelters or caves.Un the basis of this evi&nce he placed th eMousterian tradition on th e fluctuatingdownward curve of the "Late Glacial Period"(see Fig. 20). Bu t of greater interest toHrdlicka were th e statistics on sites from theAurignacian and succeeding periods. Here hefound that the number of rock-shelters andcave sites increased, rather than decreased.This finding harmonized completely with hisconception of the European environment atth e close of the glacial epoch, and served toreinforce his argument for the culturalcontinuity between the Mousterian an dAurignacian (Hrdlicka, 1927:256-257).

Equating this evidence with the notion thatth e Mousterian culture and it s author hadbeen "swept away" by the coming of a "distinctand superior species of people," Hrdlihaencountered a number of "inconsistencies" an d"difficulties." Assuming for the moment, however, that the hominids of the Aurignacianperiod had been "superior" and more "virile," asKeith and others contended. then the expectation, Hrdlicka felt, would be to find culturalevidence indicating a radical departure fromthe preceding cultural traditions. Bu t this wasno t th e case. In fact, not only did the Aurignacians continue to occupy many of the sitespreviously occupied by Neandertals, bu t theircultural artifacts showed quite plainly thatthe Aurignacian life-style was not significantly removed from that of the Mousterian.To develop this arb1lment Hrdlicka had madea careful study of th e various culturalassemblies of the European Paleolithic. Fromthis study he could find no evidence tosupport the view that these lithic industrieswere indepenent of one another (Hrdlicka,1927:258l. At the sites of Le Moustier, LaVerriere, and especially the rock-shelter ofAudi in th e village of Les Eyzies, Hrdlickasaid there was palpable evidence of a culturaltransition from th e upper Mousterian to the1 0 w e ~ v A u r i g n a c i a n (Hrdlicka, 1927:258-259).Hrdlicka also noted that just becauseNeandertals apparently did not produce th ecave ar t characteristic of th e Aurignacians, itdid not mean that Neandertals ha d no estheticappreciation and went on to note otherpossible expressions of Mousterian artisticendeavor ( H r d l i ~ k a , 1927:262).

Hrdlicka's belief that th e Aurignacian wasnot an intrusive technology but an indigenousdevelopment from the Mousterian was alsodue in no small"measure to th e analysis of theMousterian sequence at La Quina by HenriMartin (e.g., 1911), whom he me t in 1912.Unlike many of his contemporaries, notablyBoule, Martin felt that the Mousterian hadundergone an increase in sophistication fromit s earlier to later phases (see Spencer,1979:403).

Yet another aspect of the "Aurignacianinflux" orthodoxy which troubled Hrdlickawas why these people had waited until theh e i g ~ ~ of the glacial period to invade Europe.Hrdhcka (1921 b:545) felt that this violated the"laws" governing the movement of human andanimal populations. According to Hrdlicka,human populations always tended to move inthe "direction of least resistance [climate]" and"in the direction of better material prospects[food]" (Hrdlicka, 1927:260).

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, theinvasion hypothesis presupposed the existence of no t only a large invading populationcapable of exterminating the resident Neandertals, bu t also the existence of a still largermother population elsewhere. And as Hrdlickanoted, there was no evidence for any such nonNeandertal mother population - either inEurope or elsewhere. As for the suggestionthat this "invasion" may have been a "peacefulextension," Hrdlicka contended that thiswould have led to an "amalgamation" with,rath,er than the "extinction" of, the EuropeanN e ~ n d e r t a l s (Hrdlicka, 1927:260).

The crux of the entire issue, however, wasthe skeletal material, for it was essentially onthis evidence that the idea of th e separatenessand discontinuance of Neandertals had beenbased. This impression, Hrdlitka claimed, wasbased on the erroneous supposition that Neandertals were an unusually homogenous groupwhich conformed to a "generalized primitivetype." This latter concept had been based onspecimens like La Chapelle, Spy 1, and Neandertal (Feldhofer Cave). However, when thee n t i r ~ v Neandertal sample was considered,Hrdhcka saw not only extensive variation butalso a clear tendency for certain specimensand features to approach closely the pattern ofmodern Homo sapiens. Considering this point,he wrote:

Here is facing us, evidently, a verynoteworthy example of morphological instability, an instability, evidently, of evolutionary nature, lead-

HRDLIC

ing from old forms to more . . . Taking the remainderskulls, jaws, an d bones attribth e Neanderthal phase, it is sboth the variability and theof characters that tend in thtion of later man increase cably. The Krapina series, by probably more variable fromlutionary point of view thanany similar series from one loth e present \Hrdlitka, 192268).

Since it was no t possible toNeandertal fossil record in a reliagical sequence Hrdlicka was obhis transformational argument 0tological" evidence. This he did bth e Neandertal assemblage with in g number of early postglaciFrom this comparative study hepossible to demonstrate "scalesfrom forms that stand considEfrom those of later man (as in Spy, La Chapelle, Le Moustier) tapproach to, or merge with, the mparts of the Krapina, La Ferrasskeletonsl" (Hrdlicka, 1927:2691.Although this would seem toHrdlicka was advocating theNeandertals into earlier and(namely, what later became knowgressive" and "classic" Neaappears that what he was reallyconvey to his London audience \of th e fossils under consideratiogarded as an expression of the rphological variation of the Neantypic pattern. This is particulafrom his description of the Bdertals. "Here the student is cona find in the same terrace arHrdlicka said:

at th e same level, and but 6of two adult male skeletonslater Mousterian time. Oneskeletons, No.1, has a skullof which is a replica of th;Neanderthal cranium, withNeanderthal bones of theBut this skull is associaupper and lower jaw and tmay be duplicated today aJlower races. And the skullcond skeleton is so superioshape, height of the vault,


