I 0 5

Early Research on Pleistocene Races in Europe: Putting Neandertal Man's Head Together Stephen R. Holtzman'

The validity of putative associations of disarticu- A most remarkable peculiarity is at once obvious in the lated hominid fossil remains has been a recurrent extra-ordinary development of the frontal sinuses, owing to which the superciliary ridges, which coalesce theme in the history of interpretations of human completely in the middle, are rendered so prominent, evolution. The debate over the supposed affinity, and that the frontal bone exhibits a considerable hollow or the ultimate demonstration of the lack of association, depression above, or rather behind them, whilst a of the mandible and calvarial fragments from deep depression is also formed in the situation of the Piltdown is the most notorious example. Simons' root of the nose. The forehead is narrow and low ... (1961) more recent taxonomic association of (trans. in Busk 1861:156). "Bramapithecus" and "Kenyapithecus" with All the remains were "characterized by their unusual Ramapithecus in another controversial example. thickness, and the great development of all the eleva- Perhaps the earliest case of an error of association is tions and depressions for the attachment of muscles" that of the Neandertal calvaria and the La Naulette (Ibid: 158). mandible, now recognized as belonging to the same One of the difficulties with the man from Neander- taxon, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Studies dealing tal was the question of his antiquity. It was not possible with the affinities of these two specimens took place to date with assurance the remains, as they were not durinig the debate betwseen scholars favoring dar- clearly associated with animal remains. Willian inatuIral selectioni as a explanlatoi-y device for Such was not the case with the currently less well- morphological chanige through tinme and those ainti- known La Naulette specimen. The associated fauna at evolutionists wkho suggested that immigration was La Naulette included extinct forms and the La mor-e importanit. A review of these studies shows that Naulette jaw was considered clearly Pleistocene in age the eventual recoginitioin that the Neandertal and La (Dupont 1866). Edouard Dupont, a Belgian paleoni- Naulette specimeins belonged to the same type of fossil tologist, found two-thirds of a edentulous human ImlanI wN'as accoimiplished by anti-evolutionists in a conl- mandible and an incomplete ulna in 1866. They were text of Pleistocene racial successioin in Europe. It is located in the floor of the cave of La Naulette on the suggested that because of this anti-darwiniian heritage l'eft bank of the river Lesse, a tributary of the Maas. the earliest elucidatioin of Neaindertal cranial mor- Dupont submitted the La Naulette jaw to a number phology wNas largely ignored by later workers. of "most competent" (Dupont 1866:48) scholars, The modern view of the morphology of Neandertal among them Franz Pruner-Bey and de Quatrefages, man was first set forth by E.T.J. Hamy in collaboration who communicated to him the results of their exami- with Armand de Quatrefages in 1873 (de Quatrefages nations. The details of Dupont's description, evident- 1873). Hamy placed the Neandertal skullcap and the ly, were especially influenced by Pruner-Bey. The La jaw from La Naulette in the same early European race, Naulette jaw exhibited certain pecularities separating resulting in a "racial type" with flat skullcap and reced- it from the general run of human jaws and its mor- ingjaw. The actual geological association of a similarly phology was somewhat reminiscent of the simian con- flat skullcap and receding jaw was not found until dition, but according to Pruner-Bey it was yet far re- 1886 at Spy in Belgium. moved from the simian type and well within the range of variation of the human type. Pruner-Bey compared The Neandertal and La Naulette Discoveries the La Naulette jaw with ancient European jaws and The well-known and much discussed Neandertal withjaws from living races, and found it similar to both remains were found in 1856 by quarrymen digging in groups. a cave in cliffs of the Neander valley over the small In 1886 Paul Topinard reviewed the La Naulette Diussel River, above Dusseldorf (Fuhlrott 1857). The jaw's morphology (Topinard 1886). With regard to the find consisted of a calvaria and post-cranial remains. canine teeth, Topinard believed they had not been The remains were brought to the attention of J.C. "excessive" in either volume or length, nor projected Fuhlrott, a secondary school mathematics teacher, outward much, judging from the alveoli (Topinard who in turni delivered them over to Hermannl Schaff- 1886:408). This view of the probable size and disposi- hausein, an aniatomiiist at the U'niversity of Bonni. tion of the missing La Naulette canines conflicted with According to Schaaffhausen, "The cranium was of the views of Pruner-Bey and Dupont. Both Pruner- unusual size, and of a long-elliptical form." Bey and Dupont had noted the absence of a chin on 1 06

the La Naulette jaw. Topinard agreed that the chin tween the indigenous peoples and the Indo-European was quite receding, "compared to the average in man". speakers. In 1842 he was able to demonstrate that the However, according to Topinard, the chin was not Swedes had long heads, which he called absent but only poorly developed. "A snmall triangular "dolichocephalic," while the Finns and Lapps had surface . . . exists; its contours are indicated, (and) its short heads, "brachycephalic." Two Basque skulls later relief is apparent" (Ibid.:415). proved to be brachycephalic, while most of the French Pruner-Bey and Dupont had reported that the ge- skulls that he observed were dolichocephalic (see Ret- nial tubercles were not present. But, Topinard found zius 1846) For these and other reasons Retzius ar- both the upper and lower genial tubercles represented gued that an autochthonous, brachycephalic race, on the La Naulette jaw. The tubercles had not been which spoke languages entirely different from those seen previously because the sedimentary matrix sur- of today, had preceded in Europe an invading rounding the jaw had not been completely removed; dolichocephalic, Indo-European speaking or Aryan "I am one of the first to see the jaw of La Naulette race. The latter group brought ancestral European cleaned" (Ibid.:423), said Topinard. Pruner-Bey had languages and the use of metals into the West. Retzius' described the genial region