Smithsonian miscellaneous collections

Wrens
Dele
3 Nkte
7 4 RH a ts Rut e
ey Sa
e OK a)
, Uae
ae 8
ee
. Ne HW
: i. ae Bec i aN 8
EMER) 2) 620g BESO LAW D ROY
Beam as NYAS Rie
SETIEE ko BNC ae!
BEES YS ey ; SEG a
‘ ‘ an] ‘ uf 2 oe } a fi 5
TEE Ran R16 PCR NEM ea
SOLER chk Pee ee oh
TE TE SRN Ranier BS ae pat
PARANA HRMS at me ee
ik RE NRA Bernas ENGR bis
i mer, ge by ERD RR Reis ABE ,
s MERE ore eans Rs : BS ASS
; Bistro a aN Wie Pere on AS AN
rey BASES RIAL Y RAL EES ESR RRR RF
are Cra ins 5} SSR rt nr a
ef Betts y shy Pi RataNe
f ME BRISA AL PPD RRR) Nana
Ee ROO HOAN Sie RO Go
Ge? Pees th ut BCR tah
a : RO)
2 BRGY Aho Ps Ans.
ee UG
Pee Shh OCU a ;
n oe ee m4 REPROD GYAN
rhe ies Be aay Ee ‘
Weds RGSS i
tA ANG sy? a0 b ya
“4 ~ TR nee
a pies
ROPSO v6 mabe a
eae eC s
Ree ERAN 4 ea; * uh
i Meee Ae POEy
a Wy AS
aoe F a 5
Oey |

Ta BAR
BAN
SS
Naas s

are
wa

ee

neste
Bie Las
er

carn

Nc
alba e ae aN
Fen
sate

baltalec St
tes

aA
aS
eats
ate
7s

oe
as
as

=

Sc
“ eae
Pa oS

gen

fees

} f

SIONS

SMIETHSONTAN
MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

*“*EVERY MAN IS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY WHO, BY HIS OBSERVATIONS, RESEARCHES,
AND EXPERIMENTS, PROCURES KNOWLEDGE FOR MEN’’—SMITHSON

(PUBLICATION 3075)

CITY OF WASHINGTON
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
1930

The Lord Baltimore Press

BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A.

o- —e ee e -

i a

ADVERTISEMENT

The present series, entitled “ Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collec-
tions,” is intended to embrace all the octavo publications of the
Institution, except the Annual Report. Its scope is not limited,
and the volumes thus far issued relate to nearly every branch of
science. Among these various subjects zoology, bibliography, geology,
mineralogy, anthropology, and astrophysics have predominated.

The Institution also publishes a quarto series entitled “ Smith-
sonian Contributions to Knowledge.” It consists of memoirs based
on extended original investigations, which have resulted in important
additions to knowledge.

©. G ABBOT
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.

(iii)

47 itil y “f
a - roth
seh! a

an na a
ee

‘a

CONTENTS

Herpiiéxa, ALES. The skeletal remains of early man. July 24, 1930.
379 pp., 93 pls., 39 figs. (Publ. 3033.) (Whole volume. )

(v)

, L i Pvde -
Me ty |
Ramee pine rear wen

¥

; a TLL ; ?

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS
VOLUME 83 (WHOLE VOLUME)

THE SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN

BY
ALES HRDLIGKA

(PUBLICATION 3033)

CITY OF WASHINGTON
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
JULY 24, 1930

The Lord Battimore Mress

BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A.

PREPACE

In 1914 the writer published a small treatise on “ The Most Ancient
Skeletal Remains of Man.”* The object of the publication was to
furnish reliable data, including as far as possible original observations
and measurements, on the older and more valuable skeletal remains
of man. The scope of the presentation was limited to the remains of
human forms that differed substantially from those of the later pre-
historic time and those of the present. The demand was such that
the edition was soon distributed, and in 1916 the Smithsonian Institu-
tion reprinted the treatise in nearly the original form. This second
edition also was soon exhausted.

Since 1916 a number of important new discoveries have been made ;
moreover, the writer, in the course of several additional trips to
Europe, has examined personally, and in some cases repeatedly, the
originals of both the older and the more recent discoveries. Also,
notwithstanding the fact that many valuable contributions on the sub-
ject have appeared in print within the last decade, there is still to date
no publication which deals with the ancient skeletal remains of man
in any manner approaching completeness. In view of all this, and
because of the many requests received for such a publication, it was
felt that the preparation of a new and larger work should be under-
taken; and the present volume is the result.

The principal aim of this book is to furnish accurate and, as far as
possible, complete information on the earlier skeletal remains of man.
If this object can be achieved, or even closely approached, then the
publication should be one of permanent reference value, and further
light on the problems involved, including further discoveries, may be
dealt with in addenda.

* Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. for 1913, pp. 491-552, 41 pls., 12 figs., 1914.

Ill

CONTENTS

PAGE
ESTA COMME TROT esr re ete ce eres rere Tere oe IIe a Poise Sieh Saat See TING anes erat III
Ti ERO CEO MM yee ee Ree ere en pre deneepebies Bgl diBk 55 Me ala ae pret tetael Fa I
shemolacialepentodimmmn rears er oes cereals oie tececpeeacie Pat StS cE IR Wal spot tae 4
Cultural subdivisions of the period of early man and their approximate

COGelationnwithscolopienconditionsemeneccomere dees occa tcion cede: II
JACKS BVOMMEIL INST EATTRS NG Semi ics Oa Ore ODO eI Cee SS ICICI id Sno ere GALI 20
Mhesancrentuskeletalunemainstohimanl. accession o tease n co eome acetic os 22
PRE rtlcatayantriaati iar renser cis rere: eters rete cake rche ee eave si anu T Oc olor SIa ea Shales PaO Soa 22
Seb) awao Lull Oxchiall Were OMe epee aad we ean sheet Sas at pices viawaras ene y= 2
The oldest well-authenticated skeletal remains of man and of related forms.. 28
em bathecamthropiusnest. caterers ne erode Cheer Che eh espera ee eln ee 28
chhesiinsteiind cam bhemlLowetalawieeaccnioetcrecr ee acerca oterreciacnion 32
pihrestincd seatupl acini lees rey eye stots eet catia vais ioc roxt cuter cuore canoes 35
TBRS:-SHWASIE KHGLOL A pth, Gas Hels Ea eae GER area On ERE IA EROS OCR IPA Gee oemrtnpee Be 35
MNES kaa Canemrrarvene ore cies cereals crops ses ieestoteyeacterecey eiceae ele otaaieve bie Cosies 35
PME ELEM tent este ae esetoleke eee ees lorena Meet meusic ieee 30
Mhneesecond tooth ste. <c csai tec ysiors ic oaks es castes lovee cee ose eceucte sie nlecs = 37
MIDE ME lis tOO Elam eescet cio etoet eter ais wNeoe Ro cre nrolos a crtaresle ta tetas ena daserete 37
WaAternrexcavallonsmanas IStUdlesm seme cocmiae eciciici seine Sele te 37
The opinions of Dubois and others regarding the remains......... 38
Subsequentehistonyaecctterrttyuccere cites. ore ele icrer ste aera oreltecene orarars aloes onset 44
Dr. Dubois’ latest publications on the remains...............--.- 46
State of preservation and age of the remains................ 46
sihneyslaillcapy wacietemshastras ols. Chis sisig’s aoe eas ste Se sued Sa eee habs 47
LD Ey oval TeeuT Pees ey sieve eect reread votes eer BES cathe olerrers eo tase ve) oe 48
PING Mt ee Cinbe te nay esc e Siete Sic cheat ea ete ese Ce Sear wae es Nai a 48
SURE MSR SEAT cop et es cose eet ede cee a aaa ocr ease balou ts rake fouteeh ome cat ls 49
WAAL IES TANCIOL ES wea aye Bio retete cle olor cect eeeS Geta ie crate On Ae nc einIe GEO 51
Geolocicalsagesotthe brinilvdepositsen -ormme ree dace ee 52
GriticaligconsiderationSresiscsac ciclo cates 6 oe RS eia oem cies 53
sem wiitetise viSitetOmlbniniler ne treraty An sas -ete steleters es iesheuere musta a chee 57
The latest contribution to the study of the remains............... 60
ihhewesecondaithecanthnhopusiereci-iid-it reel etree eer: 62
Ndditionaleliterattase: tas pion ore ole eae soars as roe ene SO 65
Sem Oaathco mise cence casera ark sues Cae ae cs as 65
eHewOt Pita leaty tad rayerseets fevers ere a ere rae jo ous at eee renee RrICK rae exesastolel Te 66
Mb etaG ditrOriallataicl Sy teen pene secl otaievetece as eto eee See Pe eee teenies olen 68
IVECApittl] atlOmerer race veter rerio le cic eteis se sen sons seee epnleponayeecumeetanmieney one cites 70
aNnems keletallsnenrctmsie src. jai atte crsre ose asis eleven trace citer ear eereiei covet ials 71
BIDIMe MTS EES KUTT Oper cieveh aeons jas: csc hon os natu ereas hens ise iel ere VeIOMeNE rece nche es Fil

Elbe wattle erred ee ees te bs ee mcr en er aamen nn, RENE A eC oD 75

MDE elo Wiel) LWA CTR eters lois Aine e oars eae cee eaehee tae siasad esate alco omnia 7

ei rentsepratabentnO lak cye.crisy aise ieleusie: sree eters GRR iss al sieus aay 2.01 08 0.0, 87

SIGE GCAIIILT eG apy tae tear te cscs Crass sae mite steed eee RS ahanalevey eas 87
Mihiersecondlpslctill Peres ee tens cise erick ins Gos cuee mina seisreveneners 88
@onehidine veriticalaremanyks: A.tsch oaklcisies ats escola s Balan oiacws 88
INdditionalpliteratticemece ceri inte eles oak eis scr ceeeie 90

CONTENTS

PAGE
Homo heidelber gensts dscc0 «sates hoe seis « oss aie Sheiy tae tenons 90
The Fa 5.5.0 o xb'pcwwcad a.tarntwre aimee Rina stae lao 6 Ree aren ie ee 03
The: teeth” sis «evan clecc oyisie beer cots whew else nlo s clams eee eee 04
Measurements and icOMpaLriSOMNS secs acct nies n vine om ese clots cle enone 05
Goncluding. .cemarks® <i sae sian eae ees cicelaie sTniels as ie Sree aera 98
The Rhodesiah man’ 6.8 21 hes ae eee cts en ee eee 08
Circumstances: of the find: 22). oi. cen telecine cc seis oer eee 99
The: writer’s/investivationsvin" 1025: sence ties ie tree 103
Additional material) 0%-.5.425. ones cn cee etnies eee ered teins tee III
Gritical’ wemarks: <4 Fi ceadoce tee te er ee eee ere 115
The British Museum report on the Rhodesian remains........... 116
THe skullh Boos ceceintess civ ice cena MAUR Ee RE OeRe he ee nae 117
The’ brain. .'e Sos ivtodses occa shveen thee aetna loca r st areeaetieaers 119
Pathological teatures\/o1 the Skull@---e.n cere eee cies 121
The:'teeth 4.0 irievis cic seagate acre tele tance ee ete etch ietere eee eee vaeae 121
The ‘stone’ implements) /-is 32.0 eenicetretietee ita tios eee 121
Phe ‘fawn «7 Ms fs oka S oth twins, eerste ante ale oe eke tore neers 122
Description of the skulltand tibiay... 22 -eiaeee ee teee ee 123
The "sled os sceccc watts eae cyocinee reel Perea eck ieee eee 123
Phe TD Ia sc sso Sa o ceveiete © atone, Cie aimee temno cre Cea tenet cree et he Getta 131
Additional’ literatire> <:cce52 é5000 ae em coe een eee 134
Appendix I, Abstracts from onetad) reports on the Rhodesian
CAVE (as ve ienda danced bata chile oot Roto ee tt ee ae 134
Appendix II. The finding of the Broken Hill skull. The mystery of
the great (bone: cave. .....cce oe eee ee eee 142
The: Neanderthal family i...0.3 [bcctee i circ cee ee ee ee 144
The Neanderthal skull and bones...) u25...52 oe Cee aoe eee eee 148
The viskeadh cscs Sac cars shee ators Sevan See eeareae ie EU ee 152
Other: parts: of ‘the. skeleton... ).5.. 3 ks ¢aceee cee ee re ee ee 155
Concluding remarks on parts of the skeleton other than the skull.. 160
Additional ‘literaturé* 4.2.5 5. ec. e as nee ec ene See pee *. 160
Lhe skull of ‘Gibraltar. :%.57 350 sec soe cee cetee eerie ciate ate eae 161
Additional explorations and finds at Gibraltar.................00. 170
Explorations ‘by Abbé. Breuily; -'o:waresesaenecee eee cae 170
Additional! literature 36.5.3.5 hao.e ee ee ee 171
The child ‘skull ‘of Gibraltar... 02% 3223457 o3ce22 aoe ee ee ee 171
The skull ..3..3 eatery ulitessbek ae eee eee ee 174
The brat: 2%. vc fase pnt cca ee nee eet ne Cee eee oe ee ee 175
The writer's ‘notes ‘on: the skalll.co). Sonne neeeee eae eee 176
‘Phe ‘Spy’ skeletons: «055% ic 2). ian wa vate she Pe oe ee ee ee 178
Description of the: Spy: skulls and! bones:.. 7. 04u05 «535 veces teens 183
J; Fraipont’s data sii 34.55) 2a ek eee ee ee eae 184
Author's notes and critical remarks) .oi vase ees eeeiies oc ea aee 184
Uhe Crania-..505< 4s do oes hoe haan ee Eee oe eee 190
Upper jaw of ‘skull Wo. 10.0 Abc oee eee eee eee 192
Lower jaw of skull No. Es isintais Ar se-a arm tete sa Ris at therein bo siete ReneS
Upper jaw of skull No, 2, 55.5345 o uate eee ee eee 194

Lower jaw of skull No2:...i00.5.es<suere sale a's Nieleie se sis eRe 194

CONTENTS Vil

PAGE
The bones of the skeletons...........0-:0s-seere reese eeetee 195

Sele beat ING EA Te ere je co Poves nv oi-clw nl euar ce = (ore) a heute! et asnhare term) nile) © =r 195

Sele TOM NOM See tora terele leks olsen alent ho telel orale beret vaeist sic 197

Concluding remarks ..........2.eceee pees cere weer e nce c es cneenes 202
The diluvial. man of Krapina........-.c202eessee ese r eet e ese escccees 202
Archeological remains ...........ss eee ee eee rece ee eens ceeees 205
The human skeletal remains...........-.e cece eects eee eee eeeeees 205

Detailed observations on the cranial remains..........+.+++s+eeee+ 208

Sera ee New ela iigare tacit ate ney haiensje oles inj elms lee eyelerate ere oelerngarni 208

Serafin eee bithehy feiese acote rac rere nya ey sy atntoh- <oslepctarepoede seine sis mietene ia) eeOS

Skull C, young adult ..........-s:s2eceeseee recess isk aoe 209
Sinaller trapments: = 266 es dees ae =) cle sieetosacine ees os 211

NOU ponee aed WIS te cite oe secre mininyn mi olnratets lolee sce viotelaiahsiprasshalaleyeis 212

EGWED JAWS treet Keseieb eabicinie sinh eames ian A oieleae eg): 213
WMieskera piney Cecklins vies ae)-talolelsielefaiste Sele araisie ss c'eVeis) ovina elmin anid 219
Skeletal remains other than skulls.........-..-+eeeeeee secre ee 219
Concluding remarks about the Krapina skulls and skeletons...... 225
PRA EOre ILGEARUICG) oa ee cteicnie oie resietnicle eiaroic ovsiesiclo Sine clei nantes ead
The Ehringsdorf remains of early man.......--++eseeeee erste recess 22
Sele tal GeMiAaItISe weal: weary wiere s\sl eels soba ce = ccinte is 'e ewe sin\s\ ols 2 seis 234
TUNE NE ACLS Ho] © MIE TAN oto ie hos tee elevehe alee (or nPe megs = icles 234

The lower jaw of the child...........0.-ceeeee estes erences 236

‘ihe: parietal patie tte seyret. )='ero oe we ihn ee i ices 238

Safes RG Sas beta ee ote corse ae fefela «cI P= oe flare e inicbar am ioisieymier ieee og 238
GriLCAlsOlese ee ee re eetasieroie Piercy vetlel ie tisoee oe ccs 2390
IAidatiorial ahteratuees.cc rteciet-)ehs eis misters - aie clare ss ee orere ersre micesn cre #7 241
Gietae malian bate ny tanned sy, Stayer ties wach areata syare eo enevermy ene are em) escunesai ni 241
PleseranPlom ok thre CCE orca ore <7. jaye! lake rcie tio ole enw ators oe tees 242
The Pleistocene man of Jersey (England).....-----++ssseectrcreees 244
INI IGTIA I THLEL REVI: me citeteicielelctstolafajos~ se tfolesr a! ovelel she nim sioteres to meeseine 251
The fossil man of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints......--.++++eseeees eae 251
AUT ORS Fetal Wee RAE Ts coee lose ep el cisions eye om Shera ia yao Whore ements Bett 256
Concluding comments on the skull.......------++sserreesrs eres 201
The hones of, the sSkeletOMm. 2... ees. ose se cis mines 263

aS eee SEARLE Fe Ie ies oes de ere neers shes av eaw rake ope Ainias ai carsey he lesb sacs one 267
Avel Temiaitis. Obs lal JM ERGASSIC™,c/< o.s,c/cke.a.0 5 e/-[e\ choles el) +/m! #/ereiaic]a aiepeinialeeien\ sie 267
Descriptive notes on the La Menrassies remains se) eerie er tt 270
SURE CEATINGAE OR aera ora ee va ee aves rete ai wale eve stokes tenes cmsbc i oyancae= 270

he wsiceletaly pabts. sepia 2 cele sec te sie is on #1 eleieinie eran ese fel sini 271

Griticalme marks: eo sices ee cetereicre sia asic me asninie.® oes ele lenarnee ekegsteae nacre 274
Sifie ean @ catvacte Geman) cicle elie ae ei-i-) tala slo misinten = sync eelnimimerta ies 275
Notes and critical remarks........-:.seees ee eeeneeseeeecece sees 282
Observations on the skulls and jawS......-.+--sseeeeeseeereees 285
eter tt eS kettles a ache stanelol ieseuntershe mvs. hev cia cain Cofencypinfegemveyamesieaves* 285

The second mandible (1912) ......ce cere eect eee e etter eres 293
Phersktll OF the CHING siescw ecco onre ve eons isc online mises nals 204

Notes on parts of the skeleton other thatetheslctillisrepersereeiciersicrers e205
AS OHAATICS. Fe oa iscisls Sete ie wine ors. the saiale tier epetnelelasye ain: orein aisle inte. vincs 297

VIII CONTENTS

PAGE
The Le Moustier ‘matt: «. << asc Scere aie ie eieiiatente mire teers 297
The Skah] ois'ei0 cis icwces vistle we siete nccln pie Raglan catetareretetarale eet eteta 300
The ‘skeletal, parts. acne e'-te.s opiate Were eee ee te e Miatele erie aceite eters 302
Additional. ‘literature: © 5 sicg.ic,disjsvarv ae seats aro larsitysta etate sie ey oeeterate bat ets 303
The ‘Galilee skill). :-cs:cis. esa evans oe io aise pele ae ereeete seins ieee easton 303
Description: of the shally, ..<ciet «cere csn ati e eile tale tienes 306
Concludit: remarks’. cc'b Sviaas s steer aie eo eee 309
"The Rome ssl coh -iie'ccctatag eect see ctetpate eis eke ore teeet osteo ca Trane eee 310
The La Naulette: jaw cys ectow.ere ays ciara dreceesie iotete Nietete ateke sete glean: fete ie et oie 310
Additional! literature .3.. 52.03. soeeeee Cee eee ieee ae 314
The Sipka; jaw. iscsi cca ces ced eaccdan aan eine ceeientee ete aerate 314
The Malarnaud = {aw sci. 5 Beso e ss oa else av ee ea tea eee west wee 315
The’ Batolas ‘jaw’. slog i esos ns bah Pee eee ee eee eee 316
Additional literatie 1.435. seed hae eee ee eee 318
Résumé of the physical characteristics of the Neanderthal phase of man.... 319
Skull eaipe.< wre. 3x9 9.5) ara. dingo catereier ove Giotasin sector Oiehe a Ole Dual were ater aot Poke eret tetera 319
Base: . isis etre cree ei ahe ole oe-e a oa related chotalote wate veto rs leave oer ovate oie iek atone ate 320
RACE: ie cores orc ew eo ae SB Sn nips Gs Ok inten ants oes 0 Ola eae ete Cees ieee 320
Teeth aie sis o/.00 ws ares ove, sete te we Gc ue Ore eae bererede ae ore Siete tara» tara star oot tete 321
TOWEL FAW © oecc 5 oo ace sible aid ereiwiate Soe eels eas Ip aT ae tts ice eee 321
Skeletote it nha oie ho eee eo ee ee ieee eres oreiverets 322
Generalizations sie cis s.cinistece's sg eeneueeteere ea ok ie eI OE eo eee 322
Critical considerations of the Neanderthal problem...................... 326
Neanderthal man? jised.25.0 am caer eee ao ae ee een oe eet 328
Definition: . 5 .ci\s2 cite cine basis oe retets bicio iecsoke ie wine ot ee eer 328
Geographical extent. fen iosecwieme san hee EO Eee een eee 328
Limits: ‘and’: duration: icc cisncacs se ota ie RU Ecos 329
Paleontology... 5 iss ted sinoa os netce aa eee ate eee ioe 329
GEOL RY! is o\.5 sae cic Spe nipsORIRIEe BORE ASI ee Sic ue Loser Ee eer ere aoe 330
AFCHEOlOR Yo. os icis cc Ae ee ola icons © © Gat lots We SIAL Rep ane eiake Goer ere 330
Oeewtpations (osc. ccae se eae Mina ce Pcie nn ee eee ee eae 330
Sequence of culture. «.. 22.7. case oe oar ee oe cae eateries 335
PASEO soci Miinte scsi bo Sosa ah Se toun Sha tenet orc a eae Tone Ce aaa Tete 337
The: skeletal’ remaitis Osc4\c20. a omtee ce aici ee ee eee eee 339
Recapttalation’ ....o-5)s 5 asics gos ascclm sie ears sere ake whole eke te tena reyetetbale atere etetake ete 344
‘he teeth ‘OF Catly MAN esc, vct ccs yous ee al Meee ee ee eee eee eee 350
Additional’ literature: °...0055..s. 5 o..cteaie aie othe ace On oe eee eee 361
Concluding remarks 23/0322 siy.cc cee a-c.ctcke s sie alersieha te seketeisie sere tae are 361
Additional: literature: « . js. 75.056 50 cans ae ee ee ee ee aes 363
Addendum:
The Sinanthropus: <2... << s5aces wine, oe eine suet etetronete laters arenas 365
Discovery of skull of adult Sinanthropus at Chou Kou Tien..... 306
COMmIMients : <..5.< :c:sieyave.wlsse ave ws oicherabaie CUReNe Oona a REM eR Pore stcloreranee tate 307

Erterature 2 oc ic ccc) <n ard aie w Gini ae On ot Ee aeEe eet rote 368

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATES

The Pithecanthropus : Pe

late spre nite stent cyetee che cee Sere etnies caterers ain nuskovale oleh n staedelatevalerier store 62
The Eoanthropus:

Pate Stelmach rere rate rae ils chaveres tee a sores coos Susie aleiers te Sate ie oe telate gs tale 86
Homo heidelbergensis (The Mauer jaw) : 4

brit Stas Te5 weed L1G be Heya wise ones erc te chee ailedeie srs ors ie sets crear chemo ee love or taleo en cyanae 08
The Rhodesian man:

eS Me iSite ery ob sae CPN ESI oe re ate eS RS PST LS omar ae estes or ears toe 134
The Neanderthal family :

PLATESE ZO SSM creer Tey ciate aCe cen em Saha e ary teed ens fepavaei say cas aaron ait 160
The skull of Gibraltar:

I eatesin 37 = 36 Wares eset eerspeeee ny ee te ere Rae eee ey aya atic ton cea aS 170
The child skull of Gibraltar :

Fetes ae 3753 0 eae taseh ue cue v exten chet Peas pere UN esto (oF ee cake Sota Rt ee tS 178
The Spy skeletons:

Plates eA Os Gert etl ieee arc apher cP make ld taastonsas, iehinebel ous aC P te eke 202
The diluvial man of Krapina:

Tate pA GES Game cetera roe ore crs Senoee yale arent cia Gad ae Oe ea 226
The Ehringsdorf remains of early man:

THESIMS a5 Orne rrencesSeeate ea TNS NoM eG aia & NS ds Peles Suse SNe Sh ers Mice c ne eats 240
The Taubach finds:

Eat eR OO mre tater reesei oy axe arsenite eerreR ere oie et e ee, Bi otcters aircieirt noun havens stele 244
The Pleistocene man of Jersey (England) :

PALES HOL=OS never acce sien hove ys cre eal eravat suche ere ec Mau dian re acedeita ets cf aaa aeeetars 250
The fossil man of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints :

BA ateSROA OM Rennes rere ees eae ean oho tare nearer cic peter eeetat: 266
The remains of La Ferrassie:

el ahesee a3 teep ace acct ect sheers ay evo tava ya siete cnON ete veucetees Se otek ven enealivs 274
The La Quina remains:

Tepes aA ae eet tay tye dere deteae cue ts 2, 2g ore 2 ress Si cuAey ce UeRE el at aR eu ot 206
The Le Moustier man:

Plates Svan Oars acacia ets crac icacisya cays OGision Seat eee eat en ee 302
The Galilee skull:

lAteSRSO=8 2a trac ya- Setneysveics ected pee Seung Me ete EE Lea oie 310
The Naulette jaw, the Sipka jaw, the Malarnaud jaw, and the Banolas jaw:

Platesy Sg Bree coca eke oe EC IRAE GDA WI Sexe) 314
Résumé of the physical characteristics of the Neanderthal phase of man:

ETE SHOG= OOM patches escrorerenas isclsrare rere per ehere cr tieretare eiictersrartiomlainuei tei ataverierare 342
The Sinanthropus:

Eplatteci ONO 3 meer ceereterat cree ney rere ors or Peover Brecher ook eis eros k eo a oe ee ole uele 368

FIG.

y=

ANE

NS

10.
tee
12.

13.

26.

2 .

28,

2

30.
aL:

9

-

33-
34-
35.
36.
37:
38.
39.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

TEXT FIGURES

PAGE
Diagrammatic section of earth’s crust.........eeeeeee eee eee e renee 5
Chart of the ice age showing faunal relations to man in Central and

Western Europe: iv'i.ee fsdsucomcyeers oe Ptah $s Set eRe ita ee 8
Chart* the ice age atid. mati. oii sit sas sls mn eneles siete o's ies\aleimie oistemln nasi 9
Chart: the ice age and its relations to man.........- se eee eee eee ee eeee 10
Foxhall jaw 5 sos00s ccaesite be coe soles cle ears one ute oe ee Baie 27
Central part of Java, showing the Solo (Bengawan) River and the site

of the: Pithecanthropus: 42 cion eee siete ciak pasteles ane, cree 30

Ossiferous strata in which the Pithecanthropus bones were discovered.. 31
Profile drawing of the brain cast taken from the reconstruction of the

Pilidown skull. by Arthur Keith. 022.5 SoS es Gee sins ed eee 75
Eoanthropus dawsoni Smith Woodward........+..eeeee sees eeeeeee 77
Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, top view...:-<..-+0-.<-sceesren-= 119
Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, side view.........+-.eseeeeeeees i ESD
Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, occipital portion..............-+-++ 120
A sketch of the “ Naturschutzgebiet Neandertal,” the vicinity of the

Neanderthal’ fiid’ =a). 222 eacec ons eee los siete teeters tet ete 149
Section of the Neanderthal Cave near Diisseldorf.............-.+---- 150

<. The Rock of Gibraltar: Sites of both Forbes Quarry (skeleton, 1848)
"and Devil’s Tower (skeleton of child, 1926)..........++-2c.0005 163
Profile drawing of the brain cast of the Gibraltar skull.............. 166
The Mousterian site at Gibraltar that gave the child’s skull.......... 172
The terrace in front of the Spy Cave: . J: ....02deese see ee eee 180
A schematic view, in transverse section, of the Krapina hollow........ 203
Outline: of Krapma skulls ‘C and Di acco; site Sarre ee tee vee ete 226
The:molarcoh Catibachta. cv 20 sccctewe ae ciiereierioie cis Sieeede ete rele eee arenes 243
The interior of: the ba Chapelle caver. <2 =. 2. mtorr cree rete erent 252
The: La Chapelle: cave, three views)... ocr.’ «> dee eee 254
The La Chapelle skull compared with other Neanderthal skulls........ 257
Upper and lower dental arches of the La Chapelle skull............ 250
Scapulae of Neanderthal and La Ferrassie compared.............+-- 273
Sagittal contours of La Quina skull compared with other Neanderthal

SDETAD ES sre acai wes sc oe See mls Po Sra ef aoe etre ea 286
Endocranial cast:of La Ouina skulle sienna. on ee eeeceiceeeee eae 280
Endocranial cast of the La Quina skull, side view......... Ser siapare wane ae 290
The Le Moustier rock-shelter, and the position of the human skeleton.. 208
The lett fentur of the: Le Motstier youths... asec eee sete 300
The ‘Galilee “Cave faci can bac Stine cna tiene ie eee ROE eect 304
The La Naulette (Cave rand its depositsy.. sc serene tere | eee cure 311
Map of ‘Batiolas: and’ vicinity... s.cn-<.. acm ets union emcee eterna 316
Neanderthal “hamert“<i56'<tc.cre a esse o)< mies to ctoees oes eto an a mr rane 32
Neanderthal radii: and scompanisonS:. «20h os eee iar ee 324
Neanderthal femora compared with femur of modern Frenchman...... 325
Chart: Dweiling-sites during paleolithic times................-..-00+ 332

Various conceptions as to the phylogenetic relation of the Neanderthal
withieather and later tnatls.o.c... sinc eee rice eres settee ieee 349

THE SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN

By ALES HRDLICKA
(WirTH 93 PLATES)

INTRODUCTION

The chief object of anthropology is a full knowledge of man—a
knowledge of what man is from every point of view; why, when, and
how he came to be; how he is progressing; and what the promise of
the future is for him. Only with such knowledge can anthropology
be of the greatest service to mankind. To understand man of the
present and to aid in guiding his future it is first necessary to know
his past ; and this past goes back far beyond the time of written records.
But a record there is, preserved in the great book of Nature. As en-
vironment impressed itself upon man, so also man impressed himself
upon his environment. Wherever man was, he left traces of his
activities and of himself, and many of the more material of these traces
remain today in the deposits of the old sites and caves where man
had dwelt.

These records of earlier men are of several classes. From the very
oldest times there are artifacts of stone, the bones and teeth of the
animals on which man lived, and, rarely, the skeletal remains of man
himself. From early time also there appear shaped tusks and bones.
Later there is the development of primitive art in bone or ivory, on
stone, in clay, and on the walls of the caves; and eventually there
appear the polishing of stone and primitive pottery. Doubtless large
quantities of the more perishable articles of wood, skins, etc., together
with many of the less resistant bones, have disappeared.

For almost a century an ever more careful and intense search for
these old remains of man has proceeded. Men are seeking or watching
for such remains in all parts of the world. And where remains are
found, students often devote years of most painstaking labor in bring-
ing to light what the deposits contain. Collectively a vast amount of
work has thus already been accomplished; though it may be only a
small percentage of what remains. The material results of this work
already fill or enrich many museums, and the written records and
studies would constitute a large library.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 83 (WHOLE VOLUME)
I

tN

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

From ali this work and study a number of major facts have become
established. The first relates to time. It is of peculiar interest that
probably all the remains that can safely be attributed to man belong to
the Quaternary period or Ice Age. There are remains, especially those
in southeast England, that have been assigned to an even older time—
the late Tertiary; but uncertainties still exist concerning both the
nature and the dating of these objects, and even though these un-
certainties should be cleared up, there would still be the legitimate
question as to whether the beings of that very remote time were fully
human.

The second major fact concerns the geographic dispersion of these
ancient human remains. Leaving out of consideration north Africa
and southwestern Asia, which as yet present many uncertainties, the
remains show an area of greatest intensity in western Europe, extend-
ing gradually as time advances over larger portions of the Old World.

The third major generalization relates to the nature of the remains.
Whether these are artifacts or the skeletal parts of man himself, the
earliest are seen to be scarce and primitive, the later ones showing
a gradual and highly interesting progression in quantity, quality, and
breadth of dispersion, until they merge into the protohistoric and then
the historic. But the advance in culture, and perhaps even in the
physical differentiation of man, appears to have been realized in suc-
cessive stages rather than in a uniform progression. The main cultural
stages of prehistoric man are now fairly well known in substance,
though further studies indicate that matters are probably more complex
than they have appeared and that in the not far distant future it may
be necessary to revise our present views. There have evidently been
irregularities and transitional stages, as well as topographical and
chronological complications.

Nevertheless the present classification of the cultural remains of
the early man of Europe is useful in subdividing man's past and
thereby facilitating our comprehension of it. On the other hand,
however, it tends to establish in the minds of the students sharp limits
where no such limits have existed in reality; also it leads them to
consider the subdivisions as general chronological criteria, whereas
no such use is justified.

As to the paleontological remains associated with those of early
man, they have been exceedingly useful in the dating of the human
cultural and skeletal material. But here also matters are far from
simple. The Quaternary fauna is seen to have been rich, the appear-
ance, duration, and extinction of individual species very uneven, and
their geographical distribution irregular. As a result of all this the

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 3

problem of the chronological identification of human remains by
means of the remains of the extinct animal forms has become, in
many cases, a matter for highly expert knowledge and most careful
consideration. One of the most common and serious errors in this
connection is to regard the skeletal remains of man in the same light
as his cultural objects. The animal remains have frequently a decisive
voice in the dating of a deposit. They are of similar value in dating
the cultural remains of man, except those that may have been buried
with a body. But their value becomes very uncertain when they are
called upon to date the bones of man himself, for the reason that,
since later Neanderthal times at least, man has interred his dead,
burying the bodies from two to four feet, or even deeper, in the
ground. In this manner human bones in many cases may have been
brought artificially into contact with older deposits and into associa-
tion with older remains of animals. This important factor, simple as
it is, is commonly forgotten by both the paleontologist and the pre-
historian.

So far as the skeletal remains of early man are concerned, science
is now rich beyond the most sanguine expectations of the earlier
students of ancient man, and the material is of very great scientific
value. But there are still many important gaps; there are many
secondary and yet important problems to be solved; and there are
numerous uncertainties about some of the individual remains; all of
which intensifies greatly the need of more discoveries of skeletal
material, particularly from the earlier periods of man’s existence.

The present volume will be devoted essentially to the object of
giving the original accounts and the most reliable information in
general, on the skeletal remains of early man. These are without
question the most important objects for the student of man’s
differentiation.

In every case to be dealt with, the remains have been seen personally
and repeatedly by the author. Original measurements were taken by
modern and well-tested instruments, and the site of their discovery
was in each case visited and examined. A number of these precious
remains, as well as the sites from which they came, were reexamined
by the author as late as the autumn of 1927.

The accounts to be given are intended to be fairly impersonal.
There will be no theory to defend, no side to be taken in any con-
troversy, though there may be suggestions where justified by the
general acquaintance with the field and perhaps by the better per-
spective of one who is not involved in any individual finds or opinions.

In connection with his visits and studies the author has become
greatly indebted to a large number of eminent friends, to whom a

4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

grateful acknowledgment is hereby tendered. They include especially
Sir Arthur Keith, Sir A. Smith Woodward, and the gentlemen of
the Department of Geology and Palaeontology, British Museum
of Natural History, London; Professors Arthur Thomson and
J. Dudley Buxton, of Oxford; Professor R. R. Marett, of Cambridge,
England; M. Sinel, of the Museum of the Island of Jersey; Profes-
sors A. Rutot, Charles Fraipont and Maxime Lohest, with the sons of
the latter, and those in charge of the Musée du Cinquantinnaire,
in Brussels, Belgium; Professor Marcellin Boule and Dr. Henri
Martin, Paris, with Professors Arcelin and Mayet, of Lyon, France;
the authorities of the Museums at Périgueux, at Toulouse, at Monte
Carlo, and at Barma Grande; those of the National and Anthropologi-
cal Museums at Madrid; Professors Schwalbe, Lehner, Schoetensack,
G. Steinman and J. Sobotta, Preparator H. Lindig (Weimar), and
the authorities of the Museunts in Heidelberg, Bonn, Tubingen,
Stuttgart, Weimar, Jéna, and Berlin, in Germany; Professors J.
Matiegka, Karel MaSka, and Karel Absolon, in Prague, Telc, and
Brno, Czechoslovakia; Professor K. Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, in
Zagreb; Professor Joseph Szombathy, in Vienna; and many others
who cannot be mentioned here by name.

THE GLACIAL PERIOD

The Ice Age, or Pleistocene period of the Quaternary, was accord-
ing to all evidence the period most intimately associated with the early
history of man, possibly even witnessing his origin and determining
his development. It is the geological subdivision of time immediately
preceding the present, from which it is not sharply separated. The
present may be viewed in fact as still a part of the era of deglaciation,
for the ice has merely receded to the farther north and south and
higher up the mountains; vast parts of the earth are still perpetually
frozen or covered by glaciers. The only justifications for separating
the present as a period of its own lie in the seeming relative stabili-
zation of conditions, and in the general convenience of such a separa-
tion; but there is no line of demarcation between the two, just as
doubtless there was none between the Glacial Age and that which
preceded it.

To facilitate proper orientation it may be useful to show here the
conventional geologic subdivision of the earth’s history, though it is
both very imperfect and largely artificial. The accompanying chart
has been prepared by Dr. R. S. Bassler, Head Curator of the Depart-
ment of Geology, U. S. National Museum, who has kindly permitted
use of it.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA

Gn

ERAS OF GEOLOGIC TIME
WITH CHARACTERISTIC LIFE

CHARACTERISTIC ROCKS
WITH MAXIMUM THICKNESS

PSYCHOZOIC ERA

(Recent)

‘q Alluvial deposits in rivers, etc.
Age of man

Quaternary-Pleistocene Shale, sand, and gravel

Pliocene 5.00 feet clay, shale, gravel, and sandstone

CENOZOIC ERA
(Modern life)

Age of mammals and modern plants

14,000 feet shales, sandstones, and lime-

Miocene Stone
ary 6,000 feet shales, sandstone, and lime-

Oligocene [E= Stans

Eocene 8,000 feet limestone, sandstone, and coal

20,000 feet sandstone, shale, limestone,

Upper Cretaceous & and coal beds

MESOZOIC ERA
(Medieval life)

Age of reptiles

Lower Cretaceous 20,000 feet limestone, shale, and sandstone

Jurassic 10,000 feet sandstone and shale

Triassic 15,000 feet sandstone, shale, and coal beds

Permian 7,000 feet sandstone and shale

Pennsylvanian 10,000 fect sandstone, shalo, and coal beds

Mississippian
(Waverlian and
Tennesseian)

4,500 feet shale and limestone

Devonian 12,000 feet limestone, sandstone, and shale

Silurian 6,000 feet sandstone, shale, and limestone

PALEOZOIC ERA
(Ancient life)
Age of higher invertebrate animals

Ordovician 6,090 feet sandstone, limestone, and shale

Canadian 4,000 feet limestone and shale

Ozarkian 6,500 feet massive limestone

———

Catcinan e000 feet quartzite, sandstone, shale,

limestone

——_—_——————— SSeS

30,000 fect conglomerate and sandstone

Keweenawan with lava flows

PROTEROZOIC ERA
(Primitivo life)
Age of primitive plants (alge) and
invertebrate animals

Animikian 14,000 feet banded slates and cherts with iron ore

oe
a i tes, tzite, and lime-
Huronian 0,0 00;teekxlactat conglomerates, quartzi i

SD

20,000 feet of white quartzite

—————— eeSeeSeSesesSesesesSseses

Sudburian

ARCHEOZOIC ERA

saitetcs Keewatin 100,000 feet sedimentary schist and gneis3
(Primal life) ; with lava flows; slates, conglomerates,
Age of unicellular life Grenville and limestone

——_——_— eee

PRIMITIVE CRUST Igneous rocks Granite and other igneous rocks

—

6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The length of time represented by such life on the earth as has
left distinguishable traces, or from the Archeozoic era to the present,
is enormous, comprising perhaps more than one hundred million
years, though all estimates of geological time in years are notoriously
uncertain. The greater part of this time, however, has only a secon-
dary importance to man, the period of direct concern to him beginning
only during the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic era. During the early
part of this, in the Eocene or “dawn” period, there appear in
America and elsewhere the earliest known members‘of the order of
primates, the parent-order of Man. In the Miocene there are already
numerous monkeys and later even some anthropoid apes. The Plio-
cene is the age of the higher apes and from among these, during
the latter part of this period, there begin, in all probability, further
differentiations that lead to forms which could only be classified as
human precursors. Then finally comes the Ice Age, and from the
earlier parts of this, if not even before, there commence to be found
indications of beings still higher in the scale, beings that have begun
to shape tools of stone and other materials ; and these beings, though
still very primitive in every way, can no more be conceived as pre-
cursors—they are evidently representatives of the earliest men. Such,
in brief, is the prevalent view of the appearance of man on the earth.
From that point on, the evidence relating to him grows steadily in
mass. It shows his slowly progressive cultural and physical advance
with no general interruption until he connects with man of proto-
history and then history.

The peculiarly important relation of the Ice Age to man’s existence
and differentiation makes it highly desirable that we have the fullest
possible knowledge of this period. For such knowledge the student
of man must look to geology and paleontology, and these, regrettably,
are not yet in a position to furnish all that is needed, owing to the
great complexities of the subject.

There was a time in the earlier part of this century when, due
especially to the discerning work of Penck and Brickner,’ a good
general understanding of the Ice Age seemed to have been reached.
The era was represented as having consisted of four glacial invasions,
called respectively, after the Alpine localities where best represented,

*Penck, A., and Brtickner, E., Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter, 3 vols., Leipzig,
1901-1909; with numerous smaller, both earlier and later, contributions by these
authors.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA qi

the Gunz, Mindel, Riss, and Wurm glaciations ; and these were be-
lieved to have been separated by three distinct interglacial periods,
of which the second was the longest, and followed by the postglacial
time which merged with the present. This seemed to agree fairly
well with the North American conditions, where five main ice exten-
sions have been established, namely, the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian,
Iowan, and Wisconsin.

But it gradually became apparent that matters were more complex
and irregular. The studies of Brooks, Depéret, Boule, Mayet, Rutot,
Steinman, Wiegers, Soergel, Schmidt, Bayer, De Geer, the Russians,
and many others in Europe, with those of Leveret, Coleman, Osborn
and Reed, Antevs, and many others, in America, have shed a great
deal more light on glacial facts and problems, only to show, however,
that the subject is not capable of any simple and universally applicable
solution. The Ice Age is now seen to have been a vast complex of
phenomena and changes which obeyed no simple rule and which
varied geographically and even chronologically, as they vary to this
day in the areas subject to glaciation.

Paleontology and human prehistory find it particularly difficult to
conform to a system of a quadruple extensive European glaciation
with three major warm interglacial periods many thousands of
years in duration. Had such alternations been general and severe,
involving much change in climate, there ought to be, it would seem,
perceptible corresponding changes in the general fauna and in the
habits of man. But neither paleontological nor human mappings
show such definite multiple marked oscillations. This has led ob-
servers, such as Boule, Bayer, and others, including the writer, either
to doubt the existence over the man-inhabited areas of the Quaternary
of the four pronounced periods of cold with three warm interglacials,
or to doubt their intensity.

In connection with my Huxley lecture in November, 1927,’ I have
gone with some thoroughness into these questions and constructed
several approximate charts which are reproduced in figures 2, 3, and 4.
They show the main conceptions of the Ice Age in western Europe,
which was the principal territory occupied by early man, and also the
actual difficulties of reconciling the paleontological and human evi-
‘dence with the classic claims as to the subdivisions of the Ice Age.
Before these charts are introduced, however, it will be useful to
outline the general cultural classification of human prehistory.

* Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., vol. 57, pp. 249 et seq., 1927. Reprinted Smith-
sonian Ann. Rep. for 1928, pp. 493-621, 1929.

Z

VOL. 83

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

ewes RS SSeeers SSS seseeee S ooo
CC Se Peal actos be feb PREECE leva saga
ei capt ne eat Tso Tas Py TTT TT TT TT |+209007 sinve
Pe HSEE : EERE RESERRABSBME I Wee!
|_|

ates eae WCRI LEE Ecler or

PERE Lee Peer Reet te tt enta saga
fate) SS ao TJ —"osvee ‘sig

tg ees tr es ea | || a | ee ied SOR

tte ei pata et) 477?
EIS EE EERE peer aeaee
TE ebee—_—fRe Se hetero ala SIEh
pa niaves ae? oad aaana Pt tf Pee 2308 sasen
EEE HH seep pa rrp TSE Pee eee are ere
eatin Paetaial ge 9 by] Wo sy
pied ttt tt PEE SSL EEE REECE EE CEES
Be ep aa ee
Praia trie e268 waren
Slaelape Broberen esteem geese alee siaie iota embolic serbia itis
erie eee eee Ee ee eee ae eR EEE aCe ec ee
PESTS =e eer fe eer eeeeeeeeeemeeneeere ore CHE TE
NOI7T
PEE C1 fe el CO eae ee ele ea ere eet lee er
HT PEECEEEEEEE Eee EEE PEERS Bleed WILL
ial cee eae inal ater ceo ease es ee a a aaSES es | fia i] a — MHIEIW

Wits
“9OUL

: Sesvsteneees itestavests “nS==EEtE == aaa FESR EERE EEE EEE ER EERE

HE EEE EEE EEA ee See Coo eee erPeeer EEE EE
Ae PTT TTT 4-F + $$ 4-F of

ANOYATA 0 NULIGVD YIIVWYIGO “ACYNI DVM ‘LNONWWOD LUINYNE ‘WAIKE “JMNOG YIAVG NO CISVI

AdOUNA NYSLSIM VYLNAD
NVW OL SNOILVTSY IVNAVA -A9Y JD!) AHL

“

‘2SNYLAI NINE

inv “
YIW 77

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA

‘THE ICE AGE n> MAN-
-APPROXIMATIONS“ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT RECENT INVESTIGATOR

S-
me |e en
oe Vs

Behan s aes
i ae dean wa TSP
pate a] ey

fal es eat
a
fo es aaa
ea |e |
EEEe
L |
|
[|
Vv |
|
|_|

VAd ol
fa
rs

is
a
(Al
|_|
(is

LU iv

=

a

2 al
alae
:

Ee EEa ;
Te ret a
[amg maya Les PRST

Coe rise SHR

i)

RA pe
oe fey (ENG cca cae
eiSiaqs

|| aT
||
ey
im
|_|
c
|_|
4
||
|_|
et
ea

ia
5 |
ie
a
Be
|_|
R |
a
ia
fa

ae 1)
sf fomt aa on nd AS ay She Pe) SST at
hai eats ase MI gg eS SST
eriaiad a a ahal aie lef cet el ale en LSet Zi ae
eimai iila Asal calln pale aay Ses asses
ala eS pRN ation aS) le betel Poles ete nes
iia cee lal an SE mA ret
aafinnean [SACRA S pe eg me | ae USTeare anh ee ST tate
rosin FAH Te Pa a ap SIC ea pleat VP Pe
(ov HY AVY aa POPE eS TT
ee pale Ses
is A a tee aga eI
akan remand PPT
Pe tt ttt J
|_| ae

| >

Hae
|
a fe
i ea
BESaa
|_|
a
|_|
|
|_|
i
ie
ia

ee
ie er a
ea
ie es
|_|
Bae
HA
re
|
ia
BMG
“Ee
seat
es
igi

|
a Ste
ce la
cperi
é| RI 4
(caret) i] eet)

se
|_|
a
|_|
|_|
a
LS

| a ;
a
ea
ee
7
eas!
ae
|
aS

ia

Ee

[|

|_|

&

|

i

|_|

ae eS
aera
|
peel
ea
(a la
ei
ea
se

LI]
= al
roi || i
SESEUH

a

iia

[|

ee)

i eft op ea ca eT ES le

a if af LA emf
i fmf a (alr aT gL) SL a
alata ln mya elileleenleals epSEATT sie y
ala Bla fel mealies ctey tate LEY |

9

RnGeaas

VOL. 83

MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

SMITHSONIAN

IO

ee eae eel tl aI ate cade Yale] a] ep eed ee pl es | a Tees oe et
Lt tt tt tt es Ps eta gg Ta sc I es a al
= at bb ped tt ft
es en ea] ayes ett) caf an [EST Tage Tes ST sa FT cer ses ST aD tesa Sete
Ll AVR VGGNVAIN eine ais eS iae Se EBee S ee sea
cha anette abe es [ete pi eT PSS SSIS dea gas a fs i P|
| | CAAA | | | tot pt SEs SRP Reese
Hess ogarag tin tt SeRRSS tt | SAPs Ts pe
| | TT lsysak bdo\"09! | | eat eases ames se fa a a ei ie a at

ae
ase feat te esp fom es|ocet ee) ates eng om fe nett [ees Te Bei Te ee eis Fe en ea Oa ee pt age |
BR eee ee erlae eee e re BEERS oe
hat + tot tod aan tat Ate ata st] rh sae pi tte ete
ak jodat tod waren | [aA waa s Ob rH ARTY aw FF ae ane ae ae
er PPPEr eee eet et ea soe ee |

a
a8 pt as Lewes see
Hp Re eee Pte Pt tt te ae ot ttt | Ty sateksro ad [vive |
HE eater tee Sepia Die lpm ot oferta all cote ener te ues JE]
Bee eh eels er rere eee Pee ee ee eee
PO ae Sa
aleeresrG(tat A totes esl] eee oleae ed eo ph: veto sete Sepa rec]
a RGR GGGEEE GOR Reese ocean
9a (olde fe a6 a ||) sap fe || FR a Wi | ne fe tt
TTT {LLL pdapdaps yirov7e jaiv7 vAcT Ter TT xe tehvgo|7r7pp 3 a
Toye sep tod Soe troup yar pane ei Pes amperes rs eal] cote ete el feces et tanec PO Been eoede alles Epa ete | oa)
. ELeOA | | | WOVLUTDV7O| YO FOHLE | FOSW TH 9S TwiLpyoeziM ie | | womypvis ba zowss) Zor|7i7! | | |
PEt EE EL Aer | | 2 fe
Sees Otero lalalelalabtaletice erste (a ee Sy eT esd: a ee eae ee Ee ites bales i abet
BSeSe CRE CRRA Cee aE HE te ep
ease en ene eee pene teonn Metre ete eenSbe c fal aa fe) po polaleret Pieiie ie Sree et apes Pero 1s ee eae tg)
Fe Ey esta ae fay en yep at een gp om Pea] fl] af | af] op ps is ae ego aT eal eo ae | | es || ae | |
Seas ee bee ar ees |r fea | ethics peace enw el dele eyelet eyes per ate Uab SEp eie fet[paieete| pee eae
ey me a tt Fy ea EET pp
ele ples eereno tee eee eyo) Sates) . m4 +4 eee tt ttt tt Tt
eS eA Cee eee Peewee | REE eee fe] Veale ete pees |
Peer eae mm elec ecre af ater le fear a oaucs ee | ugeatf eee | kon | ca] def eles 2] Ses aos] a) ee op oe or eid
a ee pe ee
“SYVIA 000 OSE S¥ NIHYL S/ JIOHM FHL + AQOTONOYH) JLUWIXOUddE SL
ate ‘WOHLAY FHL Ad ISINOUMHOD GILdW3L1y NY- PoRREeRS

‘NVW OL SNOILVTSY SLI GNV J9V 3D] AHL

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA et

CULTURAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE PERIOD OF EARLY MAN AND THEIR
APPROXIMATE CORRELATION WITH GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

The beginnings of the ability to shape stones and other objects
for his use constitutes one of the essential criteria by which man
is separable from his precursors, the others being a habitually upright
posture, a complete liberation of the hands, a reduction of the canines
and the jaws, a relatively large brain, an articulate language, a dawn
of self-consciousness, and progressive association.

The worked stones have been preserved where most other objects
have perished, and thus human prehistory is represented principally
by stone artifacts. Of these, great numbers have been recovered to
date, reaching collectively into the millions, and large accessions are
added each year. This vast amount of material covers the entire
time of human existence, though naturally the earlier the period,
the scantier it becomes; and while in general it progresses in multi-
plicity of forms and in quality of workmanship, it does not progress
evenly, but rather in steps or stages, which, once developed, have
usually a prolonged duration. And the principal ones of these stages
are utilized, together with such other data as are available, for the
subdivision or classification of the prehistoric human period. This
classification originated with the earlier prehistorians of France, such
as Boucher de Perthes, Gabriel de Mortillet, and many others; and
each subdivision received as a rule the name of the locality where
first discovered. As time goes on, the stages are seen to be more
complex, less regular, and less definitely separable than appeared to
the older explorers ; nevertheless, the classification substantially holds
for western Europe and to some extent perhaps even elsewhere. It
is briefly as follows:

CULTURE AND TIME
PALEOLITHIC OR OLp STONE AGE

Eolithic (the “ dawn” of stone work; involves much uncertainty )

Pre-Chellean (indefinite both as to time and forms)

Chellean (named after village Chelles, near Paris)

Acheulian (after St. Acheul, a suburb of Amiens )

Mousterian (or Neanderthal; latter name applied especially to human skeletal
remains of this period, after Neanderthal, valley of the Neander, near Dussel-
dorf, Germany; “ Mousterian” after Le Moustier, a village on the Vezere,
Dordogne, France)

Aurignacian (after village Aurignac, southern France)

Solutrean (after a locality north of Lyon, France)

Magdalenian (after “La Madeleine” cave, on the Vezere)

I2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

TRANSITIONAL

Azilian-Tardenoisian (first after Mas d’Azil, southern France; second after
another locality in France; both somewhat indefinite )

NeotitHic or NEw PortsHep STONE AGE

Various local subdivisions; emerges into historic

Copprer-BRONZE AGE
Early historic

Tron AGE
Historic

The principal forms of the stone implements that characterize these
different cultural subdivisions of man’s past are shown in many books
and other writings on’prehistory. So far as contributions in English
are concerned, and for details and additional materials the reader
must be referred to the reliable recent works of MacCurdy,’ Burkitt,’
Miss Boyle,’ and Peake with Fleure.* To a large number of earlier
publications references will be found in these authors.

The true geological relation and the exact antiquity of the older
parts of man’s prehistory is still, it may be repeated, more or less
uncertain, due partly to the far from complete archeological and
paleontological knowledge, but even more so to the uncertainties about
the exact subdivisions and duration of the Ice Age. The charts shown
in figures I, 2, 3, and 4 give approximations of the human and the geo-
logical conditions. Such approximations are becoming gradually more
and more definite for the period since the greatest intensity of the
last glaciation ; for the rest of the Ice Age they can only be provisional.

One of the foremost needs and wishes of all who deal with man’s
antiquity is the possibility of estimation of the different subdivisions
of this in years. Geological terms alone do not suffice ; what is needed
is the application to the various periods of human prehistory of

*MacCurdy, G. G., Human Origins. 2 Vols., New York and London, Apple-
ton & Co., 1924.

* Burkitt, M. C., Prehistory. Cambridge, England, University Press, 1921.

* Boyle, Mary E., In Search of Our Ancestors. Boston, Little, Brown & Co.,
1928.

* Peake, H., and Fleure, H. J., The Corridors of Time. A series of 8 small
volumes dealing with human prehistory and later stages. New Haven, Yale
University Press, 1927-19209.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 13

definite and well-known time standards. Sensible of the need, geol-
ogists, paleontologists, and prehistorians have for a long time es-
sayed, through the study of erosions and deposits, of the reduction
changes in the radio-active elements, of the salt content of the
seas, etc., to arrive at such estimates for all geological time* and for
the Glacial Age in particular. But the results differ so widely that
they are of little utility. Thus the estimates of the duration of the
Ice Age range from 200,000 (or 250,000 if the first glaciation is in-
cluded) years by Keith,’ to 1,000,000 years by Osborn.’ The esti-
mates for the human periods by these two well qualified authorities
are placed here side by side. They show the uncertainties of the case
among even the foremost students of the question. To some of the
American geologists (e.g., Rollin Chamberlin) the duration of the
Ice Age appears even greater than estimated by Osborn.

Conditions are incomparably better, as has already been mentioned,
for the time since the maximum of the latest glaciation. Thanks
especially to the painstaking researches of De Geer and Antevs, who
in addition to other original work have studied the stratified glacial
clays in Scandinavia and America, we now know that the length of
time elapsed since the cold of the last glacial invasion had reached
its maximum amounts close to 35,000 years.

This datum is exceedingly valuable to human prehistory for it
corresponds to the latest part of the Mousterian or Neanderthal
period of man. The settling of this date, if fully corroborated by
future research, establishes a substantial and most important mile-
stone of human chronology, for it clears up the problem of the placing
and collective duration of all the following paleolithic cultures, which
comprise the Aurignacian, Solutrean and Magdalenian.

A compounding of the various estimates, together with individual
studies, has led me to the tentative chronology shown in the follow-
ing table, the value of which is merely that of a plausible approxi-
mation.

* See especially a symposium on The Age of the Earth, by T. C. Chamberlin,
J. M. Clarke, E. W. Brown, and W. Duane. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., Vol. 61,
pp. 247-288, 1922; with further references. Reprinted Smithsonian Ann. Rep.
for 1922, pp. 241-273, 1924.

* Keith, Sir Arthur, The Antiquity of Man. 3d ed., 2 Vols., London, 1927.

* Osborn, Henry Fairfield, Our Ancestors Arrive in Scandinavia. Nat. Hist.,
Vol. 22, pp. 117-134, New York, 1922; also in Man Rises to Parnassus, p. 106,
Princeton, 1927.

I4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

CHRONOLOGY, POST-GLACIAL

AutuHor’s TABLE*

Cultural Period, Western Europe Be;
Neolithic (regionally variable) .........cccnceeeeecenensenes 7,000- 2,000
Transitional (Azilian, Tardenoisian).............-++s+e+05 9,000- 6,000
Moagdaletiian: jj. swiss ed Sete bc ned naan eel een ielia hse we ieee 14,000- 8,000
Solutrean cx. actle ake onetime bak © Ohh ahe nie see ee ee eer 15,000-13,000
Aatignacian | vs vin aft xiii sani ae aoe aepe AMR peerage a 30,000-15,000
Moustetians ccc cece: eeteies ties renretstetn ate cael ote eer ene teneta ote 30,000

1 It is to be understood that these dates, though based on the approximations by the fore-
most students of the question and many collateral considerations, are given as no more than
mere working suggestions.

Sir Arthur Keith gives a chronology covering the entire human
period. The estimates for the postglacial time agree fairly well with
those of De Geer and, Antevs; but the others are necessarily more
doubtful. The estimate for the Mousterian period, in particular, seems
to need modification ; it appears too short and extends too far forward.

HUMAN CHRONOLOGY

AccorDING To Sir ARTHUR KEITH ”
QUATERNARY:

INGOlItHIE. 285 tia cinenicisptae aerate eee eee teens 2,000- 8,000 B.C.
AZilian,, cece sudi aes ae ech eee eee 8,000- 10,000 B. C.
Mapiidletian cw: cess se eas tas te eG eae ere 10,000- 13,000 B. C.
Soltitream’ Vets. tie fh eo eee eee roar eee 13,000- 15,000 B.C.
Aurignaciany >) live he ae Fee Ree cetiin aio ae ere eee 15,000- 20,000 B. C.
NOUStEHIAN’ feck ke ackoes Raane rion beet Gat ne eee 20,000- 40,000 B. C.
Achettlian, is ss .cotcson ce ose one ea hee cee 40,000- 80,000 B. C.
CGhellean.):.o. > cnjateice case oats De ee ee 80,000-120,000 B. C.
Barly ‘Chellean 2.3 sc shan mapme seoeg ote mae 120,000-200,000 B. C.
TERTIARY :
Pre-Chellean) <5 2 oss 2s aden usuecetas Set eee 200,000-300,000 B. C.
Keentish: dE oliths: ‘sic wc ocic ve sociale ioe eee mean 300,000-350,000 B. C.

1 Keith, Sir Arthur, The Antiquity of Man. Vol I, p. 224; Vol. II, p. 717, London, 1925.

Thanks especially to Drs. Antevs and Leverett, I am able to add
several estimates and some notes on the post-glacial time and its re-
lation to man. Added also is a chronological table by Osborn * which
embodies some individual views of that distinguished author.

‘Man Rises to Parnassus, pp. 106-107, Princeton, 1927.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 15

CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

DENMARK

Knud Jessen, 1920+

AHS TOI CPAIC Core wetter atte cee tN Oe cake ere Si ace So hs Rie Slate ated xen scans to 1100 A. D.
OTA eur paeer deters Mejshage Aes a he cre oioees ctevsisendl oe Beso ge bers 1100 A. D.- 500 B.C.
BLOUZCE AS CMTS CREE Cloner inate cial dciarnce ik safile sansa nae 500 B. C.-1500 B.C.
Wounser NeolithiceStonesAgensseo eee st eee ceese es dee ee 1500 B. C.-3500 B.C.
Older Neolithic Stone Age (Aertebglle, Kj¢kkenmgddin-

SCT ae Hee reer cence reel aise aver onsen ee Te oh al/aieisilo ads beatae wanicie 3500-5000 B. C.
Oldest Neolithic Stone Age (Mullerup, Maglemose)..... 5000-7000 B.C.

1 Jessen, Knud, Bog investigations in North East Sjaelland. Danmarks Geolog. Under-
ségelse, Ser. 2, No. 34, Table p. 269, Copenhagen, 1920.

CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY

SWEDEN
Sandegren, 19241 Munthe, 1925 ?

labiunene INGE sotongoeqcoadc to 1000 A. D. to 1050 A. D.
GONNA D Cy cme eect 1000 A. D.- 500 B.C. 1050 A. D.- 800 B.C.
BNR OVIVAS JANES Gap ap oudoood ooo 500 B.C.-1900 B.C. 800 B.C.-1800 B.C.
Stone CiStswncn serrata tere ae etree oe 2000) B. C.
IP, re Graves 2500 ao

assage Shea e pene ie eae Rte 2 Sets Than ee 1800-4000
DD oleteri saab yee tote tice abo cacie sie ese 3000 § 3 8 g
| EXOT Ys G'S) 3500) S789
Olde NordieyStone Ages... ss50 ec 4500 B. C.

Epipaleolithic Age (Maglemose)..... 6000 B. C.

1 Sandegren, Ragnar, Ragundatraktens postglaciala utvecklingshistoria enligt den subfossila
florans vittnesbord. Sveriges Geol. Undersokning, Ser. Ca, No. 12, Table p. 43, Stockholm,
1924. 3
2 Munthe, Henrik, Gotlands geologi. Sveriges Geol. Undersokning, Ser. C, No. 331 (Arsbok
18, 1924, No. 3), pp. 74, 76, Stockholm, 1925.

CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY
NorTHERN EUROPE

De Geer, 1925*

EMASCORICH NG Cee eet tite fe Seine os Mice ent hes Seo ahOn teas to 1050 A. D.
pening Ci eeee SERPS o thete ee ke ee ioe nae ee earls To500 Ay D.= 550) Bs GC,
IBNROVAVAS® IAGO tet 5 yc a RHEE CS RTE HELO RECA Att ed, SRE. 550 B. C.-1900 B. C.
INGGLEMICE ACE Marr maine ate cat te tro ae ee oe eS 1900-6800 B. C.
IBYOV(S: le VETEE «, Doel A Ahn oe Rca eae ie APSE ESET ee eg ya a 6800-7874 B. C.
ENC aT Eee ere Py sean orci Cae ta aiaics Seve acta areas suseaio eras masineee 7874-13,800? B. C.

1 De Geer, Gerard, Forhistoriska tidsbestamningar. Ymer, Vol. 45, pp. 1-34, 1925. Re-
viewed in Geogr. Rev., Vol. 16, pp. 170-171, 1926. See also Osborn, H. F., Our ancestors
arrive in Scandinavia. Nat. Hist., Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 117-134, table p. 123, 1922.

16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

CHRONOLOGY OF WEST ASIATIC, EGYPTIAN, CRETAN,
EUROPEAN AND SCANDINAVIAN CULTURES

AFTER OSBORN

BG

7000 Our ancestors arrive in Scandinavia
with large flint implements and
axes of reindeer horn

Campignian culture in France, 8000 Maglemose (Mullerup) culture of
Neolithic culture at Anau, Denmark—Domestic Dog
Turkestan

9000 Moose (Elk) Period in Scania
Close of Reindeer Period in 11000 Reindeer Period in Scania
Southern France

11500 Final retreat of the Scandinavian
Glacier from Southern Scania
Crete settled 12000
Azilian and Tardenoisian micro- 13000
flint industry from Spain and 14000
north Africa 15000
Magdalenian (Paleolithic) art 16000 Reindeer Period in Northern
culture in France. Neolithic France

culture at Susa, Persia
17000
Beginning of Neolithic in south- 18000
western Asia
Orient and France Denmark and Sweden

Especially valuable aid in these connections was given to the writer
by Professor Frank Leverett, and Dr. Ernst Antevs. Their com-
munications follow. Dr. Antevs’ latest chronological tables for Europe
are especially serviceable.

Professor Leverett:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ANN Arpor, MICHIGAN,

NOVEMBER 25, 1928
Dr. HrpiicKa:

In reply to your letter of November 17 on chronology of glacial epoch, and
recent papers pertaining thereto:

The most important recent contribution is a book by Dr. Ernest Antevs (a stu-
dent of De Geer) entitled “ The Last Glaciation,” published by the American
Geographical Society, Research Series No. 17, 1928.

Data furnished by Dr. F. W. Sardeson in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Folio of
the United States Geological Survey make the date of the final southward flow
of the glacial Lake Agassiz, and shifting of the outlet into the Hudson Bay

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 7,

Basin at less than 10,000 years ago. This being the case the ice sheet persisted
west of Hudson Bay down to that time. It is probable that the ice sheet on the
Labrador peninsula persisted down to fully as late a time as that west of
Hudson Bay.

I have written very little concerning the chronology of the glacial epoch,
though I have had considerable correspondence with other glacialists on the
subject. I differ from some of them in thinking that there was a prolonged
period of extensive glaciation in the Wisconsin or latest glacial stage. I find
that the ice sheet continued to grow westward long after the Labrador part had
reached its limit at the Shelbyville moraine. As a result the extent or area of
the ice sheet may have been greater in what is known as Late Wisconsin time
than in the time of the Shelbyville moraine, though its eastern part had shrunk
considerably by that time. I am inclined to make the culmination of the ice
sheet cover a longer time than that involved in its growth to the Shelbyville
moraine. I think the majority of the glacial students, here and in Europe, would
make the last glacial stage cover a period of 74,000 to 100,000 years. I think at
least 40 per cent of this stage should be allotted to the culmination, and 30 per
cent or less to growth to the Shelbyville moraine, and a similar per cent to the
departure of the ice sheet, the departure following the development of the Port
Huron morainic system (see Monograph 53, U. S. Geol. Survey, for the place
of this morainic system).

As to earlier glacial stages, the time involved seems likely to be similar to that
involved in the Wisconsin stage as the extent or area covered was but slightly
different from that covered in the Wisconsin stage.

The period between the Illinoian, or third glacial stage, and the Wisconsin,
or last glacial stage, seems to be somewhat longer than that involved in either
of these glacial stages. The basis for estimates is the relative amounts of erosion
and weathering each drift has suffered. On this basis it seems safe to put the
culmination of the Illinoian at not less than 200,000 years ago.

On the basis of the amount of weathering and erosion displayed by the next
older drift, the Kansan, it seems likely to date back at least a half million years.
The Nebraskan, or first drift, is much older, but is so largely buried under the
later drifts that one cannot well estimate its relative age. But I think it safe to
say that it dates back not less than three fourths of a million years.

I trust you will not take these estimates as at all exact in a mathematical sense.
They are intended to merely express the general relations in time, though they
are based on a study carried on for more than forty years.

Very truly yours,
(Signed) FRANK LEVERETT.

Dr. Antevs:

AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY

BROADWAY AT 156TH STREET,
New York, N. Y.,
Nov. 7, 1928

Dr. HrpiicKa:
I listened with great interest to your lecture in the American Museum of
Natural History last Monday and got a much more vivid idea of several prob-

18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

lems than I had by reading. Being much interested in coOperation between
geology and anthropology, I wish to give some data on the present stand of the
absolute clay geochronology. The stand in 1925 is treated in Geographical
Review, Vol. 15, 1925, pp. 280-284.

What is known in Europe is briefly this:

1. The retreat of the last ice sheet from northeastern Scania, the southern-
most province of Sweden, to Stugun in northern Sweden (63° N.) took some-
what more than 4,000 years. The material as a whole is not yet published. The
time may be tolerably correct—De Geer and Sauramo.

2. When the ice edge had reached Stugun the ice rest split in two parts, and
this event initiates postglacial age in Scandinavia. Postglacial age began about
8,700 years ago. The material is not published. The figure may be practically
correct.—Lidén.

The absolute geochronology in Europe thus takes us more than 4,000 plus
8,700 years back in time, say 13,000 years.

In “On the Solar Curve” (Geograf. Annaler, Stockholm, 1926) and else-
where Baron De Geer has attempted to extend the European geochronology
farther back by correlating varves in Denmark with such in southern Scania.
The correlations, however, have no justification, being clearly contradicted by
well-known conditions (see for instance Milthers in Geogr. Annaler, Vol. 9,
1927, p. 162). The dating of the Baltic moraine in northern Germany at 18,000
years before our time is only a guess. The correlation of this moraine with the
ice edge in Scania is disproven in Denmark.

The release from the ice of northern Germany and the Danish Islands was a
very slow affair, as indicated by many morainic lines and readvances of the
ice border (most recent summary in my “ The Last Glaciation,” p. 155).

Varve correlations between North America and North Europe will perhaps
never be possible, since the first condition is lacking, viz., knowledge that the
summer temperature underwent the same yearly variations in the two areas.
The transatlantic varve correlations made by De Geer (‘‘ On the Solar Curve”
and elsewhere) betray a regrettable ignorance of the geology of North America
and disregard for the work done here, besides violating the main principles of
varve correlations.

An attempt at correlating the major climatic late Quaternary fluctuations in
the main areas of glaciation is made in my Canadian Geol. Survey Mem., 146,
1925, and in the last glaciation.

On the basis of De Geer’s, Sauramo’s, and Lidén’s clay studies in Sweden and
Finland and my own in North America, on the estimates based on the Niagara
Falls and on my transatlantic correlation I am inclined to place the climax of
the last glaciation some 40,000 years back (‘‘ The Last Glaciation,” p. 168).
However, since a restudy of parts of the Niagara gorge (by W. A. Johnston—
not yet published) tend to show that it represents shorter time than previously
supposed, this figure will perhaps prove to be too large. The maximum of the
last glaciation lies perhaps some 35,000 years back in time.

Very sincerely yours,
Ernst ANTEVS.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 19

LATE QUATERNARY HISTORY OF SCANDINAVIA AND
CENTRAL EUROPE

(Ernst ANTEVS, FEBRUARY, 1929 )*
Sc a a

Chrono logy Climatic Typical Stages in Scandinavian] Stages in Cultural
periods forests, the Baltic] cultures last ice stages in
(De Geer, Lidén, etc. retreat Central

Sauramo, etc.) (Blytt, {von Post)]| (Munthe ) (Montelius, The Alps Purope
Sernander ) etc.) (P.& B.etc.)

0 1900 A.D.

Historic
1000 1000 Sub- 1050 Historic
atlantic
(Cool,
2 rist maritime) —————
La Tene s
500 ——_$ —— C
m
Hallstatt
3 1000 pee
Sub-
boreal
Post- Bronze
4 2 (Warm, Stone Cists
M4 continenta oO aaa
glacial E FS Seer sae
5000 + > 7 Dolmens Carnactan
vo
& |latiantic Littorina Robenhausean
a
P 4 ( Warm, =
x
maritime ) Kitchen =
middens ‘°
o
=
7 + 5000 5000— — Ce
Boreal
8 6 Maglemosean Maglemosean
(Warm, dry)
— 8700
9 7
- — 9775 Yoldia
10008 —10070
2 (Fenno-
@ Scandian Gschnitz 7] Azilian
ll 9 Moraines)
Gothi-
12 10000 Arctic
glacial
13 ll
14 12
Dani-
13 Slacial
15006 Magdalenian

1 Communicated to the writer.

20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Dr. Antevs’ latest estimates:

STAGES OF LAST ICE RETREAT AND CULTURES

Ernst ANTEvS, FEBRUARY, 1929*

Stages of last ice retreat

Chronology poy a A ain Cultures
(Antevs, ! in
De Geer, North America | North Europe The Alps Central
Lidén) (Antevs) (Woldstedt, etc.) (P. & B., Hug) Europe
Years ago “ es
_ __ | 10,000 Cochrane Fenno-Scand. Gschnitz Azilian
oan 1 gees (Ont.) moraines
13,500 ;
15,000 S. of Mattawa Eslov Buhl Magdalenian
(Ont.) (Scania)
Dani 20,000 (Achen retreat) Solutrean
lacial 23,000 St. Johnsbury Pomerania Zurich
giacia (Vt.) , ;
28,000 Middletown Frankfurt Schlieren Aurignacian
(Ct. (Poznan) :
35,000 Long Island Brandenburg Killwangen Late

A Mousterian

1 Communication to the writer.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

For the duration and subdivisions of the Glacial Age and the post-
glacial period, the following works may be consulted; they contain
references to other literature on the subject:

Antevs, Ernst. The last glaciation. New York, 1928.

Bayer, JosepH. Der Mensch im Eiszeitalter. Vienna, 452 pp., numerous illus-
trations, 1927.

Brooks, C. E. P. Climate through the ages. London, 1926.

CHAMBERLIN, T. C., and Sattspury, R. D. Geology, 1906.

CHAMBERLIN, T. C. Map of North America during the great ice age. Chicago
and New York, Rand McNally & Co., 1913.

CoLtemaANn, A. P. An estimate of post-glacial and interglacial time in North
America. Compte Rendu Congrés Internatl. Géol. XII, pp. 435-449, Canada,
1913, Ottawa, 1914.

Ice ages, recent and ancient. New York, 1926.

Glacial and interglacial periods in Eastern Canada. Journ. Geol.,
Vol. 35, pp. 385-403, 1927.

De Geer, Gerarp. A geochronology of the last 12,000 years. Compte Rendu
Congres Internatl. Géol. XI, 4 Stockholm, 1910, fase. I, pp. 241-253, Stock-
holm, 1912.

On the solar curve as dating the ice age, the New York moraine and
Niagara Falls through the Swedish time scale. Geogr. Annaler, Stockholm,
Vol. 8, pp. 253-284, 1926.

DépEret, Cu. Essai de coordination chronologique générale des temps quater-
naires. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 1918, 1920.

La classification du Quaternaire et sa corrélation avec les niveaux

préhistoriques. C. R. Soc. Géol. France, pp. 125-127, 1921.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 21

GEIKIE, J. The great ice age. 3d ed., 184.

The antiquity of man in Europe. Edinburgh, 1o14.

LEVERETT, FRANK. The Pleistocene glacial stages: Were there more than four?
Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., Vol. 65, pp. 105-118, 1926.

Mayet, L., and Pissort, I. Abri-sous-roche préhistorique de La Colombiére prés
Poncin (Ain). Ann. Univ. Lyon, N. S., Vol. 1, p. 180 et seq., 1915.

Division géologique du quaternaire et niveaux archéologiques paléo-

lithiques. Bull. Soc. Préhist. France, pp. 1-6, 1921.

. Correlations géologiques et archéologiques du temps quaternaires.
C. R., A. F. A. S., pp. 481-490, 1921.

OBERMAIER, H. Der Mensch der Vorzeit. Berlin, 1912.

Osporn, H. F. Review of the Pleistocene of Europe, Asia, and northern Africa.
Ann. New York Acad. Sci., Vol. 26, pp. 215-315, 1915.

Ossorn, H. F., and Reeps, C. A. Old and new standards of Pleistocene division
in relation to the prehistory of man in Europe. Bull. Geol. Soc. America,
Vol. 33, pp. 411-490, 1922.

Penck, A., and Bruckner, E. Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter. 3 Vols., Leipzig, 1909.

Rutot, A. L’état actuel de la question de l’antiquité de l’homme. Bull. Soc. Belg.
Géol., Vol. 17, pp. 437 et seq., 1903.

ScumipT, R. R., Koken, E., and Scuriz, A. Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutsch-
lands. Stuttgart, 1912.

SoERGEL, W. Losse, Eiszeiten und palaolitische Kulturen, etc. Jena, 1910.

Warp, R. DEC. Climate, considered especially in relation to man. New York,
1018.

Wiecers, F. Diluvialprahistorie als geologische Wissenschaft. Abh. Preuss.
Geol. Landesanst., N. F. H. 84, 1920.

ZSCHOKKE, Fritz. Die tierbiologische Bedeutung der Eiszeit. Fortschritte der
naturwiss. Forschung, Vol. 4, pp. 103-148, 1912.

THE ANCIENT SKELETAL REMAINS OF MAN

However interesting and scientifically valuable the cultural remains
of early man may be, the actual parts of the human beings of an-
tiquity, which show what man was scores and hundreds of thousands
of years ago, are immeasurably more so. The cultural remains are
the indices of man’s gradual mastering of nature, of the slow advance
in his mentality, and of the eventual unfolding of his esthetic procliv-
ities. But the remains of man himself, though limited to his bones,
give us the record of his own amazing differentiation, his evolution.
It is insufficient to say that no other range of happenings in nature
equals or even approaches in interest and importance that of man’s
ascent; his evolution can only be adequately described as the para-
mount phenomenon and achievement of nature.

Regrettably, the skeletal remains of early man are far more scarce
than the cultural. Of worked flints not one perhaps has been com-
pletely destroyed unless by fire or through man’s own activities ; but
bones are very perishable, and only rare good fortune as to the con-
ditions surrounding them resulted in their preservation. Even then,
in a very large majority of cases only some portions of the skull or
skeleton escaped destruction, and those that did, have mostly become
enclosed in old and now indurated deposits, or even in hard rock,
without there being any outward traces of their presence. Thus it is
that in general such precious remains are found only by accident,
by laborers in excavations or quarrying; and many have been and
doubtless still are being lost through damage or inattention. All this
is particularly true of the older remains that would be of most im-
portance, and accounts for the scarcity as well as the defects of such
discoveries. The object of this treatise will be to give a reliable ac-
count of all the more important of these remains based on the original
reports, and supplemented by such measurements and data as the
writer has personally been able to obtain or corroborate ; the utmost
effort being made to present records that may be used with full confi-
dence. Where plainly justified, critical remarks will be added, with
the avoidance, however, of all personal argument.

TERTIARY MAN

The question as to whether man originated first in the Quaternary
or existed already in the latter parts of the Tertiary, is still unsettled.

22

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 23

The problem has been discussed ever since the time of the French
pioneers in prehistory. One of the foremost of the earlier protago-
nists of Tertiary man was Gabriel de Mortillet in France; two of the
latest are Reid Moir in England and Henry Fairfield Osborn in this
country. The claims for the tertiary existence of man rest essentially
on the evidence of apparently worked stones, the so-called “ eoliths,”
in strata that are believed to be of Tertiary age.

There are two serious difficulties in the case. The first is of geo-
logical nature and concerns the boundary between the Quaternary
and the Tertiary. This boundary is not definite, and the matter is
complicated by the tendency of some workers to place the first glaci-
ation in the Tertiary. Not until the geological and paleontological
boundaries of the two eras are definitely and generally settled can the
question of Tertiary man approach a final solution.

The second and hardly lesser difficulty relates to the apparently
worked stones, and consists in the uncertainties as to their true nature.
Many of, the eoliths resemble intentionally chipped stones, but many
flints that evidently came to be chipped by the action of the sun, frost,
pressure and incidental violence of various kinds, show more or less
similar resemblances. Various criteria for safely distinguishing real
from false artifacts have been proposed, but also opposed." There is,
it would seem, no valid reason against the existence of some primitive
form of man in the upper Tertiary; but before this problem can be
definitely settled, generally satisfactory conclusions both as to its
geological and its archeological aspects must be reached.

THE JAW OF FOXHALL

The preceding brief reference to the archeological side of the ques-
tion of Tertiary man seemed called for merely to round out the
subject, our real task in this work being the physical remains of man
himself.

Only a few human skeletal remains have been attributed to Tertiary
man, and none of these has withstood the tests of critical inquiry.

* Consult numerous contributions to the subject in L’Homme (G. de Mortillet,
1885, II, 289-299) ; Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Paris; Revue d’Anthropologie; L’An-
thropologie; and the periodicals of the Royal Anthropological Institute. The
subject is touched upon more or less in every book on human prehistory, and
there are many articles relating to it dispersed through the scientific journals
of various countries. The most recent yet still not decisive contributions to the
subject are those of Osborn, H. F., Recent Discoveries Relating to the Origin
and Antiquity of Man, Palaeobiologica, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 189-202, 1928; and
Moir, J. Reid, The Antiquity of Man in East Anglia, Cambridge, 1927.

3

24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Only one of these deserves to be dealt with in this place and that only
through the prominence given to it by one of the most distinguished
of American paleontologists, Henry Fairfield Osborn. The specimen
is the Foxhall jaw of southeastern England.

In 1921, at the Washington meeting of the National Academy of
Sciences, Professor Osborn expressed his belief that the Foxhall jaw
represented a Tertiary man. In the latter part of the same year he
wrote an article (published early in 1922) on “ The Pliocene Man of
Foxhall in East Anglia,” * in which he proclaimed his belief in traces
of Tertiary man at that locality, but was duly cautious about the jaw,
though evidently inclined to the opinion that, if found again, the
specimen (now lost) might prove of much value.

During 1923-24, as a result of a visit to Foxhall and to the excava-
tion where the jaw was supposed to have been found, I undertook a
study of the find. At my request, Mr, Reid Moir furnished me with
all the known details of the discovery, and these, with the original
account of the find by Dr. R. H. Collyer and the results of my own
study, were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthro-
pology.. The main points brought out are as follows:

The “ Foxhall jaw” was found in 1855, by workers excavating a
bed of “coprolites”? near Ipswich, Suffolk. The specimen was pur-
chased from the finder by a local druggist, given by him to Sir
Thomas Beaver, in 1857 brought to the attention of Dr. Collyer, an
American physician in London. In 1863 Dr. Collyer exhibited the
bone to the Ethnological Society of London, and in 1867 published
a short account of it * in which he plainly endeavors to establish the
jaw as very ancient. Eventually Dr. Collyer is believed to have re-
turned to America and probably to have taken the specimen with
him; but all further traces of the jaw are since lost.

The only details concerning the circumstances of the find are those
given in a letter written eleven years after the discovery by J. Taylor,
the druggist, to Dr. Collyer. In this letter he says:

The history of the matter, so far as I know, is very short.

From what I could learn at the time, from the agricultural laborer of whom

I bought it, it came from the coprolite pit on the farm of Mr. Laws at Foxhall,
about four miles from Ipswich and was thrown out at Mr. Packard’s manure

* Nat. Hist., Vol. 21, pp. 565-576, New York, 1921.

? Moir, J. Reid, The human jaw-bone found at Foxhall. Amer. Journ. Phys.
Anthrop., 1924, Vol. 7, pp. 409-416; Collyer, Robert H., The fossil human jaw
from Suffolk; ibid., pp. 117-120; and Hrdliéka, A., Critical notes on the Foxhall
jaw; thid., pp. 420-424.

* Anthrop. Rev., Vol. 5, pp. 331-339, London, 1867; republished as in preceding
note.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 25

factory with the coprolite from a cart or tumbril, and from thence was brought
to me to secure a glass of beer. I had possession of it for near three months,
when Sir Thos. Beaver (whose son was then living with me) called on me, and
seeing that he exhibited great interest in the inquiry as to the antiquity of the
jaw, I had the pleasure of presenting him with it.

