CALIFOR!:HA STATE UNIVERSI'fY, NO:R'l'HRIDGE 'l'HE EVOLUTIONARY SCHENES 0!.'' NEANDER.THAL A thesis su~nitted in partial satisfaction of tl:e requirements for the degree of Naste.r of A.rts Anthropology by Sharon Stacey Klein The Thesis of Sharon Stacey Klein is approved: Dr·,~ Nike West. - Dr. Bruce Gelvin, Chair California s·tate University, Northridge ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ·There are many people I would like to thank. Firs·t, the members of my corr.mi ttee who gave me their guidance and suggestions. Second, rny family and friends who supported me through this endea7cr and listened to my constant complaining. Third, the people in my office who allowed me to use my time to complete ·this project. Specifically, I appreciate the proof-reading done by my mother and the French translations done by Mary Riedel. ii.i TABLE OF' CONTENTS PAGE PRELIMINA:H.Y MATEIUALS : Al")stra-:-:t vi CHAP'I'ERS: I. Introduction 1 II. Methodology and Materials 4 III. Classification of Neanderthals 11 Species versus Subspecies Definitions of Neanderthals 16 V. The Pre-sapiens Hypothesis .i9 VI. The Unilinear Hypothesis 26 Horphological Evidence Transi tiona.l Sp.. ::;:cimens T'ool Complexes VII. The Pre-Neanderthal Hypothesis 58 Morphological Evidence Spectrum Hypothesis "Classic'1 Neanderthal's Adaptations Transitional Evidence Tool Complexes VIII. Sumnary and Conclusion 90 Heferences Cited 100 1. G~<ological and A.rchaeoloqical 5 Subdivisions of the P1eistoce!1e 2. The Polyphyletic Hypothesis 17 3. The Pre-sapiens Hypothesis 20 4. The UnilinPar Hypothesis 27 iv FIGUHES: P.Z\GE 5. Size Comparisons of Neanderthal 34 and Australian Aborigine Teeth 6. Final Monsterian 47 7. Aurignacian Tools 49 8. Perigordian Tools 51 9. The Pre-Neanderthal Hypot.hes is 60 10. The Spectrum Hypothesis 70 TABLES: I. List of Specimens and Their 6 Relative Dates II. Ha.ndibular An.terior Tooth Row 32 Averages III. Maxillary An·terior Tooth Row 33 Averages IV. List of "Classic" Neanderthals 65 2 . f ' . 4= V. D Matr1ces o tne Cranllli~ ok 68 Late Pleistocene Hominids v I • ABSTRACT THE EVOLUTIONARY SCHEMES OF NEANDERTHAL by Sha~on Stacey Klein Master of Arts in Anthropology The "Neanderthal problem n includes many face·ts such as: 1) definition of which skeletal specimens aYe Nean-­ derthal, 2) dating of these specimens, and 3) placement of Neanderthal in man's evolutionary scheme. This paper disc'..lsses tne last problem and revie\·Js these schools of thought: 1) the Polyphyletic, 2) the Pre-sapiens, 3) the Dni1inear, 4) Pre-Neanderthal, and 5) spectrum. The d~:t.ailed morphological analyses of ?omo ~apic~. nea.nc~er­ th~_!:.en_~:!:_:;_ and Ho~o _::;apien~ sa:p__i:_e_:r_:s and the tool complex evid.~nce from the Middle to Upper Pa.leoli thic used to support the latter three schemes are presented. 'l,he Unilinearists argue that all Neanderthals evolved into modern !!_~:mo sap~en~ whereas the Pre-0Jeanderthalists and the spectruo hypotbeais supporters eliminate western European nclassic" Neanderthals as an ancestor. After vi a review of the e-v-idence, it is suggested that western European Neanderthals did not evolve into anatomically modern Homo sap~~- Instead, the morphological variety found among the Neanderthals supports a spectrum hypoth­ esis -which acknowledges the existence of different groups of ·the genus Hom~ 1 some of which exhibit Neander­ thal traits, some of which show a ·strong tendency towards Homo sapie.~s _?apiens, and others which are intermediate in their characters. These aggregates existed at the same time in different a!:'eas of the Old lvorld. vii Everyone ag"t"ees that Neanderthal man did in fact exist, as a population in Europe during the Wlirm glacial before the Upper Paleolithic, that his cranial morphology was visibly different from modern man's, and that populations akin to this one v1ere present in the :Near East. Agree­ ment stops there. How and when the population arose, what becmne of it, how to relate it to other contemporary and later populations of the Old World, are matters of dispute. (Howells 1974b:7) viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Neandert~al man has intrigued anthropologists for more than 125 years. Ever since the first discovery in 1865 in Ge1.-mar.y 's :t-Jeander River Va1le:y·, de~Jate 1-:lC.S con- ·tinued as to ho-w Neanderthal fits into the human evol.u- ticnary scheme. P.. n overall desc!..·ip'cion of a Neandex.