in terms of a 'long and theory of'ancient brachycephals ofEurope' was widely wide transverse torus attached to the myloidian crest' accepted. separating 'two small fossae,' the inferior being itself Marcel de Serres, geologist and paleontologist, was 'subdivided by a small vertical bar situated on the sym- the originator of the 'Mongoloid hypothesis' of the physis.' Removal of the surrounding matrix showed racial succession of Europe. De Serres (1853) believed Pruner's superior 'small fossa' contained the superior that he could distinguish two distinct types among genial tubercles. According to Topinard, "The sec- ancient Europeans, one of which he called "mon- ond, whose nature Pruner-Bey has misunderstood, is goloid." Originally pure, this mongoloid type had the two digastric fossae separated by the beak of the gradually become attenuated through admixture, mental triangle (p. 425)." Finally, according to To- though traces of it could yet be found. pinard, the 'torus' separating Pruner's 'two small fos- Pruner-Bey (1863) added the doctrine of 'ancient sae' did not arise from the myloidian line; "contrary to brachycephals' of Retzius to the 'mongoloid Pruner-Bey's description, it rises spontaneously on the hypothesis' of de Serres. For some fifteen years sides without attaching to any elevated area (p. 426)." Pruner-Bey made a number of osteological compari- Topinard's description of the Naulette jaw is much sons between the remains of prehistoric men and, also, more acceptable today than the absolutely chinless living men whom he called "mongoloid," including troglodyte described by Pruner-Bey and Dupont. It Finns and Lapps. He found mongoloid traits in all should be borne in mind that Topinard's reconstruc- Paleolithic skulls, which, according to him, were all tion was carried out more recently than the events brachycephalic. He believed that a mongoloid, discussed here. brachycephalic population, autochthonous to Europe, was overrun by invading dolichocephalic Aryans from The Mongoloid Hypothesis Developed the East. Pruner-Bey considered the onset of the The Neandertal skullcap and La Naulette jaw were Aryan invasions, the first being Celtic, to be contem- much discussed, sometimes together, as being among poraneous with the start of the Neolithic. the most primitive specimens known. But they were Pruner-Bey adhered to his convictions with persis- not clearly put into the same race until 1873. What tence. According to de Quatrefages and Hamy caused the delay? The answer is bound up with (1882:136), "The conclusions he has drawn from the Pruner-Bey's version ofthe Mongoloid hypothesis and comparisons he had made .. . have achieved under the with his initial interpretation of the La Naulette and pen of M. Pruner a degree ofcertainty that is inspired. Neandertal remains within the context of that And there has resulted therefrom quite a body of very hypothesis. simple and very clear doctrines, very seductive because In the middle of the nineteenth century linguistic of those very qualities. But the author has unhappily inquiries had shown that in Europe, in addition to the sometimes forced the applications." Indo-European languages which were of relatively re- Pruner-Bey in 1863 had no difficulty fitting the cent importation, there existed several languages en- Moulin Quignon jaw into his general scheme. Thejaw tirely different from the others. These languages were was found by a workman for Boucher de Perthes in from two different groups: those spoken by Finns and 1863 in Pleistocene deposits. Its reputed provenance is Lapps of the North, and those spoken by Basques of now generally believed fraudulent. No skeletal part southern Europe. It was generally believed that the other than the jaw had been recovered, yet Pruner- aboriginal peoples who spoke these non-Indo- Bey judged it, "by its proportions and by the absorp- European languages once had occupied commonly tion of some dental alveoli," to have belonged to a the greater part of Europe. short individual who was "very probably The Swedish anatomist Anders Retzius sought to brachycephalic" (in de Quatrefages 1863:302). The determine ifthere were morphological differences be- jaw from Arcy-sur-Cure, found by a workman for the 1 07

Marquis de Vibraye in 1859 in Pleistocene deposits, sixteen individuals. The associated fauna included was also an isolated specimen. It had belonged to a reindeer and thus Dupont (1872:195) assigned the short brachycephal, according to Pruner-Bey: "It is deposits to the Upper Paleolithic. Because of their the rounded chin of ajaw that indicates an individual generally presumed Upper Paleolithic age, the Frontal ofshort stature. The form indicates moreover that this remains became important in substantiating the mon- relic scarcely could have belonged to the Celtic stock. goloid hypothesis of Pruner-Bey. Unlike Arcy, Aurig- Consequently, I class it among the brachycephals" nac and Moulin Quignon, sufficient numbers of cra- (Ibid.:303). A third jaw, from Aurignac, found by nial fragments were recovered to enable the cephalic Edouard Lartet, who considered it to be of Pleistocene indices of the Furfooz people to be directly deter- age, consisted of the posterior half of a mandibular mined. They had been brachycephalic to body with the three molars intact. It was also assigned mesocephalic and, therefore, formed a support for the to the ancient brachycephalic, pre-Aryan people. "(I) theory of 'ancient brachycephals of Europe.' conclude first of all that brachycephalic man was the In his original announcement of the La Naulette primitive inhabitant of our lands and, then, that stock jaw, Dupont (1866) found significant similarities with is not extinct. As for the Celts, who show, apart from the Arcy jaw, especially in the vertical mental region their high stature, a skull that is dolichocephalic, I and "width and form" of the mandible (p. 50). The consider them to be later than the race mentioned internal mandibular torus, however, was more pro- above (Ibid.:303)." The dolichocephalic Neandertal nounced oh the La Naulette specimen. In addition to skull showed "the Celtic type perfectly," according to the Arcy jaw, one of the jaws from the supposedly Pruner-Bey. By reason of its obvious peculiarities, it Upper Paleolithic or Reindeer Age Frontal Cave, was "probably" that of an idiotic Celt (Ibid.:305). In mandible No. 6, was cited as being comparable to, order to place the Neandertal skull among the Celts its although deriving from a younger