There is no doubt the bone was obtained at some depth as I know the pit had
been open for a considerable time when it was found.

I visited the coprolite pit in 1855, immediately after it was found, and ascer-
tained that it had been worked for over a year. The place from which “ the jaw,”
in all probability, came was 16 feet below the surface.

Before the publication of his paper Dr. Collyer took the specimen
to Richard Owen, the comparative anatomist, ‘““ who kept it for two
years without coming to any expressed opinion.’ During the dis-
cussion following the presentation of the specimen before the London
Ethnological Society, G. Busk, the paleontologist, “ pronounced the
‘coprolite jaw ’ in the most summary manner to be ‘ the jaw of some
old woman, perhaps from some Roman burial ground.” Huxley,
after a careful examination of the specimen, which was loaned to him,
wrote Collyer as follows: “ No doubt, as I stated when you were so
good as to show me the jaw, it has some peculiar characters, but they
do not appear to me in themselves adequate to lead me to ascribe the
bone to an extinct or aberrant race of mankind, and the condition
of the bone is not such as I should expect a crag fossil to be.” Later *
Falconer and Busk write: “ The specimen is a very remarkable lower
jaw of a human subject now belonging to Dr. Robert H. Collyer. It
is reputed to have been found in the gravel heap of a coprolite pit
near Ipswich; although retaining a portion of its gelatine, it is infil-
trated through and through with iron. The Haversian cords are
filled with red oxide, and a section of the fang shows that the ivory
is partly infiltrated with the same metal. This specimen proves that
the human jaw, if favorably placed, is equally susceptible of im-
pregnation with metallic matter as the bones of any other mammal.”
A month later Busk, after a further examination of the bone, writes
Collyer: “I have considerably modified the opinion I hastily ex-
pressed at the Ethnological Society. That is to say, it is very different
from an ordinary churchyard bone, though of course, without any
relation as regards age with the fossil bones of the coprolite beds ;
it is of very great antiquity, and it is peculiarly remarkable for the
great amount of iron it contains, though still retaining about 8 per
cent of animal matter. On the whole, therefore, though not of the
portentous antiquity it would have claimed had it been contemporary
of Elephas meridionalis, the ‘ coprolite jaw’ fairly claims a consider-

* Nat. Hist. Rev., July, 1863, Note 37.

26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

able age, and I, for one, am much obliged to you for having brought
it under notice, and for the liberal way in which you have allowed it
to be examined.” Since then the specimen has not been heard of.

Professor Osborn, in the previously named publication (1921),
after reviewing what is known about the specimen, writes as follows:
“Tt would be hazardous for the writer even to express an opinion as
to whether this jaw is of Pliocene age. The imperfect figure repro-
duced on the opposite page shows it to be different from the two
most ancient jaws we know, namely, those of the Piltdown and
Heidelberg men, for it apparently had a prominent chin. It is possible
that the mineralization of the jaw was due to deep intrusive burial.
To settle these questions the jaw must be traced and found. Even if
the jaw proves to belong to Homo sapiens, Doctor Collyer’s paper
has suddenly become a classic because it has led to the long awaited
discovery of Tertiary man, which may now be described.

“Tt remained for Moir, half a century later, to unearth Collyer’s
paper of 1867, to vindicate his entire procedure, and above all to
rediscover the actual sixteen-foot level at Foxhall in which Doctor
Collyer believed the jaw was located.”

Mr. Moir himself, two years later,’ after similarly reviewing what
is known about the jaw, says: “ The above account makes it clear
that, while there seems much probability for regarding Collyer’s dis-
covery as of considerable importance, the fact of this importance is
not scientifically established. When all the circumstances of the case
are considered, it is not possible to speak of the Foxhall jaw-bone
as affording certain evidence of the existence of Tertiary man, nor
is it desirable or reasonable that the acceptance or rejection of the
flaked flints found by me, under strictly scientific conditions, at the
16 foot level at this place, should be influenced by the specimen
described by Collyer.”

Discussion.—From all the preceding a number of facts seem clear.
The first is that there is no authentic information as to the circum-
stances of the find. The second is that for eight years the specimen
lay unreported ; and that when eventually reported, men of the caliber
of Owen, Busk, and Huxley were not impressed with its value, though
the scientific world just then was quite alert as to the importance of
such finds on account of the publicity given to the jaw of Abbeville
(Molin Quignon). The bone was “ fossilized,’ through infiltration
with red oxide of iron; but such changes are well known to depend on
the geophysical and chemical conditions to which a specimen is sub-
jected and are no safe criteria of time.

* Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., p. 416, 1924.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 27

As to the anatomical features of the jaw we have, fortunately, an
evidently full-size drawing of the specimen in the Collyer report.
This illustration both in form and dimensions indicates a relatively
modern jaw. I have gone into this subject as closely as possible in
my “Critical Notes”? on the jaw (Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop.,
1924, VII, 422-423) and the details need not be repeated. The results
were as follows: All the measurements of the jaw, as deducted from
a given dimension and the illustration, agree with those of a more
or less modern male bone; and the size and conformation could only
be associated with modern-like facial features; none of which is

Fic. 5.—Foxhall jaw.

compatible with the notion of any great antiquity. The conclusion
was, and remains:

Taking into consideration the uncertainties regarding the circumstances of
the discovery; the good preservation of the specimen in a stratum where all
animal bones were reduced to unidentifiable fragments; the considerable amount
of animal material which the jaw retained; its form, which showed nothing what-
ever primitive; and above all its measurements, which all fit among those of
ordinary male jaws of recent white man, it may well be asked what remains as a
basis on which the Foxhall jaw could receive any further consideration in con-
nection with older Quaternary, not to say Tertiary, man.

Thus the Foxhall jaw fails to establish its right as a representative
of Tertiary man. The object of its somewhat extended consideration
here is to give an example of a whole category of specimens that have
at some time been regarded as very ancient, only to fail on closer
examination to sustain this claim. Foremost among them are all the

28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

American “ Tertiary ’’ crania and bones, such as the Calaveras skull,
the Diprothomo, Tetraprothomo, etc. of Ameghino, and others, in all
of which the estimates and identifications were found to be erroneous,
and such European specimens as the skulls of Canstadt, Eguisheim,
Galley Hill, Tilbury, Ipswich, the jaw of Moulin Quignon, etc., in all
of which, it has appeared, the age was much overestimated at first.
Human prehistory has its pitfalls, as well as its triumphs.

THE Otpest WELL-AUTHENTICATED SKELETAL REMAINS
oF MAN AND RELATED ForMsS

THE PITHECANTHROPUS

No finds relating to human prehistory have received more attention
and publicity than those attributed to the Pithecanthropus, and none
deserved more. Nor are the discussions yet ended. The remains
consist, collectively, of a remarkable skullcap, three teeth, a fragment
of a lower jaw, and a thigh bone. They were discovered between
1890 and 1897 in Java, by or under the direction of Dr. Eugéne
Dubois.

Dr. Dubois was appointed to the service in Java as a result of his
own efforts. He was already an accomplished anatomist, paleontolo-
gist, and student of human ancestry, and he went with the object of
searching for possible human ancestors in the East Indies. From 1887
he served as a “ Health-Officer of the second class ”’ in the military
organization of the Colonies, but a considerable part of his time was
devoted to a search of the caves in Sumatra and the collection of
fossils. Among the fossils sent to him during this period were a
pre-Malay skull collected by van Rietschoten, and some interesting
mineralized human bones of “Australoid” type from Wadjak.

In 1889 Dr. Dubois came to Java, and in April of that year he was
delegated by the Colonial government, at his own desire, “ to extend
his studies to the Tertiary and diluvial fauna of Java.” * From then
on until the middle of 1895, the Government Mining Bulletin (“ Ver-
slag van het Mijnwezen”’) carried quarterly a report by Dubois or
others on the progress of his work, and it is in these reports that
the original accounts of his very fortunate discoveries are recorded.

*See Hrdlicka, A., Skeletal Remains Suggesting or Attributed to Early Man
in North America. Bull. 33, Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1907; Early Man in South
America. Bull. 52, Bur. Amer. Ethnol., 1912; also, Bull. 66, Bur. Amer.
Ethnol., 1918.

*Verslag v. h. Mijnwezen, Batavia, 2 Quart., pp. 18-19, 1890.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 29

Paleontological work in Java had commenced well before the ad-
vent of Dubois, and resulted in the discovery in the central parts of
the island, more particularly along the Bengawan or Solo river and its
tributaries, of fluviatile Pliocene to Pleistocene strata, parts of which
proved to be rich in fossil remains of the fauna and flora of those
times. In his best early report on these matters,’ Dr. Dubois gives the
following information :

By order of the Netherlands Indian Government I conducted in Java, from
1890 to 1895, explorations for a fossil vertebrate fauna, of which already some
remains had been discovered, many years ago, by Junghuhn and others, and later
extensively described by Prof. K. Martin, of Leiden. I found a very large quan-
tity of remains of mammals and reptiles, for the most part derived from extinct
species, which show, as might be expected, an unmistakable relation to the later
Tertiary avid Pleistocene faunae of India.

The chief localities of these finds are in the southern slope of a range of low
hills, the Kendengs, which extends between the residences Kediri, Madiun, and
Surakarta on one side, and Rembang and Samarang on the other, in a length of
about 60 miles. The area in which these vertebrate remains are abundantly
found, in many places, may have on an average a breadth of from one to three
miles. They are contained in beds of cemented volcanic tuff, consisting of clay,
sand, lapilli stone, which especially, through the very general occurrence of the
remains of freshwater animals, and of that fluviatile structure which English
geologists call current-bedding, or false bedding, prove to be of fluviatile origin.
The strata have undergone, in the whole area, considerable disturbances by fold-
ing, on account of which they have, from east to west, dips of 3° to 15° ina
general southerly direction. The whole formation reaches a maximum thickness
of more than 350 meters. The strata rest, unconformably, upon beds of marine
marl, sand, and limestone, recently determined by Prof. K.°Martin to be of
Pliocene age. The fossil vertebrate fauna, which they contain, is everywhere in
the Kendeng, and also in other places in Java, the same, and a homogeneous one.
Its age can only be judged when the description of my collection, which I intend
to give in the course of a few years, shall be published. But I have studied it
already a little, and it can be said, in accordance with geological circumstances,
and the relations which this fauna has with the Post-Tertiary and Pleistocene
vertebrate faunae of India, that, most probably, it is young Pliocene; in no case,
however, can it be younger than the oldest Pleistocene. For, whilst on the one
hand the species surely belong almost exclusively to living genera—only the
genus Leptobos and the sub-genera Stegodon and Hexaprotodon are extinct—
and it must therefore be younger than the principal part of the Upper Miocene
or Lower Pliocene Siwalik-fauna, including not a few extinct genera; on the
other hand, the number of the extinct species seems to be in proportion some-
what greater than that of the Narbada-fauna, which is put in the early Pleisto-
cene. Further, the inclination which the strata show does not well agree with a
Pleistocene age.....

* Dubois, Eugene, On Pithecanthropus erectus: A Transitional Form Between
Man and the Apes. Sci. Trans. Roy. Dub. Soc., Dublin, Vol. 6, ser. 2, pp. 1-18,
1808.

30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

From Trinil to Ngawi the steep banks of the Bengawan or Solo river, for
an extent of 74 miles, consist exclusively of the above-mentioned volcanic sands
and lapilli, cemented into soft rocks, very much like the rocks which I saw in
the Siwalik hills. The strata have in this area a general dip S. of about 5°, and
are only concealed by a thin covering of vegetable soil. In these strata the

et Z E E
*pMandohiko’
ae
; a
i (e
. aa
y ; = Paywan ? ws
Fr S 4 “sa
~D New + SRS ion, Sidajoe

[SR rot
ti Rea he
ee ee Aral te et

BENS
5 eae)

Fic. 6.—Central part of Java, showing the Solo (Bengawan) River and the site
of the Pithecanthropus.

Solo River has cut its channel 12 to 15 meters deep near Trinil. North and west
of Trinil the Pliocene marl and limestone appear under them.”

It was near Trinil, in the left bank of the river, at the foot of the Kendeng,
that I came, in August, 1891, upon a place particularly rich in fossil bones, and

“See also Dubois, Smithsonian Rep. for 1898, pp. 446-447.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 31

found there, in that and the following year, among a great number of remains of
other vertebrates, bones and teeth of a great man-like mammal, which I have
named Pithecanthropus erectus, considering it as a link connecting together
Apes and Man.....

Among hundreds of other skeleton remains, in the lapilli bed on the left bank
of the river, the third molar tooth was first found in September; then, the hole
having been enlarged, the cranium a month later, at about 1 meter distant from
the former, but in the very same level of that bed. The species of mammals,
of which remains were found in the same bed, are, for the greater part at least,

a le

Deo il Bey sy oh pes a Fes Cesc acs a7 o" aes

Fic. 7.—Ossiferous strata in which the per te bones were dis-
covered. B, soft sandstone; C, lapilli stratum; D, level at which the skeletal
remains were found; £, conglomerate; F, argillaceous layer; G, marine breccia;
H, wet-season level of the river; J, dry-season level of the river.

extinct ones, and almost certainly none of them are at present living in Java.
Among these remains we find a great number of the above-mentioned small
species of Cervus, which certainly is not extant in the Malayan isles. Also many
bones of Stegodon were found. One or two Bubalus species seem to be identical
with Siwalik species; a Boselaphus undoubtedly differs from the known species,
living and fossil. Further on there were found the extinct genus Leptobos, the
genera Rhinoceros, Sus, Felis, Hyaena, and others; a Garial and a Crocodile,
differing little from the existing species in India, but which cannot be classed
among them.

Of the animals found in the same strata in other places, the most interesting
species are a gigantic Pangolin (Manis), three times as large as the existing

32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Javanese species, and a Hippopotamus belonging to an extinct Siwalik subgenus.
Further a Tapir and an Elephas.

The work having been brought to an end that year on account of the setting
in of the rainy season, it was taken up again at the beginning of the dry season
in May, 1892, A new cutting was now made in the left rocky bank, which
comprised the still unfinished part of the old excavation. Thereby bones were
again found in great numbers, especially in the deeper beds; and among these,
again in the same level of the lapilli bed, which had contained the skull-cap and
the molar tooth, the left femur was found in August, at a distance of about
15 meters from the former; and at last, in October, a second molar, at a distance
of 3 meters at the most from the place where the skull-cap was discovered, and
in the direction of the place where the femur had been dug out. This tooth I did
not describe, because I only found it later among a collection of teeth derived
from the place stated above.

As a matter of fact at the time the first of the just mentioned
remains were discovered, Dubois was already in possession of a
fragment of an old lower jaw found early in 1890 in the fossiliferous
layers of the Kendeng formation at one of the tributaries of the
Bengawan river.

The total Dubois finds eventually attributed by him to the Pithe-
canthropus, and still in his possession, comprise the just mentioned
lower jaw, the 1891-93 Trinil finds of two molar teeth, a skull-cap and
a femur, and another tooth, a premolar, discovered in the Trinil de-
posits several years later.

These remains are all of such importance that they deserve separate
and detailed attention.

THE FIRST FIND: THE LOWER JAW

The history of the Dubois find as thus far given in scientific
literature is more or less incomplete. The details, as obtainable from
the original sources, were as follows:

The first note of importance is found in the report for the first
quarter of 1890." Dr. Dubois announces that he had discovered, on
November 24, 1890, in the so-called Kendeng deposits of the water-
shed of the Bengawan river, among typical remains of the old fauna
and in the same sandstone-like andesite tufa, a human fossil, consisting
of a fragment of a lower jaw, with the alveoli of the canine and the
first and second premolars. The specimen leaves no doubt, he states,
as to its human derivation. Its chin may have been even less prominent
than that in the diluvial European jaws of LaNaulette or Sipka and
possesses a remarkable flattening as well as hollowing out for the

*Verslag v. h. Mijnwezen, Batavia, pp. 14-15, 1891. See also Natuurk.
Tijdschr. Nederl. Indie, Vol. 51, p. 95, 1892.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 33

attachment of the digastric muscle, of a different type from those
known so far. The man represented by this fossil lived in Java with
the stegodont elephants and other extinct animals at the time when
Java was still united with Asia.

The find of the lower jaw is also mentioned by Dubois in the
‘“ Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indié” of 1891. He
then considered the jaw as “a remain of a not exactly determinable
human species,” and of “ another and probably lower type” than both
the modern jaws and those that existed in the European diluvial times.

There is no further report on the fragment and it seems to have
been forgotten by scientific men. But in his latest report on the skull
(1924) * Dr. Dubois devotes a few lines again to the specimen, and
a little later publishes illustrations of it.”

In this latest report, on page 266, Dubois states that the fragment
was found near Kedung (=river) Brubus, in the same Kendeng
layers that gave the remains of the Pithecanthropus ; on page 274, he
adds: “A mandibular fragment, a small piece on the right of the sym-
physis, was found in the same Kendeng-layers, but at 40 km. distance
on the E. S. E. of Trinil, namely at Kedung Brubus, among other
fossil remains of the Kendeng fauna. Its specific gravity is the same
as that of the teeth and the other remains of Pithecanthropus.” And
a little further: ‘‘ The mandibular fragment is a scalene-triangular
piece of the corpus mandibulae, with a basis of 36 mm. (measured
rectilinearly) of the lower border, immediately on the right of the
symphysis. The apex is formed by the root of the anterior premolar
tooth, which root has been preserved for the greater part. It is there
30 mm, high. There further is preserved the back half of the flat
alveolus of the caninus with its root point and part of the front plane
of the alveolus of the posterior premolar tooth, under which is situ-
ated the front edge of the foramen mentale, 12 mm. above the sharp
lower border. In its full thickness the corpus mandibulae has only
remained preserved at the septum of the alveoli of the caninus and
the anterior premolar tooth. I now ascribe also this mandibular frag-
ment to Pithecanthropus erectus, because what the teeth teach us is
quite corroborated by the morphological characters of this small, but
all the same very significant piece of the mandible.”

* On the Principal Characters of the Cranium and the Brain, the Mandible and
the Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Proc. Acad. Sci., Amsterdam, Vol. 27,
Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 265-278, 1924.

* Figures of the Calvarium and Endocranial Cast, a Fragment of the Mandible
and Three Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Ibid., Nos. 5 and 6, pl. 8, with text
figures.

34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

H. Weinert, the foremost present German student of early skeletal
remains of man, has studied the original fragment and reports upon
it in his recent meritorious work on the Pithecanthropus.’ His first
word is: “ With this fragment begin our difficulties as to the meaning
of the Pithecanthropus finds.” It is to be recalled that the fragment
came from the same geological deposits as at Trinil though at some
distance away, that it was accompanied by the same Kendeng fauna,
and that the bone has the same general aspect, color, and specific
gravity as the Pithecanthropus remains from Trinil. Moreover, the
root of the premolar of Trinil shows dimensions closely resembling
those of a corresponding tooth in the lower jaw. All of which in-
fluenced Dubois in attributing the fragment to the genus Pithecan-
thropus. Yet the evidence for this is not decisive. Weinert gives
several useful measurements of the fragment. They are as follows:

Height of body between canine and first premolar.................. 27.8 mm.
Greatest thickness of the bone at same place, at right angles to the

Neh “wisi Biows dads cm easial lee roreciatie a A vies tea ie see lee rates ee feta es 14.4 mm.
Depth or the: alveolus of the canine) Neate. qe ews dae ieee ieee es 14.0 mm.

There was no broad distance between the canine and the premolar,
the breadth of the septum between the two alveoli amounting to
14.5 mm. The canine evidently was human rather than anthropoid.

Small as the fragment is, it nevertheless shows marked differenti-
ation in the sharp external border and the long and broad flattening
of the under surface for the insertion of the digastric muscle. The
symphysis, however, was human-like and apparently already possessed
a slight chin.

Considering the fragment alone, Dr. Weinert sees hardly any other
possibilities than that of regarding it as human. Had it been found
in Europe, it probably would have been attributed to the Neanderthal
stage. As it is, neither the circumstances of its discovery nor the
chemical, physical, and morphological characteristics of the speci-
men permit its definite classification. It appears somewhat more
human than, judging from the skullcap, would have been expected
for the Pithecanthropus. But conclusions one way or the other will
only become possible through further discoveries.

The writer saw the fragment in 1923. Unfortunately so little is
left that, as later found by Weinert, definite conclusions appear for
the present impossible. The piece, while clearly belonging to a human-
like mandible, conveys a strong impression of primitiveness, particu-
larly in regard to the lower border. This border presents a remarkable,

"Weinert, Hans, Pithecanthropus erectus. Z. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch.,
Vol. 87, pp. 522-524, I fig., 1928.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 35

sharply-bound, flat plane, of which I have never seen a counterpart
in human jaws, not even in those of the Neanderthal and other old
periods. Nevertheless intimate association of this lower jaw with the
other remains attributed to the Pithecanthropus must for the time
being remain merely conjectural.

THE FINDS AT TRINIL
THE FIRST TOOTH

The first report by Dr. Dubois on the finds relating more directly
to the Pithecanthropus, appears in his chapter on ‘“ Palaeontological
Researches,” in the “ Verslag van het Mijnwezen,” Batavia, for the
third quarter of 1891, pp. 13-14. Speaking of the work near “ Tinil ”
(later Trinil), he says: ‘“ The most remarkable find however was a
molar (the upper third permanent molar of the right side) of a
chimpanzee (Anthropopithecus). This genus of anthropoid apes,
now found only in the western and central equatorial Africa, lived
in the Pliocene in India and also, as this discovery shows, in the
Pleistocene period in Java.”

THE SKULLCAP

In his report for the fourth quarter of 1891 (7bid., 13-15). Dr.
Dubois announces the discovery of the skullcap, gives the first notes
and measurements on it, and attempts its classification. The com-
munication is of much interest. He says: “ The Pleistocene fauna
of Java, which in September of this year was augmented by a molar
of a chimpanzee, was much further enriched a month later. Close
to the spot in the left bank of the river where the molar appeared,
there was unearthed a fine skullcap which, with even less doubt
than the molar, may be attributed to the genus Anthropopithecus
troglodytes. That both the specimens come from a great manlike ape,
is at once clear. The tooth differs from the third upper molar of the
living chimpanzee only by a slightly greater size. The skull may
readily be distinguished from that of the orang through its greater
dolichocephaly, and from that of the gorilla through the absence of
cranial crests, which are so pronounced in this most bellicose of the
living anthropoids and are also still fully represented in the chimpan-
zee. About the genus [of the form represented by the new finds]
there can thus be no doubt. As to the species, the skull differs from
that of the living chimpanzee by its greater size and its higher vault-
ing. Its greatest length is 18.2 cm., greatest breadth 13.3 cm.”

36 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VoL. 83

The question of the species of the new “ Pleistocene chimpanzee
of Java” (p. 15) is undecided; but it is plain that while the living
and also the India fossil chimpanzee, in their denture, approach man
more than the orang or the gorilla do, the fossil chimpanzee of Java
comes nearer to man also in the form of his skull.

THE FEMUR

The next note of much interest by Dr. Dubois is found in his
report for the third quarter of 1892 (Verslag v. h. Mijnwezen, 1893,
pp. 10-14). He here announces the discovery, in August, 1892, of
the femur, and gives the form represented by the finds its first specific
name. The femur was discovered, he states, at the same level as
the skullcap and tooth, but 15 meters (nearly 50 ft.) further up-
stream; and it is plain to him that the three specimens, the tooth,
skullcap and femur, belong to the same individual, probably a female
of advanced age. Through this find it is now clear, he believes, that
the “old Pleistocene” Javanese “ Anthropopithecus,’ whose skull
shows it to have been the highest of the thus far known anthropoids,
had also already assumed completely the upright posture. “ Through
each of the three recovered skeletal parts, and especially by the thigh-
bone, the Anthropopithecus erectus Eug. Dubois approaches man
more closely than does any other anthropoid.”’

The skullcap receives here further consideration. Its measure-
ments (slightly different from the first) are: greatest length 18.5 cm.;
greatest breadth 13.0 cm.; capacity about 2.4 times that of the living
chimpanzee and about 4 that of man. The skull in its form and
other characters stands close to the genus Anthropopithecus (but also
nears that of Hylobates), and is distinguished by its large size, its
marked vaulting, and the relatively small development of its supra-
orbital arch. The tooth in some respects is more advanced than those
of the chimpanzee and gibbon; in other respects it comes nearer to
the teeth of those animals than of man. The femur is remarkably
human-like, with a few differences. Its bicondylar length is 45.5 cm.,
the relation of the thickness of the shaft at middle to the length is
as 164:1. “ The characters of the bone make it certain that the
Javanese Anthropopithecus stood and walked equally upright as man,”
and that his hands and arms were free. Considering the apparently
late appearance of man (p. 14) “it seems therefore quite possible
that man has evolved from this old-Pleistocene Anthropopithecus
erectus. And thus is also furnished an adverse proof to the opinion,
expressed by some, that India was the cradle of man.”

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 37

THE SECOND TOOTH

No original report on the second molar attributed to the Pithe-
canthropus was located. It is not mentioned in the first accounts.
However in his report for the fourth quarter of 1892 (op. cit., 1893,
pp. 11-12) Dr. Dubois relates that the excavations at the Trinil site,

‘

where were discovered the remains of the “ remarkable anthropoid,”
were continued till the middle of November, when rains made further
work impossible. Among the fossils recovered was also a molar tooth
“that probably belonged to a Cynocephalus.” This may have been
the tooth in question, for in 1895-1896 Dr. Dubois writes’ that the
second Trinil molar was discovered in October of 1892 at a distance
of three meters (9.8 feet) from the original position of the skullcap

and in the direction of the resting place of the femur.

THE THIRD TOOTH

The discovery of this tooth was made known by Dr. Dubois,
through a communication read by Duckworth, at the General Meeting
of the Fourth International Congress of Zoology, Cambridge, August
26, 1898. An account of this communication in the Journ. Anat. &
Physiol., 1899, Vol. 33, 273, reads as follows:

The speaker [E. Dubois] announced the discovery, during the past year
[apparently therefore 1898], of another tooth referable to Pithecanthropus
erectus, in further excavations at Trinil in Java, made under the speaker’s direc-
tion. This tooth is remarkable as being the second left lower premolar, the
tooth already found having belonged to the upper jaw. The fact that it was
discovered in that part of the sandstone formation immediately adjoining the
site of the other remains of Pithecanthropus erectus affords additional argument
in favor of the individual identity of origin of all.

LATER EXCAVATIONS AND STUDIES

With the season of 1893 the excavations at Trinil came to an end;
1894 was given by Dubois to the study of the specimens and the
publication of his important report; early in 1895 he made a trip
to India and the Siwaliks, for comparative studies; during 1894-95
his large paleontological collections were sent to the Rijks Museum

*Dubois, E., On Pithecanthropus erectus: A Transitional Form between
Man and Apes. Trans. Roy. Dubl. Soc., Vol. 6, Pt. 1, 1896; also under same
title, Journ. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 25, p. 242, 1896. See also C. R. III. Congr. Zool.,
Leyden, pp. 254-255, 1896.

38 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

of Natural History at Leyden; and towards the end of the second
quarter of 1895, Dubois himself departed for Europe (Versl. Mijnwe,
1894-95.)

Some further excavations at Trinil, during the dry seasons, were
nevertheless carried on under the direction of Dubois until 1901, but
they yielded, so far as anthropoid or human-like remains are con-
cerned, only the premolar tooth, the find of which was reported in
1898, as mentioned above, to the Fourth International Congress of
Zoology at Cambridge, England.

Shortly after his return, Dubois made a trip to Paris to show
the specimens to Manouvrier, and the occasion, as narrated to me by
Manouvrier, later my esteemed teacher and friend, nearly proved
disastrous to the bones."

THE OPINIONS OF DUBOIS AND OTHERS REGARDING THE REMAINS

In 1894 Dubois’ first important report on the Trinil remains ap-
pears under the title “ Pithecanthropus erectus, eine menschenahnliche
Uebergangsform aus Java,” 40 pp., 3 figs., 2 pls. (Batavia Landes
Druckerei; reprinted 1915 by G. E. Stechert, N. Y.)

In this he characterizes the new form as follows:

Order: Primates
New Family: Pithecanthropidae

Skull (‘f Hirnschadel ”), absolutely as well as relatively to stature
much more spacious than that of the Simdiidae, but less spacious than
in the Hominidae; skull capacity about two-thirds of the average
capacity in man, Inclination of the lower surface (“ Neigung der
Nackenflache’’) of the occipital bone markedly stronger than in the
Simiidae. Teeth, although reduced (“in Rtickbildung ”’), still of the
type of the Simiidae. Femur equaling the human in dimensions and,
like the human, developed for an upright posture.

In the same original, able and painstaking memoir, Dr. Dubois
(p. 4) gives his principal measurements of the skull and corresponding

1 The incident deserves to be mentioned—if only as a part of the already rich
romance of prehistory. Dr. Dubois, according to Manouvrier, brought the speci-
mens in a hand satchel. After discussing them with Manouvrier in the Labora-
tory, the two went to a nearby restaurant for supper. And so absorbed did they
become in argument that as they left, the satchel was forgotten under the table.
And they went some distance, still discussing, before Dubois suddenly missed
his bag. There was little time lost in returning to the restaurant where, as the
good guardian angel of the Pithecanthropus would have it, and perhaps because
of the late hour, the satchel was still in its place. Nor is this the last piece of
romance relating to these remains, as will be seen later.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 39

measurements of four chimpanzees and two gibbons. These original
measurements deserve to be reproduced:

Pithe- Anthropopithecus troglodytes ea Hylo-
can- ates
thropus ich a 9 See || redios
erectus | Owen | Bisch| Bisch: cp ibois| SI | SIT
Lange des Gehirnschad- | | |
CISPR tetsckcs Sewio sites 185 | 134 | 137 138 | 132 | 100 93 85
Grosste Breite des Ge- |
hignschadelisieyecctreas 130 | 08 07 OI 70 68 62
Breitenindex cs. 2664+ - 70 an | Fales) | O 690 70 73 74
Temporale Breite ...... 90 68 | 5

|
: | see 66 52 48 50

Other measurements are given in the text (especially p. 11). The
cranial capacity was estimated at somewhat over 1,000 cc. (p. II).
The characteristics of the skull indicated, Dr. Dubois believed, that
it ‘represented a form which must be classed in a different genus
from those of Gorilla, Orang and Man”; it “approaches the skull
of Man in its approximate size and its vaulting, showing, nevertheless,
considerable resemblances to that of the chimpanzee and in form to
that of the gibbon.” The various characteristics of the fossil skull
indicated that it belonged to a female individual.

The femur, according to Dubois, showed close resemblances to that
of man, although also some differences. Its bicondylar length was
45.5 cm. which, he believed, equaled that of a man of about 170 cm.
in stature. The shaft was less curved forward than in man, and
approached less the prismatic form. The circumference of the bone
at the middle was 9.0 cm., its lateral diameter 2.75 cm., both much
as in man. The popliteal plane, however, instead of being slightly
concave or nearly flat as in man, is perceptibly convex ; this character
is never met with in human femora. The angle of the neck, 175°, is
near the average in man. The transverse and vertical diameters of
the head are respectively 2.25 and 2.15 cm., agreeing closely with
human dimensions. The intertrochanteric ridge differs from that in
man, approaching that in an orang. The rest of the characteristics
of the bone are essentially human-like, with here and there some
deviation. The form of the lower articulation is as in man and unlike
that in any of the anthropoid apes.

Judging from the length and strength of the bone Dubois believed
himself justified in assuming that the upper part of the body of the

4

40 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Pithecanthropus could not have been much different from that of
man of today, and that the height of his body approximated 170 cm.
(5 ft. 7in.). The being had a completely upright posture and walked
habitually erect, which indicates at the same time a human-like free-
dom of the arms and the hands.

All the above showed conclusively to Dubois that the form could
not be ascribed to the Swntidae; at the same time, numerous character-
istics of the skull, those of the teeth, and some features even of the
femur indicate that the form cannot be classed with those of the
Hominidae. It is an intermediary form which necessitates its classi-
fication as a new genus, the Pithecanthropus, and a new family, the
Pithecanthropidae. Pithecanthropus erectus is a transitional form
which must have existed between man and the anthropoids; “ it is
the precursor (Vorfahr) of man” (p. 31). The inner and posterior
of the upper fourth of the femur show a pronounced exostosis of
pathological origin. Similar exostoses are known in man.

Dubois’ reports on the Java finds, and above all the specimens
themselves after he brought them to Holland, attracted naturally the
liveliest attention of the scientific world. A number of prominent
anthropologists, paleontologists, and anatomists, such as Manouvrier,
Marsh, Flower, Virchow, Smith Woodward, Sir William Turner,
Schwalbe, and others, were given the privilege of seeing the speci-
mens; and September 15-21, 1895, the originals were exhibited to all
before the Third International Zoological Congress at Leyden, where
they received great attention and much discussion. On December
14, 1895, the originals were shown again by Dubois, who at the same
time presented a report upon them, at a special meeting of the Berliner
Gesellschaft ftir Anthropologie ; and before long several bronze repli-
cas were made of the skull for distribution to a few Institutions (one
is at the Laboratoire d’Ecole d’Anthropologie, Paris), from which in
turn were obtained plaster casts that became generally available.

Soon, also, discussions of the subject by various workers began to
appear in various scientific media. Two communications by Manou-
vrier appeared in January and February, 1895,’ followed rapidly by

*Manouvrier, L., Le Pithecanthropus. Rev. mens. Ecole Anthrop., Paris,
Vol. 5, pp. 60-72, 4 figs., 1895.
Discussion du “ Pithecanthropus erectus” comme précurseur pré-
sumé de l'homme. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 6, pp. 12-47, 6 figs., 1895
(presented in January of same year, but not published until several of the fol-
lowing papers appeared).

3

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 4I

those of Cunningham,’ Turner,’ Krause,’ Martin,’ a series of articles
by Virchow,’ another communication by Dubois,’ and another by
Manouvrier.”

Since then many articles and notes have been published on these
remains. Their bibliography alone would fill many pages.” There is
much of controversy, but little original until we reach the exhaustive
study of Schwalbe, 1899.”

Dubois’ discovery was universally acknowledged as one of great
importance ; but his views were soon combated. The case presented
two main problems. The first was the question of whether the several
parts, 7.e., the skull, the two teeth, and the femur, belonged to the
same individual or at least to the same form; the other, that of the
identification of this form.

Dubois believed, as has been seen, that all four specimens, namely
the skull, the two teeth, and the femur, belonged to one stratum, one
age, and one individual, a female Pithecanthropus erectus. To this

‘Cunningham, D. J., Dr. Dubois’ So-Called Missing Link. Nature, Vol. 51
pp. 428-420, 1805.

* Turner, Wm., On M. Dubois’ description of remains recently found in Java,
with remarks on so-called transitional forms between Apes and Man. Journ.
Anat. and Phys., Vol. 24, p. 424, 1805.

* Krause, W., with Luschan, V., Virchow, R., and others, Pithecanthropus
erectus, Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., Z. Ethnol., Vol. 27, pp. 79-88, 1895.

* Martin, R., Kritische Bedenken gegen den Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois.
Globus, Vol. 67, p. 213, 18905.

> Virchow, R., Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop.,
Z. Ethnol., Vol. 27, pp. 336-337, 435-440, 648-656, 723, 744-747, 787-793, 1895
(‘““Exostosen und Hyperostosen von Extremitatenknochen des Menschen; im
Hinblick auf den Pithecanthropus’’).

® Dubois, E., Pithecanthropus erectus, betrachtet als eine wirkliche Ueber-
gangsform und als Stammform des Menschen. Discussion by Nehring, Kollman,
Virchow, and Jaekel. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., Z. Ethnol., Vol. 27, pp. 723-749,
1895.

7 Manouvrier, L., Deuxiéme étude sur le “ Pithecanthropus erectus” comme
précurseur présumé de l’homme. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 6, pp. 553-651,
1895. Also Moulages du crane et des dents du Pithecanthropus. Ibid., pp.
658-659.

® See especially Miller, Gerrit S., Jr., The controversy over human “ missing
links.” Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1928, pp. 447-457.

° Schwalbe, G., Studien tiber Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. Z. Morphol and

Anthrop., Vol. 1, pp. 1-240, 1899.
. Pithecanthropus erectus, eine Stammform des Menschen. Anat. Anz.,
Vol. 12, pp. 1-22, 1896. Published also, translated, under the title of “ Pithecan-
thropus erectus: A Form from the Ancestral Stock of Mankind,” Smithsonian
Rep. for 1898, pp. 445-459, 3 pls., 1900.

42 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

there were soon many objections. The conclusions of Manouvrier,
the foremost anthropologist of France (Bull. Soc. Anthrop., 1895,
46, 648, 658), were cautiously favorable to those of Dubois. But
Cunningham, Turner, Virchow, and others dissented. In 1896
Marsh, in discussing the find in The American Journal of
Science,’ was already able to enumerate the following objections of
various authors (p. 476): “.... the various remains discovered were
human, and of no great age; that they did not belong to the same
individual ; that the skull apparently pertained to an idiot; and that
both the skull and femur showed pathological features.”
For himself Marsh says (p. 482) :

After a careful study of all the Pithecanthropus remains and of the evidence
presented as to the original discovery, the position in which the remains were
found, and the associated fossils, my own conclusions may be briefly stated, as
follows:

The remains of Pithecanthropus at present known are of Pliocene age, and
the associated vertebrate fauna resembles that of the Siwalik Hills of India.

The various specimens of Pithecanthropus apparently belonged to one indi-
vidual.

This individual was not human, but represented a form intermediate between
man and the higher apes.

If it be true, as some have contended, that the different remains had no con-
nection with each other, this simply proves that Dr. Dubois has made several
important discoveries instead of one. All the remains are certainly anthropoid,
and if any of them are human, the antiquity of man extends back into the Ter-
tiary, and his affinities with the higher apes become much nearer than has hith-
erto been supposed.

The dissenting opinions of some of the greatest scientific authorities
of the time, anatomists, anthropologists, and paleontologists, deserve
to be quoted.

Cunningham: * As a result of his study and comparisons this author
reaches the conclusion that “the fossil cranium described by Dubois
is unquestionably to be regarded as human. It is the lowest human
cranium which has yet been described. It presents many Neanderthal-
oid characters, but stands very nearly as much below the Neanderthal
skull as the latter does below the ordinary European skull. *. . . .”

As to the femur “ that it is human in every respect, no one could
for a single moment doubt... . . From the fact of the femur being
found at a distance of from 12 to 15 m. from the place where the

"Marsh, O. C., On the Pithecanthropus erectus, from the Tertiary of Java.
Amer. Journ. Sci., Vol. I, pp. 473-482, 1896.

* Cunningham, D. J., Dr. Dubois’ So-Called Missing Link. Nature, Vol. 51,
pp. 428-429, 1895.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 43

cranium was discovered, as well as from other considerations, it is
very unlikely that the two specimens belonged to the same individual.”

The fossil tooth (r. u. M 3), while very remarkable, “ is fashioned
more after the human model than simian.

“ From what has been said, it will be seen that the skull and the
tooth, even granting that they are from the same individual, present
no such characters as would warrant the formation of a new family.
The cranium at least is undoubtedly human. Most certainly they are
not derived from a transition form between any of the existing an-
thropoid apes and man; such a form does not and cannot exist, seeing
that the divarication of the ape and man has taken place low down
in the genealogical tree, and each has followed, for good or bad,
its own path. The so-called Pithecanthropus is in the direct human
line, although it occupies a place on this considerably lower than
any human form at present known.”

For Sir William Turner,’ it was not at all certain that the three
bones belonged to the same creature. A comparison of the skull with
several specimens of the skulls of aboriginals, left him unconvinced
that it might not have belonged to a human being. The features of
the femur could all be made out in a large collection of human thigh
bones, and the tooth had quite as much resemblance to the tooth of a
human being as to the tooth of an ape. He considered that the remains
were of a low human type.

Nehring, in his discussion of the Dubois paper in Berlin, December
14, 1895 (Z. Ethn., 1895, Vol. 27, pp. 738-739), views the matter in a
different light; he says: “I hold it as very probable that the cranium
and the thigh bone, as well as both teeth, belong together’; but it
remains uncertain whether the remains may represent a being in
direct or a collateral line to man.

Rudolf Virchow, finally, has come to the following conclusions
(Z. Ethn., 1895, Vol. 27, several papers; esp. p. 744): “that the
skullcap had not belonged to a man, but that much more it shows
the greatest resemblances with the skullcap of a Hylobates ” ; and he
is of the opinion that “in accord with all the rules of classification
this being [represented by the skullcap] was an animal and that an
ape.” The teeth appeared to Virchow more ape-like than human.
The femur, notwithstanding its resemblance to the human, “ shows in
its straightness, as in the rounding of its diaphysis, particularly in
its lower part, so many agreements with the femur of a gibbon, that

* Turner, Wm., On M. Dubois’ description of remains recently found in Java,
with remarks on so-called transitional forms between Apes and Man. Journ.
Anat. and Phys., Vol. 24, p. 424, 1895.

44 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

I find no difficulty in attributing it to a giant gibbon” (pp. 746-747).
However (p. 749) regardless of “whether the Pithecanthropus
was a transitional form to Man, or an ape, it represents a new
member in the line of forms which enable us to see the entire great
field of the Vertebrates as an evolutionally connected whole.”

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY

By 1897 knowledge of the famous discovery and its discussions
had become generalized, without, however, an agreement being
reached as to their true meaning. Dubois’ contributions to the subject
gradually ceased; and the remains themselves became no longer
readily accessible; various students, including the writer (1912),
failed to obtain permission to see them; even the whereabouts and
finally the very existence of the specimens became uncertain and
many curious conjectures were raised as to their fate.

The keen interest in the find had, however, by no means died out,
and in 1907-1908 it culminated in a new “ geological and paleontolog-
ical”? expedition to Trinil by Mme. Selenka, the energetic widow of
the well known Munich zoologist of the same name, and Professor
Max Blanckenhorn of Berlin. The valuable results of the extensive
two seasons’ work were published in 1g11." No further remains related
to the ‘‘ Pithecanthropus ” were discovered. In another locality (near
Sondé, a few miles from Trinil) and under circumstances suggesting
a possible antiquity, the crown of a human molar was found, “ by a
trustworthy white man.” This tooth was described in the Selenka-
Blanckenhorn memoir by Walkhoff (pp. 214-221, pl. XXVIII), who
believed it possessed a number of features pointing to a considerable
age; but Dubois, on seeing the specimen, pronounced it “a wholly
recent and white human lower jaw molar.” *

The next noteworthy point in the history of the celebrated
remains was the posthumous publication of Schwalbe’s study of the
femur.” Schwalbe’s conclusion, though old (1899), deserves to be
quoted in full. The results are, he says, that the bone “has nothing
to do with either the Gibbon or with the remaining anthropoids, and

* Selenka, M. Lenore, and Blanckenhorn, Max, Die Pithecanthropus-Schichten
auf Java. 258 pp., 22 pls., numerous figs., Leipzig, 1911.

27. Kel. niederl. Ges. Erdk., Vol. 25, Afl. 6, 1908; Selenka and Blanckenhorn’s
memoir, p. 214.

* Schwalbe, G., Studien iiber das Femur von Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois.
Z. Morphol. u. Anthrop., Vol. 21, pp. 289-360, 1921. Prepared for publication by
Eugen Fischer.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 45

is also readily distinguishable from that of the lower apes, while a
difference from the human femur lies possibly in the somewhat greater
relative length of the diaphysis. At all events the Trinil femur stands
so near to the human that on its basis alone the position of the
Pithecanthropus would have to be looked for immediately next to that
of man.” As to the question whether the thigh bone belongs to the
skull, Schwalbe, in accord with Nehring, Dames, Jaekel and others,
holds as “ much more probable that all the parts of the Dubois find
belong together, than that they represent different individuals, the
femur a man and the skullcap some great ape” (p. 357). As to
the nature of the being represented by all the remains, Schwalbe
inclines to the Dubois’ notion of its intermediary position between the
anthropoids and man.

In the summer of 1923 the writer visited Europe in the temporary
role of a director of the “American School for Prehistoric Studies in
Europe.” The first visit was to Dr. Smith Woodward at the British
Museum of Natural History. Before going over we had had some
correspondence in which I expressed my great desire to see the
Pithecanthropus originals. These wishes had most kindly been com-
municated to Dr. Dubois at Amsterdam, and upon my arrival, to my
great astonishment and joy, Dr. Smith Woodward handed me a tele-
gram from Dr. Dubois inviting me most courteously to the Teyler
Museum in Haarlem, his home town, where he would show me all
the originals in his possession. This great privilege was taken full
advantage of by me and my class on July 15. It was the first time
the precious specimens had been shown to a scientific man after their
long seclusion. We found Dr. Dubois a big-bodied and big-hearted
man, who received us with a cordial simplicity. He had all the speci-
mens in his possession brought out from the strong boxes in which
they are kept, demonstrated them to us personally, and then permitted
me to handle them to my satisfaction. Besides the four specimens
attributed originally to the Pithecanthropus there was the additional
tooth (a premolar), the fragment of the curious fossilized lower jaw,
and two interesting, australoid-like, mineralized skeletons from
Wadjak. The interior of the skullcap of the Pithecanthropus had
now been completely freed from the consolidated tufa that filled it
before; a cast of it was made, and revealed a very remarkable
brain of an unexpectedly human-like conformation.

The examination of the originals made a deep impression. It was
seen that none of the casts of the skull that have been found in dif-
ferent Institutions was wholly faithful, and the same was felt to be
true of the previously published illustrations. The originals were seen

46 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

to be even more important than they had seemed to be hitherto.
Dr. Dubois told us he had about finished a final study of the speci-
mens, which was soon to be published.

Later the same summer the specimens were shown also to Pro-
fessor McGregor, of Columbia University; since then, they have
been demonstrated on a number of occasions, including that of the
XXI International Congress of Americanists at Hague, 1924, and
they have been studied in detail by Hans Weinert.

DR. DUBOIS’ LATEST PUBLICATIONS ON THE REMAINS

During that same year (1924), finally, there appeared in the Pro-
ceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam, three new im-
portant publications on the Pithecanthropus remains by Dr. Dubois;
the first,’ on the skull and brain with which the author now definitely
associates the fossil mandible, all three teeth and the thigh bone;
the second* includes 11 excellent plates of the specimens; and the
third * deals with the femur, and promises for the not far distant
future a final exhaustive work on the whole of the remains.

In these latest and ripest communications on the Java remains are
found the following statements of special interest :

STATE OF PRESERVATION AND AGE OF THE REMAINS

‘

The bones are in a “state of perfect mineralization” (p. 265).
Their specific gravity, like that of the bones of other mammals dug up
at Trinil, has risen to about 2.7. They contain only traces of organic
matter in the form of humus substances, “ which give them a choco-
late-brown color.” The skullcap “has been greatly corroded on the
outer surface by sulphuric acid, formed from pyrites in the volcanic
tufa’’; the femur (vol. 29, pp. 730-731) appears to be free from such
corrosions.

The physical and chemical characters of the bones are such, in
Dubois’ opinion, that they “ stamp the remains of Pithecanthropus as
Pliocene” (p. 266) ; which possibility is further strengthened by the

* Dubois, E., On the Principal Characters of the Cranium and the Brain, the
Mandible and the Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Proc. Acad. Sci., Amster-
dam, Vol. 27, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 265-278, 1924.

os , Figures of the Calvarium and Endocranial Cast, a Fragment of the
Mandible and three Teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Ibid., Nos. 5 and 6,
PP. 459-464.

- , On the Principal Characters of the Femur of Pithecanthropus erectus.
Ibid., Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 730-743, 1926.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 47

somatological characteristics of the specimens. Dubois, therefore,
is still inclined to regard the Pithecanthropus remains as [late] Plio-
cene rather than Pleistocene.

THE SKULLCAP

The skullcap, in Dubois’ opinion (not shared by others), “ has
been deformed in a natural way (through trigonocephalism, though
in a small degree) ”’ (p. 266).

Looked at from above, the skullcap is markedly ovoid, with the

narrower part in front and extended forward by a large though not
very heavy supraorbital shelf which contains large frontal sinuses.
This “ whole precerebral part of the frontal bone is hylobatoid, like
the rest, 1(p: 267):
_ The outer surface of the frontal bone shows antero-posteriorly
along its middle a slight keel-shaped elevation which terminates above,
in about the position of the bregma, in a somewhat more marked
rhomboid prominence. Dubois believes this prominence was less
marked before the bone was corroded. The median ridge is the so-
called median frontal torus and is believed to be due in Man to an
early fusion of the two fetal halves of the frontal bone.

Ventrally, the skullcap, particularly in the frontal region, shows
strong impressions of the cerebral convolutions. In details of its
conformation it agrees partly with man, partly with the gibbon.
“The form of the skull of the Pithecanthropus (p. 269) is on the
whole not human; nor is it a transition of any type of manlike apes
to the human type.” The agreement “ with the anthropoid cranial
type, particularly that of the small gibbon species, of the genus
Hylobates, may on the other hand be called perfect”; it extends to
many features such as the arching of the vault, the receding forehead,
the pre-cerebral part of the frontal bone, the constriction behind the
orbits, etc. “In all these points Pithecanthropus is distinguished no
less strongly than the Anthropoid Apes from the Neanderthal Man.”
The detailed characteristics of the skull indicate now to Dubois that
the erect posture of the body of the Pithecanthropus, “ which clearly
appears from the shape of the femur, was not such a perfect one as
in Man; the correlation, at least, did not extend to the skull.

“ Nor can the skull, however, have belonged to an Anthropoid Ape,
because the relatively very large skull as regards shape presents a
close, nay striking resemblance with the skull of a small Hylobates
species, the smallest of the Anthropoid Apes, whereas judging not
only from the femur and the molar teeth, but also from the skull
itself, Pithecanthropus must have surpassed the size of a large chim-
panzee, and very much that of a middle-sized man” (p. 270).

48 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

THE BRAIN

As to the size of the brain, “‘ it may be assumed that with equal body
weight Pithecanthropus possessed double the brain quantity of the
Anthropoid Apes” (p. 271). The endocranial cast in its side view
“presents a striking resemblance with the endocranial cast of a small
Hyilobates species reproduced at the same size... . . There is on
the other hand a great difference—and a difference of great im-
portance—between the profile of the endocranial cast and that of the
Neanderthal Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints ” (pp. 271-272).

Although the Neanderthal casts, because of their comparatively low
height, appear also more simian than the cast of the brain of Homo
sapiens, both differ markedly from that of the Pithecanthropus in
that the parietal region is considerably more developed. Of the cere-
bral fissures the “ most conspicuous, in the front, is, on the right side,
the sulcus frontalis inferior, as clear and unmistakable as in any
human hemisphere, but in the simplest form, such as it presents
shortly before birth” (p. 273). “ We meet, therefore, with already
perfectly human forms in the frontal cerebral gyri of Pithecanthro-
pus.” But in other respects “ the brain of Pithecanthropus is not dis-
tinguished qualitatively, only quantitatively, from that of the Anthro-
poid Apes. The double brain quantity (for equal bulk), is the most
important characteristic that distinguishes Pithecanthropus from the
Anthropoid Apes.”

To which Dubois adds (p. 274): “ It seems to me that it is evident,
at least, from all this that Man and Pithecanthropus both descend
from a common primitive Simian ancestor. From this among the
living species, the Hylobatidae, though greatly differentiated by their
long arms and sabre-shaped canines, depart least, several fossil
Simiidae still less. Also through his mandible and teeth Pithecanthro-
pus deviated less from this common stock type than the three living
Gigantanthropoidea and the Hylobatidae.”

And p. 178: “ The approach of the mandible and the teeth, as also
of the femur, to the human type, and the large cranial capacity,
added to considerations on the brain-quantities in nearly allied mam-
malian genera, all this leads me to the conclusion that Pithecanthropus
should be considered as a member, but a distinct genus, of the family
of the Hominidae.”

THE TEETH
No special discussion is given to the three teeth, but their detailed

characteristics are noted in connection with their figures." These

1 Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsterdam, Vol. 27, Nos. 5-6, 1924.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 49

details as basic data on the teeth are of importance and are therefore
given here in full:

Anterior left lower premolar. Crown or surface view. Human dimensions and
general pattern. On the buccal surface a circle segment-like facet of wear by
the upper caninus. On the mesial side an irregular concave facet of contact with
the lower caninus. At the summit a strongly developed buccal cusp. No lingual
cusp, on its place only confluence of the lingual and connecting transverse rim.
The latter dividing the crown surface into a small anterior and a large posterior
fossa. A ridge starting from the inner side of the (buccal) cusp descends in the
posterior fossa. The same is seen in many anterior lower premolar crowns of
anthropoid apes. Distally of (behind) the (buccal) cusp a surface of wear by
the anterior upper premolar.

Mesial (anterior) view. Showing the inward bending high buccal, the in-
ward sloping upper and the low lingual side of the crown. Below and before the
cusp the irregular facet of contact with the lower caninus. Bipartite lower part
of the root, the point of the lingual-distal part broken off.

Distal (posterior) view. Near to lingual side a crescent-like facet of contact
with the lower posterior premolar.

Lingual (internal) view. Low lingual crown side. The two fossae. Broaden-
ing of the crown upwards. Oblique position of the root (directed backwards).

Buccal (outer) view. Circle segment-like facet of wear by the upper canine.
High buccal crownside.

Penultimate left upper molar. Crown or surface view. Surface smoothly worn
off. The buccal-distal cusp part small, very much as in many homonymous orang-
utan molars. Strongly divergent roots.

Root view. Single lingual root. Buccal root (in this individual) composed
of three fused elements, one distal (posterior) and two mesial (anterior) ones.

Mesial (anterior) view. A large semi-ovoid facet of contact with m.* Buccal
and lingual roots strongly divergent, the lingual root departing mostly from
the vertical line.

Distal (posterior) view. Ellipse-like facet of contact with m.*

Lingual (internal) view. Direction of the roots backwards.

Buccal (external) view. The root showing the two fused buccal elements.

Last right. upper molar. Crown or surface view. Little worn. Moderately
wrinkled, much less so than in orang-utan. Semi-ovoid as in some orang-utans,
by moderate development of the distal-lingual and excessive reduction of the
distal-buccal cusp. The crown as a whole shows reduction. The constriction.
towards the masticatory surface indicates late piercing of this tooth.

Root view. Of the strongly divergent roots the buccal one of this individual
composed of three fused elements, one of which distal and two mesial.

Mesial (anterior) view. Likewise as in Fig. 30 the lingual root mostly de-
parting from the vertical line. No facet of contact with m,’ probably a conse-
quence of the still little use of the tooth on this side.

Distal (posterior) view. Lingual (internal) view. Buccal (external) view.
Roots strongly directed backwards, more so than those of m.?

THE FEMUR

The femur is nearly complete and little injured. Some marks of
“ crocodile teeth” are to be seen at its upper portion. “ The large ex-

50 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL, 83

ostosis below the trochanter minor takes the place of the intermuscular
connective tissue between the vastus medialis and the adductors.....
The resemblance of the fossil femur to that of Man, in contrast to
the Apes, is very marked in the knee-joint, which was adapted for
perfect extension of theleg..... In the rontgenogram, both in that
of the upper end of the femur and the lower end, the “ trajectoria ” of
the human type may be recognized, though on account of the filled
cavities they are not so clear as in other thigh-bones.

“Two characters distinguish the Trinil femur very decidedly from
that of Man. These are in physiological relation to each other, though
the first refers to the form of the lower part of the diaphysis and
the other to that of the trochanter major at the superior extremity
of the femur. Down to low on the popliteal surface and beginning
at more than 11 cm. above the level of the patellar articular surface
the back side shows a median swelling and rounding.” In no human
femur described or known to the author does this convexity rise in
the same degree or does it bulge upwards to such a buttress-like
median swelling as in the Pithecanthropus.

In the “ cross-sections of the fossil femur the complete absence of
an angulus medialis also strikes the eye, in contrast with the human
femur, but in accordance with this bone in Apes. In Man the inner
side (as angulus medialis) remains free from attachment of muscles ;
in the Apes, on the other hand, the origin of the vastus intermedius
or of the vastus medialis continues on the inner side of the femur,
enveloping this bone continuously. Thus it seems also to have been
in Pithecanthropus.”

The peculiar shape of the lowest third of the femur is attributable,
according to Dr. Dubois, to static and mechanical catises and hence
modified muscle attachments, in the lower limb of the Pithecan-
thropus.

The second special character “that very definitely distinguishes
the femur of Pithecanthropus from that of Man, and which is in
physiological relation to the just described character, is the position
of the trochanter major in the continuation of the diaphysis. ... .
The posterior border with the whole great trochanter is directed
vertically upward. In Man, on the other hand, as well as in almost
all Apes, Monkeys and Baboons the posterior border with the whole
great trochanter has an oblique direction upwards and forward (fig.
32, femur of a Dutchman). In Pithecanthropus the great trochanter
is not placed on the diaphysis slanting forward as in Man and in
the whole Monkey tribe, with the exception of two genera, but forms

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 51

as it were, a prolongation of the diaphysis upwards. This points
to a peculiar condition of the musculus glutaeus medius (and the m.
gl. minimus) in Pithecanthropus.”

Judging from the characteristics.of the upper portion of the femur,
the Pithecanthropus in Dr. Dubois’ opinion “ cannot have possessed
a human-shaped pelvis, but as the femur could to all appearance be
extended to a human degree, the pelvis may have been comparatively
more human than that of Hylobates and Chimpanzee. The tendon
of the glutaeus medius was inserted more posteriorly of the center
of rotation of the hip-joint, and produced, therefore, a stronger out-
ward rotation constantly accompanying the abduction. With fixed
leg the strong muscle brought the center of gravity of the body from
the other side above that leg, and turned the front of the trunk to
the other side. With such an unhuman pelvis the locomotion of
Pithecanthropus cannot have been exclusively, perhaps not even
chiefly, on the ground. The erect type was not perfectly developed.”

The characteristics of the hip-joint’and also the knee-joint “ render
it probable that Pithecanthropus was less ground-walker than tree-
climber, but did not climb with a prehensile foot, in the way of
ENDESE hh o.ch se The femur of Pithecanthropus was, therefore, also fit
for locomotion on the ground, but by no means adapted so exclusively
for it as in Homo sapiens and Homo neandertalensis.”

MEASUREMENTS

In his 1924 publications on the Pithecanthropus skullcap and femur
Dr. Dubois gives a series of measurements which doubtless are his
latest taken on the originals and are therefore of considerable im-
portance. The principal ones are as follows:

LATEST MEASUREMENTS OF THE TRINIL SKULL BY DUBOIS

AM erie tattle xe» CEU CEM cs 8) do sists sais: ctu ts a fedw is cnmeierstoletovare old a alin 'slerela eine oiaial vse 18.4 cm.
Length max., as obtained on the damaged specimen.................- 18.05
AS REAG tiny iMlaKe ahd cere epoyalas sro cksio chase clots nia eee wa apMacaise GAD OG wll ee 13.1
(CE reeatn a perc exe ayes wean acess yah sisi cyatepetaretae muarare ope lwieis seas ale ios Sani eeesaiass!s Gye:
Calvarial height (height max. above the glabella-inion line).......... 6.1
Mai MROMEAAMITIS, | TOW x acco osc. siaha: odes s/n) aces, Syx'o. loi ese ejeyeisee'e\stateseis, ole. e (8.7)
Diam trontalomini undamaged, was probably... scs0-.-cs-+ce es cee 9.1
Extenialsocnitalmactals breadth estimated ssc ceiiaieeieeleeieicce cles les
Fronto-biorbital index (percental relation last two diams. )
approx. 79.

Nearest) approach of temporal lines; probably. ----...-...--.....----- 85
Sagittal arc-length:

FirOmtall ie paltctyeacesys cieracrerserataverel cic leorxs) sist sickers en's 6 2 6.0%e a01e! stonele: sue oieierele 10.0

IES tal tical me tae tetas cravat cote crerter sa oie lemavccaoShore ashe bof oneesiohela tevelio: apace 9.0

Occipitalauppeim Paves -k aepeieresawilele a eleicie isi clel\ <tc oversis Si esckele = e.ceie's 4.5

52 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Fronto-partetal' index: sic cteeaecincee Hoe eo ene aero 90.
Endocranial :
15 0-3 0 0h 00 6 eRe ae eer ere ire sion ich aniceM a IA Ons cL GSior 4 i a an
EBT EAC thie WM Kes 5 ecole: eee so acete hoes eae PeL a Ue elec thes eke ok es recess eS 12.4
Ward Os ee cies mea lotere eet eaea etre etnies ete nine Madar omiee eee erate enere 80.
Height max. (above the line of max. transverse diam.).......... 5.8
Cranial (capacity, ipresent, conclusion approx: -).4 1 seliesiaills er iaietdels goo cc.

LATEST MEASUREMENTS (AND PRINCIPAL NOTES) ON
THE FEMUR

(Dusots )*

Wieicht on theubone jaaenen sau someecie 1,018 grams
(This is more than twice the weight of a similar nonfossilized: human femur
of same size. )

WMolumexofethe bone. ca eects kc ie Ceo oie ee ceer ani 485 cc.
Volume of the bone without exostosis, nearly.............0 cece e cence 467 cc.

(On an average, negroes and also Australians have a slightly less voluminous
femur, at the same length; in Europeans, on the other hand, it is on the average
much more voluminous. )

Bengthibicondylar, seerisclscciod © opektiatelt estinokaeiae meters ohernctyersreia iets 45.5 cm.
At middle:
ATIteErO-pOSt: PGlatn. Gras tates 6 a eatle oleh tere aE Deere etter 2.9) ‘em:
URTANS VETS), IAI. Waeras SS aioe eleeietate eiehe ouaaetoleiean ate oe Chae era 28" (ene
Gircumference 125 Soiasok svsreata oeisrate mistehee elonsia aise eee et erselee erate 8.9 cm.
The head:
EATISVEESEY GIANT. © ciel, «a oars OR eia a ee EIS lon ee oR ea etehevei cet 4.47 cm.
Sagittal diam: (perpendicular ‘to preceding). .- 42. ose 4.40 cm.
Curvaturesot the) diaphysis: science que ets woes ecee a ceeisinereeicite 8 mm.

(In comparison with most human femora this curvature is slight, the summit
of the curve low.)

Aaig exon tOrSiOn) fesshslars, «cus cnach sic ailotaiel orcestern Siaiehetne MOC Rata ES oe Pea 19
Anglerot necks with Shait 2544 «vats escoe hemigrs Sreete sone ene eens 123

The pressure-axis in man passes through the external condyle; in the Trinil
femur it falls between the condyles.

The convexity of the posterior surface of the lower end of the Trinil femur
exceeds that in any human femur known or described.

GEOLOGICAL AGE OF THE TRINIL DEPOSITS

As to the geological age of the deposits from which the Pithecan-
thropus remains were recovered, Dubois at first (1895) was un-
certain whether to attribute them to the latest Pliocene or early
Pleistocene, but later (1896) was inclined to regard them as Pliocene.

* Dubois, E., On the Principal Characters of the Femur of Pithecanthropus
erectus. Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsterdam, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 730-743, 33 figs., 1926.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 53

The latter view was, according to Schuster, supported by Stremme ;’
for K, and Frau Martin and Elbert * the deposits were old Quaternary ;
for Pohlig,’ Volz * and Carthaus * mid-Quaternary. Julius Schuster,’
on the basis of his study of the plant remains secured by the Selenka
1907-08 Expedition to Trinil, from the Pithecanthropus deposits,
reached the conclusion that they date from the time when Java
[and Sumatra]was still connected with the Asiatic mainland; that
this connection was severed in the old diluvial [early Quaternary]
times ; and that the flora of the Pithecanthropus layer, and necessarily
also the remains of the latter, could be neither more recent nor older
than the old diluvium [early Quaternary], and that the nature of the
flora speaks for a cooler and moister period.’ In his more extended
report in the Selenka-Blanckenhorn Memoir * Schuster believed that
he had demonstrated that ‘the Pithecanthropus erectus lived in the
Old-Diluvium [early Quaternary] and that during the large Pluvial
period.” Blanckenhorn * (p. 268), after critically reviewing the whole
evidence, decided also for the Great Rainy period, or, more definitely,
for the first (Gtinz-Mindel) interglacial.

CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The remains ascribed to the “ Pithecanthropus ” have, as indicated
in the preceding pages, given rise to a great deal of scientific specu-
lation and contention, which to this day has led to no definite, stab-
ilized result. What are the causes of this unsatisfactory condition?

The causes are multiple; they relate to everything from the circum-
stances of the find to the identification of the remains. But viewed
with due perspective they reduce to two main difficulties that will be
met with again and again in the studies of early man and related
forms. The first of these is the inadequacy of the Java material ; and
the second is the lack of sufficient materials for decisive comparisons.

Defects of the material—The Trinil remains occur in secondary de-
posits ; the initial data on them are perhaps not as detailed as desirable ;

.*In Selenka, M. Lenore, and Blanckenhorn, Max, Die Pithecanthropus

Schichten auf Java, Leipzig, 1911; with the collaboration of E. Carthaus, C. M.
Dozy, K. and H. Martin, H. Stremme, H. Pohlig, Walkhoff, D. Schuster, and
others.

* Ueber das Alter der Kendeng-Schichten mit Pithecanthropus. Neu. Jahrb. f.
Min., Beil., Vol. 25, pp. 648-652, 1908.

* Eiszeit und Urgeschichte des Menschen, p. 88, 1907.

*Gaea, Vol. 45, p. 385 et seq., 1909.

* Schuster, J., Ein Beitrag zur Pithecanthropus-Frage. Sitzber. K. Bayer. A. K.
‘Wiss., Abh. 17, 30 pp., 1909. Munich, 1910.

54 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

they were not found sufficiently close together, especially in the case of
the femur, to remove all doubt as to their belonging to the same indi-
vidual or even the same form; the skull shows considerable loss of
parts as well as substance, conditions not present in the femur ; while
morphologically there seems to be some disharmony between the dif-
ferent specimens, so that their ready acceptance as representatives
of one form and one individual is initially rather difficult.

As to the localization of the specimens, it is not easy to conceive
how the skull and a femur of the same individual, in any, but especially
in secondary deposits—if the Trinil deposits are such—could come
to lie 50 feet from each other; though such an occurrence cannot be
said to be impossible even in secondary accumulations. Here is the
first weakness in the case.

The skull had certainly suffered much damage before its final
inclusion. Though evidently proceeding from an elderly individual
where many of the sutures are closed and all the parts are resistant,
it nevertheless has lost the whole face and especially the whole base.
This may mean a rot, or mechanical damage, or both. None of this,
we know amply from experience, is inconsistent with the status of
the skullcap as found; it is also true that such a strong bone as the
femur may persist almost intact, especially on the surface of the
ground, though the skull and most other parts of the skeleton may
have been more or less destroyed. Nevertheless finding two specimens
well apart and in such different states of preservation, cannot but raise
a question as to their belonging to the same individual. This is the
second weakness of the find.

The morphological details of the several parts offer a number of
difficulties.

The skull shows obliteration of all the sutures of the vault, which
indicates an elderly individual. In such elderly primitive beings,
whether human or anthropoid, the teeth are generally more or less
worn; but of the three teeth associated with this Trinil cranium the
anterior left lower premolar shows practically no wear, the last right
upper molar is little worn, while the penultimate left upper molar
shows a surface that is smoothly worn off (Dubois, Proc. Acad. Sci.
Amsterdam, 1924, Nos. 5 and 6, pp. 463-464, pls. [IX-XI). These
conditions are inconsistent with the notion that all these teeth and the
skull belong together. Here is another incongruity and hence weak-
ness; but there are others.

The skullcap indicates plainly enough a female individual, as well
recognized by Dubois and not effectively contradicted by other
students. The length of the femur, however, corresponds to a stature

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 55

of at least 165 cm. This would agree with about the medium human
stature in a male, but is far above that of the female, the average
human female height except in a few of the tallest human groups
approximating 153 cm. It would further mean that the corresponding
male Pithecanthropus had a stature of about 177 cm. (nearly 5 ft.
TO in.) or over. All of which is possible, or may have been modified
through a different relation in the Pithecanthropus of the length of
the femur to that of the body. Nevertheless the matter constitutes
another aspect of the case on which more light is needed.

All of this, and there are other points, cannot but leave the
association of the several parts found at Trinil, however probable
this may appear, in some uncertainty; which is further increased
by the late definite attachment to the Trinil remains of the Brubus
jaw.

But all this is not the pivotal essential of the find, and diminishes
in no wise its high interest and value, both of which are universally
acknowledged, particularly since the endocranial cast has become
available. Neither should the student allow himself to be confused
by the seeming flood of discrepancies of opinion on the remains. The
differences are often more apparent than real, and even where real
they by no means discredit the find, but are only so many attempts,
under all the great limitations of our present collections and knowl-
edge, to reach a true conclusion.

The Trinil skull alone is sufficient to establish the presence in what
is now Java, somewhere during the early Quaternary and possibly
earlier, of a class of beings that so resembled the anthropoid apes, on
one hand, and came so far in the direction of man on the other, that
if they were to be named today we could hardly find a more appropri-
ate name for them than “ Pithecanthropus.”

Broadly speaking, it is really of littke moment whether one student
calls these beings giant gibbons, another human precursors, or inter-
mediary forms, and a third a proto-homo, or even a very low man;
unless they have strayed from the truth through a lack of sufficient
contact with the remains, they all mean a form somewhere between
the status of all the known apes and all except perhaps the earliest
man. Who can say just where we could class a being with such an
ape-like skullcap, but with such a near-human brain within it, if he
appeared in life today? Witness the conclusions of the able discov-
erer himself, who has had the originals at hand now for 36 years;
first they represent for him a great chimpanzee, then a human pre-
cursor and direct ancestor, and then an intermediary but not human
ancestral form.

56 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The brain form of the “ Pithecanthropus,” which, because of the
filling of the skull cavity with a hard mass, did not become observable
until three years ago, is exceedingly important (pl. 7). Its size and
form and gyration appear to remove it at once from the brains of all
known apes and bring it correspondingly closer to that of man. It is
inconsistent with and morphologically superior to its own skull. The
brain cavity measured in capacity at least goo cc. and this for a female.
A corresponding male brain cavity would measure somewhere about
1,100 cc. These dimensions connect already with the human. In the
writer’s collections, in the U. S. National Museum, there are 32
American Indian skulls, of small statured but otherwise apparently
normal individuals, ranging in capacity from 910 to 1,020 cc. In the
hugest gorilla this capacity does not exceed, so far as known, and
mostly is well below, 600 cc.; and in the chimpanzee or orang it never
reaches even this size. The frontal lobes of the Java specimen, while
still low, approach in their form the human, lacking the pointed,
keel-shaped appearance they have in all the apes; and the rest of
the brain was of a higher type than that of the apes. Had this form
advanced in its brain size and form by again as much as it already
stood above that of the known apes, it would be wholly impossible
to exclude it from the human category, unless it was done by the
establishment of a separate genus of creatures, equivalent in brain
mass and brain differentiation to Homo.

With all this it could not be legitimate to assert that the Pithec-
anthropus was either a form of early man or one that eventually
evolved into man. Either of these conclusions would demand decisive
supporting material, which does not exist. The most that appears
justifiable, until further and conclusive evidence appears, is to regard
the Pithecanthropus, as represented by the skullcap, to have been a
high Primate of as yet uncertain ancestry and no known progeny,
far advanced in what may be termed a humanoid direction.

As to the teeth and femur, they must remain more or less proble-
matical until further discoveries. They are not absolutely needed
by the Pithecanthropus for his establishment, though they, particu-
larly the femur, would, if definitely identified with the skullcap,
enlighten us on points of importance. The two molars, with much
probability, belong to the skull; the premolar, the femur and especially
the lower jaw, are much more doubtful. There is some legitimate
doubt whether individually or collectively they belong even to the
same form of beings. But if not, then the problem, instead of being
simplified, becomes much more complex, for we are then confronted
with the question as to what were the additional creatures repre-
sented by these specimens.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 57

All of which points most insistently to the great need as well as
promise of much further paleontological explorations in Java and the
far southeast in general.

THE WRITER’S VISIT TO TRINIL

Before the 1924 publications by Dubois were received, the writer
was enabled to make a visit to Java, the main object of which was to
see personally the conditions at the site of the Pithecanthropus.’ The
object was not to excavate, which for various reasons would hardly
have been feasible, but to obtain that invaluable impression which
comes only from personal examination. The colonial authorities and
in particular the scientific men of Java gave all possible assistance,
for which once more the writer wishes to tender them a grateful
acknowledgment. Preliminary inquiries resulted in the information
that there was then no vertebrate paleontologist nor any student of
prehistory on the island, that no systematic work was being done in
these lines, and that the collections in the local museums and insti-
tutions contained little if any human or primate material. Since the
Selenka Expedition no further work has been done at Trinil.

On May 24, the writer left Bandoeng, and after a highly interesting
11-hour trip through the central parts of Java, arrived at Madioen,
a good-sized town and the seat of a Residency of the district to which
Trinil belongs. The same evening arrangements were made with the
Assistant Resident, Mr. J. T. H. Jarman, at Ngawi for the visit to
Trinil, and early next morning the start was made in a motor car and
over a good road to Ngawi, 21 km. (13 miles) distant. At Ngawi,
Mr. Jarman met us with his Chief of Police and two motor bicycles
with side cars; and in a short time the party was on its way to
Trinil, 15 km. (nearly 94 m.) distant.

We stopped at a plantation, a short distance from the river; and
as a pleasant surprise arranged by Mr. Jarman there came in a few
minutes several natives, each carrying a basket with a lot of black
objects in it—fossil bones from the Pithecanthropus site. These were
eagerly examined on the spot—but regrettably there was no trace
of any Pithecanthropus.

A few minutes’ walk brought us to the elevated right bank of the
Bengawan or, in the native pronunciation, Banawan river. A little
to the right was seen a concrete monument, three feet high, with the
inscription: P. e—175 M., with an arrow pointing towards the spot

*For preliminary account of the voyage, see Explorations and Field-Work of
the Smithsonian Institution in 1925, Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 78, No. 1,
pp. 60-72, 4 figs., 1926.

58 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

on the opposite shore where the remains were discovered ; and under-
neath was the date 1891/93. This monument was erected here by
Dubois both to commemorate the find and to fix the point where it
was made. Regrettably the concrete is beginning to crumble, so that
already the valuable landmark needs restoration.

From this point, at the time of low water, the river ranges from
approximately 75 to 200 feet in breadth. The water is sluggish and
greenish mud-gray in color, with muddy flats exposed at the edges
as if after a tide. The Pithecanthropus site appears as a low ledge
covered with what looks like rocks, dark grayish brown in color.
The river shows no very deep erosion, and the crumbling banks are
mostly steep. Cultivated land extends on both sides and there is no
jungle, though parts of the shore are covered with wild growth.
The river meanders through what appears to be a shallow depression,
on a plain, between the great Lawu volcano to the south and a distant
low ridge to the north.

Outside of the monument there were no traces remaining of either
Dubois’ or Selenka’s excavations, and only one old man in our party
knew the sites.

By this time a dozen or more native men and boys had congregated
on the elevated bank opposite the site of the Pithecanthropus, squat-
ting on the ground, and before each was a little pile of specimens—
more fossil bones from the site of the Pithecanthropus. Some of
these fossil bones were said to have been picked up on the site
since the night before. A number of nice specimens were sold by
the natives for a mere pittance, but again no trace of anything
even suggesting a primate. Several of the boys, as soon as they dis-
posed of what they had, shed the little clothing they had on, and
naked, waded and swam across the river to look for some more,
but found only a few slivers. When the writer was ferried over,
nothing of any value was left.

On closer examination the terrain is seen to rise from the river
in this vicinity to two platforms of different heights, the lower on
the right side of the river being about 20 feet above the present level
of the water. Further down the river, as seen later, the banks are
of rather uniform height, ranging to about 20 feet above the level
of the water at that time. They show stratified sands and fine gravel,
but the stratification is not uniform or always horizontal. Here and
there are seen strata of coarse and more consolidated gravels or
lapilli, and beneath this once in a while appear dark blackish-blue
patches resembling that at the Pithecanthropus site. On closer exami-

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 59

nation most of these dark lower deposits are seen to consist of gravel,
or lapilli, sand and mud, with what was seemingly originally volcanic
ashes.

The Pithecanthropus level had evidently just been exposed by the
receding water. It was found covered with irregular small “ledges ”’
and different sized “ rocks,’ some more solid, yellowish, sandstone-
like, others dark in color, consisting of gravel, sand and mud, and not
very solid, being quite easily broken by a harder stone and then
crumbling in the fingers.

The stratification of the bank at this site was obscured, but its
main features were known from a chart prepared by the Selenka
Expedition in 1910. The site itself is not large and a few hours
of examination gave about all that could be had without excavation.
A native boat was then engaged and in this the writer made first
a little trip upstream, and then proceeded slowly down the Bengawan
examining the banks on both sides wherever they seemed to offer
anything of interest, down to Ngawi, which was reached that evening.
This is a wholly native river, and many interesting sights were seen
during our passage.

Before leaving for Madioen that night the writer tried to impress
upon the very kind Assistant Resident the need of watching the
site of the Pithecanthropus and collecting each year, with the help
of the natives, everything that the water may wash out. I left with
the sad feeling that science was neglecting one of the most important
sites and regions in the realm of investigation. The whole river
should certainly be thoroughly surveyed and watched. A simple order
of the colonial authorities would at least effect, with a very small
expense if any, the saving each year of whatever the river may wash
out,’ among which at any time there may appear specimens of much
importance. But what is needed is a prolonged excavation under con-
stant scientific supervision; excavation which here could be carried
on at a relatively small expense, because of the cheapness of labor.

The bones obtained by the writer from Trinil are in an excellent
state of preservation. They are brown to black in color and fully min-
eralized. Those that the writer had the good fortune to see and col-
lect showed a number of interesting conditions. The first was that the

"That fossil bones are washed out from the deposits each year, left on the
ledges and collected by the natives who dispose of them for very small compen-
sation to whoever is interested in them, has been attested to the writer by all
with whom he came in contact, from the Assistant Resident to the natives; and
not the slightest traces of any excavation by any one was seen. If there is any
excavation by the natives, as Professor Dubois seems to believe, it surely was not
apparent.

60 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

specimens were all fragments, except in the case of smaller bones or
individual teeth. The second was that the fragments as a rule were
considerably water-worn of old, and that many of the specimens
appeared water polished. And there was a great mixture of forms.
All of which indicates, it seems, secondary deposition, in other words
deposition of bones that already have been dissociated, carried, and
washed more or less by the stream. Judging from this as well as
from the results of the Dubois and Selenka excavations, it would
seem that the fossiliferous deposits at Trinil would have to be
regarded as essentially secondary deposits; though this would not
have made an occasional inclusion of whole parts or even whole
bodies impossible.

THE LATEST CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF THE REMAINS

While the writer was completing the above, a new publication on the
Pithecanthropus came to hand in the form of an extended memoir
on the remains by Dr. Hans Weinert, of Munich.’ The author, to
whom we owe the final restoration and description of the skull of the
Homo mousteriensis youth, has been given the opportunity by Dubois
of studying the original specimens, more particularly the skullcap
and the teeth, and of taking very detailed measurements, which he
now makes available.

For the many details of Dr. Weinert’s work, it will be necessary
to consult the original. The main conclusions may, however, be sum-
marized as follows:

Much of the problem relating to the Pithecanthropus the author
regards for the present, and before any new finds are forthcoming,
as unsolvable. He is inclined to separate the lower jaw from the
consideration of the rest of the specimens. It is quite possible that it
may have belonged to the form Pithecanthropus but a decisive con-
clusion on this point is not possible.

As to the six Trinil specimens, the conclusion as to whether
they all belonged to the same individual or form, also remains
still open. As to the skullcap, this assumes morphologically a stem
between the chimpanzee and the Neanderthal Man, and in such a way
that it inclines nearer to the human side. As to the question whether
the morphological sequence may also be extended to a phylogenetic
one it may only be said (pp. 541-542) that the Trinil skullcap shows

*Weinert, Hans, Pithecanthropus erectus. Z. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch.,
Vol. 87, pp. 522-524, I fig., 1928.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 61

nothing that would make such a sequence impossible. “ But with
the recognition of the Trinil skullcap as a transitional form [to man]
it is naturally by no means said that precisely from this Pithecan-
thropus recent men have been developed.” It is more probable that
the descendants of the Trinil Pithecanthropus have not reached the
present time. Notwithstanding this, the Pithecanthropus phyloge-
netically is nevertheless to be regarded as a connecting form; for he is
a paleontological proof that such transitional beings really existed.
Whether precisely the Javanese Pithecanthropus is a direct member
of our genealogy, is somewhat secondary, and we must regard as
overdrawn all theories which would base on him the conclusion
that man originated in southeastern Asia. ‘ The chimpansoid juvenile
skull of Taungs, together with the corresponding lower jaw of Pilt-
down in southern England show us in connection with the Trinil
remains of Java what space for the cradle of man is available. On
the points of this triangle, which embraces almost all the Old World,
we have fossil representatives of chimpansoid derivation, which were
all suitable with a corresponding further evolution to reach the stem
of the Hominidae..... But a single discovered fossil specimen can
never seriously serve as a proof for the origin of a whole genus”
(p. 542).

The exact age of the remains is still somewhat uncertain.

Concerning the question whether the femur and the skullcap belong
to the same individual nothing decisive has as yet been brought
forth, though such connection seems most probable. The placing
of the Trinil femur between our anthropoid ancestors and the Ne-
anderthaloid forms of man appears not impossible.

Taking everything into consideration the indications are that the
Pithecanthropus erectus was a being that well deserved the name of
“a human transitional form from Java” which, not in single spect-
mens but as a type, can show us the way followed in human evolution
from the lower forms.

“Just as the next lower relations of this form were still animals,
while the next higher relation was undoubtedly man, so may the
Pithecanthropus be the ‘missing link’ that Dubois was searching
for and found. Should it be necessary, however, to substantiate the
appurtenance of this intermediary form to one or the other side then
it belongs undoubtedly to that of the human kind. The Pithecan-
thropus erectus is a Homo whose unique position and its undisputed
significance justify the generic name of ‘Ape Man’” (pp. 545-546).

62 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The following gives an abstract of Dr. Weinert’s measurements
of the skullcap, contrasted with those of Dubois.

DUBOIS’ AND WEINERT’S MEASUREMENTS OF THE
PITHECANTHROPUS SKULECAP

Dubois (1924) Wienert ! (1928)

Wengthmaxs deduced) | aaceeaerme eet 18.4 cm. 18.3 cm.
Length max., as obtained on the damaged

SPECIMEN i... Seo eereee seo eee 18.05 18.05
icsencthstromropigyoneeecumcecsceeereeree ee 17.0
Bead thie arn wsce ersvers ays erasaieretetens «rate faretnne ener ee Ter 13.0
GrantalMindex tacsaceacns clos ieeeee ieee 71.2 71.04
Calvarial height (height max. above the

clabella=iniongline) eae me Aeee eee 6.1 6.1
Basion-bregma height, estimated........... SAS 10.5
Diam frontaliminsnoweerenee cee oe (8.7) 8.5
Diam. frontal min., undamaged was _ prob-

ably eMAR ak dee ee re 9.1
External orbital facial breadth, estimated... 11.5
Fronto-biorbital index (percental relation

lastutwoORdiams:)) sappLnoxeeneererieeors 79.0
Nearest approach of temporal lines, prob-

Ba Tign haere cers ar acai Bee coae tala geeemccueee eae 8.5
Sagittal arc-length:

Frontalupartierasecshocmenea aie 10.0 10.0

Parietal iacoeti.u Sectie sateen eee 9.0 9.1

Occipitalupperepatteeneeee tee eee 4.5 4.6

Occipital, whole, estimated............ me 10.3
Hronto=parietalmind exe ni aerate eee 90.0 aioe
Endocranial length max. : R. 15.5 15.4

ee i533 15.3

Breadth wimax (.c2 aus acta ca tannic 12.4 12.5

TRG exes Ag CRS Ac Ae RLS ty Seer Ree ate 80.0 81.17

Height max. (above the line of max.

transverse diary) sneer are 5.8 Be

Height (total, ob-ba), estimated....... Bie 10.0
Cranial capacity, present conclusion, approx. goo cc. 1,000 ce.
Brame welchta approxeeeeer ee reece cee syorak 870-920 gm.