11/25

-

445the Aurignacian was

but an indigenousMousterian was alsoto the analysis of theLa Quina by Henri

me t in 1912.notablythe Mousterian ha d

from(see Spencer,the "Aurignacian

troubled Hrdlickahad waited until the

to invade Europe.that this violated th ehuman andto Hrdlitka,

tended to move in[climate]" an dprospectsth e

the existinvading population

the resident Neanstill l a r ~ e r And as Hrdlicka

any such noneither in

the suggestion"peacefulthat thiswith,of, the European

however, wa sit was essentially on

the separatenesshad beenclaimed, wa sthat Nean

homogenous groupprimitivehad been based on

Spy 1, an d Neanwhen th e

was considered,variation but

certain specimensth e pattern of

this point,very

nature, lead

1vHRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN

ing from old forms to more modern.. . . Taking the remainder of theskulls, jaws, and bones attributed tothe Neande rthal phase, it is seen thatboth th e variability and the numberof characters that tend in th e direction of later man increase considerably. The Krapina series, by itself, isprobably more variable from the evolutionary point of view than would bean y similar series from one locality atth e present (Hrdlicka, 1927: 267268).

Since it was not possible to arrange theNeandertal fossil record in a reliable chronological sequence Hrdlicka was obliged to basehis transformational argument on the "somatological" evidence. This he did by comparingthe Neandertal assemblage with a corresponding number of early postglacial hominids.From this comparative study he said it waspossible to demonstrate "scales of gradationfrom forms that stand considerably apartfrom those of later man (as in Neanderthal,Spy, La Chapelle, Le Moustier) to forms thatapproach to, or merge with, the modern (manyparts of the KraRina, La Ferrassie, La Quinaskeletons)" (Hrdlitka, 1927:269).

Although this would seem to imply thatH r d l i ~ k a was advocating the partition ofNeandertals into earlier and later formsInamely, what later became known as the "progressive" an d "classic" Neandertals), itappears that what he was really intending toconvey to his London audience was that eachof the fossils under consideration could be regarded as an expression of the range of morphological variation of the Neandertal phenotypic pattern. This is particularly apparentfrom his description of the Belgian Neandertals. "Here the student is confronted witha find in the same terrace and deposits,"Hrdlicka said:

at th e same level, an d bu t 6 feet apartof two adult male skeletons from thelater Mousterian time. One of theseskeletons, No.1, has a skull the vaultof which is a replica of that of theNeanderthal cranium, with typicallyNeanderthal bones of th e skeleton.But this skull is associated withupper and lower jaw and teeth thatmay be duplicated today among thelower races. An d the skull of the second skeleton is so superior in size,shape, height of the vault, and the

height of the forehead, to No.1, thatthe morphological distance betweenthe two is greater than that betweenNo.2 and some of th e Aurignaciancrania, such as the Most (Brux) orBrno No. 1 (Brunn) specimens(Hrdlicka, 1927:268).

The full significance of this argument wasno t fully appreciated until after the appearance of th e published description of the Neandertal material from Mount Carmel in 1939.

By advancing the idea that Neandertalswere a highly variable group, Hrdlicka wasthereby able to argue that natural selectionhad operated on a basic neandertaloid pattern ,in which those hominids endowed with the genetic properties favoring their survival, or ashe phrased it: "the most fi t or able-to-copewith-the-condition group," evolved into earlymodern sapiens, while their less fortunate kinbecame extinct.

As for the pre-sapiens hypothesis, Hrdlickaastutely pointed out that:

they give us Homo sapiens withoutshowing why, or how, and where hedeveloped his superior make-up. . . .They place Homo sapiens in Africa orAsia without troubling to offer theevidence of his ancient dominion inthese regions. . . . I f he lived inEurope, coexisting with the Neanderthaler, where are his remains, andwhy did he not prevail sooner over hisinferior cousin? His traces, it will berecalled, never, in Europe or elsewhere, precede or coexist with, bu talways follow the Mousterian(Hrdlicka, 1927:270).

Summarizing his picture of the evolutionarydevelopment of the Mousterian hominids,Hrdlicka said:

During this period ma n is broughtface to face with great changes of environment . . . which call for newadaptations and developments. . . .Such . . . factors must inevitably havebrought about, on the one hand,greater mental as well as physicalexertion and, on the other hand, anintensification of natural selection,with the survival of only th e more,and perishing of th e less, fit. But . . .evolution would certainly differ fromregion to region, as the sum of the


12/25

F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH446 HRDfactors affecting ma n differed, reaching a more advanced grade where theconditions in general proved the mostfavorable; while to many of th e lessfavored groups disease, famine, andwarfare would bring extinction. . . ,Here seems to be a relatively simple.natural explanation of the progressive evolution of Neanderthal man,an d such an evolution wouldinevitably carry his most advancedforms to those of primitive Homosapiens (Hrdlicka, 1927:271-272).

Contrary to H r d l i ~ k a ' s expectations, theHuxley L ~ c t u r e was no t successful in turningthe tide of general scientific opinion (e.g.,Elliot Smith, 1928; Osborn, 1930: Hooton,1930,1931; MacCurdy, 1937). The pre-sapiensscheme was now firmly entrenched, and forthe next several decades, Hrdlitka's phylogenetic interpretations were generally eitheravoided completely or mentioned as a highlyunlikely alternative to the pre-sapiens view(e.g., Vallois, 1954).