individual, the La great antiquity had to be denied; "Neandertal can date Naulette mandible (Dupont 1866). The jaws of just as well from 1,000 as from 5,000 years. We have no Naulette, Arcy and Frontal, then, were intimately re- positive means to estimate the date of its origination lated, according to Dupont. ." (Ibid.: 305). The Frontal jaw was found in association with well Later in 1863 Pruner-Bey defended his view that the preserved skulls which "one cannot cannot confuse, as Moulin Quignon, Arcy and Aurignacjaws necessarily Mr. Pruner-Bey has so well demonstrated, with those had belonged to brachycephalic skulls. Comparing a of an Aryan race in which all contours are oval. The lowerjaw of a brachycephalic skull from the Iron Age angular contours of the skulls found at Furfooz and to the Moulin Quignon jaw, he said, "The first corre- the lozenge-shaped face, class them evidently among sponds in all points to the second with the exception of the ... Mongol races ... (Dupont 1867:93)." Dupont the coronoid process" (Pruner-Bey 1863:323). In con- likened the Furfooz people, and by implication those trast Pruner-Bey compared a jaw belonging to a of La Naulette and Arcy, to peoples both living and dolichocephalic Celt, noting "the difference of the ancient called "mongoloid" by Pruner-Bey. Dupont lowerjaw of the ancient brachycephalic type. .. (W)e thus accepted the results of the study made by notice in general that that of the Celt is triangular; that Pruner-Bey, and considered this race to be of rela- of the brachycephal is parabolic. The first shows a tively small stature and lightly brachycephalic. square and pointed chin; on the second it is rounded. In 1866 Pruner-Bey discussed the race to which the The ascending rami are wide and thick in the Celt; the La Naulette jaw had belonged. He found it similar to contrary is found in the brachycephal. Thus, we can the Arcy jaw, as had Dupont (1866), except that Arcy distinguish, at least these two races, byjust a fragment possessed a "triangular" chin, the genial tubercles of the lower jaw" (Ibid.: 323). were "weakly indicated" and the prognathism is "con- Pruner-Bey had many followers, among them Du- siderably diminished." However, he continues, pont and de Quatrefages. In dealing with the Nean- "everything else in these two jaws corresponds, and, dertal skull, de Quatrefages (1867:258) spoke of "its judging by the spacing of the horizontal rami and by eminently Celtic character (Pruner-Bey), which seems their lack of length ... (Arcy) must have belonged to a demonstrated to me." Of thejaws from Arcy and Au- small and brachycephalic skull" (Pruner-Bey rignac, de Quatrefages (Ibid.: 258-259) said, "M. 1866:591-592). According to Pruner-Bey, the La Pruner-Bey, by virtue of his minute researches on the Naulette jaw belonged to the "paleontological and harmonies of interrelationship of skull and face, has prehistoric brachycephalic race." sustained his original estimations." Generally de Quat- Pruner-Bey (1866) cited the Frontal Cave mandibles refages (Ibid.: 261) supported the "so remarkable" and associated brachycephalic crania as supportive of views of Pruner-Bey. this hypothesis. In this manner, the La Naulette man- Further discoveries provided more fossil evidence dible became associated with brachycephaly in the con- for Pruner-Bey's mongoloid hypothesis. In 1865 text of the mongoloid hypothesis as originally prop- Dupont found in Frontal Cave, at Furfooz on the river osed by de Serres (1853). Lesse, skulls and skull fragments belonging to about 1 08

Brachycephaly and/or Dolichocephaly in Pleistocene skulls in western Europe could be dated to before the Europe? time ofthe Aryan invasion, i.e. before the introduction In 1867 Pruner-Bey reiterated his view that the La of metals. Broca had come to believe that Naulette, Arcy and Aurignac jaws represented the dolichocephalic skulls were as prevalent or even more earliest known men of Pleistocene Europe; the Frontal prevalent than brachycephalic skulls in the Stone Age. remains derived from the Reindeer Age, somewhat During the polished stone period, especially, later in time. All these Paleolithic fossil remains were dolichocephalic skulls were altogether predominant, those of brachycephals. To the earlier group he now at least in France. Pruner-Bey (1868a and b) had mod- added the remains known as Bruniquel No. 1 from the ified Retzius' (1842) theory to account for the exis- Blacksmith's Grotto (Pruner-Bey, 1868a). The tence of dolichocephalic skulls in the polished stone Blacksmith's Grotto had yielded in 1863 fragments of period by calculating the onset of the Aryan invasions two badly damaged lowerjaws and a postmortally de- to coincide with the transition from the period of formed skull. It was impossible to determine the worked stone to that of polished stone, i.e. from the cephalic index of this cranium with precision, but Paleolithic to the Neolithic. That transition was by then Pruner-Bey noted that the foramen magnum was dis- believed more-or-less coincident with the end of the placed posteriorly, that the glenoid fossae were widely Pleistocene, and thus the question became whether or separated and that the zygomatic processes of the not any fossil men were dolichocephalic. Broca con- temporals showed an "eccentric direction." For these cluded, "(I)t is clear in any case that the beginning of reasons he concluded that, "this skull must have been the epoch of polished stone is the final limit to which it brachycephalic originally" (Ibid.: 353). may be reasonably possible to place the Aryan migra- Blacksmith's Grotto mandible was reminiscent of tions." (Broca 1868a: 382-383). the La Naulettejaw with respect to its thickness, lack of According to Broca, Pruner-Bey had argued his mental eminence and relative size of the molars, the case, first by rejecting a Pleistocene age for any second molar being "at least equal to the first in size" dolichocephalic skull and, second by multiplying the (Ibid.: 352). candidates for Pleistocene brachycephals. The latter Pruner-Bey referred to the Reindeer Age Frontal he had accomplished largely by arguing from small skull as "mongoloid," because ofsimilarities to modern scraps of thejaw to the cephalic index. "His procedure day Lapps, "men for whom the reindeer is both prey is very simple ... (M)y skillful colleague ... has and companion" (1868a:347). By implication all erected brachycephalic skulls from incomplete skulls European Pleistocene remains were those of whose cephalic index cannot