1 Many additional measurements are given by Weinert, loc. cit., pp. 485 et seq.

THE ‘“ SECOND PITHECANTHROPUS ”

While in Soerabaia, in 1925, the writer gave a lecture at which
he called attention to the present conditions at Trinil. Attending the
lecture among others was Dr. Heberlein, a Government physician.
In September of the following year the Associated Press announced

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PE. 1

Dr. Eugéne Dubois.

(usroyuayueg “J pure eyUeag “auUIPY Joypy) “petedoosip o19M (ysis) deoypnys ayy pue (4427)
INWI9} dy} e2oyAM MoYs sorenbs sym OM} oY, “BALL “[MUTIT Jeo ‘ALL URMESUDG oY} UO ‘puy sndosyyuRdayytd 94} JO ApPRoO] OL

SNOILO31I100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLINS

Z ‘Id ‘€8 "10A

(‘uewief YL “f ‘Wweprisey yreysissy 94} Aq eyop4rH 404 peydersojoyg) “$z6r ‘rautuns ‘sndoryyursayyg ay} JO ops 94]

€ “Id '€8 “10A SNOILOS1100 SNOANVTIIEOSIN NVINOSHLINS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL.4

SRA

.
*
.

a4

The skull of the Pithecanthropus, top view. (After Dubois, Proc. Acad. Sci. Amst., 1924. )
I I

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 5

The skull of the Pithecanthropus from below. (After Dubois, 1924.)

(‘bz61 ‘sioqnd Ja}yjy) “Mal apts ‘[[nys sndosyjuRs9y}q IL

9 “Id ‘€8 “10A SNOILO31100 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 7

The endocranial cast of the Pithecanthropus. (After Dubois, 1924.)

VOL. 83, PL. 8

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

Nene ee mmm

1. Mandibular fragment from Kedung Brobus.

B
Pithecanthropus brain. (After McGregor.)

(AOSIINI YY) “Yyjoo} sndosyjurosyy

SNOILO31109 SNOSANV1IIZOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

6 "Id ‘€8 “10A

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 10

Femur of Pithecanthropus (cast) and a femur of a White (American), showing same
exostosis. (Photographed to same scale. Hrdlicka )

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS Moke GB, tls 1

Same as plate 10, rear view.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 63

that a discovery had been made at Java of a second Pithecanthropus ;
and almost simultaneously I received at Washington the following
letter :

SoOERABAIA (JAVA, NETHERLANDS, East INprA),
GENTENG Katt, No. 12,
AUGUST 22, 1926
Prof. Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, U. S. National Museum, Washington.

DEAR SiR:

During your stay in Netherlands, East India, last year I was delighted to be
present at your lecture on evolution in the building of the Fellowship of Arts
(“ Kunstkring””) at Soerabaia. You then spoke, too, about Trinil, where years
ago the Pithecanthropus was found, and as I am in great trouble now what to
do with a discovery or—better said—a finding I made there, I take the liberty
to apply to you with the demand for advice.

The question is to whom shall I best give away the object I found, and I
should be very glad if you would be so kind as to answer me. I myself was
geologist about two years before I, now thirty years ago, studied medical science.
Since I was almost twenty years medical ofhcer in the Dutch colonial army and
am now in civil service here, I always kept up as much as possible@swith my former
palaeontological knowledge, nevertheless I remained only an amateur and by
no means a savant in this branch of natural science and yet less in anthropology.

On August Ist, thus now three weeks ago, I made an excursion to Trinil with
Dr. de Graaf from Modjokerto and two gentlemen from the sugar factory
Poerwodadi near Madioen. There we got a skull of a primate or man, something
like the Pithecanthropus, though I am inclined to believe the shape is more man-
like. The conservation is not very good; it is only a pouring off of the interior
of a skull. The occiput is missing, but the two frontalia with the arcus super-
ciliaris, the right and two-thirds of the left parietal, the upper part of the right
and a little of the left temporal are very well poured off. The interior of the
stone is typical porous lava. I suppose the proper bone of the cranium has been
dissolved by the sulfuric acid of the lava. At any rate I think the object is very
interesting.

The question is now what to do with it. My first impulse was to send the
remains to Holland. Once more I beg you to give me advice. I willingly shall
wait for your answer.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. C. E. J. HEBERLEIN,
Govy’t Physician.

This announcement created, naturally, great interest and was
reported upon in the Daily Science News Bulletin of September
29, 1926. A cable was sent to Java asking for photographs ; and early
in December there arrived a set of very good prints which showed
the specimen in various positions.

At first sight these photographs made a strong impression. They
appeared to show a skullcap of much the same type as that of the

6

64 _. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL, 83

Pithecanthropus. The skull cavity seemed to be filled with a mass
of vesicular volcanic-like matter. Anyone who knew the form of the
old Trinil cranium could readily have taken the specimen for a second
skull of that nature.

However there seemed to be something amiss; and a view with
a magnifying glass showed that the vesicular mass looked more like
cancellous bone than stone. Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., whom I called to
see the photographs, not only concurred in this but soon brought up
an arm-bone of an Indian elephant, the head of which with its rim
practically duplicated the Java specimen. An enlargement of one of
the photographs to the size of the elephant’s humerus made the
identity of the two certain. The same day, curiously, came a despatch
to the effect that Professor Dubois, to whom another set of the photo-
graphs was evidently sent at the same time, had made practically
the same identification, referring the specimen to the extinct elephant
(Stegodon) of Java.

A report on the very interesting occurrence was presented by the
writer at the December meeting of Section H, American Association
for the Advancement of Science, and a brief note was published by
him in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1927, Vol. ro,
No. 1, p. 162. Meanwhile, on December 18, 1926, Dr. Dubois made
his report on the find before the Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam,
and this was published in 1927 in the Proceedings of the Academy,
Vol. 30, No. I, pp. 134-137, 3 figs. Later in 1927 there appeared
finally the report of Dr. Mijsberg,’ who saw the original, and this
bore out completely the above identifications.

There is therefore no second Pithecanthropus; but though mis-
taken, as many would have been by the very suggestive specimens,
Dr. Heberlein deserves thanks for both his praiseworthy effort in
obtaining the specimen and for making so freely available excellent
photographs which permitted a prompt and true identification of the
bone.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Berry, Epwarp W. The age of Pithecanthrcpus erectus. Science, Vol. 37,
No. 950, pp. 418-420, 1913.

Branco, Dr. W. Die menschenahnlichen Zahne aus dem Bohnerz der schwab-
ischen Alb. Jahreschefte des Vereins fiir vaterlandische Naturkunde in
Wurttemberg. Pithecanthropus, pp. 98-112. Stuttgart, 1808.

* Mijsberg, W. A., Over het in 1926 te Trinil gevonden en ten onrechte als
rest van het schedeldak van een praehistorischen mensch beschouwde fossiel.
Geneesk. Tijdschrift Nederlandsch-Indié, 1927.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 65

GrESELER, W. Neuere Forschungen zum Pithecanthropusproblem. Forschungen
und Fortschritte. Vol. 4, pp. 150-151, I fig. Berlin, 1928.

Grecory, W. K., and HeEttMan, Miro. Further notes on the molars of Hesper-
opithecus and of Pithecanthropus. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. 48,
Art. 13, pp. 509-526, 1923.

HrpiicKa, A. The most ancient skeletal remains of man. Smithsonian Rep.,
Pp. 491-552, 41 pls., 12 figs., 1913. Also, 2d ed., Publ. 2300, Smithsonian

Inst., 1916.
MatrHew, W. D. Ape man of Java (Popular). Nat. Hist., New York, Dec.,
1928.

McGrecor, J. H. Recent studies on the skull and brain of Pithecanthropus.
Nat. Hist., Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 544-559, 1925.

Miter, Gerrit S., Jr. Notes on the casts of the Pithecanthropus molars. Bull.
Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. 48, Art. 13, pp. 527-530, 1923.

The controversy over human “ missing links.” Smithsonian Rep. for

1928.

Mo tttson, TH. Fossile Menschenaffen und Menschen. Grundziige der Geologie
II, 1926.

MorseEtur, E. Il precursore dell ’uomo (Pithecanthropus duboisii), 19 pp.,
Genoa, 1901.

RAMstTROM, Martin. Der Java Trinil Fund, Pithecanthropos. Upsala Lakare-
forenings forhandlingar, Vol. 26, Nos. 5-6, 37 pp., 192I.

WEINERT, Hans. Pithecanthropus erectus. Z. Anat. und Entwicklungsgesch.,
Vol. 87, pp. 522-524, I fig., 1928.

THE EOANTHROPUS

The name “ Eoanthropus Dawsoni” (Dawson’s Dawn-Man) was
applied in 1912 (published in 1913) by Arthur Smith Woodward,
then Keeper of the Department of Geology and Paleontology, British
Museum (Natural History), to a number of fragments of a human-
like skull, a portion of a lower jaw, and a separate canine tooth, found
between about 1909 and 1912 in the old gravels of Piltdown, Sus-
sex, England. To these were added two pieces of another skull
and a molar tooth found by Dawson in 1915 among the stones raked
oft a field two miles distant. All these specimens are preserved in the
British Museum (Natural History), South Kensington (London).

THE ORIGINAL FIND

The original find was reported by Dawson and Woodward before
the Geological Society, London, December 18, 1912, and published
in the Quarterly Journal of the Society, March, 1913; the second find
being reported by Woodward in the same periodical in 1917. The
original publications covering the discoveries are as follows:
Dawson, Charles, and Woodward, Arthur Smith, On the Discovery of a Palae-

olithic Skull and Mandible in a Flint-Bearing Gravel overlying the Weal-

den (Hastings Beds) at Piltdown, Fletching (Sussex). Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc., Vol. 60, pp. 117-151, 1913.

66 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

, Supplementary Note on the Discovery of a Palaeolithic Human Skull

and Mandible at Piltdown (Sussex). Ibid., Vol. 70, pp. 82-99, 1914.

, On a Bone Implement from Piltdown (Sussex). Jbid., Vol. 71, Pt. 1,
pp. 143-149, 1915.

Woodward, Arthur Smith, The Piltdown Man. Geol. Mag., London, Decade V,
Vol. 10, No. 592, pp. 433-434, 1913.

, Ona Second Skull from the Piltdown Gravel. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,

Volo 73: Btei, pps t-lomonz.

, Fourth Note on the Piltdown Gravel. /bid., 1917.

, A Guide to the Fossil Remains of Man in the Department of Geology

and Palaeontology, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 1st ed. 1915, 3d ed.,

1922.

During the 15 years since the first report, a whole literature has
grown up about these finds, due to their fragmentary condition, their
insufficiency for definite conclusions, and the most disturbing ap-
parent morphological incongruity of the specimens. It is another case
where a desire to reach conclusions from insufficient and problematic
material has led to a cloud of speculation and opinion, where sub-
stantial definite deductions are impossible.

As with the Pithecanthropus, so with the Eoanthropus, both in
the discoveries and in subsequent history, there is much romance and
psychology, besides prehistory.

The preservation of the find is due essentially to Mr. Dawson ; and
its history illustrates the usefulness and need, especially in the Old
World, of scientific supervision of excavations. Mr. Dawson’s origi-
nal statement is as follows (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1913, Vol. 69,
Pp: 117 ef seq:) :

Several years ago I was walking along a farm road close to Piltdown Com-
mon, Fletching (Sussex), when I noticed that the road had been mended with
some peculiar brown flints not usual in the district. On inquiry I was aston-
ished to learn that they were dug from a gravel bed on the farm, and shortly
afterwards I visited the place, where two laborers were at work digging the
gravel for small repairs to the roads. As this excavation was situated about
four miles north of the limit where the occurrence of flints overlying the
Wealden strata is recorded I was much interested and made a close examina-
tion of the bed. I asked the workmen if they had found bones or other fossils
there. As they did not appear to have noticed anything of the sort, I urged
them to preserve anything that they might find. Upon one of my subsequent
visits to the pit, one of the men handed to me a small portion of an unusually
thick human parietal bone.’ I immediately made a search, but could find noth-
ing more nor had the men noticed anything else. The bed is full of tabular
pieces of ironstone closely resembling this piece of skull in color and thickness ;
and, although I made many subsequent searches, I could not hear of any further
find nor discover anything—in fact, the bed seemed to be quite unfossiliferous.

The men are said to have found the whole or nearly whole brain portion
of the skull, to have taken it for a petrified “ cocoanut,” and to have broken it.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 67

It was not until some years later, in the autumn of I9II, on a visit to the
spot, that I picked up, among the rain-washed spoil heaps of the gravel pit,
another and larger piece belonging to the frontal region of the same skull,
including a portion of the left superciliary ridge. ....

I took the bones to Dr. A. Smith Woodward at the British Museum (Natural
History) for comparison and determination. He was immediately impressed
with the importance of the discovery, and we decided to employ labor, and to
make a systematic search among the spoil heaps and gravel as soon as the
floods had abated, for the gravel pit is more or less under water during five
or six months of the year. We accordingly gave up as much time as we could
spare since last spring (1912) and completely turned over and sifted what
spoil material remained; we also dug up and sifted such portions of the gravel
as had been left undisturbed by the workmen. ... .

At Piltdown the gravel bed occurs beneath a few inches of the surface soil
and varies in thickness from 3 to 5 feet.....

Portions of the bed are rather finely stratified, and the materials are usually
cemented together by iron oxide, so that a pick is often needed to dislodge
portions—more especially at one particular horizon near the base. It is in
this last mentioned stratum that all the fossil bones and teeth discovered in
situ by us have occurred. The stratum is easily distinguished in the appended
photograph (pl. 5) by being of the darkest shade and just above the bedrock.

The gravel is situated on a well-defined plateau of large area... . and
lies about 80 feet above the level of the main stream of the Ouse.

Since the deposition of the gravel, the river has cut through the
plateau, both with its main stream and its principal branch, to this
extent.

Considering the amount of material excavated and sifted by us, the specimens
discovered were numerically small and localized.

Apparently the whole or greater portion of the human skull had been shat-
tered by the workmen, who had thrown away the pieces unnoticed. Of these
we recovered from the spoil heaps as many fragments as possible. In a some-
what deeper depression of the undisturbed gravel I found the right half of a
human mandible. So far as I could judge, guiding myself by the position of
a tree 3 or 4 yards away, the spot was identical with that upon which the
men were at work when the first portion of the cranium was found several
years ago. Dr. Woodward also dug up a small portion of the occipital bone
of the skull from within a yard of the point where the jaw was discovered and
at precisely the same level. The jaw appeared to have been broken at the
symphysis and abraded, perhaps when it lay fixed in the gravel and before
its complete deposition. The fragments of cranium show little or no sign of
rolling or other abrasion, save an incision at the back of the parietal, probably
caused by a workman’s pick.

A small fragment of the skull has been weighed and tested by Mr. S. A.
Woodhead, M. Sc., F. I. C., public analyst for East Sussex and Hove, and
agricultural analyst for East Sussex. He reports that the specific gravity of
the bone (powdered) is 2.115 (water at 5° C. as standard). No gelatine or
organic matter is present. There is a large proportion of phosphates (originally
present in the bone) and a considerable proportion of iron. Silica is absent.

68 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Besides the human remains, we found two small broken pieces of a molar
tooth of a rather early Pliocene type of elephant, also a much-rolled cusp
of a molar of Mastodon, portions of two teeth of Hippopotamus, and two molar
teeth of a Pleistocene beaver. In the adjacent field to the west, on the surface
close to the hedge dividing it from the gravel bed, we found portions of a red
deer’s antler and the tooth of a Pleistocene horse. These may have been
thrown away by the workmen, or may have been turned up by a plough which
traversed the upper strata of the continuation of this gravel bed. Among the
fragments of bone found in the spoil heaps occurred part of a deer’s meta-
tarsal, split longitudinally. This bone bears upon its surface certain small cuts
and scratches which appear to have been made by man. All the specimens are
highly mineralized with iron oxide. ....

Among the flints we found several undoubted flint implements, besides numer-
ous Eoliths.....

From the above Mr. Dawson believed himself justified in drawing
the following conclusions:

It is clear that this stratified gravel at Piltdown is of Pleistocene age, but
that it contains in its lowest stratum animal remains derived from some de-
stroyed Pliocene deposit probably situated not far away and consisting of
worn and broken fragments. These were mixed with fragments of early
Pleistocene mammalia in a better state of preservation, and both forms were
associated with the human skull and mandible, which show no more wear and
tear than they might have received in situ. Associated with these animal
remains are Eoliths, both in a rolled and an unrolled condition; the former are
doubtless derived from an older drift, and the latter in their present form are
of the age of the existing deposit. In the same bed, in only a very slightly
higher stratum, occurred a flint implement, the workmanship of which resem-
bles that of implements found at Chelles, and among the spoil heaps were
found others of a similar, though perhaps earlier, stage.

From these facts it appears probable that the skull and mandible cannot
safely be described as being of earlier date than the first half of the Pleisto-
cene (or Glacial) epoch. The individual probably lived during a warm cycle
of that age.

ADDITIONAL FINDS

In 1915, before the same Geological Society, London, Mr. Dawson
and Dr. Woodward report “On a bone implement from Piltdown.” *
It was found during the excavations of 1914,

. about a foot below the surface, in dark vegetable soil, beneath the hedge
which bounds the gravel-pit, and within three or four feet of the spoil-heap
whence we obtained the right parietal bone of the human skull. On being
washed away, the soil left not the slightest stain on the specimen, which was
covered with firmly-adherent pale-yellow sandy clay, closely similar to that
of the flint-bearing layer at the bottom of the gravel. The bone, therefore,
cannot have lain buried in the soil for any long period, and was almost cer-
tainly thrown there by the workmen with the other useless débris when they

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 71, pp. 144-149, 1 pl., 1 fig., 1915.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 69

were digging gravel from the adjacent hole. It is much mineralized with oxide
of iron, at least on the surface, and it agrees in appearance with some small
fragments of bone which we found actually in place in the clay below the
gravel. Its surface is yellowish brown, the cut facets being slightly darker than
the rest; but the bony tissue within is yellowish or creamy white, and the whole
is much less darkly stained than the bones from the gravel immediately above.
As it lay in the rock it was broken across at its middle, and the two broken
faces are stained like the rest of the bone; at its thinner end it was accidentally
shattered by our workman’s pick.

The implement is a stout and nearly straight narrow plate of bone, 41 cm.
long and varying from 9 cm. to Io cm. in width, with the thicker end artificially
pointed or keeled, the thinner end artificially rounded.

The bone is evidently a portion of a femur of a large proboscidean.

In 1917, finally, Dr. Woodward reports to the Geological Society
the find by Mr. Dawson, on a field two miles distant from the original
discovery, of two fragments of a second fossil skull and an additional
molar. The main part of the report reads as follows: ’*

The wide distribution of the Piltdown gravel, as determined by its charac-
teristic brown flints, was shown by Mr. Dawson in his map of 1912. It could
easily be traced in the ploughed fields of the district; but, notwithstanding the
most careful and persistent search, it yielded no fossils, except at the original
locality, until the winter of 1914-15. One large field, about two miles from the
Piltdown pit, had especially attracted Mr. Dawson’s attention, and he and I
examined it several times without success during the spring and autumn of
1914. When, however, in the course of farming, the stones had been raked off
the ground and brought together into heaps, Mr. Dawson was able to search
the material more satisfactorily; and early in 1915 he was so fortunate as to
find here two well-fossilized pieces of human skull and a molar tooth, which he
immediately recognized as belonging to at least one more individual of
Eoanthropus dawsoni. Shortly afterwards, in the same gravel, a friend met
with part of the lower molar of an indeterminable species of rhinoceros, as
highly mineralized as the specimens previously found at Piltdown itself.

The most important fragment of human skull is part of the supraorbital region
of a right frontal bone adjacent to the middle line. It is in exactly the same
mineralized condition as the original skull of Eoanthropus, and deeply stained
with iron-oxide. It is also similarly thickened, exhibiting the characteristic very
fine diploe with comparatively thin outer and inner tables of dense bone. ... .

The second fragment of human skull is the middle part of an occipital bone,
which is also well fossilized, but seems to have been weathered since it was
derived from the gravel. Though still stout, it is thinner than the corresponding
bone of Eoanthropus from Piltdown, and differs from the latter in at least one
important respect.....

The tooth, discovered by Mr. Dawson in the same locality as the two pieces
of bone, is a left first lower molar agreeing very closely with that of the original
specimen of Eoanthropus dawsoni, but more obliquely worn by mastication.
It is equally well fossilized, and stained brown with oxide of iron in the usual
manner.

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 73, Pt. I, p. 3, 1917.

7O SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

RECAPITULATION

The specimens—The remains attributed to the Eoanthropus con-
sist of two lots, the first comprising nine fragments of a skull (joined
now into four pieces), a pair of nasal bones, a portion of a lower
jaw, and a canine; the second, two fragments of another skull and
presumably a loose molar.

Locality, dates and discoverers—The initial remains of the first
group were unearthed from the ancient river gravels of the Ouse
river, at Piltdown, near Fletching, in the weald of Sussex, between
1909 (approximately) and 1913, by laborers, but discovered, with
additional finds, by Charles Dawson, A. Smith Woodward and
P. Teilhard. The second lot is believed to have been found, in 1915,
among the surface rakings of a field two miles from the site of the
earlier discovery, by Dawson; it was not reported until 1917 by
Woodward, on the basis of oral information given by Dawson.

Main circumstances of discovery.—The earlier remains “ were
first found by workmen when digging the gravel for use on roads,
and among them was the human skull which they broke up and
threw away. One fragment was fortunately preserved and given to
Mr. Dawson, who recognized its importance and at once began a
search for the remainder of the specimen. Enough pieces were re-
covered to show the essential peculiarities of the skull. Part of the
lower jaw and the lower canine tooth were eventually found in the
adjacent undisturbed gravel, and some implements of human work-
manship and fragmentary remains of animals were also met with.” *

Associations —With the earlier remains were found worn fossils
evidently washed out of Pliocene formations (mastodon, stegodon,
rhinoceros) ; fossils of probably early Pleistocene age (hippopotamus,
beaver, elk) ; and primitive stone implements, with one large crude
tool of a bone of an elephant.

Significance.—The discoverers and the English anthropologists in
general associate the first group of finds as those of one individual,
the loose molar and possibly the parts of the second skull to another,
and all the specimens as belonging to one early form of man, the
Eoanthropus.

From the same gravels came also waterworn “ eoliths,” that may
have been washed out from an even older formation; and rare flints
with ‘“ obvious signs of human workmanship’”’* and representing a
very old type of paleolithic implements.

‘

*Woodward, Arthur Smith, A Guide to the Fossil Remains of Man, etc.,
p. 9, ef seq. British Museum (Nat. Hist.), London, 1915.
? Idem.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 71

Geological age.—Taking all the circumstances of the find into con-
sideration, Dr. Woodward decided that, “it appeared probable that
the skull and mandible cannot safely be described as being of earlier
date than the first half of the Pleistocene Epoch. The individual
probably lived during a warm cycle in that age.” (Quart. Journ.
Geol. Soc., p. 123, 1913). In 1922, in his “ Guide to the Fossil Remains
of Man,” etc., 3rd ed., pp. 10-11, Dr. Woodward says: “ So far as can
be judged from present evidence, it is therefore reasonable to suppose
that Piltdown man dates back to the beginning of the Pleistocene
period.” The latter is about the generally accepted opinion today.

THE SKELETAL REMAINS

Descriptions of the various skeletal parts of the Piltdown finds,
equally as excellent as the rest of his reports, are given in the original
communications, already quoted, by Dr. Woodward. This author
deserves the warm thanks of every anthropologist for, on the one
hand, his highly able and restrained reports and studies, supple-
mented with beautiful illustrations ; and on the other for the extended
painstaking work in the Piltdown gravels, which he has carried on
since 1912, first jointly with Dawson and, since Dawson’s death, alone,
and which he still pursues. The essentials of his observations will
be incorporated in the following paragraphs.

THE FIRST SKULL

From the nine fragments of the cranium together with the portion
of the lower jaw and the loose canine, a number of the most promi-
nent students of the remains have attempted with infinite pains a
reconstruction of the whole skull. The principal reconstructions are
those of Woodward,’ Elliot Smith with J. I. Hunter and J. Beattie,’
Keith,’ and McGregor.” These reconstructions differ somewhat in
size and in details, but all show certain characteristics in common.
They must be considered together with the originals; but it is the
originals which demand first attention. The following notes combine
the essential data on the specimens published by Dr. Woodward and
other workers, with the writer’s observations on the originals.

‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 69, p. 141, pl. XVIII, 1913. This reconstruction
reminds one much of that of the skull of the Le Moustier youth, q. v.

* Nature, 1922, p. 726. Also Elliot Smith, The Evolution of Man, 2d ed.,
p. 74 et seq., 1927.

* The Antiquity of Man, II, p. 515 et seqg., 1925.

*Tilustrations in publications of Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., N. Y.

72 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Preservation.—The fragments are of dark red ferruginous color,
and markedly mineralized. They are not deformed in any way, and
apparently but little worn.

Massiveness—Probably the most striking character of the bones
of the skull (exclusive of the lower jaw), is their massiveness. The
bones measure 8 to 12 mm. in thickness (Keith, Antiquity of Man,
1925, 518, 528), to 20 mm. at the internal occipital protuberance
(Woodward, Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1913, p. 124). This is just
about twice the thickness of an average modern white skull. This
thickness together with the depth of the grooves of the meningeal
vessels and the unusual density (small spaces of the diploe) suggest
strongly an abnormal condition, such as is met with in some of the
Florida and other aboriginal skulls in America (Hrdli¢ka), though no
disease is detectable microscopically (Shattock, Proc. Inst., Med.
Cong:, Lond:, 1915):

Age.—The skull is plainly that of an adult of somewhat advanced
age, ‘‘ The median parietal (sagittal) suture is completely obliterated ;
but the lambdoid suture is open” (Woodward, Quart. Journ. Geol.
Soc., 1913, p. 128; Keith, Antiquity of Man, 1927, 545). Under
normal present conditions, excluding a premature closure of the sagit-
tal suture, the age of an individual with a complete obliteration of this
suture could be estimated at 50 years and might be well over that.
But there are exceptions (¢.g., in the Eskimo), particularly if the
skull was not fully normal, as seems here to be indicated by the thick-
ness of the bones; so that all that it is safe to say is that the skull
belonged to an adult of probably over 30 years of age.

Sex—The sum of the indications, it is generally recognized, are
that the skull is that of a female.

Form—The fragments of the skull (pl. 13), aside from their
thickness, relative density of the cancellous bone, and a strong mark
of attachment of the temporal muscle, offer but little that is extraor-
dinary. The temporal fragment shows a moderate-sized mastoid,
and a small but very distinct styloid.

The several reconstructions of the skull differ in certain respects.
All these, however, show it to have been rather above medium in
breadth (not far from the lower limits of brachycephaly). The
height in the Smith Woodward original reconstruction is somewhat
low, in those of Keith and Elliot Smith about or near the modern
medium.

In the opinion of Dr. Woodward (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1913,
127), a detailed examination of the bones of the skull, as far as pre-
served, “ proves the typically human character of nearly all the features

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA iS

they exhibit.” For Keith, “except for the thickness of the skull
bones, the head was shaped and balanced as in us” (Antiquity of
Man, 1925, 570, 578, 595). It is a skull that “in its general con-
formation does not differ materially from human skulls of the modern
type” (ibid., 602). But for Elliott Smith (Evolution of Man, 1927,
74 et seq.) the skull, as reconstructed by him and his associates,
exhibits a number of primitive characters.

The writer’s opinion, after repeated study of the originals, is that
while the fragments show a few peculiarities, these are not of a
phylogenetically decisive nature, and seemingly could all be duplicated
in the skulls of still living races.

Size.—The capacity of the skull has been estimated by the different
authors who attempted its reconstruction, as follows:

Approxi-

mately
eC.
Smiths vioodward/s original estimates... sore celeedeeele ceeelsines os lee 1,070
Barlow’s brain cast, first Smith Woodward reconstruction.......... 1,200
Second Smith Woodward» reconstruction: -.46 2. eee oeceen ee eee. 1,300
MES TTT Gee S THULE Tepe a ole oy cece toilor sues tes So eoace: Sele Gc ia ae tose ore Suche avons: oh picliotcrcovarei ves ones 1,200
RSTn perc tetenee ners aseve ated recieve arta iahe eer aee cee tetra onmie ails aver ais ahe eiouwtayprenars leowhovotng 1,400

If the skull was that of a female, as is most probable, its mean

(LBH)

ness of the specimen, would indicate an internal capacity of about
1,200) GC,

Other measurements—The several reconstructions of the skull
made possible approximate measurements, the most important of
which are given here:

approximate diameter , after reduction for the extra thick-

Woodward, A. S.2 Keith?
cm, Cis
Perro tinmttiascueeeecaeiseacss oo eiamier aiciese cobs re nt) eye ieee 19.0 19.4
reac eiupsia xem ay nieuws cys tals ate 2 dag eRe clavate ote chattel ete ate 15.0 15.0
Grain aH Ose) tte tccrere rece rete cide Sider ee alan Maree argo 78-79 78-79
Height :
PRASIOM DHEA) . Vtatsvsjaveta)o.« 4 ee lavsierscopalcrs sisceaslemars ce 13.0
IBAStOl=ventexaleticntncsenn a clcniicera rete ieieaeoiecerte 13.0 es
ENTITA CH MRE Ee ates tein cee anne aoe ae eke aieiays sian mere
Glabellasintoneline: vertexsa scones cakes eaecnt ss 9.0
Glabella-inion, line; ‘bregma J. sacs je. cetece dows 8.4
Nearest approach of upper temporal line to median line. 3.6

Nearest approach of lower temporal line to median line. 4.6

*See Relation of the size of the head and skull to capacity in the two sexes.
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 8, pp. 249-250, 1925.

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 69, p. 130, 1913.

* Antiquity of Man, pp. 528 et seq., 576-577, 589-591, 595, 600, 1925.

74 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The various determinations show that:

1. The skull, taken as female, was in size above rather than below
the present average of female crania ;

2. The skull cavity and hence the size of the brain were about the
average of the ordinary white females of today;

3. The vault of the skull was not low as in all the other known
early forms of man.

In addition it is certain that the forehead of this skull was well
arched and filled out; the parietal, temporal, and occipital regions
were fashioned practically as they are in modern skulls (Keith, p.
556) ; the supraorbital ridges were very moderate and did not form a
connected arch; there were no occipital or other crests; the glenoid
fossa and the mastoids were well developed.

In general this skull, though it may show some secondary inferi-
orities, if it were not for the exceedingly primitive lower jaw and
canine tooth found near it, would inevitably have to be classed among
those of modern man.

The nasal bones—These bones, together with a portion of a
turbinal, were found in 1913 by Dr. Woodward, as mentioned above.’
They are extraordinarily thick, corresponding in this respect to the
bones of the skull. They are separate (no ossification of suture),
and almost perfectly preserved; the left nasal being complete, the
right but slightly defective. Their measurements are thus given by
Dr. Woodward :”

mms.

Width of naturally apposed nasals at the upper end................000eeeee 13
Width of naturally apposed nasals at the lower end (about)................ 15
enethyotsthes median ysuturer s-ceerc veers ei) erkekler ta 14
eneth ob the masalss- miaxc.oc ese eeicies a tre oles ree oie Velie eeetere eter tae 18
Length of the upper border of the left\nasal. ... 2... 6.102425 aes oe oesm es osm 7
enethot the upper border or themiohtmiasally. ati elseiae ioral isociierer tet 10
Length of the lower border of the left masala. «<2. .caemee © = cient 10
Length of the lower border of the right nasal (about)................5565 II

Comparisons prove, according to Dr. Woodward, that “ these nasal
bones resemble those of the existing Melanesian and African races,
rather than those of the Eurasian type” (p. 87). Nevertheless similar
nasals, except as to the thickness, may be found also in the yellow-
brown people and even in whites (Hrdlitka). The turbinated “is
unusually thick”? (Smith Woodward). There is every indication
that the nasals as well as the turbinated belong to the skull and were

? Original report in Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 70, p. 85, 1914.
* Tbid., p. 87.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 75

in all probability still joined with it when it was originally found by
the laborers. They strengthen the suspicion that the skull may be not
fully normal (Hrdlicka).

THE BRAIN

All that can be known about the brain of the Piltdown skull is
what is shown by the internal surface of the several fragments ; and,

50 o

Gee ie a eee eh Mee ae ee i100

-180 "50 ay

ES 2S a Sa
hums
BREGMA

(M4 DULLA

a cd one erence arenes ews nearer eto

160 150 100

Be

4

Fic. 8.—Profile drawing of the brain cast taken from the reconstruction of
the Piltdown skull by Arthur Keith. It is represented half size and set within a
standard frame of lines which permits direct comparison between the various
drawings given here. The positions of the sutures between the containing
bones are indicated. The missing parts are stippled. (After Keith, Antiquity of
Man, 1925.)

as there is but a portion of the side of the front and no base, not to
mention other large defects, it is plain that the obtainable information
must be quite meagre. If notwithstanding this we find in the litera-
ture on the subject some far-reaching statements, these cannot be
taken for much more than opinions; and with the defects of the
original it is no wonder that some of these opinions, even by the best
men, differ widely.

Thus, Professor G. Elliot Smith, one of the foremost living
students of the brain, in his “ Preliminary Report on the Cranial

76 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Cast,’ * says: “ Taking all its features into consideration, we must
regard this as being the most primitive and most simian human brain
so far recorded.” In his 1927 treatise on the ‘‘ Evolution of Man”
(pp. 126-127) Professor Smith is much less explicit, but mentions a
number of details in which he believes the brain was inferior, and it
is plain that he still regards it much as he did before.

On the other hand, Sir Arthur Keith, unquestionably one of the
foremost living anatomists of the present time, concludes, after an
at least equally painstaking study of the originals and their casts,
that so far as the more basal parts are concerned, “ we have seen no
feature of the Piltdown brain to which we can apply with any cer-
tainty the term of primitive or simian; all the characters we have
encountered are not very unlike those seen in modern skulls and
brains” (p. 620); and “it appears, even in its convolutionary ar-
rangement, to fall well within the limits of variation seen in modern
human brains” (p. 621). “In the development of the occipital poles
of the brain, this early Pleistocene man shows, not a primitive feature,
but one which must be regarded as evidence of a fairly high degree
of specialization”? (p. 627). And finally (p. 634): “ Thus an ex-
amination of the brain cast confirms the conclusion reached from an
examination of the skull, namely, that a mistake was made in the iden-
tification of the parts lying in the middle line which greatly diminished
the real size of the brain, and these mistakes continue to be made. ....
The asymmetry of the two sides has largely disappeared. The ar-
rangement of the meningeal vessels and of the convolutions of the
left side are seen to harmonize with those of the right. At the same
time the large areas of the brain, representing the higher association
centres, are restored, and we obtain a brain primitive in some respects,
it is true, but in all its characters directly comparable with that of
modern man.”

THE LOWER JAW

The lower jaw, as stated, was found personally by Dawson, appar-
ently close to the spot where the skull was discovered, in “a somewhat
deeper depression of the undisturbed gravel”? (Quart. Journ. Geol.
Soc., 1913, p. 121). “ The jaw appeared to have been broken at the
symphysis and abraded perhaps where it lay fixed in the gravel and
before its complete deposition. The fragments of the cranium show
little or no signs of rolling or other abrasion’ (ibid.).

* Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., Vol. 60, p. 147, 1913.
* Antiquity of Man, 1925.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 77
It is this jaw, together with the subsequently found canine, that
has become the great “ bone of contention” in the case. The reason

If ‘
; wi ee eye
go
WH ERS Hy

SSS g

SS

a

Fic. 9.—Eoanthropus dawson Smi

th Woodward. Pleistocene gravel, near
Piltdown Common, Fletching, Sussex,
Mag., 1913, pl. 15.)

England. (After Smith Woodward, Geol.

is that, as tersely stated by Dr. Woodward,’ “while the Piltdown
skull is thus completely human, the half of the lower jaw, so far as

preserved, is almost precisely that of an ape.” And in another place °

1A Guide to the Fossil Remains of Man, etc., p. 15, 1915.
? Geol. Mag., Vol. 10, pp. 433-434, 1913.

78 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Dr. Woodward expresses the uncertainty thus created: “ It may next
be questioned whether this ape-like mandible belongs to the skull.
We can only state that its molar teeth are typically human, its muscle-
markings are such as might be expected, and it was found in the
gravel near to the skull. The probabilities are therefore in favour of
its natural association. If so, it is reasonable to suppose that the
skull will prove to be that of a very primitive type, not that of a
highly civilized man.”

No such jaw, or even an approach to it, has ever before or since
been found with such a skull. The two apparently do not belong to
the same being nor even to the same species of beings. In other early
remains, especially in one of the Spy skulls, at La Quina, and in the
La Ferrassie specimens, it was the jaw rather than the skull that
showed a form advancing towards the modern. The probabilities of
the discovery speak apparently all for, the morphological features of
the specimens all against, an organic association of the skull with the
jaw.

The inevitable results of this disharmony were, from the start,
expressions of dissenting opinions, which culminated when in 1915
and again in 1918, after a serious study of the cast of the fragment, .
Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., identified the jaw as that of Pan vetus, a fossil
chimpanzee.’

In 1917 Dr. Woodward announced the discovery of parts of the
second skull, together with a loose molar, both evidently connecting
with the first find, the skull! bones with the skull, the tooth with the
jaw, which served but to accentuate the uncertainties.

In 1921, thanks to Dr. Woodward, the writer was given an oppor-
tunity, in London, to study the Piltdown originals ; the same privilege
was again extended 1n 1923, when once more the originals, preserved
in the safe of the Department of Geology and Paleontology of the
British Museum (Natural History), were measured and examined ;
and they were seen again in 1925. The results of the 1921-23 exami-
nations were published in several articles in the American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, and in view of the importance of the case.

*The Jaw of the Piltdown Man. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 65, No. 12,
31 pp., 5 pls., and annotated bibliography of the subject up to that time, 1915;
and The Piltdown Jaw, Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 1, 4 pls., with anno-
tated bibliography of over 120 titles by more than 50 authors, 1918.

* Hrdlicka, A., The Piltdown Jaw. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 5, pp.
337-347, 1925. Dimensions of the First and Second Molars, with their Bearing on
the Piltdown Jaw and on Man’s Phylogeny; ibid., Vol. 6, pp. 195-216, 1923; and
Variation in the Dimension of Lower Molars in Man and Anthropoid Apes;
ibid., pp. 423-438.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 79

the essential parts of these are here reproduced. The results of the
1925 examination call for practically no modification of the earlier
data.

The handling of the original bone impressed one once more with the great
difference that exists between the study of a cast however well made and that
of the original. It is very probable that some of the statements made about the
jaw and the teeth and some of the conclusions arrived at by some authors,
would not have been made had they been able to study the jaw itself.

The first strong impression which the specimen conveys is that of normality,
shapeliness and relative gracility of build rather than massiveness. When, after
studying the specimen for a good part of two days, the observer took in hand
the thick Piltdown skull, there was a strong feeling of incongruity and lack of
relationship, and this feeling only grew on further study. As a rule there exists
a marked correlation between the massivity of the skull—particularly if as in
this case the upper facial parts were involved in the same—and the lower jaw.
A finely chiselled mandible of medium or sub-medium strength belongs as a rule
to a skull that is characterized in the same way, and vice versa. To connect the
shapely, wholly normal Piltdown jaw with the gross, heavy Piltdown skull into
the same individual, seems very difficult. After prolonged handling of both the
jaw and the skull there remained in the writer a strong impression that the two
may not belong together, or that if they do the case is totally exceptional.

The next important question in connection with the jaw was whether or not
it is human. All possible pains were taken to determine this point, regardless
both of the skull and of previously expressed opinions. The details of this study
will follow. But it may as well be said at once that all the results of the study
point to the specimen being very early human or that of an advanced human
precursor, and not anthropoid.

Other questions were whether the canine tooth found near the jaw belonged
to it or not; and if it did not whether it could have belonged perhaps to the
upper jaw of the same being or a being of the same variety. Upon these ques-
tions no absolute certainty could be reached; but the indications are that the
jaw possessed a relatively large canine, and a further study of the tooth admits
of the possibility that it belonged not merely to the same individual, but that
after all it may be the lower right canine of the jaw. Mr. Miller, who in the
writer’s knowledge subjected the available data as well as the casts to a most
careful study,’ was at a disadvantage due to the impossibility of studying the
originals.

DETAILED OBSERVATIONS

The Jaw: The specimen is in a very good state of preservation. Besides the
well-known lack of condyle and the alveolar arch anterior to the first molar,
there is no other damage except a slight abrasion of the middle portion of the
posterior border of the ramus.

The specimen is not heavy in weight nor massive in structure; it is marked
in fact by relatively moderate build, strikingly at odds with both the first and
second Piltdown skulls which in all their parts are decidedly thick. There is no
perceptible correspondence between the jaw and the skulls.

*See Miller, G. S., The Piltdown Jaw. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 1,
No. 1, 1918.

7

8o SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The ascending ramus gives the writer the following measurements: Height
along the middle to lowest point of notch, 6.1 cm.;* minimum breadth (allowing
for slight damage of the posterior border), 4.25 cm. The angle is close to 112°.
These measurements show little that could be regarded as biologically distinctive
and could be duplicated in man as well as in some chimpanzees.

The ramus, finely formed, is of only moderate strength. Both the processes,
coronoid and condyloid (the condyle itself is lost), were of about medium human
development and quite human in form. This is particularly true of the coronoid,
which is sharper and pointing somewhat more forward than it generally is in
the chimpanzee.

The notch between the condyloid and coronoid processes is broad and typi-
cally human in form; in chimpanzees it is as a rule less broad, its posterior por-
tion predominates in length and it has lesser inclination than the anterior part.

Features of special interest are the neck of the condyle and the posterior
border of the ramus. The neck of the condyle is rather short and decidedly more
slender than it is in chimpanzees, and even in most male modern human jaws.
Below the neck the posterior border is rather sharp and towards the angle
shows slight inversion rather than eversion, as not seldom in chimpanzees where
the internal pterygoid muscles predominate in “ pull” over that of the masseter
externally; the same condition may also be met in some humans where the
masseters were not well developed.

That the masseters in the Piltdown specimen were not strongly developed is
shown by the smoothness of the outer surface of the angle portion of the jaw
which is free of insertion ridges or irregularities. Such a condition is occa-
sionally approached in chimpanzees though there are usually plain indications
of the attachment of the muscle; it is clearly approached in some human jaws.
The internal pterygoid muscle, attached to the internal surface of the ramus
between the mylohyoid groove and the angle of the bone, and serving essentially
for protrusion, retraction and in lateral movements of the jaw, in the chimpanzees
as a rule predominates in strength and hence in marks of attachment over the
masseter, and it does so also in a certain proportion of humans; but in many
humans the extent of the attachment of the pterygoid, even though it may reach
the mylohyoid groove is more or less reduced, and in not a few it is the masseter
which predominates in strength producing a more or less marked eversion of
the lower border of the bone at the angle. In the Piltdown jaw the attachment
of the internal pterygoid, while reaching as far as the mylohyoid groove, left
only faint traces of its attachments, less even than in many present day human
jaws. Nevertheless, the masseter was evidently even weaker, due to which fact
the border at the angle is slightly inverted as already mentioned.

The external surface of the ramus in the Piltdown jaw shows a marked and
hitherto unmentioned depression produced by the body of the masseter. The
depression begins superiorly just below the condyle and proceeds unevenly
forwards and downwards to end in a large shallow concavity over the lower third
of the ramus anterior to its middle. Of a similar depression there is found in
the grown chimpanzees at most only the anterior portion. In human subjects
this fossa is also frequently more or less deficient and irregular; nevertheless,

* The condyle, as is well known, is missing; with the condyle and measured in
the usual way (see A. Hrdlicka, Anthropometry, Wistar Inst., Phila., 1921),
the height of the ascending ramus would be about 7.0 cm. or slightly over.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 81

there is on the whole a closer approach to it than in the chimpanzees; and in
one of the skulls seen at the British Museum (Australian, No. 1068-4), as well
as in several jaws at the U. S. National Museum, there is a very close approach
to the condition such as seen in the Piltdown mandible.

The anterior border of the ramus is somewhat thicker and duller than it is
in an average modern human jaw, especially in that of a cultured white man.
It is near to the average border in a chimpanzee; but it is a feature of little
diagnostic value, being an expression of strength and not derivation. An equally
thick border may be found in some human jaws, while in some chimpanzees as in
most modern humans the edge is thinner.

Internally the upper portion of the ramus shows nothing especially charac-
teristic. The impression for the external pterygoid is faint, that for the tem-
poralis well marked but of moderate extent. The ridges and depressions, and
the location of the mandibular foramen with the hyoid groove, present nothing
that is not fairly common in both man and the chimpanzees.

Taking the ascending ramus as a whole, the conclusion is inevitable that it
belonged to an individual in whom all the muscles of mastication (internal
pterygoid, masseter, external pterygoid as well as temporal) were of only mod-
erate development and activity for a being of the size indicated by the jaw.
They were decidedly less than those of actual male chimpanzees, and possibly
even a trace less than the average in the females of this form. On the whole
the ramus, while bearing some resemblance to that of a chimpanzee in the slight
inversion of its posterior border about the angle and the thickness of the anterior
border, shows a closer approach to the human type than to that of the chimpanzee.

The horizontal part or body of the jaw —The horizontal ramus of the Pilt-
down jaw, broken off superiorly in front of the first molar and inferiorly near
the symphysis, shows a relatively light structure, comparable much more to a
stronger modern human jaw than to that of a chimpanzee. The break shows
that the ramus possesses a large cavity (which may have been partly filled by
cancellous tissue) that reached without much diminution clear to and evidently
through the chin. This condition differs markedly from that of the jaws of chim-
panzees, in which the bone is thicker and the internal cavity smaller, particularly
at the chin which is filled with sparse and dense cancellous tissue as hard as the
compact walls outside of it, and in which the formation by natural means of a
similar cavity as seen in the Piltdown specimen seems impossible. This is one
more and an important feature, indicating a relatively light use of the jaw, less
than in any known chimpanzees.

The body appears relatively somewhat low, which in man would indicate a
female rather than a male individual; but it could also be a primitive feature.
Low bodied jaws are a general feature in the chimpanzees. The vertical height
of the body in the Piltdown jaw at the first septum anterior to the first molar,
is 3.0 cm.; at the second septum (between first and second molars), 2.9 cm.;
and at the third septum (between second and third molars), 3.0 cm. In a series
of male chimpanzees in the U. S. National Museum the height at the septum
between the second and third molars on the right side measures respectively
2.75, 2.8, 2.4, 2.8, 2.65, 2.9, 2.8, 2.85, 2.65, and 2.9 cm. None of the chimpanzee
jaws, although most of them are males and larger than the Piltdown specimen,
measure even as much as it does in the height of the body.

82 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The minimum thickness of the body (at first molar) of the Piltdown jaw is
1.45 cm. This is above the average of both human and chimpanzee jaws, but is
occasionally equalled and even exceeded in both. There is therefore nothing
distinctive in this respect.

The external surface of the body shows the usual somewhat indistinct oblique
line. There is nothing characteristic in it for either man or chimpanzee. This
external surface shows also, however, an important feature that has so far
failed to receive due attention. This is a basal ridge forming a boundary between
the external surface proper of the bone, and the inferior flattening that gradually
enlarging proceeds under the fore part of the jaw where it forms a shelf such
as exists more or less in ape and other jaws that have a negative chin. The
ridge above this shelf is not found in modern man except rudimentarily. It is
already rather rudimentary in the Mauer jaw. It is well marked in the Pilt-
down jaw, and it is occasionally fairly well marked in an adult chimpanzee.
It is caused by the shelf but even more so by the large and long canine eminence
due to a large canine. It does not exist, or exists only in traces wherever the
canine tooth is small as in the chimpanzee females and the young, or in modern
man. Its presence in the Piltdown jaw seems a very strong indication that the
jaw possessed a relatively large canine tooth; and this, with other considera-
tions, increases the probability that the Piltdown canine belonged to the jaw,
or at least to the same or a like skeleton.

The development of the sub-mentoneal shelf in the Piltdown jaw equals that
of most chimpanzees—except, as already mentioned, in the solidity of the struc-
ture which in this case was plainly less than in any of the apes. A shelf of this
nature is found in none of the ancient human jaws, though they all show traces
of it. Traces of it may in fact be detected even in some modern jaws of man.
In this feature, and in the indicated presence of a relatively larger than human
canine, the jaw stands apart from all those of early man that have so far been
discovered, and is correspondingly nearer to the chimpanzee or some related
ancient anthropoid form. But neither of these features can be taken as con-
clusively diagnostic of a chimpanzee nature of the jaw. All that we would
seem to be justified in saying is that in these respects, as well as in one or two
others, the bone resembles more that of an ape than man. But as we cannot but
believe that the human lower jaw in its evolution must have passed through
such stages, these features do not legitimately hinder us, if other characteristics
so urge, from placing the jaw in the line of early man or his precursors.

The lingual surface of the body of the jaw is quite smooth and presents noth-
ing distinctive for either man or ape except the height of the body which on the
inside even more than on the outside approaches the human type. The height of
the body from the middle of the lingual border of the 3M alveolus is 3.0 cm.;
in the adult chimpanzees of the U. S. National Museum it was found to be
respectively 2.8, 2:7, 2:8, 2.5, 2.75, 2/4, 2.6, 2.85, 3:0, 27, 26, 209, and 26 cm.
In the Mauer jaw this height was 3.3 cm.; while in modern human jaws a height
of 3 cm. or even slightly over is quite common in males; in females it is lower.
If the Piltdown jaw represents a female, as seems most likely, the male jaw
of the same species would have been even higher and well beyond the range of
variation of the chimpanzee.

The teeth—The alveoli and interalveolar septa in the Piltdown jaw show
little that could be regarded as distinctive in form; but they are larger antero-
posteriorly, particularly in the case of the 3M, than in any chimpanzee available

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 83

for comparison, coming much nearer the alveoli in some human mandibles with
macrodont teeth. The total length in the median line of the three alveoli is
3.9 cm.; in the Mauer jaw it is 3.8 cm.; in some modern human jaws with large
teeth it ranges from 3.6 to 3.9 cm.;* in the available male chimpanzees it varies
from 3.0 to 3.4 cm.;* in chimpanzee females from 3.1 to 3.25 cm. The size of
the three molar alveoli in the Piltdown jaw is plainly not chimpanzee-like, but
stands close to early and macrodont recent human.

The breadth of the molar alveoli in the Piltdown mandible is just 10 mm.
for each alveolus. This is also larger, and that by from 0.5 to 2.5 mm., than
that of corresponding alveoli in any of the available chimpanzees,* but is
equalled or closely approached in the Mauer (M1, 10; M2, 10.5; M3, 10 mm.)
and in some modern human jaws with large teeth (Australian, No. 255,715,
M1, 10.2; M2, 10.2; M3, 10.1 mm.; New Britain, No. 226,107, M1, 10; M2, 10;
M3, 10 mm.; Arkansas Indian, No. 262,587, M1, 10; M2, 10; M3, 10 mm.; etc.)

The dimensions of the alveoli in the Piltdown jaw, together with the two
remaining teeth (rM1, M2), show that the teeth were large. They were larger
than any chimpanzee molars that are available for comparison. The Piltdown
man or woman, like the jaw of Mauer and probably also other early human jaws
(La Chappelle, La Quina), came therefore in all probability from a macrodont
ancestry. As the bone mass and the musculature of the jaw are both reduced,
the size of the teeth cannot be regarded as an individual peculiarity.

The two teeth themselves are naturally of much importance. They in a way
resemble both the molars of some chimpanzees and those of some men. But they
possess important characteristics that separate them from the ape teeth and
approach them closer to human. They are somewhat more dolichodont (rela-
tively long and narrow) than most human molars, but individual human teeth
equalling them occur. In chimpanzees dolichodont molars are more frequent
though there are also many exceptions; but in general the type of the crown
in the chimpanzee is somewhat different.

The two anterior cusps in each of the teeth in the Piltdown jaw were stout
and close together as in many human teeth. In the chimpanzees as a rule these
cusps are smaller and farther apart.

In the chimpanzees the enamel part on the sides of the molars is lower (less
in height) than in man; in the Piltdown jaw the conditions are about the same
as in man.

In the Piltdown jaw, as occasionally in man, the enamel on the outside and
slightly also on the inside extends in a pointed way towards the notch between

* Australian (U. S. N. M. Cat. No. 255,715), 3.9 cm.; Peruvian Indian (No.
293,249), 3.7 cm.; New Britain (No. 226,107), 3.6 cm.

*Males: U. S. N. M. Cat. No. 84,635 =3.3 cm.; No. 174,704 = 3.3 cm.;
Noig174,710: = 3:0 em.; No. .176,226==3'1 cm; No, 176,227= 3.1 em.: No.
£70,225 — 3:3 cm., No: 176,230 = 3-3 cm-.; No. 176,235 = 3:3 cm.; No. 176,244 =
3.4 cm.

Bemales:) UiiS. N. MM; Cat. No. 176,700\= 3:25 cm. No. 174,701 ='3.2' cm. ;
No. 174,706 = 3.1 cm.; No. 176,229 = 3.1 cm.; No. 176,243 = 3.1 cm.

*In the strongly developed male No. 174,699 the alveoli for the first and right
second molars just reached.10 mm., but those for the other molars in the jaw
are slightly to markedly smaller.

84 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

the roots of the teeth: No such condition was found in the chimpanzees, though
occasionally the limits of the enamel in their teeth are not easy to determine.

The crown of the chimpanzee molars in the majority of cases shows, particu-
larly externally, a marked bulge just above the gum (“cingulum”), from
which the cusps slope more or less upwards. Externally this slope is sometimes
very decided. In man, and that in early as well as recent man, the bulge mostly
becomes just a convexity and the cusps are more vertical, making the surface
of the crown larger. In the Piltdown teeth conditions are exactly as in human
molars.

The Piltdown molars are moderately worn down to the level of the depres-
sions between the cusps. These depressions as far as preserved, and the wear
itself, are very much as they are in man. In the chimpanzees such depressions
show some differences from both the prevalent human and the Piltdown type,
and the wear of the teeth is generally irregular. But there is a chimpanzee jaw
of the National Museum series (No. 84,655) in which the wear is about the same
as in the Piltdown and many human molars, and there are not infrequently human
molars in which the wear will be irregular. Nevertheless, in this feature again
as in other characteristics of the crown, the Piltdown teeth range themselves
on the whole closer to human than to the chimpanzee type.

The crowns of the Piltdown teeth, in their height, find nothing resembling
them in the teeth of the chimpanzee, but are closely like those of both early and
modern man. This is one of the most important features in which the Piltdown
specimen differs from the apes. The height of the crown from the uppermost
part of the root notch to the level of the base of the furrows between the cusps,
is externally in each of the Piltdown molars 8.5 mm. This can readily be dupli-
cated in man; but the available chimpanzees give only (M2):5.5; 6.0; 6.5;
6.0; 6.5; 7.0; 6.5; 6.0; 6.0; 6.0; 6.5; 6.0 mm. The Piltdown, Mauer, Brelade
(Jersey) and recent human teeth (in general) are high-crowned or hypsodont ;
the chimpanzees are as a rule low-crowned or chamaedont. A jaw with molars
such as those of the Piltdown specimen cannot be that of a chimpanzee, unless
we should arbitrarily assume some old form of that genus that was radically
closer than recent chimpanzees are to the human type.

The height of the enamel on the crown is in general difficult to measure due
to the irregularity of its lower limits. In the Piltdown teeth the condition is
further aggravated by the wear of the teeth. Notwithstanding all this, it can be
estimated that the enamel layer of the Piltdown molars averages externally very
close to 6 mm. without the cusps and that with the latter it reached 7.5 mm.
These dimensions are common in man, both old and recent; but they are never it
seems equalled in the chimpanzees. Taking the total height of enamel on the
external surface of the Piltdown molars, with the cusps restored, as 7.5 mm.,
the nearest approach in a chimpanzee (British and U. S. National Museums)
was 6.5 mm., and from this the measurements ranged to 5 mm., the most frequent
figures obtained being 5.5 and 6 mm. Here then there is again an important
difference.

The size of the individual molars in the Piltdown jaw is for M1, length along
middle, 13 mm., breadth max. at right angles to length, 11 mm.; M2, length
13 mm., breadth 11 mm. ; length-breadth index of each 84.6. The worn surface of
the crown of the second tooth appears to the eye a trifle larger than that of the
first molar, but on measurement the teeth are found to be so closely alike that a

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 85

distinction is difficult. The little difference that there is, is limited (as not sel-
dom in other cases) to the trituration surface of the crown.

A good deal of weight has been placed upon the excess in the Piltdown teeth
of their length over the breadth. It was apprehended as an inferior character
and one placing the teeth nearer in type to those of the chimpanzee than to
those of man. Upon closer examination into the subject this view is hardly

LENGTH, BREADTH AND INDEX OF THE PILTDOWN AND OTHER

MOLARS
Side “median ‘ Breadth | B-U | Length | Breadth | Index
Mir M2
mm, mm. mm. mm.
Piltdown Jaw........ ie 1:3)40 II.0 84.6 13.0 II.0 | 84.6
Piltdown, extra
OOM heirs 5 chs Le 13.0 Teles ON | OAH wulllicy serena. Wheater. aes
Early Man: Mauer...|_ r. TiTesS Ele LOORO, 11.5 II.5 |100.0
Ehringsdorf....... L: 12.0 nis |) On s% 12E5 11:0) 6370
Modern Macrodonts:
Nat. Mus. Cat. No.
226,107,
New Britain..... 2 13.0 T2On O23 120 TTAONN | OTe
No. 262,587,
ATKANSASS yee 2) ii 12.0 II.5 95.8 11.5 10.5 91.3
No. 304,095,
ESkimoneenenee 1. 1220 II.0 Ql.7 I1.0 I1.0 |r100.0
Nos. 320,916-53,
WihtteiWe Stee IE 11.5 10.0 | 87.0 11.0 10.0 | 90.9
Chimpanzees:1....... Aver. | 11.43 | 10.36 | 9.06 Ll SOM |) LOROOM|NO2ZNO

(10 to | (9.5 to| (57.0 | (11 to | (10 to | (87.0
7 Nalestrta ein. eeroia| ule I2) II) |to 95.0)| 12.5) II) |tog5.5)

Aver. | 11.25 | 10.0 | 88.9 NO) | NOGA || Bas

(ar to @i5) | (Gorges | 1-5) 1767.5
4 Females......... ie II.5) |to1o.5)|tog5.5)| to 12) | to 11) | to 700)

1 Taking all the available specimens, hence also those in which one of the two anterior polars
is missing, we find one sole tooth, the first right molar of male chimpanzee jaw No. 176,227, U.
N. M., in which the index comes near being that of the Piltdown teeth; the dimensions of this Sane
are ee a .o; B., 10..0; Index, 83.3. Individual human molars of this ‘form could doubtless also be
iscovered.

sustained. On one hand we find individual human teeth both recent and ancient
that closely approach the Piltdown molars; while on the other it is found that
chimpanzee molars also are in general relatively shorter.

Among the remains of early man the majority of the bones and teeth are,
regrettably, so imperfect that exact measurements of the molars are impossible;
but a remarkable resemblance to the Piltdown teeth is found in the molars of
the recently discovered lower jaw of Ehringsdorf, Germany. The figures on this
page show the measurements of the teeth in various specimens.

86 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

CONCLUSIONS

A detailed study of the Piltdown jaw shows this to be a truly remarkable
specimen, and the more it is understood the more valuable it appears as a material
proof of man’s antiquity.

The jaw is more primitive than any other known jaw relating to early man.
It still has a marked sub-mentoneal shelf, in all probability a large canine, and
teeth of ancestral pre-human form. It resembles more or less in a number of
points the jaws of the chimpanzee, but it differs from these in a whole series of
points of importance, such as the form of the notch, type of coronoid process,
subdued musculature, markedly reduced internal massiveness of body especially
near symphysis; and in the most important characteristics of the teeth, namely,
height of crown, height of enamel, nature of “cingulum” and stoutness of
cusps—in all of which features it is nearer or like human.

It appears to the author that in view of all this it is no longer possible to
regard the jaw as that of a chimpanzee or any other anthropoid ape; but that
it is the jaw of either a human precursor or very early man. Dr. Smith Wood-
ward’s designation of this form as “ Eoanthropus ”’—a being from the dawn of
the human period—seems very appropriate.

An individual, or even genetic, specific, association of the Piltdown
jaw with the massive remains of the two Piltdown skulls is, it may
be repeated once more, exceedingly difficult of acceptance. The more
the lower jaw is studied and understood the less in harmony it appears
with the skulls and it is not unlikely that these latter belong to totally
different, possibly chronologically much younger, human individuals.

The above may be supplemented with the conclusions which I have
arrived at by a detailed comparative study of the Piltdown molars.’

The peculiar molars of the Piltdown jaw connect, though in respect
to their length and crown index only at the base of the range of vari-
ation, with the teeth of man of today.

They connect more closely with the more ancient teeth of early
man and may without violence be included among them.

They do not connect with the teeth of any of the living forms of
anthropoid apes, though in general these are nearer to them than
most man’s teeth in the crown index.

In relative, and in one case even in absolute, proportion, they re-
semble very closely the teeth from the Bohnerz Alb attributed to
Dryopithecus rhenanus, particularly one of the lower molars; but in
morphological details they differ from these, being more human.

The only conclusion that appears justified from these further
studies, as from the previous ones, is that the Piltdown teeth, primi-

* Hrdli¢ka, A., Dimensions of the First and Second Lower Molars with Their
Bearing on the Piltdown Jaw and on Man’s Phylogeny. Amer. Journ. Phys.
Anthrop., Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 216, 1923.

(‘SI [qd ‘69 ‘JOA “90S ‘[02*) ‘umnof ‘yren() ‘prempoo AQ Y}IUS Jaypy) “poureyqo oto
Y} SI UOIZIAS dy} Ul YOOI-paq ay} UO SuIZSoT UIN}e1}s jsoylep oy, “Xassnsg

a]qipueur pue [[NYs ay} YOTYM WOT Je
poq-JoaAeis sulreoq-jUl]

‘Sulyoya[y ‘UMOPIIq 38 “(Sped sSuysef{) spues saa esplaquny yy SUIA[IIAO

SNOILO31100 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

Cah “Oafal atatek SaKoyas

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 13

The parts of the frontal and parietal bones of the Piltdown skull (in upper
figure, frontal on left, in lower on right). (After Smith Woodward, Guide to
the fossil remains of man, Brit. Mus., 3rd ed.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS Woks Gieiq Taba us:

The Piltdown jaw. (Photograph from the American Museum of Natural History.)

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 87

tive as they are in some respects, are already human or close to
human. Their characteristics indicate that they belong either to a
very early man or his very near precursor.

The close relation of the Piltdown molars to some of the late
Miocene or early Pliocene human-like teeth of the Bohnerz Alb, as
well as to those of the Ehringsdorf jaws, while not conclusive alone,
raises legitimately the query as to whether man may not have
evolved altogether in western Europe.

THE SEPARATE MOLAR

The additional molar tooth of the Piltdown remains is in every
respect so much like the first molar of the Piltdown jaw, that its pro-
cedure from the same jaw seems certain, and it would seem probable
that the account of its having been discovered at a considerable
distance away might be mistaken.

Information as to the discovery of the specimen was, Sir Arthur
Smith Woodward informed the writer (Nov., 1927), conveyed to him
orally by Dawson some time before the death of the latter. It was to
the effect that the tooth was found, together with the two fragments of
the second skull, among stones raked off by the farmer from his field.
But how could a tooth be found among “the stones raked off the
ground and brought together into heaps ” (Woodward, Quart. Journ.
Geolky Soc: Vol. 73, Pt. 1. pl! 3; 1917). What rake would holdia
tooth?

The tooth agrees with those of the jaw perfectly not only in di-
mensions and every morphological character, but also in the degree
and kind of wear. If there are slight differences in the wear they are
so small as to be insignificant. A duplication of all this in two distinct
individuals would be almost impossible.

THE CANINE

The canine tooth, which bears a close resemblance in form to the
milk canine of the higher anthropoids, the author is inclined to regard,
both on account of the shape of the crown as well as the shape and
curvature of the root, as the right lower canine from a female jaw.
The wear of the tooth is somewhat peculiar, but not incompatible, it
would seem, with this opinion. Taking into consideration the subdued
muscularity of the Piltdown jaw, together with the strong indication
of the presence of a large canine shown by the basal ridge on the
anterior part of the outer surface of the body, it appears probable
that the canine may after all have belonged to this specimen.

88 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VoL. 83

THE SECOND SKULL

The second skull, found, it will be recalled, two miles away in the
rakings of a field, is represented by a fragment of the frontal bone.
There is also a portion of the occipital which probably belonged to
the same cranium. The find is described in detail by Dr. Woodward
in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, Vol. 73, Pt.
I, I-10, 1917.

The more important fragment is a part from the right supraorbital
region and squama of a frontal bone, close to the middle line. Both
pieces are similar in color and mineralization to the skull bones of
the first find, and are only slightly less thick, The thinnest part
of the squama that is left gave Dr. Woodward a thickness of 8 mm.,
the thinnest part of the frontal squama of the first skull 9 mm.;
the greatest thickness of the occipital fragment is 17 mm.; of the
occipital of the first skull 20 mm.

The frontal part belongs clearly to a female skull of modern type,
and the occipital conforms with this. Though this latter fragment
shows more weathering, the characteristics of the two parts are such
that their belonging to one skull is very probable.

This second specimen makes it certain that in the Piltdown gravels,
within a few feet from the surface, there occur mineralized skulls
of almost if not wholly a modern form, though some, at least, are
markedly thicker ; and with these skulls are loosely associated primi-
tive human implements, and animal fossils of early Pleistocene as
well as Pliocene age. The problem is whether the skulls, the imple-
ments, and the animal fossils are contemporaneous; in other words,
whether the skulls may not somehow be intrusive.

One would like very much to avoid this question ; the probabilities
seem all to speak for the specimens belonging together ; but in view
of the history of the deposition of the gravels, together with some of
the uncertainties of the find and the apparent incongruity of the
parts, the mind is not satisfied.

CONCLUDING CRITICAL REMARKS

The Piltdown remains comprise a series of fragments of two
skulls, derived apparently from coarse old gravels.

There are several points of weakness in this connection, on which
unfortunately no further light is now possible.

The first is the circumstances of the find. The discovery and re-
moval of the first skull was not supervised by scientific men; there is
no information as to exactly how it lay and whether or not there was

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 89

any noticeable disturbance of the gravel. No amount of trust and
benevolence can quite fill these defects of the evidence.

The apparent truth is that the brain part of the first skull was
found nearly whole, as the reported “‘ cocoanut” which the laborers
broke, and before removal the nasals and a turbinated (one of the
spongy bones of the nose) were still plainly with it. Yet neither the
skull fragments nor the easily damaged nasals or turbinal show in-
juries or wear from being rolled in the gravel. Neither are there any
gravel marks on the pieces of the second cranium, Here is an enigma
which needs, it would seem, some further discussion.

The skulls do not conform morphologically to their apparent an-
tiquity and evolutionary grade. Were it not for their thickness—
which experience teaches is an individual, or abnormal, rather than
racial character—they could not on their own evidence be separated
from modern crania.

The very primitive jaw, with its primitive teeth, does not conform
at all to the skulls. It and its teeth are true to its apparent geological
age and evolutionary grade, the skulls are not. Its fitting to the skull
in the reconstructions may, or may not, be correct.

The similarity of mineralization of the different specimens has
seemingly not yet been fully determined. But even if it should be
found identical, as is probable, the evidence of it one way or the other
could not be conclusive. Mineralization, it hardly needs to be repeated,
is a geophysical and geochemical process that is not ever-progressive,
but has its shorter or longer time limits; and two or more bones,
though introduced into given conditions at widely different times,
may nevertheless reach similar degrees of mineralization if the time
of inclusion in both cases has been sufficient for the consummation
of the changes. This is one of the a, b, c’s of natural processes, yet
one that very often is forgotten in the presence of remains that
show similar color, weight, and mineral alteration. The similar
“ fossilization ’’ of the Piltdown bones cannot therefore be determina-
tive, one way or the other.

Thus the original main problem, the genetic and chronological asso-
ciation of the jaw and the teeth with the two skulls, remains much as
it was soon after their discovery, and no amount of thought, discus-
sion, or even re€xamination of the specimens can promise, it seems,
for the present, definite conclusions. The only hope, as in so many
other cases in these lines, lies in new and sufficient discoveries.

In view of all this it must be plain that any far-fetched deductions
from the Piltdown materials are not justified. This applies particu-
larly to the superficially attractive conclusions that the Piltdown

go SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

remains demonstrate the existence in the early Pleistocene, long
before the Neanderthal and even the Heidelberg forms, of men with
practically modern-sized and modern-formed skulls and brains and di-
rectly ancestral to Homo sapiens or recent man. This hypothesis is
a proposition that would change the whole face and trend of human
prehistory, and that against all other and better substantiated evidence
in this line. Such a theory, all science will agree, could only be es-
tablished as a fact by the most ample and satisfactory material
demonstration, which is quite impossible in the present case.

Work in the Piltdown gravels by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward is
progressing ; but because of poor financial support the progress is
both slow and very limited and has not been crowned so far by any
new finds of importance.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

The principal original publications on the Piltdown remains have
been quoted in the course of the preceding account of the specimens.
For the many other contributions see references in the works quoted,
especially those in Gerrit S. Muiller’s papers, including his “ The
Controversy over Human ‘ Missing Links,’’’ Smithsonian Report

for 1928.
HOMO HEIDELBERGENSIS

It is a relief, after the clouds of uncertainty that surround in large
measure the remains of the Pithecanthropus and those of the Eoan-
thropus, to turn to a single, normal, clearly authenticated and well
defined specimen, the lower jaw of Homo heidelbergensis.

The Heidelberg, or more properly Mauer, jaw is one of the oldest
relics of early man. This precious document of man’s evolution is
deposited in the Paleontological Institute of Heidelberg. For its
preservation and thorough description we are indebted to Dr. Otto
Schoetensack, at that time professor of anthropology at Heidelberg
University, who for years had been watching the finds in the sand
pits near Mauer which eventually yielded the specimen. But much
credit in this connection is due also to Herr Joseph Rosch, of Mauer,
the owner of the sand pits in question, who saved the specimen from
destruction, immediately called Prof. Schoetensack’s attention to its
discovery, and eventually donated it unselfishly to science.

The specimen, the lower jaw of an adult male, was discovered
accidentally on October 21, 1907, by two laborers. Both these were
still employed in the quarry at the time of the writer’s first visit to

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA gI

the locality in June, 1912, and they readily related, in company with
Mr. Rosch, who kindly had brought him to the quarry, all the circum-
stances of the find.

The deposits in which the specimen was discovered are located
near the village of Mauer, which lies in the picturesque Elsenz Valley,
six miles (10 km.) southeast from Heidelberg. They form the
moderately elevated undulating northern boundaries of the shallow
valley, at a distance of about 2 miles from the present bed of the river,
and represent in the main the Quaternary accumulations of the
stream. They consist of loess, sand, and gravels, with here and there,
in the deeper layers, isolated flat blocks of red sandstone (pl. 15).

The portion of these deposits owned by Mr. Rosch, located about
500 paces north of the Mauer village, have now been worked, in open
manner, for upward of 30 years, in which time great quantities of
building sand have been removed. During this work, particularly
in the lower strata, the workingmen often unearthed fossil shells and
fossil bones of various Quaternary animals. Many of these specimens
found there way, mostly as gifts of Mr. Rosch, to the Heidelberg
University, and the diggings were repeatedly visited by scientific men,
among them Prof. Schoetensack. Both the owner and the workmen
were enjoined to watch for better preserved specimens, and particu-
larly for anything relating to the presence of man.

On the date of the find, two of the laborers were working in un-
disturbed material at the base of the exposure, nearly 80 feet in depth
from the surface, when one of them suddenly brought out on his
shovel part of a massive lower jaw which the implement had struck
and cut in two. As the men knew it was worth while to carefully
preserve all fossils, the specimen was handled with some care. The
missing half was dug out, but the crowns of four of the teeth broken
by the shovel were not recovered. The men were struck at once with
the remarkable resemblance of the bone to a human lower jaw; but
it looked to them too thick and large to be that of man. They called
Mr. Rosch and he also was bewildered; but he recognized immedi-
ately that the specimen might be of considerable interest to Prof.
Schoetensack and so he took charge of it. Returning to the village he
telegraphed to the professor, who came the next day, and “ once he
got hold of the specimen, he would no more let it out of his posses-
He took it to Heidelberg, cleaned it, repaired it, and in 1908
published its description in an exemplary way.’ Since then the valu-

sion.”

* Schoetensack, Otto, Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis, aus den
Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg, pp. 1-67, 13 pls., Leipzig, 1908.

Q2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

able specimen has been preserved in the Paleontological Institute of
the Heidelberg University, where, thanks to the liberality of those
in charge, it is available for examination to men of science.’

Shortly following the discovery of the jaw a most careful examina-
tion and study were made of the Mauer deposits. They were found
to range from recent accumulations on the surface to Tertiary de-
posits in the lowest layers. The jaw lay a little less than three feet
(0.87 meter) above the floor of the excavation and 79 feet (24.1
meters) from the surface.” The same level, as well as some of the
higher layers, yielded fossil bones of the Elephas antiquus, Rhi-
noceros etruscus, Felis leo fossilis, and various other extinct species.
The age of the human jaw has been determined by these and subse-
quent explorations to be earlier Quaternary, though there seems to
be some uncertainty as yet as to the exact subdivision of the period
to which it should be attributed.

The original specimen, when seen, impresses one at once and po-
tently as one of the greatest anthropological treasures. It is a huge
lower jaw, which looks simultaneously both human and ape-like (pl.
160).

It presents no abnormality or any diseased condition that could
have altered it in shape, so that it may well be regarded as a perfect
representative of its type. The bone is dull yellowish-white to red-
dish in color, with numerous small and large blackish spots. The
crowns of the teeth are dirty creamy white, with blackish discolora-
tions on the somewhat worn-off chewing surfaces of the canines and
incisors, and a few similar spots over the molars; while all the parts
of the teeth beneath the enamel are dull red, as if especially colored.
It is much mineralized and feels more like so much limestone than
bone. It weighs nearly 7 ounces (197 grams on a letter scale).

The jaw is considerably larger and stouter than any other known
human mandible. Its ascending rami are exceedingly broad. Its
coronoid processes, thin and sharp in modern man, are thick, dull,
broad, and markedly everted. The chin slopes backward as in no
human being now known or thus far discovered, with the excep-
tion of the Eoanthropus ; and there are other primitive features. The
total of the characteristics of the bone are such that, had the teeth
been lost, it would surely have been regarded as the mandible of
some large ape rather than that of any human being.

*The writer wishes to thank herewith especially Prof. Wilhelm Salomon,
chief of the Institute, for the courtesies extended.

* The exact spot has been marked by Professor Schoetensack with a stone
monument bearing the inscription: “ Fundstelle des menschlichen Unterkiefers,
21 Oktober, 1907.”

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 93

The teeth of the Mauer jaw, however, are perfectly preserved,
and though large and provided with great roots and in various other
ways primitive, they are unquestionably human teeth. They show
no crowding, no diastemata. The labial cusp of the anterior premolar
was decidedly pointed, the lingual cusp moderate. The teeth force
the conclusion that their possessor, while of heavy, protruding face,
huge muscles of mastication, wide and thick zygomatic arches, thick
skull, probably heavy brows, and possibly not yet quite erect posture,
had nevertheless already stepped over that line above which the being
could decisively be termed human, His food and his mode of life
were related to those of primitive man, and he was already far re-
moved from his primate ancestors with large canines.

The writer will not enter into the minute anatomical details of the
specimen, which have been admirably brought out by Prof. Schoeten-
sack, but will give, in a succinct form, his personal observations on
the specimens.

THE JAW

The jaw is characterized by a negative chin, sloping very distinctly
backward from the vertical.

The total vertical height of the jaw with its teeth, at the symphysis,
is 5.2 cm.; in the normal condition of the teeth (without wear) it
would be about 5.4 cm. This height alone is not very remarkable and
could be matched or even exceeded in jaws of primitive races to-day.’

A very peculiar condition is presented by the lower border of the
jaw anteriorly. This border is arched in a Cupid’s bow, the maximum
elevation of which, above the horizontal, reaches 7 mm. on the right
and 6 mm. on the left side. Such an arching or “ saddle ” is not known
in any other jaw, ancient or recent. The arching extends to beneath
the mental foramina (which are uncommonly large), and passes into
a convexity of the lower border so that the corpus is highest at the
vertical drawn from the first molar. The height diminishes thence
backward in a gentle curve to about the middle of the ascending rami,
where it again increases.

Viewed from below, the anterior arched portion of the body of the
jaw is not excessively massive, and presents no lingual shelf; but is
characterized by a marked bilateral oblong depression for the attach-
ment of the digastric muscles. The oblique line is stout and bulging,
and in proper light is seen to extend in a curve to the root of the
canine; this is seen especially well on the left side. Lingually the

*Compare writer’s “The Anthropology of Florida,” Fla. Hist. Soc., Deland,
Fla., 1922.

94 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

jaw presents a relatively great excess of smooth bone in the anterior
and premolar region, the thickness continuing to the molar region
uniformly on the left, with some irregularity on the right. The
lingual parts of the right molar portion of the jaw, above the
mylohyoid ridge, resemble closely some of the hyperostoses or
strengthenings found in some modern lower jaws, particularly among
the Eskimo.

The ascending rami are not very massive but very broad, and show
an exceedingly shallow notch, particularly on the left side, which adds
much to their unique appearance. The outer surfaces of these ram:
are markedly hollowed out for muscular attachments, except in their
middle portions which are mildly convex. The coronoid processes
are relatively stout and markedly everted.

The condyles differ from those of modern jaws by being of greater
stoutness antero-posteriorly and lesser breadth laterally. Their articu-
lar surface differs also from that of modern jaws, particularly on the
left where the central eminence is very marked, so that looked at
from the back the condyle has a markedly triangular appearance, the
summit of the triangle being dull. The lower and posterior portions
of the ascending rami are, curiously, thinner than they are in many
strong modern jaws. The lingual mental spines are barely discernible
as such; they are represented by a marked rough ridge above which
is a fairly large shallow fossa.

THE TEETH

The teeth of the Mauer jaw present numerous points of interest.
They are larger than modern teeth, with the exception of some of
those found in the more primitive races. They are very regular and
show neither crowding nor diastemata. The curve of Spy is slight.
The crowns of the teeth show moderate wear. Morphologically the
incisors resemble much those of modern man, but are stouter antero-
posteriorly. There is no trace of lingual concavity (shovel-shape).
The canines stand in just about the same relation to the neighboring
teeth, both in size and shape, as they do in modern jaws. They have
no lingual cusps.

The anterior premolar, preserved on the right side, has more the
appearance of a moderate sized canine with a high labial and a much
smaller lingual cusp, than that of an average bicuspid. The crown
of the second premolar is more like that in the modern teeth though
not entirely similar. The molars had evidently five cusps each. The
second molar is the longest and slightly also the broadest of the three.
The third molar is well developed.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 95

MEASUREMENTS AND COMPARISONS

MEASUREMENTS OF THE MAUER JAW

Whole jaw and corpus:

Total median length of whole bone
(from anterior vertical to middle of
base-line of plane formed by apply-
ing a plank to posterior borders of
EhepmAaT ecw heuer ee oe eae

Length of jaw (from the most anterior
point of the alveolar border be-
tween the median incisors, to a
point at corresponding height on
the posterior border of ascending

Breadth:

Bizonialaee Mathes e ee en. oe:
BiCOKOnOldtee ee Aaa en ae oe
Bicondylarasererin tat ee er

Ramus:

Height of ascending ramus (verti-
cal, from line connecting upper-
most points on coronoids and
CONGY1ES) Pere eee en eects

Breadth min. of ascending ramus... .

Condyles:
Transverse diam. max............
AE CLO=POSE.cGAMM sar ce, ois; 2 seen cess

Corpus:

Vertical height in front, jaw and
teeth (from horizontal plane on
which the jaw reposes naturally). .

Vertical height of bone at sym-

Vertical height at 2nd molar........
Thickness of body (at right angles
to vertical diam. of same) in med-
ian line; midway from above......

The Mauer Jaw

Modern Male
German Jaw

Schoetensack Hrdlicka Hrdliéka
Tr. I Ts 1 rr 1
cm, cm. cm. cm cm. cm

close to 10.5 7.5
WB iy «sere \\ Cail 9.0

10.8 10.0

Satets Toler 9.8

13.04 T3T 122
6.63? C275) 10205 0.5. nO. 5
ipl pass OF |e, ZG
he Ox OG |) eS 1.4
107° 103° 106° | £16° 119
DE28 225) eZee hel 2eO 1.95
re TO | erg Tada | Or@ 0.9

5-4 4-5

(5.2+.2 for
wear of teeth)

3.354 35 3-4
ae Safe me Sid 2.9 2.9
3.18 eens aed 228 2.8

Teg Tito! 0.9

96 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

MEASUREMENTS OF THE MAUER JAW—ContTINUED

Modern Male

The Mauer Jaw German Jaw

Schoetensack Hrdli¢ka Hrdli¢ka
tie I r. 1. ts 1.
Corpus: (Cont.) cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. cm.
Thickness, max., in median line...... BEER Bo 1.5
Opposite Pmt; -0s scree ee phee 1.95 2.0 5 Nae by
OppositeIMit. coi aoe oe see wna £85, EO \ Ea 5u, USS
OppositewVies... - etc ee ee 220 2.05 2.08 | 1.5 1.55
OppositeIM.4a5 Bree ase si SI 2525) 2525). 405 1.5
‘Rhicknesssmaxa as 4a c5e sae ee 2535
Dental Arch:
Antero-posterior median diam....... deae 5.85 5.4
Breadth max. (externally).......... fates 7.05 6.4
Index: (STOO) in. e105 w fare etns « eae Seat 83.0 84.4
B
Combined length of the 3 molars,
CROWIS:-bo00 CA VA psi atone eee aaron anes SSS EO OMIESES Bn3

1 The right corpus is longer, the left corpus nearly throughout slightly to perceptibly thicker.
2 Doubtless some difference in method.

3 Error.

4 Too small.

MEASUREMENTS OF THE MAUER JAW TEETH (MOLARS)

Mt M2 M3

Schoeten- Hrdlicka? s EB 5 .
sack!

is 1. ¥: I Ts se r. I; fr: 1. r. 1.

mm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm.jmm. mm.

Length

(antero-

posteriorly)! j11162 2. .2.3)1T-2) 2.6. |T207 a... |P2UG. . ee ae aul 05k Omi
Breadth

(linguo-

labially)i....|21s2 22. \OP.2° 2. . S120). 2 T2407. Se ORO Mik S| heer aAO
Index sacar QO OV rers | LOOPOM <4 OAD Dia ee OGRE aniee 89.3 98.3|91.7 95.7
Length of the 3

molars as

they are In Hrdliéka: 3.6 cm.

! Schoetensack, in his Memoir on the jaw, pp. 54-59, gives detailed measurements and details
on all the teeth, with the results of X-ray examination. Where his and the present writer’s measure-
ments differ slightly the cause must be slight differences in method.

From Hrdli¢ka, A., New Data on the Teeth of Early Man and Certain Fossil Anthropoid
Apes. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 7, p. 100 et seq., 1924. Includes comparative measurements
by same author and methods on many other teeth of anthropoids, early man, and present races.

3 Schoetensack’s measurement is doubtless the maximum, the writer’s that along the median
diameter of the tooth.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 97

The differences of the Mauer jaw from that of a recent German
are very marked, especially in the antero-posterior dimensions of the
whole bone, in its bicoronoid breadth, in the breadth of the ramus,
in the depth of the notch, in the angle, in the antero-posterior diameter
of the condyles, in the thickness of the body, in the proportions of the
dental arch, and in those of the molar teeth.

COMPARISON OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MAUER JAW WITH
THOSE OF A RECENT JAW OF A STRONG MALE ESKIMO!