A CURRENT VIEW OF UPPEH PLEISTOCENEHOMINID EVOLUTION I;\; EUROPE AND

WESTER" ASIAThe years since Hrdlitka's Huxley MemorialLecture have witnessed an enormous accumulation of various types of information pertinent to Upper Pleistocene hominid evolutionin th e Old World. Much of this informationhas fortunately been in the form of additionalfossil hominid remains (see Mann and Trin

kaus 1974 for a review of all but the mostr e c e ~ t finds). However, equally important, atleast in some respects. are such factors as abetter understanding of the evolutionary process and how it applies to the later phases ofhominid evolution, a more accurate picture ofchronology and paleoecology of the Late Pleistocene, as well as an improved understandingof the cultural complexes of th e Middle andUpper Paleolithic in Europe and technologically equivalent periods in other areas of theOld World. While it is neither appropriate norfeasible to discuss all of this in detail, it wouldseem a fittin!;\,contribution to this consideration of Hrdlicka to examine the degree towhich his observations, interpretations, andcriticism of other perspectives on humanevolution are still valid or "measure up" in thelight of this knowledge.

ArchaeologyIn his archaeological discussion, Hrdlicka(1927) emphasized the continuity between the

Mousterian and the earliest phases of the Upper Paleolithic and argued, contrary to thevast majority of his colleagues, that theAurignacian emerged from th e Mousterian inEurope. In this regard, he noted that no nonEuropean source area for the Aurignacian hadbeen conclusively demonstrated. Today i t isgenerally accepted that the earliest UpperPaleolithic traditions in Europe, the Ch&.-telperronian in France and the Szeletian incentral Europe, developed from indigenousMousterian le.g., Bordes, 1965a,b, 1972;Chmielewski, 1972; Movius, 1969; Pradel,1966; de Sonneville-Bordes, 1972). The Aurignacian, however, is still considered by mostprehistorians to be an intrusive culture intowestern Europe (e.g., Bordes, 1968a,bl,although the apparent contemporaneity ofsome Aurignacian and Chatelperronian levelshas led to the suggestion that they mightrepresent adoptive or functional variants ofthe same tradition IBinford, 1972). In centralEurope, although some workers also considerthe Aurignacian to be intrusive (Kozlowski,1979) into this area, a growing number ofscholars argue that the roots of th e Aurignacian are clearly evident in central EuropeanMiddle Paleolithic traditions (e.g., Hahn,1973,1977; Valoch, 1972,1976). I t is interestin g to note that the earliest dates for theAurignacian in central Europe (Gabori-Csank,1970; Kozlowski, 1979) are in excess of 40,000years B.i'. , while the earliest in western Europeare around 34,000 years B.P. (Movius, 1960,1972).In addition to the distinct possibility (andperhaps even probability in central Europe)that the Aurignacian is an indigenous development in Europe, it is important to note thatthose who favor an extraneous origin for theAurignacian in Europe have ye t to identifythe source area. In the Near East, which hastraditionally been considered the most likelysource, the Middle Paleolithic-Upper Paleolithic transition occurs at roughly th e sametime as in Europe (Farrand, 1965, 1972). Andwhile there are elements that can he regardedas somewhat Upper Paleolithic-like in preUpper Paleolithic cultural complexes in the Iear East, the same can also be said for preUpper Paleolithic complexes in Europe (e.g.,

I~ _

Brose and Wolpoff, 1971). Thappear to be no conclusive evidan earlier development of thlithic in the Near East than inconsequently makes it difficulsupport the Near East as theth e European Aurignacian.

Where then might the sourou r knowledge, the only othcertain technological advancestries might be occurring signithan equivalent developmentsouthern Africa during the MStone Ages (Klein, 1977). HOWnology (specifically the earlyMiddle Stone Age) is not conclmore, there is no indication ofof these innovations towardwould be necessary to demonsvocally) their influence onPaleolithic.

Hence, on the basis of preseth e following points asserted byare still strongly defendable: (1)cian could certainly have develoMousterian in Europe, and (2) asource area for the Aurignacianconclusively established.

In other respects, howeveHrdlitka's 1927 ideas and argumheld up. For example his concepof Pleistocene glacial phenomensimplistic and his chronology, tfar off as some, was nevertheleslMusil and Valoch, 1966; Butzer,all indications, the earliest Auleast in central Europe, is associnterstadial period. Consequentment that the Aurignacian Iprobably not invaders because tunlikely to "invade" Europe atth e "glacial period" would novalid, if in fact it ever was.Likewise, Hrdlitka's definitiorta l as the man of the Mousterilonger seems accurate. The sterian-Neandertal and ModeJ

Upper Paleolithic association pacertainly the norm, clearly doesall cases. For example, at QafzehTsrael basically modern Homo,hominids are associated witlMousterian (McCown and IVandermeersch, 1977; Wolpoff, ]Europe th e recent discoveries at

..


13/25


14/25

448 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH HRD1954; Howell, 1957; Howells, 1973, 1974;Brace and Montagu, 1977; Trinkaus andHowells, 1979; Wolpoff, 19801, and are oftenreferred to as "classic" Neandertals (e.g.,Howell, 1952). Significant features include acontinuous, projecting supraorbital torus; arelatively low, broad cranial vault, generallyexhibiting occipital bunning and lambdoidalflattening; a large, prognathic face; lack of acanine fossa; very broad nasal aperture andanterior palate; large anterior teeth, generallyexhibiting heavy att.rition: a mandible lackinga mental eminence and t.rigone, but. exhibit.ing a receding symphysis and retromolarspace; and certain postcranial characteristics(to be discussed later). Of course, as Hrdlirkanoted, and as more recent workers haveemphasized (Brose and Wolpoff, 1971; Braceand Montague, 1977; Wolpoff, 1980), there is aconsiderable degree of variability in the expression of these features. SeveraI specimensexhibit certain features that approach themodern Homo sapiens condition to a greaterdegree than is usual for western EuropeanNeandertals. For example, rather verticalsymphyses an d incipient mental eminencesare noted in Monte Circeo 2 and La Ferrassie1, while very little occipital bunning is exhibited in specimens like Saccopastore 1 andLe Moustier.