--tha.J. type was made by Boule in 1908 when he examined the Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton. Unfortunately, Boule only based his description on this one find. Excerpts from Boule's original report contain the terrr..s ~ "bestial appea.ra.nce,n "inferior t.ype 1 " and "primi."tive" in both physical and intellectual characteristic3 (Poirier 1977: It was not until 1957 that the La Chapelle-aux- Saints skeleton was restudied by Straus and Cave (1957) and found t~o be U;e rer0.ains of an old arthritic individual. •roday 1 most <:mthropologists surmise t.hat Neandertha.l -was not a semi-erect, slouching, bull-necked brute, as dep1c- ted by Boule, but was more "modern" than originally thought (Pe;J.sber.ger 1981). In fact., Howells (l974:b;; 7) states that to do~bt Neanderthal was a close if not direct ancestor 'rlho falls r,..;i·thin the physical ranqe of mode·-cn nan llseems to be consen"Ling ·to a sort: of evolut.ionax.-y racism." ., ..... Yet, the ''Neandert.hal problem" (Kennedy 1975 1975:75) still exists. Many aspects are included under this label such as: 1) definition of -which skeletal specimens are Neanderthal, 2) dating of these specimens, and 3) placement of Neanderthal in man's evolutionary scheme. Since morph- ological differences do exist between Neanderthals and Ho~o sapiens sapiens, these differences have been studied in order to place Neanderthals in t.he evolutionary scheme of modern man. Morphological distinctions plus analyses of tool complexes have given rise to f:i.ve evolutionary Iodels: 1) the Unilinear school, 2) the Polyphyletic school, 3) the Pre-~apiens school, 4) the Pre-Neanderthal school, and 5) the spectrum hypothesis. Despite the quantity of Neanderthal material, direct dates are still difficult to ascertain. However, since no known Neanderthals are mere recent than 40,000 years B.P., this date is used "as a tentative boundary for the most recent occurrence of the stage as a whole" (Brace 1967:88). Most researchers (Shackley 1980:6; Holpoff 1980; 298) do use the time span between 40,000-35,000 years B.P. as represe.ntin'; the end of the Neanderthal peopL3. Basically, for dating purposes, Neanderthal is associated with the H.ousterian which, in turn, can be dated at approximately 100,000 years B.P. to 35,000 years B.P. The problem with this period is that it is too old to be dated by Carbon 14 and too young to be dated by potassium-argon. There- 3 fran this time period can be dated (Brace 1967:88). In response to the "Neanderthal problem," Howells {1976:478) states that, Obviously, modern man had ancestors. But there are no clear underpinnings for him, or for population differences, only a rec­ ognition of such differences existing as far back as 36,000 years at the least. We have nothing else by way of beginnings which is other than inferential. All that can be done now is to consider the nature of possible hypotheses, and of the evidence used. It is the purpose of this paper to ::ceview the evidence supporting each hypothesis and discuss these different views. This will enable one to understand the "Neanderthal problem" more concisely and more clea~cly. Furthermore, it will be shmm that the similar Pre-Neandert:hal and spectrum schools of thought are the most strongly supported hypoth- eses. ,, CHAPTER J. ... METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS Met.hodology: Before discussing the five hypot~esized evolutionary ...... schemes of Neanderthal, l ~- is necessary to deal with the classification of these fossils. This ~Till be done .in order to clarify and define the problem. Then a reviev-1 of each of the proposed schemes will be present.ed. After a brief review of l) the Unilinear school; 2) the Poly- phyletic school; 3) the Pre-sapiens school; 4) the Pre- Neanderthal school, and 5} the spectrum hypothesis only the tv.;ro rr.ost currently debated ~.vill be discussed in detail. The Unilinear hypothesis and the Pre-Neanderthal hypothesis will be dE;alt with in terms of the anatomical and arti- factual evidence used to support each of these respective evolutionary schemes. Materials: Since there are over a hundred sites contai:ning Neanderthal and Neanderthal-like specimens (Mann and Trinkaus 1973}, it would be im?ossible to mention all of them and the signific3.nce of each fossil i.:!'"l the text of cussed in this paper are listed in Table I along with their relative chronology. Figure 1 shows the chronology and stratigraphy of the European Late Pleistocene and its cor~esponalng dates. 4 5 " ' Figure 1: Geological and Archaeological Subdivisions of the Pleistocene GEOLOGY AACHAEOLOGY ,----;;_;~~~------~DATE B::: [ MESOLITHIC, ETC~-----~ r -;,r=- l:==:~ I g_c~ l-:~~~~~Ni;=; I ··=jl,: j ,r ... " l I! P ,. I 'l'/hh'/-'·''1 r---::_;;:v_~-./~1\.'.:..-.;.1..... -.. •l(---~ ___ 1 ' r 1 , T r 20.000 ··,_ "'f' UPPER ! i i "tu~,<~1c0 1 1 i L Ill I . '''G.-.,~>~!'t-'1' I I A I 1 A 1- JO 000 "' ..<t- ',:y I I /'/N;=-'/"A . _________ :.:_:... j ! I t , """M G LAC I., I~ _,,~:///r·o.ooo f----- .------- -1~---l.,_ l I l i I MOUSTHll~N E I I s I: ~~~ss= COMPLEX rDDLEj 0 I I ----- ~----_j_ao.ooo L----------:6~ / l 1 .