Mauer | Eskimo Mauer | Eskimo
Whole Bone: Median cm. cm. ||Dental Arch: Median cm. cm.
OH QUEM ore cil tia cos TONS y |) 963 lengthisew....er cic 5.85 | 5.8
Breadth: Breadth: max:, ext: ..|-7.05 | (627
Bigonialtpepcerrr: TORGH eT 2ya Indexire peek Sect 83.0 | 86.6
Bicoronoid........] 11.3 | 9.9 ||Teeth: Length of the 3
Bicondylarsenae aloes molars in position. .| 3.6 3.5
Corpus: Length, mean...} 12.3 | 11.3 Relative Sizes. 2... 54 M2 Mr
Ramus: Mr M2
Height, mean....3 30; 2: 6.85 7iey M3 M3
Breadth min., mean..| 5.1 | 4.95 M1, labiolingual mm. | mm.
Notch, depth max....| 0.8 1.2 dianive sd aresa cera 5d emo 5
INTIS ERE peek tace shes 105° | 118° Maemlengthien sone er Wes || TACO
Condyles: Transverse breadthipeeeeeerer WAPO). | LP)
diate nah eee us 22250 2a index Sree wen 93.7 |102.5
Antero-post. diam....} 1.35 | 1.25
Corpus:
Height less teeth at
SYMphHySiS .. .. <5. =: eee a5
ate Mince crater: B35) SOS
ACUI Dee tees cts aval EOS
Thickness max. at
SYMPHYSISe.2 06 oe - 2.5 2.0
alts Villpsusic rencperscts. © AS 1.8
atv Sere ene 2.07 | 1.85

! No. 339,064, U. S. Nat. Mus.; from Tanunuk, Nelson Island, Western Alaska; collected 1927
by Collins and Stewart.

An even more interesting comparison perhaps will be that of the
Mauer jaw with a recent powerfully developed jaw of an Eskimo
the ascending rami of which, both in their breadth and form, approach
considerably those of the fossil bone. The measurements are given
in the above table.

Notwithstanding the approach of the Eskimo to the Mauer jaw in
various respects it is seen nevertheless that the fossil specimen still
exceeds the recent one in total length in the bicoronoid and bicondylar
breadth, in the antero-posterior diameter of the condyles, in the

98 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

shallowness of the notch, in the thickness of the jaw, and in the
breadth of the dental arch. The Eskimo jaw equals or nearly equals
the Mauer mandible in the breadth of the ramus, in thickness at the
first.molar, in the median length of the dental arch, and in the com-
bined length of the three molars. The Eskimo jaw exceeds the Mauer
specimen in the bigonial breadth, in the height of the ramus, in the
angle (more oblique), in the breadth of the condyles, in the depth of
the notch, and in the height of the corpus throughout its extent. The
teeth of the Eskimo jaw, while large, have nothing of the primitive
characteristics of those in the fossil specimen.

Schoetensack has compared the Mauer specimen with all other
fossil human jaws known up to 1908, the date of the publication of
his Memoir. He found it to be more primitive on the whole than any
other of these specimens and to represent more ancestral conditions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The carefulness of the workmen in the Mauer sand deposits has
been redoubled since the find of the jaw, and the locality has also been
subjected to considerable scientific attention, but thus far without
further important result so far as human remains are concerned. The
specimen found in 1907 became evidently mingled accidentally, and
while still fairly fresh, with the ancient alluvia, wherein by rare good
fortune it was perfectly preserved. Its eventual location was appar-
ently not near a site of the man it represents, for the Mauer sands
and gravels have so far yielded no human artifacts. There can be
but little hope that other parts of the same skull or skeleton will ever
be recovered ; but it is not impossible that the large early accumula-
tions of the Elsenz Valley may inclose and some day yield parts of
some equally early individual which will throw further light on the
physical organization of this most interesting ancient representative
of humankind.

THE RHODESIAN MAN*

On June 17, 1921, a very remarkable human skull was discovered
in the Broken Hill Mine, Northern Rhodesia. It was the skull of a
man whose features were in many ways so primitive that nothing
quite like it had been seen before; and coming from a part of the
world which hitherto had given nothing similar and in which nothing
of that nature was ever suspected, it aroused much scientific attention.

* This section represents a part of the results of the author’s Smithsonian-
Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences Expedition, 1925.

(-yoesusyoyyaS Jo}FV )
SSOID dPTYM & AG PAYTEUI SI pataAoosip seM MeL JoMOT 94} 914M yods oy, “Asszenb stoneyy oy,

GL “1d “€8 “10A SNOILOA1100 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLINS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, FL. 16

1. The Mauer jaw. (After Schoetensack. )

2. The Mauer jaw. (After Schoetensack. )

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 99

Fortunately the specimen was saved with but minor damage, and
later in the same year was brought by the manager of the mine to
the British Museum (Natural History) where, safely preserved,
it constitutes one of the scientific treasures of that Institution.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIND

The detailed circumstances of the find were, however, not as fully
and definitely established from the start as would have been desirable.
The specimen was found and taken out by a miner; there was no
scientific man on the spot, and the wonder is that so much was saved.
The whole occurrence is to the lasting credit of all concerned.

The lack of precise information on certain important points was
soon felt by the students of the subject; and it now seems that even
what was known at first suffered some subsequent confusion. The
sparse data about the Rhodesian find left a desire for more details
regarding the position of the skull, its surroundings, the cave itself
and its fillings, the nature of the animal bones in the cave, the general
region in which the “ broken hill’ with its cave existed, and possible
other remains, as wel! as the native types of the territory. The skull
was so remarkable that every view of it and every further word
published upon it served only to intensify the feeling of need for
more complete information on the above points. It was this motive,
together with the recent discovery of the skull of a highly interesting
anthropoid ape near Taungs, Bechuanaland, that induced the writer
to extend his late journey to South Africa.

The success of his visit to Northern Rhodesia was due largely to
the aid of Professor Dart of Johannesburg, and to the fine men in
charge of the “ Rhodesia Broken Hill Development Company.” Of
the latter particular thanks are due to Messrs. Ross K. Macartney,
the General Manager ; George W. Rudyerd, Assistant General Man-
ager; W. E. Barron, former Captain of the Mine; and G. Chad
Norris, Engineer. But there were many other helping hands, in-
cluding Dr. Wallace, Messrs. Jolly, Swigelaar, Hayward, and still
others, whose assistance is hereby gratefully acknowledged. The
efficient and high-minded officials of the mine deserve the thanks of
the whole scientific world, for it was due only to them that the Rhode-
sian skull was preserved and brought in safety to the British
Museum. These gentlemen extended to the writer every facility.
They would doubtless do this to any other qualified student, and they
will henceforth watch keenly for all further discoveries on the site
and in the vicinity.

TOO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Upon his arrival at Broken Hill the writer was rather astonished
to find the whole region for many miles in every direction to be a
great, loosely forested plateau, perfectly level except for a small
“kopje” situated near the railway tracks as one nears the Broken
Hill mine and settlement. This little hill, only about go feet high,
is said to resemble closely the former “ broken ”’ hill which gave us
the Rhodesian man and which has now been removed through mining
operations.’

The plateau of the town of Broken Hill is 3,874 feet above sea
level. Up to the time of the commencement of mining operations it
was a part of a vast, featureless, more or less openly forested region.
But the minerals in the two kopjes—lead and zinc—may have been
known to the natives in earlier times. At all events, in digging ditches
and in other surface excavations about the mines and in the town,
there are being found, buried as deep as 8 feet below the present
surface, old primitive native smelters, with here and there some
negro pottery indicating probably former burials. Mr. J. H. Hay-
ward in charge of the surface works, has found such an old primitive,
probably negro smelter under the roots of a big tree, and he led the
writer to a ditch where 6 to 8 feet below the surface were seen im situ
large fragments of thick black native pottery. There evidently existed
here at one time a native settlement, the men of which worked some
ore. The smelters may, however, have been used for iron or other
metal than those found in the two small local hills.

The “broken” kopje consisted of hard dolomitic limestone im-
pregnated with lead, zinc salts, and vanadium. It was originally full
of crevices and holes, and had, as shown in the course of mining, at
least two large caves leading deep into the interior. The cave of spe-
cial interest became known as the bone cave. In the course of time it
had become filled with sand, soil, bones of animals, and detritus of
various kinds, which in turn were impregnated by seepage carrying in
solution mineral salts and lime. The salts formed incrustations on the
walls, here and there new ore deposits, and in general consolidated
most of the contents, bones included, into “‘ pay ore.”

The kopje that yielded the ‘‘ Rhodesian skull”? was situated ap-
proximately northwest to west of the present railroad station, and
was about 50 feet high by 250 feet in its longer diameter. This entire

*In one of the accounts to be quoted later mention is made of several such
small hills, but only one and the remains of the one that gave the skull were seen
by the writer.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN HRDLICKA IOI

elevation has now disappeared and where once was a hill is now a
deep hole, in and about which mining operations are still energetically
conducted (1925).

Mining by white men is said to have begun at Broken Hill in
1895. Information about these times is hazy. The tradition is that
the “broken hill” before mining looked much like the kopje now
remaining ; that its weathered and irregular surface was, as already
said, honey-combed with holes and crevices ; but that apparently none
of the openings led to the great cave filled with bones, débris, and
ore, which in 1921 gave the Rhodesian man.

The main part of the bone cave appears to have been entered by
the miners accidentally in the course of their operations; it was
partly excavated and found to contain large quantities of more or less
mineralized animal bones, with some stone implements. Of this oc-
currence there are reliable records.’ The initial notes on the subject
are of such value, and at least one of the reports is so difficult to
find, that the relevant parts are reproduced in full at the end of this
section.

So much for the earlier information about the Broken Hill cave,
and nothing further appears to have been said in print about it until
the latter part of 1921, when the Bulawayo and other South African
papers brought news about the discovery of the “ Rhodesian skull.”

These earlier reports of which the writer saw copies at the office
of the Broken Hill Development Company, are of the usual news-
paper style and, beyond signalling the discovery, give little of value.
The first more detailed notices of the find appeared on November 8, 9,
10, and II, 1921, in the London “ Times.” Shortly after that, on
November 17, the first brief scientific report of the find was published
in “ Nature” by Dr. A, Smith Woodward; and on November 109,
a comprehensive and gorgeously illustrated report by W. E. Harris,’
as well as a description of the skull itself by Sir Arthur Keith, was
carried by the “ Illustrated London News,” with the addition of an
ingenious restoration of the race of men represented by the specimen.

Four years (1925) have elapsed since then. In their course at least
eight further brief scientific contributions on the subject of the
“Rhodesian Man ” have seen light. And the skull, with the type and
age of the human form to which it belonged, remains still largely a
puzzle. Moreover, errors of a serious nature have crept into the

*Mennell, F. P., and Chubb, E. C., On an African Occurrence of Fossil Mam-
malia Associated with Stone Implements. Geol. Mag., n. s., Decade V, Vol. 4,
P. 444 et seq., Jan—Dec., 1907. See Appendix I.

* See Appendix II,

102 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

accounts of the circumstances of the discovery, and these have already
materially affected important conclusions.

What one learns definitely from the early notices of Broken Hill,
by one of the chief officials of the mine (Engineer Franklin White),
is that about 1907 the bone cave was found accidentally in tunneling
operations ; that it was not known to have any outward opening ; that
it was nearly filled with large quantities—many tons—of more or less
mineralized bones, clay, débris, and ore ; and that with the bones were
fairly numerous quartz and chert implements, resembling in general
those of Bushmen and perhaps other African natives of protohistoric
and prehistoric times.

Some of the implements and bones were saved through the in-
strumentality of Mr. White and donated to the Bulawayo Museum.
They were later studied by Mennell and Chubb. Still later the bones
came to the British Museum and were examined by Andrews. They
were diagnosed, with one probable exception, as belonging to recent
forms of Rhodesian mammals. There were no human bones in the
collection. The archeological objects were noted but the find was not
followed up.

Then came the accidental great discovery of 1921. Again there was
no scientific expert on the spot and none came after. The details
were not noted in writing. The news circulated in the South African
papers, but there was no authoritative account; the reports differed
among themselves and included inaccuracies.

Five months after the discovery, the skull and a number of human
as well as other bones were brought to England by Mr. Macartney,
the manager of the mine, and were generously donated by the com-
pany to the British Museum (Natural History). No written state-
men accompanied the donation. But from the oral account of Mr.
Macartney, and above all from the good illustrated article by William
E. Harris, an official of the mine, in ‘‘ The Illustrated London News,”
November 19, 1921, there became established a notion of the details
of the find which was gradually adopted by all writers on the skull
and which is responsible for serious uncertainties. Above all it
became an accepted idea that several human bones brought to England
with the skull were found with the cranium and belong to the same
individual or the same people, and from the characteristics of these
bones deductions were made as to the morphological and even chrono-
logical status of the Rhodesian man. Some measurements of the
skull and bones were published, also a few observations and thoughts
on the endocranial cast which represents the brain; a tacit expectation

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 103

was reached that a complete report on the case was being prepared by
Doctor Smith Woodward; and active interest was gradually trans-
ferred to new discoveries.

These were the data and such was the state of affairs when the
opportunity to visit the Broken Hill locality came to the writer during
the summer of 1925.

THE WRITER’S INVESTIGATION IN 1925

With the utmost cooperation of the officials of the mine, and in
fact, of every one approached, the first task was to learn on the spot
as much as possible of the history of the 1921 discovery. This unex-
pectedly proved no easy matter, owing to the scarcity of old employees,
but especially to the uncertainties of memory of those who had been
present at that time. The following nevertheless appeared to be the
consensus of the recollections :

Before mining began in this craggy “broken” kopje there was
nothing to indicate the presence of any human habitations about the
hill. If there was anything it was not conspicuous and escaped notice.

Mining was carried on from a side, but due to the conditions of the
mineral deposits, work was later commenced also from the top, pro-
ceeding downwards. During the earlier operations from the side, a
good-sized cave or fissure was reached and found to contain dirt,
ores, and numerous bones. The bones were those of animals; if any
others were present they were not noticed. They were mostly so
mineralized that they were in the main smelted with the rest of the
ore, and after the first impressions received little further attention.

When the excavations from the top reached in the center to ap-
proximately 90 feet below the surface of the ground surrounding the
kopje, a large inclined plane was opened to the central funnel from
near the side at which the original work began. At some distance this
plane once more encountered the large bone crevice that had been
discovered before. The crevice here passed obliquely across part of
the incline, and, as in the portion seen earlier, was filled with detritus,
bones of bats or rodents, ore, and more or less mineralized bones of
larger animals. The extent and contents of this cave or crevice were
only learned gradually in the course of the prolonged work of mining.

After the inclined plane reached the bottom of the central excava-
tion, some of the workmen were directed to turn back and work on
the ore and stone exposed by the plane; and it was in these parts,
not long after, at a level of approximately 60 feet below the surface,
that a Swiss miner, Mr. T. Zwigelaar, working with his black ‘‘ boy ”
in some softer fillings, was confronted after a stroke of the boy’s
pick with the Rhodesian skull.

104 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

It is to the lasting credit of this miner that the specimen was care-
fully taken out, saved, brought to the attention of his superiors, and
reached the right hands. These hands, at the advice of the manager
of the mine, were those of the company physician, Dr. A. F. Wallace,
and he safeguarded the specimen for three weeks in his office. It was
then taken in charge by the manager, Mr. Macartney, to be later in
the year personally transported by Mr. Macartney to the British
Museum. There was much more to the story than here expressed,
and some of the details were stated differently by different persons,
but the above appear to be the simple essentials.

After learning the generalities and being shown over the mine by
Mr. Rudyerd, the writer endeavored to reach personally every man
concerned with the find or on the spot at that time, who might still
be found at Broken Hill or reached through the mails, in order to
obtain from each one independently as detailed and circumstantial
information about the discovery as it might still be possible to get.
As only four years had elapsed since the time of the find, it was
hoped that a number of the men who were concerned with it would
still be found on the spot and that their memories of the find would
still be quite clear and reliable.

As good fortune would have it, before the writer’s departure from
Broken Hill he was able to locate and interview five of the men con-
cerned from the beginning in the discovery, including Mr. Zwigelaar
who actually found the skull; and a sixth one was reached later by
a letter. Each of these men was most willing to tell all he knew ; but
their memories regrettably were no longer clear as to the particu-
lars. However, what was obtained is not without importance.

The most noteworthy information is that of the discoverer of the
specimen, Mr. Zwigelaar. He was found to be a serious middle-aged
man, not highly educated but of good common sense, and he tried
hard to give the main facts of the find as he remembered them. The
gist of his statements, repeated and reasserted, follows:

It was about 10 a. m. one day. We were working back from the incline at its
lower part. I had a colored boy (young man) with me and we were “ hand pick-
ing” in a pocket where there was much lead ore. The digging was not hard, not
like stone, more loose. After one of the strokes of the pick some of the stuff
fell off, and there was the skull looking at me. It was very strange and with
some of the matter adhering to it looked so unlike an ordinary human skull
that I thought it was a big gorilla. I took it out carefully, showed it to the

officials of the mine and others, and later that day brought it in to Mr. Macartney
who in turn sent it to Dr. Wallace. Soon after the find was made Mr. Macartney

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 105

(I believe) took a photograph of me holding the skull against the place where
it came from (pl. 18),’ and other photographs were taken also.

The skull was at some depth under the pure lead ore and, as far as I can recall,
about 10 feet below what seemed to be the floor of the bone cave further away.
Where we were then I could see no connection between the material about the
skull or the pocket it was in and the bone cave, though it may have been [and
later was shown to be] the same old crevice. They were separated by the lead
ore and the stuff in which the skull lay. That ore was very rich; it was not hard
though necessitating the use of a pick. There was much of it further in and above.

There were no other bones close to or near the skull, and no other objects that
aroused attention. But a little later and not far below the skull we came on a
sort of a bundle which looked like a flattened roll of hide standing nearly upright ;
the “hide” was thick and was of ore; it showed no remains of a real hide but
looked somewhat like it. Pieces of it were removed and shown about, the rest
was smelted. There was nothing within the “roll’—no bones nor any other
object.

The skull was surrounded by softer stuff. There was something like bat bones.
There were hard and soft spots in the digging. Next day we looked for the
lower jaw but nothing was found.

Some time afterwards, but on the same day, we found outside of where the
bundle was and to one side of it, about three feet away as near as I can remem-
ber, the leg bone of a man. There were no other bones. Later and lower was
found a skull said to be that of a lion; but that was not found by me.

The skull was taken first to the manager’s office and from there to the doctor’s.
That’s all I know.

So much for Mr. Zwigelaar. On repeated questioning, his account
remained the same. He was positive the skull was alone, without the
lower jaw and without any other bones in association. He also was
positive that there was no covering of the skull and that the “ roll”
lay lower and not in connection with the specimen, Directly behind
the skull were some bat bones.

The next most important person still present at Broken Hill was
the mining captain at the time of the discovery of the skull, Mr. W.
E. Barron. Mr. Barron was found at the site of the new dam and
power tunnel about 20 miles from Broken Hill, and was brought back
to the mine. Unfortunately his recollections of the details of the dis-
covery were already hazy. However he produced an old note book in
which he had written, shortly after the find was made (a day or two
later) the following valuable notes:

“Old Bone Cave: Skull found at side of incline about 60 feet
level, by Zwigelaar, 17-6-21. A mass of small bones (probably bat
bones) all around it.

"This precious and unique photograph was loaned by Mr. Zwigelaar to the
writer and is here reproduced.

106 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

“Tn afternoon of same day big portions of animal skull with teeth
in good condition (apparently lion) found in same place (speaking
generally) by Angelo.”

All other information regarding this lion’s skull is to the effect that
it was found at some distance away from the skull, possibly as much
as 8 or 10 feet, and at a considerably lower level. It was impossible
to ascertain conclusively what had become of this specimen. There
is a somewhat mineralized lion’s skull, proceeding doubtless from
some part of the bone cave, in Mr. Macartney’s office and it may be
the specimen in question; or it may have been forwarded to the
British Museum.

Mr. Barron assured the writer also that in the same digging there
was found an artificially made quartz ball about 3 or a little over
3 inches in diameter (size of a fist). Zwigelaar upon re-interrogation
in the presence of Mr. Barron was sure that there were no bones
whatever, human or animal, near the human skull except the bat
bones; neither could he remember anything about the stone ball. A
stone ball answering to the description was later brought to the writer
with a statement that it came from somewhere in the end part of the
crevice, and was taken by him with other objects to the Museum at
South Kensington. However, other similar balls from the cave had
also been taken to the Museum with the skull in 1921 (see page 122).

Mr. Barron’s name in the English records of the find is given as
“Barren,” and as in the same records he is reported as the discoverer
of the skull, the writer asked him for a written statement on both
points. The result was the following letter which settles both
questions : |

Mu.Luncusul, R. B. H. D. Co. Ltp.
Broken Hit, N. RHopEsIA
12TH DEc., 1925
Dear Mr. HebiicKa:

I was very glad to get your letter. I have come across the correspondence
of December, 1921, which I mentioned to you, and, as it has bearing on the whole
matter connected with the skull I am enclosing it all for your perusal. The copy
of my letter to Mr. Moffat I have just made from a pencilling I had with the
others.

It was Zwigelaar and his boy who saw the skull i situ and extracted it, and
Zwigelaar brought it to my office. I was Mine Captain in charge of mining
operations.

The collar bone and the case referred to in my letter to Mr. Moffat were cer-
tainly in the close vicinity of the skull, and we attributed them to the same
skeleton at the time, the casting being taken for the fossilised remains of the skin
he was wearing.....

With kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,
(Signed) W. E. Barron.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 107

The “ December 1921 letter to Mr. Moffat” referred to above,
reads as follows:

DEAR Mr. Morrat:

I got your letter about the skull.

The following is from my note book: “Old Bone Cave: Skull (which might
be either man or monkey) found East side of Incline about 60 ft. level by T.
Zwigelaar 17-6-1921.

“A mass of small bones (probably bat bones) all around it.

“In afternoon of same day big portion of skull with teeth in good condition
(apparently lion) found in same place by Angelo. Block P 7.”

I gave the above in my report, either fortnightly or monthly, of the period,
which could be obtained from the Mine office in Broken Hill.

A spherical stone implement, a collar bone* and a lot of casting (fossilised
skin or matting) were found practically in the same place.

I have brought away with me none whatsoever of the bones or implements.

The skull, and a number of other fossilised bones which Dr. Wallace (of
Broken Hill) considered of special interest,” were packed in a box for Mr. Mac-
artney to take to London with him.

There was quite an interesting lot of bones shelved in the office and the tool
hut at the mine when I left. Mr. Macfarlane, my assistant, who took over from
me, will know of them.°

One huge bone which appeared to be the thigh of an elephant or something of
that kind, Mr. Macfarlane should have no difficulty in sorting out from the tool
hut; an assay of a portion of it gave about 8 per cent Pb. and 4 per cent Zn;
it was got from about the 4o ft. level many months ago. Another of special
interest is in the Survey Office behind the Engineer’s Office; it has the appear-
ance of having been an elephant’s hip bone or something of that sort, also from
about 40 ft. level.

As the skull which is attracting so much attention was got from the East side
of the incline at about 60 ft. level, and a great deal of bone débris is probably
still intact in the incline itself, things should be watched with great interest when
the time comes for mining away of the incline when hoisting commences at

No. 2 shaft.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed ) W. E. Barron.

Another old employee, who was present at the time of the discovery
of the “ Rhodesian Man” and who saw the specimen shortly after
it was discovered, could give no details of value, The importance of
the find was not appreciated, no special effort was made to go into
details, and the incident passed out of memory.

* No such bone was remembered by Zwigelaar, and no such specimen is in the
British Museum (Natural History).

* This phrase deserves close attention. There is no intimation that these bones
were associated with the skull.

* This is doubtless one of the lots of bones found by the writer; see later.

108 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The manager of the mine, Mr. Macartney, remembers clearly the
main items relating to the find. He saw the skull shortly after dis-
covery and he also saw the place where it was found. He feels certain
that the softer spot in which the skull lay contained quantities of
detritus with bats’ bones. He also remembers a thick layer (about
30 feet) of very pure and not very solid lead ore that lay between
that part of the crevice or cave that contained the skull and the bulk
of the cavity which was filled with more or less mineralized animal
bones, detritus, etc. There is uncertainty as to a possible connection
of the contents of the two portions of the cave under the ore.

Dr. Wallace very kindly gave the writer a written account of his
recollections. They are as follows:

I only heard about the skull about two weeks after it was found. It was then
at the Mine office, and the General Manager, Mr. Macartney, sent it down to
my surgery where I had it for three weeks. I am quite sure that the lower jaw
was never found. The skull was sent to me with a few other bones in a box.
Amongst these bones was what might have been a human tibia. I did not recog-
nize any of the other bones as being of human origin.’

Mr. Armstrong, who at the time was the metallurgist here, took a great inter-
est in the skull. It was he who first told me about it. I think that among the
bones sent with the skull were two pieces of what Mr. Armstrong thought was
some fossilized material that had been wrapped round the body. Mr. Armstrong’s
idea was that this had been an animal’s skin. I think Mr. Armstrong has a piece
of this in his possession but I am not sure.

One of the teeth in the skull was loose and could be lifted out. When I sent
the skull and the other bones back to the Mine Office I sent the tooth with them.

The writer then wrote to Mr. Armstrong, who meanwhile had
moved to Australia, and received from him the following notes :*

SYDNEY, 21ST DECEMBER, 1925
Dear Mr. HrpiicKa:

I was extremely pleased to hear from Dr. Wallace of your visit to Broken Hill,
and much regret that I was not there. .... I was informed of the find a few
minutes after the skull had been unearthed, and immediately went to the mine
and collected all the bones exposed in the immediate vicinity.’ The bones which
were eventually taken to Kensington Museum proved to be (1) part of a human
lower [upper] jaw; (2) a human leg bone; (3) a lion’s skull.

At the time of the discovery I was in charge of the Works only and had no
authority at the Mine.... . No systematic search was made for further impor-

tant bones and the skull with the bones I had collected was left in the Mines
Shelter Office.

*This is an important statement, made by one well acquainted with human
bones.

2 ° °
Certain personal references omitted.
A :
Statements plainly somewhat erroneous.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 109

In 1922 I left Broken Hill and came to Australia. At the request of Professor
Burkitt I called at the Sydney University and gave him particulars of the find.
I left the sample to which you refer with him. It was not a bundle (I know noth-
ing of any bundle being found) ; it was part of a protective covering which com-
pletely encased the skull.t. This had been broken off before I arrived at the mine.
The importance I place on this is due to the fact that none of the other bones
in the vicinity had any such covering.

In August, 1922, I went to London and called upon Professor Woodward at
the Kensington Museum. He showed me the skull and the various bones which
had been delivered to him by Mr. Macartney and I recognized the ones which he
stated were the lower [upper] jaw, and the leg bone and the lion’s skull—these
were all discovered within a foot of the skull.’

I know little of anthropology, but from the geological point of view and from
close observation of the so-called “cave” in which the skull was found, I con-
sider there is proof of a much greater age than the estimate given by Woodward.

Yours truly,
(Signed ) A. S. ARMSTRONG.

The foregoing documents make it only too evident that the exact
details of the rare find were recorded by no one; and that the re-
membrance of them has in the course of time become more or less
confused even in those who were on the spot soon after the discovery.
The statement of Mr. Harris in “ The Illustrated London News”
(see Appendix) made five months after the event is doubtless no less
faithful but also no less defective than the others.

Hoping that something more precise might have been given to the
British Museum (Natural History), the writer turned to Dr. Bather,
the present Keeper at that Museum of the Department of Geology
and Palaeontology, and was very kindly furnished with copies of all
the official entries relating to the find and an earlier collection from
the same cave. They read as follows:

November 15, 1921 Franklin White, Esq.,
3379 1ta Harrington Gardens, S. W. 7.

Four stone implements and three pieces of worked bone collected by the donor
in a cavern in the Broken Hill Mine, N. W. Rhodesia.

November 24, 1921 The Directors of the Rhodesia Broken Hill
3382 Development Company, Ltd.,
(per Edmund Davis, Esq., Chairman),
19 St. Swithin’s Lane, E. C. 4.

A primitive human skull, with part of maxilla of a second skull, a sacrum,
three pieces of femora, and a tibia; also seven associated bones of mammals, and
two round pounding stones; found in a cavern at the Broken Hill Mine, N. W.
Rhodesia.

‘Statements plainly somewhat erroneous.
* Error.

110 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

May 8, 1922 Franklin White, Esq.,
3438 19 St. Swithin’s Lane, E. C. 4.

Collection of stone implements from Broken Hill cave and other localities in
South Africa.

As the collective sifted result of the information obtained from all
quarters, with the results of the personal inspection of the mine and
of what remained of the bone cave, and with the impressions left by
the different men associated with the finds, the conclusion is that the
real conditions had probably been somewhat as follows:

The “bone cave” was an extensive irregular crevice running for
120-150 feet inward and downward from near the outer base of the
hill and reaching the maximum depth below the surface of about
70 feet.

There is no recollection of the mouth of the “ cave” and this may
have been covered or obstructed. Inside, the crevice enlarged to a
cavern which at its maximum measured probably over 30 feet in
breadth and twice as much in height.

For some distance from the mouth of the cavern the floor of the
latter was nearly level or but moderately inclined, then there was a
steeper descending slope, and after that the crevice ran irregularly
downward and inward.

The outer part of the cavern was largely filled with more or less
mineralized and consolidated bones of animals, cave detritus, large
quantities of bones of bats or small rodents and nondescript earthy
material, the walls being covered with crystals of the ores of zinc
and vanadium. The larger bones were distributed unequally through
the filling of the cave, in some places there being large quantities of
them, in others few or none. They extended to and beyond the descent
in the floor.

The lowest and innermost part of the cavern was filled by detritus,
some bones, and a considerable layer or rather layers of very pure
and more or less crumbly lead ore. The ore contained no bones or
foreign substance; but it is not absolutely known whether the con-
tents of the distal part of the cavern had a direct connection with
the materials in the large outer portion through or underneath this
lead ore.

The skull was found at some distance beneath a layer of this ore,
which was according to Mr. Zwigelaar’s recollection, about 10 feet
thick. It was not itself embedded in the ore, but in a detrital material
not mineralized to any extent, and containing a quantity of “ bat”
bones.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA III

The skull was an isolated object. It lay upright. There was no
lower jaw, nor any other bone in apposition, Beneath it, at some dis-
tance, was what looked like a large flattened skin bundle, thoroughly
mineralized. This was probably a natural laminar formation of the
lead ore. Barring a few fragments it was smelted.

Somewhere in the vicinity of the lower portion of this “ bundle ”
was found a remarkably straight, but otherwise not peculiar, full-
sized male human tibia, and lower at some distance were portions of
a mineralized lion’s skull. In the vicinity there may have been found
also some other human fragments, but here much is uncertain.

The larger part of the bone contents of the main part of the cave
were so mineralized that they passed for a good grade of zinc ore and
were smelted as such. Various portions of the cave fillings, however,
were poorer and were brought out and thrown on a dump where,
covered by poor rock and débris thrown out subsequently, they still
repose. The ground and débris in the dump are still full of fragments
and pieces of bone, with teeth, chips of quartz, etc.

Only traces of the great cave now remain in the mine, and as the
work progresses they will disappear. The opposite wall of the mine
shows an even larger old cavern, completely filled with less consoli-
dated and somewhat darker materials than the surrounding rock.
This cave has given no bones.

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

While gathering this information the writer learned casually that
some of the loose bones from the bone cave—exact parts unknown
were saved and might possibly still be found in some of the offices
and tool huts of the mine. Accordingly as soon as possible a search
was instituted in company with Mr. Rudyerd, and before long several
lots of such bones were located in the main office, in the designer’s
room, in another small office, and in two small huts near the mine.
Those in the main office were in a case with a series of mineral
specimens from the mine, and represented especially bones enclosed
in mineral matrix; the bones in the other places were loose and not
encrusted, only more or less covered with earth and dust. All the
bones, however, showed more or less mineralization.

In addition the officials of the Company very kindly gave the
services of two “ boys,” with whose help digging was begun into the
old dump, with the result that in two days numerous additional bones
and teeth were added to those already located. All this material was
then washed, dried, spread out on a large designer’s table and sorted.

9

IIi2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Even before this, however, while handling the dusty bones in the
designer’s office and in the tool house, the writer had found among
them in the former place a large portion of the distal end of a human
humerus, and in the hut a piece of a human parietal. Both of these
specimens showed the same mineralization as the rest of the numerous
bones and were plainly parts of the same lots. As there is not the
slightest intimation that these many scores of animal bones, some
of them very conspicuous, were found anywhere near the Rhodesian
skull, they probably all proceed from other parts of the cave; and as
the human bones among them were of the same color and mineraliza-
tion, there is a strong probability that they were with these bones
where they lay. Which means that human bones were found also else-
where in the crevice, a fact having an important bearing on some at
least of the human bones brought to England with the skull.

The total of several hundreds of animal bones proved to be of
very considerable interest, and established in a short time the true
nature of the bone cave. As they were sorted, bone by bone, it was
seen first of all that they represented a very large variety of mammals
with some birds and possibly one or two larger reptiles. The mass
of the bones belonged to ungulates, but there were also a few carnivy-
ora. Nearly all the bones, however, showed characteristic old breaks
and cleavings. The skulls and even the horns were all broken into
large pieces; the hip bones and shoulder blades were broken much
and irregularly ; while the long bones, even those of the larger birds,
were generally broken at or near their middle, in addition to which
a number of the extremities of the tibia and femur were cleft in
two longitudinally so as to expose the whole cavity. There were no
marks of teeth on the bones, not even of the teeth of rodents, and
little of damage outside the main breaks, But these breaks were
produced, it was seen again and again, not accidentally or by the
teeth of animals, but by man; and not by sharp cutting and cleaving
tools, but evidently by stone implements.

The lesson was clear. These were the bones of animals utilized for
food by some native group of men, and the bones had been purposely
and systematically broken by these men to get at the marrow. The
horns were broken for the same purpose. Moreover a number of the
bones showed more or less the effects of fire ; and in several instances
there were found two or three pieces of what was originally the same
bone, or again two bones proceeding plainly from the same animal.
The lower halves of the two humeri of a young hyena, broken in the
same manner as the other bones, were among the collection.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA II3

All this indicates that the cave had been used for a long time by some
group of native population as a habitation, or at least as a place where
parts of animals were brought, cooked or roasted, and eaten. Among
the bones the writer found a few flakes, and a piece of quartz that
may have been partly shaped by man. It had a good cutting edge
which would have been serviceable. The main bone cave may there-
fore confidently be characterized as a cave of prolonged occasional
or permanent human habitation in some part of the past, perhaps
not very far distant. How far will depend on the identification of
the animal forms whose bones were left in the cave. Bones from the
outer part of the cave identified previously were, we have seen, prac-
tically all of forms that are still living.

The newly found human bones proceed from two skeletons; the
arm bone is that of a strong adult male; the parietal, rather thin, is
probably that of an adolescent. They apparently have no connection
with the “ Rhodesian skull.” But lying as they did among the broken
animal bones, and in the case of the humerus being fractured cross-
wise by a blow as was the rule with the animal bones, a suspicion
is aroused that they may have belonged to human beings who suffered
the same fate as the animals. The new evidence throws no light either
upon the racial character or the antiquity of the remarkable cranium.

The two new human fragments, the mammalian teeth and a se-
lection of the animal bones were deposited by the writer, together with
a quartz ball and the above mentioned stone, in the British Museum
(Natural History), South Kensington, so that they might be with the
Rhodesian skull and the other specimens collected previously. On
this occasion the writer was able once more to examine the Rhodesian
skull and also the other human bones that were received with the
skull. They are: a portion of a separate upper jaw with two teeth;
a tibia; two parts of a male adult femur; one shaft of a female
adult (?) femur ;a large part of a right female (large notch) os coxae;
a large part of a male ilium (small notch) ; and one sacrum. Of these
the upper jaw, mineralized, is somewhat different in color from the
skull. While it is considerably heavier than normal, morphologically
it is in all ways like the jaw of a modern negro, with modern
teeth, and bears no resemblance to the corresponding part of the
Rhodesian skull. The tibia is much more reddish-brown than the
skull; the female femur is light ochre-yellow ; the male femur pale to
blackish-brown with thick walls. One of the pelvic parts is near in

II4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

color to the skull, the other is distinct." The male femur is in two
parts, with the middle portion missing; the breaks are old and both
fragments show superficial slivering from knocks.

The writer feels strongly that these bones should not be associated
with the Rhodesian skull. They are all in every respect of modern
form and size. They may belong to the contents of other parts of the
cave, or at least to entirely different human beings. All, with the
exception of the tibia, show old breaks, which may be an indication
of cannibalism. At least it may be said that it would be unsafe, before
further evidence may throw more light upon the matter, to build on
the basis of these bones any conclusions as to the skeletal characters
of the original owner of the Rhodesian skull.

As to studies of the Rhodesian remains, Dr. A. Smith Wood-
ward gave two preliminary notices of the find,’ and notes on the
skull were published later by Eugene Dubois,’ Sera,* Martin,’ Ham-

*In this connection the writer is glad to print the following letter referring
to something that may, but apparently does not wholly, account for the differ-
ences in color and consistency of the bones (particularly one of the femurs) in
question :

Department of Geology, British Museum (Natural History),
2 March, 1926.
Dear Dr. HrviicKa:

I have just had occasion to read your letter of the 12th November, 1925, ad-
dressed to Dr. Bather. In it you state that the skeletal remains from Broken
Hill differ from the skull and from each other in colour and state of mineralisa-
tion. May I point out that this is not really the case, and that the reason for
varying colour is a difference in method of treatment by the preparators? The
skull was painted over with a thin solution of shellac soon after it was received
here; this darkened the colour a little. The remainder of the bones, with the
exception of the two innominates, were soaked in “ wulfite” about 12 months
ago. This caused the dark colour and also increased the weight very considerably.
The innominates have not been treated in any way; they represent the original
condition of all the others.

Yours truly,
(Signed ) ArtHur T. Hopwoop.

* Woodward, Arthur Smith, A New Cave Man from Rhodesia, South Africa.
Nature, Vol. 108, pp. 371-372, 1921; The Problem of the Rhodesian Fossil Man.
Sci. Progress, Vol. 16, pp. 574-579, 1922.

“Dubois, Eugene, On the Cranial Form of Homo neanderthalensis and of
Pithecanthropus erectus Determined by Mechanical Factors. Konink. Akad.
Wetensch. Amsterdam, Vol. 24, pp. 313-332, 1922.

*Sera, G. L., Rivista di Biologia, Vol. 4, p. 2, 1922.

* Martin, R., Der neue Schadelfund von Rhodesia. Mannus, Z. f. Vorgeschr.,
1922.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 115

bruch,’ and Boule, while Elliot Smith,* commented mainly on the
brain. The most complete account of the specimen so far published,
however, is that of Sir Arthur Keith in the recent second edition of
his “Antiquity of Man”’;* but unfortunately it includes some of the
misinformation about the circumstances of the discovery (p. 382,
upper paragraph) with its consequences.

The writer did not wish to anticipate the eventual description of
the specimen by his English colleagues. But he has been kindly al-
lowed to take a few measurements on the original, and these measure-
ments, with those previously published by others, are given in the
table on page 130. The specimen is difficult to measure, which, with
instrumental imperfections, doubtless accounts for some of the dif-
ferences in individual determinations.

CRITICAL REMARKS

The Rhodesian find of 1921 is more complex than has been gener-
ally appreciated. Due to the absence on the spot of any scientific
man exact details of the find have not been ascertained. Of what was
learned but little was recorded, and of the rest much has since become
confused. The precise circumstances of the discovery are therefore,
and must remain, deficient.

The main part of the bone cavern was evidently for a long time a
habitat or feasting place of late Africans, bushmen or negro. The
larger bones were none of them brought in by animals, but were the
remains of the repasts of the black man. A very large majority were
broken for the marrow. Similarly broken human bones suggest
cannibalism. There were apparently no human burials in the cave.
How the strange Rhodesian skull got in is inexplainable.

The skull was found alone in the lowest and most remote part of
the cave, some distance beneath considerable accumulations of soft
pure lead ore. There was neither lower jaw nor skeleton. One human
bone, the tibia, and parts of a lion’s skull, it is well established, lay
from a few to about ten feet from and at a lower level than the skull.

*Hambruch, P., Der Schadel von Broken Hill Mine in Nord Rhodesia. Arch.
{. Anthrop., Vol. 19, pp. 52-56, 1923.

* Boule, M., Fossil Man, Edinburgh, pp. 481-486, 1923.

*Smith, G. Elliot, Brit. Med. Journ., 1922, I, 197; Atlantic Monthly, Apr.,
1922.

“London, Vol. 2, pp. 377-393, 5 illustrations, 1925.

See also “ The Sufferings of the Rhodesian Man,” Lancet, 1922, pp. 1206-7;
and Siffre—“ L’ineptitude dentaire des hommes préhistoriques,” La Semaine den-
taire, Vol. 7, Nos. 12 and 13, pp. 300-308, 322-328, 1925.

116 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

As to the other human bones deposited at the British Museum with
the skull, and those now added, all that may be said is that they
proceed from several skeletons of modern size and form; that some
of them, at least, probably came from other parts of the cave; and
that there is no proof, and but a remote possibility, of any of them
belonging to the skull.

The skull itself is positively not the skull of any now known Afri-
can types of man or their normal variants. Neither is it any known
pathological monstrosity, such as gigantism or leontiasis. It is a most
remarkable specimen of which the age, provenience, history, and
nature are still anthropological puzzles.

Morphologically the skull is frequently associated now with the
Neanderthal type of Europe. This may be fundamentally correct,
but only to that extent. In its detailed characteristics the specimen
in some respects is inferior, in others superior to anything known as
yet of the Neanderthal man.

Meanwhile mining operations at Broken Hill are proceeding. They
will gradually do away with what may still remain of the former bone
crevice; and they will soon, if they have not already, involve the
second kopje with its crevices. All this work should be intently
watched, for any day it may uncover new evidence of much im-
portance.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM REPORT ON THE RHODESIAN REMAINS

While the preceding was in preparation the long expected British
Museum report on the Rhodesian remains appeared. It is a compound
report, by 8 authors, with an introduction by Dr. Bather.* The skeletal
remains are not described by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, but by the
zoologist of the Museum, Mr. Pycraft;* while the brain, as seen
from an endocranial cast, is ably studied by Professor Elliot Smith.

Dr. Bather’s succinct preface and introduction, in view of the
history of the find as published in 1925-26 and recorded in the pre-
ceding pages, leaves the student unsatisfied.

* Rhodesian Man arid Associated Remains. British Museum, London, 1928.
Preface and Introduction by F. A. Bather, pp. iii-iv, ix-xiii. Description of the
Skull and Other Human Remains from Broken Hill, by W. P. Pycraft, pp. 1-51,
3 pls., 11 figs. Endocranial Cast Obtained from the Rhodesian Skull, by G. Elliot
Smith, pp. 52-58, 7 figs. The Pathology of the Left Temporal Bone of the Rhode-
sian Skull, by M. Yearsley, pp. 59-63, 1 fig. The Teeth of Rhodesian Man, by
J. T. Carter, pp. 64-65, 1 fig. The Associated Stone Implements, by R. A. Smith,
pp. 66-60, 2 figs.; and, The Fauna, by A. T. Hopwood, Dorothea M. A. Bate,
and W. E. Swinton, pp. 69-75, 1 fig.

* The essential measurements in Mr. Pycraft’s account should tally with those
of the writer, for they were made jointly (Nov., 1927).

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 117

THE SKULL

Mr. Pycraft has done a very conscientious piece of work. If, as
appears from the reviews of his work, his conclusions are not meeting
with favor, it is mainly because he has chosen to associate organically
with the Rhodesian skull remains of which no man can say with full
confidence that they belong to it; because he has seen more in the
morphology of these additional remains than others can see; and
because he makes of the Rhodesian man a new, genus (‘‘ Cyphan-
thropus”). These are all grievous sins which may or may not be
outweighed by the painstaking work on the skull. However this may
be, it will be but proper to quote Mr. Pycraft’s main conclusions
on the cranium. They are:

Highly specialised in some particulars, this skull must nevertheless be re-
garded as of a relatively low type, having a definite resemblance to the skulls
of Neanderthal Man, with which race it has affinities.

Its specialised characters are perhaps most marked in the enormous supra-
orbital torus, whose likeness to that of the Gorilla ‘seems to have been some-
what over-emphasised. The distance between the styloid process and the mastoid,
and the greatly developed nuchal plate, are apparently correlated with the very
large, broad, and flat face. Similarly, the height of the maxilla, a markedly
simian character, is closely correlated with the sub-nasal length. The face was
mesognathous, and not prognathous as would at first appear. Others have already
commented on the great size of the palate, but it seems to have escaped attention
that this palate was once even larger. The reduction in size began with the decay
of the teeth. As the alveoli closed up, the palate shortened.

When the contours of the Rhodesian and Gibraltar skulls are superposed there
is seen to be an undoubted likeness between the two. Similar resemblances be-
tween this skull and that from La Chapelle further justify the suggested affinities
with Neanderthal Man. They seem, however, to be derived from a common stock
rather than directly related. The superposed contours of the Rhodesian skull
and of a skull from St. Edmond’s Priory, selected at random as a type of the
modern skull, brings out two important features. It shows that the frontal fossa
is much longer in modern Man, and that the cranial cavity has greatly increased
in height.

When this skull is orientated on the Frankfort plane, the low forehead and the
rapidly sloping parietal roof at once attract attention. In longitudinal section it
will be noticed that the floor of the posterior cranial fossa was essentially as in
modern skulls. The clivus is steep, though not more so than in many modern
skulls, but it is longer, thus raising the dorsum sellae and the pituitary fossa
some 8 mm. higher than they are in the St. Edmond’s Priory skull.

There are other features which seem to indicate that Rhodesian Man was
nearer to the Chimpanzee and Gorilla than was Neanderthal Man. Thus, if a
longitudinal section of the face of the Gorilla or Chimpanzee be examined, it will
be found that a line drawn at right angles to the alveolar border, and immedi-
ately behind the last molar, will pass upwards just behind the torus, and in front
of the cerebral cavity. This is true also of the Rhodesian skull. But in Nean-
derthal Man this line cuts through the fore-part of the anterior fossa, and in

118 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

modern Man it cuts through the fossa about mid-way between the glabella and
the bregma; sometimes almost at the bregma.

The Rhodesian skull, on the other hand, recalls Neanderthal Man, and espe-
cially the Gibraltar race, in the width and form of the nuchal plate, the supra-
occipital region of the skull; but it is much larger.

Some further, and very significant, features are brought out when the Rhode-
sian skull is compared with that of the Chimpanzee and Gorilla, orientated on
the meato-nasion line.....

The meato-lambda angle (46°) of the Rhodesian skull is noteworthy. In
modern human skulls it varies between 50° and 60°. A further peculiarity is the
fact that the meato-lambda line, produced downwards and forwards, passes
through the maxilla to the prosthion. In all other human skulls it passes be-
neath the jaw. ....

Finally, the thickness of the skull-wall in Rhodesian Man was not greater
than in many existing races. Considering the many simian features of the skull
this is noteworthy. In the anthropoids, owing to the compression of the inter-
mediate layer of cancellated tissue, the cranial wall is markedly thinner. From
the tusk-like canines of the great anthropoids one would have supposed that a
thick skull-wall would have been necessary.

An additional interesting paragraph is found in Mr. Pycraft’s
account under “Affinities” (p. 48) ; it deserves to be quoted in full:

There are differences of opinion on the affinities of Rhodesian man. Sir Arthur
Smith Woodward regards him “as a primitive species of true man, in which
a slightly incomplete development of the brain is accompanied by an enlargement
instead of a reduction and refinement of the face.” That is to say, he does not
regard him as Mousterian. Prof. Elliot Smith on the other hand remarks that,
“in the bones found in the Broken Hill mine, we have the remains of a type of
mankind definitely more primitive than all the known members of the Human
Family, with the exception only of Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus.’ Sir
Arthur Keith regards him as near the ancestor of Neanderthal and modern Man;
“he has assumed too much of the modern type to serve this purpose [1. e., to be
regarded as the ancestor of both]. His just place seems to be in the modern stem
soon after this stem had broken away from the Neanderthal line.” The strik-
ing likeness between the Rhodesian and Gibraltar skulls, and the undoubted like-
ness to the La Chapelle skull, is convincing evidence of a common relationship, if
not of a common descent. This is expressed, with slight differences, by all
three of the authorities quoted. Rhodesian man, then, is to be regarded as an
independent development of the nascent Neanderthal stock, an opinion which
would explain both the resemblances to and the differences from the Neanderthal
race.

Mr. Pycraft’s excuse for associating the tibia, pelvis, etc., with the
skull, is, finally, as follows (p. 49):

It may be urged that there can be no certainty that the remains of the axial
and appendicular skeleton and the skull are all parts of the one individual. This
is doubtless true, but, when the outstanding features of these several parts are
critically studied, it is found that they display a reciprocal inter-relationship so
intimate that any attempt to dissociate the skull from the remaining parts of the
skeleton must do violence to all ordinary rules of evidence and inference.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA IIQ

THE BRAIN

Professor Elliot Smith shows the volume of the brain of the
Rhodesian skull to have been but 1280 cc., which is markedly smaller
than in any of the Neanderthalers with the probable exception of the
Gibraltar female.

Fic. t0o—Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, top view. (After G. Elliot Smith,
1928. )

The very successful cast shows the brain to have been in general
very definitely human, related to that of the Neanderthalers, and
superior to both that of the Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus [ ? skull
too defective].

The general contour of the brain and the peculiarities of its form and propor-

tions suggest the kinship of Rhodesian man with the Neanderthal species. The
great deficiencies in development of the prefrontal, upper parietal, and inferior

120 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

1928. )

Lateral
Sinus

tcm

Fic. 12.—Rhodesian man: endocranial cast, occipital portion. (After G. Elliot
Smith, 1928.)

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 121

temporal areas, however, clearly differentiate it from the Neanderthal type and
reveal a condition of affairs definitely more primitive. The defective development
of the brain cannot be the result of a secondary degradation, because its features
conform so strictly to the primitive type. .... It can be said with confidence
that the Rhodesian cast reveals features definitely more primitive than those of
the Neanderthal species.

The maximum length of the cerebral hemisphere is 17.0 cm., and
the maximum breadth 13.5 cm. (at the posterior extremity of the
temporal region) ; Cerebral Breadth-Length Index 79.4.

The details given are rather meagre and relate principally to the
apparent localized deficiencies. “It is this defective development of
certain areas that differentiates the Rhodesian brain from that of the
Neanderthal series, and, with various cranial characters, justifies the
creation of a new species [genus?] of a more primitive rank.”

PATHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE SKULL

In the anterior part of the left mastoid are the apparent marks
of mastoiditis, and a small hole appears in the left temporal squama.
Dr. Yearsley summarizes the results of his study as follows:

The conclusions to be drawn from a study of this remarkable specimen of
prehistoric pathology must necessarily be hypothetical. The most plausible hy-
pothesis that I can form is that the subject was a sufferer for a considerable
period from chronic sepsis, as evidenced by the state of the teeth and alveolar
border and the fact that the tibia shows signs of periarthritis or arthritis. The
chronic septic condition of the mouth led to suppurative middle ear disease, com-
plicated with mastoid abscess. That this abscess broke through the cortex at
the base of the mastoid and tracked upwards into the temporal fossa along the
line of least resistance, and that it broke later through the tip of the process,
tracked down the neck into the thorax and thus caused death.

It is strongly presumptive that the perforation B is not an instance of primi-
tive “trepanning,’ but was due to a wound inflicted by some sharp instrument
during life and was not the cause of death.

THE TEETH

Concerning the teeth, Dr. Carter gives but one conclusion, which is
that: “‘ The dentition is essentially human.”

He gives such few measurements of the teeth as their diseased
or worn condition permits.

THE STONE IMPLEMENTS

Dr. Smith’s note on these specimens is brief, the material offering
but little variety. The essentials of his report are so succinct that they
may be given in full. He states:

The largest chert flake is roughly oval and three inches long ; another is shaped
rather like a Le Moustier “ point,” and a third (honey-coloured) looks like a

122 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

slice from the foot of a plane, to produce a new cutting-edge. A stone ball like
figure 228 has slight facets which are bruised like the rest; and there are four
imperfect spherical hammerstones of quartz, the largest having a diameter of
3.4 inches. The largest piece of milky quartz (3.2 inches) is probably due to
natural fracture; but there are six broad flakes, subtriangular, clearly of human
origin, the largest being 2.3 inches; and five that may be classed as blades, with
the side-edges nearly parallel. Two other specimens appear to be pointed ends
of flake implements, the larger being an equilateral triangle, 0.6 inch thick at
the center. A flake of clear quartz, 1.8 inches long, has a calcareous deposit, and
a fragment of fossil bone resembles the butt of a thin-butted celt, heavily striated
and rubbed smooth in places. A pointed granitic stone of triangular section,
8 inches long, seems to be battered at the pointed end, but was probably not
shaped by man, though the butt has a smooth and rounded edge. ... .

Mr. Franklin White, who collected some of the specimens under consideration,
has himself contributed some notes to the Proceedings of the Rhodesia Scien-
tific Association, Vol. IX (published 1910), on further discoveries in the cave;
and enumerates bone implements and tusks as well as quartz artifacts from
I inch to 4 inches in length. The material is described as semi-opaque white, not
at all suitable for implements, and not produced in the locality, but brought from
a distance with the large rounded quartzite pebbles. The most common type of
implement, he says, is a leaf-shaped lance-head, with the butts badly finished off.
Ridged flakes were abundant, and one was found of transparent quartz. Several
small flakes could have been used as arrow-heads, but there was only one round-
scraper in his series. No bone ornaments such as discs or beads were noticed;
and the broken bones and implements were found throughout 18 feet of filling.
with one piece of semi-vitreous clinker that proved the use of fire by the primi-
tive cave-dwellers.

Upon the writer, who. collected and brought to London some of
these specimens, the material makes no impression of antiquity. It
is to be compared with recent South African stone industries, rather
than with any of the paleolithic industries in Europe. There is no
possibility of a definite association of the specimens with the skull.

THE FAUNA

Mr. Hopwood has identified the mammals of the Broken Hill cave.
He tells us as follows:

The study of the mammalian bones found at Broken Hill was undertaken in
the hope that they might afford some evidence as to the age of the human remains
found in the cave. It seemed reasonable to suppose that, if the contents of the
cavern were of any degree of antiquity, there might be found portions of animals
which are extinct, or, at any rate, of species which are not at present represented
in the fauna of Rhodesia. This hope has been realised only in part. The cave
fauna is composed of living forms with the exception of Rhinoceros whitet Chubb
and a new species of Serval cat.

To which he adds:

In considering the significance of the Cave fauna of Broken Hill there are
two things to be kept in mind. First, that it is impossible to determine the rela-

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 123

tive levels occupied in the deposit by relying on the degree to which the bones
are mineralized. For example, the human remains, from the very lowest part of
the cave, are only slightly impregnated with ores of lead and zinc, whereas bones
of Hyaena and Wart Hog, from an unknown horizon, are so charged with
mineral matter that they give a clear note on being sharply struck. Secondly, it is
also well to remember that the African continental plateau is of extraordinary
stability, and that it has been a land area from very early times. Furthermore,
the climate has always been tropical or sub-tropical, at least to the south of
Egypt. Hence, apart from possible changes in the rainfall, conditions of life
have been comparatively fixed and the fauna is not likely to have altered in
character so rapidly as in other regions, Europe and North America for in-
stance, where great changes in the climate and geography have taken place in
comparatively recent times. For these reasons it is practically impossible at
present to estimate the age of African cave deposits by means of the fossil mam-
mals. The fact that two extinct forms are known proves nothing. It is becom-
ing ever more apparent that the mammal-bearing horizons of Central Africa are
not comparable in age with those of Europe, and that in dealing with them it is
useless to apply European standards. On the evidence of the associated mam-
malian fauna there is no reason to suppose that the human remains are of any-
thing but recent date.

The bird remains, identified by Miss Bate, are few in number ;
“it is probable that all the remains represent species still found in
the locality.”

“The reptilian remains associated with the Rhodesian skull are
few in number and belong to species still existing in the locality.”

(W. E. Swinton).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SKULL AND TIBIA

Since the British Museum has published its report on the Rhodesian
man, no objection can be had to an additional description. Thanks
to Dr. Smith Woodward and later to Dr. Bather, the writer has been
able repeatedly to examine and measure the originals (1922, 1923,
1927). The last measurements (Nov., 1927), to insure accuracy
and agreement, were made by well-tested instruments in the presence
of Messrs. Pycraft, Bather, and Hopwood of the British Museum,

and have been utilized by Mr. Pycraft.

THE SKULL

The skull is monstrous; its frontal and most of the facial parts
exceed in primitiveness every other known specimen of early man.
The skullcap, on the other hand, from behind the frontal ridges is
of a decidedly higher grade equalling in many respects and in some
even exceeding those of the more typical Neanderthal crania.

The subject was plainly a very powerful male, probably over 40
years of age. The skull is in no way pathological, though showing

124 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

some diseased conditions; and it cannot be diagnosed as a rever-
sion. It represents a distinct crude variety of man, which strangely
combines many ancient, even pre-Neanderthal conditions with others
that are relatively modern. It could represent, conceivably, a very
brutish individual development of the upper Neanderthal or the post-
Neanderthal period.

The most striking features of the skull are its huge supraorbital
ridges. They are not far from twice as stout as in the Neanderthalers.
Moreover, they are stouter in their middle third, especially in the
region corresponding to that of the supraorbital foramen. They
measure near glabella, 21 mm.; in the region of the supraorbital
foramen, R. 23, L. 24 mm.; and above the outer third of the orbit,
R. 21, L. 20 mm.; maximum transverse diameter, 14 cm. The
external biorbital diameter, between the outermost parts of the
fronto-malar sutures, is only 13.4 cm., showing the amount by which
the tori bulge over these articulations. No such huge welts have ever
been seen in any other human specimen, nor even, if their thickness
alone is considered, in the anthropoid apes. They constitute a huge
exaggeration of this ancient primate masculine character.

Yet these ridges are already human rather than anthropoid in
character. They do not form such a transverse promontory above the
orbits with but a moderate median depression, as they do in the
chimpanzee or the gorilla, but show a very marked dip downward
at the glabella, approaching thus somewhat nearer to the condition
seen in adult male orangs. Moreover while the surface of this supra-
orbital promontory faces forward or nearly so in the Rhodesian
skull passing from the interorbital process outward, it becomes more
and more everted until in its distal portion it looks considerably
upward. In this respect it differs from the ridges of both the apes
and the Neanderthalers, where such eversion is not present.

The glabella is carried considerably forward and is convex above ;
and posterior to the glabella is a broad depression from side to side,
having a distant resemblance to this region in the female gorilla or
chimpanzee ; but there is no antero-posterior depression, the mid-line
of the very low frontal continuing without, or with but a trace of,
a sagging down to the glabella. Due to the arching of the ridges there
is, however, a shallow antero-posterior depression above the outer
two-thirds of the ridges; if the forehead was higher this depression
would be doubtless even more marked, as it is in most of the Neander-
thal skulls.

The slope of the forehead is as great as it is in some of the apes.
It is diminished somewhat by a fairly marked metopic ridge which,
stouter at the lower portion of the frontal squama, gradually broadens

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDIICKA 125

until at the bregma it forms a low elevation 35 mm. in diameter.
It raises the bregma region to quite a marked elevation, which ex-
tends, dwindling gradually, to over 20 mm. beyond the coronal suture.
This formation recalls strongly the similar feature on the skull of
the Pithecanthropus.

The frontal bone of the Rhodesian man is also relatively very
narrow, and that even posteriorly (diam. frontal min., 9.9; diam.
frontal max., 12.3 cm.; index, 80.5). Antero-posteriorly the frontal
bone was relatively small, though appearing larger through the supra-
orbital protrusion. In its great slope, in its marked metopic ridge,
narrowness, and also in its anterior flare and relative smallness as
a whole the Rhodesian frontal approaches closely the frontal of
the Pithecanthropus; though the ridges in the Rhodesian skull are
much the heavier.

Viewed from the top the skull presents a long ovoid with a
narrower end anteriorly, much as in Spy No. I and especially in the
La Quina adult. The parietal eminences, however, are diffuse and
located more about the center of the bone, hence less posteriorly and
inferiorly than in the typical Neanderthalers. From side to side the
parietal region is fairly oval (approaching circular), with but a trace
of an elevation along the sagittal suture. Antero-posteriorly the
outline of the skull shows the very sloping forehead, appearing some-
what higher than it is through the metopic ridge, followed by the ele-
vation of the bregma due to the same metopic ridge. A slight post-
bregmatic depression is followed by an elevation at about the middle
of the sagittal region, then another mild depression to the lambda,
a slight bulge, and a medium convexity of the upper part of the
occipital squama; below which is a pronounced transverse occipital
torus, and this is followed by a practically simian flat planum occipi-
tale. The skullcap as a whole is quite large and impresses one as
massive.

The sutures of the skull, for the most part are, curiously, well
knitted, especially the sagittal and coronal, coming nearer in this
respect to modern man than those of the various Neanderthal skulls.
The serration of the lambdoid is submedium, as compared to modern
human standards.

Laterally the frontal and the parietals show uncommonly strong,
though not excessively high, impressions of the temporal muscles.
The nearest approach of the upper temporal line to the sagittal suture
is approximately 4.8 on the right, and 4.1 cm. on the left side.
Where the ridges pass the coronal suture, the bones of the skull show
a fairly marked bulge, from which the temporal lines are deflected
considerably upward. The temporal region is about as full as in

126 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

modern skulls of similar cranial index. The temporal bones are rela-
tively well developed. The mastoid is much larger than in the Ne-
anderthal male skulls; it is as long and large as in modern strong
male crania, but its inferior extremity, instead of being more or less
pointed, is bulky and dull. Anteriorly, just behind the auditory
meatus, it shows a rather large lesion (mastoiditis ?). The base of
the zygoma is broad (3.2 cm.) ; but the zygoma itself is not excessively
heavy. The external auditory meatus is in size, shape, and axis like
that of modern man.

The occipital region resembles in the main that of the Neander-
thalers, though it is not so relatively broad superiorly as in the latter
and is somewhat fuller beneath the lambdoid suture, approaching
thus somewhat more that of modern man. But the transverse torus
is much more developed than that in any other early skull; passing
completely across the occipital, there are traces of its prolongation on
each side along the lambdoid suture to the region of the mastoid.
Portions of such a torus as highly developed are found in primitive
modern skulls (there are three such in the collections in the U. S.
National Museum) ; but a complete ridge of this nature cannot be
matched either in recent or in early crania.

Below the ridge there is a modern bilateral concavity from above
downward, though slightly convex from side to side; and this passes
on to the very moderately convex (on each side) broad plane below.
These conditions approach markedly those in adult gorillas, differing
much from those of recent man and also from those in the chimpan-
zee and orang. The conditions resemble but exceed those in the
Neanderthal skulls in which these parts are preserved.

The bones of the skull, as seen on the right side, a part of which
is missing, are seen to be strong, yet not excessively thick. The thick-
ness of the right parietal squama ranges from 6 to 10 mm. This is
somewhat less than in the thickest Neanderthals, and is equalled in
some massive, non-pathological primitive skulls of today.

The face—tThe orbits are large, deep and of irregular angular
outline; yet they are more human than anthropoid. The upper
borders, in particular, are stout and uneven, The interorbital septum
is very stout (min. diam. 35 mm.).

Dimensions of the orbits : ee oe
ICIS hE ica tes tothe oe eee ee Cote Sloe Se eer ee 4.0 3.9
Breadthiwers ec. aes Wester ee sekloae trac ee ee 4.6 4.5
Mn Oxia i Be here fates Lib ahiveke cg ey oO OE 86.9 86.7

"From slightly above dacryon; at dacryon the borders of the orbits are slightly
closer together.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 127

Through the heavy arches the planes of the orbits are concave
from above downward, the upper part being more forward than in
modern skulls; and the plane is also somewhat more inclined out-
wards and backwards than it is in recent crania. This is much as
in the Neanderthalers. The nasal bones are of about medium breadth
but rather long, and the nasal bridge was of but very moderate
height. The line from glabella to the end of the nasals is regularly
and fairly deeply concave. The malar bones, while stout, are relatively
low for a maie; and they show but very moderate prominence for-
ward. As in the Neanderthalers they have broad and stout frontal
processes, the outer surface of which points appreciably more out-
ward (or less forward) than in most modern crania. This, curiously,
is not an anthropoid character, for in the adult anthropoids the
surface of these processes points nearly directly forward.

The zygomatic process was somewhat narrower than the frontal.
This again is nearer the present human than an anthropoid condition.
Another plainiy human feature is the antero-posterior diameter of |
the malars which, relatively short in the anthropoids, especially the
gorilla and orang, is here of about the same relatively greater length
as in modern human skulls. The masseteric border, while much
stouter than in modern skulls, shows no protrusion forward and
downward anteriorly, so that there is an even line from the maxilla
to the zygoma. The lower borders of the orbits in the Rhodesian
skull are relatively higher, in relation to the nasal parts, than they
are in modern crania, In this the skull is nearer to that of the
chimpanzee than are modern human skulls (in the orang and es-
pecially the gorilla the orbits are still relatively higher). The
Neanderthalers show more or less similarity in this respect to the
Rhodesian man. The cause of this relatively high position of the
orbits is the great development of the maxilla, with an accompanying
prolongation of the nose, in these primitive skulls.

The zygomatic arches are of but moderate width for such a
huge skull, and the aperture for the temporal muscle is not large,
being even slightly smaller than in some modern skulls. This is com-
pletely different from anthropoid conditions, where this aperture is
invariably very large. The whole zygomatic arch is short, about as
in modern man, and widely different again from that of the anthro-
poids. The suborbital surface of the maxillae and especially the
frontal portions of these bones are full, approaching closely those of
the Neanderthalers. The naso-frontal portions of the maxillae are as
if moderately blown out from behind. The middle portion of the
maxillary surface shows a very mild depression on the right, none on
the left—a merest trace of the modern suborbital (canine) fossa.

128 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The nasal aperture is somewhat ape-like. It is broad and rather
rounded in outline, as in some chimpanzees and gorillas. The nasal
spine is bifid, dull, and but moderately developed, not more so than
in some anthropoids; and the borders of the notches show a dull
grooving and ridging rising internally to beyond the middle of the
lateral borders of the aperture—a simian (especially gorilloid) con-
dition. As a whole the aperture ranges itself with those of the Gi-
braltar, La Chapelle, and some other Neanderthaler skulls.

The upper alveolar process is relatively enormous. It is higher
and broader than in the anthropoids, and higher and broader than
in any human skull seen thus far. The height from the alveolar point
(lowest point between median incisors) to the lowest point of the
nasal border on each side is 37 mm., while the maximum external
breadth of the dental arch (discounting all pathological swellings )
is 80 mm. or slightly over. There is a marked facial and especially
alveolar prognathism.

The palate, dental arch, and teeth—vThe palate is very high,
spacious, broad in front and close to U-shaped. The alveolar process
is strong, yet not excessively stout; it could be matched in strong
male modern skulls. The teeth were 16 in number, regularly dis-
posed ; but their condition, both morphologically and as to preserva-
tion, is most interesting. The teeth are moderately macrodont by our
present scale. The rear teeth are moderately, the frontal teeth mark-
edly, worn. The canines were evidently as in modern man—their
roots are but little stouter than those of the adjacent pre-molars. The
molars show a marked diminution of both M 3 as in more recent
crania.

Pathologically, the teeth show a unique condition for primitive
skulls, viz., extensive caries. At least nine of the teeth had ad-
vanced decay, in half of the cases nothing remaining but a small shell
of the tooth. The destruction is such that there is no other explana-
tion. In addition there were some root abscesses and probably some
pyorrhea. On both sides externally in the molar region there are
irregular hyperostoses which, with some on the lingual side, may be
of the ordinary strengthening variety, but may in part also be patho-
logical.

The posterior nares and the surrounding parts are entirely human,
except that the nares are somewhat more oblique (lower borders more
forward) than they are in man of today.

The base ——The basal parts show a number of points of interest.
The basilar process is relatively short and flat, and shows anteriorly
a well marked pharyngeal fossa. The petrous portions show decidedly

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 129

primitive conditions. They are bulky; they extend fully forward,
leaving practically no middle lacerated foramina; and they are fully
on the level of the surrounding parts, as in the anthropoid apes and
in the most primitive recent crania." The styloid processes, generally
strongly developed in the anthropoid apes, are very moderate—more
so than in some modern crania, and there is a small styloid process.

The foramen ovale is rather narrow and situated in the very base
of the pterygoid processes, differing somewhat from that of modern
skulls. The preglenoid eminence is lower and broader than in modern
skulls, approaching correspondingly the condition in the anthropoids.
The glenoid fossa is broad transversely and straight ; it does not slope
upward and outward as in many of the Neanderthalers. Mesially
and posteriorly the boundaries of the fossa are considerably like those
in modern man and not as elevated as in most of the Neanderthal
skulls. The foramen magnum is ovoid in shape (rather conical
behind) and not much above the medium modern size. Its inclina-
tion is such that a prolongation of its antero-posterior axis would
pass through not far from the middle of the nasal aperture, which is
much like that in not a few modern skulls ; in anthropoids, as is well
known, this line passes as a rule more or less beneath the dental arch.

The condyles, very moderate for a skull of this size and strength,
are relatively somewhat narrow. The inferior curved line is repre-
sented by a marked torus. The digastric groove is deep but not more
so than in some modern crania.

Comment.—The study of the specimen leaves an impression of
anamorphism. It is a combination of pre-Neanderthaloid, Neander-
thaloid, and recent characters. It is not a Neanderthaler ; it represents
a different race, a different variety. The specimen does not fit with
its surroundings. It does not fit at all with the fine, long, essentially
modern-negro-like tibia. It does not fit with any of the other human
remains saved from the cave, skeletal or cultural. It does not fit with
anything, the negro in particular, found thus far in Africa.

It seems impossible to conceive the specimen as a reversion. Re-
versions tend as a rule to manifest themselves in individual characters
or in small association. The primitive conditions of the Rhodesian
skull greatly surpass all this. It seems equally impossible to regard the
strain of man represented by the skull as a survival to recent time.
There is nothing in anthropological knowledge that would support
such an assumption. Yet the diminishing third molars, the shape and

*See Hrdlicka, A., Anthropometry, p. 116, Wistar Institute, Phila., 1920; also
Science, Vol. 13, p. 300, 1901.

130 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

size of the other teeth, the extensive caries, and other points, speak
strongly against hoary antiquity.

The Rhodesian skull is a tantalizing specimen to the student, who is
wholly at a loss as to just where it belongs taxonomically or chrono-
logically. It is a comet of man’s prehistory.

MEASUREMENTS OF THE RHODESIAN SKULL
(HrpricKa, 1927)

Vault: cm.
1 Length'*max, (e-max.), with*occipital/torust.20-< sence eee ote 20.6
ta length maxs (¢-max!)) discounting torus... 00): 2-6-1 mo cee ke 20.2
2 Tength max. fromophryon= with! tonus.c-....0+- «sso 19.2
2a Length max. from ophryon, discounting torus..................... 18.8
Breadth: (tras: © ceyshoveesjcystsy cuore) es atonctcyencsssiolsonetsheueenercueioheaieieyoueve a sueneiey sete 14.5-14.6

Gramalfindexs (Cwatherasleneth) scree eee 71.8

(with 2a lengthy)" 2.8 leas eictteras Taek

Height:

Basion=bregima., vacsper cess cio cuore eles stotel evel ononsreteer 13.0

E 2 H XX 100 ey

Mean height index fel et! Figiace e 74.9

Hereht-breadtht ind exauaeriereeciteircienstereieeneaetoreers 89.7
Endocranial basion-bregma height...........:..-+-.+-- 12.0
Diam-crontale min sey eee one acco me eee 9.9
Diam:-trontaliamaxs | aecscee eee ee ere rate 123

Frontal index jee Sse acca eeeeeone 80.5

Pie max

‘hhickness sof srightepartetalean spose eee eee 6-10 mm.
Glabella: to nearest endocranial point. .......-.--..0..- 3.4

Face and Base:

INasion-alveolar points helght wesc oer ace electrics 0.3
Diami-hizyscomaticumaxw peas Gere noe eee eee eee near 14.8
Bacialtindexssuppemencansr a asecreerrnerenee 63.0
Subnasal point-alveolar point height.................- By)
(a) Basion=nasion diam: 2. ss cement cee er ree II.1
(b) PBaston-subnasallpointe sone eo eee ee 10.1
(c) Basion-prealveolar point (most anterior point on
upperalveolarsprocess)) Hoe eee eee 11.8
Ractalwangle: ccrasoeumicaticc a ace Cee 63°
INI VeOlatas an le saree stale More loi eae 54°
Orbits:
Height:
Right sn ne i ee SS eae ee 4.0
AGERE cihad Richa siden ere a Seale hee ae 3.9
Breadth:
Beth Gigs Sis. SeSoic solvate, Dee ie Oineieen eee eek eee toe 4.6
TB ORC Se ctusve sracamebes caspanationd « eames at TO ANCOR ee ree 4.5
indescinee ce Se Aen right 0.95
Met iG crane left 86.7

* Ophryon can be determined but approximately as a point just above what is
plainly the forestructure and not yet the forehead.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA TS

Nose: cin.
ENG cL Cam NTS TEE IUS Act Sra acohereTeione vais Nucven evar csakeingaleyeiava Sone 5.8
ECAC Lime e Meee Retest eee treetc ote ore elaiaonkrayataysuanateveonescilewe BT

Nee sre iere cheheterer scene soeralal ol h.5- ce, shal dries lahacehe ire o0\< 53.4
Upper Alveolar Arch:
TS extn rt bata rereratsceseeste re tera oka sods ene) seals okay Siete ie. alah oer sl avecaausadbis Seceusns 7.0
Breadth max. (without excrescences)..............06- 8.0
Nitidexcamnn CE BXGTOO) Become tee lsicisoe einer oreicue 87.5
es
Ralatewherchtemaxe siistiback Of Miueacnn). «crs series 1.8
WMentalvarchyplemert hie sctrectspa css cicisiea ite edene eater felons asta 6.1
Dentalarch, ext: breadth at the canines............0.. 5.5

Foramen Magnum:

MCT E Tt Asie tani Wos cients sc PSR ene Bi Wielt its Bae a Calais 4.1
Ereadths meaniect seiticicrrciictae america cia orens aceon ctanchens 3.2
Additional Measurements on the Vault and Face:
INASION-OPIStIOMperytattpettadsietetsteislalareeieleiclele) stele eis eels’ «)0i eve) sle)a\els/e)=|c)=eln +i 4.9
SEO IL am nerete aire eae are ay Ro nets esc n ee ick soles oa le. cve Se) o aNovsvauehatn 13.8
SL ari ee oe ae tte yictaue Stab ators Chetenei 25.7
iit GLESSELOHUS iia stnein ere erciecivias ey aforietels euclelelatacy® ois ets Siete ares 28.7
OPIS TMOMN ARC PUES SHLORIS ghepe oct cher=as cyeke eh-;ocia ists dim dria cageial's malmdens 36.7
“OMISHMONYANG: LOVELUTOnIMS. CLOSE) tO... 10.2, ofan = se apace = Geum siatslni ees 37.8
Supkaoepitaleaken, Wax. DRCAGEN: «0.65 ic0 ay genes om cee v yace cas Seles 14.0
External biorbital diam. (at fronto-malar sutures).................. 13.4
Bumnalarediam. (imalar notch to malar motch))/..c.. <n). sa e-. ne ees 13.6
THE TIBIA

Of all the human bones from the Broken Hill cave, a clavicle and
the tibia only have been mentioned as having been seen more or less
in the vicinity of the skull and could conceivably belong to the same
skeleton ; it is therefore incumbent on the student to give these speci-
mens careful attention. The collar-bone, however—if such it was—
has not been saved.

The tibia was studied first by Keith, and recently by Pycraft who
compared it with a Bantu tibia and found it more primitive in some
respects, especially about the mesial condyle. If he had compared it
with a fairly large series of male negro tibiae he would probably have
found, as does the writer, that not only does it not possess a single
character which is not within or close to the normal range of variation
of the negro, but that, in addition, it is remarkably negro-like in its
distinctive features, differing correspondingly from other recent and
especially from all the known early tibiae.

The tibia is that of the left side of a rather tall male adult of
evidently middle or slightly beyond middle age. The bone is long and,
relatively to its length, rather slender ; all the known early tibiae are
short, squatty.

132 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Principal measurements (Hrdlicka) :

500 tibiae of

The Rhodesian miscell. American
tibia white males
cm, cm.
Length, “in position” less spine (cast)........ 41.3 36.5
Mength max. lessu spine (cast) ima eects 41.6 36.8
At middle:
Diam. antero-post., max. (on original).... 3.40 3.13

Diam. lateral (with anterior border of bone
midway between the two branches of the

sliding calipers) (on original)........... 2.45 2.22
Indexsatemiddleseenan eee: 72.1 70.9
Shape of shaft at middle—Type 4 (moderately
quadrilateral—posterior surface Similar type in
divided by a vertical ridge into II.5 per cent of
two surfaces ) male white tibiae

The bone is almost perfectly straight, which is neither the case
with the tibiae of early nor with a large majority of those of recent
man, with two marked exceptions—tibiae of precisely this form are
typical of the tall negro, and bones of same nature have recently
been found, with somewhat but not fully negroid (proto-negroid ?)
skulls, in late prehistoric burials in British East Africa by Mr.
Leakey,’

The Broken Hill tibia shows certain peculiarities which at first
sight seem to separate it from others. These consist in a certain
slenderness and more than ordinarily marked bilateral concavity, me-
sially and laterally, below the condyles. In addition there is a smooth
surface above the tuberosity, somewhat concave from side to side,
and a pronounced large faceted eminence outside of this concavity,
below the anterior border of the lateral condyle. There is seen further,
just below this eminence, a marked looping ridge. It passes upwards
and outwards from the tuberosity, forms the lower boundary of the
subcondylar eminence, then passes backward to within a few milli-
meters of the fibular facet, turns in a loop downward and forward,
reaches the middle ef the lateral surface and then descends, diminish-
ing, down this surface to the middle of the shaft where it merges
with the lateral border of the latter. The facet for the fibula is
somewhat raised inferiorly. The medial condyle and its articular
facet show a fairly marked inclination backward. And there are a
few minor points.

*The interesting originals, composing an important collection, were kindly
shown to me in 1927 by Mr. Leakey at the College of Surgeons, London, where
they were being studied by the discoverer.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 133

All these features will be encountered, though probably not all in
the same specimen or to quite the same degree, on negro, old Egyptian,
and various recent tibiae, if there is ample material for comparison.

The mild concavity from side to side above the tuberosity is due
to the pronounced development of what should be called the ilio-tibial
tubercle and facet, which serve for and are developed by the attach-
ment of the ilio-tibial fascia. The tubercle may be encountered with
varying frequency, and at times strongly developed, in the tibiae of
all races. Its pronounced development in the Rhodesian tibia indicates
merely an exceptionally strong development of the fascia and not a
phylogenetic peculiarity of the bone.

Much the same may be said of the looping ridge. All its elements
are found in occasional late and recent tibiae, separately and even
combined.

The inclination and other characteristics of the medial condyle and
of its articular facet are comprised in the above generalization. This
condyle shows moderate marginal exostoses which are evidence of
arthritis deformans, and that this disease is capable of modifying
the mesial facet in its inclination and other characters is well known.
The posterior border of the facet has been damaged, which influences
its aspect and makes it appear more inclined backwards than is
actually the case. But even thus the inclination backward of the con-
dyle and its facet can be matched and even exceeded in recent
bones.

It would be useless in this place to go into detailed comparative
measurements and more minute descriptions ; it will suffice to repeat
that there is not one feature or dimension of the Rhodesian tibia
that may not be found also in the tibia of the tall African blacks and
other recent bones. There is no one among the 50 negro tibiae of both
sexes that were used for comparison that equals in all respects that
of the Broken Hill, but there is also not one of the negro bones that
is fully equalled by any of the others, each specimen having more or
less of individuality.

The fibular facet, the conformation of and below the posterior
border of the upper surface, the size and shape of the shaft, the
popliteal ridge, nutritive foramen, the lower part of the shaft, the
maleolus, and the lower articular facet, all are close to or identical
with corresponding features in individual negro and other modern
bones.

There is not a point here, as in the rest of the bone, that could
justly be designated as exceptionally primitive and belonging distinctly
to an earlier human estate. The bone, notwithstanding some indi-

134 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

vidual traits, is one of late, if not recent human type, and a type
that is closest to that of the African negro. The bone does not harmo-
nize at all with the Neanderthal tibiae, and does not correspond in
primitiveness to the skull. Its identification with the latter, unless
proved by further discoveries, can remain but little more than a

suggestion.
ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Bouts, M. L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Ann. Paléont., Vol. 6,
pp. 112-172, 4 pls.; Vol. 7, pp. 85-192, 7 pls.; Vol. 8, pp. 1-70; 1911-1913.
Dupois, E. The proto-Australian fossil man of Wadjak, Java. Proc. Acad. Sci.,

Amsterdam, Vol. 23, pp. 1013-1051, 2 pls., 1922.

Harris, W. E. Illustrated London News, November 109, 1921.

Hroiicxa, A. Lecture before Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 66, p. 557, Nature,
London, 1925.

. The Rhodesian man. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 9, pp. 173-193,
1926.

Kerrn, A. The antiquity of man. Vol. I, pp. xxxii + 1-376, figs. 1-133; Vol. II,
pp. xiv + 377-753, figs. 134-266, edit. 2. London, 1925.

MENNEL, F. P., and Cuuss, E. C. On an African occurrence of fossil mam-
malia associated with stone implements. Geol. Mag., Vol. 5, No. IV, pp.
443-448, London, 1907.

Neave, S. A. On the birds of Northern Rhodesia and the Katanga District of
Congoland. Jbid., Vol. 9, No. IV, pp. 78-155, 225-262, 3 pls., 1910.

Situ, G. Etxiiot. The evolution of man. Pp. xx + 195, 50 text-figs., edit. 2,
London, 1927.

SmitH, S. A. The fossil human skull found at Talgai, Queensland. Philos.
Trans. (B), Vol. 208, pp. 351-386, 6 pls., 1918.

Sottas, W. J. On the cranial and facial characters of the Neanderthal race.
Philos. Trans. (B), Vol. 190, pp. 281-339, pl. vii, 1907.

Wuirte, F. Notes on the cave containing fossilised bones, etc., at Broken Hill,
North-Western Rhodesia. Proc. Rhodesia Sci. Assoc., Vol. 7, pp. 13-23,
1908.

Woopwarp, A. S. A new cave man from Rhodesia, South Africa. Nature,
Vol. 108, pp. 371-372, London, 1921.

The problem of the Rhodesian fossil man. Sci. Progress, Vol. 16, pp.

574-579, 1922.

A Guide to the fossil remains of man in the Department of Geology

and Palaeontology in the British Museum (Natural History), pp. 1-34,

6 pls., 14 text-figs., London, 1922.

APPENDIX I
ABSTRACTS FROM ORIGINAL REPORTS ON THE RHODESIAN
CAVE
1907—Mennell, F. P., and E. C. Chubb. On an African Occurrence
of Fossil Mammalia Associated with Stone Implements.’

Our investigations have been chiefly based on specimens in the Rhodesia
Museum presented by the Broken Hill Company, Mr. Franklin White, Mr.

* Proc. Rhodesia Sci. Assoc., Vol. 6, Bulawayo, 1907.

(‘SMON por}essN][] UopuoyT sy IV) [NYS oy} Jo AraAoostp ay} Jaze ApJoYs 9Avd [II F{ UoyoIg JO uvlsapoyy YL

~ aura Jo
40014 juasasdg

puns a1aM Sureuat
UPWINY fayj{o pue
[OHS 244 2434
ods yoexg
Sen

y

N ~~. £r°
Maths
UH

2049 "MANY Ni :
oy peurdirto. \
2 HWoOLtody )

Yas) «

SF ral ; ; »fy40g
(4au46D-A'S) j

uofjpoas fied

utaofdoy reuré.s60

4o uoljiod Surmoys

10

LL “1d ‘€8 “1OA SNOILOS1100 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS Wola. ks Talks. we}

Mr. Zwigelaar, the discoverer of the Rhodesian skull, shortly after the find was made.
(Photograph given Hrdlicka by Mr. Zwigelaar, 10925.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOR 83) RES 9

#.