The chronological problem that faced Hrdlitka in 1927 still frustrates the analysis ofwestern European Wl.lrm Neandertals.Presently th e majority of these remains(including those from La Chapelle, LaFerrassie, La Quina, and Hortusl arecorrelated to Wurm II (Heim, 1976a,b; deLumley, 1976; Vandermeersch, 1976), placingt.hem temporally between approximat.ely55,000 and 37,000 years H.P. However, forvarious reasons, the temporal position ofmany of the specimens (particularly thosefound early in t.his century) within this periodcannot be determined conclusively, whichseverely hampers the search for systematicpat.terns of change over time during Wurm II .Only a meager number of Late Pleistocenespecimens seem to be pre-Wl.lrm II (see Wolpoff, 1980), and there appear to be very fewsystematic differences betwee n the pre-WurmII and Wl.lrm II ~ e a n d e r t a l samples in western Europe. There is, however, clear evidenceof anterior dental reduction from the preWurm II to Wl.lrm II Neandertal samples(Frayer, 1978; Wolpoff, 1980): and reduction ofWurm I I anterior teeth is particularly evident.at th e late Wurm II site of Hortus (de Lumley,

1973, 1976), where the anterior teeth are consistently smaller than the rest of the Wurm IIsample. Except for this tendency for dentalreduction, the only other existence of "progressive" features in the Wurm II western European sample consists of occurrences of traitssuch as those mentioned earlier, which aregenerally isolated in specimens otherwiseexhibit.ing "typically" Neandertal morphology.

The recent discovery of a Neandertal in Chatelperronian context at Saint Cesaire inFrance (Leveque an d Vandermeersch, 1980,1981) deserves special consideration at thispoint. Although the preliminary considerations of the morphology of this specimen em-phasize that it is virtually identical t.o earlier(Wurm III Neandertals (Leveque and Vandermeersch, 1980, 1981; ApSimon, 1980), limitedexamination of the specimen by one of us(F.H.S.) in Paris in 1978 left th e impression ofa strong similarity to the Vindija Neandertalsin certain features. Others (W olpoff, personalcommunication) have come to the sameconclusion. I t is interesting to not.e that theonly other hominid remains definitelyattributable to the Chatelperronian (teethfrom Arcy-sur-Cure) also exhibit. Neandertalaffinities (Wolpoff, 1980).7 While moreinformation is needed to be certain, it wouldappear that the latest Neandertals in westernEurope, Saint Cesaire and possibly Hortus, doindicate some pattern of morphologicalchange toward the direction of modern Homosapiens. However, if the age of the SaintCesaire specimen is comparable to the fewavailable radiocarbon dates for the Chatelperronian at other sites (like Arcy-sur-Curel,the specimen would date about 31,000 to33,000 years B.P., which would make it ratherlat.e for a Neandertal. Some support for thisdate comes from the approximate 35,000-year'B.p. date associated with the aparently Neandertal La Quina H27 temporal (Vallois, 1969). Weshall return to the possible significance of thislater.

Except for the above mentioned Chatelperronian specimens, the earliest significantUpper Paleolithic remains known fromwestern Europe are associated with th e MiddIe Aurignacia n. Thus, a critical (albeit shortltemporal gap still remains between the latestNeandertals and earliest moderns in westernEurope, which also complicates evaluat.ion of

'The robust skelf'toa from Combe Capelle, reroverpd by Klaatschan d HaustJr (I ~ 1 1 0 1 under :-iom('what d u b i o u ~ l: irCUlllstance . , cannot bt\definitely consjderpd to be C'h5telperronian

th e natu.re. of the relationshiptwo hon11lud types. The earliessapiens specimens include thefrom Cra-Magnon and Gratt(Billy, 1976), which while qu

n e v ~ r t h e ~ e s s unquestionablysapiens m total morphologicar o b ~ ~ t n e s s itself, however, esroCCIpital region, is reminiscentmorphology, as are other asrrr;orphology (see Wolpoff, 1980SlOn that there is virtuallybetween these specimens andpeans (see Vallois, 1954) is farA significant amount of evolutis documented from the early toPaleolithic samples in western1976; see also Frayer, 1978). ThuEuropean early Upper Paleolitdemonstrably intermediate in tof certain features and in overbet.ween Neandertals and laterC,entral Europe. Although SPleIstocene fossil hominid spedC.entral ~ u r o p e were aUJong thedlscovenes made (e.g. Sipka, inbegin.ning in 1881; Pedmostf,Krapma, beginning in 1899; a: 905) and certainly consitute sonImportant fossil hominid samplt h ~ y have received proportionatmled attention in comparisoIEuropean and western Asianexcept by central European s~ e H n e k , 1969, 1976; V l ~ e k , 196mteresting to note that H r d l i ~ k arecognize the tremendous impormvaterial, especially that fromPredmosti (Hrdlitka, 1912a,1930), to the question of ttal/modern Homo sapiens reIE ~ r o p e . R ~ c e n t l y , interest in anthis matenal by noncentral Eurahave increased significantly1976a,b, n.d.; Smith and RaJFrayer, 1978; Wolpoff, 1979, 198al., 19811.

While many of the sites in thi,initially excavated around the t tury, and thereby suffer from thlems of imprecise methodologycontemporaneously excavated sitEurope, several of the more imhave been recently reexcavatedmore acceptable techniques of exdocumentation. Furthermore rstratigraphy and other a s p ~ c t


15/25

449vHRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MANteeth are conof the Wiirm IIdental

"progresII western Euro

of traitswhich areotherwisemorphology.