be estimated and even brachycephalic mongoloids, who had been overrun from skulls of which there remain only minimal frag- though not extinguished by dolichocephalic Aryans at ments." Broca admitted there was evidence for the start of the Neolithic. brachycephalic peoples during the Pleistocene, such as The views of Pruner-Bey (1863, 1866, 1868a), Du- at Furfooz. "And I think we will discover more .. . But, pont (1866) and de Serres (1853) were challenged by it does not result at all that the brachycephalic type was Paul Broca. Broca (1868a:374) opposed "that precon- wide-spread at that time. . ." (Ibid.:384). Broca noted ceived idea that all that is not brachycephalic must that wide jaws can belong to dolichocephalic and nar- decend from Indo-European conquerors." Broca em- row jaws to brachycephalic skullcaps. phasized that Retzius (1846) had developed his ideas With regard to the antiquity of the man from Nean- on the succession of races in Europe before the great dertal, Broca said there was no evidence from the antiquity of man had been appreciated, i.e. before the Neandertal site to support the contention that the existence of fossil man had been generally accepted. remains were those of a Celtic burial. "And if I ask Within a framework of three technological ages what in that supposed sepulture characterizes the Cel- (Stone, Bronze and Iron), Retzius had maintained that tic epoch, I am told that the skull is dolichocephalic. dolichocephalic Aryans had invaded and displaced in- That is to say, the question is always resolved by the digenous brachycephalic peoples at the same time that question" (Ibid.:388). Broca believed the Neandertal metal had come into use. Notwithstanding attempts and Eguisheim skulls closely resembled each other in primarily by Pruner-Bey (op. cit.), Broca (1868a) did possessing a "depression of the base of the frontal and not consider that evidence favored this hypothesis. the enormous projection of the superciliary arches." Once the antiquity of man was appreciated, it was no The Eguisheim skull was found by workmen digging a longer plausible to dismiss summarily human remains, beer cellar in Alsace-Lorraine in 1865 (Faudel 1867). particularly dolichocephalic crania, from Pleistocene There was no doubt, said Broca, that the individual deposits as later interments. Said Broca. "the discovery who had owned the dolichocephalic Eguisheim skull of fossil man rendered improbable the ethnogenic lived contemporaneously with the mammoth.2 Other theory of Retzius, but it did not render it impossi- dolichocephalic skulls, e.g. the skull from Engis, were ble"(Ibid. :373). also derived from Pleistocene deposits. Broca (1868a) Broca (1868a) suggested that the test of Retzius' thus concluded that both brachycephalic and theory was simply whether or not any dolichocephalic dolichocephalic peoples had lived in Europe during 1 09 the Pleistocene. However, the known dolichocephals Pruner-Bey cadled "Mongoloid." "(F)urthermore, the dated from the older and "probably very much long- physiognomy of these Estonian skulls agrees in its er" (Ibid.:392) Age of the Mammoth, while the known characteristic traits with that of our Troglodyte" brachycephals dated from the Age of the Reindeer, (Ibid.: 153). according to Broca. At Solutr6 the remains of a number of individuals It is of interest to note that Broca referred to the La were unearthed beginning in 1867 and they were Naulette jaw as a "contemporary of the mammoth" deemed Pleistocene in age. Among the Solutre re- (Ibid.: 396), which would place it chronologically mains Pruner-Bey (1 868b) found skulls comparable to more-or-less contemporaneous with the those of Lapps, Finns, the 'Old Man's' skull from dolichocephalic skulls from Eguisheim and "very Cro-Magnon, Eskimos of the Bering Straits and a probably" (p. 392) Neandertal. Why, then, did Broca modern Estonian. This indicated strongly that the (1868a) not anticipate Hamy (in de Quatrefages 1973) Cro-Magnon and Solutre'remains were "mongoloid." relating the La Naulette mandible with the Neandertal Further studies by Pruner-Bey (1865-75) of Pleis- skullcap? There are at least two reasons why he could tocene human fossils revealed two series of mon- not have taken that position. First, in the early 1860's goloids, one resembling the Finns and the other re- he had argued in favor of Retzius' theory of 'ancient sembling the Lapps. The Cro-Magnon remains, how- brachycephals' primarily on the basis of negative evi- ever, did not closely resemble either group. Pruner- dence. By 1863 new evidence had forced him to rec- Bey (1865-76:88) suggested that Cro-Magnon rep- ognize the antiquity of dolichocephaly in western resented a "new" group of mongoloids in the Pleis- Europe. "I have been one of the first, maybe the first, tocene, a group allied to the later Reindeer Age "mon- to uphold the multiplicity and the diversity of prehis- goloids" and to modern Estonians. toric races (p. 375)." Could he, then, in 1867 argue that Finally, as added proof for Cro-Magnon's mon- dolichocephals had preceeded all brachycephals, goloid affinities, Pruner-Bey concluded from the again on negative evidence? And if there might have shape of the "peculiar palate, low and extending for- been brachycephals in addition to dolichocephals in wards" in the Cro-Magnon that the language spoken Europe contemporaneous with the mammoth, might by their owners had "a weak phonology, and sweet at not the La Naulette mandible have belonged to one of times; and such are the Finnish idioms" (Ibid.:91). the brachycephals? A second reason for not associat- Broca (1865-76) attacked the now modified mon- ing the La Naulette jaw with a dolichocephalic Nean- goloid hypothesis of Pruner-Bey. Pruner-Bey had ap- dertal or Eguisheim skullcap is that, to having at- proached the Cro-Magnon materials with his old pre- tacked Pruner-Bey for concluding from the shape of conceptions intact. Broca considered that the exis- thejaw to the cephalic index, could Broca, then, have tence of dolichocephalic crania contemporary with done the same? It remained for Hamy later to as- mammoth remains disproved the mongoloid sociate the La Naulette jaw with the Neandertal hypothesis. As he pointed out, "M. Pruner-Bey en- skullcap, following an independent line of evidence. deavors to prove that, if the Cro-Magnon people were not brachycephalic, they were at least mongoloid; and Cro-Magnon: The Mongoloid Hypothesis Undone as it would seem singular and contrary to all expecta- The Cro-Magnon