‘

‘exactly as
and where it lay,” to be photographed. (Photograph given to Hrdlicka by the authori-
ties of the Broken Hill Mine, 1925.)

The Rhodesian skull, shortly after its discovery, placed by Zwigelaar

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOUS 835) PES 20)

I, 2. Stone implements and characteristically broken
animal bones from the Broken Hill cave. (Brought by
Hrdlicka, 1925; in British Museum. )

3. Human broken bones from the Rhodesian cave.
(Brought by Hrdli¢ka, 1925; now in British Museum. )

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOU. (835) beat

Rhodesian skull, front view.

(gz61 Qyesrokg J9ypy) “MIA oprs “[[NYs uersspoyy

2 “Id *€8 “1OA SNOILOA1100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

23

PL.

VOL. 83,

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

8.)

craft, 192

fter Py

A

(

Rhodesian skull, top view.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLE S33; Rew 24,

Rhodesian skull, basal view. (After Pycraft, 1928.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLE; 83, PL. 26

1. Rhodesian tibia (right) and two modern tibiae, all showing a marked development
of the tubercle and facet for the attachment of the ilio-tibial. (Hrdlicka, U. S. National
Museum. )

2. Broken Hill tibia (right) and two modern tibiae (middle and left). Inclination of
mesial facet, and other features. (Hrdlicka, U. S. National Museum.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 26

Upper, the humerus from the Rhodesian cave, brought by Hrdli¢ka. (Specimen
in British Museum; photograph British Museum. )
Lower, the sacrum from the Rhodesian cave. (After Pycraft, 10928.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 183, PL.

The two femora and the sacrum from the Rhodesian cave. (After Pycraft, 1928.)

i

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 135

Marshall Hole and others, as well as on other material for the opportunity of
examining which we are indebted to Mr. White and to Mr. F. G. Colville.

The Rhodesian Broken Hill Mine is situated about 150 miles north of the
Kafue River in North-Western Rhodesia. It contains extensive zinc and lead
deposits which have a prominent outcrop in the shape of two small hills or
“kopjes” rising out of a “vlei” or swampy flat. The surrounding country is
chiefly limestone, which is associated, in proximity to the ore-body, with schistose
rocks, evidently altered sandy and shaly sediments, together with crushed bands
of the limestone itself. There is granite not many miles distant, but the ores do
not appear to have any direct connection with an igneous rock; they seem rather
to be related to faulting and shearing of the limestone at its junction with the
schists. Surface specimens of the limestone are usually somewhat coarsely crys-
talline, and white or grey in color with few impurities save quartz. Lower down
in the workings they are often black or reddish in color and closely resemble
the Carboniferous Limestone of Somersetshire. Under the microscope, however,
they differ im toto, having a foliated structure in even the most compact-looking
specimens. It is probable therefore that the sugary appearance of the outcropping
rock is due to some form of surface alteration. It cannot be attributed to pres-
sure or contact metamorphism, as it would in that case be just as apparent below
ground as it is above. The limestone is highly magnesian and sometimes ap-
proaches a true dolomite in composition. No definite silicate minerals can be
detected under the microscope.

The feature of the ore-body with which we are now chiefly concerned is the
extraordinary accumulation of mammalian bones in No. 1 Kopje. Beautifully
crystallized phosphatic minerals have also been found in No. 2 Kopje, but al-
though it would seem a natural inference that they are due to the interaction of
the metalliferous solutions with the lime phosphate of bones, none of the latter
have been met with. The amount of bones in No. 1 Kopje is enormous. They
occur in the central part of the kopje and almost continuously beneath it, below
the level of the surrounding flats. It would appear that the bone deposits repre-
sent the infilling of a large cavern in the limestone, perhaps with a kind of
swallow-hole leading down from the top of the kopje, though there is no actual
opening at the present time. It is difficult from the data at present available to
determine with any certainty the relative ages of the different layers of bones,
but their accumulation must have taken a very long period of time. There are
masses of bones almost free from other substances, and there are interspersed
muddy layers containing zinc compounds, but free from bones. Much of the
material, however, which shows no large bones, yields on disintegration innu-
merable bones of rats, shrews, birds, etc. The bones are in nearly all cases partly
or wholly converted into zinc phosphate (hopeite?). They are therefore truly
fossil, the organic matter having disappeared and having been completely re-
placed by mineral substances. Vughs in the deposit are often lined with mag-
nificent crystals of the rare mineral hopeite and they also show at times more
or less dendritic coatings of a substance which at first was taken for amorphous
zinc phosphate, but which is rich in vanadium and may really be a calcium vana-
date. The new triclinic zinc phosphate “tarbuttite ”’ occurs in No. 2 Kopje with
cerussite, hemimorphite, hopeite, pyromorphite and vanadinite or descloizite, and
does not seem to be found in the bone deposit.

The bones make up vast accumulations of isolated broken fragments. Whole
bones are the rarest exceptions, and are exceedingly difficult to extract even

II

136 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL, 83

when discovered. There never appear to be a number of bones belonging to the
same animal occurring together, as would be the case if they had died naturally
on the spot or been accidentally engulfed, in the way suggested for the well-
known occurrence at the Winnats, Castleton, Derbyshire. It seems certain that
the deposits as a whole represent the materials accumulated during alternating
occupations of the original cavern by animals and human beings, with interven-
ing periods when the cave was untenanted probably owing to flooding with
water. The animal occupants were such as are found together in the Rhodesian
caves of the present day, namely, hyenas and porcupines, no doubt accompanied
by owls and bats. Some of the bones show signs of having been gnawed by
hyenas, and there can be little doubt that many of them were dragged into the
place when it served as a hyena den. Most of the smaller bones are probably
to be accounted for in a somewhat similar fashion, the rats, shrews, etc., having
formed the prey of owls and the bones having been ejected in the usual pellets
after the birds had assimilated the more digestible portions of the bodies. An
examination of modern owl pellets entirely confirms this view, as these latter
show the same predominance of head and leg bones as do the washings of the
Broken Hill deposit. As usual with mammalian remains, lower jaws are par-
ticularly prominent. Those parts of the deposit which contain implements, no
doubt owe their accumulation in great part at least to human agency, the bones
being relics of the food supply of the ancient inhabitants. It may at once be
stated that the contemporaneity of the implements and bones is entirely beyond
question. Masses of the deposit full of bones when disintegrated by soaking in
water, are found to contain embedded implements. These latter are of a rude
order and mostly made of quartz, owing of course to the absence of any more
suitable material in the vicinity. There seems to be a strong prejudice in England
against the genuineness of implements made of quartz, and it may therefore be
well to emphasize the fact that some are made of chert brought from a distance,
and it may also be well to point out that quartz is a very common material for
Bushman implements, which the Broken Hill ones much resemble. Knives,
scrapers, and grooved scrapers are the common types. Some of the bones show
indications of having been cut previously to their mineralisation, as if to make
implements, though no finished bone implements have so far been brought to
light. One tibia of a moderate-sized ungulate in the Rhodesia Museum has had
a nearly circular hole made in it prior to its replacement by zinc salts. This may
be attributed to a wound from an arrow of the Bushman type or it may have
been bored with a view to making an implement or ornament; in either case it
must be due to human agency.

With regard to the age of the deposit it must represent a long period of time
in all, but it will be noted from the subjoined list that nearly all the bones appear
to be referable without much doubt to recent species inhabiting the country at
the present day. It is probable, however, that some may represent closely allied
but really ancestral forms, and this certainly appears to be the case with the
species of Diceros (rhinoceros) of which two well-preserved bones are now in
the Rhodesia Museum. It is unfortunate that we are not in possession of skulls
or teeth of this animal, but we think there can be little doubt as to its being new,
and it has therefore been thought well to give it a name for convenient future
reference.

The mineral condition of the bones and the obvious changes in the physical
features of the locality since the deposit was formed are entirely in accord with

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA Wi;

the idea of its being of very great age from an anthropological point of view.
There consequently appears to be every justification for our belief that: the evi-
dence affords the strongest presumption of the great antiquity of man in this
part of the world, and that further investigations, which we hope shortly to
undertake, will reveal even more convincing proof on this head.

LIST OF VERTEBRATE REMAINS
By C. E. Couns

The following is a list of the vertebrates represented by teeth or bones, and
identified as accurately as is possible with the scanty material at my disposal
for comparison. “ R. M.” after a description indicates a specimen in the Rhodesia
Museum.

MAMMALIA
INSECTIVORA

An almost complete skull, two or three upper jaws, and numerous lower jaws
of shrews. (R. M.) :

CARNIVORA

Felis leo, Linn. A right ramus and a few odd teeth.

Felis spp. The canine of an animal about the size of a leopard, and one about
the size of Felis ocreata. Also two lower jaws apparently belonging to Felis
serval.

Hyaena sp. A right ramus belonging to a hyena, but it does not agree ex-
actly with H. crocuta. (R. M.)

Viverridaec. The right ramus of a member of this family about the size of a
large genet.

RODENTIA

Tatera sp. Several upper and lower jaws. (R. M.)

Otomys sp. A number of lower jaws showing the characteristic laminated
molars and grooved incisors. There are also one or two odd incisors and molars.
(R. M.)

Mus. spp. Great numbers of lower jaws and a few portions of upper jaws
belonging to several different-sized species. (R. M.)

Bathyergidae. A right ramus without teeth, approximating to Georychus
capensis in size. (R. M.) ;

Hystrix sp. A complete ramus and an odd incisor.

UNGULATA

Phacochoerus aethiopicus, Pall. A right upper tusk and a portion of an upper
tusk, showing scraping and chipping by human agency. A lower tusk.

Elephas africanus, Blumen. The proximal portion of a humerus, and part of a
scapula.

Diceros, Gray. Two complete bones, a left humerus and a right tibia, of a
rhinoceros excavated by Mr. Franklin White, were presented by him to the
Museum. (R. M. No. 546.) On comparing these with bones of the modern

138 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

D. bicornis I find they differ so materially as to warrant their recognition as
belonging to a distinct species. This may be known, after the discoverer, as
Diceros whitei, sp. nov.

Diceros whitei, sp. nov. The humerus of this species differs most remarkably
from that of D. bicornis in the shape of its distal end. The olecranon fossa is
very much narrower than in D. bicornis, being 29 mm. in diameter, as compared
with 51 mm. for a specimen of the latter. Indeed, the whole bone, although evi-
dently that of a fully adult individual, is smaller and much slighter in propor-
tion to its length, which is 330 mm. from the trochlea to the head of the humerus,
while D. bicornis measures 358 mm. The tibia, although not differing to the
same extent as the humerus, is nevertheless slightly narrower in proportion and
a little shorter. This species is evidently a form of rhinoceros smaller and less
heavily built than D. bicornis. For this reason it is also distinct from D. simus,
and from D. simplicidens, Scott, which is likewise larger than D. bicorms. I
hope shortly to publish figures showing fully the differences between the species.

Equus sp. Several molars probably belonging to a zebra.

Connochoetes taurinus, Burch. The basal portion of a horn-core.

Strepsiceros strepsiceros, Pall. An imperfect horn-core.

Taurotragus oryx, Pall. Portion of a horn-core.

In addition to the above there are in the Rhodesia Museum a number of
bones and teeth of various other antelopes, not identifiable with certainty.

AVES

An incomplete pelvis of a small bird, an ulna and several leg-bones.

AMPHIBIA

The ischial portion of a frog’s pelvis; also an astragalus and calcaneum.

FURTHER NOTES

1908.—A second and even more detailed report on the Broken
Hill cave soon followed (September 26, 1908). It is a communication
by Engineer Franklin White, at that time employed by the Broken
Hill Mining Company, to the Rhodesian Scientific Association.” The
paper, the title of which is ‘‘ Notes on a Cave Containing Fossilized
Bones of Animals, Worked Pieces of Bone, Stone Implements and
Quartzite Pebbles, Found in a Kopje or Small Hill Composed of
Zine and Lead Ores at Broken Hill, North-Western Rhodesia ” gives
in the main the following information:

The geological formation is limestone with some beds of sandstone conglomer-
ates and phyllites. The country in general is very flat, excepting where the
sandstone ridges rise a few feet above the general level. .... Around Broken

Hill, however, there is a series of kopjes or small rugged hills composed chiefly
of ores of zinc and lead, the top of the highest (No. 2) being about 90 feet above

* Proc. Rhodesia Sci. Assoc., Vol. 7, Pt. 2, pp. 13-21, 1908.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 139

the ordinary ground level. .... The outcropping zinc and lead ores have been
much weathered, forming crevices, rough crests and ledges which at times are
sufficient to form lairs for wild beasts, or even to afford a slight shelter for
human beings such as Bushmen, but nothing which can be properly called a cave
has been found from the outside of these kopjes, neither are there any indica-
tions of blocked-up entrances to passages or caverns. Owing to the flat nature
of the country, the water in the rainy season stands in numerous pools and can
be found in shallow excavations a foot or two in depth. During the dry season
the numerous crevices in the limestone afford passage for the water to drain off
and the natural water level is then about 18 feet below the ordinary surface.
There is therefore an annual rise and fall in the water level underground which
will vary according to the rainfall, which is from 23 to 40 inches per annum, the
wet months being November to March..... A deposit of fossilized bones,
teeth and cores of horns had, however, been found on the Northeast side of the
hill when a large quantity of carbonates of zinc, lying on the flank of the hill,
was quarried away. The bones were found in a layer of sandy clay about four
feet thick, the top being about 3 feet below the surface level.

Beneath the bone layer was a stratum of damp clay, and this rested on ore
of the ordinary class. This bone deposit was quite covered over by calamine ore.
‘The bones were highly mineralized, the phosphates of lime being converted into
phosphates of zinc. The fragments found were very small, seldom being obtained
more than six inches long and were not at all in well defined layers. The north-
ern end of the deposit has not yet been excavated. A lower tunnel, 175 feet below
the others, was driven later on from the southwest to northeast right under the
hill, the entrance being from inclines commencing some 20 feet away from the
foot of the slope of the hill. At 34 feet from where the tunnel began, the solid
ore was replaced by a mixture of rather dull yellow clay in which were embedded
numerous fragments of broken bones, teeth and cores of horns of animals and
splinters and flakes of white quartz. It was considered advisable to ascertain
how much space was taken up by this mixture of clay and a cross-drive or
tunnel was made towards the northwest extending for 44 feet. The tunnel reached
a face of solid ore dipping steeply to the northwest. No examination was made
on the southeastern side of the lower tunnel. A cross tunnel was then driven
westwards from the main or surface adit, at 45 feet from the entrance, and at
25 feet the cavity was again reached, the top being nearly level with the tunnel.
The width from east to west was thus shown to be some 24 feet. The length,
on a line running nearly north and south is at present proved to be 80 feet.

Description of the cave-—This cannot be given very completely at present as
the work of excavation is suspended for a time. The northwestern end at the
lower level, and the southeastern end at the upper level are exposed, and the
position of the northeastern edge can be fairly accurately determined by the
points of intersection at the lower tunnel, by the cross-drive, and by the fact
that the south shaft is in solid ore. The southwestern edge is still undetermined.

There is clay and earthy material still in the bottom of the cross-drive at the
end. There are only a few pieces of bone below a line drawn 4 feet above the
floor, or say 134 feet below the surface level. This may be due to the perma-
nent water level being close by and therefore this portion of the cave would be
less frequently occupied. The black earthy and clayey materials forming the
lower half of the cross-drive are in distinct layers. In one layer were found some
small lumps of sulphide of lead which had apparently been formed there. A

140 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

section of this end of the cave and its filling shows the following features: The
layer, in which bones are most abundant, dips a little to the southeast.

Present roof of cave—trThis is composed of a soft, easily disintegrated clay, in
which lie pieces of quartz, broken bones of larger animals and innumerable little
bones of small animals, some of which have been identified. The roof is thickly
studded with beautiful clear white crystals of phosphate of zinc (hopeite).
Towards the north another class of small crystals becomes frequent. These are
dull red or brown and resemble short moss. The solid face of ore is covered with
them. The yellow clay stratum comes within about 14 feet from the roof and
with the aid of a strong light it can be seen that this open space extends for
some distance upwards. On top of the clay, crystals of phosphate of zinc are also
numerous. In the clay stratum pieces of bone, teeth, etc., are in large numbers
and in the side of the tunnel a piece of a large bone some 8 inches wide was
found. Below the yellow stratum the filling lies in very distinct thin layers
which, however, do not run evenly, but dip in several directions as shown. A
thin seam of carbonate or lime crystals runs downwards through this filling
which is of a blackish colour and corresponds to the residue which would be left
from the decomposition of limestone. The fragments of bone became very scarce
towards the bottom of the tunnel. It will be noticed that the filling in of the
tunnel has receded or settled down from the roof and back from the end of the
cave.

Another noteworthy feature is that the roof at this place is neither ore nor
limestone but clay and with it are mingled innumerable small bones and also
some pieces of large bones. These facts will be referred to later in the paper.
The portion of the cave exposed in the tunnel from the upper drive presents some
different features. The roof is limestone, the bone layer is not so thick but the
bones are larger. They lie on a bed of soft black débris, are considerably altered,
evidently by contact with zinc-bearing solutions and are coated with a thin
blackish film which cements them together so firmly that great care is required
to separate them from each other. The bones identified as a species of rhinoceros
were found here in a position which indicates that they must have been thrown
in as it were in a corner. In no instance do the bones lie in such a manner as
would indicate that they formed part of an entire animal. They are generally
broken, but show no signs of having been gnawed by carnivora. On the other
hand there is distinct evidence that the cave was occupied by human beings of a
very low type.

Evidences of human occupation.—These can be summarized as follows: Stone
implements, chiefly flakes of white opaque quartz, not at all suitable for such
purposes, some nevertheless showing distinctly the chipping, cutting or scraping
edges and notches. Implements of a close grained reddish stone, one being
distinctly serrated. Bones showing cuts or notches, one being chipped into a
rough hexagonal form. Pieces of bone, ivory or horn, shaped as if used for dig-
ging roots. Large rounded pebbles of quartzite which must have been brought
from a distance and were probably used for breaking up marrow bones. The
size of some of the bones and position and manner in which they are found
makes it very improbable that they are the remains of animals which have died
in the cave from natural causes or have been dragged in by beasts of prey.

Formation or origin of the cave and its subsequent filling in—AlIthough, in
view of the little exploratory work done, it is rather premature to advance
theories regarding these points, the following suggestions may be put forward

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA I4I

as affording a possible explanation. The well defined, nearly vertical face of
solid ore which forms the northwest end of the cave may be the result of subsi-
dence caused by the ore or rock below having been dissolved away by under-
ground currents of water, or by thermal springs. This large cavity having been
formed, it may have become filled up by clayey matter, bones, etc., washed in
from above, and a subsequent subsidence having taken place, a portion of the
filling may have remained behind, thereby forming the roof of the present cave.
No entrance has been found, although the southern face of the hill has been
scraped clean in benches in taking away ore.

The second filling up of the cave may have been as follows: In the yearly
rise and fall of water due to the recurring rainy and dry seasons, the fine par-
ticles remaining from the disintegration of the limestone would sink down until
the bottom was raised to such a level that it would for a great part of the year
serve as a habitation for human beings. During each rainy season the rising
water would force the inhabitants to retire or occupy the upper part of the cave,
and season by season fresh layers of bones, rubbish, stones, etc., would raise the
floor still higher.

The entrance may not yet have been discovered, it may be small. It may
have been blocked up by falls of rock or covered over by gradual deposition of
ore from solutions, as was the case with the bone deposit on the eastern side.
It is probable that the entrance was closed up in some way, and that gradually
the earth, clay and bones forming the floor or filling settled down and receded
from the sides and roof during the recurrent dry seasons. During this period
the beautiful crystals of different minerals already referred to, would be de-
posited from the solutions permeating the mass of ore in the hill... .. Many
of the animal remains have been examined in the Rhodesia Museum by Messrs.
F. P. Mennell, the Curator, and E. C. Chubb, the Assistant Curator, with the
result that the following identifications have been made.

Mr. White’s communication is followed by Mr. E. C. Chubb’s “ List
of Vertebrate Remains ” from the cave (already given), and to this
is added a Discussion which brings out or accentuates a number of
further points of interest:

Mr. Marshall Hole: What interested me and probably many others in the
room most was the evidence afforded on the immense antiquity of man in South
Central Africa. I paid a visit to the cave in June of the present year and was
struck by the fact that the chipped implements of which I found and brought
away several specimens, were confined to a small portion of the cave and that
the deepest. I also found a bone which had been perforated probably for use
as an ornament and this is now in the Bulawayo Museum.

Father Goetz asked: (1) In what part of the cave were the stone implements
found? (2) In what part of the cave were the bones of the extinct animals
found? (3) How was the cave formed? Was it not a subterranean cave whose
top had fallen in, so that the filling up had come from above?

Mr. Colville: I believe the extinct species was found in the upper level in
which the greatest number of large bones are found. The stone implements lay
thickest in the lower level anywhere where bones were found but there were also
some near the large bones in the upper part. I think it likely that at different
periods the cave was occupied by humans and then abandoned for some reason

142 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

when hyenas and other animals would occupy it, then probably by humans
again for a period and so on for ages.

Mr. Chubb: Among the bones examined by me and which have now gone to
the British Museum there was one at least which appeared to show evidence of
having been gnawed by hyena; I suggest that for a certain period the cave may
have formed a hyena den. This would account for a certain amount of the larger
bones found in the cave. But to account for the small mammal remains I think
that the cave might possibly have provided a roosting place for owls and the
pellets of bones which these birds throw up, accumulating for years would yield
a great quantity of remains. On the other hand it may be that a large area of
surrounding country had been subjected to sudden flooding, in which case all the
smaller terrestrial animals would be drowned and carried away by the torrent
which might have led into the cave; and the water then draining through would
leave the bones behind. It is well known that in the valleys of some of the large
South American rivers all the small mammals are often killed in this way.

Mr. Mennell: The paper is of much interest as dealing with the first in-
stance out of Europe and the Mediterranean region of stone implements being
found in association with extinct animal remains. Besides the rhinoceros de-
scribed by Mr. Chubb the jaws of lion and hyena from the deposit did not alto-
gether agree with modern examples and it is quite possible that a number of
extinct species will be found.

APPENDIX II

THE FINDING OF THE BROKEN HILL SKULL’
THE MYSTERY OF THE GREAT BONE CAVE

The ancient skull which has just recently arrived from Rhodesia and has
excited the keenest interest in scientific circles, was unearthed at a depth of
60 feet below water level in the Rhodesia Broken Hill Development Company’s
mine at Broken Hill, Northern Rhodesia and has been presented by the pro-
prietors of the mine to the British Museum.

No little excitement was caused in the far-away mining camp when it was
known that a skull had been found in the mine, and many heated discussions
took place among the miners, as to whether it was a large ape’s skull or that
of a human being. The native laborers were not so interested, however; so after
the native foreman had sent the skull to the “ white boss” they went on with
their digging, and so broke into pieces what would have been a far more impor-
tant discovery, that of the complete skeleton of this early ancestor of man. It
was after the manager of the property had seen the skull that it was decided to
put it aside and make a search for further remains, and so we were able to re-
cover a leg bone, a collar bone, portion of shoulder blade, also portion of the
pelvis with coccyx attached, and part of a lower jaw, together with various parts
of other bones not identified, and most of the pieces of the mineralized cast of
the body. The only other large bone found near these human remains was a
smashed skull of an animal similar to a lion; also a round stone similar in shape
and size to the stones the present-day natives use for various grinding purposes.

*By William E. Harris, The Illustrated London News, Nov. 19, p. 680, 1921.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 143

One can easily imagine a fight to a finish between man and beast in those
far-off, dim ages.

The mine, which is at present an open quarry, has been famous for its “ Bone
Cave” amongst geologists and travellers for some years, and is situated some
650 miles north of Bulawayo. It was at the foot of this “ Bone Cave” that the
skull and other human bones mentioned were found, constituting the only human
remains out of the many hundreds of tons of bones that have been removed dur-
ing mining operations. Fossilised and partly fossilised remains of elephant, lion,
leopard, rhino and hippo, also of antelope and other cattle, together with tons
upon tons of bones of small animals and birds, have been found. The writer has
stood at a place where this ‘“ Bone Cave” has been cut through and has pulled
out from the débris various fossilised bones, such as jaw bones, skulls of small
animals and teeth all of which were destined to be passed through the smelters
to obtain the metals which have replaced the lime of the bones; for chemical
examination has shown that the lime has been largely replaced by the phosphates
of zine and lead.

The discovery of this skull is made doubly interesting when the mine and par-
ticularly the “Bone Cave” itself are considered. Before mining operations
commenced, there stood at this spot a kopje or hill 50 to 60 feet high, with a
slight depression in the centre. Mining operations have demolished this hill, and
have excavated to the depth of over 90 feet below ground level where the hill
stood, and it was at this depth that the skull was discovered. The entrance to the
“Bone Cave” was at ground level. One of the early prospectors who visited it
before mining operations commenced, has described the cave as being practically
filled with débris. After one had crawled over this obstruction and stood upon
the floor of the cave proper, it could be seen that bones of various animals were
scattered all around. The floor was made of loose débris and fairly dry. The
walls and roof were studded with crystalline deposits, which, when lighted up
with the rays of a candle or lamp, reflected back the light, making a veritable
fairy cavern, whilst bats and owls, disturbed by the unaccustomed lights, flew
around, much to the visitors’ discomfort.

It is believed that the cave extended some 120 to 150 feet in a horizontal or
slightly dipping direction, from west to east. The walls and roof consist of
dolomite and zinc silicate, the floor of loose material to a depth varying from
4 to 12 feet, consisting almost entirely of fossilised or partly fossilised remains
of animals. Under this carpet of loose material is rock similar to the walls and
roof. Thirty feet below the level of the entrance of the cave is the original water
level. At about to feet below water level, the cave takes a decided dip, and is
filled to the roof with loose débris. At 40 to 50 feet the walls have disappeared
altogether, and the bones are surrounded with a soft, friable, lead-carbonate ore.
As this constituted the main body of the ore around the lower portion of the
cave, the theory has been put forward that the zinc in the ore has been leached
out by the action of water and so caused a general subsidence which would
account for the depression on the top of the original kopje and also for the
subsidence of the cave from its supposed original horizontal position.

How did these bones get into this cave and how long have they been accumu-
lating? How did the skull and other bones of the skeleton, the only human
remains found there, come to be at the toe of this cave, with tons upon tons of
bones above them?

144 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

One prominent geologist has suggested that the bones have been placed in
the cave by human agency. In amplification, another suggestion has been that
the original cavern may have been an extremely ancient mine-shaft which was
later used as a dumping pit for animal refuse by a tribe of hunters. But the
obviously great antiquity of the skull would discountenance the mining theory,
while the enormous quantity (some hundreds of tons) of animal bones and the
fact that more than 90 per cent of them are so small that the animals must have
been far too little to serve as food for human beings, rather tends to cast doubt
on the dumping theory.

Another theory, that these bones have been washed into the cave by periodic
floods at the times of rains, cannot stand, as all the bones are loose and not
cemented together with mud, as might be expected if they had been washed off
the surrounding veldt. Also, where could such masses have come from?

The theory that these animals were engulfed whilst taking refuge from some
natural upheaval, such as fire or flood, is likewise untenable, inasmuch as at the
toe, where the skull was discovered, apart from the skull only small bones have
been found. The larger bones were deposited nearer the mouth, and from their
condition must have been a far more recent deposit than that of the skull or
surrounding bones.

Truly, the whole subject is an astounding mystery.

THE NEANDERTHAL FAMILY

The skeletal remains attributable to the Neanderthal family already
constitute a very imposing lot of material. Their area extends from
the middle and southern portions of western Europe to the western-
most parts of Asia. They are dated by the distinctive “ Mousterian ”
culture, so-called after its type-locality at Le Moustier, in southern
France, and by the associated bones of extinct mammals belonging
to the latter third of the glacial epoch. And they are being added to
almost yearly by new discoveries, even though most of these bring
forth but a few fragments.

The great interest in the ““ Neanderthal” family of man lies in the
evolutionally decidedly lower characteristics of the remains, and in
the seemingly rapid extinction of the variety, not long after the
maximum of the last glaciation, upon the supposed advent from some-
where else of Homo sapiens. All this is of such importance to pre-
history that a somewhat extended critical consideration of the subject
is demanded. It wili be found at the end of this section. Before
this it is necessary to present a rather thorough survey of the evidence
presented by the material.

Leaving out of consideration the relatively unimportant and the
doubtful items, the remains attributed to the Neanderthal variety of
man comprise now (1930) the following:

145

Y

SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA

WHOLE VOL.

i re eS SS SSS SSS eee
|

"O88 ‘EXSPIW +7881
‘MOUDIIA “YW: fgg
pue IggiI ‘uesney
~JeRYIS ‘OggI ‘JOyULM\

‘991 ‘quodng “y
“*gSgI ‘uasneyjeeyos
‘qd :48g1 ‘y0s,4NY “D

"gogI ‘ysNg “5

(Ayyeuls110)
usyM pue Aq payiodey

"(B4SP IN)
auoq jo saoaid [jews swos
pue y}00} B Jo sso] 94}
Ajqeqoid Aqaisy} Sulley
-jns ‘sayse jo dun] e wo1j
pee1q “peq-yse paeqinjsip
-un ut daap siaqowl I Avy
‘"aAvd eNdIS 94} jo UOIS
-U9}X9 [VII] E] MO] B ,,‘O]OY

Jofpegd,, 94} Wolf poyeAPIX|

“SSOUYOIYI Ul JO9j TI
OM} 94} ‘YIIvA JO SIBAP] XIS
YIM Sueusoyye aywisejeys
jo ssoAe] Japun ‘wnisjoq
‘queulq vou ‘aqqapnen
PR] ap eno1y, ur s}sodap

peqinjsipun wo1j pazyearoxy

‘QAR9 B Ul AT[eJUSpIOOe punoy

*Aiaq7 eq & JO JuBWDe/dUIAa
ue JO} Suijse[q Suinp 91

-AdI9 B ul ‘A]]BJUSpIooe punoy

AIQZAOOSIP UO eYEP JeIUASsSy

‘siead jy S19 ynoqe jo
pryo e jo Mel Jamo] ay} JO
qied jeqUOI ay} Jo JuaWISe1

‘UPUIOM }[Npe SunoA
e jo mel jamoy yasioduy]
U0J2]a4s BY} JO sau0g
€1 pue ‘sdeoynys ayeur yNpy

‘(mel J9MO] WNOYIA)
pesewep ‘][Nys yews} yNpy

—Jo s}sIsuoo puly

ie eysey “f ey

SirotfewnistielsiceKel isi s1ai0qe’']

parsaoosip wmoym Ag

took i eydi
9981 “ayenen eT
9SgI jeyqepurayy
grgr |" aeyerqig

eae puly jo aweNy

a a se a i ee ee

AUAAODSIG AO MAGNO IWOIDOTONOUHD NI SNIVNAY TWHLYAANVAN

VOL. 83

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

146

“1161 ‘yey
‘Y ‘1161 ‘Woe “YA
‘anog “JI ‘go61
‘uopieg “| pue
atuossAnog ‘f pue ‘Vy

6061 ‘Yos}eR[y
‘}] pue sesney ‘Oo

*(saqzep snoriea)
JasIaquie1yy
-1Aouel104)

"6ggt ‘OUT “H
*‘Z161 ‘ioreur

-10qQ pure oosyoeg
‘grey +6061 ‘o1mnzez

“Lggi ‘ysayo]

‘IN pue quodreiy *f[

(Ayyeurs110)
usyM pue Aq poeyioday

“‘Yyevay Juoioue
ue Ie9U ‘SUOTJL[NUINIIE VAL)
‘QABD B JO OOP 9Y} jo
[ios Ajzeul ay} Ul Snp uoTs
-soidap & Ul ([PUIIOJ) [elIng
“1913
-SnoJW 9] 3 ‘19}[9YS-4Y901
JaMO] Ul ‘a5e UPTIBJSNO][
JO Stigap [e41n}j[Nd jo uorzR|
-NUINnd9e Ue WO, payeAPOXY
‘squsweduit
9u0}s pure ‘S[eUIUP JOUT}XO
jo sauoq ‘aig jo suleulel
YIIM ‘19}[9YS-YIOI pjo ue
jo sSur|[y 94} Woy poyeavoxy
‘aHUISeETeIs JO JaAe] e Aq
poddeo ‘sjeumtue 4OUT}x9 jo

-souog yyUM ‘ARID JuatouR UT

*QOVJANS WIOI] 199}
CI ynoqge ‘aurVI9AeI) prey UT
‘daap sisqour F ‘aoue1}

-ud WO} JUeSIP Si9}oUr
g pue g ‘aAed & JO UOIT
UI ddRIJO] WO, payeAPoxy

AIQAOOSIP UO PYEP [eIWUassy

‘u0}a[a3S 9UO
jo (smef y}0q WOIJ) 4390} LI

*(pase-a[ppru ‘ayeur) u0,]ayxS

‘eur
qusosajope ue JO u0jaJe4S

*(saxas

yi0q ‘3]npe-qns pue znpe)
suojajays OZ JaAO jo s}ieg

qnpe ‘sajeu ‘suojajays OM] | pue ypAng ap Jsore JV

—JO s}sIsuoo puly

eats
pue ON “WIN o161
‘uopieg "J
pur ‘aruossAnog ‘[
‘gruossAnog “y seqqy go6r
see oe ee eee Josnepy ‘O 061
*‘JasIOqUIeIy Co61 pue
-j1A0urli0r “y |‘66g1 ‘S6g1
sikelele! e\ielel © yneusoy “A 6ggI
OC PINOY OZUIIOT Zgg1
*Jsoyo'] UIWIXe]y
9881
peraAoosip Woy Ag Toaeaae

(jeuuey>)
Aasia[

(2Z91107)
ayjedey eT

(aus0pi0qd)
Jaiysnoj aT

(e198019)
euldesyy

REN)
pneuseeyy
(uredg

‘egu0194))
sejoueg

z ‘ON pue

I ‘ON Ads

pury jo owen

ee ee eee

daONILNOD—AYAAODSIG AO YAACUO TVIIDOTONOUHD NI SNIVNAY TWHLYAAGNVAN

147

¥

SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA

WHOLE VOL.

‘euney Areu
“6261 ‘1319S °S -19}eN() YPM ‘eINI9IG BALD)

“Qz61
‘(sajou “uitjeid) pot
-1e9 “A VC SSN *91n}jNd UeT

{(193J9Ys) [INeEIg 9qqy | -JeISNOJ, YM £19} [9YS-YIOY

‘Lz61 ‘ysaiuepiay “| aulqiaaes} prey ut dveq
*]9A9]-JOOY
‘L261 —|- UapOUr ay? MOJAq 422} 719
‘yey InqVy ‘saAel O1yqoayed §=paqin}

pue osjeg-ayfiainy “4 | -sipun jo aseq ay} 3 ‘QAR

‘OZ6I ‘MOYIITA *(r9AR] paqeyeoiequl
"H P161 ‘aqremyos “D | pue) eurz19AeI} prey UY daaq

‘7161 ‘6061 *J9}[9YS-YOOI MOTLeYs
‘Kuoshog pue ueyidesy | & ULsuOTze[NUINIIe JO Beq FV

"(998 ‘JMS PIrYy9) staqep
pue asnjar uayouy ut Ay
-yred ! (‘039 ‘u0jJa]ay4S IN pe)
wives Aq-1eau 934} jo
‘Lz-1161 ‘uiqzey “H | peq-pnur juetoue ut Ajqieg

(Ajjeurs110)

uaym pue Aq payoday AIQAOOSIP UO BJep [eIJUSSy

“mel IOMO] (Aye3])
JNoyIA ‘][Nys aeurey yNpy | UdUIYIO\ 6z61 "-9WOy IeIN

‘a3e jo sivad

ua} Moe Jo PyrYyd B JO [INAS | pose “A “Vv “C Sst gz61 Soe ae} eIg)
*(Arrengy
ottets s ,rayostf)

ynpe ue jo zyNeA uayxoIg | uawt Alen?) Cz6I jsopssuryy

*QUOq-[eUOI}
ay} Surpnpour ‘44jnpe sunoA

B Jo [[Nys ay} Jo SjuoWIBeIy | °° 91}9q-9T[TAINL “A C26i- Me aait[ey
“QuOg-YsIy} & :
jo uorjiod ‘uojajaxs S,P[PY49 (193e] pue) | (sreUtT9\)
e jo sureuiar ‘smef Jamoy z |" ‘uowAsren() |‘g161 ‘F161| jsopssursyy
*(uaapyryo
+ pue—aseulay e ‘ayeul Z161 pue |(ausopi0(q)
e—s}npe z) suojzjeys 9 | *++*+*Kuorhag |‘O161 ‘6061| aissesi9j &
*(soyep

Juaiayip) suozsjaxs [e419
-Aas jo sjuaWsesy :(1Z61)
piryo eB jo ynys +(z161)

mel JaMO] +(II61 (é)aeur (aquarey))
-3J) yNpe ue jo woyeyYsS |" uIVII Wuey | 1z—-go6l euin(y eT
—Jo s}sIsuoo puly paieaoosip woya Ag Pause pury jo sueN
4

ee hr a eee ee

daANILNOJ—AUAAOVSIG AO YACUO TWOIDOTONOUHYD NI SNIVNGAY TWHLYAANVAN

148 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

THE NEANDERTHAL SKULL AND BONES

Among the most famous of the skeletal remains representing early
man are unquestionably the imperfect but highly characteristic speci-
mens known as the Neanderthal skull and bones. This important
find more than any other has aroused scientific men to an intense
realization of the earlier phases of human evolution. The skull and
to some extent also the other parts of the skeleton stand morpho-
logically far below those of any existing type of man, being corre-
spondingly nearer to lower primates; and their name has been
deservedly taken to designate the entire early phase of mankind
of which the skeleton is, as is now well known, a prototype.

The skull, with most if not all the rest of the skeleton, was found
in August, 1856." The bones were dug out accidentally by two labor-
ers from an old cave located in the right wall of the Neander gorge,
not far from its upper entrance. The gorge and the valley north of it
have remained strangely but little known to anthropology. The writer
had the good fortune to visit them in 1927.* Lying between Diissel-
dorf (11 km.) and Elberfeld (16 km.), they form an unexpectedly
beautiful bit of scenery, sunk beneath the level of a somewhat raised
cultivated plain, and constitute one of the most interesting natural
formations in western Germany. They have for generations been
the favorite spots for school and other excursions. The valley and
gorge were eroded in the limestone formations that underlie the
surface by the small stream Diissel and its two branches.

The gorge is said to have originally been called simply “ Gesteins ”
(rocks). It was later named for Joachim Neander, a poet and song
composer of the German Reformed Church, who loved to visit the
gorge and probably the cave that eventually gave the skeleton, between
the years 1674-1679. From about 1850 the term “‘ Neanderthal ” has
been extended to both the gorge and the valley, as well as to the little
village and railroad station at the edge of and within the valley.
Today this whole beautiful depression constitutes the “‘ Natural Reser-
vation Neanderthal,” which comprises the whole triangle between
Erkrain, Mettmann, and Gruiten.

*In many publications the date is erroneously given as 1857.

*A very grateful acknowledgment of the facilities extended, original infor-
mation and valuable illustrations, is due to the gentlemen of the Rheinish-
Westfalishe Kalkwerke, Dornap; to Herr Peter Herring, supervisor of the
quarrying works of the company; and to H. Lickoff, Lobbecke Museum,
Dusseldorf.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 149

The gorge was bound by high rough cliffs of Devonian limestone,
and since the early fifties of the last century it has been subjected to
extensive quarrying that still proceeds. In the summer of 1856 the
destruction reached the so-called ‘‘ Feldhoffer Grotte,’’ a somewhat
extensive cave located in the right cliff not far from the “‘ Raven-
stein” (isolated high rock still preserved). The mouth of the cave
lay about 110 feet from the right bank of the stream and 60 feet above
its level.

According to local accounts the cave was in two parts; and as the
laborers were clearing the loam out of the smaller they uncovered
a human skeleton. Some parts of this were broken and the bones
were thrown out together with the earth; later, however, upon the
urging of the owner of the quarry after he was told of the find, the

Ds '
The Dussel OlcA Gorge lat

To Aasselaar} awe x ; aoe
av

Gnuiten

Fic. 13.—A sketch of the “ Naturschutzgebiet Neandertal,’ the vicinity of the
Neanderthal find.

workmen collected 14 pieces of the skull and skeleton, and these were
given soon after into the hands of Dr. Fuhlrott of Elberfeld.

The bones obtained by Dr. Fuhlrott comprised the skullcap, the
femora, humeri, ulnae, right radius, portion of the left pelvic bone,
portion of the right scapula, piece of the right clavicle, and five pieces
of ribs (pls. 29-33).

Soon after their discovery the skeletal remains of the Neander-
thal man received the attention of Prof. D. Schaaffhausen, of Bonn,
who on February 4, 1857, made a preliminary report upon them at
the meeting of the Lower Rhine Medical and Natural History So-
ciety, of Bonn." At the general meeting of the Natural History

*Verhandl. d. naturhist. Vereins der preuss. Rheinliande und Westphalens,
Vol. 14. Bonn, 1857. Also “ Zur Kenntniss der altesten Rassenschadel,” Miiller’s
Archiv, p. 453 et seq., 1858.

150 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Society of Prussian Rhineland and Westphalia, at Bonn, on June 2,

1857, Dr. Fuhlrott himself gave a full account of the locality of the

find and of the circumstances under which the discovery was made.
The principal details of Dr. Fuhlrott’s* report were as follows:

A small cave or grotto, high enough to admit a man and about 15 feet deep
from the entrance, which is 7 or 8 feet wide, exists in the southern wall of the
gorge of the Neanderthal, as it is termed, at a distance of about 100 feet from
the Diissel and about 60 feet above the bottom of the valley (fig. 3). In its
earlier and uninjured condition this cavern opened upon a narrow plateau lying
in front of it and from which the rocky wall descended almost perpendicularly
to the river. It could be reached, though with difficulty, from above. The
uneven floor was covered to a thickness'of 4 or 5 feet with a deposit of mud,

Y, 4x Dussel R

o 2 “ft
iw yp ehett

LLL DISTTELEETEI™
MOE Le OLE t

Fic, 14.—Section of the Neanderthal Cave near Diisseldorf. (After Lyell.)

a, Cavern 60 feet above the Diissel, and 100 feet below the surface of the
country at c. :

b, Loam covering the floor of the cave near the bottom of which the human
skeleton was found.

b, c, Rent connecting the cave with the upper surface of the country.

d, Superficial sandy loam.

e, Devonian limestone.
- f, Terrace, or ledge of rock.

sparingly intermixed with rounded fragments of chert. In the removing of
this deposit the bones were discovered. The skull was first noticed, placed
nearest to the entrance of the cavern; and further in were the other bones lying
in the same horizontal plane. Of this I was assured in the most positive terms
by the two laborers who were employed to clear out the grotto, and who were
questioned by me on the spot. At first no idea was entertained of the bones
being human; and it was not till several weeks after their discovery that they
were recognized as such by me and placed in security. But, as the importance
of the discovery was not at the time perceived, the laborers were very careless

* Ibid. Correspondenzblatt No. 2. The above follows G. Busks’s Translation
of Schaaffhausen’s “ On the crania of the most ancient races of man,” Nat. Hist.
Review, April, 1861. The main publication by Fuhlrott on the Neanderthal find
appears in the monograph: “Der fossile Mensch aus dem Neanderthal und
sein Verhaltniss zum Alter des Menschengeschlechts,” pp. 1-78, Duisburg, 1865.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA I51

in the collecting and secured chiefly only the larger bones; and to this circum-
stance it may be attributed that fragments merely of the probably perfect skele-
ton came into my possession.

Fuhlrott held that the Neanderthal bones might be regarded as
“fossil,” by which he possibly meant not merely mineralized, but
also as belonging to a form of humanity no more existing. A little
later Prof. Schaaffhausen arrived at the following conclusions :*

First, the extraordinary form of the skull was due to a natural conforma-
tion, hitherto not known to exist even in the most barbarous races. Second,
these remarkable human remains belonged to a period antecedent to the time
of the Celts and Germans, and were in all probability derived from one of the
wild races of northwestern Europe, spoken of by Latin writers, and which
were encountered as autochthones by the German immigrants. And third, it
was beyond doubt that these human relics were traceable to a period at which
the latest animals of the Diluvium still existed; though no proof of this as-
sumption, nor consequently of their so-termed fossil condition, was afforded by
the circumstances under which the bones were discovered.

In 1860 the Neanderthal gorge was visited, in company with Fuhl-
rott, by Lyell, the English geologist and paleontologist, who made a
sketch of the locality (fig. 14.) and we are given the following infor-
mation:* Since the discovery of the bones—

the ledge of rock, f, on which the cave opened, and which was originally 20 feet
wide, had been almost entirely quarried away, and, at the rate at which the work
of dilapidation was proceeding, its complete destruction seemed near at hand.

In the limestone are many fissures, one of which, still partially filled with
mud and stones, is represented in the section at a c as continuous from the
cave to the upper surface of the country.....

There was no crust of stalagmite overlying the mud in which the human
skeleton was found, and no bones of other animals in the mud with the skele-
ton; but just before our visit in 1860 the tusk of a bear had been met with in
some mud in a lateral embranchment of the cave, in a situation precisely simi-
lar to b, figure 3, and on a level corresponding with that of the human skeleton.
This tusk, shown us by the proprietor of the cave, was 2} inches long and quite
perfect; but whether it was referable to a recent or extinct species of bear, I
could not determine.

Following the early notices concerning the Neanderthal cranium,
and before other specimens of similar nature, such as the Spy, Gi-
braltar, and others became known, an extensive controversy arose as
to the real significance of the find. Virchow,’ and after him others,

aeoGaicit.

* Lyell, Sir Charles, The geological evidences of the antiquity of man, 4th ed.,
p. 80 et seq., London, 1873.

* Virchow, R., Untersuchung des Neanderthal-Schadels. Zeit. f. Ethnol., Vol. 4,
Verhandl. Berl. Ges. f. Anthr., etc., pp. 157-165, 1872.

152 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

were at first inclined to look upon the skull as pathological ; to Barnard
Davis* its sutures appeared to show premature synostosis; while
Blake * and his followers regarded the specimen as probably proceed-
ing from an idiot. But there were also those, such as Schaaffhausen,
Broca, and others, who from the beginning saw in the cranium (the
other bones received at first but little attention) not any pathological
or accidental monstrosity, but a peculiar, theretofore unknown type of
ancient humanity. Then gradually new examples of this same early
type appeared in different parts of Europe, under circumstances which
steadily strengthened the claim of the whole class to geological
antiquity ; and when eventually a thorough comparative study of the
Neanderthal remains was carried out by modern methods and in
view of new knowledge, the cranium and bones were definitely recog-
nized as representing, in a normal and most characteristic way, a
most interesting earlier phase or variety of mankind, our later Qua-
ternary predecessor or close relative, Homo neanderthaiensis, The
credit for deserving work in this field is due especially to Prof. G.
Schwalbe, of Strassburg, whose numerous publications on the early
forms of human remains in Europe are well known to every anthro-
pologist.”

The remains of the Neanderthal skeleton are preserved in the
Provincial Museum at Bonn, where, due to the courtesy of the di-
rector, Professor Hans Lehner, the writer was enabled to examine
the originals and later have them photographed.

THE SKULL

The skull (pls. 29-31) is gray in color, with large mud-brownish or
gray-sepia patches on the outside, and whitish gray to whitish brown
on the inside. It is decidedly heavy and much mineralized. It is plainly
non-pathological. The sagittal suture has evidently closed earlier than
it ordinarily does in the civilized modern man, but this must have
taken place after the brain ceased to influence the cranial vault, for
it resulted in no perceptible deformation. The coronal suture is

* Davis, J. Barnard, The Neanderthal skull, etc., London, 1864.

* Blake, C. Carter, On the alleged peculiar characters and assumed antiquity
of the human cranium from the Neanderthal. Journ. Anthrop. Soc., London,
Vol. 2, pp. 139-157, 1864; also Mem. Anthrop. Soc., London, Vol. 2, p. 74, 1866.

* Those especially worthy of mention in this connection are: Ueber die Scha-
delformen der Altesten Menschenrassen, mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des
Schidels von Egisheim. Mitteilungen der philomathischen Gesellschaft in
Elsas-Lothringen. 5, Jahrg., Vol. 3, 1807; and Der Neandertalschadel, Bonner
Jahrbiicher, Heft 106; 72 Stn. 1 Tafel, 1oor.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 153

obliterated up to the temporal ridges, while the lambdoid is still
patent. Similar conditions to these are not seldom met with in the
skulls of persons beyond the fiftieth year of life, and if not attended
by scaphocephaly or other consequent deformation, cannot be re-
garded as abnormal. The serration of the lambdoid suture is decidedly
simpler than in modern human skulls.

The facial and basal parts are lacking. The vault shows very good
dimensions in length and breadth, but is strikingly low, and the bones
are considerably thicker than in the white man of to-day, so that the
brain cavity was only moderate.

Besides its lowness the vault is characterized by a very decided
protrusion of the whole supraorbital region. The supraorbital
torus or arch formed through this protrusion is heavier than in any
other known example of the Homo neanderthalensis. The line from
glabella to the naso-frontal articulation is relatively extensive and
passes considerably backward besides downward, indicating a very
marked depression at the root of the nose, not unlike that which is
present in the adult gorilla. Due also to the forward extension of
the supraorbital arch, the upper parts of the planes of the orbits face
very perceptibly downward, while in present man they face some-
what upward or approach the vertical. The remarkable extent of the
protrusion of the supra-orbital region may be judged by the fact
that the horizontal distance from the most prominent point of the
glabella to the nearest point on the ventral surface of the lower frontal
region measures 3 cm. The frontal process descends deep between
the orbits and is very stout.

The forehead is low and also slopes markedly backward, neverthe-
less it presents a moderately-well defined convexity. The sagittal
region is oval from side to side, much like that in man of to-day ;
the occiput, however, is marked by a relatively high location of the
crest and other peculiarities. The outline of the vault, as looked at
from above, is a long ovoid. The thickness of the frontal bone at the
eminences is 8.5 mm.; of the left parietal, along a line 1 cm. above
the squamous suture, 6 to 8 mm.; these measurements are about one-
third greater than those of the skull of an average modern European.

The principal external dimensions of the cranium, taken carefully
with two separate instruments, were found to differ slightly from
some of those recorded, but agree closely with those of Schwalbe.
They are shown in the table on the following page.

The lowness of the vault, in the absence of the basion, was
measured, as seen on the antero-posterior outline of the skull, from
a line connecting the most prominent point of the glabella and the

154 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 82

inion to the highest point of the vault. This feature is shown especially
strikingly by the “calotte index,” or percental relation of the two

MAIN MEASUREMENTS OF THE NEANDERTHAL SKULL
(TAKEN ON THE ORIGINAL)

Neanderthal Corresponding
Dimensions dimensions in
a Tae > oa a nee | Gaemodernimnale
Schwalbe Hrdli¢ka white skull
cm. cm. cm.

Glabella-inionlengthzs- 42-2 ee 19.9 on 18.7

Greatest length (glabella ad max.)... uF 20.1 18.8

“True” length (discounting the excess
of the supraorbital torus) to inion. . 18.6 aie oe

SGU Length pmaxces erent Rhee 18.8 18.8

Greatestebreadthwea ase 14.7 14.7 ys 7/

Cranial index (with Schwalbe’s length) 73.9 hada

Cranial index (with length max.).... was! AG ih

Cranial index (with ‘‘true’’ length to
intone (Schwalbe) tanscee Gemeente 79.0

Cranial index (with ‘‘true’’ max.
lenatha(rirdlicka)) ase eke eee eo 78 .2 78.2

Brain) cavity: Length maxs....4-<. oe 17.5! near 17.2 ed:

Breadth max.) see se: D7 near 13.5 13.8
Iindexhs.osceseh ee ee 78 .3 near 78.5 70.3

Height (from glabella-inion line to
VETCEX) STH AR ee enone 8.05 pases 10.5

Calottesindex: (HX 100) 4244.5. 54-5: 40.4 ee 50.1

Gl. =In. L.

Thickness of skull: At glabella....... Bare near 30 mm. 14 mm.
of parietals (Squammae).......... a 6to 8mm. | 4 to 6 mm.
of frontal, at eminences........... or 8.5 mm. 5 to 7 mm.

Nasion=breemardiam. 1425)... ee ee 11.62 11.72 II.0

Bregma-lambday diam .o)..+..1.4-5c 10.4 10.3 11.5

Wamibda-imtOn ais. \an.< 2 eye aes eee a2 Rist ote ope

Lambda-mid-point of occipital crest? ayes 5.4 6.4

Diam:frontaloniin./ss%24.. see. woo 10.74 a7 / 9.8

Diam frontalimaxs.'s 005)... Joe ee 12.3 12.4

Indexs (DS framing S<iTOO)e semen sae MITE 57.0 79.0

Diifrimax.

: 1 These dimensions, it would seem, must have been taken on a cast; they do not harmonize
with the thickness of the skull.

* This diameter is larger than in modern skulls because of the carrying forward of the nasion
by the excessive supraorbital protrusion (torus).

3 The crest turns upward in its mid-portion; if it formed a regular arc the diameter from lambda
to the mid-point (inion) would be 5.6 cm.
4 Large because of the great thickness of bone here.

dimensions. In modern crania the distance from the g-i line to the
highest point of the skull measures invariably materially more, and
the index is invariably much higher, than in the Neanderthal skull.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 155

The actual height of the latter is but 8.05 cm. (Schwalbe), the index
4o.4. One hundred and seven recent adult human skulls of various
derivation gave heights of from 8.40 to 11.70 cm., and indices of
from 52 to 68."

The internal capacity of the skull has been estimated by Schaaff-
hausen at 1,033 cc., by Huxley at 1,230 cc., and by Schwalbe at
T2234 CG.

The brain which filled the skull was lower and narrower and slightly
more pointed than the human brain of to-day, approaching in these
features more the anthropoid form. The right frontal lobe was
slightly larger and longer than the left, and the whole right hemi-
sphere was slightly longer than that of the opposite side. In the present
man it is generally the left hemisphere which is the longer, but this
exception in the Neanderthal man is not necessarily of any special
significance.

The long and other bones of the skeleton (pls. 32, 33), so far as
preserved, show many features of anthropological inferiority, demon-
strating plainly that not merely the skull, but the whole body of the
Neanderthal man occupied a more or less lower evolutionary stage +
than that of any normal human being of the historic times. Yet there
is much also that connects closely with later and present man.

OTHER PARTS OF THE SKELETON

The humerus——The two humeri, right and left, do not appear at
first to belong to the same person; the right is much stronger in every
particular, and of somewhat different conformation, the differences
occurring in the inner condyle, in the evident damage to the articular
facets on left; in the neighborhood of coronoid fossa; in the ole-
cranon fossa—much larger on left (2.7 x 2.1 cm.) ; in the form of
shaft ; and in the deltoid tubercle which is much better developed on
right. Also color unlike. But the left bone belongs to an ulna with an
old injury to head and both have suffered from subdeveiopment as
well as in the formation of the articular parts.

The shape of the shaft in both bones nears the prismatic, but the
antero-medial and external surfaces are decidedly convex, espe-
cially in the right well-developed humerus. This is a condition that
could hardly be duplicated in recent bones. There is no perforation
of the olecranon fossa. There is a marked notch (demi-foramen) in
each epicondylar border, lower down than usual with the epicondy-

* Schwalbe, G., Studien iiber Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois. Z. Morph. und
Anthrop., Vol. 1, pp. 43-45, 1809.

156 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

loid notch or foramen today ; quite similar in the two bones. Proces-
sus supracondyloideus—no trace on left; on right bone low rugosity.

The damage on left does not seem to have been a complete fracture,
but more a crushing one in the outer part of the articular facet and
anterior and outer part about the coronoid fossa, the injury taking
place probably when the subject was quite young.

The ulna.—tLeft ulna: head was broken early in life, at the same
time that the humerus was injured, but was well healed and joint
was useful. Body quite straight, shape prismatic, with slight indica-
tion of external (fourth) border and slightly concave on both antero-
median and antero-lateral surfaces. .

Right ulna: more than one-half missing; in upper third was bent
backwards more than left; bones of about same strength.

Radius.—Right bone alone. Pronounced arching outward in middle
third ; otherwise not extraordinary.

The clavicle-—The piece of right male clavicle shows that the bone

» was longer than in modern man but of submedium thickness. It dif-
fers from modern bones also in the form of the shaft, which proxi-
smally is clearly prismatic, and in the distal extremity beyond the
coracoid tuberosity, where the bone was relatively thicker but decid-
edly narrower than are modern male clavicles. There is no deltoid
tubercle, and the anterior curvature in this place is more pronounced
than in modern bones.

The scapula.—Present, a portion of the right bone, including the
glenoid cavity. Original notes: The bone is strong but not excessively
so. The glenoid cavity seems to be inclined somewhat more backward
than in modern bones. The dorsal surface of the axillary border
shows a somewhat marked secondary ridge for the insertion of teres
minor. For comparative notes see Boule’s Memoir on the La Chapelle
Remains, 1913, pp. 121, 124.

The ribs—Present, five pieces of ribs. Some of the fragments
are stout, one measuring 17 mm. in breadth and 11 mm. in thickness.
One piece of a rib shows a slight circular thinning of the bone (noticed
also by Bardeleben), probably representing an old fracture.

The pelvis—trThe pelvis, with other portions of the skeleton, has
been studied especially by Klaatsch (see bibliography). The writer’s
original notes, which quite agree with those of Klaatsch but point
out some additional features, are as follows:

Present, the larger part of the left os innominatum; missing, the
pubic parts. The bone is powerful, especially in region of ileo-
pectineal line and at the sacral articulation. Ilium rather flat, high,
and bent more outward from the i-p line than in modern pelves.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 157

Greater sciatic notch masculine, deep, not narrow. Breadth of bone
between anterior border of the greater sciatic notch and the anterior
border of the cotyloid cavity less than in recent bones. Notch ante-

MAIN MEASUREMENTS OF THE NEANDERTHAL ARM BONES
TAKEN ON THE ORIGINALS

Neanderthal Means in 965
American Whites
(misc.)
Schwalbe! Hrdliéka? Hrdliéka
R LE R. L R E
cm. cm. cm. cm. cm, cm.
Humerus: Length max....... 3122 as 31.0 |(Injury)| 32.66 | 32.40
Head: Transverse diam....| 4.8 Bas 4.8
Sagietalidiamc(c:fsc sass BAGH eb 70 4.7
At middle: Antero-post.
(or min, diam: cc<><. =. a sod apes TE QOw |e Gte7)) 1.89 1.86
Rateral (orimax,) diam. .|) 2.55 | .... B55, | (2-05) | east ZUoT
rx eee einen ey: ae 74.5 | (82.9) | 81.9 | 84.1
Shape of shaft at middle | .... UAT: near POG Lh
type 13
Epicondylar, distal end,
breadthiemax.ae eer ssn 6.3 6.44 6.45 | 6.3
Ulna: Length max., Injury
Bat iiated pr. say svccnisl «cies 27d a(-23,7))
At middle: Antero-post.
PDEA a reuse ees sien x oye aa Bee 1.35
Bateral' diam)! 6. .2 a... sae ree ay BeASe | eas oe ee
(526 in|divids.)
Radius: Length max........| 23.8 we ea ® Pattee | BAC OTN 23682
Radio-humeral index......} .... eee Lea ieee aR OR ee Tem
At middle: Antero-post.
iain eee eee becca ee es el eae 1.20
Transverse diam........ TGSt i) HAA Tessie

! Der Neanderthalschadel, Jahrb. Ver. Altertsfr. Rheinh., r901, Heft 106.

2 Original measurements, 1912.

3 Regular prismatic, with the medial-anterior and lateral surfaces convex. :

4 Probable transposition of figures. The right bone is throughout larger. The excess of the right
epicondylar breadth over the left is well shown also in the casts.

5 Probably excessive.

6 The slight differences between the measurements by the two observers are doubtless due to
slight differences in method. The cast, which as usual is slightly larger than the original in all
dimensions, measures 1.25 x 1.60. The measurements I take are: for the transverse—the maximum;
for the antero-posterior—the bone so placed that its sharp medial border is midway between the
branches of the sliding compass.

riorly between the anterior-inferior spine of the ilium and the ilio-
pectineal eminence broader and deeper, and the eminence itself more
pronounced, than in modern ilia. The articular part of the acetabulum
is decidedly less extensive antero-superiorly, and forms in consequence

158 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

considerably less of a circle, than in recent ossa innominata ; and the
shape of the fossa acetabuli is different. The postero-superior border
of the obturator foramen differs also rather materially from that in
recent bones ; it presents a marked triangular point above the cotyloid
notch, and is markedly obtuse in its lower half. Other minor peculi-
arities of the bone appear to fall within the range of its present
variation.

The femur—The Neanderthal femora differ markedly from those
of the average present man. Their distinctive features could not
collectively be duplicated today, in some instances not even indi-
vidually.

The head is large and more globular than in modern man. The
neck is stout and rather short, and the angle it forms with the shaft
is less oblique than in most recent femora. The connecting bridge of
bone between the great trochanter and the neck is stouter than in
most recent bones; the trochanteric fossa is larger than in modern
man. The trochanter minor is prominent and located more mesially
than in most modern femora; this is especially the case on the right.
The sub-trochanteric flattening and bellying is but moderate, espe-
cially on the right. The upper third of the shaft shows a distinct bend
outward (medial convexity inward); this is either absent or but
slightly represented in normal recent femora. The whole shaft shows
a marked uniform arching forward, reaching from the level of the
trochanter minor to the condyles; such curve, to such a degree, is
but rarely found in normal modern bones. The gluteal insertion is
marked by a somewhat irregular oblong blunt ridge, pronounced in its
upper portion which reaches to and upon the great trochanter; it
would be hard to duplicate such a condition in modern femurs. The
linea aspera is relatively but slightly developed ; this is rare in strong
male modern bones. The shape of the shaft at the middle is inter-
mediate beween cylindrical and oval. The popliteal space in both bones
is very distinctly convex except in the lowermost portion, which
is flat to very slightly concave; the fullness (convexity) of the upper
two-thirds of the space, to this degree, could hardly be duplicated in
modern femora; it recalls the femur of the Pithecanthropus, though
the convexity of the latter is even greater.

The lower end of the femur is very distinctive: the lateral condyles
rise decidedly higher above the mesial than is the case in modern
femora; the anterior portion of the intercondylar notch is markedly
concave, especially on the right, while in modern femora its outline
from side to side is convex-concave-convex.

THE NEANDERTHAL FEMORA

(ORIGINALS)
400 American
Schwalbe Hrdli¢ka Whites (misc.)
Hrdliéka
r. l. fis L. tee L
cm. om. | (cm. cm. | cm. cm.
Femur: Length, bicondylar........ 43.9! [44.05 143.7 [43.9 144.79 [44.81
Stature, estimated’... i250 ccncs ; TOAR OMI Sheen |e eee lke eee
Humero-femoral index.......... RM le ees, \7 Ded nas au Zena ee
Heads Dilantaimaxr eee ates PA eee 53 Se SaaS é
Diam. infero-superior......... Bea sed 8.35 S25
Diam. transverse (antero-post.)|(5.05)| 5.2 | dam- | 5.25
aged
Necks Diaimimaxe eee en rewr Ree AsO 5m less
Pascoe ss) eee ees Sok BuO. -\ 228
At middle: Diam. antero-post....| 3.1 awl 2.05: |) 3-05
Diam. transverse............. 2.953| 3.053| 2.9 | 3.0 iyi Ni AepeNeaee
Meantdiamya anasto eee. 2198) |)3).02) | 21-89) |p2.90
Index of strength
ee FOOW ferent wer ipet (66.5 |\08-0. \Od. 4a) Oda
Femoral-length
Girciimferenee.!. 2:50 66.88 Gea egvo yl O.4) | 9.6
Below trochanter minor:4
Diam antero-poste arin ae SeORu|e2n95
Diam {ransverses gwen. <4. BAe N32 55
Subtrochanteric flattening:
DATE AM Te eee te are hc or 2.8 7 25:60) 2a770
Dian senate allt eeu, A bea a | aa S alk aeeats
Nar Gx ese pe seh certs etic aches ele 70 82.8 | 83.3
Lower end: Epicondylar breadth
TILA rcs porters seus eaten tetiest ons SS5. WSh5 se SS° | S.8°
Condyles: Diam. max. lateral:
Mesial condyle: ...+......0... Bas al 4020
Bateralicoudyle yo. 22 2c. 3.05 | 3.05
Diam. antero-post.:
Mesialicondylensss.4e0 san Reece aN OO 720
Materalicondyles eee aoe Tee AM Tee Aen gice2 oy (hy ts S

When bones lie on the condyles,

the lateral rises above the

TMESIA Dyed a eee eee an | eee | atktyal on aaitad
In same natural position head of

left bone is higher from the

horizontal than the right ‘by:...|/.... | i-.. | .---.|3 mm.
Inclination of the diaphysis to the

RERAN Berne eR cs 4d ee, 84° 85°
Anpleloipneckge.s 2 pic als ad oc meet: TOM eUnos

1 In the posthumous work of Schwalbe on the Pithecanthropus femur, Z. Morph. u. Anthrop.
Vol. 21, p. 354, 1921, the mean length of the Neanderthal femur is given as 43.8 cm., which cor-
responds exactly to the mean length of the writer’s measurements. é

2 Using the quotient 26.8, obtained by Hrdli¢ka on bodies of 100 male Americans.

3 The figures are printed reversed, namely 3.05 and 2.95, which is clearly an error; the left
shaft is the stronger (see circumference), and the casts of the bones confirm the matter.

4 These are not the same measurements as those that follow; the writer takes, as the most useful,
the minimum and maximum dimensions of the flattening. ae

5 Here is a rather material difference between the measurements of Schwalbe and the writer's
which must be due to some difference in method. The writer’s measurements represent the maximum
obtainable epicondylar breadth taken by the stouter branches of an accurate compass glissiére.

12 159

160 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The medial superior surface of the mesial condyle, which is gener-
ally fuller to convex in modern femora, is concave in both of the
Neanderthal bones (especially in the right) ; the outlines of the fossae
of the condyles differ somewhat from those in modern femora. The
anterior surface of the lower portion of the shaft, slightly over 3 cm.
above the middle of the border of the articular surface, shows plainly
on each side, but especially well marked on the left side, a patellar
fossa close to 12 mm. in length but somewhat less in breadth;
such fossae are very rare in recent femora.

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON PARTS OF THE SKELETON
OTHER THAN THE SKULL

The long and other bones of the Neanderthal ‘skeleton, as far as
preserved, show many features of anthropological difference from
and inferiority to the corresponding parts of recent man, indicating
plainly that not merely the skull, but the whole body of the Neander-
thal man occupied a lower evolutionary stage than that of any normal
human being of historic times.

The bones in general indicate a powerful musculature, and broad
and strong chest, combined with a somewhat submedium stature.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Brake, C. Carter. On the alleged peculiar characters ‘and assumed antiquity
of the human cranium from the Neanderthal. Journ. Anthrop. Soc. London,
Vol. 2, pp. 139-157, 1864.

Bonnet. Der Litcke zwischen der Neandertal- und Cro-Magnongruppe, sowie
dem Skelett von Combe Capelle. Verhandl. d. anat. Gesellsch., Vol. 30,
p. 134, Jena, 1921.

Bourse, Marcettin. L’homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Paris, 1913.

CZEKANOWSKI, JAN. Zur Differentialdiagnose der Neandertalgruppe. Kor-
respondenzbl. d. Deutsch. Gesellsch. f. Anthropol., Vol. 9, 5 S, mit 3 Tabellen,
1900.

Davis, Barnarp. The Neanderthal skull. Journ. Anthrop. Soc., Vol. 3, No. 15,
London, 1865.

De Quartreraces, A., ET Hamy, E. T. Crania ethnica, pp. 11-15, 1882.

Fuutrott, C. Uber die Kalksteinschichten in der unmittelbaren Umgebung der
kleineren Feldhofer Grotte im Neanderthal, in welcher (Sommer 1856)
fossile Reste eines menschlichen Skeletts, der sog. Homo Neanderthalensis
aufgefunden wurde. Verhandl. d. naturh. Ver. d. preuss. Rheinl. u. West-
phal., 25. Korrespondenzblatt, S. 62-70, Jahrg. 1868.

HrpourcKa, ALES. The Neanderthal phase of man. (The Huxley Memorial
Lecture.) Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 57, pp. 249-274, London, 1927.

Hux ey, T. H. On some fossil remains of man, pp. 118-159, London, 1863.

Krinc. The reputed fossil man of the Neanderthal. Quart. Journ. Sci., 1864.

‘Aueuitory ‘deuso ‘QyIOMYIVY] DUOSITRIISA AA -YOSTUTOYY
2) qd | YRS SYOST[ FAS AA -YSSIUTOyY ,,

“

ay} Aq payeuop ydessojoyd) “HYD 9y} JO soeVF 94} JO FEY Io] oy} Jo yuory ul Ae] ‘AeVMe po}Se[q VOUTS SUOT
‘paIIAODSIP SBM UOJIJIYS JUSOUR 94} YIYM Ul ‘VARI JOVOYPLOA 94.L ‘A]juaoe1 ‘yeyjsapueaN eY} JO YO Ho] ey L

8S “Id ‘€8 “10A SNOILOA1100 SNOANVTIZOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

(Jeulsiio oyi Woy poydersojoyd ) “AIA opis “][HYS [eYy}topueaN 94 L

62 “Id ‘€8 “1OA SNOILO31100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLINS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL, 83, PE. 30

The Neanderthal skull, top view. (Photographed for the Smithsonian
Institution from the orig:nal.)

(jeulsi110 oy} Wosy paydersojoyd) “Meld Yor qpnys [eyjepueanN

LE “Id ‘€8 “10A
SNOILO31100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLINS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 32

(Photographed tor

The femur, scapula and ileac bone of the Neanderthal skeleton.
the Smithsonian Institution from the original. )

(‘jeurs110 94} Wor UwoT}NIysUyT
UBIUOSY}WIS oy} Joy paydessojoyg ) “UOJIPoyS [eY}WJopueaN ey} JO Xes0y} pue Squat] Jaddn oy} Wo1f sauog

EE “Id ‘€8 “10A SNOILO31100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA I6I

KraatscuH, H. Die fossilen Knochenreste des Menschen und ihre Bedeutung
fir das Abstammungs-Problem, Erg. d. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch.,
Vol. 9, pp. 415-496, 1900. E

Das Gliedmassenskelett des Neanderthalmenschen. Verh. Anat. Ges.

Kong. Bonn., Erganzhft. z. Anat. Anz., Erginzh., Vol. 19, pp. 121-154, 1901.

Die Fortschritte der Lehre von den fossilen Knochenresten des Men-
schen in den Jahren 1900-1903. Erg. d. Anat. u. Entwicklungsg., Vol. 12,
1903.

Das Gesichtsskelett der Neandertalrasse und der Australier. Ver-
handlungen der Anatomischen Gesellschaft in Berlin, 1908; Erganzhft. z.
Anatom. Anz., Vol. 32, p. 223, 1908.

LrEcLERQ, SUZANNE. La courbure femoral. Travaux des Laboratoires de
Paleont. et de Anthrop., Univ. Liege, Vol. I, 63 pp., 1927.

Lyett, Cu. The antiquity of man, pp. 75-79, 1863.

OPPENHEIM, STEFANIE. Das Gehirn des Homo Neandertalensis sive primi-
genius. Die Naturwissenschaften. Heft 40. 3. 10, pp. 955-058, 1913.

Raurr, HerMANN. Uber die Altersbestimmung des Neandertaler Menschen und
die geologischen Grundlagen dafur. Verh. des Naturh. Ver. der preuss.
Rheinl. u. Westf., Taf. I, 60, Jahrg., S. 11-90, 1903.

SCHAAFFHAUSEN, D. On the crania of the most ancient races of man (from
Muller’s Archiv, 1858). With remarks and original figures, taken from a
cast of the Neanderthal cranium. By George Busk. Nat. Hist. Rev., pp. 155-
176, 2 pls., 1861.

Fernere Bemerkungen tiber die menschlichen Uberreste aus dem Juli

Heft der Natural History Review, tibersetzt von Prof. Dr. Fuhlrott. Archiv

fur Anatomie, Physiologie, etc., pp. 1-24, Jahrg., 18065.

Uber einen Fund zahlreicher fossiler Knochen und Zahne einer Grotte,
der sog. Teufelskammer in Neanderthal. Verhandl. d. naturhist. Vereins
der preussischen Rheinlande u. Westfalens. 23. Sitzungsberichte der nied-
errh. Gesellsch., S. 14-15 und 32, Jahrg., 1866. Sitzungsberichte S. 136,
Jahrg., 1875.

ScHWALBE, G. Der Neanderthalschadel. Jahrb. d. Ver. v. Altertsfr. im Rheinl.,
Heft 106. Taf. I, 72 pp., 1900.

Uber die spezifischen Merkmale des Neandertalschadels. Verhandl. der
Anat. Gesellschaft. Bonn, pp. 44-61. Erganzhft. z. Anat. Anz., Vol. 10, 1901.

Sottas, W. J. On the cranial and facial characters of the Neanderthal race.
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Vol. 199, pp. 281-330, 1907.

Turner, W. The fossil skull controversy: On human crania allied in anatomical
character to the Engis and Neanderthal skulls. Quart. Journ. Sci., 1864.

Wyman, J. Observations on crania. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Boston,
Vol. 11, pp. 461, 462, 1868.

THE SKULL OF GIBRALTAR

This very valuable specimen is preserved in the Museum of the
Royal College of Surgeons, England, where, thanks to the courtesy
of the curator, Sir Arthur Keith, the writer has been able to examine
it repeatedly and have it photographed.

162 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The history of the specimen is, regrettably, somewhat defective.
The first mention of it occurs in Falconer’s Paleontological Memoirs,’
in 1868, where, on page 561 of Volume 2, speaking of various anthro-
pological and other finds at Gibraltar, the author says:

One of the human skulls yielded by the rocks many years since appears to us
to point to a time of very high antiquity. In fact, it is the most remarkable and
perfect example of its kind now extant. In the absence of a properly organized
museum no record exists of the precise circumstances under which this inter-
esting relic was found, and that it has been preserved at all may be considered a
happy accident; it has cost us much labor, and with but partial success, to
endeavor to trace its history on the spot where it turned up.

Besides this, Falconer remarks in a letter to a relative, referring
to the skull: “ It is a case of a very low type of humanity—very low
and savage and of extreme antiquity—but still man... . .

Taking all the available data into consideration,’ it appears that the
skull was accidentally discovered as early as 1848, therefore eight years
before the Neanderthal cranium made its appearance, in the ‘‘ Forbes
Quarry, situated on the north base of the Rock of Gibraltar.” Ac-
cording to Keith,’ it was ‘‘ quarried out of the terrace under the north
face of the rock,” a terrace formed of solidified breccia, consisting of
the débris of weathering of the limestone cliff and fine wind-blown
sand. The part of the terrace where the cranium lay was possibly
in former times the floor of a cave. Part of a cave still exists behind
the site of the discovery, and this was explored in 1911 by Duckworth,
but without results. It is certain that the skull showed, and to some
extent presents to this day, a hard stony matrix adhering to its surface
and filling its cavities. Broca, to whom we owe the first descriptive
account of the specimen,’ says that it was taken out of a “ very com-
pact and adherent gangue,” from which it was disengaged with much
difficulty. The photographs published with Broca’s account show still
very noticeable remnants of the stony matrix (see also pl. 34).

The skull was presented to the Gibraltar Scientific Society by Lieut.
Flint, then its secretary, but for many years received no scientific
attention. In 1862 it came to England, with the collections from the

*Falconer, Hugh, Paleontological Memoirs and Notes, 2 vols., London,
1868; also Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. 21, p. 369, 1865.

* Op. cit., p. 561, footnote.

*Compare Keith, A., The early history of the Gibraltar cranium. Nature,
PP. 313-314, I9II. :

* Ancient Types of Man, p. 121, 19011.

* Broca, P., Cranes et ossements humains des cavernes de Gibraltar. Bull.
Soc. d’Anthropol. Paris, 2d séries, Vol. 4, p. 154, 1869.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 163

ee BWririsym Lacs

~~. '

Cemerery

Y) y f nes
aa Y PDevrcs

a

_@
STH Tower
~

i

U (ety

( \ ‘ohh \
AC CBN

: arash
ae . ey M,
pe rn INAATIN'S Cave
B WCEP mee Cave
Wietx \ SS Moneys’ Cave
\STA
| Ju Dee's Lee,
Cave @ a |
N Senistaly 0
(fWopntu. & YSENISTA 4
a Dn Ve 3
x Wf
PS ea « y/
¥ 27/2 \\ (

/ ir \
/) FENISTAS Wi)
/ Wo /,
\ AS
\

i tp
\\ Europe ~ Vy
\i\ Furs

\ (

eked)

ae

Fic. 15.—The Rock of Gibraltar: sites of both Forbes Quarry (skeleton, 1848),
and Devil’s Tower (skeleton of child, 1926). (After Miss Garrod, 1928. )

13

164 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Gibraltar caves, and was studied to some extent by Busk and Falconer.
The latter, perceiving how much it differed from recent human skulls,
proposed to refer it to a distinct variety of man, Homo colpicus, after
Calfé, the old name of Gibraltar. Finally in 1868 Busk presented the
cranium to the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England,
where it is still preserved.

The first descriptive account of the specimen was published, as
mentioned above, by Broca, but at that time the adhering stony matrix
prevented any attempts at accurate measurements. Subsequently it
received attention by Huxley, De Quatrefages and Hamy, and later
from Macnamara, Klaatsch, Schwalbe, Sollas, Sera, and Keith, as well
as the writer. It is a very remarkable specimen which, even though the
geological and paleontological evidence relating to its antiquity is
imperfect, does not allow for one moment of any doubt as to its repre-
senting an early human form; and its characteristics are such that
it is now universally regarded as a representative, possibly a very
early one, of Homo neanderthalensis.

The cranium is grayish-white to yellowish in color, and is consider-
ably mineralized and heavier than normal. The stony matrix has been
so far removed that all important determinations and measurements
which the defective state of the bones permit may now be made.
Fortunately the facial region, the frontal bone, and most of the right
side of the skull, includine the back, are relatively well preserved ;
the top of the vault on the other hand shows a large defect, and the
left parietal, temporal and sphenoid parts, together with much of the
base, are lost. With all the defects, sufficient of the skull remains
to permit of a number of valuable determinations on the skull and
as to the brain, and also a fairly correct reconstruction.

The aspect of the face is semi-human, apish. The mid-portion from
the glabella downward protrudes forward more than in normal skulls,
as a result of which the planes of the orbits as well as the planes of the
malars slope more outward and backward than they do in modern
crania. The line from the nasion to the point of intersection of the
external and fronto-malar suture gives in a modern female skull an
inclination from the horizontal of 11°; in the Gibraltar cranium the
same inclination is close to 20°.

Other very striking features of the face are the relatively huge
(for a female) supraorbital arch; the very large orbits ; the stoutness
of the medial process of the frontal bone; the complete absence
of suborbital (canine) fossae; the broad nose; and the dental arch
with long teeth. The supraorbital arch measures nearly 12 cm. in
breadth, and from approximately 12 to over 15 mm. in thickness

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 165

above the orbits. It does not greatly protrude forward, as it does in
the male Neanderthal skulls, nevertheless it represents a true and
rather huge torus, such as is wholly unknown in recent crania. The
orbits are very large, irregularly circular in outline. They are sepa-
rated by the stout median process of the frontal, with a large glabellar
swelling and space above; the bones forming their external boundary
are markedly broader than in modern skulls. The orbital borders,
especially the mesial half of the inferior ones, are more or less dull
and stout. The nasal bones are broad, not long, and moderately arched
from side to side. The nasal aperture is strikingly broad, but not
negroid ; its lower borders were evidently fairly sharp, and there are
evidences of a good-sized spine. The side walls of the aperture and
the nasal bones are very perceptibly thicker than they are in modern
skulls. A remarkable feature which gives the face its characteristic
appearance is the fullness, to mild convexity, of the suborbital
(canine) fossae and of the nasal processes of the maxilla. All these
parts look as if inflated from behind.

The upper alveolar process was broad and originally probably fairly
high. It has suffered from absorption and damage so that the roots of
the remaining teeth in the anterior half of the arch are nearly fully
exposed. The teeth, though considerably worn off, appear very long.
A very interesting condition is the absence of the two median incisors.
As there is no sign of any decay, and the alveolar process shows a
characteristic absorption notch at this place, it would seem that the
two teeth must have been lost long before the death of the individual,
and that presumably through some violence. This condition recalls
forcibly the ceremonial knocking out of these incisors (and sometimes
also other teeth) in the negro, Australian, and other primitive peoples.

Added to these facial peculiarities of the skull is its low and sloping
forehead. The ensemble presents a picture of phylogenetic inferi-
ority which, taking into consideration the fact that this is unquestion-
ably the skull of a female, is not quite equalled by any other specimens
of Neanderthal origin thus far discovered ; though it is true that the
facial features are preserved in only a few of the specimens belonging
to this great period.

The vault of the skull is especially noteworthy on account of its
lowness, and through a peculiar formation of the occiput. The poste-
rior parietal and upper occipital region shows a broad mild flattening
ending in a medium occipital eminence, which gives the region an
impression of breadth and submedium height. Much the same char-
acteristic is found also in other Neanderthal skulls.

166 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The temporal bones, judging from that on the right side, most of
which is present, were remarkably small. The lines of attachment
of the temporal muscles and fascia were about as in modern skulls.
The mastoid was decided!y smaller than it is in modern crania. The
external auditory meatus is also of very moderate size. The vault
viewed from above is ovoid in shape. The cranial bones, particularly
the frontal and the parietals, are rather thick, the occipital being per-
ceptibly thinner and nearer in this respect to modern skulls. The

180 159 7 2100s:
80 1 ae Seana aE

BREGMA

& :
rent mame eel mene tinted mennipoeern nana’

CG
EEN
3

Fe res eS he ee ee ee

150 190 50 0

| a
| o
|

Seka Sree ae ai 2 EA SE ae ie

Fic. 16.—Profile drawing of the brain cast of the Gibraltar skull. It represents
the smallest known brain of the extinct Neanderthal race. (After Keith.)

base, though largely damaged or missing, shows a number of points
of special interest.

The broad dental arch is nearly horseshoe-shaped (elliptical with
broad front). The palate was of medium height, with a mild median
bilateral torus. The teeth form a regular arch and are close in appo-
sition, without either crowding or diastemae. The canines, in their
roots and lower portion of the crown, were very much like and no
larger than the anterior premolars. All the front teeth are stouter
linguo-labially than they are in modern skulls. The glenoid fossa is of

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 167

triangular shape, with the apex of the triangle directed forward and
somewhat inward. It is decidedly smaller, especially in its transverse
diameter, than it is in modern skulls, and its transverse plane is more
inclined outward and upward.

There was evidently no styloid. Between what represents the
base of the styloid and the retrotympanic ridge passing from the
spinous process towards the posterior part of the border of the ex-
ternal meatus and the mastoid, there is a rather broad and marked
depression, which is not found in modern skulls. The mastoid was
plainly situated less outwardly than in modern crania. The digastric
groove is short and broad ; it is in reality a fossa rather than a groove.
The petrous portions of the temporal bone are on a level with the
surrounding parts of the face, as in the anthropoids and some of the
most primitive of human skulls.