Neandertal in Cha,Saint Cesaire in

at thisconsider

this specimen emto earlierand Vanderlimited

by one of usthe impression ofNeandertalspersonal

to the sameto note that thedefinitely

(teethNeandertalWhile moreit wouldwesternHortus, doof morphologicalmodern Homoth e Saint

to th e fewth e Chatelabout 31,000 to

make it rathersupport for thisnder

Wece of thismentioned Chatelearliest significantknown from

with th e Midshort)

between th e latestmoderns in westernevaluation of

by Klaatschcannot be

the nature of th e relationship between thesetwo hominid types. The earliest Homo sapienssapiens specimens include the famous remainsfrom Cra-Magnon an d Grotte des EnfantsIBilly, 1976), which while quite robust arenevertheless unquestionably modern Homosapiens in total morphological pattern. Th erobustness itself, however, especially in theoccipital region, is reminiscent of Neandertalmorphology, as are other aspects of theirmorphology (see Wolpoff, 1980). The impression that there is virtually no differencebetween these specimens and modern Europeans (see Vallois, 1954) is far from the truth.A significant amount of evolutionary changeis documented from th e early to the late UpperPaleolithic samples in western Europe (Billy,1976; see also Frayer, 1978). Thus, the westernEuropean early Upper Paleolithic material isdemonstrably intermediate in the expressionof certain features and in overall robusticitybetween Neandertals an d later Europeans.Central Europe. Although several UpperPleistocene fossil hominid specimens in SouthCentral Europe were among th e earliest suchd i s c o v ~ r i e s . m a d e (e.g.!.tSipka, if ~ 8 8 0 ; Mlade't,beginnIng m 1881; Predmostl, m 1894-1895;Krapina, beginning in 1899; an d Ochoz, in1905) and certainly consitute some of the mostimportant fossil hominid samples in Europe,they have received proportionately little detailed attention in comparison to westernEuropean and western Asian specimensexcept by central European scholars (e.g..Jelinek, 1969, 1976; VItek, 1967, 1969). I t isinteresting to note that Hrdlitka was quick torecognize the tremendous importance of thismaterial, especially that from Krapina andPredmosti ( H r d l i ~ k a , 1912a, 1914, 1927,1930), to the question of the Neandertal/modern Homo sapiens relationship inEurope. Recently, interest in an d analysis ofthis material by noncentral European workershave increased significantly (e.g., Smith,1976a,b, n.d.; Smith and Ranyard, 1980:Frayer, 1978; Wolpoff, 1979, 1980; Wolpoff etal,,1981).While many of the sites in this region were, initially excavated around the turn of th e century, and thereby suffer from the same problems of imprecise methodology that plaguecontemporaneously excavated sites in westernEurope, several of the more important siteshave been recently reexcavated using muchmore acceptable techniques of excavation anddocumentation. Furthermore, reanalysis ofstratigraphy and other aspects of earlier-

excavated sites has been carried out in manyinstances. Thus, while problems certainlyremain, a reasonably good stratigraphic!chronologic framework is available - at leastfor th e most productive hominid fossilproducing regions in Czechoslovakia (Musiland Valoch, 1966) and northern Yugoslavia(Malez, 1978).In the context of this framework, the Neandertal remains from South-Central Europe canbe confidently divided into two temporalsamples (see Smith, n.d.). The early sampleconsists of th e remains from Krapina,Gimovce, Ochoz, and probably Subalyuk. Thetime span represented extends from th eRiss/Wiirm Interglacial through the EarlyWiirm Stadial (roughly equivalent to Wiirm Iin western Europe). The late sample iscomprised of the sPE:Simens from Vindija(level G3), Klilna, an d Sipka, all of which areencompassed within the time range of theLower Wiirm Stadial (Wiirm II).

The early Neandertals from this region,when considered as a group, clearly exhibit allof the characteristic morphological features ofthe taxon Homo sapiens neanderthalensis;and despite the fact that many of them haveoften been considered more "progressive" ormore "generalized" (i.e., less extreme) in theirexpression of Neandertal anatomical characteristics than western European "classic"Neandertals, there is no feature or complex offeatures which supports this assertion. Inevery aspect of cranial, dental. and postcranialanatomy where comparisons are possible, theearly South-Central European Neandertalsexhibit the same morphological pattern astheir counterparts in western Europe (Vitek,1969: Smith, 1976b, n.d.; Wolpoff, 1980). Forexample, th e Neandertals from Krapina haveoften been portrayed as being more "progressive" than the western European Neandertals.In fact. Hrdlitka frequently cited the Krapinaremains as an example of Neandertalsexhibiting features which presented a"considerable variation and that of a ratherprogressive tendency" (1930:215). It is clear,however, that he did no t consider them anymore "progressive" as a group than the westernmaterial (Hrdlitka, 1914, 1927, ] 930).Recentlv, a series of detailed studies onvarious' aspects of th e Krapina samples(Smith, 1976b, 1978; Trinkaus, 1978; Wolpoff,1979) have demonstrated conclusively that theKrapina hominids do no t differ from westernEuropean Neandertals to any significantextent,