remains were found in 1868 by tions that a race of the mongoloid type would be at the workmen digging into the base of a cliff close to the same time highly dolichocephalic, he has been led to right bank of the Ve'z'ere River, a tributary of the weaken this contradiction by referring the Cro- Dordogne, near Perigord. The remains belonged to at Magnon race to the modern Estonians .. ." (Broca least five individuals with an associated Pleistocene 1965-76:121-22). Broca denied any specific affinities fauna. Louis Lartet, Edouard's son, described the cir- between Cro-Magnon and Estonians. He instead cumstances of the discovery. The morphology of the thought that the contemporaneous presence of the Cro-Magnon remains was discussed by Pruner-Bey chinless, wide La Naulette mandible and the more (1868b) and Broca (1865-75), both of whom studied modern-appearing Cro-Magnon mandible indicated them extensively at the request of L. Lartet. the presence of more than one race in Pleistocene Pruner-Bey fit the Cro-Magnon remains into his Europe. general scheme. He accepted them as dating back to Broca's argument gained an influential convert in Pleistocene times; therefore, they had to be mon- de Quatrefages, who felt the "well-marked goloid, in Pruner-Bey's view. "The Mongoloid charac- dolichocephalism" (in Broca 1968b:4 10) of the Cro- ter of the bony faces is certain (1868b: 153)." The 'Old Magnon skulls provided the first good evidence for Man's' skull, however, was clearly dolichocephalic. the existence of dolichocephals in the Pleistocene. Therefore, Pruner-Bey was compelled to search for "I am one ofthose who ... have thought it very proba- ble that Western Europe was peopled at first by a small dolichocephaly among the Mongoloids of today. and brachycephalic race . .. I supposed it possible that Pruner found two Estonian skulls which proved to be populations existed in Europe presenting the two dolichocephalic. This fact demonstrated that cephalic types; but I did not think that any fact au- dolichocephaly occurred among people whom thorized us to suppose that the brachycephalic (sic) 1 10

type had at so early an epoch reached Western Europe brachycephalic" race, cited as corresponding to ... (I)t is evident that my opinion must be changed" Pruner-Bey's "mongoloid group." To this group was (de Quatrefages 1865-75:123). assigned the La Naulette and Arcy mandibles. Pleistocene Europe had been inhabited by two distinct A third, completely different, "powerful" race ap- races, one dolichocephalic and the other peared in western Europe during the Transition bet- brachycephalic, according now to de Quatrefages. ween the Mammoth and Reindeer Ages. It included remains from Cro-Magnon, Engis and Grenelle, the Two Dolichocephalic Races in Pleistocene Europe latter located along the Seine in the west sector of The wide acceptance of a Pleistocene age for the Paris. "The bones discovered by M. Em. Martin are of dolichocephalic Cro-Magnon people and a lack of ac- a third race, dolichocephalic and of great height like ceptance of Cro-Magnon's supposed Estonian (mon- the first, but the skull is voluminous." The remains goloid) characteristics, put an end to Pruner-Bey's from Aurignac were assigned to the Cro-Magnon race contention that all Pleistocene peoples of Europe were although Hamy (1870:261) suggested that some ad- brachycephalic mongoloids. If, then, there were one mixture with the earlier brachycephalic race may have dolichocephalic race firmly established in the Pleis- existed. A skull from Bruniquel was considered a tocene, i.e. Cro-Magnon, might there not have been female specimen of the Cro-Magnon, but similarly, another, namely that of Neandertal? Broca had ar- other remains from "the curious station" of Bruniquel gued for a Pleistocene Neandertal race. Hamy, a stu- might properly be attributed, Hamy (1870) thought, dent of Broca, followed suit in hisPrecis depaleontologie to the race of Clichy, La Naulette and Arcy (p. 334). humaine (1870). It is of great interest that Hamy (1870) does not Hamy described in detail a number of remains he appear to have appreciated the proper relationship of believed to be of Pleistocene age. Pruner-Bey's at- the La Naulette jaw and the Neanderthal skullcap in tribution of the La Naulette jaw to a brachycephalic 1870. But he did point out the similarities in form of race was retained, but, his view that brachycephals had both these specimens and modern aboriginal Aus- preceded dolichocephals in Europe was rejected by tralians, which were to be of importance later. Hamy, who wrote of "the sad necessity of recognizing De Quatrefages (1871), reviewing Hamy's Precis, that ... Pruner-Bey has committed a great ethnologi- made several concessions towards the views first laid cal error" (Ibid.: 131). down by Broca and then pursued by Hamy. But de Hamy divided the Pleistocene into four periods. Quatrefages continued to adhere to certain of The first was the Age ofthe Mammoth and Cave Bear. Pruner-Bey's ideas that Hamy had rejected. De Between it and the Reindeer Age was a Period of Quatrefages agreed with Hamy that the Eguisheim Transition. The succeeding Reindeer Age was divided and lower level Clichy remains demonstrated the great into a first and a second part. The Arcy, La Naulette, antiquity of Neandertal's peculiarities. There had Neandertal and Eguisheim remains all came from the been, in fact a dolichocephalic race of tall stature "since Mammoth Age. The Aurignac and Cro-Magnon fos- thefirst days of the Mammoth Age." "That race ... would sils came from the time of Transition. Bruniquel and have been characterized by a forehead both flat and Solutre were from the first part of the Reindeer Age narrow, by a laterally compressed face" (de Quatre- and the Furfooz remains from the second part, accord- fages, 1871:207-08). ing to Hamy. De Quatrefages also agreed with the appearance of Hamy (1870) accepted the Neandertal remains as a third dolichocephalic, more modern-appearing, race deriving from the Age of the Mammoth, and allied during the "Period of Transition," as exemplified by with these the Eguisheim cranium, the Olmo cranium the Cro-Magnon and Grenelle finds. However, de discovered in Tuscany in 1863 (Cocchi 1867), and the Quatrefages continued to considered the La Naulette Clichy fragmentary skull found in Paris (Bertrand and Moulin Quignon mandibles as Mammoth Age 1868). These specimens formed the core of Hamy's specimens belonging to brachycephals ("mongoloids" early European race, characterized