Endocranially, the sku!l shows a number of interesting features.
There is, throughout, a marked paucity of impressions of brain con-
volutions, and also of those of the blood vessels. Even the sinuses
have left but shallow grooves. The brain itself was not particularly
small for a female skull; and it was already of a rather advanced
human type. The anterior parts of the frontal bone are rough. The
roofs of the orbits are somewhat more elevated, especially mesially,
than in modern skulls, encroaching thus on the frontal lobes. The
olfactory or mid-frontal fossa is deeper and more spacious than that
in recent crania, and is of different form. The frontal lobes were
relatively large but low, especially anteriorly ; the middle or temporal
fossa was relatively small; and the same is true of the cerebellar
fossae, which were smaller from side to side as well as sagitally, and
more shallow, than is usual in modern skulls. The pituitary fossa,
damaged, was evidently near the average size of the structure in
modern crania. The petrous bones, especially in their mesial parts,
are stouter than they are in female skulls of modern times.

There are other details and dimensions about the specimen which
are of more or less interest to the anthropologist, but which need not
be dealt with in this paper. It will suffice to say that both the visual
and the instrumental examination of the specimen lead to the con-
clusion that the Gibraltar skull represents a highly valuable relic of
an early human being and that its principal characteristics justify its
classification with the Homo neanderthalensis.

168 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

THE GIBRALTAR SKULL

MEASUREMENTS ON THE ORIGINAL

Broca Sollas Sera Keith Hrdlicka
Vault: cm. cm. cm. cm. cm.
Length max.
(glabella-occip.)......... nee 19.0 eens Saas 19133
(glabella-inion)......... nae 18.8 18.8
(ophryon-inion)......... serrae 18.1 Bb Meee ene
Breadth max., estimated...| .... 14.4 sae ofc, a Rear DARE
Cranial inGex-fse esis oe sen. lclosetoisa:04|) (eae .... |close to 77.0
Height, basion-vertex
(estimated) ea aecienes fae VED S702. 2 Hath.
Basion-bregma.........- Ras eae wee a ||eneard22
Height-breadth index. ..... deed aise Shag Lda isy || SMa oe a5)
Mean height index....... nea ae Ege Zuers $ig,- ull CART ES
Calottal height (glabella- =
inion line to vertex)..... oy 23 8.2-8.7 mae
Diam. frontal min......... Saint eee a ee se 2 4||) MeaRiQuO
Thickness min. of frontal
bone near bregma....... ee 7 mm.
AUOPNLYVON sc... 1552: oe 14 mm. aa ee
Cranial capacity, estimated.| .... 1260 cc. ae 1200
1250 cc.
Face height (alveolar
POINt-MASION)). 7 ns oe ..c. | ‘Mear8.2 near S.2))44.. | means .o
Interorbital breadth, min...| 2.3
Orbits: Breadth (mesial
lancimearnkt) Serre) ak ie at An 4.4
4.4 43 4.4 aha mre
fromicachy Olmert im| mere: See seashs 1p close ton4=o
Les eyee Sete: vata 4.0
Height.mid2 6c. ses = E. | 3.9 (3.9)4 (3.9)4 4.0
1. | 3.9 (4.0) (4.1) 3.8
Depth yracnctcie.sc. Tm |e Sea apa. 5.3
Orbital index (mean)...... ayn eit eee pect 07-5
Nose:
Height of aperture........ eaus 3.45 BAO
Height (probably to base of
SPINE) ie Maas eee aie ee eat a7
Height, nasion to lowest
points on borders of
notches, mean.......... wate see aes Le 5.85
Aperture, breadth max.....] .... a3 Bud by tats Beal

Nasaliim Gene on cam trees te eg cee a ohh 58.1

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 169

THE GIBRALTAR SKULL
MEASUREMENTS ON THE ORIGINAL—CONTINUED

Broca Sollas Sera Keith Hrdlicka
Upper alveolar arch: cm. cm. cm. cm. cm.
Median length to line of
rearmost points of 3rd
AMOlATS EM seeraysenste cee =. Sea Nase Sh pane Beas th
to posterior limits of arch} .... | near 6.7 yee wr et W Beare
Breadth max., external....| 7.1 70 Mh ae 70
AEX caateter ners eeiek sa 95.7 Rate ge ae 05.7
Thickness of right parietal,
along a line 1 cm. above
squamous suture........ Many: Seta Orr ee 6-9 mm.

1 Taken on the reconstructed skull (original); the reconstruction is so good that there can be
but little error; though it is possible that the original may have been a trace narrower.
2 Evidently an error; his figures (p. 322) give 75.8.
8 These measurements could not have been taken from the standard landmark of dacryon;
they doubtless are measurements of the contour of the orbits.
“A a These are reversed and one author had apparently copied the other; the right orbit is the
igher.

ENDOCRANIAL MEASUREMENTS cm,
Whole Cavity: Greatest length of brain (left hemisphere)...........----- 16.4
Maximum length, right side, measured.............-..--- 16.2
Maximum» breadth estimatedinn. a4 .-2)-1s 56 ee eis er = 12.8
Gerehrarmder telgse tare). csiscas Saris ae ancien cle eee 79.0
Anterior or frontal fossa (all fossae right side): Length!..... ee
Eviaddlevor temporal fossa. 2 2.5). So ae ee eye = See 5.0
Postero-superior or occipital cerebral fossa...........----- 7.6
Postero-inferior or cerebellar fossa............-.---++++5 5-7
COMPARISONS
Mesoce- ibaa ; SUES
Whites | Whites and Gibbons)
Anteniontossas Wenethecss si. es... 5.22 5.05 5.20
Percental relation to max.
endocranial lengtae ins <6 6 ee. > 29.5 30.4 qoute tid -0
Percental relation to total length of
LOSSES 4 AA Ce Orn Aes ieee BO 28.2 29.2
Middle tiossas Wengthi ts. sso .ace-- oe 5.53 Beez 5.0
Percental relation to max.
encdoctanial length)... ...0.2-.-<: O22 33.0 B000) N33 23543
Percental relation to total length of
PORSTEUIPR oF OGLS : tells ta ela ees 29.5 29.4 28.2
Posterior cerebral fossa: Length....... 7.96 7.58 7.60
Percental relation to max.
endocrantal length... .:.<u7.-> 46.0 46.8 46.9 | 42.5-48.5
Percental relation to total length of
LOSSHE ME ao oe Soe ee wisn hale 42.6 42.4 42.7
Cerebellar fossa: Length............. 6.26 6.16 57

1 For methods and comparative data see Hrdli¢ka, A. Measurements of the Cranial Fossae.
Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 32, pp. 177-232, 1907.

170 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS AND FINDS AT GIBRALTAR

Between 1863 and 1866 Professor G. Busk explored a number of
caves at and in the vicinity of Gibraltar. In these he collected several
skulls and a series of bones, all of which, however, belonged to the
Neolithic age. Busk reported on his work before the Prehistoric
Congress of Norwich in 1868; and a report on the bones and skulls,
together with the measurements of the latter, is given by Paul
Broca (Bull, Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1869, Vol. 4, pp. 145-158).

In 1910 and again in 1911, W. L. H. Duckworth, of the Cambridge
University, visited Gibraltar for the purpose of obtaining, if possible,
additional information about the old skulls, and of making further
exploration. The results are published in two reports.’ He found
that Forbes’ Quarry still existed, though, having been worked at
intervals since 1848, its boundaries were larger. The quarry, as origi-
nally noted, is under the north front of the Rock of Gibraltar. The
rock at this point contained still a remnant of a cave, which was not
more than about 30 feet above sea level and “ was probably the result
of marine erosion at a remote epoch; and at a remote epoch also, the
mouth of this cave must have been closed, until it was reopened by
the quarrymen.” It was in all probability this cave in which the skull
was discovered. A partial exploration of the cave and the neighboring
talus was barren so far as remains of man were concerned. A second
cave in the rock, explored by Dr. Duckworth, gave remains of the
Neolithic period.

In the latter part of 1910, a stone-slide obstructed both the quarry
and the cave, making the latter accessible only with great difficulty.
The work of 1911 added but little of importance to that of 1g10.
But one of the caverns (Sewell’s Cave) yielded, with others, some
Mousterian, Aurignacian, Solutrean, and even Magdalenian, stone
implements.

EXPLORATIONS BY ABBE BREUIL

In 1917 parts of the Rock of Gibraltar and the neighborhood were
investigated by Abbé Breuil. During this work the Abbé discovered
near the “ Devil’s Tower ” a rough rock shelter which gave indications
of paleolithic man. This site, in 1926, was explored in detail by Miss
D. A. E. Garrod; and it was here that in June, 1926, Miss Garrod
found, enclosed in rock, the skull of a child, proceeding evidently
from the Mousterian period. This skull will be described later.

* Duckworth, W. L. H., Cave Exploration at Gibraltar in September, 1oro.
Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 41, pp. 350-380, London, 1911; Cave Explora-
tion at Gibraltar in 1911. Jbid., Vol. 42, pp. 515-528, 1912.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 34

The Gibraltar skull (1848). (Photograph from Royal College of Surgeons,
London. )

14

(‘uopuoT ‘suoasing jo asaTjoD [esAoy ay} Wort ydessojoyg) “MorIA apis ‘(gvgr) [[MyAS reyesqity e4L

GE “ld “€8 “10A SNOILO31100 SNOSNVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWNS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 36

The Gibraltar skull (1848), top view. (Photograph from the Royal College ot
Surgeons, London. )

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA U7L

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Bourg, M., ano AntHony. L’encéphale de I’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-
Saints, L’Anthrop., Vol. 22, pp. 129-196, 1911.

. L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Paris, 1913.

Broca, P. Cranes et ossements humains des cavernes de Gibraltar. Bull. Soc.
Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 4, pp. 145-158, 18609.

Busxk, G. On the ancient or Quaternary fauna of Gibraltar. Trans. Zool. Soc.,
London, Vol. 10, 1870.

De Quartreraces, A., AND Hamy, E. T. Crania ethnica, p. 21, figs. 18 and 10,
1882.

ScHWALBE, G. Studien zur Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Z. Morph. und An-
throp., Sonderh., 1906.

Sera, G. L. Nuove osservazioni ed induzioni sul cranio di Gibraltar. Arch. per
l’Antrop. e la Etnol., Firenze, Vol. 39, Fasc., pp. 152-212, 1900.

. Di alcuni caratteri importanti sinora non rilevati nel cranio di Gibraltar.
Atti d. Soc. rom. di antrop., Roma, Vol. 15, 14 pp., 1900.

Sottas, W. J. On the cranial and facial characters of the Neanderthal race.
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. B, Vol. 199, pp. 281-339, 1907.

The skull is dealt with also in all the general treatises on Prehistory.

THE CHILD SKULL OF GIBRALTAR

For the discovery of this interesting specimen, science is indebted
to Miss Dorothy Garrod, English prehistorian. The specimen was
found in June, 1926, embedded in hard rock in some Mousterian
deposits fronting a small cave opposite the ruin of “ Devil’s Tower,”
in the eastern face of the north front (Spain front) of the Rock of
Gibraltar, not very far from the Forbes Quarry, in which in 1848
was discovered the adult Neanderthaloid skull of Gibraltar. The find
and the specimens recovered were described by Miss Garrod, Pro-
fessors Buxton and Elliot Smith, and Miss Bate, before the Royal
Anthropological Institute, November, 1927, and the several reports
were published in the Journal of the Institute." The details of the
find are given by Miss Garrod ; the main points are as follows:

The Mousterian site at Devil’s Tower was discovered in 1917 by the Abbé
Breuil, then acting as diplomatic courier between Gibraltar and the French Naval
Bureau at Madrid (1). In the course of a visit to the North Front of the Rock
he noticed fragments of fossil-bone in the talus of a small cave or rock-shelter
at the foot of the immense vertical peak of Rock-Gun, immediately opposite a
ruin known as the Devil’s Tower. M. Breuil was unable to follow up this dis-
covery at the time, but in 1919 he returned to Gibraltar and with the help of the

late Colonel Willoughby Verner dug a trial trench a little way down the talus of
the shelter, unearthing a number of animal bones and four stone implements of

* Garrod, D. A. E., with L. H. D. Buxton, G. Elliot Smith, and D. M. A. Bate,
Excavation of a Mousterian Rock-Shelter at Devil’s Tower, Gibraltar. Journ.
Roy. Anthrop. Inst., Vol. 58, pp. 19-113, 7 pls., 25 figs., 1928.

172 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

definite Mousterian type. My own work on the shelter, undertaken at M. Breuil’s
suggestion, occupied seven months, between November, 1925, and January, 1927,
and was carried out by means of a grant from the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund.

The Devil’s Tower cave is a narrow fissure running obliquely into the Rock
of Gibraitar at the eastern end of the North Front, 350 m. from Forbes’ Quarry.
It has a maximum height of 12 m. and a maximum width of 1.20 m., and 4 m.
from the entrance it narrows to a mere crack. The rocky floor at the cave
mouth lies 9 m. above sea-level, and 5 m. above the average level.

The work carried out consisted in emptying the cave down to the rock floor
and removing the talus or terrace deposits over an area extending from the

13.79 METRES
ABOVE SEA-LE MEL
‘

S.SO METRES
AWOVE SCdLE VER

SCO D

UPPER LIMIT om () Z
OF en: ox i Z
eet " Cor
LIThODOMT Sar Sages SES Pe Re ey ZZ
hid Qe hee Beans
Giana cc" ees

METRES

Fic. 17——The Mousterian site at Gibraltar that gave the child’s skull. (After
Miss Garrod. )

1. Fine sand. 2. Calcareous tufa. 3. Fine sand. 4: Brownish-grey travertine
or tufa’ 5. Fine sand. 6. Pink travertine. 7. Raised beach. W.“ Wash” of sandy
rubble. A. Rocks blocking the fissure. B. Fallen rock. C. Rampart of rock in
front of raised beach. + + Portions of human skull.

rock wall which bounded them on the west to a line 4.50 m. to the east of the
cave mouth. Seven layers of deposit were revealed in this way, the succession
from above downwards being as follows:

. Fine sand, filling the fissure to the roof.

. Calcareous tufa, I-4 m.

. Fine sand, 20 cm.-I m.

. Travertine, 10-80 cm.

. Fine sand, 40 cm.-1.40 m.

. Travertine, 50-75 cm.

7. Raised beach, with its surface at 8.50-9 m. above sea-level.

Am PW HN

Layers I-5 contained archaeological material, the industry from top to bottom
being Mousterian.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 75

The total number of implements and flakes recovered was small—
less than 500, the majority in quartzite, the rest in flint, chert, and
jasper. There were also two fragments of bone compressors.

The industry of layers 1 and 2, and the implements found in the “ wash” have
a well-marked Upper Mousterian character. Specially typical are the utilized
bones, the curved points of Audi type, the narrow well-made straight points, the
preponderance of scrapers, and the high proportion of flakes so slender that they
may fairly be described as blades. The industry of the lower levels is so poor
as to be in no way typical, but the presence of a graver in layer 4, taken together
with the general uniformity of technique throughout the site, and the absence”
of more archaic forms in the “ wash,” suggests that these, too, belong to the
Upper Mousterian.

The fauna, too, as determined by Miss Bate, was much the same
at all leveis. The mammals, found in the various layers (except the
“seal and the elephant which occurred in the raised beach), included
the following:

Talpa europea
Crocidura russula
Myotis, cf. myotis
Nyctinomus teniotis
Canis lupus

Ursus arctos

Meles meles
Hyaena crocuta
Felis pardus

Felis, cf. sylvestris
Lynx pardellus
Monachus albiventer

Eliomys quercinus
Apodemus sylvaticus
Arvicola sp.
Pitymys sp.
Microtus brecciensis
Hystrix cristata
Sus scrofa

Cervus elaphus
Bos, cf. primigenius
Capra pyrenaica
Equus sp.

Elephas sp.

Oryctolagus cuniculus

There were also the remains of numerous birds, a tortoise, a few
fish, and many shells of both marine and land molluscs.

The human skull was found in the travertine of layer 4, under the
following conditions, according to Miss Garrod:

Towards the end of May, 1926, I was obliged to put a heavy charge of blast-
ing gelatine into the rock (B) which blocked the terrace in front of the cave.
This rock ran obliquely downward from the middle of layer 2 to the base of
layer 4, and when it was blown up the explosion opened a large number of cracks
in the surrounding travertine. Into these cracks wedges were inserted, and the
travertine, which at this point was very hard, was removed in great blocks which
were afterwards broken up with a hammer. On June 11th a big lump was
removed slightly to the west of the gap left by rock (B), and 5.50 m. from the
cave-mouth. On examining the face of the travertine left in place I noticed a
thin edge of bone in the section, about 10 cm. from the surface of the layer. The
surrounding deposit was very much cracked, and, after prizing open the cracks
with a tool, I was eventually able to remove with my hands a chunk of traver-
tine to the under surface of which adhered the bone of which I had seen the edge.

174 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

This proved to be the frontal of a human skull, the outer surface of which had
become completely detached from the surrounding deposit, while the inside re-
mained filled with travertine. Three-quarters of an hour later the removal of
another large block exposed a broken edge of a human parietal lying about 1 m.
to the east of the frontal and at the same depth from the surface. The crack in
the travertine had passed right through the bone, breaking up the edge which
bore the sagittal suture, but I was able to recover the fragments. The part which
remained in situ was completely embedded in the matrix, and it was necessary
to chip away a block large enough to contain the whole bone.

The deposit surrounding the skull was carefully searched, but without result,
and at the end of a week I was obliged to close down the dig on account of the
heat. I returned to Gibraltar early in October, and three weeks later found a
human lower jaw, right maxilla, and right temporal in layer 4, all lying close
together in the mouth of the cave, 5.50 m. from the place where the frontal and
parietal had been found. The jaw and temporal were in the crumbling tufa
already described as filling the fissure at this level, but the maxilla, although
only a few centimeters away, was embedded in a bank of hard travertine which
lined the eastern wall.

Although layer 4 was afterwards searched over its whole extent, no other
human bones were found.

It seems clear from the position of the bones that the skull originally lay
in the mouth of the cave, but as it belonged to a very young individual it fell
apart along the sutures, and the frontal and left parietal, together with those
parts which are missing, were washed forward on to the terrace by the waters
of the spring which converted the original sandy layer into travertine. The ©
missing parts were probably carried further forward than the others, and so
rolled down the slope and were lost.

It is probable that the skull was already separated from the body when it lay
in the cave, for if the whole skeleton had been present some, at least, of the bones
must have been found. On the other hand, the fact that the lower jaw lay
quite close to the temporal and maxilla suggests either that decomposition was
not complete at the time of deposition or that the jaw was fastened to the skull
by a thong or string. In either case it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion
that the skull was intentionally preserved, either as a trophy or in fulfilment of
a pious rite.

THE SKULL

The human skull is described most carefully and with much detail
by Professor Buxton. The main results of his study are:

The Devil’s Tower bones are the remains of a single individual skull belong-
ing to a child of five years old, probably of the male sex. ... . The form of
the face and jaws is essentially that which we associate with Neanderthal man.
Many of these features can be shown, however, to owe their characteristic ap-
pearance partly to the great size of the teeth and partly to functional activities,
but the general massiveness, not only of the jaws but also of such features as the
tympanic plate, is remarkable.

. ... the contours of the forehead are, when seen from the side, almost ex-
actly similar to contours of the La Quina child, but the size of the specimen is

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 175

very unusual..... The dimensions and form of the brain-case, especially the
expansion of the frontal area, are beyond the range of Neanderthal man, as
hitherto discovered, if we make the same allowance for age that we should do
in the case of a modern child. These conditions suggest a brain-case built more
after the fashion of modern than of Neanderthal man. .... The teeth of our
specimen closely resemble in size and shape those usually associated with Nean-
derthal man. The face and jaws must therefore necessarily be close to the typi-
cal Neanderthal form. The brain-case is, however, different from the type form,
because the underlying structure, the brain, was larger.

TABLE OF MEASUREMENTS

(By Buxton)

cm,

Nasion to lambda-.........- 16.7 Measurements of thickness of calva-

Glabellastomlambdass. 16.9 rium:

Ophryon to lambda......... 16.4 (1) Along fractured edge of left

Nasion-bregma arc ........ 11.6 parietal :

Nasion-bregma chord ...... 10.2 mm.

Bregma-lambda arc ........ II.0 (a) At coronal suture..... 4.4

Bregma-lambda chord ..... 10.1 (b) At lambdoid suture... 4.0

Frontal width, min......... 10.4 (?) (c) 5 mm. post. to coronal

Brontal width, max. ...s...: 12.5 suture (max. thick-

Greatest breadth .......... 15.0(?) TESS) Rene ee ae ce 4.9

Interfronto-malar width .... 9.25 (2) Elsewhere on parietal:

Intraorbital width ......... 2.45 (a) Opposite parietal emi-

Bicondylar width .:........; 10.2 (?) NENCESS ener 4.9

Condylo-symphyseal length.. 8.1 (?) (b) In center of parieto-

Symphyseal height ....... 2.1 squamous suture .... 5.1

Orbital width (from fronto- (3) Thickness of frontal bone at
malar to fronto-nasal su- Breeiiay cca eee: 5.0
ture) :

Felli mute co a. cua 46.8 3.4
ehtaeran co nectcessreect 4 3.5

THE BRAIN

The brain of the Gibraltar child, as shown by the endocranial cast,
has been studied by Elliot Smith. His observations are of much
interest. In all the other endocranial casts of Neanderthal man,
he says,

there is an obvious lack of fullness in the prefrontal, and less distinctly, superior
parietal, areas of the brain. But in the endocranial cast of the skull from Devil's
Tower these regions are fuller, and seem to present a marked contrast to the
meagreness that strikes the eye in the case of all the other Neanderthaloid casts,
in particular those of the Galilee and La Quina skulls. In fact the general con-
tour of the cast suggests the possibility that the unusual fullness may be due to
hydrocephalus; but the distinctness of the ridges corresponding to the conyolu-
tions and the depth of the intervening sulci render the pathological explanation
improbable.

176 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The point of chief interest about this brain is,

the high development of the prefrontal area. Although the prefrontal territory
in the cast of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull appears to be both longer and
higher than that of the Devil’s Tower specimen, the latter differs from the
former (and, in fact, from all the other Neanderthaloid specimens) in not exhib-
iting any depression (or obvious appearance of ill-development) in contrast to
the precentral area of the cast. In other words, the front part of the brain of
the Devil’s Tower specimen presents at first sight a curiously modern appear-
ance that sharply contrasts with the configuration of the other Neanderthal
casts—and, in particular, with such examples as those obtained from the Galilee
and La Quina skulls, in which the prefrontal area is so obviously diminutive and
shrunken us.

The brain of the infant from the Devil’s Tower exhibits another feature of
some interest. There is an exceptionally large gap between the inferior tem-
poral convolution and the cerebellum on the right side (the only side from which
the temporal bone was recovered). Moreover, the under-surface of the inferior
temporal convolution is deeply hollowed and its margin bevelled. These facts
suggest an exceptionally poor development of the temporal region comparable
to the conditions revealed by the Piltdown and Rhodesian skulls.

Summing up the general conclusions to be drawn from the study of the endo-
cranial cast, we may conclude that the child whose remains were found at the
Devil’s Tower was a normal representative of the Neanderthal species, with an
exceptionally high development of the prefrontal region of the brain and a tem-
poral area that was rather below the average size.

THE WRITER'S NOTES ON THE SKULL

The writer was so fortunate as to see the originals at their first
presentation before the Royal Anthropological Institute, and again at
Oxford ; besides which he was favored through the courtesy of Pro-
fessor Arthur Thomson with a set of good casts of the specimens.

The skull is represented by the whole frontal and the left parietal,
a detached right temporal, most of the right maxilla, and the lower
jaw. The skull impresses the observer by its relatively large size
and large breadth, combined with relative lowness. The lower part
of the frontal has a Neanderthaloid look. The interorbital process
is very stout, much stouter than in any modern child of similar pro-
portions ; the glabellar region is broad, convex and considerably for-
ward of what it is in present day skulls; and there is already a fairly
distinct though still mild complete supraorbital torus with a shallow
depression above it. The forehead is broad, of very uniform convexity
from side to side, and as full and well arched as in modern skulls.
The fronto-temporal fossa is more full than average at this stage of
life in recent crania. There is no sagittal ridge, and the transverse
arc is broadly oval.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 177

The parietal shows a moderate and diffuse yet appreciable emi-
nence midway on the bone from above downwards and but slightly
posterior to the middle antero-posteriorly, and there was evidently
no marked flattening of the parietals from the inion to obelion; all
of which are recent rather than Neanderthaloid conditions.

The bones of the vault, including the separate temporal, are per-
ceptibly stouter than in modern European skulls of similar age. The
temporal bone, somewhat damaged, shows a very small mastoid; a
cylindrical—not oval as at present—meatus; a stouter base of the
zygoma than in modern skulls; a shallow, broad (transversely) glen-
oid fossa, slanting much upward and outward, and more strongly
protected by bony walls along its whole posterior extent than is usual
at present ; a thick tympanic bone (though not more so than in some
present children’s skulls) ; and a bulky petrosa with a large internal
meatus situated higher than is now usual. The upper borders of the
orbits, especially on the left, are still fairly sharp, and in shape and
otherwise much as at present, although larger and with the bones
evidently thicker.

The nasion depression is in the form of a broad moderate con-
cavity from above downwards. The nose was broader than in modern
children. The sub-orbital region is full and distinctly convex, without
any trace of the usual modern depression (canine fossa). The bones
are relatively stout. The upper alveolar process is'rather stout, and
the teeth—the two right milk molars—are larger than in the modern
child and relatively narrow. The median upper incisor, still com-
pletely enclosed but visible through damage to the anterior wall of
its socket, is enormous, the crown measuring 11.5 mm, in maximum
breadth by near 14 mm. in height. The still somewhat shallow palate
is broad in front and is nearly U-shaped.

The lower jaw is about as stout in body as the stoutest jaws of that
age today ; in alveolar process, it is decidedly stouter than any modern
mandibles. Relative to the size of the skull it appears small, but
compares well in size with modern jaws of similar dental age (length,
posterior border of ramus to symphysis, along the middle, close to 7.8,
bigonial breadth near 7.4 cm.).’ The symphyseal region is broad, but
slightly convex from side to side, with already a fairly distinct dull
angle at the canines, and slightly receding from the vertical. It is
a typical Neanderthaloid jaw. There is but a faint suggestion of chin
eminence.

The height at symphysis and along the body is moderate (at sym-
physis, 2.1; at M1, 1.85 cm.), compared with that of various modern

1 All the measurements here given were taken on the cast of the specimen.

I 78 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

mandibles of similar age. The thickness of the body (at symphysis,
1.3; at Mr, 1.4 cm.), is considerable, but not in excess of Indian,
Eskimo, and other similar mandibles of the present time.

Lingually, there is visible anteriorly a rather marked alveolar plane
or upper simian shelf, which is nevertheless approached in degree
in some modern child mandibles, and a distinct, complete, fairly sharp
median ridge (“ transverse torus ” of Holl) bounds the plane beneath
and extends on each side backward, where it blends imperceptibly
with the mylohyoid ridge. There are no depressions as yet above this
ridge, with undifferentiated conditions below. The inferior border,
evenly arched, presents already a fairly marked, broad, Neanderthal-
oid digastric flattening, but posterior to the milk molars the border is
as in stouter modern jaws.

The ramus is stouter than in modern mandibles, more slanting
(mandibular angle 125°), fairly though not excessively broad
(breadth min. 2.8), and somewhat low (height from middle of line
connecting the condyle and the coronoid to middle of lower border,
3.8 cm.). The notch is shallow. The coronoid process is stout but
short; the condyle is still of moderate thickness and narrow (diam.
antero-post., 7; transverse, 1.4 cm.). The outer surface of the ramus
is rather full and smooth, the inner as in strong jaws of similar age
today. The angle is as in modern bones.

THE SPY (SKELETONS

In the district of Spy, province of Namur, Belgium, on a steep,
wooded mountain side, the base of which is skirted by the small
stream of Orneau, there is a great protruding rock, and in its base a
moderate sized cave now known as the cave of Spy. The rock, due to
its form, is known locally as the ‘‘ Bec (or Béche) aux-Roches.”” The
cave, which is about 60 feet above the level of the stream,. opens
toward the south, a feature which together with the fair inside di-
mensions and good outlook of the cave made it a favorable site for
early human habitation. Traces of such habitation were found long
before the eighties of the last century, and as interest in human pre-
history grew, the accumulations within were dug over more or less
thoroughly a number of times, notably by M. Rucquoy,’ yielding
remains of upper Quaternary fauna, late paleolithic worked stones,
and worked bones, some of which showed graved lines. On the

? Rucquoy, M., Notes sur les fouilles faites en aout 1879 dans la caverne de la
Béche-aux-Roches, prés de Spy. Bull. Soc. Anthrop., Vol. 5, pp. 318-328, 2 pls.,
Brux., 1886-7.

(‘gz61 “0g ‘doryjuy “AoY

‘uaNOf ‘possey Joyyy) ‘ouNsVAvsZ pue vyN} Jo ssokL] JUdIIYIP Ae ”

dy} JO Sa8pa ay} UO aie SJay}O 94} : YBaq pastel oy} JsuIvoe eo - See I “90G ‘doiyjyuy “AoY “UNO, “poirery
a IHWYV SsOId YyoRTG B YM paxse JAB Ik ;

SUIPUR}S SI SYM Ul ULL OY], *padowas usaq pry afqqn4 Apues Bee eee Oe ee ancl ig eae tea semO Ty ASG ate
t oF] L SuiMoys ‘eI ‘Yoeaq Us9}S¥a 9Y} WOT} UNS-YIOI JO MATA “I

JO ,,YSeM,, IY} J9}jJe ps JAMOL, SJIAVqd 94} JO MIA z

4 ‘

LE “14 ‘EB 1OA SNOILO31100 SNOSNV1ISZO0SIN NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL; 83, PL. 38

The Gibraltar child’s skull. (After Garrod and Buxton, 1928.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 39

The endocranial cast of the neanderthaloid child’s skull of Gibraltar
(After Elliot Smith, 1928.)

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 179

plateau above the hillside were found also a large number of worked
flints, partly like those of the cave, partly more recent to neolithic.

In 1885 a more systematic and extensive exploration of the cave
was begun by Marcel de Puydt, Member of the Archeological Institute
of Liége, and Maximin Lohest, at that time Assistant in Geology at
the University of Liége. These explorers found the cave much worked
over, but a large, high terrace in front of the cave had evidently not
as yet been touched, and upon this terrace they concentrated their
attention. A trench sunk in the terrace to a depth of four feet re-
vealed a thick layer of brown earth with numerous fragments and
blocks of limestone fallen from the rocks above, beneath which the
explorers found an ossiferous layer 30 to 40 cm. (12 to 16 ins.) in
thickness, containing also numerous flint implements. From the de-
posits above this layer, apparently, the explorers recovered some
worked flints and bones, some débris of pottery, and a fragment of
a human skull, which made it appear that the lower ossiferous layer
was not the sole layer here of human habitation.’

The total number of worked flints recovered during the 1885 exca-
vations reached several thousand.’ In addition there were recovered
numerous points and awls of bone, three polished fragments of ivory
covered with graved lines, one oval ivory bead, a flat bone with several
series of parallel or crossed lines, two other decorated bones, and a
perforated tooth of a young hyena, evidently used as a pendant. The
stone implements, of relatively high-class workmanship, ranged them-
selves with the Mousterian.

The explorations by Messrs. De Puydt and Lohest were resumed
in 1886, and in June of that year the excavators discovered in the
terrace the remains of two remarkable human skeletons, besides large
quantities of bones of Quaternary animals and flints and other in-
dustrial objects, a large proportion of which showed Mousterian
affinities. The discovery was brought to the attention of Professor
J. Fraipont of the Liége University; and on August 16, 1886, De
Puydt and Lohest announced the important find to the Congres arche-

*De Puydt, Marcel, et Lohest, Max. Exploration de la grotte de Spy. Ann.
Soc. géol. Belg. Liége, Vol. 13, pp. 34-30, 1886; also, L’homme contemporain
du mammouth a Spy, province de Namur (Belgique), with 10 pls. Bruxelles,
1887.

2“ Des silex et ossements, quelques débris de poterie et un fragment de crane
humain, trouvés dans les terres lors du creusement, font, il est vrai, supposer
qu'il pourrait y avoir d’autres niveaux ossiféres plus ou moins caractérisés ”
(p. 35).

15

180 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS WOL. 83

ologique of Namur.’ Later the same year Fraipont and Lohest pub-
lished an account of the discovery, with the first description of the
skeletal human remains, in the Bulletins of the Royal Academy of
Belgium.’

According to this last-mentioned account, the terrace extended for
about 11 meters (36 feet) in front of the cave. The human bones were
found at a depth of 13 feet from the surface, which here rose con-
siderably higher than the threshold of the cave. The accumulations
that formed the terrace included rocks, fallen calcareous blocks and
débris, earth, many archeological traces of man’s presence, and nu-
merous remains of fossil animals. They could be separated into
several strata, none of which showed any perceptible disturbance.

Skeleton No. 2 lay 6 m. (nearly 20 ft.) to the south of the entrance
of the cave; skeleton No. I was 2.50 m. (8.2 ft.) further in the same
direction. Skeleton No. 1 lay transversely to the axis of the cave,

Fic. 18.—The terrace in front of the Spy Cave. (After Fraipont and Lohest.)

with head to the east and feet to the west. It lay on the side with
one hand applied to the lower jaw. The bones were enclosed in an
undisturbed layer of argilaceous tufa, from which they could be
liberated only with much difficulty and damage.

More in detail, a section of the deposits showed them to consist of :

A. Brown earth and fallen rocks ; thickness approximately 2.90 m.
(over 9 ft.). No paleontological or human remains.

B. Yellow argilaceous tufa, enclosing limestone blocks, 0.80 m.
(23 ft.) in thickness. This layer could be broken only with difficulty
by the pick. It gave some bones of the mammoth and deer, and also
some worked flints.

C. A stratum 15 cm. (6 ins.) thick, strongly colored red, and
containing many flint imp!ements, rejects of stone industry, angular

*De Puydt, M., and Lohest, M., L’homme contemporain du Mammouth a Spy.
C. R. Congr. de Namur, 1886. Also in a separate pamphlet.

*Fraipont, J., and Lohest, M., La race humaine de Neanderthal ou de Can-
stadt en Belgique. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, Vol. 12, pp. 741-784, 1886.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 181

fragments of limestone, bits of charcoal, and débris of mammoth
tusks. This layer formed a hard crust, resistant to the hammer,
and covered the human skeletons.

The animal remains found in the hard layer, C, that overlaid the
two human skeletons were:

Rhinoceros tichorinus Elephas primigenius
Equus caballus Lepus sp.

Sus scrofa Ursus spelaeus

Cervus elaphus Meles taxus

Cervus canadensis? Mustela foina

Cervus megaceros Cans vulpes

Cervus tarandus Canis lupus? (familiaris ?)
Ovis aries? Hyaena spelaea

Bos primigenius Felis spelaea

Bos priscus Felis catus

D. Yellow calcareous clay and rubbish (comp. p. 692 Fraipont and
Lohest report), passing to a tufa of the same nature as that in layer
B. Thickness 15 cm. (6 ins.) uneven; at base a streak of charcoal.

E. The human skeletons and worked flints.

F. Brown clay, in places black, enclosing angular pebbles of lime-
stone, numerous animal bones and worked flints.

The animal remains encountered at the level of the skeletons or
lower than these, comprised the following:

Rhinoceros tichorinus (abundant ) Elephas primigenius (common )
Equus caballus (very abundant ) Ursus spelaeus (rare)

Cervus claphus (rare) Meles taxus (rare)

Cervus tarandus (very rare) Hyaena spelaea (abundant )

Bos primigenius (fairly abundant )

Aside from the surface material, three distinct fossil bearing layers
were therefore distinguishable, namely :

B. This contained bones of the mammoth and deer; also some
Mousterian-like flint implements of refined and rather peculiar type.

C. This stratum, with the underlying few inches of earth, covered
the human skeletons. Contents: Bones of many Quaternary animals ;
abundance of flint blades, Mousterian points, and other flint imple-
ments, in general of less refined make than those of layer B; also
implements of bone and ivory. Among the bones were needles, awls,
beads, and pendants, and a number of the bones were decorated with
linear designs. Some of the bone pendants had evidently once been
colored red.

D. to F. The stratum of the two human skeletons. Gave also some
bones of Quaternary animals, and some stone implements of Mous-
terian type but inferior in workmanship to those from the layers
above. The human remains, the authors thought, were not burials

182 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

but accidental inclusions. And as the middle hardened stratum was
found undisturbed, the skeletons could not have been more recent
than this stratum.

In view of the importance of the original report concerning layer
C, the relevant parts are given here in the original :*

Deuxiéme niveau ossifere. Le niveau immédiatement supérieur a celui des
squelettes a procuré en abondance des lames, des pointes moustiériennes en silex
et en phtanite et en outre, un instrument tres commun, tres épais ayant la forme
d’un losange, constituant un type intermédiaire entre le grattoir et la pointe
moustiérienne.

Les lames, tant en silex qu’en phtanite, sont relativement courtes et larges.
Des poincons, percoirs, burins et aiguilles en silex apparaissent a ce niveau.
L’abondance des instruments en os et en ivoire y est caractéristique. La couche
de déchets provenant de l’ivoire taillé atteignait par place 15 centimetres d’épais-
seur. Parmi les divers instruments d’os et d’ivoire on distingue des batons ronds
ou ovales, des poincons, des percoirs, des aiguilles, des perles et des pendeloques.
Quelques os creux sont ornés de dessins linéaires, et certaines pendeloques, d’une
forme originale, ont probablement été teintes en rouge par de loligiste, répandu
du reste a profusion dans tout le niveau. Quelques fragments de poterie se joig-
nent [? see first account, also last paragraph of these quotations] a la trouvaille,
mais ni harpon, ni baton de commandement n’ont été recueillis; enfin sur les
différents objets en ivoire ou en os on n’a observé aucune tentative de reproduc-
tion de figures d’animaux au moyen de la gravure.

Certaines roches utilisées pour la confection des instruments situés a ce niveau
ne se rencontrent pas en Belgique; telles sont l’opale xyloide et l’agate.....

L’inspection de la coupe p. 663 indique clairement que l’on ne peut considérer
les squelettes de Spy comme étant d’age plus récent que celui du dépot des couches
C et F.

La zone C constituée par une bréche dure, colorée en rouge, recouvrait les
squelettes [elsewhere mentions a few inches of earth—see next page], et si cette
bréche etit été percée a une époque postérieure a sa formation, on s’en serait
immeédiatement apercu lors des fouilles. Nous avons au contraire constaté qu’elle
était intacte.

On pourrait cependant prétendre que les hommes qui ont laissé de nombreuses
traces de leur existence dans la zone C, aient, lors de leur prise en possession de
la grotte, enterré deux des leurs dans celle-ci, et continué ensuite de l’habiter en
accumulant au-dessus de ces cadavres leurs débris de cuisine et les rebuts de
leur industrie. S’il en était ainsi, les hommes de Spy seraient encore contem-
porains du mammouth, de l’ours des cavernes et du rhinocéros, mais auraient eu
une civilisation relativement avancée, puisqu’ils auraient enterré leurs morts,
connu la taille de l’os et de Vivoire, l’usage de poterie, des ornements et de la
couleur.

A further remark as to the pottery is found on p. 679:

Les morceaux de poterie n’ont pas été recueillis 4 Spy par les explorateurs,
mais ils ont tout lieu de les croire authentiques et de ne pas douter qu’ils pro-
viennent bien du second niveau.

*From Fraipont and Lohest, La race humaine de Neanderthal ou de Can-
stadt en Belgique, pp. 587-757, 1887.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 183

As to the age of the Spy skeletons, Fraipont and Lohest tell us
that they regard them as belonging to the time of the third or lowest
layer of the terrace. The second or middle fossil-bearing layer (C)
belonged to a different industry which so far (p. 692), ‘has no
equivalent either in or outside of Belgium. It belongs, through its
numerous worked bones and ivory, to Mortillet’s Magdalenian, and
through its flints to the Mousterian.” Between the skeletons and
layer C, however, there was but little accumulation—from a thin
covering over one of the skulls to 15 cm. (6 ins.) in thickness, mainly
rubbish (‘‘eboulis ”). This would seem to indicate no great interval
between the death of the Spy men and the coming of the inhabitants
of the middle layer (C), with an industry that differed so much from,
yet also retained some resemblances to, that of their predecessors ; but
here much is uncertain.

From 1906 to 1909, further explorations in the cave of Spy and
its terrace were carried on under the auspices of the Musée du
Cinquantenaire in Brussels by Messrs. Baron de Loé, A. Rutot,
and E. Rahir. The partial results of these explorations were published
in 1911.’ In 1912 the archeological remains from the cave and terrace
of Spy were studied by Abbé Breuil and R. R. Schmidt. The results
are published by Abbé Breuil in the Revue anthropologique of 1912,"
and by Schmidt in his large and meritorious work on prehistoric
archeology. Abbé Breuil reached the following conclusions:

The terrace of Spy presented the following layers from below upwards:

1. An old Mousterian layer, with numerous crudely chipped flakes, together
with “ coups-de-poing.”

2. Layer of Upper Mousterian with typical, very well worked flints, and with
human burials; difficult of separation from superimposed accumulations.

3. Typical Aurignacian, and of its middle phase.

4. Final Aurignacian with all transition to the Solutrean, and possibly a little
of the latter.

M. Breuil believes that the Mousterian types found in the Aurigna-
cian deposits represent introductions by human or animal agencies,
rather than true survivals.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SPY SKULLS AND BONES

3

In their memoir of 1887° on the subject, J. Fraipont and Lohest
give a detailed description, with the principal measurements, of the

1 Baron de Loé et E. Rahir. Nouvelles fouilles 4 Spy. Bull. Soc. d’Anthrop.
de Bruxelles, 1911.

? Breuil, Abbé H., Remarques sur les divers niveaux archéologiques du gise-
ment de Spy (Belgique). Rev. anthropologique, 1912, Vol. 22, pp. 120-120.

* Arch. de Biol. (Gand), Vol. 7, 1887.

184 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Spy remains; and the main part of these are repeated by Fraipont in
1891 * (and also more or less on other occasions ; see bibliography ).
In 1888, Fraipont published an interesting additional study on the
tibia, in which he shows particularly the considerable inclination back-
ward of the head of the bone. In 1912 and again in 1913, Charles
Fraipont, son of Julien, published valuable studies on the astragalus
of the men of Spy, with many comparisons.”* Finally, in 1927, Mlle.
Leclercq published a valuable memoir on the curvature of the femur
in the Spy and other early, as well as later, femora.’ Less directly,
the Spy remains are dealt with, as has already been mentioned, by
all the students of early human remains (see final bibliography ).

J. FRAIPONT’S DATA

The principal observations and measurements on the two skeletons
by J. Fraipont, as published in his joint memoir with Lohest,’ are
arranged in the following tables. They are remarkable for their faith-
fulness, though taken by one who was not a professional anatomist
or a trained anthropologist. Unfortunately, as will be seen later,
there has been a confusion of the bones of the two skeletons.

AUTHOR’S NOTES AND CRITICAL REMARKS

Considering the animal and archeological remains associated with
the human skeletons, together with the absence of disturbance in the
superimposed more recent layers, Lohest believed himself justified
in referring the Spy remains to the Mousterian period; and the de-
ductions of Fraipont, based on the study of the skeletal remains
themselves, were that they belonged to Neanderthal man. Since then
the Spy remains have received more or less careful consideration by
every student of early man, and the above classification was found
to need no radical revision.

What remained of the Spy skeletons was preserved, before the
German invasion of 1914, in the collections of the University of
Liége, where, thanks to the courtesy of Messrs. M. Lohest, Charles

*Les Hommes de Spy, C. R. Cong. Intern. Anthrop. et Archéol. Préhist.,
28 pp., Paris, 1801.

* Rey. d’Anthrop., 16 pp., Paris, 1888.

* Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Bruxelles, Vol. 31, 50 pp. 1912; Dis. inaug., Univ. Liége,
Bruxelles, 66 pp., 1913.

* Trav. Lab. Paléon. et Anthrop, Univ. Liége, Vol. 1, 63 pp., 1927.

° Op. cit. See also his ‘‘ Essai de reconstitution des rapports de la face avec le
crane chez l’homme fossile de Spy.” C. R. Assoc. Anat. Liége, pp. 11-13, 1903.

WHOLE VOL.

SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA

185

SPY SKULLS: OBSERVATIONS ON THE ORIGINALS

J. FRAIPONT!

ee

Outlines from above
and side
Frontal bone........

Supraorbital arches...

Slabellas. tere ves:
Depression above
supraorbital arches
Temporal fossae..... -
Parietalsen = oes

Temporal lines.......
Temporal bones......

PA ROMAG Ts oe esters mast

Cecipitalosss:42 5.455

External occipital
protuberance
Internal occipital
protuberance and
grooves of sinuses.
Brain:
Anterior lobes... ..
Middle lobes
Posterior cerebral
lobes
Cerebellar fossae.....

Wpper jaw... 0...

Spy No. 1

Spy No. 2

Much like those of the
Neanderthal skull
Shortest and lowest known

Poorly developed in length
as well as breadth

As in Neanderthal, but
slightly less thick

Slightly depressed. .......-.
Weny aiarked: tis. js <x

Anterior part much depressed
Relatively better developed
than the frontal

Flattened in posterior half. . .

Not near sagittal suture.....
Low squama, low arched. ...
Robust petrous parts.......
Very strong, differ in form
from modern

Strongly protruding, just as
as in Neanderthal

Inferiorly squama very slop-
ing and flattened

Indications of transverse
occipital crest
Deosessionl.el: eee aoa

Lower and more forward
than in modern skulls

Poorly developed..........:

Well developed, as in modern
dolichocephals

Less deep and extending less
posteriorly than in modern
skulls

Stout and high alveolar
process

Low nasal process

Strong, lower border, stout

Somewhat broader and
more vaulted

Less low and_ sloping;
surpasses the mean Nean-
derthal form and size
Somewhat better

Approach that of
Neanderthal

No depression
Less marked

Relatively better de-
veloped than the frontal
Flattened in posterior
half

Not near sagittal suture
Low squama, low arched
Robust petrous parts

Less so

Inferiorly squama very
sloping and flattened
Indications of transverse
occipital crest

None

Lower and more forward
than in modern skulls

Somewhat better

Well developed, as in
modern dolichocephals
Less deep and extending
less posteriorly than in
modern skulls

Even stouter than No. |

186

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

VOL. 83

SPY SKULLS: OBSERVATIONS ON THE ORIGINALS

J. FRAIPONT—CONTINUED

Spy No. 1

Lower jaw:

Teeth:

AMIBIAG IAA Acs eee ea

Calcaneusmee eee eee

Fibula, astragalus,
patella and other
parts

SEX re coeds leet aes

Spy No. 2

Very robust, very high......

No chin

A surface, especially anter-

iorly, not a border

As in modern inferior groups,

incisors small, canines mod-

erate

Molarss Mai 5icuspsssee- anes
Mia rAnCuSpS:eeecier
MiaWagcuspssseee eee

Nothing peculiar

Strone shorter ene eee
Slender: fete eae
Markedicurvatures.+. 9000

Voluminous extremities
(lower condyles enormous),
shaft almost cylindrical, for-
ward curvature accentuated,
linea aspera nearly absent,
lower articular surfaces ex-
tend less forward and more
backward than in modern
bones

Short, stout.

Shaft less prismatic than in
modern bones, borders dull.
Extremities, especially the
lower, relatively voluminous.
Head so inclined backwards
that articular facets face up-
ward and backward.

(Judges that limbs were not
held straight, but somewhat
bent forward at the middle)
Short obDlUsthes a see eee
Prominence of heel short... .
Nothing particular..........

Female (identified as male by
Hamy, Schaaffhausen,
Topinard, Virchow)

Feels justified in concluding
that they belong to the same
race—the Neanderthal

Even stouter

As in modern inferior
groups, incisors small,
canines moderate
Molars: M1, 5 cusps
M2, 4 cusps
M3, 4 cusps

Nothing peculiar
Stronger than in 1
Slender

Marked curvature
Even stronger

The same; resembles
strikingly the Neander-
thal femur

Short, robust
Prominence of heel short
Nothing particular

Male (very plainly)

1 Les Hommes de Spy. C. R. Cong. intern. Anthrop. et Archeol. Prehist., 28 pp, Paris, 1891.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 187

Fraipont, and J. Sérvais, the writer was enabled to examine the
originals for the first time in 1912. During the invasion, the remains,
the property of M. Lohest, were secreted by him in his home at the
bottom of an old chest, and, though searched for, remained safe. Here,

THE SPY CRANIA

MEASUREMENTS ON THE ORIGINAL

(FRAIPONT!)
Spy No. 1 Spy No. 2
Vault: cm. cm.
MEHTA Kn sao) oS a hak ae Uae ecc ohn esse 64 20.0 19.8
ReAGE MENA Keer 6 Vee amet Va. Sanh ose a ie sees 14.0 15.0
Wranidannerss see sec he cee oe es me mile eas oe 70.0 74.8
WranialCincumilerenCe.c2. 4-H arn dbo sek ace osha 58.0 54.0
Wianan irontal mG. n5 08 ee to cid oct be oe ae cee 10.4 10.6
Bier ROME a Ma pee calc ee caer he ese cond < acc ais IT. 4 Lr: 7
Diam. external biorbital (max. breadth supraurb.
ALN) pee IST. nee Seis eee. 12h 2 12.0
Closest approach of upper temporal line to
SAPIELAlPSURNRG 282/04 Soak afc d Oe ee as blac Ors, 6.5
1. 6.0
Height of supraorb. arch, mean..:.........:...: 1.6 Te5
mnvecnesssof skullibones. ..0.. gs bs yen a eee up to 0.9 up to 0.9
Face:
Upper jaw, height, alveolar point—nasal spine. . 2.8
Lower Jaw:
ICI at symp My Sis... 865) bs keel ea ee 3.8
NISL UO oeeWee eee PHETS Beets RY SSI AS BN ck BAe Bee
Peaae NM NCo Re yess ecg Pak ois, 6 Sabet A ex gaiene 223
Miicknessat SyMpMySis. 4. ..o6.60 65 ons 6 wn meee eS
Jae! Vale 8s OE a a a ae a 1.4
Tibia:
asec NP Sf oa LB SRD, flrs | 32.0
At middle:
CinciMMIClENEe | bas os os 6 << «een Toba ane 9.0
WiaiipaMECEO=POStos ion GC 35+ 6 bane eee shee
WOSaamestiANSVCESE so. wos Sica BA ewe eee Be 2.4
|

1 Fraipont, J., Les Hommes de Spy. C. R. Cong. Intern. Anthrop. et Archeol. Préhist.,
28 pp., Paris, 1891.

in the presence of the late owner, the writer studied the remains the
second time in 1923, and finally, in 1927, thanks to the courtesy of
the sons of Lohest, he was enabled to examine the originals, still in
the Lohest home, for the third time. In 1923, through the aid of
Professor A. Rutot and his assistant, the writer also visited the cave.

188 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The skeletons are generally known as No. 1 and No. 2. To No. 1

Fraipont and Lohest attributed:

A vault of a skull;

Two portions of the upper jaw, with the three right molars, the two right pre-
molars, the left canine and left lateral incisors;

A nearly complete lower jaw, with all (16) of its teeth;

The left clavicle;

Right humerus, which has lost its upper epiphysis, and the shaft of the left
humerus ;

Left radius, without lower epiphysis;

The proximal extremities of the two ulnae;

The nearly entire right femur;

Complete left tibia; and,

The right calcaneum.

The parts attributed by the two authors to the second subject are:

The vault of a skull;

Two portions of the upper jaw with twelve teeth;

Two fragments of the lower jaw with the molar teeth;

Loose teeth belonging to the lower jaw;

Fragments of the scapulae of two humeri without upper extremities ;
The shaft of the right radius;

The proximal two-thirds of the left femur ;

The left calcaneum; and

The left astragalus.

Besides the above, there are 7 vertebrae, a right patella, 24 frag-
ments of ribs, and 11 bones of hands and feet, with some pieces, about
which it seemed impossible to say to which skeleton they belonged.

A repeated critical examination of the specimens leaves a serious
doubt as to the accuracy of the above distribution. No photographs
or sketches were made on the spot; the bones were not marked,
and have evidently become mixed up, their distribution being de-
cided upon later. The specimens indicate very strongly different
relations. The right femur, the tibia, and the two stronger ulnae do
not harmonize with the relatively weak arm bones and clavicle of
No. 1. They harmonize perfectly, on the other hand, with the bones
of the male skeleton No. 2 and must, the writer feels, be attributed to
this skeleton. The true identification of the parts appears to be as
given on page 189.

This identification removes many difficulties, makes the material
much more intelligible, and the deductions on it of more value. Strong
evidence for the correctness of this reclassification is offered by both
the femur and the tibia that were attributed to skeleton No. 1. Skull
No. I, as is shown by its sutures and by the teeth, belongs to a fully

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDILICKA 189

adult individual of somewhat advancing years. Skull No. 2 indicates
a younger person. Now both the femur and the tibia attributed to
No. 1 show still, in proper light, traces of the union of the knee
epiphyses. This is incompatible with the indicated age of No. 1, but
would fit much better with that of No. 2.

It is strange that so many parts of the skeletons are missing. One
must surely assume that everything possible was done at the time
of the find to recover all the bones; yet the state of preservation of
the parts present is so good, there are so many of them, and they are

Lae SPY SKELETONS

(As IDENTIFIED BY HrpbiicKa)

Skeleton No. 1 Skeleton No. 2
Sex——Weak male or a female. Male.
Age—About 35 years. About 23 years.
Parts belonging to it: Parts belonging to it:
Smaller skullcap. Larger skullcap.
Portion of right maxilla. Two portions of upper jaw.
Lower jaw (complete except for Two pieces of lower jaw.
damage to rami).
Sound loose teeth (probably). Loose teeth.
The two weaker humeri. The two strong humeri.
Two damaged radii.
Head of a weak ulna. The proximal parts of two strong
ulnae.
Weak clavicle. Parts of the two scapulae.

A nearly complete right and prox-
imal half of the left femur.
Complete left tibia.
Two fragments of fibula (prob- Lower fifth of right fibula.
ably). Left patella.
Right calcaneus.
Left astragalus.
Portion of sacrum.
Some small bones and fragments. Fragments and small bones.

so distributed as to the skeletons, that the possibility of some of the
missing parts, at least, having escaped detection and being still some-
where in the débris of the excavation, cannot be excluded.

All the skeletal parts show an advanced state of mineralization. In
color they range from brownish to grayish, skull No. 1 representing
the former and No. 2 the latter shading ; the teeth, however, are white,
with yellowish roots, much as in crania from late burials.

The two skulls are plainly normal specimens, free from disease or
deformation.

In age, No. 1 was an adult of about 35 years, No. 2 had just reached
the adult stage.

Igo SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

As to sex, were it not for the heavy supraorbital arch, No. 1 would
be identifiable as a female. Such identification would conform with
the characteristics of all the bones that may definitely be attributed
to this subject, except the skull, and even this is rather feminine
except in the lower frontal region. The upper as well as the lower
jaw belonging to this skull is, for early man, rather weak, the teeth
rather small; the humeri are feminine rather than masculine, both in
their strength and in the proportion of the distal extremity ; the head
of the radius and that of the ulna, belonging to this subject, are quite
feminine, and so is the piece of the clavicle. The subject may how-
ever have been a short and weak male.

Morphologically the two skeletons, more particularly the two
crania, show features of such interest and importance to anthropology
that they deserve all possible attention. The vault of skull No. 1, and
the skeletal parts of both individuals, are thoroughly Neanderthal in
character ; but the jaws, teeth, and the vault of skull No. 2 represent
nothing less than a bridge from the Neanderthal type to recent man.

THE CRANIA

The vault: Looked at from above or from the side, or from the
front or back, the two Spy skulls show without question the same
identical basic type, which is the type of the Neanderthal skull and
Neanderthal crania in general. But there is a vast difference in the
development of the two crania. The supraorbital arches, while much
alike, are somewhat heavier and somewhat more protruding forward
in skull No. 1 than in No. 2. In No. 1 they are of nearly the same
thickness throughout; in No. 2 they distinctly diminish in thickness
from their median third outward. In both cases there was a per-
ceptible depression for the glabella, so that viewed from the front
there are really two supraorbital arches rather than one continuous
arch, though connected below the glabella. The glabellar depression
is broader in No. 2 than in No. 1, and the superior outline of the
supraorbital ridge presents more of a curve, sloping gradually down-
ward, in its outer half than is the case in No. 1. The superior border
of the orbits, dull in No. 1 is sharper and better defined in No. 2.

In all of its characters the supraorbital arch of No. 1 is much like
that in the Neanderthal cranium, though less thick; in No. 2 the
arch, while still of the same type, is distinctly advanced toward modern
forms. The depression between the supraorbital arch and the fore-
head is very marked in No. 1, being in general even more hol-
lowed out than in the Neanderthal skull; in No. 2 there is still a

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA Ig!

depression, but this is more of the nature of an angle between the
upward sloping surface of the arch and the rising frontal bone, than
such a hollow as in skull No. 1. The forehead and frontal region of
No. 1 is decidedly lower and smaller than in No. 2. It is slightly
lower and perceptibly smaller than it is even in the Neanderthal
specimen. From the top, both of the Spy skulls present a distinctly
ovoid outline; in No. 1, however, this ovoid is very perceptibly
narrower throughout than it is in No. 2. The broadest part of the
ovoid corresponds in each case to the posterior third of the lower half
of the parietals. The outline of the Neanderthal skull is much like
that of Spy No. 1, though the latter is more markedly narrowed in
the frontal region. The forehead and whole vault of No. 2 are
markedly higher than they are in No. 1, reaching proportions that
could be duplicated, save for the supraorbital arch, in many modern
mesocephalic skuils.

The temporal lines in skull No. 1 are poorly marked, in No. 2 very
distinct ; but in neither skull are they very rough or elevated, and in
neither do they reach over approximately the middle of the parietals.

The sagittal region is but very slightly raised so that the outline
of the vault from side to side would approach an oval in No. 1 (where
slight keeling exists), and is quite oval in No. 2. The occipital region
of No. 1 is typically Neanderthal, 7. e., flattened from above and below
with a medium protrusion in the middle; in No. 2, while there are
still distinct reminiscences of this type, the development is already
much nearer to that in modern skulls. The temporal region in No. 1
was evidently rather flat and narrow; in No. 2 it is about as in average
modern skulls. Both skulls, but particularly No. 2, present a mild
continuous occipital torus which extends towards the lambdoid suture
and along this downward toward the mastoid region. The cranial
sutures in both skulls, particularly the sagittal and the lambdoid, are
much simpler than they are in average modern crania. In general
the Spy No. 2 skull is larger and appears more masculine than No. 1.
The mastoid and basal parts of the two skulls are largely deficient ;
what remains shows a number of peculiarities, particularly in the left
post-auricular region of skull No. 2.

Endocranially, skull No. 1 shows that the anterior part of the brain
was narrow, low, and nearer to the keeled type than it is in the brain
of today. The left occipital lobe was perceptibly longer and more
pointed; the right lobe was slightly shorter but somewhat broader
and higher. In skull No. 2 the left hemisphere was perceptibly longer.

192 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

UPPER JAW OF SKULL NO. I

Present, the lower portion of the right maxilla from the alveolus
of the median incisor to the third molar. The bone is relatively rather
slender, not thicker than in modern skulls. There was evidently but
a moderate alveolar prognathism, comparable to that of many of the
skulls of the yellow-brown races of today. The lower border of the

MEASUREMENTS OF THE SPY CRANIA

(By HrpiiéKa)

No. 1 No. 2
1912 1927 1912 1027
Length max., from glabella......... 20.3 20.25 | 20.0(?)! |near 19.9
Length max., from ophryon........ 18.8 18.9 18.6 18.7
Breadthemaxcnen cere reac eerecerr 14.7 14.6 15.4 15.4
Cranialiindexsa, eee eee oe 72.4 V2ts near 7720\") “7704
Height, floor of auditory meatus
Jin @==bomaticrs sisi cte ude asta ie tangs soos | |rGEler navse) sooo | ERIS 153)
Diamiatnonteayimineee ese 10.3 10.2 10.9 10.9
Diameironts maxes eee El s7) sear 1244p res 1246
Nasion-bregma diam............... 10.6 es .
Glabella (center)—bregma.......... 9.8 near 10.9
Brezma-lambda diam... -e-caees 1123 10.8
Thickness of left parietal along and
I cm. above squamous suture..... 6-8 mm. Paki: 5-8 mm.
Thickness of frontal, at eminence....| 9 mm. ee a: 8 mm.
Face: Breadth max. of supraorb.
ALC in eee iat. sole eine T2}42 tie 1253
Height of what may be called fore-
headtneatere iach mien cea 2.5 aye: 3.0
Endocranial length max.......... 1. M72 ee 17.02
I eae aye 72

1 Glabella wanting.
2 The brain cavity is markedly broader, higher, and in general more spacious than that of
No. 1, but measurements were impracticable.

nasal aperture is well defined and slightly dull—not as sharp as in
whites, nor as dull as in some recent primitive skulls. The teeth are
in very close apposition ; and the Mi and M2 show already a distinct
obliquity of their transverse (linguo-labial) axis, which is character-
istic of and often carried further in modern whites. The palate was
evidently of about the average depth of today. The teeth of both
the upper and lower jaw show moderate to medium wear, the anterior
teeth being more worn than the molars.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 193

LOWER JAW OF SKULL NO, I

The lower jaw attributed to skeleton No. I appears to have been
somewhat misrepresented in earlier publications. The bone is quite
as slender as the average lower jaw of man of today. The height
of the body, though considerable if this was the jaw of a female,
falls easily within the modern male limits; and the shapes and sizes
of the teeth are much like those of modern whites. On the other
hand the specimen shows a number of interesting primitive and in
one or two respects peculiar features.

There is no chin eminence, yet there is a slight broad chin with a
moderate depression above. Were it not for the fact that the alveolar
process protrudes somewhat forward, the chin formation would be
more distinct. It is possible to duplicate these features among some
primitive jaws of today. The mental foramina are situated further
back than in modern jaws, being directly beneath the first molars.
The lower border of the jaw is somewhat thicker and flatter in the
anterior third (digastric insertion) than it is in the jaws of the white
man of today. The digastric portion presents a low flat topped arch,
reminding one somewhat of the much more marked condition in the
Mauer mandible; more or less marked traces of such an arch are
also present in modern jaws. The teeth look feminine. They are
perceptibly smaller than those of some male whites of today. The
alveolar process, from a line touching the rear of the third molars
to the most anterior point of the alveolar border in the incisor region,
measures but 4.9 cm., which is below the same measurement in many
modern jaws. The external breadth of the dental arch is 7.1 cm.,
which is broader than in the majority of female white jaws of today
but is equalled or even exceeded in some of those of the males; and
this measurement is equalled or exceeded in numerous cases among
more primitive whites and other peoples.

Notwithstanding the above, the Spy jaw as a whole is larger antero-
posteriorly than the jaws of modern man. This is due to the extension
of the body of the jaw on each side beyond, 1. e., backward of, the
dental arch. There were evidently not only fairly broad ascending
rami, but also a considerable space (approximately 10 mm.) between
the third molars and the anterior border of the rami. This space is
generally absent or very reduced in modern jaws, and in not a few
cases the third molars lie actually partly behind the anterior border
of the ascending branches. It is an early character.

Additional peculiarities are observable on the lingual surface of
the bone. The anterior portion of the surface shows in its upper half
a fairly marked convexity, a remnant of the thickness and convexity

194 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

of these parts in still earlier mandibles. Remnants of this convexity
are still met with occasionally in modern skulls.

The inner aspect of the lower jaw anterior to the second molars
gives a sense of spaciousness, with the inner symphyseal line more
vertical than in most modern jaws; and the axes of the canines
and incisors are somewhat evergent, rather than vertical or invergent
as they are in most modern jaws.

The mylohyoid ridge on each side is markedly developed and runs
far forward (to beneath the posterior premolars) ; beneath it is a
marked, long triangular fossa which is indicated more or less but
never developed to such a degree in modern mandibles. This fossa
is especially deep on the left side of the Spy jaw.

The molars on the right are all of very nearly the same size; on
the left the M3 is slightly broader than Mr and M2. The following
additional measurements will show the moderate proportions of the
bone and the teeth:

MEASUREMENTS OF THE LOWER JAWS

(By HrpiiéKa)

Skull 1 Skull 2
1912 1927 IQ12 * 1927
Diameibizonialneatsascaes este te eae 10.0
Heizhtatisymplhysise. sone cs aes 3.55 3.65
Height between Mi and M2....... eee e|nearenae ce
Thickness at symphysis, without
genialatubercleseee aac see re 1
withythestubercless. 1. asec Tels
Thickness of body between Mr and
IIB ernck. ference a ene oer i Ties
PCAN DT Cpe rasy tore) ays Scranton ects ip Ts aE:
1. ine ded hagg Tee
PERNT ANe Pico ou Gierasch tess Gs TS TS)
IF Tear I.4
PtH spaces ton crerasenletsyss a) Stee ext i ee see
l. 1.6 TAT)

UPPER JAW OF SKULL NO. 2

Two fragments, stronger than in No. 1. ;

LOWER JAW OF SKULL NO. 2

Present, two pieces, chin portion wanting. Both the jaw and the
teeth are stronger and larger than those of No. 1. The body of the

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 195

bone was also higher than that in No. 1. The fragments do not per-
mit of much description—the most interesting parts of the specimen
are wanting. Of the molars, on the right Mr and M3 are alike in
size, M2 appears slightly smaller than both; on left M1 and M2 are
alike, M3 is slightly larger than either.

MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEETH !

Skull No. 1

Median Length Maximum Breadth

Fraipont Hrdliéka Fraipont Hrdliéka

mm. mm. mm. mm.
Lower M1, means of r. and]. ...... 10.02 TO 10.5 II.0
M2) means of nrand Ia. 2.5| LOLO2 II.0 10.0 II.0
M3, means of r.andl....... II .02 10.6 II.0 10.8
Total median length of the three
molats in position? . s 2 0. 4... ea Beh 23 ae 33
Skull No. 2
Lower M1, means of r. andl. ......| 11-11.5 35 II-II.5 Tees
Merimeansiofir, andy. ....4) Tl.02 135 I1.0 Iles
M3, means of r.andl....... II-I2 11.8 II—I2 ne 5
Total median length of the three
molarsane position’. asian. sek syausys 35 ee 36

1 See also writer's ‘‘New Data on the Teeth of Early Manand Certain Fossil Anthropoid Apes.”*
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 7, p. 109 et seq., 1924; but, due to anerror, the Spy No. 1 through-
out that article is Spy No. 2, and vice versa.

2 These measurements are certainly a trace too small. This is probably the length maximum,
while those taken by the writer are the median lengths (see above paper); the maximum length is
often slightly in excess of the median one.

3 This total length is often a trace higher than the sum of the individual lengths due to some
bulging of the crowns which does not become included in the individual measurements.

rt BONES Ob HE Sele TONS
Skeleton No. I

As seen before, the only parts that can be definitely attributed to
this skeleton are two imperfect humeri, the head of a left ulna, and
a portion of a left clavicle. It is very probable, however, that the two
radii belonged also to this individual, and they will be described in this
connection.

The humeri.—Right, the lower two-thirds; left, the shaft without
the extremities. The bones are of moderate strength and have be-

16

196 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

longed evidently to either a weak male or more probably to a female.
The distal end in the right bone is quite feminine.

The shafts of the bone differ in shape from modern humeri in
that both the mesial and the lateral surfaces are distinctly convex,
much alike, and converging forward to a relatively high ridge for the
latissimus dorsi muscle, from which a ridge for the pectoralis major
diverges upwards from about the site of the deltoid tuberosity, which
is undeveloped. The musculo-spiral groove is hardly noticeable. The
posterior surface of the shaft, especially above the middle, is narrow,
and above the middle becomes also somewhat unevenly convex. The
lower fourth of the shaft is relatively decidedly higher (antero-poste-
riorly) than it is in modern bones of similar dimensions. There is no
perforation of the fossa (right), and no trace of a supracondyloid
process. The lower articular part of the right bone resembles in nearly
all essentials that of a female humerus of today, the only exceptions
being that the trochlea is relatively slightly narrower from side to
side, that its cross section (lateral) is but very slightly convex rather
than markedly so as in modern bones, and that its mesial border is
rather high. The depression above the capitulum is deeper than 1s
usual in many, but not all, modern bones; and the olecranon fossa is
both markedly deeper and more spacious than it is in modern humeri
of similar size.

cm.
=
Measurements r. Ls
At=middlevot shait) antero-post. diame... scree crete rely si 2.2 2.1
cite ralll scarry: tre revarats as ite he orcas ieire elrerenaye revt ctcvediecavel eevee melenci ob neeten clover 1.4 1.4
Olecranon fossa:
Fllevoditernance esto as svsciere cee ieee am eierervoreiietraicterseierene 20.0 mm.
Brea thaytrcasetia.5 da steissaverisvene snort erate teiere eieeiens 28.0 mm.
Breadth of articular facet :
Gni middlejot its anterior aspect) nin stiles. «twas 38.0 mm.

The radii—The two radii present belong more likely, it seems, to
this skeleton than to No. 2. They were of moderate length, and of
good feminine (or weak masculine) strength. The head of the left
bone is decidedly feminine. Its maximum diameter is only 19 mm.
The neck is narrow. The tuberosity and the shaft resemble those in
modern bones, but the shaft shows a very marked curvature outward,
just as in the Neanderthal radius, which is not equalled under normal
conditions among modern bones.

The ulnae—The head of the left ulna that clearly belongs to this
skeleton is of feminine proportions, and so far as it is preserved it
falls in every respect within the range of variation of the modern
bones.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 197

The clavicle-—The clavicle was slender, its shaft near the acromion
rather angular. The fragment is too small to permit of other determi-
nations.

The fibulae——There are two pieces of the shaft of the fibula that
may belong to skeleton 1; they are both of but moderate strength.

Skeleton No. 2

The humeri.—Clearly a pair, and both masculine; the right very
perceptibly the stronger at all points. The upper fourths are wanting.
The shafts resemble to a considerable degree those of No. 1, but the
convexity of the mesial and lateral surfaces is less marked, and the
posterior surface is flat through a very large part of its extent. The
relative height of the lower portion of the shaft is less marked than
in the humeri of No. 1, and approaches closely that of modern male
humeri of similar dimensions; nevertheless there is a trace of such
relative highness of this part in the right bone. The deltoid tuberosity
is again poorly developed, the latissimus and pectoralis ridges well
marked ; the bicipital and muscular spiral groups are better repre-
sented than they are in humeri of No. 1. The lower end and the
articular facet are in nearly all particulars as in man of today ; only the
olecranon fossa is larger, especially broader and deeper. There is
again as in No. 1 a marked depression above the capitulum, on each
side. No trace of a supracondyloid process appears on either bone.
Perforations of the olecranon fossa: Right, one small and one
minute ; left, two small with two minute.

cm

—— ee

Measurements ia 1.
Middleiofthe shart: antero-post. diam... 06.0.+.00- 00 o00os PHS 2.25
TUSPE URIS ASE TEI glare a ene et lat ee aE ee 75 1.5

The ulnae—Present, head of right, upper two-fifths of left. Bones
clearly a pair, and masculine. Olecranon process decidedly more
massive than in whites of today. The horizontal part of the greater
sigmoid cavity is very perceptibly shallower than in modern bones.
The neck is strong, especially on the right side. The shaft of the
left bone as far as preserved shows quite a different shape from that
in the modern ulna; the latter is prismatic, the former approaching
a biconvex.

The scapulae.—Pieces only, of two scapulae, right and left, probably
of No. 2. Right piece: Glenoid cavity shallow, border very dull.
Left: Glenoid shallow, border less dull.

The femora.—The left femur, except for damage to the great
trochanter, is in general very near in all its characteristics to that of

198 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

the Neanderthal skeleton. It is slightly shorter; but it presents the
same huge head and stout neck, a similar condition of the minor
trochanter and of the gluteal ridge, the same curvature forward of
the whole shaft, the same strength and shape of the shaft, the same
but slightly developed linea aspera, a similar though less marked
suprapopliteal convexity, and a considerable similarity of the condyles.

It differs from the Neanderthal femur by a somewhat more marked
subtrochanteric flattening ; by the absence of the higher patellar de-
pression, with the presence of a deeper depression directly above the
patellar surface; by the lesser convexity of the popliteal surface ; by
somewhat broader and stouter condyles, with broader patellar sur-
face; by somewhat duller anterior ridges of the condyles; and by a
slightly greater torsion. These are all, however, rather secondary
differences ; the essential characters of the two bones are much the
same.

The left femur, represented by its upper half, and formerly at-
tributed to skeleton No. 1, is plainly a mate of the right femur and
belongs with it to the male skeleton No. 2. It has much the same
strength, same shape, same features. The writer's measurements of
the two bones are given on the following page.

The tibiae—The left whole tibia, the only one present, attaches
itself clearly, by its size, strength, and other characters, to the two
femora, and with them to skeleton No. 2. A detailed study of the
bones leaves no possible doubt on this score. The bone, as already
established by J. Fraipont, is especially characterized by the marked
inclination backward of its head. This inclination is considerably
more marked on the mesial than on the lateral side of the bone. The
shaft of the bone is remarkably straight, in every way. The shape of
the shaft is that of a lateral prism. (Hrdlicka’s type 2)." The bone is
remarkable by its shortness and strength. It is particularly stout in
the upper and lower fourths of the shaft. The mesial articular surface
is decidedly more inclined backwards than in the modern tibia;
and the lateral surface is shallower than that in modern bones. The
malleolus is broader than in modern bones and decidedly stouter. The
lower articular surface differs from that in modern bones in being
relatively broader laterally and narrower antero-posteriorly, and in
extending more obliquely onto the malleolus. Otherwise the details
of the bone are much like those in recent man.

* Hrdlicka, A., Typical Forms of Shaft of Long Bones. Proc. Assoc. Amer.
Anat., pp. 55-60, New York, 1900.
, Anthropology. Wistar Institute, 1919.

199

-

MAN—HRDLICKA

EARLY

SKELETAL REMAINS OF

WHOLE VOL.

9°29
Cues :
Dike
0'9Z\Z'99 o'od|r'69 °
1Ieou
acts oe OrileSo°s eSaciSoe ~
GUcamaad Se Stil] > Ghee Cette G/iee aes
amass ee 2 P :
Ievou
ere 6 ee ee Tome .
X9AUOD “UIS
aoerjins
JO119}uUe
apo bya I t eas
-ul[Ao Ievau
Ivou
I A I ‘a T ‘I it
Inwoy SNnIpery snismin yy PIQIL

Z *ON UoJaAS

sees 0° oorl6'1Z ones eee

6 . z 9 . I sneer gl . Zz, 4 . cf
G22 ae St aoe | alee ol
EO1| ie z z
1v . cv . . .
9 . cv . . .
X9AUOD “WIS
saoejins
"* yeAO , I I
-“1Ip
-ut[Ao
1 I om T I
inul9,J SNIPeY snisuin yy

I ‘ON u0zaxS

SANOG DNO'T

AEE OR Ie — “UIRIC]
iducuayoy saddn 17
Sch avalos etotn ads (01 Ihc cahat seater na ees xapuy

Freeeeeees ss ocurprp asaasuesy
"++ *uIerp *ysod-o19}uUe
Bene "tress QQuaTaJUINOIL) /appprwu 1

HN Oee oie sie yeceriets ‘auids ss9] ‘uorisod ul

») Biel gie)s ef Oa ei 8) 6 execu i615) U. 8 (oe) ue: Je[Apuooiq
8) 8) s)'e 6: €.8,8 LOSS 6 ee eels. or ele xPul y3uaT

Rbavede ters +++ ++s-grpprut ye yyeys Jo addy,

VOL. 83

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

200

*XPUl “UIRIC] ¢
“UIUI "WURIG z
‘31Qe7 BY} UO Sal] sU0g 9y} SB ‘TeyUOZTIOY sy} WOIY _

LO sue) iele Seine) ei |ialts) ol \sl laze) iio eb ei seMelal sie) elieiis ells Ajsorsradns
yidap ‘yojou 1e;Apuoos94uyT

TL beet Sp pe geee aa el |e ee [Bo1}I9A “WeIp ‘afApuUod [e19}eT
c'9 “oT BOIVIVA ‘URIP ‘aJAPUOD [eIpa|
Zaks yo) O OG 0 Iho oo Onatieoron xXPUul “UIeIp ‘a]Apuoo [e197 eT
89 = enelle evdtaien Nt |Ke/aatecediscellellivre XPUul “weIp ‘a,Apuoo [PIP
isajXpuoy)
ae 6 see s)iwrajist || lelleslel(eitede ns elicllelis)\ellelieJel.a)/e. is) \e) ele. XPUL yipeeig
ipua 1D1Stq
z ¢ oO o a) (6) site) (e),e Xe) (al l6 Wa) i sie 6/(6).6valeiie) te. Tete) vila Uru “URI
Bed Ne cs 0 rot gee atest ccc xe “WRI
499N
I a I a I a I a a] i I i I a I 4 [iS => aa eee
eIqrh Inul3.J snipey snisuin yy eIqrL Inul3 J Sniper snisuin fy
Z ‘ON U0 .lEAS I “ON U0 [VxS

dGaHONILNO7)—SHNOg SNOT

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 201

The fibulae—Present, about the lower fifth of the right bone.
The strength of the bone and also the fact that the union line of the
epiphysis is still perceptible, identifies the bone decisively with skele-
ton No. 2. The outer surface of the lower end is rather bibeveled,
rising to a median ridge; and the fossa next to the articular facet
is small and shallow. The facet itself seems also to differ from that
of modern bones by a greater length from above downwards.

The patella.—The left complete patella, originally identified erro-
neously as right, doubtless masculine, may be attributed safely to
skeleton No. 2. The dimensions and form are close to those in modern
man ; but the articular area is relatively broad. The upper and outer
border shows a moderate notch for the vastus lateralis.

DIMENSIONS OF THE PATELLA

FLGI SH Eye astcnstisae eee ase eet ae Sle ete Sees 4.65
Breadth a ceieciecher tae eitelsta clei ao waicncvaee ei nieetend nes Fe
eWaTKTESS pitriaexenasyar cierto o cretetereersl ove arent saves aves 2:3

The calcaneus.—Present, the right bone; masculine, and doubtless
belonging to skeleton No. 2. The mesial and anterior parts of the
bone are badly damaged. Notwithstanding this it is plain that the
bone was very stout and very short. The stoutness is particularly
marked in the body and the heel, but extended really throughout the
bone, so that the articular surface for the astragalus is broader than
in modern bones. The shortness of the bone is due practically entirely
to the shortness of its anterior portion (the part anterior to the rear
facet for the tarsus).

The bone shows a number of interesting particulars. One is the
relatively slight development of the medial process and the adjacent
border bounding anteriorly the inferior surface of the tuberosity ; the
second is the marked development of the groove for the long flexor
muscle of the great toe; the third is the relative narrowness and
shallow concavity of the mesial surface of the body. The articular
facets for the astragalus fall within the range of their variation in
modern bones—a range known to be extensive.

The astragalus—tThe left astragalus, belonging plainly to the
above described calcaneus and pertaining with it to skeleton No. 2.
The bone, like the calcaneus, is stout but relatively short antero-
posteriorly. In details it does not differ greatly from modern bones,
except in dimensions and to some extent the form of the articular
surface. The lateral groove between the head and the body is, how-
ever, less spacious than in modern bones.

202 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The sacrum.—Present, the uppermost segment; it does not appear
to have been as yet fully united with the rest of the bone; belongs
doubtless to skeleton No. 2. Nothing very distinctive.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Neither previous publications nor the present volume furnishes a
wholly adequate study of the important Spy skeletons. Such a study
with extensive comparisons of more recently discovered human ma-
terials is still to be made. Furthermore, no endocranial casts of these
very instructive skulls have as yet been available.

The Spy find is without question the most important ever made in
relation to the problem of transition from the Neanderthal to the more
modern forms of man. Here in practically one grave, certainly at
the same level and under the same associations, are found two skele-
tons, one of which is in many respects still typically Neanderthal ;
but the jaws and the teeth of this skeleton, and the skull of the second
subject, are far in advance of the Neanderthal stage and correspond-
ingly nearer to modern man. No better demonstration could have
been furnished, or could reasonably be wished for, of the transitional
potentialities among the later Neanderthal representatives, to which
the skeletons evidently beiong, towards the modern human type.

The cultural conditions found in the terrace may be of significance
in this connection. There is a very strong probability that the two
skeletons represented regular intentional burials ; and if so, they may
well belong to the time of the upper Mousterian, if not even later,
deposits.

Meanwhile, the precious Spy remains are housed in a private
residence, where in a few minutes they could be destroyed by fire,
which would mean irreparable loss to science.

THE DILUVIAL MAN OF KRAPINA

One of the most important finds of the skeletal remains of Quater-
nary man is unquestionably that of the Krapina shelter, near Zagreb,
in northern Croatia. The discovery comprises a whole series of
human bones of well-determined geological age, and the remains were
not recovered accidentally or by ignorant laborers, but through pro-
longed, painstaking exploration. The bones themselves are for the
most part fragmentary, which is much to be regretted, but they
represent, as now estimated, over 20 individuals, and they show on
one hand such similarities and on the other such variation of structure,
that they are of great value to the student of ancient humanity.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 40

The Spy rock and cave. (Hrdlicka, 1023.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 41

Spy skull No. 1, side view. (After Fraipont.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 42

The Spy skull No. 2. (After Fraipont and Lohest.)

CRYQPIH) *“(y8t4) z ‘ON pue (PI) 1 ON TIMYs Ads

Ep “Id ‘€8 “10A SNOILOAT1I0OO SNOANVIISOSIW NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 44

1. Spy skull No. 1.

2. Spy skull No. 2, showing contrast in form of vault.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 45

The lower jaw of Spy skull No. 1. (After Fraipont and Lohest.)

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 203

The Krapina rock shelter is an ancient though not very deep
hollow, worn out in the basic sandstone by the now small stream of
Krapinica, and subsequently filled with water-worn stones, some
aluvia, and with much detritus resulting from the decomposing rock

Fic. 19.—A schematic view, in transverse section, of the Krapina hollow.
(After Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. )
M. S.= Mediterranean sandstone; J, the lower deposits, mostly pebbles
(a) and alluvium (b); II, the upper strata, composed of disintegrated rock,
and (cr—cg) cultural remains.

of the hollow (fig. 19). Since the formation of the latter, the Krapi-
nica has cut its channel so that it now flows 82 feet (25 meters) below
its floor level. Before the shelter was filled and during the process,
it was utilized by early man of the region, at first but occasionally,
later for some time perhaps continuously, and the accumulations in

204 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

the cave were augmented by the remains of fireplaces and by refuse,
including many primitive stone implements and rejects, as well as
animal bones ; and these accumulations were found to contain numer-
ous human bones in more or less fragmentary condition.

The locality became known in 1895, after two Croatian teachers
discovered in the superficial deposits of the shelter some teeth of a
rhinoceros and fragments of other fossil bones. These finds were
brought to the attention of the scientific men at Zagreb (the capital
of Croatia, formerly “Agram”’), but no thorough examination of the
site was undertaken until 1899. In that year the place was visited
by K. Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, professor of geology and paleontology
of the University of Zagreb and Director of the Geological Division
of the Narodni Muzej of the same city.

The deposits in the shelter and their stratification were found well
exposed. They were over 26 feet in thickness from top to base. The
initial work showed ashes, charcoal, burnt sand and rejects of stone
industry, stone implements, and a human molar. The excavations
proper, after a determination of nine distinct cultural layers, were
begun from the top and carried very carefully downward. They
proved from the start very fruitful,’ giving many bones of Quaternary
animals, many rejects of stone industry with some implements, a
portion of a human maxilla, 80 loose teeth, and many pieces of skulls,
lower jaws and other parts of the skeleton. From 1900 to 1905 the
painstaking exploration of the shelter was carried on, partly by
Gorjanovi¢é-Kramberger, partly by S. Osterman, and D. Galijan, his
assistants, until the deposits were exhausted.