16/25

F. SPENCE]{ AND F.H. S\llTH HR450The late NeanderLal sample from South-Cen

tral Europe exhibits basically the same totalmorphological pattern as the early sample;Qut as the descriptions of Vindija, Kulna, andSipka (Wolpoff et al., 1981; Jelinek. 1967;Vlcek, 1969) demonstrate, there are a numberof features in which this late group approaches the early Homo sapiens sapiens condition to a consistently greater extent thanthe early group does. This fact has beenpointed ou t repeatedly by centralvEuropeanscholars (e.g., Jelinek, 1969; Vlcek, 1958,1969), bu t these assertions were based on the\lither sparse Czechoslovakian material fromSipka, Kulna, and Bala. The relatively recentdiscovery of the Vindija hominids (Malez etal., 1980) ha s solidified this position. At Vindija additional specimens preserving the sameanatomical regions Isupraorbital tori,mandibles, and maxillae) represented in theCzechoslovak sample have been recovered,thus markedly increasing sample sizes. TheVindija specimens have confirmed the samegeneral "progressiveness" in these areas previously observed in the Czechoslovak specimens, indicating that the entire "population"of late Neandertals in South-Central Europewere more evolved than the early sample inthe direction of early modern Homo sapiens,I n the supraorbital region, for example, it hasbeen documented elsewhere (Smith and Ranyard, 1980; Wolpoff et aI., 1981) that the},'indija supraorbital tori (as well as that ofSala) exhibit both metric diminution and certain morphological changes from th e earlierKrapina sample. The latter basically concernsrelatively greater midorbit reduction in th elate sample, which can be considered an incipient stage in th e emergence of distinctsupraorbital trigone and superciliary archsegments of the supraorbital area. Additionally, the mandibular remains from Vindijaexhibit (as a group) relatively vertical symphyses (all less than 901; {)TId two of th eVindija specimens, as well as Sipka (probably),give indications of at least incipient mentaleminences an d trigones. There is also evidenceof some degree of reduction in certain significant facial characteristics in th e lategroup. Fo r example, the Kulna and both Vindija maxillae exhibit rather narrow nasalapertures compared to the western Europeansample. Furthermore, the Vindija (but notKulnal specimens have rather shallow palatesand reduced alveolar heights. Also th e Klilnaand perhaps th e Vindija maxillae possess veryshallow canine fossae. Fo r further details on

these finds see Wolpoff et al. (1981) and Smith(n.d.).The early modern Homo sapiens (early

Upper Paleolithic) sample from South-CentralEurope exhibits several characteristics thatindicate a close morphological connection withlate South-Central European Neandertals andsuggest an intermediate position between Neandertals and later European modern hominidpopulations. The material that constitutesthis sample is dated to older than circa 25,000years H.I' . an d includes specimens fromP'fedmosti, Zlaty. Kun., Mladet, Brno, VelikaPecina, Dolni Vestonice, and Pavlov. Hrdlickaclearly recognized that the morphology ofsome of these specimens, specifically thePredmosti and Brno crania, was more similarto Neandertals than that of most westernEurop.ean Upper Paleolithic specimens(Hrdlicka, 1912, 1914, 1927, 1930). There is,however, no record of his examining thecomplete Mladec sample, which indicates thisconnection even more distinctly. Thismorphological "connection" is illustrated by anumber of features (see Smith, n.d.; Smith andRanyard, 1980; Wolpoff, 1980 for moredetailsl.

Fo r example, the supraorbital superstructures, although essentially modern in form,are generally considerably more salienL androbust than later Homo sapiens sapien8populations. Furthermore, the divisionbetween th e supraorbital trigone and superciliary arch is no t alwavs distinct, as in laterpopuiations. Some specimens, such as Mladec5, almost exhibit a supraorbital torus. I t isargued elsewhere in more detail (Smith andRanyard, 1980) that th e supraorbital region inSouth-Central European hominids representsa morphological continuum from early Neandertals, through late Neandertals, to earlymodern Homo sapiens. In addition, hominidswhich make up this early modern Homo8apien8 sample are intermediate in tooth sizebetween Wiirm Neandertals and later UpperPaleolithic-associated specimens (Frayer,1978; Smith, 1976b), contributing to a distinctpattern of dental reduction traceable fromRiss/Wiirm Neandertals through Mesolithicand Neolithic Europeans (Brace, 1979; Frayer,1978). Nasal apertures tend to be only slightlynarrower than late South-Central EuropeanNeandertals, and canine fossae are notextensively more excavated. Prognathism,general facial robustness, and rugosity aregenerally more developed in the early modernHomo sapiens sample than in later European

Upper Paleolithic "populabuns, though somewhat difgenerally less developed thadertals, are common in the elithic sample and are most logremnants of a Neandertalstructures are much less fpopulations.

While these and other feagood deal of morphological siearly Upper Paleolithic andspecimens from South-Centrata l morphological pattern of eolithic hominids unequivocallthe taxon Homo sapiens samen, no t even Mladet 5 orcomplex of features that WOclassification as a Neandertal1978) has illustrated this means of multivariate analytinent material (see alsoTrinkaus and Howells, 1979)multivariate evidence has haenforcing the idea of a qualitbetween Neandertal and earlysapiens morphology, an idearoots in the original replacemeBoule, 1914, 1923; see also Vaimportant Lo note that neitheBrauer's analyses can includandertal remains from South-due to their fragmentary condat present, it would appear thfrom such studies are not direto the Late Pleistocene hominthis area of Europe.'

Western Asia. The Near Eastpoint for the study of UPIhominid evolution ever since t]th e Mount Carmel hominidsKeith, 1939). Historically, tlnological interpretation of theSEcontemporaneity of the Skhulminids and their Riss/Wiirm Icontributed to the impressiorHomo sapiens had evolved sar"east" of Europe. Recent strati/and archaeological analyses f1973) have shown that the sittemporary and certainly not RiE

Presently, all w o r k ~ r s agreeEast was populated by popul,sapiens neanderthalensis dur:circa 60,000 (or earlier I to 46Specimens attributed to this t,th e sites of Tabun, Shanidar, jtiyeh and exhibit only rather