by dolichocephaly, of Pruner-Bey). He also considered the Frontal Cave projecting browridges and a flattish forehead region. specimens as later representatives of this same race. The Olmo cranium had less pronounced browridges Two other discoveries of ancient dolichocephalic and Hamy considered it to have belonged to a female skulls were to play an important role in the determina- of this race. Hamy (1870:206) concluded that "a tion of Neandertal morphology: Cannstatt and Bruix. dolichocephalic race, the anatomical study of which is The provenance of the Cannstatt skull is obscure. In yet quite imperfect has ... exclusively peopled the val- 1835 the paleontologist G.F. von J'ager found, in the ley of the Rhine ... in the Age of the Mammoth." collection of the princes ofWiurtemberg, among bones A second "brachycephalic" race seemed to appear at from Cannstatt of supposedly Pleistocene age, a the end of the Age of the Mammoth, according to human skull consisting of the frontal and a part of the Hamy (1870). This interpretation was prompted by right parietal (von J'ager, 1839). At Brux (now Most) the discovery, at a higher stratigraphic level at Clichy, on the BNa River in Bohemia cranial fragments and of cranial fragments and mandibles of a "highly post-cranial remains were found in 1871. The Briux 11 1 skull fragments were early identified as Neadertal- way for comparison with modern skeletal material. like; the site was considered Pleistocene. A major problem to be overcome in assigning the La Hamy (1872) specifically discussed the Neandertal, Naulette mandible, and others, to the dolichocephalic Eguisheim, Brux and Cannstatt remains as belonging race was the relatively great and receding chin of the to individuals ofthe same race, all of them dating from former. The Neandertal skull had been compared to the Age of the Mammoth. In respect to classification a dolichocephalic Australian skull from Port Western, he said, "I will adopt willingly, modifying it a little, the Victoria by Huxley (1863). De Quatrefages and Hamy theory of Mr. Huxley, who classified this primitive (Ibid:39) also noted the similarities in cranial mor- race of Europe with certain races now living in Au- phology between these two specimens, and also with a stralia." (in Schaaffhausen 1873:548). third (Australian) skull, whose facial morphology re- sembled the Gibraltar skull. The modern mandibles The Race of Cannstatt associated with these crania possessed inarked De Quatrefages announced the first part of his and similarities with those of La Naulette, such as a re- Hamy's monumental Crania Ethnica in the spring of duced chin. The demonstration that such a mandible 1873. So extensive was the work that it was not ready in could be associated with a "dolichocephalic" cranium its entirety for publication until 1882. In this first part in modern man, removed the problem with such an the race ofCannstatt was described in great detail. The association in fossil man. ideas that were "specified" in the Crania Ethnica in "the order in which they had to be presented" and in "the Racial Succession in Pleistocene Europe. conclusions" were common to both de Quatrefages The determination of the race of Cannstatt and the and Hamy. But the burden of the execution of that attributions ofskulls andjaws to it in the Crania Ethnica work fell to the younger Hamy, said de Quatrefages was, essentially, an achievement of Hamy. In the give- (Quatrefages and Hamy 1882:viii). and-take ofideas de Quatrefages had altered his views De Quatrefages spoke for himselfand Hamy of"the much the more. Hamy in thePrecis in 1870 had argued race of Cannstatt, of which the famous Neandertal for the precedence of dolichocephaly in the Pleis- skull would seem to be ... the exaggerated type." "The tocene. In the Crania Ethnica, published in 1882, de essential characteristics of the race of Cannstatt are, Quatrefages had come to accept the precedence of the especially in the men, a remarkable flatness of the dolichocephalic Cannstatt race, including Neandertal, cranial vault coinciding with a very pronounced with brachycephals appearing considerably later in the dolichocephaly, the projection backwards of the pos- Pleistocene. terior region of the skull, the sometimes enormous De Quatrefages in 1867 had believed brachycephals development of the frontal sinuses and the very ob- were more ancient in western Europe than lique direction of the frontal, (and) the depression of dolichocephals. Later, in 1871 he modified his views to the parietals in their postero-internal third" (de Quat- include both brachycephals and dolichocephals in refages 1873:1315). Other supposed male specimens western Europe from the beginning ofthe Pleistocene. included the Eguisheim and Briux skulls. The charac- His conversion to the view that dolichocephals had teristics of the Cannstatt race were less expressed in preceded brachycephals derived from Hamy's views in females, represented by skullcaps from Olmo and 1874 on the Grenelle site, the stratigraphy of which is Clichy. De Quatrefages characterized the race of now generally deemed indeterminable. Cannstatt as "dolichoplatycephalic." The mandibles of According to de Quatrefages (1879), speaking for La Naulette, Arcy and Clichy, (lower level) were, for himself and Hamy, the world had been the scene of the first time, attributed to the same race, adding to countless migrations ofmankind. "With every increase dolichoplatycephaly a receding chin. and extension of knowledge we learn to appreciate The remains attributed to the race of Cannstatt better the wandering instincts of man. Human "were fragmentary, especially in the face region." Be- palaeontology and prehistoric archaeology are daily cause the Gibraltar skullcap found in 1848 in Forbes' adding their testimony to that of the historic sciences" Quarry resembled the Briux and Neandertal skullcaps, (pp. 179-80). Migration and intermixture constitute de Quatrefages believed the morphology ofthe face of the mechanism in terms of the consequences of which the Gibraltar skullcaps, would fill the void. The Gibral- present-day racial configurations must be understood. tar face was large and massive. The orbits were "re- Characteristics of races now lost occur by atavism in markably large," and the nasal cavities were "very peoples today. It was in the context ofracial migrations overt." The maxilla was "very prognathous," said and intermixtures, arguing from present types back- de Quatrefages. "This whole ensemble concords quite wards, that human remains from the Pleistocene were well with what the isolated cranial vault implies" (p. to be considered. 1316). De Quatrefages and Hamy (de Quatrefages 1873) Neandertal and Naulette: Why Not the Evolutionists? were "profoundly convinced" that fossil races were The Neandertal and La Naulette remains were not continuous with modern races. This beliefopened the placed in the same race in the context of argument on 1 12