Notwithstanding the presence of numerous cultural layers and the
evidently long time of use and occupation of the shelter, the whole
represented apparently but one large cultural period, and this during
a fairly warm interglacial time. The fauna is not that of a cold
climate. It consists, aside from a few snails, birds and a turtle, of the
following:

Rhinoceros mercku (frequent) Myoxus glis
Ursus spelaeus (frequent ) Arctomys marmota
Bos primigenius (frequent ) Cricetus frument.
Castor fiber (fairly frequent) Equus caballus
Canis lupus Sus scrofa ferus
Ursus arctos Cervus elaphus
Felis catus Cervus capreolus
Mustela foina Cervus euryceros

Lutra vulg.

1 These first results were reported by Gorjanovic-Kramberger in “ Der palae-
olitische Mensch und seine Zeitgenossen aus dem Diluvium von Krapina in
Kroatien.” Mitteil. Anthrop. Ges. Wien, Vol. 31, pp. 164-197, 4 pls., 13 figs., 1901.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 205

There were no traces of the mammoth or of Rhinoceros tichorhinus.
The remains found represent either completely extinct forms, or
forms that have not hitherto been known from Croatia or known
only from the diluvial times. As a whole the fauna resembles closely
the fauna of the diluvial station of Taubach, Germany.

ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS

These are described in a number of separate papers, both by
Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger and by others (see final bibliography). The
total number of worked stones recovered from the Krapina shelter
reaches approximately 1,000, but most of these are waste and rejects.
They are mainly of flint, but occasionally also of quartz, chalcedony,
and jasper. The better characterized specimens are “ typically Mous-
terian”’ (Obermeier), and this applies to all layers. Gorjanovic-
Kramberger believed that he found also evidence of some utilization
of bone.

To the writer it seems that the stone industry of Krapina should
be subjected to a restudy in the light of present knowledge. It is true
that there are typically Mousterian implements; but there are also
blades that seem to suggest later developments.

THE HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS

The collective human skeletal remains recovered from the Krapina
shelter are more numerous than those found in any other locality of
similar age, though they are very fragmentary. They represent indi-
viduals of all ages, from infancy to senility. They comprise many
parts of the skull, numerous fragments of the jaws ranging to nearly
complete mandibles, many teeth, and numerous pieces of other parts
of the skeleton. Most of these remains have already been thoroughly
studied and described by Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger in his
principal memoir (1906) and in a series of other publications (see
bibliography ).

Through the courtesy of Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger and
Dr. E, Sulje, of the Geological Division at the Narodni Muzej, in
Zagreb, the writer was privileged, in June, 1912, and again in 1923,
to examine the Krapina originals. This was not done with any need
or hope of adding anything to Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger’s
thorough description of the specimens, but rather because a personal
inspection and handling of the original objects in a case of such
importance helps to fix in the mind, more than any description could,
their extraordinary characteristics.

206 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The human bones are, for the most part, in pieces. Notwithstand-
ing their defective condition, however, the collection impresses the
student forcibly by its scientific importance. As in the case of the
Mauer jaw, the Neanderthal skeleton, and the other specimens de-
rived from early man in Europe, the material bears the unmistakable
stamp of genuineness and preciousness to anthropology, impressions
which are wanting in later remains and in the case of finds that are
merely urged as aucient.

The bones represent, as already mentioned, the remains of at least
20 individuals of both sexes, ranging from childhood to ripe adult
age. The fragmentation of the skulls (pls. 47-55) lower jaws and
some of the long bones is excessive, and of such a nature as strongly
to suggest that it was caused otherwise than by accidental breaking
or crushing. A number of the fragments show also the effects of
burning, and one specimen, a portion of the supraorbital part of a
frontal, presents some cuts. These different conditions, together with
the absence of many parts of the skulls and bones, with a total lack
of association of the fragments and the commingling of the human
with the animal bones, led Gorjanovi¢é-Kramberger to the opinion,
now generally shared, that the remains represent the leavings of
occasional cannibalistic feasts and are not burials.

The Krapina bones are whitish, yellowish, or light brownish in
color. They are not of great weight, but a chemical examination has
shown that they are much altered in constitution, particularly in the
fluorine-phosphates proportions.

The long and other bones of the skeleton show the Krapina man
to have been, as compared with central European white man of today,
of moderate stature and of strong, though, except for the powerful
jaws, not excessive muscular development. Some individuals were
very perceptibly weaker than others. As to form, particularly in the
upper extremities, the bones in general are perceptibly more modern
in type than those of the Neanderthal or Spy man, nevertheless they
present, as well shown by Professor Gorjanovi¢é-Kramberger, numer-
ous and important primitive features.

The fragments of the skulls show that the bones of the vault were
more or less thicker than they are in the white man of today. The
crania were of good size externally, but the brain cavities were
probably below the present average. The vault of the skull was of
good length and at the same time fairly broad, so that the cephalic
index, at least in some of the individuals, was more elevated than
is usual in the crania of early man. They were also characterized,

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 207

as were the Neanderthal and other crania of the man from the
Mousterian period, by relative lowness of the vault, and in every
instance among the adults by a pronounced, complete supraorbital
arch. The last-named feature, though less marked, is plainly dis-
tinguishable even in the children. Its invariable presence is a definite
proof of the fact, not quite well established before, that up to a
certain phase of the Quaternary period this arch was a regular
characteristic of the early man of a large part of Europe.

A number of interesting features are presented by the fragments
of the temporals. The mastoids are less developed than in man of
today, approaching correspondingly the anthropoid form. They are
rather slender and small, even in the adult male. The tympanic ring,
on the other hand, is massive. The glenoid fossae are not level
from side to side or even nearly so, as in man of today, but are very
perceptibly slanting in such a manner that their distal end is decidedly
higher than the mesial. These and other primitive features, which
show the Krapina man to approach the earlier primate forms, have
since become largely modified or eliminated in the human skull.

The jaws and teeth, like other cranial parts, present many marks
of a less advanced stage of evolution. The lower jaws in particular
are very interesting. The symphysis or fore part of these bones, while
in some possessing already a faint trace of the future chin eminence,
slopes invariably more or less downward and backward, thus approach-
ing the form of the mandible in apes. The mandibles are massive and
in males high. Except in this height they are akin to the lower jaws
of the La Quina and La Chapelle skulls, and represent decidedly more
primitive forms than the mandibulae of any man of historic times,
though they are more or less nearer to the modern type than is the
Mauer jaw.

Of the upper maxilla there are eight or nine imperfect specimens,
the majority from young subjects. They differ in their development
and conformation, but primitive characteristics are numerous. One
of the best-preserved fragments, marked ‘“ E” or “19,” proceeding
probably from a male adolescent and representing the part of the
jaw from the right median incisor to the left second premolar, shows
considerable height of the bone, a straight and prognathic alveolar
process, a very spacious high palate, pronounced submasal fossae, and
broad nasal aperture.

The teeth of the Krapina man offer numerous peculiarities, most
of which point to lower stages of differentiation. They are in general
very perceptibly larger than those of the modern white man; their

f

208 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

roots, especially, are longer; and there are some details of form,
particularly in the crowns of the incisors and molars, which are related
to anthropoid features. Notwithstanding these facts, the Krapina
teeth, and particularly the canines, are on the whole fairly near those
of present man.

DETAILED OBSERVATIONS ON THE CRANIAL REMAINS

The majority of the fragments are of the skulls of children and
adolescents.

SKULL A, CHILD

This is one of the most valuable pieces. It comprises the larger
part of the frontal with portions of both parietals. The bones are
somewhat thicker than in a modern skull of similar age, the parietals
reaching 4.6 mm. along the broken border. The parts preserved show
that the skull was originally broad. Also the sutures are distinctly
better serrated than they are in the various Neanderthal crania, and
there is a persistence of the metopic suture. There is a distinct though
mild indication of a complete supraorbital arch, with a slight de-
pression above it. The forehead is, however, fairly high, well arched,
but slightly sloping, and shows faintly lateral eminences, as in white
children of today. There is a shallow depression posterior and paral-
lel to the coronal suture—as is not infrequent in modern white skulls.
The postorbital narrowing is but little marked in the specimen.

SKULL B, CHILD

The material comprises most of the right with an upper portion
of the left parietal and a good part of the occipital bone. This piece
also fails to give the impression of a narrowness of the skull; more-
over, the formation of the parietal bone both superiorly and laterally
approaches those in modern skulls. The occipital squama, however,
shows the characteristic form of the Neanderthalers, being relatively
broad from side to side and showing mild superior flattening with
a fairly marked subinionic depression; the protrusion is, however,
but moderate. There is an indication of occipital torus. The sutures,
especially the lambdoid, are relatively simple. The bones are appreci-
ably thicker than in the average modern skull of about this age; the
thickness of the parietal, about the middle of the squama, is about
5 mm. The impressions of both the cerebrum and the cerebellum are
strongly marked on the occipital bone; and the latter shows also
some peculiarities of vascular impressions.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 209

SKULL C, YOUNG ADULT

Though very defective this is an important specimen, preserving
as it does the upper parts of the face, the lower portion of the frontal,
the right temporal, and a large portion of the right parietal. The
specimen has been reconstructed from five pieces, which however
plainly belong to each other. The parts preserved show convincingly
that the skull was relatively broad and not very long. The outline
of the norma superior was a fairly broad and but moderately long
ovoid. The cranial index was evidently at least that of sub-brachy-
cephaly ; Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger estimated the length maximum
of the skull at 17.8 cm., breadth maximum, 14.9 cm., cranial index
83.7. This exceptional and very interesting feature, seen for the first
time in early man, is also more or less perceptible on the other
Krapina skull remains.

The sex of the specimen is somewhat uncertain. The supraorbital
arches and other parts of the face would seem to indicate a smaller
male, but the mastoids and the cranial bones are feminine. The sub-
ject was probably a female. The minimum frontal diameter (9.9 cm.)
and the external biorbital (11.8 cm.) are even slightly smaller than
those of the Gibraltar female, and the two specimens show similarity
also in other particulars.

The supraorbital arches, though distinctly bilateral, form never-
theless a complete and rather heavy torus with a fairly marked and
broad glabella depression. The torus measures in thickness, above
the orbital foramen, 13.8; at the middle, 10; and at the outer end,
II-I2 mm. Its ends unite with broad and stout processes of the
malars, as in other Neanderthalers. The glabella is not carried as far
forward as in the Gibraltar skull. The interorbital process of the
frontal is stout, as is general in Neanderthal skulls, the minimum
interorbital diameter measuring 2.9 cm. (Gibraltar 2.8 cm.). The
inner biorbital breadth is 10.7 cm. The nasion is situated rather high
but not excessively so. There is no nasion depression, the region from
glabella to the free end of the nasals presenting a broad moderate
concavity increasing downward. The nasal bones are broad (min.
breadth of right 9, left 8.5 mm.). In its upper part the mid-nasal
suture turns at an angle to the left, indicating an earlier existence at
nasion of a good-sized intercalated bone.

The borders of the orbits though rather stout are fairly well
defined, more as they would be in a female of this type than in a
male. The planes of the orbits, both from above downwards and
laterally, approach those in other Neanderthalers. The orbits are

210 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

large, megaseme ; yet in general they come a trace closer to those of
strong modern skulls than do those of the Gibraltar or La Chapelle
crania. Approximate measurements (Hrdlicka): Height, r. 3.8;
I. near 3.8 cm.; breadth (from dacryon) r. 4.0; 1. 3.8 cm.; Index, r.
near 95.0, 1. near roo. The malars, as in other Neanderthalers, were
neither protruding nor large; but as already indicated they had
powerful and broad frontal processes. The zygomae are wholly want-
ing. The suborbital spaces (‘‘ canine fossae’’) are full and even
slightly bulging, as in all other Neanderthalers. The nose was broad
(breadth max. near 3.0 cm.) ; the lower parts are damaged or absent.
The bones are all distinctly stronger than in modern skulls.

The vault—The bones of the vault are not especially thick, the
maximum of the parietal not exceeding 8 mm. and reaching this figure
at only a few points. In this respect it differs markedly from the
Gibraltar skull. Above the supraorbital ridges is a fairly broad but
not deep depression, much as in the Gibraltar. The forehead above
this was doubtless rather low and more or less sloping, but most
of the squama is missing. The temporo-sphenoidal region 1s much
as in modern skulls. The pterion is of the H type, rather broad. The
temporal lines were not pronounced and ran at considerable distance
from the sagittal suture. The parietal bone is more modern than in
any of the western Neanderthal skulls. It is very perceptibly more
bulging, and the eminence is situated less low and less posteriorly.

The temporal bone is of good dimensions, not low as in other
Neanderthalers. The zygomae were evidently not very massive,
though much stronger than they are in modern female crania. The
posterior root of the zygoma forms a crest, especially in its distal
half, but falls weil within the range of modern variation in the same
feature. The mastoid is decidedly small and slender. Behind it is
seen the upper end of a broad digastric groove, reaching higher than
in modern crania. The base is mostly wanting; but what is present
shows some interesting conditions. The glenoid fossa is broad trans-
versely, fairly deep, slightly less oblique than in most recent skulls,
and more effectively bound posteriorly by the middle root of the
zygoma and the anterior wall of the tympanic bone. And there is a
considerable space, as in all the Neanderthalers, between the tympanic
ridge and the mastoid (11 mm.). There was no styloid.

Endocranially, the Krapina “C” skull shows numerous and well
impressed marks of brain convolutions. The frontal lobes were more
beaked inferiorly—though not narrowly so—than they are in modern
skulls ; and the temporal lobes did not bulge out to the same degree
that they do in the skulls of present day Europeans. The petrous

WHOLE VOL, SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 2II

part is relatively bulkier than in modern skulls, and the internal
auditory meatus is larger and situated somewhat more superiorly.
The sigmoid part of the lateral sinus is narrow but very deep; this is
due to much lesser hollowing out of the adjacent portion of the
occipital.

SMALLER FRAGMENTS

Frontal bones.—Present, lower portions of three frontals. All
show pronounced supraorbital torus and other Neanderthaloid char-
acters. The nasal process, seen in two of the fragments, is stout.

An important specimen is a larger part of an evidently adult male
frontal (G.-K. 1g9o1, pl. 1, fig. 1) which shows the remnant of a com-
plete supraorbital torus, without any diminution in its stoutness from
about its middle to the distal end (near middle, 12, at outer end,
12 mm.). The forehead was broad and as well arched as in many
not very high skulls today. The temporal ridges are moderate. The
thickness of the squama is not greater than it is in many strong skulls
of today (max. 8.5 mm.). The metopic ridge is short and moderate.
The frontal lobes were broad and quite as full as in many a modern
brain.

In another fragment (K 15) the arches measure 13 mm. in
thickness at middle, 12 mm. distally, above fracture. The orbital
borders are well marked, and there is a distinct broad concavity at
the glabella. The interorbital breadth is near 2.8 cm. All the bones
of this skull were evidently of more moderate strength than those
of some of the other specimens.

A portion of a frontal, to which are attached a large part of the
right and a fragment of the left parietal, is evidently of a young
subject. The bones are not thick. The frontal bone shows a fair
development. The parietals indicate once more a relatively broad
skullcap. There was no sagittal elevation. The sutures were some-
what simple.

Fragments of occipitals—There are several fragments of adult
occipital bones. These were in part described for Gorjanovi¢-
Kramberger by Klaatsch. The latter reported (studies on casts)
that these bones show distinct differences from those of the present
day, both dorsally and ventrally; and that they correspondingly ap-
proach the occipitals of the Neanderthalers. There is the same hori-
zontal welt or torus in place of the superior nuchal line, with a more
or less marked epimedian depression; while beneath the torus the
squama shows a more or less distinct transverse concavity. The
impressions of the sulci on the ventral surface show more or less

17

eee SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

aberrant forms from those in a majority of the skulls of today. The
transverse sulci are relatively shallow. Brain impressions are in
general well marked to strong.

About the best preserved piece is that described and pictured by
Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger in 1902 (Mittl. Anthr. Ges. Wien., pl. 2, figs.
3 and 4). The bone is thicker than the modern mean, and presents,
though they are not very pronounced, the usual Neanderthaloid fea-
tures, and shows a more prominent right lobe of the cerebrum, with
but a trace of lateral sulci beneath.

Reconstruction of skull D.—From a number of fragments and
with the help of photography, Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger at-
tempted the reconstruction of one of the male adult skulls (D). The
results, while necessarily of limited value, indicate nevertheless an-
other brachycephal, with a fairly modern-like vault, with the exception
of the supraorbital torus and the subinion depression on the occipital.

Numerous measurements are given of the reconstruction; but the
element of uncertainty is too strong to permit of giving these a full
value.

Additional fragments —There are a number of additional pieces of
skulls, all of which show points of interest and more or less primitive-
ness ; they show also, however, other features of a transitional nature
towards modern forms (p. 129). Among the most interesting are
several fragments of temporal bones with the auditory meatus and
the mastoids. The mastoids are everywhere but poorly developed ;
the posterior roots of the zygomae rise in pronounced dull ridges.
The glenoid fossa in one of the pieces where it is well preserved is
deep, moderately spacious, and considerably more strongly bound
mesially than in modern skulls; also it slopes considerably upward
and outward. The pre-mastoid space (space inferiorly between the
tympanic ring or wall and the mastoid), so characteristic of the
Neanderthalers, is not present in the three pieces where conditions
can be well seen. But in all the fragments there is a marked digastric
sulcus.

UPPER JAWS

There are six fragments of upper jaws (A-F), five of which
are from individuals of less than 20 years of age, the sixth from one
over 20. The fragments indicate that the Krapina maxillae were
somewhat narrower than those of other Neanderthalers. In their sub-
nasal proportions they ranged, owing probably to sex differences,
from low to high. They are strong but not massive. They were
evidently broad in front but not exceptionally prognathic.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 213

One of the larger pieces from an adolescent (E) shows a broad,
rather flat, slanting, high front (alv. pt. to base of spine 2.7 cm.),
a rather strong though short bifid spine, lower nasal borders with
subnasal fossae (double on left, a small mesial external and a larger
and deeper more lateral internal) ; and a broad nose. The alveoli
are strong, the teeth larger than modern. The incisors are all
markedly shovel-shaped, with single to double lingual cuspules. The
canine is but little higher than the incisors and not very strong;
it also shows a bilateral hollowing out of the lingual surface. The
bicuspids, much as in modern man though larger, show too on the
lingual surface of the outer cusp a bilateral fossa. The palate was
rather high and spacious.

LOWER JAWS

This series shows on the whole somewhat less fragmentation than
other parts, and is of great interest. There are nine bones (A-I),
ranging from that of a child of about 7 to one of an adult over 40
years of age. All the bones show the same basic primitive type, but
with individual variation in all the essentials. The importance of this
material calls for a somewhat detailed description. Thanks to having
seen the originals, and to an excellent series of casts given me by
Professor Gorjanovié-Kramberger, it will be possible to give my
own notes on the specimens, which however agree almost entirely
with those of that distinguished author. The measurements are
essentially his, however.

Lower jaw A—Fragment of a juvenile mandible with middle
incisors in eruption (child of about seven years). Was evidently
somewhat prognathic (symphyseal regions receding). Thickness at
symphysis, 11.3 mm.

Lower jaw B.—A portion of the mandible of a child after a full
eruption of the middle incisors, extending from the right canine to
the left M 1. (Child of eight years or a little over.) Prognathic.

Lower jaw C.—Present, the right half of the body (up to the left
canine) and the right ramus. Belonged to an adolescent of about 13
years of age. Is of a relatively moderate size, with but moderate
height of the body, but the body is stout and the teeth are large. The
symphyseal portion is flat and receding. The ramus approaches verti-
cal, was of good but not excessive height and breadth, and with the
sigmoid notch well developed. The outline of the angle is rounded,
nevertheless the angle is fairly distinct and the region approaches
closely to that of modern jaws. The mylohyoid ridges are relatively

214 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

strong. A marked crest extends from the mylohyoid ridge to the
mandibular foramen. The dental arch diverged very perceptibly
from before backwards.

Measurements : cm.
eight! at symphysis: <anpkoxten.och clas Soe « sonar ee oe eee 2.9
leigh wat. 5 Mia a hte earns ute aera realy fect aesrcucsin ater op epee ty ota nn Eon carne 2.0
Aihickness at symp hysiSewic cso oeiao ae eS OT ree 1.34
Ahickomess)- alte MDa sale cree Oa era tetet ae aa cs etera: aps Alaa euattnts Cea ee Rep ncn see MRO 1.76
Breadth of mattis titer sem nee, tice a oie in oe a ots Mae ence eae eee 2.95

Lower jaw D.—A fragment of the anterior part of the left body,
from the symphysis to the alveolus, with five teeth; estimated to have
belonged to an adolescent of 16-18 years. Female. The bone is stout,
though within the range of variation of strongest modern jaws. The
body was low, as usual in a female. The symphyseal portion, flattened
and slightly receding, shows a moderate eminence of a chin. The
inferior border forms a well marked flat surface, with long facet
for the attachment of the digastric muscle. The lingual surface of
the bone shows a low, dull transverse epimedian ridge, and also a
low vertical central ridge, with bilateral shallow depressions both
above and below. The teeth in size are about as those in strong lower
jaws of today. The canine and the lateral incisor were moderately
shovel-shaped ; the anterior bicuspid shows on its labial cusp remnants
of the same condition. In both shape and size the canine resembles
closely the incisor, though it is broader and its body is thicker. The
first molar is relatively somewhat long and narrow (ant.-post. diam.
12; transv. diam. 10.5 mm.).

Measurements: (G.-K.) cm.
Eleishteatesymphysiswestimatedarrnccnricicce emcee nee ccna 3.3
PGS oat ata os Meese cies et es ie crite oe Enea vette s Ua et a Opa RARE VATS Sra 3.05
PUGH Sea AM Tas Se sions Guess eeatokohetol ewer rar aeh have dialer eats TA Rac Tne Rete nee 2.9
Mhickness tat MsymplryySisis ces eaite loeee weve eee eee elsic ener etoleaee 1.36
hicktaessteaitiy Mite ors carsycbeya.5 ea lowane ah re navcastaer ntee Pee RIE eRe SUA Ee cat Oia 1.45

Lower jaw E.—The larger portion of the left body, probably of
a female less than 20 years old. The bone is stout and the teeth are
large; yet the specimen probably belonged to a female, the body
being too low for a male. The symphysis is flat and slopes backward
in a straight line ; it has no appreciable evidence of a chin. The canine
is stout and dull-pointed, otherwise much like the neighboring incisor.
The lower border is markedly flattened for the digastric attachments.
Lingually, anteriorly the bone resembles the preceding specimen (D),
though the ridges and depressions are less defined. The mylohyoid
ridge is unusually pronounced, the fossa for the submaxillary gland
deep and broad.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 215

Measurements : cm.
EUG lteter syill Ply Gls mercer ene ca ticvessialo oe: sorte a oteeicos is & aro cto Cae ore 3.5
He le TICE lay rere) tetera eyelet stofcye. cic + sso 'cce. 4°54, bie lars wlereee grein ene bee swe eae
PICK MES SEATS VMN EIVSISH OES ope. 2 sists, co ese oe cow veneer Owe ae eee 1.35
Mibhickmessmate Vicbeerm areetert nee eitte. one ee toe AP ey ed Sea ey 1.65

Lower jaw F.—A portion of the left body, from Ir to M1, of an
adult, probably female.’

The bone is fairly stout. The symphyseal region was probably
flat, or slightly receding, with a minute indication of a chin eminence.
The incisor part of the jaw is square, connecting with the body at a
dull angle formed by the canine. Similar squareness is also found,
though rarely, in modern jaws. In details the bone resembles frag-
ment E.

Measurements : cm.
Fetght, tothe leit of the: symphysis, ApprOx. 5.0.6. cscs csccceevess aay
icichtwatml: 2am Ce ee eet hee a es eee ade ERS Re 2.74
eDnicknessmataysy ml pliyGise ese ate eee shoe te caticcc ete rce es ice se cet 1.45
MACE Selig MICH LAler OLAIMEN (1s peyaly fee ais Sid. Gite ele «avs <'yseelb Sissies ed ete 1.55

Lower jaw G.—The right and a portion of the left body of an
adult jaw, female, with the three right molars. A stout but low bone,
with a straight receding symphyseal line, with a merest trace of a
chin swelling. The dental arch was U-shaped, opening somewhat
from P2 backward. The teeth are about as large as in strong modern
jaws, but give an impression of moderate relative narrowness (linguo-
labially). The M3 is slightly smaller (both shorter and narrower )
than either Mr or M2. The lower border presents a marked broad
flattening, which extends to below P2, for the attachment of the
digastrics. There are on the right three (instead of the usual one)
mental foramina, all located beneath the M1. Lingually the frontal
part of the jaw shows traces of the transverse epimedian dull ridge
and also of the vertical symphyseal one, with a shallow depression
on each side above and another larger beneath—the same formation
as seen in the other jaws where these parts are preserved. The sub-
maxillary gland fossa is V shaped, deep, spacious.

Measurements : cm.
PAPE re NES MIDI SIS «so. scr Acie ste aherhevna en eee eens 4 MRM siess.S)6e eect 305
eimai e Mitre end ve he area Rr ene ete
PIES eeciE (SYRUP SIS, <2 Sut e's aden dak eile Bank 6 ecg levees biter es ies
SNE ESS RAEN NM ace o's ek wees Aix yd ee Re CME aS ae settee adel’ BG 1.45

Lower jaw H.—Powerful adult male jaw, with very typical and
pronounced Krapina symphysis: straight, flat, receding and with a

* The sex identifications are all by the writer.

216 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

very small chin eminence; with a high, strong body; with a nearly
U-shaped dental arch, broad in front and moderately diverging
backwards; and with all 16 teeth, moderately worn, of about the size
of those in very strong modern mandibles. The third molars are
perceptibly smaller than the first and second.

The lower border of the jaw is broadly and widely flattened for
the marked insertions of the digastrics; it is a regular 15-16 mm.
broad surface, extending laterally as far as the molar region. An-
teriorly, in the middle, the border of this surface bends downward
with a dull symphyseal protrusion, which gives to the inferior outline
of the jaw a cupid’s-bow effect, recalling the similar but more pro-
nounced feature in the Mauer mandible. The lingual surface of the
bone anteriorly shows only the faint epimedian dull ridge, with bilat-
eral shallow depressions above and below, like that seen in the other
Krapina jaws. The genial tubercles, as in the other jaws, are low
and small, although not beyond the range of modern variation. The
mental foramen at left is double, at right large single; both are
located beneath the posterior parts of the first molars.

Measurements : em.
Herehtsatesyampliysisern ciocineicteleetersiorrerrctoreel ckeenexe ctor eloiete elatoheferonetiare 4.0
Fei he at IDSA 5) cro \cucieses cxstehiors iavei suc taveve co ote wi chere atayelo ropes eres ener oreo tereete 3.35
Mhickavesse ate Sy Mp ny SIS cusps er-peeslelcrers aicisveresevele ovebocleiore s ehencesletcrcheletekeraiey lene 1.55
dhiekness: at eMiar cine e aes een ini ee Eee ee 1.5

Lower jaw J.—This is the best preserved of the Krapina mandibles,
being damaged only at the posterior part of the left ramus. It is at the
same time the largest of the jaws. It belonged to an adult male of
probably somewhat advancing years. The specimen is marked by
its size, breadth, and strength. Like the other Krapina jaws it has a
flat, receding symphyseal portion without a chin. The medium broad
and high rami are surmounted by strong coronoid processes, a well
marked sigmoid notch, and stout, broad, flat, not entirely healthy
condyles, especially on the right side. The surface of the condyles
has been affected through arthritis.

The left ramus, well preserved, measures 7.9 cm. in height
(Hrdlicka’s method), 3.8 in minimum breath. The mandibular angle
is close to 118°. The border of the angle is rounded, but not more than
in modern skulls; it lacks, as in the other Krapina jaws, the simian
aspect that it shows in the La Quina and La Chapelle mandibles.
The inferior border is irregularly flattened for the large insertions

2 All these heights are taken dorsally; lingually the height is often somewhat
greater.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 217

of the digastrics. The outline of the lower border, as in jaw H, is
very distinctly cupid’s-bow shaped, owing to its arching and a marked
lower symphyseal protuberance.

The lingual surface, anteriorly, shows similar conditions as the
other lower Krapina jaws. The mylohyoid ridge is very strong, and
bifurcates as in the other Krapina jaws where it may be observed,
one branch leading upwards, along the coronoid process, the other
backwards to the mandibular foramen and the base of the condyle.
In front of the vertical ridge is a large marked fossa, below the
bifurcation is a spacious pronounced hollow for the internal pterygoid
muscle. The mandibular foramina are situated high, as also in the
other Krapina specimens, and are large. The mental foramina (single
on the right, double on left), are located below the rear part of Ms fT.
The dental arch is nearly U-shaped, with the branches moderately di-
verging. There are still present 13 teeth. The teeth are large, mega-
dont, and this effect is further increased by the tartar concretions.
The M 3 is smaller than M 2. There isa relatively wide space between
the last molars and the anterior coronoid border.

In all these characters, except in the coronoid prolongation of the
mylohyoid ridge, the jaws differ more or less from modern ones,
but approach closely those of La Chapelle and other early mandibulae.

The condyles (altered through arthritis) measured r. 29.5, I.
28.8 mm. transversely ; and r. 16.5, l. 15 mm. antero-posteriorly.

Additional Measurements : cm.
Height at symphysis...........+.:ececeeeee seer eeececeeeees 4.23
le ip inte stg ee eto win vicoints asi + wreisiets ore ales Wieimye pais cfeiminahalevein sie 3122
Thickness at symphysis..........seeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeseeees 1.5
FI teI IESG UAL NI) clon: « s sic' Stine + 0g cen s oiteis sities «leele eee Sayers ?
Breadth of the ramus, Min......... cece eee eee eee e eee Bu
Bicondylat diam... 6.5. csc ce eee e eee scree nee secnen 14.8 (cast)
Bigonial diam. approx..........-+-sceceereseBeoreecceseees 11.2 (cast)

Lower jaw No. 16.—This is not described in Gorjanovi¢-Kram-
berger’s Memoir. The specimen consists of the right ramus with a
portion of the right body enclosing a damaged third molar. Evidently
part of the jaw of an adult female.

At first sight the specimen looks much like a portion of a modern
lower jaw. The ascending ramus is 6.9 cm. high (from the mid-point
connecting the uppermost parts of the condyle and the coronoid proc-
ess to a point on the inferior border of the bone corresponding to
the mid-line of the ramus) by 3.6 cm. broad. The mandibular angle is
approximately 118°. The height of the ramus at the third molar is

218 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

2.5 cm.; thickness 1.65. Transverse diameter of the condyle, 2.25;
antero-posterior diameter, 1.3; maximum depth of notch, 1.15 cm.’

The mandibular angle is rounded but not more so than in some
modern specimens. On the lingual side, however, the piece shows the
typical characteristics of the Krapina and other early jaws, viz., the
high mylohyoid ridge, bifurcating into marked vertical (coronoid )
and transverse ridges, the latter reaching the mandibular foramen
and passing beyond it to end on the posterior border of the ramus;
while beneath the mylohyoid ridge and its transverse prolongation
there is a marked hollow for the internal pterygoid.

Summary.—The highly interesting assemblage of the lower jaws
of Krapina permits of certain generalizations. The bones present
many marks of primitiveness. In these they resemble more or less
the jaws of the western Neanderthalers ; in others they show features
that connect with those of recent man.

About the most distinguishing features of the Krapina jaws are the
flattening, straightness, and recession of the incisor segment of the
bone. In some of these jaws (H, E) these features are more striking
than in any other early jaws; though the same characters in a some-
what milder degree are shown also by the La Naulette, Sipka, and
even Spy No. 1 mandibles.

Other primitive characters are the size and stoutness of the bones;
the megadont teeth; the multiplicity, size and backward location of
the mental foramina; the flat inferior border; the ridges and de-
pressions on the anterior portion of the lingual surface; the pro-
nounced mylohyoid ridge with large submaxillary-gland fossa; the
presence of a marked precoronoid fossa (between the anterior border
of the coronoid and the internal coronoid ridge or root) ; the presence
of a condyloid ridge or root (which after uniting with the coronoid
forms a very strong mylohyoid ridge) ; and the large, much hollowed
out depression for the internal pterygoid. In jaw J, there are added
to this the enormous condyles. Other primitive features are the
cupid’s-bow arching, in at least two of the jaws (H and J), of the
inferior frontal portion of the bone; and the presence in J of a rela-
tively wide space between M 3 and the anterior coronoid border.

Features in which the Krapina jaws are more or less superior to
some of the early jaws, especially the La Chapelle and Mauer, are:
total absence of inferior frontal shelf; attenuation of the old and
approach to more recent conditions on the frontal part of the lingual

* All these measurements taken on a cast kindly furnished to the writer by
Professor Gorjanovic-Kramberger.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 219

surface of the jaw; and a closer approach to modern conditions in
the height and breadth of the ramus, in the mandibular angle and its
border, in the sigmoid notch, and in the condyle (in some of the
specimens ).

THE KRAPINA TEETH

In addition to the teeth contained in the Krapina maxillae and lower
jaws, nearly 200 isolated teeth of all ages are included in the collec-
tion. Thirty of this number are milk teeth. Gorjanovié-Kramberger
devotes, in his principal memoir (1906), a large chapter to a detailed
description and measurements of the teeth, pointing out many inter-
esting details, both as to the crowns and as to the roots. From this
and the writer’s own observations the following generalizations are
possible:

The upper incisors are generally shovel-shaped, in addition to which
they show from one to three lingual small cusps. The canines are
of about modern macrodont size and form, but slightly higher than
the incisors, and with distinct traces of a lingual shovel-shaped hollow,
divided into two lateral fossae by a stout vertical ridge. The upper
premolars approximate the canines with the labial canine cusp reduced
and the lingual strongly developed. They, too, show the vertical
median ridge on the lingual surface of the outer cusp, with a bilateral
depression. The molars (23 upper, 26 lower) are all good-sized to
large, and show numerous interesting details, both as to the confor-
mation of the crowns and that of the roots. Some of these details are
of primitive nature, though on the whole the teeth approach closely to
those of present man. The Krapina third molars, while all large and
well developed, show nevertheless as a rule a tendency toward slightly
smaller dimensions than those of both the first and the second molars ;
while the second molars are often a trace larger or at least broader
than the first. The roots of all the teeth show considerable length
as well as strength; and there is observable an inclination to greater
multiplicity than in the teeth of the modern Europeans.

Professor Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger’s measurements of the teeth
are given on the following page.”

SKELETAL REMAINS OTHER THAN SKULLS

The trunk.—Present, numerous more or less damaged vertebrae
and parts of ribs. The spines represented by the vertebrae appear to
have been somewhat weaker and the individual vertebrae smaller than

2 For the writer’s measurements of the lower molars, see section on teeth.

220 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

MEASUREMENTS OF KRAPINA TEETH (G.-K.)

Tooth tengthe Canter Bieaden dings. Height teas
posteriorly) labially)
Milk Teeth: mm. mm. mm. mm.
Upper Jaw
[SD ercwerce eter a 8.39 10855 624, 1.2) ica.6:2) 1655 19.4 -19.55
Lon weet 6.55- 6.7 6.2 6.5 — 6.8 19.15-19.6
CAE Ro nto 7.6 — 8.4 6.4 - 7.3 6.6 — 8.0 19.9 -21.5
IMT eae chekovoent 9.0 -10.0 7.6 —9.0 6.0 None
IMD iene errs 8.75-10.6 LOLOe—Tiy 3 650! —/6),9) |ca.. 950) —17/.0
Lower Jaw
MTR teeta eee . 5.9 4.8 5.0 19.0
ROTA exer ciatcists 5.6 4.5 site’ 18.0
IMriyeeneaie rs 9.6 8.0 EO 18.0
NID) cee ete LOZOP—U1e 2 Sa lOmE 504 1086 14.0 -16.55
Permanent Teeth:
Upper Jaw
Digatenrs so ere 9.9 -10.4 S20) 889 MOS) WSS |) esos
ID Yy cantare Ska 9.0 Dre S54) (dit yeas
(2 jive). ace [8.2 6.0 Siailig | thay eae
Cie seen 9.0 OCLSE SOL SR) ues WN Bodo
Per orate ctoteser 8.0 — 8.5 10.5 -II.5 MONSON Oot) — | padee
Mat eer 10.0 11.6 EDV OMS A NT) cree
Noe ae arenas ARES 123 75S HOy leit he era
INIia eee sewers et T2h2 12.0 GOs 7ONl) eae
Lower Jaw
Cree estas 7.55- 8.2 8.2 =10.0;)) 0 12.3 —9As Ory win
PSPITe rs eA miss 8.1 8.5 TOV ie Ta MN La teeerr
Leos ete 8.35 9.55 Tea Oa DN PAS ESE
Mt : 13.4 12.4 7S E ORO S beh ets
he ere i 12.4 10.8 Ge Sure a haededs
Moat cae Ape e tw ud@e Zi EDT 10.3) -1T.0 G6 2.6 BO i hens Uyctae
Permanent Teeth:
Upper Jaw
Tk; Sins State 10.0 -II.0 9.4 Ta a0 28.0 -32.0
Loy, Noe ee 755-329 8.6 - 9.5 6.0 -I11.0 | 27.0 -30.9
CF iene eon g.2 -10.5 10.0 -II.3 10.7 +x 32.7 -36.0
Ps, ag eens S2Or— 82251) ILEs5—lre4: 820s Om 230) 28.25
IMI eesccrenne I1l.0 —13.3 12.5 -13.35 20.0 —24.6
Mow secre 10.0 —12.0 II.2 —14.0 t 21.0 -25.0
IMac Severus 1(0),,(0) 101572 12.5 Aisa 24.0
Lower Jaw
Titec enicae 6.2 8.1 10.2 26.0
Qe arn ere ete Teas 8.2 10.0 26.5
Chittne seen 8.0 — 8.4 |c. 10.0 13.4 ahe2
Bay tener gee TOR OHS 9.0 -10.0 8.6 —9.0] 23.7 -27.0
Poe the comers 8.5 9.9 8.0 25.9
IMT ewe to enatene lg) Nhat) 10.5 -12.4 6.5 - 9.4 19.3 -26.4
IMi2ie is i rnsiene Dla h25 10.6 —-II.4 6.8 -— 7.5 19.9 —21.0
IVE ace he iets: ots LE 1 —13-6 10.0 —II.0 ig huarate 21.0 —24.5

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 221

those of the present Europeans; but it is quite probable that the
bones present are predominantly those of females. The ribs appear
to have been more open, and are somewhat stouter or rounder in
cross section than those of present Europeans. A number of the
vertebrae show signs of arthritis (of probably senile origin).

More in detail, the cervical vertebrae, as far as preserved, are not
very robust and show a marked shortening of the anterior portions
of their bodies, which would seem to indicate that the neck was
somewhat arched backward; but the material is not ample enough
for valid generalizations. The lesser curvature of the ribs indicates
deeper chests ; while the rounder form of the rib bodies is a primitive
condition,

The clavicles.—Present, 11 right and to left bones, from individuals
of different ages. The adult bones are in general slender, none of
them reaching the strength of those of the Neanderthal or Spy speci-
mens. They show a marked torsion in their distal half, more marked
than in modern clavicles. There are marked differences in strength
between the right and the left bones, the left being considerably
weaker.

In form most of the Krapina clavicles are flattened, but in one of
the well preserved adult bones the shaft is distinctly stouter than in the
others. The latter clavicle deserves a special notice. It is evidently
a female bone, 14.9 cm. long, with a marked q flexion. It is of about
medium female strength, though relatively to its considerable length
(for a female) it appears slender. The most peculiar features of the
bone are at its distal extremity, which is remarkably thick but narrow,
looking but little like the average flattened extremity of the modern
clavicle. The end, very stubby, looks as if the epiphyseal cap may be
missing. Inferiorly there is a very pronounced and long trapezoid
ridge reaching to the conoid tubercle, which reversely is but slightly
developed. The other clavicles, all more or less damaged, show varied
forms.

The scapulae—Present, 12 fragments. In general the bones were
evidently much like those of modern man, nevertheless there are some
interesting differences in detail. Regrettably the small number of the
specimens and their defective state permits of but little valid generali-
zation. Professor Gorjanovit-Kramberger has recently (1927) pub-
lished a very detailed study of these bones, with many comparisons.

The humeri.—Fragments of eleven right and eight left bones ; three
of the nineteen specimens belong to children. No head of the bone
has been found, what remains being usually the lower ends with a

222 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

portion of the shaft. The longest piece comprises the lower two
thirds of the bone. It is plainly the left bone of a nearly-adult female.
The shaft is of about medium female strength, and the whole bone is
much like some modern humeri. The shaft approaches type I (pris-
matic) in shape at the middle, becoming regularly prismatic in the
lower third. The deltoid eminence is very moderate, the semi-circular
canal very shallow. The lower extremity shows a pronounced de-
velopment of the mesial condyle, one of the few features in which
the bone differs from the modern. The condyle is not merely promi-
nent but also stout, with a large facet for the teres and flexor muscles.
There is a very large perforation of the septum; and the olecranon
fossa is distinctly more spacious and deep than it is in modern humeri.
The articular facets fall well within the range of their variation in
modern bones.

Dimensions at middle, 2.0 x 1.5 cm. ; index, 75.0.

The lower third of another left humerus is also fairly well pre-
served. This may have been the humerus of another female, though
this is not certain. The shaft is slightly broader but a trace less high
than that of the previous bone; it is equally prismatic (lower third).
The bone comes from a fully adult subject. There is no perforation
of the septum. The mesial condyle is again markedly developed, even
slightly more so than in the first bone, and is equally stout. The
olecranon fossa is large and deep. The articular surfaces resemble
fairly those in modern bones. The maximum breadth of the lowest
end is 6.7 cm., which is rather large, but this is due in an important
measure to the overdevelopment of the mesial condyle. Without this
condyle the lower end looks feminine.

A third specimen, also the lower third, is stronger than the two
previous, is apparently masculine, and differs from both the preceding
in the absence of the highly developed mesial condyle, the part being
developed much as it is in modern bones. The olecranon fossa is once
more very large and deep, the coronoid shallow. There is a small
perforation of the septum.

The radiii—Present, fragments. The best of these is evidently
an adult bone, of originally fair length, of moderate strength, and of
but moderate curvature, differing in the latter respect from the usually
much arched western Neanderthal radii. There are in addition parts
of seven right and three left bones. All are slender, some at least
being plainly feminine. In form they are close to those of recent man,
except in the uppermost portion (tuberosity, neck and head), where
some differences are observable. The tuberosity appears, in some

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 223

specimens at least, to be located somewhat more inward and backward
than in recent man, and the neck in the Krapina bones appears to be
somewhat longer and more slender than it is in present Europeans.

The ulnae.—Present, 11 fragments. These bones, too, are rela-
tively slender. They are not very different from modern bones of
similar strength except in the upper articular facet for the radius,
which is of a somewhat different shape (especially narrower from the
front backward) ; in the basal portion of the sigmoid cavity, which
is shallower than in modern bones; in the muscular impressions about
the head which are more pronounced than in modern bones of similar
strength; and in the top part of the olecranon process which is
decidedly larger in the Krapina as in other Neanderthal ulnae, es-
pecially in its antero-posterior direction, than in modern man. One
of the bones shows advanced arthritis.

Bones of the hands——Those that remain are in general much like
those of present man, though differing in some details in which the
Krapina bones show generally more primitiveness.

The pelves—The nine pieces present resemble closely remains of
later man, but are too defective for any important conclusions. The
largest remaining piece, comprising most of the left ischium with
a large portion of the ilium, is from a male adult and shows about
medium masculine proportions.

The femora.—Present, numerous fragments, clearly intentionally
broken for the marrow ; among them were two left upper ends with
a portion of the shaft, one male, one female. Both of the large pieces
approach in general similar parts of the femora of today; though
there are also some differences. Neither of the bones shows the
stocky head and neck of the Neanderthal and the Spy femora, being
much more comparable to the bones of today; nor do any of the
fragments indicate a marked forward arching of the whole shaft,
such as is present in the western Neanderthalers—in fact, what is
preserved would indicate that the shaft was fairly straight.

The male bone shows very little that could not be duplicated in a
modern strong male femur. It has a pronounced third trochanter
in the form of a ridge reaching from the level of the lower part of
the trochanter minor to and over the lower fourth of the trochanter
major; this, too, can be found in modern bones. The subtrochanteric
flattening is moderate, though better marked than in the majority of
the Neanderthal femora (diam. max., 3.7 ; diam. min., 2.6 cm. ; Index,
70.3). The walls of the bone are very thick, especially antero-mesially
(close to 10 mm.) ; the medullary canal on the other hand is very

224 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

moderate. The digital fossa, the posterior slope of the neck, the
trochanter minor, are all in size and situation close to some at least
of those in modern femora of similar proportions ; though the digital
fossa is somewhat more spacious than in most modern femora. The
set of large vascular foramina anterior to the intertrochanteric ridge
is much the same, even to some details, as in modern man.

The female bone also resembles closely that of a modern female
of similar size, but there are a few differences. The mesial part of
the upper portion of the great trochanter in the Krapina bone shows
a distinct and large semilunar surface for the attachment of the
obturator. The digital fossa is somewhat more spacious, though not
deeper, than in modern bones. The basal part of the posterior surface
of the neck including the intertrochanteric line is widely and fairly
deeply concave, which is less marked in the preceding male Krapina
femur, and still less in modern bones. There is again a marked and
long ridge in place of the third trochanter, which reaches in this bone
about 3 cm. below the level of the trochanter minor, where it unites
with the less marked pectineal ridge proceeding from the latter. The
anterior surface of this bone is remarkably flat, the subtrochanteric
flattening distinct though not excessive (diam. max., 3.0; diam. min.
2.1 cm.; Index 70.0). The walls of the bone again are stout (ante-
riorly and posteriorly), the medullary canal small.

The tibiae.—Present, only small fragments of the shaft, with two
of the lower extremity; these show dull borders, perhaps a slightly
greater arching forward than in modern bones, with lower articular
facet much like that of the Spy tibiae and correspondingly differing
from that of present man.

The fibulae—Present, pieces of eight right and six left bones,
without upper ends and only one with the lower extremity. The best
piece shows evidently a female right bone, of about medium female
strength and of fair length. The shaft, flattened, shows five distinct
borders and surfaces, without any fluting except in the upper third
of the external surface. The shape and other characteristics of the
bone can be duplicated in modern female fibulae.

The patellae.—Present, 15 specimens of different ages. In size and
shape much like those of man of today.

Measurements given by Professor Gorjanovic-Kramberger :

Tenn ha i vaey sieves, aferers cal cusversye fel ale) eteia ie’ gn) efanetenhehavers ustedes cuanerane tatake 42.3—44.4 mm.
Brea ely rsh fey wa tte te ies aietetetars mlcraionats ee rencteta suena tere ereltenedelterees 46.6—49.0 mm.
THICKNESS He 2 spe tarere es lore cain are tate ote a eee char oot acteterel onshoehonete 23.2—24.0 mm.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 225

A male patella, of which the writer has obtained a cast from
Professor Gorjanovic-Kramberger, has evidently not been included
in the above. It measures (cast) :

Bengt Meee eete eer We racer eet cl evar avacs, ¥'s\e\e a6 a’eiae diateieob.s oo skaters Sine Biele’s 46.0 mm.
SCAMMER era TAS RENCE Rare rete era aiisc os ciewh ies bos Xess we helo leidramaelocte sree 50.0 mm.
SIRE tes SmmmeR eT Te Ce tae are oie tarereic isd oo ore eel eaievereusvomtbale walormialcistoters 24.5 mm.

The calcaneus——Present, a portion of one adult bone only. The
articular facets show a primitive condition.

The astragali.—Present, two whole left bones and seven fragments,
all showing similar characteristics. As in the other Neanderthal astrag-
ali, these bones are marked by their relative shortness, and especially
by the shortness of the neck; by a marked depression superiorly
between the head and the tibial facet; by a relatively large develop-
ment of the sustentaculum ; and by some peculiarities of the articular
facets.

Bones of the feet.—Present, numerous isolated specimens represent-
ing different parts of the foot. They all come, in general, close to
those of the modern man; yet they differ here and there in particulars
which as a rule are of more primitive nature. Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger
gives very detailed descriptions of all these parts with measurements.
Although the tarsal bones are in some respects especially primitive,
nevertheless a transition to the forms of recent man is everywhere
evident."

CONCLUDING REMARKS ABOUT THE KRAPINA SKULLS AND SKELETONS

Notwithstanding their defective condition, the numerous fragments
of the Krapina skulls show clearly that the crania they represent
belonged in general to the Neanderthal phase of early man. Many
of the distinguishing characteristics of the latter are here repeated—
the supraorbital torus, the sloping forehead, the peculiar occipital,
the planes of the orbits, the stout nasal and malar processes, the
effects of powerful masticatory apparatus, a relatively lower position
of the zygomatic arches, small mastoids, and other features.

All these features present, however, a considerable variation, and
that of a rather progressive tendency. Thus some of the foreheads
approach closely those of some recent men; even the vault of these

* Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, K., Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina in Kroatien.
Wiesbaden, 1906. “ Bei allen den erwahnten Abweichungen der einzelnen Ele-
mente der unteren Gliedmassen sehen wir dennoch schon den Typus des rezenten
Menschen ausgepragt, oder mit anderen Worten, wir finden das allmahliche
Ubergehen jener primitiveren Charaktere in die nun bestehenden des Europaers
deutlich ausgesprochen.”

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

226

(‘dos 1oquiery-1Aoue [105
Joujy) ‘aAoqe WojZ uses se CJ [[MYS Jo aurpyno ‘gq ! aaoqe Woasy udas se D TAs Jo ouryyng ‘e—oz ‘ory
“7

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 46

1. General view of the Krapinica valley.

BEER TO a oe Soo gts
Se Son ae
BOSS SES a:

The Krapina rock-shelter, before excavations were finished. (Photograph given
Hrdlicka by Gorjanovic-Kramberger. )

18

(daadsoquery-graouel4oy Jayy) oD, IPAS euldel yy

Eyed SS alON SNOILO311O0 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

(‘qaSsaquuesyy-p1AoueRlsor Joyy) “MIA apis .°D,, [MAIS euldelyy

8b “Id ‘€8 “10A SNOILOAIIOON SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLES 83 Pe. 49

”

Krapina skull “ C.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 50

Krapina jaws, “D” (upper), “E” (middle), and “C” (lower).
(After Gorjanovic-Kramberger. )

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLE. 83) PEs oi

Krapina jaw “H.” (After Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. )

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 52

Krapina jaw “N (After Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. )

J

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLES S3ieREs 53

A number of the Krapina teeth, more or less enlarged.

I, permanent median upper incisor from a small child; 1a, the same, greater enlargement;
2, permanent upper canine, root not as yet fully developed; 3, permanent anterior lower premolar,
right side; 3a, the same in greater enlargement; 4, permanent second(?) upper molar; 5, permanent
lower left second molar; 6, permanent left lower first molar; 6a, the same much enlarged; 7, perma-
nent upper median incisor, edge worn off; 8, ditto; 9, lateral upper permanent incisor; 10, ditto;
rr, a third permanent molar; 11a, the same in greater enlargement; 12, the left lower permanent
second molar; 12a, the same much more enlarged; 13, the right permanent second molar; 13a, the
same in greater enlargement; 14, a third permanent molar; 14a, the same in greater enlargement;
15, a permanent third molar; 15a, the same. (From Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, Mitth. Anthrop. Ges.
Wien, Vol. 31.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

Krapina humerus, radius, and ulna. (After Gorjanoyic Kramberger

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 55

Upper, the male and female Krapina femora.
Lower, Krapina astragalus. (All after Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger. )

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 227

skulls has differed individually, in height, in breadth and other char-
acters ; and there is much of interest in this connection about the jaws
and the teeth.

Of particular interest is the evident disposition of the Krapina
crania towards brachycephaly, which thus far has not been known
in early skulls. There have been some objections to the restoration
of these specimens; the prejudice that could readily be created thus
would be unjustified. The pieces that compose skull C appear clearly
to belong to that skull, and those of D fit too well to involve any
serious errors. An independent examination of the Krapina remains
leaves no doubt but that they represent skulls both broader and shorter
than those of the western Neanderthalers.

Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger’s opinion that more than one race of men
is represented at Krapina cannot be sustained; the low jaws and
weak bones are plainly those of females.

Adding to the variations and peculiarities of the Krapina skulls,
jaws, and teeth, those of the skeletons, and contrasting the whole
with what is known of the corresponding parts in the western Nean-
derthalers, it is plain that the Krapina man, while of the same general
family, differs sufficiently to be regarded as a subtype which on the
whole was morphologically somewhat more advanced towards later
man. This is difficult to harmonize with a supposed greater age of
the Krapina remains. Possibly he lived later than supposed, or he
belonged to a more progressive group.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE *

OSTEOLOGY

Fiscuer, Euc. Die Variationen an Radius und Ulna des Menschen. Zeitschr.
fiir Morphologie u. Anthropologie, Vol. 9, pp. 147-247, 1906.

GorJANOVIC-KRAMBERGER, K. Der palaolithische Mensch und seine Zeitgenossen
aus dem Diluvium von Krapina in Kroatien. Mitteilungen der anthrop.
Gesellsch. in Wien (Sitzungsbericht), Vol. 29, 1880.

— —. Der diluviale Mensch aus Krapina in Kroatien. Mitteil. der anthrop.
Gesellsch. Wien, Vol. 30, 1900. Briefliche Mitteilung an Prof. Dr. Ranke,
Korrespondenz-Bl. d. Deutsch. anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 3, 1900.

Der palaolithische Mensch und seine Zeitgenossen aus dem Diluvium

von Krapina in Kroatien. Mitteilungen der anthrop. Gesellsch. in Wien,

Vol. 31, pp. 164-197, mit 4 Taf. u. 13 Textabb., Wien, 1901.

Nachtrag als II. Teil—Ebenda, Vol. 32, pp. 189-216. Mit 4 Taf. u. 18

Textabb., Wien, 1902 (pp. 194-200 mit Taf. II. Klaatschs Beitrag tiber das

Occipitale ).

* Mainly after Gorjanovic-Kramberger.

19

228 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

GorJANOVIC-KRAMBERGER, K. Zweiter Nachtrag als III. Teil—Ebenda, Vol.
34, pp. 187-199. Mit 3 Taf. u. 9 Textabb., Wien, 1904.

Dritter Nachtrag als IV. Teil—Ebenda, Vol. 35, pp. 197-229. Mit

3 Taf. u. 13 Textabb., Wien, 1905.

Neuer Beitrag zur Osteologie des Homo Krapinensis. Verhandl. d.

Gesellsch. deutsch. Naturf. u. Arzte. 75. Versamml, zu Kassel, II Teil,

p. 219, 1903.

Die Variationen am Skelette des altdiluvialen Menschen. Glasnik

hrvatskoga prirod. drustva. Zagreb (Agram), Vol. 16, 1904.

Potjece li moderni clovjek ravno od diluvijalnag 0 Homo primigeniusa ?

(Stammt der moderne Mensch direkt vom diluvialen H. primigenius her ?)

Vortrag gehalten am I. Kongresse der serbischen Naturf. u. Arzte. Belgrad,

1904.

Homo primigenius aus dem Diluvium von Krapina in Kroatien und des-
sen Industrie. (Nach den Ausgrabungen im Sommer des Jahres 1905.)
Korrespondenz-Bl. d. deutsch. anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 10. Bericht d. IV.
gemeins. Versamml. d. deutsch. u. Wiener anthrop. Gesellsch. in Salzburg,

1905.

Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina und sein Verhaltnis zum Menschen
vom Neanderthal und Spy. Biologisches Zentralblatt, Vol. 25, Nr. 23 u. 24,
1905.

Der Unterkiefer von Ochos aus Mahren und sein Verhaltnis zu den
Unterkiefern des Homo primigenius. Glasnik hrvatskoga prirod. drustva.
Zagreb (Agram), Vol. 18, 1906.

Zur Frage der Existenz des Homo aurignacensis in Krapina. Ber.

geol. Kommis. Kroat. u. Slavon., pp. 5-8, Zagreb, Croat., 1910.

Das Kiefergelenk des diluvialen Menschen von Krapina in Kroatien.

23 pp., 14 fig., Zagreb, Croat., 1914.

Der Axillarrand des Schulterblattes des Menschen von Krapina. Bull.

Croat. Ass. Nat. Hist., Vol. 26, 27 pp., 18 figs., 1914.

Neue Beitrage zum Kiefergelenk des diluvialen Menschen von Krapina.
Bull. Yugosl. Acad. Sci. and Arts, pp. 118-145, 1 pl., 15 figs., Zagreb, Croat.,
1923-1924. Nachtrag, in “ Rad,” Vol. 232, 12 pp., 6 figs., 1925.

-——. Das Schulterblatt des diluvialen Menschen von Krapina in seinem
Verhialtniss zu dem Schulterblatt des rezenten Menschen und der Affen.
Bull. Inst. Geol. Zagreb, pp. 67-122, 4 pl., 17 figs., 1927.

(Additional references in these publications. )
See also the Anniversary Volume, published in honor of K. Gorjanovic-
Kramberger, Zagreb, Croat, 1925-1926.

Kraatscu, H. Bericht ttber den neuen Fund von Knochenresten des altdilu-
vialen Menschen von Krapina in Kroatien. Zeitschr. d. deutsch. geol.
Gesellsch., pp. 44-46, 1901.

—-, Uber die Occipitalia und Temporalia der Schadel von Spy, verglichen
mit denen von Krapina. Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., 1902.

Entstehung und Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechtes. H. Kramers

Weltall und Menschheit, Vol. 2, Berlin, 1902.

Die Fortschritte der Lehre von den fossilen Knochenresten des Men-
schen in den Jahren 1900-1903. Ergebnisse d. Anatomie u. Entwickelungs-
gesch. von Merkel u. Bonnet, Vol. 12, Wiesbaden, 1902.

Scutosser, M. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Saugetierreste aus den stiddeutschen
Bohnerzen. Geol. u. palaontol, Abhandl., p. 8, Jena, 1902.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 229

ScHuwa se, G. Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Braunschweig, 1904.

Studien zur Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Stuttgart, 1906.

De Terra, Max. Mitteilungen zum Krapina-Fund unter besonderer Bertuck-
sichtigung der Zahne. Schweizerische Vierteljahrsschr. f. Zahnheilkunde,
Vol. 13, Zurich, 1903.

Beitrage zu einer Odontographie der Menschenrassen. Zurich, 1905.

Totpt, C. Uber die Kinnknochelchen und ihre Bedeutung fur die Kinnbildung
beim Menschen. Korrespondenz-Bl. d. deutsch. anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 10,
1905.

Watkuorr, O. Der Unterkiefer der Anthropomorphen und des Menschen in
seiner funktionellen Entwickelung und Gestalt; Menschenaffen. Studien
iiber Entwickelung und Schadelbau von Selenka IV, Wiesbaden, 1902;
VI, Wiesbaden, 1903.

Einige odontologische Ergebnisse fur die Anthropologie. Osterr.-ungar.

Vierteljahrschr. f. Zahnheilkunde, Wien, 1902.

INDUSTRY

GoryANovic-Krambercer, K. Zur Altersfrage der diluvialen Lagerstatte von
Krapina in Kroatien. Glasnik hrvatskoga prirod. drustva, Vols. 16, 17,
3 Teil., 1905.

— —. Korrespondenz-Bl. d. deutschen anthrop. Gesellsch., Nr. 10, 1905.

Hornes, M. Der diluviale Mensch in Europa. Braunschweig, 1903.

Oxsermater, H. La station paléolithique de Krapina. L’Anthropologie, Vol. 16,
1925.

Rutot, A. Le decouvertes de Krapina (Croatie). Bulletin de la Soc. d’Anthrop.
de Bruxelles, Vol. 22, 1903.

——.—. Memoires de la Soc. d’Anthrop. de Bruxelles, Vol. 22.

Le préhistorique dans l'Europe centrale. Coup d’oeil sur V’état des

connaissances relatives aux industries de la pierre en 1903, p. 216, Namur,

1904.

Sur les gisements paléolithiques du Loess éolien d’Autriche-Hongrie.
Bruxelles, 1904.
Encore homme de Krapina. Bulletin de la Soc. d’Anthrop. de Brux-
elles, Vol. 23, p. 19, 1904.
See also the various textbooks on Prehistory (though they contain but little
detail and nothing original). :

THE EHRINGSDORF REMAINS OF EARLY MAN

The little village of Ehringsdorf, in the Im valley, 3 km. from
Weimar and about the same from Taubach, has become quite famous
within the last two decades, on the one hand for its travertin quarries,
which yield a very pure limestone (travertin), and on the other hand
for the highly interesting animal and human remains that for many
years have come to light and that are still appearing in these quarries.

The travertin deposits, of diluvial origin, extend from Weimar to
beyond Ehringsdorf. At the latter place they are found in a low
broad hill, on the slope of which the village is situated. For many
years now, a part of the hill facing the moderate valley of the small

230 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Ilm river has been blasted away for the limestone, the works being
known as Kaempfer’s Quarry. Herr Kaempfer, an educated man,
was in fact still the owner of it during the writer’s visits (1921, 1923),
and is largely to be credited for the intelligent preservation of the
paleontological as well as the human remains from his extensive
workings.”

By 1914, the quarry reached the condition shown in plate 57. The
exposed rocky wall approximated 4o feet in height and showed gross
horizontal stratification. A little below the middle could be seen a
belt about three feet thick known as the “ Pariser,” a largely consoli-
dated loess formation; and beneath this, in the left part of the
quarry, the writer was shown the remains of a flat pocket of more
or less consolidated looser material in which stone implements had
been discovered, with numerous evidences of human occupation.

It was in this layer or pocket, which lay about Io feet below the
“ Pariser,” that workmen began in April, 1914, to discover various
fossil animal bones and some worked flints; and it was here that,
on May 8, 1914, following a blast, there appeared, besides some animal
bones, fragments of an adult human lower jaw. The bone had been
both freed and partly shattered by the blast. In its vicinity were bones
of various Quaternary animals, later identified as Rhinoceros mercku,
cave bear, a Bos, a horse and a deer; also some bones that had been
partly burned, some charcoal, and numerous flints showing human
work.

The value of the find was, fortunately, promptly recognized, and
the pieces of the jaw were most carefully gathered by Herr Haubold,
the overseer, with the aid of Herr Lindig, the able Curator of the
Weimar City Museum. The specimen was then most painstakingly
repaired by Herr Lindig, and not long after turned over to Gustav
Schwalbe for study. It is briefly described and pictured by the latter
in October of the same year;* and not long after the specimen is
referred to by MacCurdy.’ Basing his opinion on its form and asso-
ciations, Schwalbe considered the specimen to be a very valuable
one, and referred it to the earlier period of Neanderthal man.

1The writer is indebted to Herr Kaempfer for his courteous permission to
examine the site and local collections, and for two valuable photographs of the
quarry.

* Schwalbe, G., Uber einen in Ehringsdorf bei Weimar gemachten Fund des
Urmenschen. Correspondenz-Bl. allg. arztl. Ver. Thuringen, 3 pp., 1914.

Uber einen bei Ehringsdorf in der Nahe von Weimar gefundenen Unterkiefer
des Homo primigenius. Anat. Anzeiger., Vol. 47, pp. 337-345, 1914.

® MacCurdy, G. G., Interglacial Man from Ehringsdorf near Weimar. Amer.
Anthrop., Vol. 18, No. I, pp. 139-142, 1915.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 231

After Schwalbe’s death a more complete study of the jaw was
undertaken by Hans Virchow, and its description forms the main
part of his masterly memoir on the human skeletal remains of Ehr-
ingsdorf." While Virchow was engaged in the study, however, there
came to light, on November 2, 1916, under similar circumstances and
from about the same horizon but about 80 feet to the right and
enclosed in rock, portions of the skeleton of a child about 10 years old.
The specimen was badly damaged through the blast, but thanks once
more to the most careful efforts of the quarrymen and Herr Lindig,
all that could possibly be saved was secured and taken to the Weimar
Museum. The parts consisted of six right and five left ribs, two
vertebrae, the epistropheus, the right pelvic bone, half of the right
humerus, incomplete lower jaw, and five teeth from the maxilla. The
thoracic parts lie in a block of the stone and were found, with the rest
of the defective parts of the skeleton, to be of but secondary scientific
importance ; but the lower jaw with its nine well preserved teeth was
a document of value, and as such, was submitted also to Hans Vir-
chow and is described in his Memoir with the adult mandible.

In addition to the preceding, several other finds of human remains
were made in Fischer’s quarry, lying immediately behind Kaempfer’s
workings. They include a number of fine stone implements and two
pieces of a human parietal; they were, like the child’s skeleton,
enclosed in the solid rock. About 1922, in the right part of Kaemp-
fer’s quarry, a blast in the travertin above its middle revealed, the
writer was told, a portion of a human femur. Fossil animal bones
and worked flints were found on numerous occasions. On September
21, 1925, finally, a blast in the lower travertin of Fischer’s quarry,
in a block 55 feet (16.7 m.) from the surface, brought to light pieces
of a young adult human skull. Of these additional human skeletal
remains the skull, after a most painstaking disengagement from the
rock and reconstruction, has been thoroughly studied and published
on by Weidenreich.’

Geology.—The travertin or calcareous tufa deposits of the Ilm
valley are found in three isolated nearby units, one at Weimar (left

*Virchow, H., Die menschlichen Skeletreste aus dem Kampfe-schen Bruch
im Travertin von Ehringsdorf bei Weimar, 141 pp., 8 pls., 41 figs., Jena, 1920.

? Weidenreich, Franz. Der Schadelfund yon Weimar-Ehringsdorf. Contains a
section on the Geology of the deposits by F. Wiegers, and a section on the
Ehringsdorf culture by E. Schuster, 204 pp., numerous illustrations, G. Fischer,
Jena, 1928.

232 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

bank), the second at Ehringsdorf (left bank), and the third at Tau-
bach (right bank). They are evidently intercalates formed during the
latter half of the diluvial times in so many depressions.

The Ehringsdorf unit is about 1,260 m. (over 3 mile) long by,
at maximum, 400 m, (437 yards) broad, and from approximately
40 to over 60 fect thick. It reposes on meadow marl (13 to over 3
ft. thick), beneath which is found a bed of river gravel (3 to Io ft.) ;
and its surface was covered by a substantial layer of humus.

The rock shows in general a considerable horizontal stratification ;
this, in Kaempfer’s quarry, showed according to Pfeiffer (1917) the
following :

From Above:

Layer Meters!
II 0.70-1.20 | Humus.
10a ala Sandy loam.
10 eeyene The ‘‘wild layer’’ of the workmen; clay with small em-
bedded pieces of limestone.

9 0.90 The ‘black bank’ of the workmen, gives good stone;
poor in bones; no artifacts.

8 2.50 Thin layers of limestone, with blackish strips of probably
humus origin; no bones or flints.

7 iO ‘‘Pariser’’—a more or less consolidated formation that
evidently consisted originally largely of loess. Few
bones, some teeth of rodents, some shells of land snails.
Flints scarce and unworked.

6 2.90 Group of three limestone banks, differing somewhat in
color and density. A few artifacts and bones of animals.

5 0.30-1.0 Sandy tufa. The principal layer containing human re-
mains as well as those of animals. The majority of the
finds at Ehringsdorf, including both of the lower jaws
and the child’s skeleton, proceed from this layer.

4 2.60 The best quarry stone.

3a ited Creviced and vacuolated stone; has yielded beaver teeth,
eggs of the wild duck, and bones of some birds.

3 0.15 Pulverulent travertin, diluvial sand; poor in bones and
artifacts, rich in snail shells (at Taubach the main
stratum of bones and implements).

2 0.20-0.90 | Meadow marl. Uppermost portion with lowest part of
3 gave a tooth of a mammoth.

I Up to 3.0 | Diluvial gravels, with isolated flints, with occasional

teeth of the mammoth and Rhinoceros tichorhinus
(Corgel, 1924).

1t m. (39.37 in.).

The origin of travertin units at and near Weimar has been ascribed
since the time of Voigt (1781) to precipitation of lime from waters

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 233

fed by mineral springs. The process of the building of the deposits
was evidently very gradual, leaving an ample opportunity for human
habitation about the pools. The German geologists ascribe the lower
layers of the travertin to the last (Riss-Wurm) interglacial; the
upper limestone layers are doubtless more recent.

Fauna.—The most comprehensive details as to the fauna (and also
the rather abundant flora) of the Ehringsdorf and neighboring traver-
tin deposits, are given, largely after Soergel,’ by F. Wiegers (1928).
From these it is seen that the fauna of the lower layers, beneath the
“ Pariser,” differs somewhat from that of the strata above. The main
mammalian forms in the two are as follows:

Lower strata Upper strata

Rhinoceros mercki. Dicerorhinus hemitoechus.
Rhinoceros tichorhinus (in the under- — Rhinoceros tichorhinus.

lying marl and gravel, Soergel).*
IPS RAG RIMGUUS. Mee de OL * ie Oem fees Maha isele nes ac
Mammoth (marl and gravel, to lowest

limestone, Soergel ).* Mammoth.
Bison priscus (Bison). Bison priscus.
Bos primigenius (Auroch). Bos primigentus.
Cervus elaphus (Stag). Cervus elaphus.
Eaycul OL ena Pema PemIAIR | Picios a\sieps) aperelohsy stays
GarpeeVeN LT GN, uh ale a eels renee eres
ene areeRMeMET Df esi ehavauats eases pices
Brown bear (U. arctos). © se tes e weet cees
Canis lupus (Wolf), wet eee eee eee
Canis vulpes (Fox), —§ «i. tet eet eee ee ee
Ee iataisy ocs\eve ¢ aiaret ater Reindeer.
Equus abeli (Wild Horse). weet eee tenes
PPS OT TRS ier erauote eset Equus hemionus (Small Wild Ass).
ay C1 ae et PM 90 CME S20 cVolevolel ellerstevs (ote) aie
Lutra lutra (Fish Otter). Lutra lutra.

Barteria acted borcVe «xe Putorius put. (Weasel).
Sus scrofa ant. (Wild Boar). =«-_—_—— ewe eeeeceeeceere
Cervus dama (Fallow Deer); = eww een eeeeeeeees

Cervus megaceros germ. (Giant Stag). Cervus megaceros germ. (Giant Stag).
Gerous aices (Bik)e fh AA eee
Cervus capreolus (Roe-Buck). Cervus capreolus (Roe-Buck).

Felis catus (Wild Gat). twine see seine oie
els iver Cy). ir wine elena gt ent
Meles meles (Badger). © weet teeter eeeeee
Mustela martes (Marten). = wr ee ee ee eet eters

?Soergel, W., Excursion ins Travertingebiet von Ehringsdorf. Paleont. Zeit-
schr., pp. 7-33, 1926.

*In the joint publication, Der Schadelfund von Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 18
et seq., G. Fischer, Jena, 1928.

* Tbid., p. 9.

‘Close to if not identical with, Rhinoceros merckii; see ibid., p. 20.

234 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Industry.—The Ehringsdorf stone industry has been very carefully
and ably studied by Erich Schuster.’ It shows relatively over a score
of types in flint and local stones and, as with other early industries
in Germany, is not very harmonious with industries of similar age in
France. The artifacts differ in workmanship from relatively simple
to very well shaped, and belong apparently to the Middle Paleolithic.
A typological classification is as yet impracticable. Climatic conditions
as well as most of the materials were different in Germany from
those in France. German prehistory must largely reach its own order
and chronology. Critical considerations of the case show that the
period deserves the distinctive name of the “ Weimar Culture.”
Exactly where it belongs must be left to further study.

THE SKELETAL REMAINS

Thanks to Herr E. Lindig, Curator of the Stadtisches Museum,
Weimar, where all the originals from Ehringsdorf are preserved, the
writer has twice been able (1922, 1923) to examine the earlier
originals from Ehringsdorf, namely the two lower jaws, the child
skeleton, and the worked stones. If the writer’s own observations
are here used rather than the very able report and detailed data of
Hans Virchow, it is only to insure greater uniformity as well as
originality in this work; but the student is urged to consult also the
highly meritorious memoir previously mentioned.

THE ADULT LOWER JAW

The Jaw is that of an adult of somewhat advanced years, judging
by the condition of the teeth. The teeth show what the student of
primitive people would call about medium wear, ranging in the differ-
ent teeth from complete abrasion of the cusps as in the left M2 and
the four premolars, to complete wear of the crown, as in the two
remaining incisors. The jaw is of moderate size for an early jaw,
and judging by the relative lowness of the body it belonged probably
to a female. It is a remarkably primitive specimen in many respects,
yet it shows already several prospective or advanced features. The
dental part of the jaw is relatively long and narrow, approaching the
form of a long U; the outline of the lingual contour of the bone
itself is that of a regular, moderately narrow, dull cone.

The teeth were 16 in number (14 remaining). They are of modern,
somewhat macrodont type, but the molars are relatively rather narrow

*Der Schadelfund von Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 141 et seq., 1928.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 235

(see the special section on teeth). The third molars are distinctly
smaller than the first and second, particularly on the left where the
tooth can only be characterized as diminutive. None of the other early
jaws so far known shows the reduction of the M3 to such a degree.
The roots of the incisors—all that remains of them—are somewhat
wider antero-posteriorly than even in macrodont jaws of today. The
canines and premolars, and the cusp foramen of Mr and M2, were
very much as they are in jaws of corresponding strength in modern
man.

The bone, although not very massive, is distinctly stouter than a
large majority of jaws of today, particularly those of females. The
thickness of the ramus at M2, very nearly the same on the two sides,
reaches 15 mm. The body was low, its height at M2 having probably
not exceeded 28.5 mm. Anteriorly the jaw shows a recession, but one
of a somewhat peculiar kind, and a marked dental prognathism. The
part has been affected and somewhat altered by dental abscesses, yet
the main conditions are quite discernible.

Had it not been for the dental prognathism, the symphyseal region
would have been only slightly receding from the vertical (with the
jaw lying naturally). It was somewhat flattened anteriorly as are
the Krapina jaws; and like some of these it has a distinct though
small chin eminence. The inferior border of this portion shows
a moderate cupid’s-bow outline, with a rather marked little beal
in the middle, approaching thus again some of the early jaws. The
mental foramina are single, unusually large, and situated on the
left below the center, on the right below the posterior half of
Mr. These are primitive features, much like those of the Krapina
and other early mandibles. Between M3 and the anterior border of
the coronoid processes there is seen a marked gap, yet another char-
acteristic of early mandibles.

The ascending rami show considerable flaring out, so that while
the body of the jaw is narrow the intercoronoid and the intercondy-
loid diameters were evidently rather large. The rami were relatively
slender (in thickness), and there may have been a well-defined
mandibular angle; but this region with the posterior and upper por-
tions of the ramus are so damaged that nothing positive can be said
about them. Inferiorly, from the midline to beneath the mental
foramina on each side, the jaw is flattened and rather deeply im-
pressed for the attachment of the digastric muscles—approaching the
condition in other early jaws; further back, however, the border of
the bone is dull, fairly slender and much like that in modern
mandibles.

20

236 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Lingually the body of the bone shows very interesting features.
Beginning from above in the incisor and premolar region, the bone
slants inward and downward, and a marked inclined shelf is formed
that reaches, gradually diminishing, to the molar region. The lower
border of this sheif, when looked at from below, constitutes a marked
ridge that extends all along to behind the last molars ; and underneath
this border is a distinct continuous groove extending bilaterally from
the symphysis to considerably behind the M3, where it shallows out
somewhat and merges with the pterygoid fossa of the ramus. There
is no trace of a vertical symphyseal ridge or of any distinct anterior
fossa above the epimedial ridge ; but below this ridge is a low triangu-
lar elevation merging with that of the glenoid tubercles, which, in
a measure, subdivides the submedial groove into left and right
portions, with a somewhat more marked depression on each side of
the median line. Such a complete epimedian ridge, with such a distinct
and practically continuous submedian antero-posterior groove, is not
equalled in any of the other ancient jaws, and is represented only in
occasional traces in modern man. The epimedian ridge in the Ehrings-
dorf specimen is directly, and without any mark of junction or
interruption, continuous with the mylohyoid ridge. But little can be
said about the lingual surface of the ramus; what there is may be
duplicated in every particular in modern jaws.

The prospective or advanced characters of the jaw are, therefore,
its slight true symphyseal recession ; its distinct mental eminence ; the
modern forms and in the main also the size of the teeth; the markedly
diminished third molars ; and in general the characters of the ramus.
Features in which, on the other hand, the jaw approaches those of
apes, are especially the upper lingual shelf with the anterior submedial
fossa below it ; the relative narrowness of the teeth; the general shape
and relative dimensions of the body of the bone and the dental arch;
and the flattening from side to side of the precanine region, this
being a remnant of the early human and prehuman powerful de-
velopment of the roots of the canines.

THE LOWER JAW OF THE CHILD

The specimen is marked by its stoutness (thickness of body at
M1, 16.5; at symphysis, 16 mm.) ; by its flat and moderately receding
symphyseal region with a very slight but distinct chin eminence ;
by a U-shaped dental arch; by the relatively narrow molars; and by
a broad and high coronoid process. It was probably the jaw of a
male child.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 237

The mental foramen is indistinct, the region having been damaged
on the left, while on the right all of the bone posterior to Pmr is
missing. The height of the body at the symphysis is 30 mm.; at M1,
24mm. The height of the ramus (Hrdli¢ka’s method) is 5.5 cm.;
breadth min., 3.7 cm. Lingually the anterior portion of the jaw shows
a marked epimedian simian shelf, much as in the adult jaw. This
shelf, however, is marked below by only a very moderate dull ridge
beneath which is a fairly distinct submedial uniform fossa extending
on each side up to Pmt, without any elevation for the genial tu-
bercles. This fossa is rounded beneath by a fairly distinct border
which is the lingual border of a flat and fairly uniformly broad
inferior surface stretching up to behind Pmt, after which the lower
border assumes a shape that is practically identical with the modern.
The mylohyoid ridge is not yet very marked and does not unite with
the epimedial anterior border, as it does in the adult jaw.

The rami show a shallow notch, broad, stout and high coronoid
processes, stout condyloid processes, a marked dorsal depression he-
low and behind the coronoid ; while ventrally there is a stout coronoid
“root,” with a trace only of the condyloid ridge, both uniting at
about the level of the mandibular foramina (in ordinary position),
and merging with the mylohyoid elevation. There is also a strongly
marked fossa for the internal pterygoid. The angle of the ramus,
still somewhat rounded and thus reminding of prehuman or early
human conditions, is nevertheless already so formed that it can
readily be duplicated in modern mandibles. The mandibular angle
is much like that in modern jaws (approx., 122°). The ramus shows
already a marked eversion, indicating a relatively broad (as compared
to the body) bicoronoid and bicondyloid diameter—as in the adult.
The jaw is a primitive specimen and approaches closely some of the
Krapina mandibles.

There are nine teeth, with the crown of the M2 visible still deep
in its socket. The four incisors are completely erupted. They are
relatively large—larger than in any modern jaws and stout antero-
posteriorly. The right permanent canine (left lost) is nearing the
completion of its eruption; it is much like the incisors, only stouter
(linguo-labially). The right anterior premolar, crown erupted, is
large with a high and stout labial cusp. The left second premolar,
just showing, seems slightly less stout than Pmt, for its labial cusp
is lower. Between the left Pmi and Mr is the still remaining
posterior molar of the milk dentition. The M1, fully erupted, shows
five cusps and a marked precuspidal fossa.

238 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Additional teeth.—In addition to the teeth in the lower jaw of
the child’s skeleton, there are also present the two right upper incisors
of the same subject. These incisors resemble much the correspond-
ing teeth of Krapina. They are distinctly shovel-shaped, and present
lingually from one (median I) to three (lateral I) marked small
cusps.

THE PARIETAL BONE

This piece is not described by Virchow. It is a large oblique frag-
ment of the left parietal with large portions missing antero-superiorly
and postero-inferiorly. It apparently proceeds from a juvenile, though
hardly a child’s skull, is of moderate thickness (maximum, 8.5 mm.)
and shows one important feature, which is a marked and nearly
central parietal eminence, not dull, posterior and low down as in the
Neanderthalers, but practically like that in modern man.

THE 1925 SKULL

This original, which the writer has not yet seen, has been described
thoroughly by Professor Weidenreich. It is a specimen of uncommon
importance, for it shows, as does Spy No. 2, transition from the
Neanderthal to the modern form of skull. The specimen presents
some of the distinctly Neanderthaloid characteristics, such as a
complete and still rather heavy torus, and the somewhat protruding
broad occiput, flattened from above and hollowed out below, typical
of the Neanderthal crania. But with these inferior features there is
a higher and well arched forehead, a higher vault, a better developed
mastoid, a less heavy zygoma, and a parietal with a central rather than
posterior, though still low situated, eminence.

Weidenreich’s conclusions as to the skull, to the restoration of
which he gave the most meticulous care, are as follows: *

The skull, which came from the lower travertin of Fischer’s Quarry
at Ehringsdorf, belonged to a young individual (between 18 and 30
years of age), possibly a female [?]. Unmistakable dents on the
frontal made partly by sharp, partly by dull stone implements, render
it probable that the individual had been killed. The violence resulted
also in breaks of the cranial bones and separation at sutures. The fact
that the basal parts of the skull are missing, having apparently been
broken away, lead to the conclusion that the skull was thus broken

* Weidenreich, Franz, Die Morphologie des Schadels; in Der Schadelfund von
Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 135, Jena, 1928.

WHOLE VOL, SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 239
for the purpose of the extraction of the brain [cannibalism]. The
damaged skull was apparently thrown into a pool of water and became
enclosed in the forming limestone. After the drying up of the pool
the bones evidently became separated in the still plastic mass and
broken further.

The skull possesses the following characteristics of the Neanderthal
group: Complete supraorbital arches; protrusion of the glabella
region [though the glabella itself was in a fairly well marked de-
pression|; large intraorbital and upper facial breadth; Neander-
thaloid occiput ; a shallow and broad (transversely) glenoid fossa, and
primitiveness of some parts of the temporal bone. But it shows a
well arched forehead and a strong filling out of the anterior portion
of the vault, which characters raise it above the Homo primigenius
group and into the palaeolithic forms of Homo sapiens.

Together with the Galilee specimen and probably also with that of
the Podkumok, the Ehringsdorf skull is to be ranged in an intermedi-
‘ary group. At all events, the exceptionally large breadth of the fore-
head and of the upper face characterize the Ehringsdorf man as a
separate race which was characterized also by exceptional features of
the lower jaw. Both the earlier found lower jaws belong to the same
morphological type. None of the characteristics of the skull permits
the supposition of any postmortem deformation.

Professor Weidenreich gives also a table of approximate measure-

ments reached by him on the reconstructed skull. They are as
follows:
cm. cm.

Wenethy: tmiascnge aoe Sc oi miss< s,s 19.6 Mirani trontalemeaxs erie sees 12.1
Length glabella-inion ......... 19.2 Greatest breadth of the oc-
Length nasion-inion .......... 18.4 Cipitalasquamal snes sees TO!5e 2)
Greatest breadth) .....-..26--- 14.5 Calotte-height (above glabel-
Cranialeindexs sieceise cciiec.c ss 74.0 la-inion line, projection).. 9.6
Iriside em othierrievs croc) eis en terse 17.1 Calotte? mdex, 5.06)" alces tos 50.0
siside sbreadthie wreeimcer ricci 13.45 Upper facial breadth........ 13's
Inside or brain breadth-length Anterior interorbital breadth. 3.0 (7?)

W8tGle> Cacti oid) Sec EI aS ee WetOhe EOSUIL Capacity) 640%. 0%> 1,450 cc. [?]
Diamepeirontalemdidecs nels ia. 2s 013

CRITICAL NOTES

The writer’s examination of the Ehringsdorf originals, coupled
with the study of the most recent skull and implements of which there
are able descriptions, leads him to the following views :

The originals in Weimar, and the plentiful fine illustrations of the
artifacts in Schuster’s report (1928), show plainly, especially in the

240 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

knives and scrapers, Mousterian affinities. But the long and other
fine points, including the remarkable double-point, the drills, and
other objects, suggest more advanced development. There is certainly
nothing very primitive about the culture, though a few of the worked
stones are rather crude or simple.

