Hausein, an Aniatomiiist at the U'niversity of Bonni
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.