17/25

lvHRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN1 451I

Upper Paleolithic "populations." Occipital differences from European Neandertalsa1. (1981) and Smith buns, though somewhat different from and (Stewart, 1977; Trinkaus and Howells, 1979;generally less developed than those of Nean Wolpoff, 1980), The Skhal hominids aresapiens (early dertals, are common in the early Upper Paleo considered by most scholars to be earlySouth-Central lithic sample and are most logically considered modern Homo sapiens, although certainlycharacteristics that remnants of a Neandertal ancestry. These exhibiting a number of features very remiical connection with structures are much less frequent in later niscent of Near East Neandertals (Wolpoff,Neandertals and populations. 1980). In fact, the mostwellknown craniumbetween Ne While these and other features indicate a (Skhal 5), which is generally represented asmodern hominid good deal of morphological similarity between "typical" of the Skhal hominids, is one of thethat constitutes early Upper Paleolithic and late Neandertal most modern-looking of th e specimens in thethan circa 25,000 specimens from South-Central Europe, the to- sample, Other specimens (e.g., Skhal 4 and 9)from ta l morphological pattern of early Upper Pale are somewhat more Neandertal-like. TheMladec. Brno, Velika olithic hominids unequivocally places them in Skhal hominids are clearly more recent thannd Pavlov . Hrdlicka the taxon Homo sapiens sapiens. No speci the Neandertal specimens listed above (Smith,the morphology of men, not even M l a d e ~ 5 or 6, possesses a 1977; Trinkaus and Howells, 1979; Wolpoff,th e complex of features that would warrant it s 1980) and would appear to date betweensimilar classification as a Neandertal, Stringe r (1974, 31,000 an d 35,000 years fl . P.of most western 1978) has illustrated this quite nicely by The Qafzeh hominids, th e first of which werespecimens means of multivariate analysis of the per discovered in the 1930s, have only recentlyThere is, tinent material (see also Brimer, 1980; been systematically described by Vanderhis examining th e Trinkaus and Howells, 1979). Although the meersch (1977). They are very similar to th eindicates this multivariate evidence has had the effect of Skhal hominids i to ta l ' morphologicaldistinctly. Thisenforcing the idea of a qualitative difference pattern, as well as in the expression of conillustrated by a between Neandertal and early modern Homo siderable variation (see Wolpoff, 1980), andSmith an d sapiens morphology, an idea which has its would appear to represent the san1e evolumore roots in the original replacement concepts (d, tionary stage of development. These homiBoule, 1914, 1923: see also Vallois, 1954), it is nids, however, have been claimed to be anysuperstruc important to note that neither Stringer's nor where from 44,000 to around 70,000 years old.modern in form, Brauer's analyses can include the late Ne Bu t even in the detailed geological analyses ofsalient and andertal remains from South-Central Europe, Farrand (1972, 1979), who favored an earlysapiens sapiens due to their fragmentary condition, Therefore date, there is nothing that would precludeth e division at present, it would appear that impressions age of between 30,000 and 40,000 years forand super from such studies are no t directly applicable these hominids - a range which is supporteddistinct, as in later to the Late Pleistocene hominid sequence in by certain archaeological considerations andsuch as Mladec this area of Europe,' some admittedly questionable amino-acidtorus. It is Western Asia. The Near East has been a focal racemization dates (Bada and Masters Helf(Smith and point for th e study of Upper Pleistocene man, 1976), as well as morphology. Thus atsupraorbital region in hominid evolution ever since the discovery of the present time, there appears to be littlerepresents the Mount Carmel hominids (McCown and reason for considering the Qafzeh hominids to from early Nean Keith, 1939), Historically, the early chro date significantly earlier than those of Skha1.to early nological interpretation of these sites (e.g., the Unfortunately, there are no hominid remainsIn addition, hominids contemporaneity of the SkhUl and Taban ho attributed to th e early Upper Paleolithic ofmodern Homo minids and their Riss/Wtirm equivalent age) western Asia.tooth size contributed to the impression that modern Postcranial evidence. Although supposedlyand later Upper Homo sapiens had evolved somewhere to the primitive postcranial morphology constitutedspecimens (Frayer, "east" of Europe. Recent stratigraphic, faunal, one of the major arguments for a separateto a distinct and archaeological analyses (Jeliiiek et al., Neandertal lineage (Boule, 1911-1913, 1914,traceable from 1973) have shown that the sites are no t con 1923: Vallois, 1954), more recent analysesthrough Mesolithic temporary and certainly no t Riss/Wtirm in age. have shown that while Neandertal postcraniaFrayer, Presently, all workers agree that th e Near are characterized by extreme rugosity and roonly slightly East was populated by populations of Homo busticity, virtually all aspects of NeandertalEuropean

are no t sapiens neanderthalensis during the periodcirca 60,000 (or earlier) to 46,000 years B.P.Prognathism,Specimens attributed to this taxon come from MBrauer's (19RO) complete analy'sis of the Hahnofersand frontaland rugosity are (dated at ca. : ~ 6 , O O O years ILl'.) indicate it to he demonstrably inthe sites of Taban, Shanidar, Amud, and Zut in the early modern termediate beLween Neandertals and modern Homo sapiens -in atiyeh and exhibit only rather minor regional number of features.later European_J""------- _


18/25

452 F. SPENCER AND F.B. SMITH HRDpostcranial morphology are within th e rangeof modern human variability (e.g., Trinkaus,1976b, 1978; Stoner and Trinkaus, 1981).Exceptions are (1) th e unusually elongatedand thinned superior pubic ramus of Neandertals (Stewart, 1960; Trinkaus, 1976a;Smith, 1976b), which possibly relates to parturition, and (21 the unusual pattern of theaxillary border of th e scapula, which exhibitsa dorsal rather than a ventral axillary groove(the latter being typical of modern hominids).Trinkaus (1977) relates this to differentmuscular demands, noting that transitionalmorphologies are found in both Neandertalsand modern Homo sapiens and demonstratethat this morphology is the norm in "transitional" groups like European Upper Paleolithic and SkhuI hominids.