the question of human evolution. Because, since the as in the question of whether Neandertal Man himself beginning of the twentieth century, Neandertal Man was a direct ancestor of modern Europeans or an has generally been considered in an evolutionary con- extinct side-line. Huxley's apparent goal was to make text, usually considered either a stage in or a side-line as strong a case as possible out of Neandertal for of the evolution of modern man, we might be inclined human evolution. In so doing he avoided ancillary to assume that the Neandertal and Naulette remains issues. were originally associated in an evolutionary context. It was the French, for the most part, who were However, the Neandertal skullcap and the Naulette concerned with the racial succession in ancient jaw were, in fact, first associated as belonging to indi- Europe. In the context ofthis interest Pruner-Bey first viduals of the same race in the context of the question explicitly dissociated Neandertal and Naulette by at- of the morphology of Pleistocene races in western tributing them to two different races; and Hamy six Europe. years later explicitly associated them. Not one of the Evolutionists did not make the association of Nean- influential French scholars was an avowed dertal and Naulette, because most ofthem were, essen- evolutionist. Both Pruner-Bey and de Quatrefages tially, not interested in doing so. Ardent evolutionists were outspokenly anti-evolution, and Hamy appears were more interested in championing the cause of to have ignored the question of evolution, at least evolution than in determining the morphology of publicly. Indeed, evolution had few adherent in Pleistocene races of Europe per se. Evolutionists were France until later in the century. It was, then, in a primarily concerned with demonstrating a string of milieu of apathy, even antipathy, towards the idea of increasingly inferior fossil specimens leading into the human evolution that the Neandertal and Naulette past. remains were associated. In Germany Ludwig Bluchner in 1894 came close to It is likely that evolutionists were thinking in terms associating Neandertal and La Naulette, but he did not of a simian species in the human past, not unlike the explicitly do so. After describing the La Naulette jaw, Neandertal type, with a low and robust cranium and a he concluded, "All these characters in conjunction receding, ape-like jaw. But Neandertal Man was with the general aspects of the bone indicate that it is a clearly human, because of his large cranial capacity, human lowerjaw of very animal formation, and espe- and, therefore. a primitive race, not species. As only a cially that it is the most ape-like jaw hitherto dis- primitive race, Neandertal provided no support or covered. The lowerjaw of La Naulette is, however, no argument for the idea ofhuman evolution. The notion more a peculiar and isolated bone of its kind, than the of human evolution implied a series of more primitive Neandertal skull in its way, but it is supported in its species in the past leading down to the apes. As only a evidence by a complete series of similar or allied "brutish" race, Neandertal Man fitted no better into bones" (1894:38). He listed a series of humanjaws that the conceptual framework of evolutionists than into tended toward the La Naulette condition; they in- that of anti-evolutionists, because both camps ex- cluded Moulin Quignon, Arcy and Frontal. He also pected "brutal" races to have existed in man's un- listed a series of skulls tending toward the Neandertal civilized past. Therefore, the association of the Nean- condition; they included Engis and Cannstatt. Of dertal skullcap and the Naulette jaw in the same race these remains Biichner stated that the "difficulty of could provide no argument for the Darwinists vis-a-vis preservation, and the small number of very ancient their opponents. human remains render it all the more significant that In the twentieth century, Neandertal Man has gen- these remains almost without exception bear upon erally been considered in an evolutionary context. It them the evident signs of an inferior conformation, seems ironic today that the type of the first discovered and that among them there are some which exceed in fossil man should have been determined in a milieu of their animality ofcharacter the lowest and most animal general anti-evolutionism. But it was almost necessary of existing races of men .'.!" (p. 149). Biuchner does that an anti-evolutionist or, at least, an anthropologist not appear to have been especially motivated to attri- whose explanatory device for human morphological bute the cranium and the jaw to the same race. His change was migrations and intermixture of types, primary motive was to popularize the idea of human make this association. evolution. To that end it was enough to point out Anti-evolutionists, e.g. de Quatrefages, were quick characters of inferiority leading to the ape. to charge evolutionists with seeking to invest Neander- In England Huxley (1863) was the first to nmake tal with proof for evolution. Quatrefages, after noting systematic comparisons between the Neandertal the strictly human nature of the Neandertal remains, cranium and crania of modern Australians. Hamy was said in 1879 of them that, "Some anatomists wished ... inspired to make similar comparisons of his own, and to consider this specimen as a special species . . . It was in the process he associated Neandertal and La especially considered as intermediate between man Naulette. Huxley, himself, did not associate them; in- and apes, and here and there traces may still be found deed, he expressed disinterest in the exact race to of these opinions" (p. 302). But the efforts of the which the man from Neandertal had belonged as well Darwinists were in vain, according to Quatrefages. I 1 3