THE EVIDENCE FOIt A NEANDEltTALPHASE OF MAN

Th e archeological and morphologicalinformation presented above indicate, in ouropinion, that a transition between Neandertals and modern Homo sapiens is even moredefendable than in Hrdlicka's day. There aredemonstrable morphological continua in theLate Pleistocene hominids of both SouthCentral Europe (early Neandertals-latel\eandertals-early moderns) and the Near East(Neandertals-SkhullQafzeh group) which dono t exhibit the extensive morphologicalbreaks we would expect with replacementsenso stricto. Late Neandertals in SouthCentral Europe, for example, make excellentintermediates between th e earlier, more"typical" Neandertals and the early modernHomo sapiens sample. The latter sampleexhibits numerous well-developed Neandertalreminiscent features, which occur in ratherhigh frequencies and decrease in both frequency and similarity to Neandertals in latersamples. Clearly, the morphological gradientbetween Neandertals and modern humanswhich H r d l i ~ k a recognized in 1927 has beensupported by subsequent discoveries. LikeH r d l i ~ k a , we believe that the most logical(although no t the only) interpretation of thisgradient is that it represents a phylogeneticcontinuum between Neandertals and modernhumans in these regions.In western Europe, a temporal/morphological continuum in Late Pleistocene hominids isless clear, and it appears that Neandertalsmay have survived later in this region thanthe other two. Furthermore, on the basis of

present evidence, the earliest Upper Paleolithic in western Europe seems to appear morerecently than in central Europe. All of thismay indicate that the appearance of modernHo'mo sapiens in western Europe was influenced by gene flow from central Europe, butthese indications may also be the result of thechronological and other problems no ted l!cu-lier.

Even if it should be demonstrated thatwestern European Neandertals did not evolveinto modern Homo sapiens, Hrdlitka's arguments are not invalidated. I t is evident that,although H r d l i ~ k a is generally considered to bea unilinealist in the same mold as Schwalbe (seeVallois, 1954, 1958), this is not completelyaccurate; his views are somewhat more complex (Spencer, 1979). As hi s writingcontinuously emphasizes, H r d l i ~ k a did notconceive of all l\eandertal populations asevolving to modern Homo sapiens. Furthermore, while no t attempting a regionalapproach, largely because the fossil record wasnot complete enough at that time to allow suchan analysis, it is clear that Hrdli


19/25

vHRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN 453Upper Paleo

appear moreof this

of modernEurope was influ

central Europe, bu tth e result of the

noted ~ l i e r . demonstrated thatdid no t evolveHrdliCka's arguI t is evident that,

considered to beas Schwalbe (seethis is not completely

somewhat more comAs his writingdid no t

populations asomo sapiens. Furthera regionalthe fossil record wasthat time to allow such

that Hrdli(';ka recognizedintegral factor in theHrdlicka 1912a:3-5,order to defend

H r d l i ~ k a ' s to demonstrate that

everywhere wereHomo sapienswere. In the light ofwe obviously believe this

S AND OTHERHYPOTHESES

the pre-sapiensnoted two major pointsperspective: (1) the

of a transitionmodern humans

the existence of fossile existence of a pre-saHaving dem

exist for a transithe question of the exis

Like Boule,was European

the specimens fromMore recenthave shownspecimens differcontemporaneous

specimens. A more recently suggestedEuropean pre-sapiens specimen, theVertesszbllbs occipital (Thoma, 1969), has alsobeen demonstrated to be indistinguishablefrom Homo erectus (Wolpoff, 1971). Thus,there is no convincing evidence to support theexistence of a European pre-sapiens lineage.Outside of Europe, the initial claim of presapiens specimens was registered by L.S.B.Leakey for remains from the Kenyan sites ofKanam and Kanjera discovered in 1932, Thesehave subsequently been excluded as suitablepre-sapiens specimens for differing reasonsIsee Coon, 1962; Wolpoff, 1980). Also, the possibility of a very early appeareance of modernhumans in the Near East was once popularbut is now hard to defend, at least in the strictpre-sapienist sense (see previous discussion).More recently, the Niah juvenile (Borneo) hasbeen suggested to indicate the presence of avery modern group in this region at 40,000years B.P. Apart from th e problem of inferringthis in a juvenile specimen, there is somequestion regarding it s stratigraphic context,which is difficult to resolve at this point(Kennedy, 1979). Furthermore, no other indications of this early occurrence of modern humans have been recovered from any otherEast Asian site. Additionally. we do ~ o consider a 40,000-year date to be significantlyearlier than the earliest appearance of modernHomo sapiens in Europe or the Near East.Presently, the best case for a very early datefor anatomically modern humans comes fromSouth Africa, specifically the site of BorderCave (Beaumont et al., 1978; Rightmire, 1979).Among other remains, a very modern-lookingcranium and separate mandible have been

recovered from this site, and are said to comefrom levels dating in excess of 80,000 yearsB.P. (see Butzer, 1978). There are, however,contextual problems with these specimens;and the existence of modern humans at soearly a date has not yet been conclusivelydemonstrated at other sites in southernAfrica, with the possible exception of theKlasies River Mouth sites (see Klein, 1977).Otherwise, there is a reasonably clear morphological sequence in South Africa (Rightmire,1976, 1978) in which evolutionary gradesappear equivalent to those contemporaryhominids in other areas of the Old World (seeWolpoff, 1980). Thus, while we view th e possibility with great interest, we feel that considerably more substantiation is necessarybefore the idea that South Africa is the area of

origin for modern Homo sapiens, in a classicmonocentric sense (Beaumont et al., 1978;Protsch, 1975), can be accepted. In fact, as theevidence now stands, although clade diffe

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anth5334
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Spencer, Smith 1981

Documents