After careful research, he said, the Neandertal skull REFERENCES CITED was revealed as strictly that of an individual belonging to an ancient race of the human species, whose bestial Bertrand, E. 1868 Crane et ossements trouve's dans characters "were merely exaggerated in his case" (p. une carriere de l'avenue de Clichy. Bull. Soc. An- 303). throp. Paris, 21, Ser. 3:329-335, 408-410. Quatrefages' charges indicate that the Darwinist Broca, Pierre Paul 1965 On the Human Skulls and position, a minority viewpoint until later in the cen- Bones found in the Cave of Cro-Magnon, Near Les tury, was under careful scrutiny by opponents. In this Eyzies. In Lartet and Christy eds., Reliquiae Ac- milieu associating Neandertal and Naulette in the quitanicae: 97-122. same race, and, especially, a separate species with 1868a Discours sur l'ensemble de la (luestion (carac- simian characterisitics would probably have brought teres anatomiques de l'homme dans les temps pr(- more charges of contrivance from the anti- historiques). C.R. Congres international d'An- evolutionary camp. And it was not necessary for their thropologie et d'Archeologie prehistorique. 2i. purposes for the evolutionists to explicitly associate sess., Paris 1867: 367-402. Neandertal and Naulette in the same race; their fun- 1868b On the Crania and Bones of Les Eyzies, or, d(amental goal was achieved by just noting the similar the Ancient Cave Men of Perigord. Anthropologi- characters of these two primitive bone pieces from the cal Review 6: 408-411. ancient past. It was left, then, to the anti-evolutionists, 1868c Sur les cranes et ossements des Eyzies. Bull. concerned as many were with the question of racial Soc. Anthro. Paris 2i Ser. 3:350-392. succession in ancient Europe, to explicitly associate the Biichner, Ludwig 1894 Man in the Past, Present and remains from Neandertal and La Naulette in the same Future: A Popular Account of the Results of Recent race, thus determining for the first time the mor- Scientific Research Regarding the Origin, Position phological type of Neandertal Man. and Prospects of Mankind. New York: Peter Eckler. (Translated from the 1872 German language edi- Notes tion). 'This article appears posthumously. Stephen Holtzman, a Busk, George 1861 On the Crania of the Most Ancient Berkeley Ph.D. in anthropology in 1970, died at the age of 38 155- in December, 1975. He had taught anthropology at Brandeis Races of Man. Natural History Review 2(1): University and had served as Assistant Professor of An- 176. thropology at Northern Illinois State University. The de- Cocchi, Ignio 1867 L'Uomo fossile nell'ltalia centrale. partmental reading room at the latter institution bears his Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. 2(7): 1-80. name. His obituary was published in the American Journal Dupont, Edouard 1866 Etude sur les fouilles scien- of Physical Anthropology, v. 45:349. Portions of this article l'hiver de 1865-66 dans are revised from Holtzman's doctoral thesis. tifiques ex6cutee's pendant 2According to the Catalogue of Fossil Homitids, Part II les cavernes des bords de la Lesse. Bulletins de (1971:108), the remains from Eguisheim "remain undated" l'Academie royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des -Ed. Beaux-Arts de Belgique (Classe des Sciences) 2i. ser. 22:31-54. 1867 Le terrain quaternaire dans la province de Namur. Bulletin de la Socie'te' g6ologique de France 2i. ser. 24:76-99. 1872 Les temps antehistoriques en Belgique: L'homme pendant les ages de la pierre dans les environs de Dinant-sur-Meuse. Bruxelles: Muquardt. 2i. ed. Faudel, Charles Frederic 1867 Sur la decouverte d'os- sements humains fossiles dans le lehm de la valle'e du Rhin, a Eguisheim, pr'es de Colmar. Bulletin de la Soci`t6 geologi(lue de France 2i. ser. 24:36-44. Fuhlrott, J.C. 1857 (On the Neanderthal Skeleton). Verh. Natur. Ver. Preus. Rheinl. Westf. 14:50. Hamy, Ernst Theodore Jule 1870 Precis de paleon- tologie humaine. Paris: J.-B. Bailliere. 1872 Quelques observations anatomiques et ethnologiques 'a propos d'un crane humain trouve dans les sables quaternaires de Briix (Boheme). Revue d'Anthropologie 1:669-682. 1 14

von Jfager, Georg Friedrich 1839 Uber.. die fossilen Topinard, Paul 1886 Les caracteres simiens de la Saugethiere, whelche in Wurttemberg in ver- maAchoire de la Naulette. Revue d'Anthropologie 3i. schiedenen Formation aufgefunden worden sind, ser. 1: 385-431. etc. Stuttgart. Huxley, Thomas Henry 1863 Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. New York: D. Appleton and Com- pany. Pruner-Bey, Franz 1863 Pieces anatomiques presen- tees par M. Prumer-Bey. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris 4:323-324. 1865-1875 An Account of the Human Bones Found in the Cave of Cro Magnon in the Dordogne. In Lartet and Christy eds. 1866 Sur la machoire de la Naulette (Belgique). Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris 2i. Ser. 1:584-603. 1868a Discours sur la question anthropologique. C. R. Congr'es international d'Anthropologie et d'Arche'ologie prehistorique/2i. sess., Paris 1867: 345-363. 1868b Description sommaire de restes humains d£- couverts dans les grottes de Cro-Magnon, pres de la station des Eyzies, arrondissement de Sarlat (Dor- dogne), en avril 1868. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zoologie et Pale'ontologie) 5i Ser. 10:145-155. de Quatrefages de Breau, Jean Louis Armand 1863 Decouverte d'une machoire humaine fossile, dans le diluvium de Moulin Quignon, pr'es Abbeville. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris 4:207-208, 248-250, 298- 307, 323-324. 1865-1875 Remarks on the Human Remains from the Cave at Cro Magnon. In Lartet and Christy eds., Reliquiae Acquitanicae: 123-125. 1867 Rapport sur les progr'es de l'anthropologie. Paris: L. Hachette et Cie. 1871 Histoire naturelle de l'homme: Pre'cis de pale'ontologie humaine par le docteur E.T. Hamy. Paris 1870/Deuxieme et dernier article. Journal des Savants, Avril-Mai-Juin 1871: 194-226. 1873 Races humaines fossiles Race de Canstadt. C.R. Acade*mie des Sciences 1313-1317. 1879 The Human Species. New York: D. Appleton and Company. (Translated from the 1877 French language edition). de Quatrefages, J.L.A., and E.J.J. Hamy 1882 Crania Ethnica/Les cranes des races humaines. Paris: J.-B Bailli'ere et Fils. Retzius, Anders 1846 Sur la forme du crlne des habit- ants du Nord. Ann. Sci. nat. 31, Ser. 6:133-172. Schaaffhausen, Hermann 1873 Sur l'anthropologie pre'historique. C.R. Congr'es international d' An- thropologie et d'ArchCologie prehistorique/6i. sess., Bruxelles 1872: 535-549. de Serres, Marcel 1853 Note sur la pale'ontologie humaine. C.R. Acad. Sci. 36-37:519-520. Simons, E. 1961 The Phyletic Position ofRamapithecus. Postilla (Yale), No. 57.