Similarly with the human skeletal remains—they are certainly not
more primitive than those of the Neanderthalers. They are on the
whole less primitive, in fact, than the Neanderthal remains proper,
or the La Chapelle, or Le Moustier, or the adult Gibraltar. The
lower jaws come close to most of those of Krapina, and so do the
two upper incisors as well as other teeth. The fauna also resembles
in the main that of Krapina. The Krapina industry, in the main
Mousterian, is also somewhat aberrant, though whether these aberra-
tions are near those of Ehringsdorf is uncertain; both may be quite
local and differing from each other.

The presence of Rhinoceros mercku both at Ehringsdorf and
Krapina is neither proof of contemporaneity of the two sites, nor
that either of them is of greater antiquity than the French and Belgian
Mousterian sites where this form has not been encountered. The
presence of the remains of R. tichorhinus at a lower horizon, as
reported by Soergel,’ shows that the older form (FR. mercku) sur-
vived for some time at least after the coming or development of the
newer.

The assumption of the German writers that the Ehringsdorf man,
or at least he of the older strata, lived well into, if not throughout,
the third (Riss-Wirm) interglacial, and a similar assumption about
the Krapina man, while the other Neanderthal remains are usually
believed to straddle, chronologically, the last or Wurm glaciation,
seems incongruous and involves chronological, faunal, cultural, as
well as somatological difficulties. The question arises whether the
Ehringsdorf stratum could not be attributed to a warmer intermedi-
ary period of the last glaciation itself, rather than to the preceding,
supposedly long, interglacial period. The cultural and somatological
evidence, at least, would seem to favor this conception. We strike
here the well-known difficulty of harmonizing the Mousterian time,
and especially its beginnings, with the current and especially the
German geological-paleontological deductions as to the periods follow-

+See Wiegers, in Der Schadelfund yon Weimar-Ehringsdorf, p. 9, last par.,
1928.

(‘Aaaenb ay} Jo JouMO Aq BYYpIF{ OF poyeuop ydeisojoyg) “‘punoy sem Mef JaMOT INpe
dy} YOTYM Ul WIN}zeI4S sayeorpul YoO]q B UO SUIPURYS UR JO JYSII O} jyods a}yIyM VY

‘JAopssuriyy ‘Attend sjojdwioey JO MoIA [P1OUOE)

9G “1d ‘€8 “10A SNOILO31100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

(‘Airenb ay} Jo s1auMO 94} Aq poyeuop ydeisojOYyd) ‘“PetaAOIsSIp 919M (AIVUI 9}IYM JIMOT) UOJI]I4sS
S,pjryo pue (syurod ueur YsIYM 0} JaddgT) Mef Jamo, atayYM SurIMoys ‘Jiopssulsyy ‘Arsren() s sajduory

UGiaald ee SralON SNOILOS1100 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83; PL. 58

2

1. The Ehringsdorf skull (1925), top view. (After Weidenreich. )
2. The adult Ehringsdorf jaw.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 59

The Ehringsdorf skull (1925). (After Weidenreich. )

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 241

ing the main (2nd) Interglacial. It is most desirable that there be
reached, as soon as practicable, a consensus of scientific opinion on
these questions.

The quarry work at Ehringsdorf proceeds, and with the intelligent
interest in the finds of the owners, the overseers, and even the work-
men, and the nearness of Herr Lindig, it seems justifiable to hope
that new discoveries will be made which will throw additional light
on the highly interesting problems of the ancient Ilmstal population.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

KriaatscuH, H. Occipitalia und Temporalia der Schadel yon Spy, verglichen mit
denen von Krapina. Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., Vol. 38, p. 396, 1902.

Das Gesichtsskelett der Neandertalrasse und der Australier. Verh.
Anat. Ges. Berlin, p. 223, 1908.

Mo tttson, Tu. Neuere Funde und Untersuchungen fossiler Menschenaffen und
Menschen. Erg. d. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch., Vol. 25, p. 696.

SALLER, K. Die Menschenrassen im oberen Palaolithikum. Mitteil. Anthrop.
Ges. Wien, Vol. 57, p. 81, 1927.

SoERGEL, W. Losse, Eiszeiten und palaeolithische Kultur. Gustav Fischer, Jena,
IQI9Q.

Besichtigung des Museums fur Urgeschichte in Weimar. Paldont.
Zeitschr., Vol. 7, No. 3, 1926a.

Totpt, C. Brauenwitiste, Tori supraorbitales und Brauenbogen, Arcus super-
ciliares, und ihre mechanische Bedeutung. Mitteil. Anthrop. Ges. Wien,
Vol. 44, p. 234, 1914.

VircHow, H. Uber den Schadel von Ehringsdorf. Zeitschr. f. Ethnol., p. 2109,
1926.

WEIDENREICH, F. Kurzer Fundbericht tiber ein in den Travertinbriichen von
Weimar-Ehringsdorf gefundenes Schadel-Fragment vom Neanderthal-
Typus.. Verh. Ges. f. phys. Anthrop. Freiburg i. B., p. 32, 1926.

Rasse und Korperbau. Julius Springer, Berlin, 1927.

THE TAUBACH FINDS

Among the isolated specimens proceeding from early man are the
two teeth of Taubach. One of these, a molar of the first dentition,
was found in the Quaternary deposits at Taubach near Weimar,
Germany, in 1892, by A. Weiss. The crown of this tooth shows
considerable wear, and this fact, with various characteristics of the
specimen, created at first an impression that the tooth was perhaps
not human; later, however, the tooth was accepted as proceeding from
a human child. Meanwhile one of the laborers at Taubach discovered
in supposedly equally old deposiis a first permanent left lower molar
about the human nature of which there can be no question, and this
tooth also shows various primitive features. Both these finds have

242 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

been reported upon and the specimens described by Nehring.’ The
permanent molar is preserved in the museum of Jena.

The site of Taubach, close to the village of the same name, lies in
a terrace bordering the Ilm valley, not far from Ehringsdorf and but
a few miles from Weimar. The terrace is built up of calcareous tufas
alternating with sand. As early as 1874, excavations for the sand and
stone began to disclose an ancient fauna, and with it traces of paleo-
lithic human remains.

The fauna is characterized by Elephas antiquus and Rhinoceros
merckii, and is believed to date from a warm interglacial period. The
artifacts comprise articles in stone, bone, and horn. The implements
of flint, quartz, and other stone, lack characteristic forms; they are
indefinite as to type, some approaching Mousterian forms, others
appearing more primitive. Among the bone implements are numerous
axes [or scrapers?] made of bear mandibles, scrapers of beaver jaws,
a bone knife or disk, horn clubs or hammers, and other forms.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEETH

The first human tooth was found in 1892, in the ‘‘ Mehlhorn trench,”
at a depth of 5.10-5.25 m. (nearly 17 ft.), by Dr. A. Weiss, while
the latter was collecting fossil animal skulls. The tooth showed
similar alterations as did animal bones from the same layer. The
specimen is described in 1895 by Nehring.’ It has been identified as
the anterior left lower milk premolar. A question arose at first as
to whether the tooth was human, but the identification as such has
been generally accepted.

The crown of the tooth shows some wear. It measures 8.8 mm. in
length (ant.-posteriorly) ; 7.5 mm. in breadth (linguo-labially) ; the
length is much the same as that of corresponding teeth in uncivilized
modern races, the breadth is slightly greater. The drawing of the
crown that accompanies Dr. Nehring’s report is a rather poor one

*Gotze, A., Die paladolitische Fundstelle von Taubach bei Weimar (with
earlier literature). Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., pp. 366-377, 1892. Schotensack,
O., Diluviale Funde von Taubach. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., pp. 92-95, 1895.
Nehring, A., Uber einen fossilen Menschenzahn aus dem Diluvium von Taubach
bei Weimar. Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthrop., Zeit. Ethn., pp. 338-340, 425-433, 1805.
Same author, Uber einen menschlichen Molar aus dem Diluvium von Taubach
bei Weimar. (Jbid., pp. 573-577.) See also Adloff, Das Gebiss des Menschen
und der Anthropomorphen, Berlin, 1908; Schmidt, R. R., Die diluvial Vorzeit
Deutschlands, Stuttgart, 1912; and Festschrift Anthropologische Versammlung
Weimar, 1912.

* Op. cit., pp. 338-340, I fig.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 243

and the double-size enlargement accentuates its defects. In essentials
the foldings of the enamel are much like those of today. In 1923, the
tooth was said to be still in the possession of Dr. Weiss and the
writer was unable to reach it.

About the second tooth there was for a time some uncertainty,
but Dr. Nehring’s local inquiries appeared to establish the authenticity
of the specimen.

The tooth is the left lower permanent first molar. It proceeds from
the same stratum as the milk tooth in the “ Sonnrein” excavation.
It was found by the owner and worker, H. Sonnrein, secured by
Professor Klopfleisch, and eventually deposited in the Jena Museum.
The formation at this place was as follows:

Meters
Repelal CINNUS MER CR eioe Concierto ie ieee cioais sea eveeient ems ete re cs 0.30
2S lab wlinnestOnen saint elses Ae ieis mie eee eters els serovaioe easiest 0.80
3. Fine-grained limestone with numerous snail shells......... 0.17
eee Leatadleraagil ann gMAITICSEOME = faa) 2.) ais.nisiaieieis-2@ ore «vic! s1eFereueie ole + «/is 0.19
Boge Et adel iMestOne my (LEAVERUIEI)! « cv- cin ere’ «'ote elm rnysiera eisiaterese 0 ee 0: ole 0.22
Gam Ochreousshardelamestone saciricietiesciiela cecie cicianis + eielsie ele <i 0.20 -15.19 feet
ees TACK OOSEHSEGACIIIM as cinicieieis <'ofs « «1 sisl60\e) 001s fe, sj ate w sieleva\ sleialsie/* 0.13
SMS VeLtin meee eer eae oc Siticiel se cinvene aictars chetatita’y aisle yersve ere 1.59
QuGrey acenilace@ts NMmestONe os. c. viele emiv ese cence «* 0.20
TOME OCLC MME EME NRT Ree Ronis oc eee nat ierasohaieareiake lous otelecekers 0.03
Pee BAM SLAMMEM SMTMESTOME. wie cs oc ee cco cies oleicie nee eleieleiavainrins 0.80
12. Fine-grained often sandy limestone, with animal bones and
PHERENT OMIM AMateetine ct eiarcla ere dail sieloelerelevela ntelelel ote che latent OM Gee Loins

The crown of the tooth is 11.7 mm. long, 9.9 mm. broad [module
10.8, B-L index 84.6]. In size the tooth can be matched in man of
today. But its relative breadth and the index are decidedly low for
a human tooth. They exceed those of any of the other early teeth
(see section on “ Teeth”). The only known permanent lower first
molars that equal the Taubach tooth are those attributed to the
Dryopithecus suevicus (rhenanus), and those of the chimpanzee.

Fic. 21.—The molar of Taubach. (After A. Nehring, 1895.)

The conformation of the crown, and the roots, while offering some
points of interest, are on the whole much like those of man. Nehring

244 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

considered the folding of the enamel with some particulars as to the
cusps to be somewhat chimpanzee-like, but nevertheless identified the
tooth as human. Schwalbe classed it with the Neanderthal remains.’
For Duckworth, it was difficult to decide whether it was a human
tooth or the tooth of a pithecoid precursor of man. Miller, and with
him, Gregory, regard the tooth as belonging to a Pleistocene chimpan-
zee (Pan vetus, Miller).* For Marcellin Boule, “ it is possible that it
may have belonged to a man related to the Neanderthal type.” ‘

Today, after additional study of the tooth, G. S. Miller, Jr., in-
forms the writer that he considers his earlier identification of the
tooth as erroneous, regarding it now as a human tooth with some
primitive characters. In the opinion of the writer, who saw the
original in 1923, the tooth is clearly of a human type, though it is
relatively slightly narrower than any human M1, ancient or recent,
that he has seen so far.’

The atypical Taubach industry which has been referred by
different authors to everything from Chellean to Mousterian, is now
regarded as representing most probably the warm or older Mousterian
and as closely allied to the Micoque culture.°

THE PLEISTOCENE MAN OF JERSEY (ENGLAND)

In 1910 Messrs. Nicolle and Sinel, of the Island of Jersey, gave
notice in Man, and in a bulletin of the Jersey Society,’ of the dis-
covery, in an old cave on the Island of Jersey, of 13 highly interesting
human teeth, belonging to a man of the Mousterian period. The
principal details of the find, according to the clear account presented
by the two authors and confirmed later by the writer's observations on
the spot, are as follows:

The cave where the ancient human remains were found is known
as La Cotte, or La Cotte de St. Brelade, and is situated in a great

*Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen, 1904.

* Prehistoric Man, p. 23, Cambridge, 1912.

* Gregory, W. K., Studies on the Evolution of Primates. Bull. Amer. Mus.
Nat. Hist., Vol. 35, 1916.

* Fossil Men, p. 146, 1923.

* Hrdlicka, A., Variation in the Dimensions of Lower Molars in Man and
Anthropoid Apes. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 423-438, 1923.

° Werth, E., Der fossile Mensch, Vol. 2, p. 512, 1927. See also, Schmidt, R. R.,
Die diluviale Vorzeit Deutschlands, Stuttgart, 1912.

"Nicolle, E. T., and Sinel, J., Report on the exploration of the palaeolithic
cave dwelling known as La Cotte, St. Brelade, Jersey. Man, Vol. 10, No. 102,
pp. 185-188, 1910. Reprinted in 36° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, p. 69,
Jersey.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 60

The calcareous tufas of Taubach. (After Eichhorn. )

oe a

: aw nis

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 245

rough irregular cliff near the eastern horn of St. Brelade’s Bay,
Jersey. At this part of the island granite rocks, considerably
weathered and broken, rise steeply to about 200 feet above mean
tide level, the shore at their base being covered with accumulations of
large, rounded, waterworn bowlders (pl. 61). In one part of these
cliffs there is an irregular rough ravine or gorge, which penetrates
about 150 feet into a cliff. The side walls of this ravine are, in large
part, quite vertical ; and in the wall on the left, near the upper terminus
of the gorge, is a large cave which bears the above name. Before its
exploration the La Cotte cave was nearly filled by clay, débris and
blocks fallen from the much-weathered roof; while rubble drift, in
the form of a steeply sloping talus, lay in front, obscuring a large
portion of the mouth. Removal of this drift revealed the outline of
the opening in the form of an irregular arch.

The first indication that the cave was once utilized by man dates
from 1881, when two local naturalists, while ‘ geologizing ”’ on that
part of the coast, found a flint implement at the foot of the talus,
and, tracing its source, came upon a slightly exposed section of the
cave floor. There they found flint chippings and one or two bones,
apparently of a large bird; but no importance was attached to the
discovery. About 1894, two members of the Société Jersiaise, Mr.
R. Colson and Dr. Chappuis, excavated a portion of the exposed
floor section of the cave and found a considerable number of flint
implements, and besides that a quantity of bone breccia which con-
tained one tooth and one metatarsal of a variety of horse. Subse-
quently various partial examinations of the accumulations in the cave
resulted in the discovery of implements, and of a large number
of flint chippings. All these are preserved in the Museum of the
Société Jersiaise, at St. Heliere.

In September, 1905, the Jersey Society decided to explore the
cave systematically, and Dr. Chappuis, Mr. Nicolle the secretary, and
Mr. Colson, commenced work in the part of the exposed floor already
mentioned. More flint implements were discovered, but early in
October the task had to be abandoned owing to the rainy season and
to the fact that the workers were excavating under dangerous condi-
tions. It became clear that a considerable portion of the talus as well
as some of the threatening rocks overhead would have to be removed
before the work could proceed.

Thus matters remained until July, 1910, when the society resolved
to make another attempt at the exploration of the cave. With the
help of experienced quarrymen excavation was commenced on August

246 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

I, and after a little over three weeks’ work sufficient of the rubble had
been removed to reveal the form of the interior of the cave, and to lay
bare a portion of the floor about 11 feet square to the left of the
entrance. The dimensions of the cave as seen at this stage were as
follows: The entrance was 25 feet in height and about 20 feet in
width. Just within, the roof sloped upward into a rough dome 30 to
32 feet from the floor ; how far the cave entered the rock could not be
ascertained, but judging from the slope of the roof towards the back,
it was probably some 40 to 50 feet.

As soon as a portion of the floor had been reached, a careful search
and examination were commenced, with the following results:

The floor was not well defined. It consisted of compacted layers of
black soil, which proved to be a combination of ashes, carbonized
wood and clay, mixed with whitish bone detritus. Flint implements
and chippings were interspersed plentifully throughout these de-
posits. On the left of the entrance and at a distance from it of about
8 feet, was a hearth containing a large quantity—probably a quarter
of a ton or so—of wood ashes and carbonized wood. Close together,
among the ashes of the hearth, were a few pebbles of granite and fei-
site bearing indications of having been heated.

The presence of bones was manifest all through the layers con-
stituting the floor, but due to advanced decomposition of the material,
the cave not being a dry one, only here and there could fragments
retaining any form be obtained. Nevertheless in one corner, at a
slightly higher elevation than the hearth, there was found a mass of
bone from which some determinable portions could be secured; and
a careful examination of this mass, after its transference to the
Jersey Museum and treatment with gelatine, led to the most important
result of the excavations to this time, namely, the discovery of nine
human teeth. Four of these were from the upper, five from the lower
jaw. They represent, as was later determined, teeth of both sides
and of one individual, but unfortunately no trace of the once sup-
porting bone was any more apparent. All the bones and teeth re-
covered from the cave were taken to the British Museum for deter-
mination, and Drs. Smith Woodward and Andrews identified the
specimens as follows:

ANIMAL TEETH: Part of left lower premolar of the woolly rhinoceros, Rhinoce-
ros tichorhinus; last premolar and first molar of reindeer, Rangifer taran-
dus (a large species apparently as large as the caribou) ; upper cheek teeth
of a small species of horse; parts of lower molars and upper cheek tooth
of a large species of horse; lower teeth in portion of jaw of one of the small
Bovidae; and left incisor of Bos, Spec.?

NINE HUMAN TEETH, with subsequent recovery of four others.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 247

BoNES AND HORNS: Part of horn core of one of small bovid; portion of antler
of reindeer; bone, probably from articulation of foreleg of a deer; pelvic
bones, probably from a small bovid; and a piece of bone, which fell to pieces
on removal, from a rhinoceros.

Among the fragments that could not be definitely determined was
also apparently a portion of a human tibia. Of flint instruments about
100 have been obtained. They are, without exception, of the well-
known tongue-shaped Mousterian type, the “pointe a main” of
Mortillet. The cave gave no evidence of other than one occupation,
and is thus probably free from the confusion which results when
implements and remains of the fauna of different periods occur to-
gether and have become mixed by the work of burrowing animals,
water during floods, and other agencies, as is often the case in similar
deposits. By their fauna and the uniform type of stone implements,
the La Cotte cave deposits are shown clearly to be of the Mousterian
period.

Further explorations of the site were carried on under the auspices
of the Jersey Society in 1911 and again in 1912. They are reported
by Nicolle and Sinel and by Marett." They threw considerable light
on the nature of the cave and its filling, and were extended to what
may prove to have been a part of the same hollow on the base of the
wall of the opposite side of the gorge. They resulted in the discovery
in both caves of numerous additional flint implements, all of the
Mousterian type, and in the older excavation of more fragments of
animal bones, referable principally to the woolly rhinoceros, the rein-
deer, a large variety of horse, and probably the Bos prinugenius. But
no further human bones or teeth came to light.

Meanwhile the human teeth (pl. 62) were subjected to careful
examination by Prof. Keith, of the Royal College of Surgeons, and
Mr. Knowles, of the Oxford University. The results of these studies
were published in rg11 in the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology,’

* Nicolle, E. T., and Sinel, J., Report on the Resumed Exploration of “La
Cotte,” St. Brelade, by the Société Jersiaise, 1911. Man, Vol. 12, No. 88,
pp. 158-162, 1912. Also in 37° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, pp. 213-222, 1912.

Marett, R. R., Pleistocene Man in Jersey. Archzologia, Vol. 62, pp. 449-
480, Oxford, Io1t.

Marett, R. R., Further Observations on Prehistoric Man in Jersey. Arche-
ologia, Vol. 63, pp. 1-28, 1912.

Marett, R. R., and De Gruchy, G. F. B., Excavation of a Further Portion of
La Cotte de St. Brelade. 38° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, pp. 320-330, 1913.

* Keith, A., and Knowles, F. H. S., A Description of Teeth of Paleolithic Man
from Jersey. Journ. Anat. Physiol., London, Vol. 46, pp. 12-27, 1911. Re-
printed, with an additional note, in 37° Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise, pp. 223-
240, 1912. Abstract in Nature, Vol. 86, pp. 415-416, I9QII.

248 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

and later, with some additions, in the thirty-seventh bulletin of the
Jersey Society. The following embraces the gist of these reports, as
well as of the writer’s own observations.’

The teeth are in an unexpectedly good state of preservation, only
the terminal parts of the roots being broken away. Their color is
dark brown, with grayish white somewhat chalky looking crowns.
All show advanced degree of fossilization. The apices of the cusps
were worn away in life and the finer architecture of the crown is
as if faded, probably through corrosive action of the moisture in the
deposits that enclosed the specimens.

Five of the teeth, namely, a second left premolar, a first right and
a second left molar, and the right and left third molar, with a part
of the root of left incisor, belong to the upper jaw, while seven are
from the lower jaw, being respectively a canine, first and second pre-
molar with second molar of the left side, and a second incisor with
second and third molars of the right side. All are probably from the
same set and their characteristics are such that the ancient man they
represent must be ranked anthropologically as one of the most primi-
tive yet discovered.

The illustration on plate 63 shows a reconstruction of the upper
and lower dental arches of the St. Brelade man, by Keith and Knowles,
and the upper arch in the modern human skull, after Cunningham.
It is seen at a glance that the Jersey teeth are larger than the modern
in every direction and that in consequence the dental arches themselves
must have been considerably larger.

Another feature in which the Jersey teeth differ even more radi-
cally from the recent, is their extraordinarily stout roots. The diam-
eters of the neck and roots of the Jersey teeth are almost equal to
and in some cases exceed those of the crown, indicating that rela-
tively great requirements were made on the teeth by the quality and
possibly also quantity of the food. Such roots indicate unmistakably
strong muscles of mastication and a stout massive lower jaw, prob-
ably somewhat smaller but scarcely less powerful than the still earlier
Mauer mandible.

1In June, 1912, the writer visited Jersey to examine the original teeth and
to visit the cave where they were discovered, and he wishes warmly to thank Mr.
Sinel and Dr. Dunlap for the courteous treatment and facilities which they ex-
tended to him on this occasion, as well as to Captain Rybot, of the 76th Punjabis,
for his service in furnishing excellent sketches of the locality. In 1923 the writer
revisited Jersey and the cave with Professor Marett, whose great courtesy is also
hereby gratefully acknowledged.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 249

The roots of the Jersey premolars and molars are not only stout
but they are also to a large extent fused. This is not an anthropoid
feature, for in the higher apes these roots are well apart. The fusion
is due to great development of the dentine and cement of the roots,
brought about in this early man, in the opinion of Keith and Knowles,
by a changed manner of mastication, characterized by more lateral
besides vertical movements of the lower jaw. Other primitive fea-
tures of the teeth are the early filling of the pulp cavities by deposits
of dentine, thus providing an early adaptation for wear ; the size
and characters of the first premolars, which contrary to what occurs
in present man are larger than the second ; and certain features of
the canine as well as of the molars.

Without going into more details, for which the reader may consult
the originals—it may safely be concluded that the Jersey teeth con-
stitute another valuable document of man’s ancestry; and that they
show an early man, probably a representative of Homo neanderthal-
ensis, already quite advanced in denture from the prehuman forms, but
still with teeth more powerful as well as less specifically differentiated
than those of present man.

In 1916, Professor Marett reports in detail on additional work in
the La Cotte de St. Brelade and on the fauna and stone industry of
the cave. Further explorations have been carried on in 1913, 1914
and 1915. A large part of the original cave was cleared. By the end
of 1915, some 1,200 square feet of the paleolithic floor had been un-
earthed and thoroughly examined ; and the upper part of the wall of
the débris to the rear of the cave had been cut back to the distance of
50 feet from the entrance. Later, exploration was commenced also in
the cave on the other side of the ravine.

The combined explorations to the end of 1915, resulted in the
recovery of many thousands of stone implements and rejects, and
also of numerous bones of Pleistocene animals; but there were no
further important discoveries of skeletal remains of man. Outside
of the cave, in the talus at the back of the ravine, there were found,
regettably without scientific supervision, three pieces of a partly cre-
mated child’s skull. The largest portion is that of the left side of the
occipital ; according to Dr. Keith it belonged to a child not more
than six years of age, and both inside and outside bears the marks
of the modern rather than the Neanderthal type of man. This was
therefore probably a later intrusive specimen.

250 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The list of animal species from the cave comprises now the fol-
lowing:

Elephas ?trogontheru Dicrostonyx torquatus
Elephas primigenius Microtus ratticeps
Rhinoceros tichorhinus Arvicola sp.

Cervus megaceros Lepus ?cuniculus
Cervus tarandus Sorex araneus

Cervus elaphus Anser brachyrhynchus
Cervus ?capreolus Bernicla leucopsis
Cervus sp. Bernicla brenta
Equus Gallinula chloropus
Bos primigenius Cinclus aquaticus
Hyaena crocuta, var. spelaeca _Tetrao sp.

Canis ?lupus ?Lagopus mutus
Canis vulpes Falco tinnunculus

In the case of the ox, horse, reindeer, and rabbit, considerable
discrepancies occur in the size of the teeth and other bones, and it
may well be that bison coexisted with the urus, Prjewalski’s horse
with the “ forest horse,” caribou with a smaller reindeer, and Arctic
hare with the rabbit. The bones of all the species were in close associ-
ation with implements of Mousterian pattern.

The stratigraphy was rather disappointing.

Among the artifacts there was a small flat piece of bone on which
are to be seen a number of parallel double cuts of artificial, human
origin. Several sharply pointed pieces of bone may have served as
drills ; but a convincing example of a bone implement has up to the
end of 1915 not come to light. As to the flint industry, the total
number of flints showing human work recovered from the cave to
the end of 1915, was 15,070. Among these 155 were perfect specimens
of Mousterian tools of first quality, showing the classic forms of this
industry. Then came several thousands of rougher examples, of
second and third quality ; the remainder being waste of manufacture.

Marett inclined at this period to assign the industry of the cave
to two periods, probably separated by a chronological hiatus. The
industry of the first period he assigns to the Middle Mousterian.
“Tt is, in fact, the typical industry of Le Moustier itself.” The work
of the upper bed on the other hand he assigns to the Upper Mousterian.
It is not Aurignacian in his opinion, “ but nevertheless foreshadows
the Aurignacian industry in a number of ways. There are particular
implements, though in no sense typical ones, that closely resemble
Aurignacian forms as regards their outline; but the trimming is
Mousterian, not Aurignacian, in its technique.” The conclusion of

19 “Id ‘€8 “10A

(nosey “WM AM Aq ydeisojoyd) ‘advo Aassof oy L,

SNOILO3Z1100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

(‘ptojxO JO ‘Worey
‘MM Ad Aq vounzyysuy ueruosyzwig ay} 07 paystusny ydessojoyd e wory ‘YWOM Jy) “Yjoo} Aossaf sy yp

29 “Id ‘EB “IOA SNOILO3S11090 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

(weysuiuuny Jajyy) ‘Yyjeo} pue yore [ejuep Jaddn usspoyy ‘9
(yay Joipy) “yore

Jepoaare Jaddn ay} Jo uoTONAYsuODaI YM ‘suoNtsod ajqeqoid sayy Ur ‘uvUT Adstof ay} Jo Mef toddn ay} Jo Yoo, “q
(‘U}loy Jovy ) “Yote

IP[OIATE JIMOT JO UOTONAJsSUOIAL YM ‘suoTIsod ayqeqoid slay} ut paoeyd ‘ueut Aassaf oy} JO Mef JIMOT JO YJoaL, “P

eh E

J Mee cee Yemen oe *
~~ fiero op re

WH®LE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 25!

Professor Marett, in 1916, is that “ La Cotte de St. Brelade is entitled
to rank as a pure Mousterian site, as rich and representative in its
way as almost any in Europe.”

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

KeirH, A., AND Know es, Francis H. S. A description of teeth of Palae-
olithic man from Jersey. Bull. Soc. Jersiaise, Vol. 37, pp. 223-240, 1912.
Also Journ. Anat. and Phys., Vol. 46, pp. 12-27, 1011.

Marert, R. R. Pleistocene man in Jersey. Archaeologia, Vol. 62, pp. 449-480,
Oxford, Tort. :
Further observations on prehistoric man in Jersey. Published by Soc.

Antiq. London, 1912.

The site, fauna, and industry of La Cotte de St. Brelade, Jersey.

Archaeologia, Vol. 67, pp. 75-118, Oxford, 1916.

AND DE Grucny, G. F. B. Excavation of a further portion of La Cotte
de St. Brelade. Bull. Soc. Jersiaise, Vol. 38, pp. 326-330, 1913.

SrneL, J. Prehistoric times and men of the Channel Islands. Jersey, 137 pp.,
IQT4.

AND NicoLie, E. T. Report on the exploration of the palaeolithic

cave-dwelling known as La Cotte, St. Brelade, Jersey. Bull. Soc. Jersiaise,

Vol. 36, pp. 69-74, IOIT.

Report of the resumed exploration of “La Cotte,” St. Brelade, 1o1t.

Bull. Soc. Jersiaise, Vol. 37, pp. 213-210, 1912.

THE FOSSIL MAN OF LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS

One of the most interesting, best authenticated, and thanks to
Marcellin Boule now best-known skeletons of early man, is that of
“the fossil man of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints.” La Chapelle-Aux-
Saints is a small village in the Department of Corréze, near the small
railroad station of Vayrac, south of the town of Brive, in southern
France. A little over 200 yards from the village and beyond the left
bank of the small stream Sourdoire, in the side of a moderate elevation,
is a cave, now known as that of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints (pl..64). In
1905 archeological exploration of this cave was undertaken by three
Corréze priests, the Abbés A. and J. Bouyssonie and L. Bardon. These
explorations which from the beginning were successful, resulting in
the recovery of numerous industrial and other vestiges of paleolithic
man, progressed gradually until the uniform archeological stratum
was nearly exhausted, when, on August 3, 1908, in the floor of the
cave, the excavators came across a shallow artificial fossa in which
lay remnants of the bones of a remarkable human skeleton.

The human bones were carefully gathered and sent to Professor
Boule, at the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, where they were
cleaned and as far as possible restored ; and the following December
Professor Boule demonstrated the skull, giving at the same time the

252 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

first account of the find, before the Paris Academy of Sciences.” One
week later Messrs. Bouyssonie and Bardon presented before the
Academy their own observations, and these reports were followed at
short intervals by several others before the same scientific body.’
Subsequently the skull and other parts of the skeleton were subjected
by Professor Boule to a thorough study and comparison. The results

eae

Fic. 22.—The interior of the La Chapelle cave.

* Boule, M., L’Homme fossile de la Chapelle-Aux-Saints. C. R. Acad. Sci.
Paris, Dec. ‘14, 1908. L’Anthropologie, Vol. 19, pp. 513-519, 1908; Vol. 20,
p. 257, 1909; Vol. 22, p. 120, IOIT.

* Bouyssonie, A. and J., and Bardon, L., Découverte d’un squelette humain
moustérien a la boufha de La Chapelle-Aux-Saints. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris,
Dec. 21, 1908. Boule, M., Sur la capacité cranienne des Hommes fossiles du
type dit de Neanderthal. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, May 17, 1909; Le squelette du

tronc et des membres de l’Homme fossile de La Chapelle-Aux-Saints. C. R.
Acad. Sci. Paris, June 7, 1900.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 253

of his work were published in a series of communications extending
through the sixth, seventh and eighth volumes of the Annales de
Paléontologie, and in 1913 they were issued in a large individual
volume.’

These various reports show that the cave of La Chapelle-Aux-Saints
is a moderate-sized and rather low cavity, about 6 m. (19 ft.) long,
2 to 4 m. (6 to 13 ft.) broad, and 1 to 1.50 m. (3 to 4.5 ft.) high
(fig. 23). When first approached it was seen to be nearly filled with
old accumulations, which later disclosed numerous traces of man, and
with débris of the rock from the roof and sides.

The stratigraphy of the cave was found to be quite simple—there
was but one fossiliferous layer, of Pleistocene age, posterior appar-
ently to the excavation of the fossa that contained the skeleton (Boule,
Mem., pp. 10-12). The worked flints and quartz gathered from this
layer reached over 1,000 in number. They showed careful and able
work. They comprised especially the two classical Mousterian types,
points and scrapers, and their derivatives. There were also a few
instruments of Acheulean type, and a number of well chipped blades
as well as other forms that presaged the Aurignacian. There was no
trace however of any worked bone.

The animal bones show generally signs of intentional breaking, for
the marrow ; some show also traces of fire or marks of implements.
The following species were identified :

Rhinoceros tichorhinus Canis vulpes
Hyaena crocuta Meles taxus
Rangifer tarandus Equus caballus
Capra ibex Sus scrofa

Bison priscus Arctomys marmotta
Cants lupus Various birds.

This is a cold fauna, referable to the last glaciation.

Under the accumulations the floor of the cavern was found to be
whitish, hard, marly calcareous ; and in this hard base, at the distance
of a little over four m. from the entrance of the cave, was found
a nearly rectangular, moderate-sized cavity, which lodged a fossil
human skeleton. The depression, in the opinion of the explorers,
had clearly been made by the primitive inhabitants or visitors of the
cave, representing a regular burial, one of the most ancient inten-
tional burials thus far discovered.

* Paris, 1911 to 1913. Also published as a separate volume, 278 pp., numerous
pls. and figs., Paris, 1913. For brevity this volume will be referred to hence-
forth as the “ Mém.”

*1.45 m. long, 1 m. broad, and 30 cm, deep.

NS
on
S

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

VOL. 83

wt
/
/

)
Uf

Uf Y “WY, bif fe
YWHAY lili Ye
; Yj 4

: p lee il) “Llp
ee —_ CeetsstittlllD

Ura porn ae Sa
% Ze :
oO 90

Fic. 23.—The La Chapelle cave, transversely at entrance (upper), longitudinally
(middle), and transversely at the skeleton fossa (lower). (After Boule. )

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 255

The body lay apparently on its back, with the head to the westward.
The head reposed against the wall of the fossa in one corner, and was
surrounded by stones. The left arm was extended, the right probably
bent so that the hand was applied to or lay near the head. The lower
limbs were flexed. Above the head were found three or four large
flat fragments of long bones of animals, and somewhat higher there
lay, still in their natural relation, the foot bones of a large bovid.
suggesting that the whole foot of the animal may have been placed
in that position, perhaps as an offering to the dead. About the body
in the fossa were numerous flakes of quartz and flint, some fragments
of ochre, broken animal bones, etc., much as in the rest of the arche-
ological stratum above the skeleton. To the right of the fossa contain-
ing the skeleton were many large fragments of various animal bones,
jaws and vertebrae of the reindeer, and vertebrae of a large bovid.
with some very well made implements of flint. The last-named verte-
brae and the flint implements were covered by two large slabs of
stone; and above these slabs, at the side wall of the cave, the earth
showed the effects of fire; but it was not possible to determine
whether this was of the same date as the deposits or the human burial
beneath. There was no indication that the deposits in the cave had
been moved in any way since the burial of the human body.

On taking out the human bones it was found that, through decay
or other causes, many were defective, and some parts of the human
skeleton were lost. What remained comprises the skull, almost com-
plete, with the lower jaw; 21 vertebrae or pieces of same; 20 ribs or
their fragments ; an incomplete left clavicle; the two humeri, almost
complete ; the two radii and the two ulnae, all more or less defective ;
a few bones of the hands and feet; portions of the pelvic bones,
fragments of the right femur (from which it is possible to recon-
struct the bone) and the lower half of the left femur ; the two patellae,
and parts of the tibiae. The state of preservation of the specimens
is exactly like that of the animal bones recovered from the deposits
about the burial fossa. They are ferruginous in color, heavier than any
corresponding recent human bones and very perceptibly mineralized.

Through the kindness of Prof. Boule the writer was enabled in 1912
and again in 1923 and 1927 to see the originals of the Chapelle-aux-
Saints skeleton. It was not possible to undertake any personal detailed
study on the bones, but even brief examinations were sufficient to im-
press one deeply, particularly in the case of the skull, with the great
scientific value of the remains. They represent another precious addi-
tion to the rapidly augmenting material evidence of the highly inter-
esting type of ancient man, Homo neanderthalensis.

256 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

With the excellent and well-illustrated reports of Professor Boule,
with a good plaster model of the skull, and with the writer’s observa-
tions on the originals, it is possible to give the following notes on
these specimens. The illustrations are all after Boule.

THE SKULL

The La Chapelle skull, notwithstanding its many peculiarities, is
plainly a normal specimen, not affected (except in the dental arches)
by any disease or by any premature closure of sutures (pls. 65, 66),
and with but moderate injuries. The skull, except for the sexual
differences, comes close in many respects to that of Gibraltar. It is
also closely related to that of Neanderthal; but, except for the vault
of No. 1, it is distinctly more primitive than the Spy crania, par-
ticularly in its facial portions and the lower jaw. The characteristics
that strike one most forcibly at first. sight about the La Chapelle
specimen are the lowness and the large size, especially in length,
of the vault; the huge supraorbital arch; primitive features of the
face; and a large and primitive lower jaw. More in detail the skull
presents the following features:

The vault—The vault is of the same type as that of the Neander-
thal skull, being only somewhat longer and more spacious. There are
the same heavy semilunar supraorbital welts or arches meeting in a
shallow depression at the glabella, which is carried far forward. The
arches are about as heavy and thick as in the Neanderthal, and show
but a very slight tendency towards diminution in thickness from the
middle of the upper orbital borders outward. In the median line
the arches descend united down the stout nasal process of the frontal.
Above the supraorbital arches there is much the same depression as in
the Neanderthal skull; but the forehead of the La Chapelle skull,
while about equally as broad as that in the Neanderthal, shows slightly
greater height and fullness. The sagittal region is quite smooth and
oval from side to side. The parietal eminences are situated low from
above downward and far back as in the Neanderthal and the Spy
No. 1. The occiput, somewhat more protruding on the right, is typi-
cally Neanderthal—broad from side to side and flattened both above
and below. Its protrusion is rather marked when the skull is viewed
from the side. There is a strong superior nuchal torus, but it does not
extend downward and forward.

The outline of the vault when viewed from above is a prolonged
ovoid, mildly asymmetric in its posterior portion, due to the slightly
greater size and potrusion backwards of the right side. The temporal
squamae are low, the temporal fossae large, the zygomae very stout.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 257

The temporal ridges (lines) above are not strongly marked and do not
approach close to the sagittal suture. The mastoids are remarkably
moderate for a male skull and one of this size, approaching in this
respect the earlier primate forms. The digastric groove beneath is

~
- -
wee ee ee

LarChapelle “=
Neanderthal ~~

msi
sadat
ha
A ‘
\
-

SS
aoe

Fic. 24.—The La Chapelle skull, and comparison of the outline of its norma
superior with that of other Neanderthal skulls. (After Boule.)

broad, as in other Neanderthalers. The bones of the vault, seen well
through a large defect in the upper part of the left parietal, are not
as thick as in the Neanderthal skull, but are about one-fifth stouter
than they are in average white male skulls of today; the parietal
measures 6 to 8 mm., the frontal squama 8 mm.

The base-—The base is considerably damaged. It was evidently
rather flat. The foramen magnum is large, situated relatively slightly

258 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

more backward than in modern skulls, and shows less inclination.
The condyles are small and low. The stout pterygoid processes ran
upwards and backwards, more obliquely than in recent skulls. The
temporal-basal parts are all stout. There were no styloids. The
glenoid region on each side is massive and large. The glenoid fossae
are somewhat shallow but broad laterally, and their shape is such that
their cast, especially on the right, would present a well marked
lateral ridge along the summit; in other words, their cross section
antero-posteriorly would approach somewhat more the V-shape than
the U-shape that is generally seen in modern crania. Between the
tympanic plate and the mastoid on each side is a groove approximately
7 mm. broad, much as in the Gibraltar skull; crania of today show
only occasional traces of such a groove.

The face.—The orbits are large, though relative to the size of the
face and skull not as large as in the Gibraltar specimen; and they
are roughly rounded. The borders are very dull superiorly and mesi-
ally, better defined inferiorly. Due to the pronounced supraorbital
arch the upper half of the orbits, as in the Neanderthal skull, has
a somewhat forward and downward inclination, unlike that of any man
of today. Laterally, moreover, their plane slopes very perceptibly
outwards and backwards, as in the Gibraltar. The mid-portion of
the face from the nasion downward is markedly stouter, fuller, and
more protruding forward than it is in modern skulls—much as in the
Gibraltar cranium. There are no suborbital (canine) fossae, the
surface of the maxillae in this region being perceptibly convex, instead
of concave—again as in the Gibraltar. The nasal aperture is very
broad—once more as in the Gibraltar. The nasal spine is moderately
developed, especially on the right. The lower nasal borders are fairly
sharp. On the left in the rear of the border is seen a groove, followed
by a moderate dull ridge, running from the base of the spine upward
and slightly backward to above the middle of the lateral wall of the
aperture. All the facial bones are stronger than they are in modern
skulls. The body of the malars was relatively small, especially for a
male, but the nasal and zygomatic processes are broad and stout.
There was no protrusion forward of the malars and the plane of
their surface sloped backward more than in any modern crania.
This is distinctly a simian feature. Here again there are close re-
semblances to the Gibraltar. The upper alveolar process (and also
the lower) has suffered considerably from absorption after a loss
of most of the teeth, probably due to old age. It was not especially
high or especially sloping forward (alveolar prognathism), but the

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 259

whole region was carried more forward than in more recent skulls,
giving greater facial prognathism (see measurements). This was due
plainly to the large development of the dental arches, teeth, and the
jaws. The upper dental arch and palate are very large. The palate
is U-shaped and of about medium depth ; there is no torus.

Fic. 25.—Upper and lower dental arches of the La Chapelle skull, as
reconstructed by Boule.

The teeth—Of the teeth there remain only a left upper and left
lower premolar, and both of them much worn. The lower premolar,
with but a remnant of the enamel, shows an opening of the pulp
cavity, and a very oblique wear sloping toward the lingual border.
There is no mark of decay and the teeth were lost most probably

260 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

through infection following the exposure, through wear, of the pulp
cavities; there are traces of root abscesses.

The lower jaw.—The lower jaw is large antero-posteriorly, and
also laterally. There is no chin and the symphyseal line was slightly
negative (receding). The body was about as high and stout as in the
most developed jaws of today. The rami are of about medium breadth
for a jaw of this size; they are broader than the rami in most modern
jaws but do not reach the proportions of those in some Eskimo and
in the Mauer mandible. The upper third of the rami shows a per-
ceptible eversion on the right side, which may, however, be post-
mortem. The condyles as seen from that on the right were short and
stout.

Inferiorly, in its anterior portion, the jaw is slightly arched, and
presents a bilateral, nearly flat surface for the insertion of the
digastric muscles. There is a trace of an internal shelf in the form
of a moderate swelling between the lingual border of the anterior
portion of the jaw and the genial tubercles. The genial tubercles are
rather small and much as they are in some modern jaws. Above them
and on each side is a marked hollow, only rarely present in modern
jaws; and above this hollow the bone rises in mild convexity to the
border of the stout alveolar process.

The mylohyoid ridges are not excessive ; but above and in front of
them, in the premolar region, there are present lingually on the sur-
face of the bone moderate swellings such as observed in the Mauer
jaw and frequently in strong modern mandibles. The rami show sev-
eral interesting exceptional features, the most striking of which is a
defect of the angles. From about its middle the posterior border
curves (on right) or bends (on left) downwards and forwards. The
resulting form of the angle region approaches, especially on the left,
that in the anthropoids.

The second peculiarity is the presence, on the external surface of
each ramus, proceeding from the outer end of the condyle downwards,
of a dull, fairly broad ridge, which looks like a supporting pillar or
root of the condyle. It is clearly a reinforcement feature, of me-
chanical origin, due to the heavy stresses on the condyle. It is better
marked on the left than on the right ramus; and between it and the
anterior border of the ramus is a marked broad parallel depression.
Nothing of this sort exists in simian jaws.

Other reinforcing ridges, with consequent fossae, are seen on the
internal surface of the rami, and here the conditions approach de-
cidedly those in the lower jaws of the large anthropoid apes. A
pronounced ridge runs downward from the coronoid process, and

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 261

another runs downward and forward from the inner end of the
condyle. These two meet in a plain V in front of the neural foramen,
midway between this and the anterior border of .the ramus, where
they form a pronounced single elevation that runs downward and
forward to merge with the mylohyoid ridge. These several ridges
leave in front, within the V, and especially behind the latter, marked
hollows. All these features may be found represented more or less in
the jaws of present man; but jointly and so highly developed, they
occur only in the large anthropoid apes. The sigmoid notch is shallow,
though less so than in the Mauer jaw.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON THE SKULL

The La Chapelle skull, as a whole, is plainly one of the more typical
representatives of Neanderthal man. Its closest relations, particularly

MEASUREMENTS OF THE SKULL OF LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS

Boule Hrdli¢ka

cm. cm.
Length max. from glabella...........-----..----- 20.8 RE

PrOMMOPNEYORG cia es, cmrerec a te etter kaon ene close to 19.8
Br arte Castner, ones heats ae ee aie gh 15.6

Cranial index with length max...............-. 75.0 ered.

with length from ophryon..............-.-.- Dae 78.8
Basion-bregmia height... 2.0.0. 5. - 2262s ees 13.2
< ; bas.-bg. height X 100

aN mean of length plus eed (Bo
Breadth-height mdex. .. 4. 3.c- ohm asae ooo 83.9 84.0
G@alottal index of Schwalbe: =. ...06 ica. 2-5.) 40.5}
Bint frontal anita... 2... dee sere ose ary ol teh 10.9
I aaitrontalanax.c0 4. ete a ane os 12.2
Breadth max. of supraorbital arch..............-- 12.4

Index a eens no) cee ok pec oeee ane Ae 89.3

d. f. max.

Face: Total height (menton-nasion).............--. approx. 13.1

Height, alveolar point-nasion..........-...---. 8.6

Diam. bizveamatic MAX... 6S es denne a 15:3

ipper feral WOK. oc. ce be oe ns aie oe ee 56.2
Facial angle (angle formed by lines basion-alveolar

point and alveolar point-nasion).............--: 62° 63°
Alveolar angle (angle formed by lines basion-

alveolar-point and alveolar point-subnasal point)? eo ak 55
Upper dental arch: Length max.............----- a0 eee

Rea Ciera eee aoe ou e oxen eae eed aenresener ane cle. 7.13 near 7.4

E
Index ( Et) es TE tS Oa Oe He ERE : 08 .6 near 94.6

ee ee ne

262 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS voL, 83

MEASUREMENTS OF THE SKULL OF LA CHAPELLE-AUX-SAINTS

(CONTINUED)

Orbits: Breadth right 0. 2}asei ce a ie Re 4.75

lefts cS aah on! ke Saray ater ae meee 4.65

Heichit moht \lc)-0.a% 4 s/vecaeaeas am remap eke 3.90

lOfE Ses otlea eee Abe Sarat aT ae iain 3.80

Rnd Ex; Mean sisi beessie ere eee eto ee ore epee ie ST.9

Nose: Length (nasion-spine) (2.500441 ee ee steer 6.14

Length (nasion-lowest points of inferior border of

aperture each Side)). cc nqstes sect siom + sx hice ote Feve 6.4
Breadtheisiauwodoc mi alakaet ae ae Mises cities gee teres Zinc Moyne
MING OX ee rortcak ate ye een tueke ea seetre ayn ree ae aS eny Boat

1 if ; : ae ;
Max.-vertical height from the glabella inion line X 100 Game linder inthe Pitheeautheacuats
Length of the glabella-inion line.

34.2; in the Gibraltar skull, 40.0; in the Neanderthal 40.4; in Spy No. 1, 40.9; and in Spy No. 2,
44.3 cm. (Boule, Mém., p. 36.)

2 Lowest point on the inferior border of the left nasal notch.

3 Owing to borders damaged or wanting, not enough allowance made; maximum original
breadth was greater. ,

4 Evidently not taken to base of spine, which corresponds to the middle of a line connecting
the lowest points of the border of the aperture on each side.

LoweER JAw

cm. cm
Height of body at mental foramen (in rear of post.

01 fai0018) (24 g) amen Parrett eecP ate ean a. conta cic ms ech Gen Oem, © Bye
Thickness of body at same vertical............... 1.6 enon:
EBhicknesst maxed yly-ae vce Ole eee eae oe De ba is was probably

not over I.7
Symphyseal angle (angle formed by the line of the

NELWh) ewok aon Gist a eh San ale CL ee RE ee 104°!
Mandibularanclen ances none cca 110°
Lateral diam: of righticondyle... 220.045 se ae 2.9
Antero-post. diam. of right condyle............... 135 :
Minimum breadth of ascending ramus, right....... Bete 4.65

HMeicht of mchtramuswneate eee eee eee Sar 6
Heightof lett ramussneae ieee See aphets. 6
Wengthiof corpus, approx, riglit. 24 i erate See 12
Length of corpus, approx., left 12

‘In man of today this angle varies approximately from 57° to 93°; in early human mandibles
from 85° to 110°; in anthropoid apes from 105° to 124° (Boule, Mém. p. 83).

in the facial portion, are with the skull of Gibraltar. It approaches
in many essentials the human skull of today ; yet it carries still many
remnants of the prehuman past. As will be seen later, it belonged to
a male of short stature but very muscular, massive frame, which
doubtless accounts in great measure for its large brain.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 263

THE BONES OF THE SKELETON

In the study of the bones of the skeleton of La Chapelle the student
is seriously handicapped, on one hand, by the more or less defective
state of the remains, and on the other, by a lack of casts, with the
inability to use the originals. It is true that an excellent and detailed
description of the remains is given by the one in whose charge they
have been placed, Prof. Marcellin Boule; but even he does not give
some of the important measurements, such for instance as the di-
ameters at the middle of the shaft of the long bones, while in other
cases he merges the measurements with those of other Neanderthal
skeletons so that they lose their individuality. Thanks to Professor
Boule the writer has been able to look over the originals, though
not to take any measurements. The lack of the casts is a most serious
disadvantage, and it is in the interests of human prehistory that it
be soon remedied.

The following notes on the skeletal parts are largely after Pro-
fessor Boule.’

The different parts of the skeleton are substantially related to those
of other Neanderthal remains, more particular to those of the skele-
tons Neanderthal, Spy No. 2 and the male La Ferrassie.

The vertebrae—The vertebral column of the man of La Chapelle
was short and stocky. All the vertebrae that remain are remarkable
for the low height of their bodies. Many of the vertebrae show some
senile marginal exostoses. The three cervical vertebrae with the
uppermost dorsal are remarkable for their nearly horizontal spines,
which is a simian character seldom approached in man of today.
The dorsal and lumbar vertebrae—all that remains of them—are
marked by the relative lowness of their bodies, and by various minor
peculiarities. In the lumbar region the vertebral canal is considerably
larger, relatively, than it is in present man. The articular facets of
the transverse processes of the lumbar vertebrae, particularly in the
case of the first, are relatively large and flat. A portion of the first
sacral vertebra shows a large neural canal. Judging from what re-
mains of the sacrum the bone was rather narrow and straight.

The ribs—The ribs are stout and their cross section is triangular
and not flattened as it is in modern skeletons. This form indicates
the existence of powerful intercostal muscles. The curvatures of the
ribs, where shown, are less pronounced than in corresponding ribs
of the present time.

1Meém., p. 106 et seq.

204 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The clavicles—FPresent, approximately the distal half of the left
bone. It is seen that the clavicle was relatively long, but of only
moderate strength. This agrees with the characteristics of the
clavicle in all the other known Neanderthal remains where more or
less of the bone is preserved. It indicates a very broad chest.

The humeri.—The right humerus is but little damaged, lacking a
small part of the head ; in the left humerus the head is largely deficient.
The right bone is notably stronger than the left, indicating strongly
developed right handedness, which is essentially a human character.
The humeri were relatively stout and short, their extremities volumi-
nous. All the muscular insertions are strongly marked. The strength
of the right bone exceeds slightly that of even the strongest bones
of today. The torsion of the humerus falls within the present range
of variation of this character. The shaft is remarkably straight and
cylindrical, resembling in this respect more the humeri of the large
anthropoids than those of present man. The distal extremity of the
humerus is large, and presents various details of interest. The large
fossa is not perforated. All the characters denote a strong develop-
ment of the muscles. The left humerus differs from the right only
by its greater slenderness. On the whole the morphology of the
humeri of La Chapelle is very human.

Bones of the forearm.—All of the bones are present but not com-
plete. They are remarkable for the grossness of their extremities,
the strength of the muscular impressions, and the pronounced curva-
tures of the shaft.

The radii—The right radius is distinctly stronger than the left,
though the difference is less marked than that between the humeri
of the two sides.

The ulnae.—The right ulna is but slightly stronger than the left.
The shafts of the ulnae are very straight and much less prismatic
than in present man. An outline of the shaft at the middle is nearly
elliptic, approaching thus the shape of the bone in the anthropoid
apes. The upper part of the shaft is extraordinarily flattened antero-
posteriorly. The head and the olecranon process are stouter in all
respects than in modern man. The coronoid process is more horizontal
than usual today. The articular facets are less excavated. On the
whole both the radius and the ulna of the La Chapelle skeleton, in
common with the forearm bones of other Neanderthal skeletons,
show a number of inferior ancestral characters, and differ correspond-
ingly from the same bones in modern man.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 265

Bones of the hands—The metacarpals are unusually long and stout,
with very strong articular extremities. The hands of the fossil man
of La Chapelle were decidedly large and strong; but the thumb ap-
pears to have been relatively shorter than at present. The articular
facets of the bones that are preserved show some interesting peculiari-
ties not generally present in man of today.

The pelvis——The very incomplete pelvis is long (t.¢., high) in
relation to its breadth ; but in general, as far as it can be judged from
the bones present, it presented proportions and form similar to those
of the pelves of modern man, especially those in which the sacrum
is narrow. The bones were robust, massive. The ilia were rather
flat. The great sciatic notch is deep and narrow. As far as repre-
sented, the pelvic bones of the La Chapelle skeleton resemble exceed-
ingly closely the pelvic bones of Neanderthal man.

The femora.—The femora are in pieces. Carefully reconstructed
by Boule, they show in all their characteristics close relation to the
Neanderthal and Spy femora. The bones are stout, the extremities
are large. The right and the left bones differ but slightly in strength.
The shafts show uniform curvature forward, even a trace stronger
apparently than that of the Neanderthal and Spy femora. The linea
aspera is somewhat more marked than in Neanderthal and Spy.
Platymery is wanting. Of the lower extremities of the femora there
are but fragments, on which definite observations are difficult ; but
what remains indicates the same characteristics of this part of the
bone as exist in the Neanderthal and the Spy femora.

The patellae——The two patellae of La Chapelle are well preserved.

The right bone measures 4.6 in breadth, 3.9 in height, and 2.1 cm.
in thickness. The bone is somewhat smaller than those of Spy No. 2
and those of Krapina.

The tibiae—The tibiae are very incomplete. They were relatively
short and strong, and were not platycnemic, closely resembling those
of Spy. The extremities were voluminous. The upper end shows
a more marked retroversion backward than is present in the modern
tibiae. The shaft shows but a slight lateral curvature in its upper
third.

The fibulae.—Present, the upper half of the shaft of the right bone.
It is remarkable for its stoutness, and for its sub-cylindrical form
which differs from those of modern bones.

The astragalus—Present, the left bone only, somewhat damaged.
It is relatively shorter, higher, and especially broader than the astrag-
ali of present man of all races. The shortness of the bone is especially

266 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

due to the shortness of its neck. In detail the bone presents several
primitive characters. It resembles in general the astragali, as far as
known, of the other Neanderthal skeletons.

The calcaneus—Present, the left bone, seriously damaged; re-
constructed with care by M. Boule. The bone is relatively long, broad,
as well as high. The length is due especially to the heel part. The
sustentaculum is considerably developed. The articular surfaces of
the bone present some primitive features. The ligamentous insertions
and grooves are all strongly marked.

Bones of the feet—These bones are very defective. The metatarsals
were evidently relatively short but stout, with large extremities ; that
of the large toe was especially robust, more so than in the majority of
human feet of today.

General considerations —The general aspect of the body of the man
of La Chapelle was somewhat different from that of recent man, the
posture was less perfectly erect. The stature of the La Chapelle man,
if estimated from the length of the humerus, may have been approxi-
mately 163 cm., which would be near the average of the Neanderthal
males estimated in a similar manner. But Boule is of the opinion that
in view of the short spine and short tibia this estimate is much too
high, and that the stature in life of the La Chapelle male was more
probably about 155 cm. (Mém., 116-118.)

DIMENSIONS OF THE SKELETAL PARTS OF THE LA CHAPELLE MAN
(ABSTRACTED FROM BOULE)

Estimated stature in lifes =e ane ae ae eee een 155-163 cm.
cm. cm.
r. ie
umerus:| Wengthomax.. cnc ae ele ae oe Bre
Minimum circumference of shaft............... 72
Amele:of torsion ss aii: hice 2 ois san nee en ae ae ee 148°
umenro-temoraleindexeiscee eee eee een near 70.3
Tibiae: Length, in position and without spine,
estimatedis see ee ieee bare Meee Lee 34.0
Astragalus: Length?) Acc. hess nee ee 5-7
Hlelohtin isis saccotie Goan ano eae 3.5
Breadth) acai lic sat ein eee ieee 5.3
Culcancusvenesth max: approx... eee 8.0
Breadth eh ey chk We Pe cay Me Ry ee 4.7
Ba nd exe cei neta rares Ssh oe Enea 58.0

1 In present man the average angle ranges from 134° to 162° (Boule, Mém., p. 125).
2 Measurements by the method of Volkov, Les variations squeletiques du Sed cee les Pri-
mates et dans les races humaines. Bull. et Mém. Soc. Anthrop., Paris, 1905.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 64

1. The cave of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (After Boule.)

2. The interior of the cave of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, with the fossa that
contained the skeleton in the right background.

VOL. 83, PL. 65

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

(After Roule.)

The La Chapelle skull.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 66

2. The La Chapelle skull, left side. (After Boule.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOES 83) PE (Gin

The endocranial cast of the La Chapelle skull. (After Boule. )

\
X\, 7

89 “Id ‘€8 °10/

(ajnog

eS
»®

Vet,

IVY )

"MOIA do} ‘[[nys

atjodeyy ey 94} jo }SeO [eluetloopuod UL

SNOILO3S1100 SNOANVIISOSIN

NVINOSHLIWS

N
N

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 69

1. The cervical and upper dorsal vertebrae of
the La Chapelle skeleton.

’
CHIMPANZE LA CHAPELLE

\ EUROPEEN
iN

x y

3

2. The same as figure 1, compared with the same vertebrae of a Chimpanzee
and a modern European. Note the direction of the spinous processes. (After
Boule. )

Pen O)

VOL. 83,

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

ule. )

oO

(After B

mity.

f the lower extre

oO

The La Chapelle skeleton; bones

= 7
i} oy b
ak 7
% a a
'
- Fs Am eel,
: Yt ie eh

i Tee
iat a a Pi
t
. as ee
wes . a § =
hy ; tree
a rs my ,
I ee
eT
b soa Pale i
: p
- mo as
. , “t ie
2 Ae
‘eee
eee, fi
be — : to
} : 1 i 1
7 t
t re i* i ro
@ on!
1 A s
be
eo
‘ ’ ‘0,
= +e
1 ey ;
’ ;
1. 4
- 12
: \ 2 o
w -
“7 ¢, =~ 2
ier )
Th, t
i j a a af
7
—_ Y ;
we i
y '
' a
1. ara
ot! : ~ '
nA a ‘a 7)

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 267

THE BRAIN

The cranial capacity of the skull is calculated by Professor Boule
at 1,600-1,626 cc., which is above that of the other Neanderthal
crania and also above the average man of today. A cast of the endo-
cranial cavity of the La Chapelle skull shows a large brain, but low.
In general the brain was quite human, but showed numerous primitive
features.

The morphologic characteristics of the brain of the man of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints are summarized thus by Boule and Anthony :*

1. Characteristics distinctly human: Large absolute volume; pre-
dominance of the left hemisphere; the presence of two presylvian
branches, and of a human system of opercula.

2. Characteristics of simian nature, or intermediary between those
of the anthropoids and man. These are the more numerous and com-
prise the general form; the general simplicity and gross aspect of
the convolutions ; the position and direction of the sylvian and rolan-
dic fissures ; the differentiation and length of the parieto-occipital fis-
sure; the reduction of the frontal lobes, especially in their anterior
region; the accentuation of the frontal beak or keel; the primitive
character of the third frontal convolution which was probably devoid
of the basal part; the presence of a much developed sulcus lunatus ;
the spread apart of the cerebellar hemispheres ; the width and exposi-
tion of the vermis ; and the direction of the medulla oblongata.

“On the whole the brain of the fossil man of La Chapelle-aux
Saints is already a human brain by the abundance of its cerebral
matter. But this matter still lacks the higher organization which
characterizes that of present man.”

The writer feels that inferior characteristics of the brain may by
the above statements be somewhat overemphasized, and that most if
not all of them could individually be duplicated in the more primitive
brains of today. Nevertheless it is clear that while the brain of the
La Chapelle man was large its differentiation was not highly ad-
vanced, and the all-important proportion of gray and white matter
may have been quite different.

THE REMAINS OF LA FERRASSIE

“La Ferrassie ’ is the name of a rock-shelter close to a hamlet of
that name, near Bugue, Dordogne, France. The locality belongs to
the general region of the Vezere and Les Eyzies. In this rather

*L’Anthropologie, Paris, Vol. 22, No. 2, p. 196, 1911; see also Boule’s Mémoir.

268 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

exposed rock-shelter M. Peyrony with some associates discovered in
September, 1909, a human skeleton of Neanderthal affinities. The
discovery was announced before the Academie des Inscriptions,
Noy. 10, 1909, and was shortly afterward published in the Revue de
l’Ecole d’Anthropologie.’

M. Peyrony had been exploring the rock-shelter with its prehistoric
deposits for ten years. The excavations showed that the spacious
shelter had been inhabited for a very long time by successive pre-
historic populations, and that each group of these left behind a layer
of its kitchen refuse with its special stone industry. From its top to
the base it was possible to identify the following horizons :

. Upper Aurignacian ;
. Middle Aurignacian ;
. Lower Aurignacian ;

. Mousterian ;
5. Acheulian.

hWD 4

After the middle Aurignacian the roof of the shelter fell down, and
between and on the rocks accumulated the débris of the upper Aurig-
nacians. Above this was a layer of over 12 feet of humus and gravel,
to the surface.

The first skeleton was discovered by M. Peyrony in the lower part
of the Mousterian deposits. The explorer, with Professor Capitan
and another companion, removed just enough of the bones to satisfy
themselves that they were human and then notified Professors Boule,
Cartailhac and Breuil, with several more local prehistorians, of the
find ; and it was in the presence of these, on September 27, that the
skeleton was carefully uncovered and disengaged from its deposits.
The deposits and the condition of the skeleton in situ, when cleaned,
are shown in plate 72.

The several cultural layers of the shelter were easily distinguished
at sight, owing to their different coloration, and definitely so by their
' fauna and industry. The Mousterian layer, besides its characteristic
stone industry, yielded an abundance of the bones of the bison, the
stag, and the horse, with occasional parts of other later Quaternary
animals.

As the explorers removed the upper layers and most of the Mous-
terian deposit, they found three flat stones, placed one above the skull,
the two others over the shoulders or chest of the skeleton. Over the
whole space enclosing the skeleton the deposits contained a consid-

‘Capitan and Peyrony, Deux squelettes humains au milieu de foyers de
l’époque moustérienne.. Rev. Ecol. Anthrop. Paris, Vol. 19, pp. 402-409, 1909.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 269

erably larger number of large fragments of animal bones than were
found elsewhere. A piece of a bone lying just above the skeleton
shows a series of fine intentional gravings, reminding one of the
graved bones of the Aurignacian layers. The accumulations about the
skeleton contained also a large number of very well worked flints of
the Mousterian type. Such flints were found above, about, and even
beneath the skeleton, those beneath being mingled with flints showing
Acheulian industry.

The work uncovered a whole skeleton, in position, although nu-
merous parts, particularly of the thorax and the spine, were destroyed
by decay or damaged by the pressure of the superimposed deposits.
The skeleton lay on its back, slightly inclined to the left, and in a con-
tracted position, with the legs bent against the thighs and the thighs
half flexed upon the body, the left arm extended by the side, the
right flexed. The skull lay on its left side, and the lower jaw was con-
siderably separated in front from the upper as if the mouth had been
widely open. All the bones of the skeleton, even though damaged, were
still in their proper anatomical positions; only the smaller bones of
the feet and the right hand had been displaced, probably by small
animals. The bones were removed with all possible precautions, in
some cases with blocks of the deposits, and were taken to Professor
Boule’s laboratory in the Paris Museum of Natural History, where
eventually they were cleaned and studied and where they are now
preserved.

The consensus of opinion of those present was that the remains
represented a regular intentional human burial. The three flat stones
and the broken animal bones had probably been placed designedly
over the skeleton. It was believed, however, that there had been no
burial fossa, the body having been placed on the old (Acheulian) sur-
face and covered with broken bones, débris, and perhaps skins and
branches, to become in the course of time further buried by kitchen
refuse and newer accumulations.

The explorations by M. Peyrony and his associates in the La
Ferrassie rock-shelter continued, the work resulting within the next
year in additional discoveries of human remains. These consisted of
another skeleton of an adult, in poorer condition; and of several
burials of infants, in which however the human bones have mostly
disappeared.

The second skeleton was discovered in September, 1910. It lay in
the middle of the same Mousterian layer, five feet from the rocky
wall of the shelter, and with the head only 20 inches from that of the

270 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

first skeleton. The skeleton lay at the same level and in the same
axis as the first one, but in an inverse position, the heads approaching
each other, the rest of the bodies extending in opposite directions.
The body had also been flexed and lay on its right side, the hands
resting on the knees.

The bones of the lower members were fairly well preserved, those
of the upper limbs only partially; of the thorax there were but a
few remnants.’ The burials of the infants came to light in subsequent
work.

In 1923 M. Peyrony very kindly accompanied the writer to the
shelter, where a portion of all the layers has been left as an archeo-
logical monument. At that time it was still possible to discern three
shallow, slightly darker depressions that originally contained the
bodies of the infants. In M. Peyrony’s opinion, all the subjects found
in the shelter received intentional burial, though its exact nature was
still a subject for speculation.

The remnants of the second adult skeleton are also preserved under
Professor Boule’s care in the Paris Museum of Natural History. The
specimens have not yet been described separately, or exhaustively.
They are reported upon partially by M. Boule, but the data concerning
them are scattered in his Mémoir on the fossil man of La Chapelle
and in his book on “ L’Homme fossile.” *

DESCRIPTIVE NOTES ON THE LA FERRASSIE REMAINS

THE CRANIA

All that can be done in describing the specimens is to utilize the
partial notes of Professor Boule, adding to them such observations
as were possible to the writer in his brief views of the otherwise still
unavailable originals.

Skull No. 1, relatively well preserved, is plainly that of a male;
skull No. 2, defective, is that of a female. The male was about
middle aged, the female adult, age uncertain. The brain portion. of
the male skull is striking through its large size; it appears to be at
least as. large as the La Chapelle. It belonged to a male taller but
somewhat less muscular than the latter specimen. The second skull

was evidently of but moderate proportions and belonged to a short
female.

: Capitan and Peyrony, Station préhistorique de la Ferrassie. Rev. anthropo-
logique, Vol. 22, pp. 29-50, 76-99, 1912.

* Boule, M., L’Homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints, Paris, 1913. Fossil
Men, London, 1923.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 271

In form the skull of La Ferrassie No. 1 resembles in many respects
that of La Chapelle, but it also differs from the latter in some points,
including a somewhat less primitive face. The vault is large and
spacious, and in all important respects much like that of the La Cha-
pelle cranium. The supraorbital arch, the forehead, the low vault, the
occiput, the far-back location of the parietal fossae, are all close to
those of the La Chapelle. The mastoids are of only moderate size.
The basal parts of the temporal bone are badly damaged in No. 1, but
in No. 2 show characteristics like those in the Spy and Krapina skulls.

The face presents, below the heavy arches, similarly inclined orbits
as in La Chapelle, similar relatively small and sloping malars with
broad frontal processes and stout zygomae, and similar fullness of
the suborbital (canine) surface. The nose is broad. The facial prog-
nathism is not excessive. The dental arch is large, the palate ap-
proaches U-shape. The teeth, all present, are stout; the crowns are
worn, especially anteriorly where the pulp cavities are exposed.

The lower jaw, although large, is distinctly nearer to the modern
type than are the other Neanderthal jaws with the exception of Spy
No. 1. It shows clearly the beginning of a chin. The jaw is neither
very high nor very thick, measuring 3.3 cm. in height at the vertical
passing through the mental foramen, and 1.5 cm. in thickness at the
same section. The mandibular angle is 109°. The ramus is broad ; the
region of the angle is still rather primitive, approaching, though not
equalling, the form observed in the La Chapelle jaw ; but the sigmoid
notch is well developed, as in modern man. The condyle is stout and
of the same dimensions as in La Chapelle. There is still a marked
space between the last molars and the anterior border of the ramus
on each side, as in other early jaws. The form of the lower dental
arch of La Ferrassie No, 1 approaches that of the upper arch. When
the jaws were closed the upper and lower incisors met exactly.

The intracranial cast of the male skull from La Ferrassie is reported

‘by M. Boule to be “at least as large as that of the specimen of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints.” *

THE SKELETAL PARTS

There is no complete description of the bones of the La Ferrassie
skeletons, but numerous notes and data on the parts are scattered
through Professor Boule’s Mémoir on the La Chapelle skeleton,
with some additional notes in his book on “ Fossil Men.” The two
skeletons show marked sexual differences, No. 1 being that of a

* Fossil Men, p. 473, 1923.

272 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

fairly tall male (for a Neanderthaler), while No. 2 is that of a low-
statured woman. Many parts of both skeletons are absent or more or
less imperfect. The bones that remain resemble in essentials the
bones of the La Chapelle, Neanderthal, and Spy skeletons ; there are,
however, various differences, some of the parts such as the scapulae
being even a trace more primitive than the corresponding bones of
other Neanderthalers, while others show more advance towards recent
types. The main details follow:

Humeri—More slender in both skeletons than in Neanderthal, Spy,
and a Chapelle; shafts less cylindrical. The male and especially the
female humeri show above the middle a noticeable lateral bend. The
male humeri are very perceptibly longer, the female markedly shorter
than those of other Neanderthalers. The ends are robust; and all
the bones show good sized olecranon perforations.

Radii.—Pronounced curvature of whole shaft, especially in the
male ; cup large, shallow ; extremities relatively stout.

Ulnae.—Shape of shaft much more prismatic in both skeletons than
in the Neanderthaler ; flattening of upper part of shaft less marked,
especially in the female, than in La Chapelle and Spy; olecranon
stout.

Clavicles—Male only. Relatively very long but not massive—over
54% of the length of the humerus (highest modern about 52%).

Scapulae.—A portion of the right scapula of the male shows on
its dorsal surface a strong oblique ridge running from the base of the
glenoid in the direction of the inferior angle; this is a primitive
feature rarely approached in modern bones.

Ribs—Male ; less stout and more flat than those of La Chapelle,
nearer to modern forms.

Hands.—Not yet reported in detail. Left hand of male nearly
complete. Relative length of thumb in both skeletons nearer to
modern than in La Chapelle. Fingers short, in both individuals.

Femora.—Bones robust, ends stout; anterior curvature of whole
shaft, as in other Neanderthalers, somewhat less marked in the male,
pronounced in the female; linea aspera better developed than in La
Chapelle in the male, less so in the female ; subtrochanteric flattening
moderate, about as in the Spy femora.

The neck in the male bones is about as long as it is in modern
femora; in the female it is very short (as in the La Combe Aurig-
nacian skeleton). The digital fossa, preserved in the female, is large
and deep. The lower part of the shaft is somewhat more cylindrical

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 273

in both skeletons than in the femora of today ; and the popliteal surface
in bones of both individuals is slightly convex, as in the other Neander-
thalers.

Tibiae.—Male bones, no heads; female, retroversion of head about
as in La Chapelle, articular facets large, shallow. The bones are not
platycnemic.

Fibulae.—Male; robust, relatively large extremities; shaft more
flattened than in La Chapelle.

Astragalus—* The astragalus or ankle-bone is short, high, and
broad. The head is much bent, denoting that the great toe was widely
separated from its neighbours. The articular surface for the scaphoid
points to a much depressed instep. The malleolar facets for the

y FRANCAIS

Fic. 26.—Scapulae of Neanderthal and La Ferrassie compared. (After Boule.)

tibia and fibula show a development comparable to that observed in
apes. In its extent, the facet for the fibula recalls that of anthropoid
types... . it is the astragalus of a walking mammal, which, how-
ever, has retained many relics of a former climbing state.” *

Calcaneus—Voluminous, stocky, long; sustentaculum much de-
veloped ; articular surfaces more primitive than at present.

Bones of the feet.—Indicate a considerable separation of the first
toe; the scaphoid is thick; the metatarsals are robust and with stout
ends ; the first metatarsal is relatively voluminous in the male, with
shaft flattened and ovoid as in apes rather than man; in the female
the bone is relatively short.

Pathological (Hrdiiéka).—Male: Lower part of one femur and a
tibia show periostitis with slight osteitis—much as in syphilis.

* Boule, M., Fossil Men, pp. 220-221, 1923.

274 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

CRITICAL REMARKS

Eighteen years have elapsed since the discovery of the La Ferrassie
skeletons, yet they remain in general but very imperfectly known, for
what has been reported on them by M. Boule is scattered in his reports
on the La Chapelle skeleton and on those of the Neanderthal man in
general. There are no adequate photographs, and no casts of the re-
mains. Professor Boule has kindly and repeatedly shown the originals
to the writer and other scientific men; but this is insufficient for the
student of early man and could readily result in erroneous impressions.
The causes of the regrettable delays are not known. They cannot,
it seems, be due to Professor Boule who knows thoroughly, as shown
in his work on the La Chapelle skeleton, the great value to all serious
students of early man of reliable photographs and casts, and of the
ready availability of such originals for scientific study.

The two La Ferrassie skeletons are of especial importance, on one
hand through their. many characteristics which connect them clearly
with the Neanderthalers, and on the other hand through a series of
features in which they approach more modern man.

The burials themselves are of importance. M. Boule suggests
(“* Fossil Men,” p. 190, 1923) that “ It would appear there are present
here the bone remains of a whole family, killed by accident, perhaps
beneath a land-slip.” This opinion is apparently not borne out by the
details reported by Capitan and Peyrony. There were no signs of any
such fall as could have killed the whole family; the infant burials
were apart from those of the adults and near each other ; the adults
lay in a line, with heads near each other; the three flat stones over
the male skeleton were evidently selected and lay in a definite order ;
both the bodies were flexed, as at La Chapelle—a feature that pre-
vailed from the paleolithic to neolithic and even later burials; their
positions otherwise indicate a laying down of a body rather than an
accidental burial ; and the skeletons were not covered with the débris of
a fall, but with intentionally broken bones, implements, and human
refuse.

Neither can the opinion of Capitan and Peyrony, that the bodies
were placed superficially in the corner of the cave, covered with only
skins and branches, and left thus until covered by new refuse of
habitation, be reasonably sustained. The decomposition of the bodies
in a shelter of this nature would have made the stay of their relatives
impossible, and if they left, the bodies would have been devoured or
torn to pieces by the hyenas or other animals.

(‘Auoisag pue ueyded Joyy) ‘“Auorsag pue ‘ovypieyreg ‘ueyided) ‘[inerg ‘oynog—Aued
-IU0d paysInsurjsip & Surmoys ‘uozyays }stY 9y} JO ATIAOISIP oY} Jozye APJAOYS JoYoYys-YIOI aissesso,f BY] YL

IZ Ad “8 “OA SNOILO31100 SNOANVTIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS Wollts 835 Tbs 742

The first (¢) skeleton at La Ferrassie, before removal. (After Capitan and
Peyrony. )

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 73

1. Skull of male skeleton from La Ferrassie, seen in profile. (After Boule.)

2. Lower jaw, seen in profile, of the man from La Ferrassie. Three-fourths
natural size. Paleontological Gallery of the French National Museum of Natural
History. (After Boule.)

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 275

All the evidence indicates that the inhumations at La Ferrassie were
true intentional burials, in shallow but sufficient fossae, and covered
at the time of the burial with the bones and other materials that were
found above the skeletons.

Shallow burials in occupied caves or beneath the floor of a dwelling,
of infants and even adults, in very much the same postures, are well
known to the American archeologists, and these cannot but be forcibly
impressed by the close resemblance of the conditions at La Ferrassie
to what they have witnessed over and over again in old Indian caves
and habitations.

The Mousterian layer containing the La Ferrassie skeletons was,
however, but 50 cm. (19 ins.) deep. Could the inhabitants of the
shelter have buried the bodies in such a thin deposit ?

There are several possible explanations. The deposits, before be-
coming as packed down as they eventually did, were doubtless con-
siderably thicker. Such packing is well known to prehistorians in
other cases. A portion of the deposits may have been removed by
wind, water, or sweepings. Or, the bodies were introduced later, per-
haps during the lower Aurignacian occupation. The incised bone
would seem to lend some support to this supposition. This thought,
of course, meets opposition in the common belief that all the Neander-
thalers disappeared before the Aurignacians, Yet next to nothing is
known as to the physical type of the earliest Aurignacians. It is not
impossible that, when better known, not a few of them may be found
to resemble more or less closely their Mousterian or Neanderthal
predecessors—perhaps ancestors. Such thoughts are of course quite
heretical.

THE LA QUINA REMAINS

On October 16, 1911, Dr. Henri Martin, well-known physician
and prehistorian of Paris, reported to the Académie des Sciences of
Paris the find of a very remarkable ancient human skeleton at La
Quina, Department of Charente, in France.’ ‘“ We have discovered,”
he says, “on the 18th of September, at La Quina, a human skeleton of
the Neanderthal type.” It lay in a horizontal position, in clayey sand,
at the distance of 4.5 m. from the base of a cliff. The deposits in
which it rested represent the ancient muddy bed of the near-by
stream Voultron, and belong, archeologically, to the lower Mousterian
epoch. The clayey sand was covered by débris from the cliff portion,
which in former times extended shelflike over the stream.

* Martin, Henri, Sur un squelette humain de l’époque moustérienne trouvé en
Charente. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Vol. 153, p. 728, Tort.

23

276 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The skeleton lay 80 cm. (2.6 ft.) deep in the sand, and was not
surrounded by any objects which would indicate an intentional burial.
Its location and position seemed to show that the body had been de-
posited where it lay accidentally. The clayey sand contained a few
disseminated worked stones and a few bones that had been utilized
by man, but showed none of the handsome pieces which characterized
the upper Mousterian epoch. The skeleton is, in all probability, ref-
erable to the earliest part of the middle Quaternary.

The remains have suffered from prolonged submersion and pressure,
as a result of which the cranial bones were disjointed and in part
broken; but from the first instant it could readily be seen that the
jaws, particularly the mandible, were heavy ; and the teeth were large
in size, besides showing other remarkable features.

The easily accessible prehistoric station of La Quina is known from
the earlier days of prehistoric research in France. As early as 1873
excavations were carried on there by Gustave Chauvet; and in 1896
he published an account of them (Bull. Soc. archeol. et hist. Charente,
D2 313; 1800):

Dr. Henri Martin began its exploration in 1905. In 1906 he an-
nounced before the Société prehistorique, the finding, among the
upper Mousterian industry of the site, of phalanges of prehistoric
horses, bovidae and large deer, and some lower ends of animal
humeri that showed utilization by man (as anvils and perhaps ham-
mers in the working of flints).” A little later in the same year and be-
fore the same society, Dr. Martin reports on some remarkably well
made flint implements from the same depoits, and on the evident dif-
ferentiation of the stone industry towards forms of more advanced
varieties. In 1907 Dr. Martin reports on new excavations at La
Quina* and gives details as to the stratigraphy of the deposits.

The entire deposit exists in the wooded slope—in places a sloping
terrace—lining the southwestern limestone cliffs of the small valley
of the Voultron. The cliffs themselves, it was learned later, contain
some caves. The mass of deposits at the site explored by Dr. Martin
is shown in plates 74 and 75. It consisted of the following:

Surface vegetal earth overgrown with bushes and trees, 40 cm.

A thick layer of fallen rocks and débris—1.20 to 5 m. [The great amount of

fallen rock, among which are very large blocks, indicates the former existence
here of one or more rock-shelters, such as found about Les Eyzies—Hrdlicka. ]

*Ossements utilisés par L’ Homme moustérien de la station de La Quina. Bull.
Soc. préhist. France, 1906.

* Industrie moustérienne perfectionnée station de La Quina. bid.

* Nouvelle coupe de la station moustérienne de La Quina. L’ Homme préhistor-
ique, Vol. 3, No. 11.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 277

THE ARCHEOLOGICAL DEPosITS

No. I on the chart shows the upper sandy portion of the Mousterian deposits ;

No. 2 is a large argilaceous layer with high class Mousterian implements and
utilized bones ;

No. 3, argilaceous sand, with Mousterian industry ;

No. 4, a thin layer of fine sand without either industrial or faunal remains;

No. 5, gravels, with first horizon of Mousterian industry ;

Nos. 11-12, layers of waterworn limestone fragments, without industry.

In 1908 appeared Dr. Martin’s first report on the fauna of La
Quina, and in this communication * is found the first report of human
skeletal remains, in the form of a pair of astragali. These astragali
were reported upon by Dr. Martin with handsome illustrations, in
1910. The bones were found to differ from modern ones in the short-
ness of the neck, internal deviation of the head and its marked rota-
tion outward, in the expansion and large development of the susten-
taculum, and in some other particulars. The bones are larger in all
dimensions than those of modern Europeans; they measure in maxi-
mum length 5.1, in maximum breadth 4.7, and in maximum height
3.1 cm. A number of other measurements are also given.

At the same meeting Dr. Martin reported in detail on the animal
bones from the La Quina deposits that show human work.* The
utilized bones include anvils, hammers, compressors, polished pieces,
awls, artificially perforated phalanges, and bones with some inten-
tional gravings. At about this time appeared also Dr. Martin’s larger
study on the evolution of the Mousterian industry of La Quina.’

In 1911 came the first report on the find of the first human skeleton.
In the Comptes rendus of the Academy of Science, Paris (T. 153,
pp. 728-30), Dr. Martin gives a brief report of the discovery with a
photograph of the skull im situ.

The skeleton, in Dr. Martin’s opinion, was plainly “in place ” and
had suffered no disturbance, so that it was possible to refer it to the
base of the middle Quaternary. The skull was believed to have
suffered a prolonged maceration as a result of which the cranial bones
were disjointed, but their preservation was such that the cranium will
be easy of reconstruction. The skull, as far as it was possible to judge
at the time of the report, appeared to offer all the primitive characters

“La faune moustérienne de La Quina. C. R. Assoc. franc. Acad. Sci., pp.
727-730, 1908.

* Astragale humain du moustérien moyen de la Quina. Bull. Soc, préhist.
France, 1910, pp. 391-397.

“Traces humaines laissées sur les os a l’époque moustérienne (La Quina).
C. R. Assoc. fr. Acad. Sci., 1910, pp. 142-145.

“Recherches sur I’évolution du Mousterien dans la gisement de La Quina.

278 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

of the Neanderthalers, and perhaps even more. The remains were
generously promised as a gift to the Paris Museum of Natural His-
tory, where they are at present.

That same year (1911), Dr. Martin made a more detailed report
on the skull to the Sociétié préhistorique, which is followed, in
1912, by a second and third, and in 1913 by a fourth report on the
cranium,’ with many details on the now reconstructed specimen, many
measurements, some discussion of the opinions held by the discoverer,
especially as to the burial of the skeleton, which he strongly holds to
have been accidental, and finally an interesting effort at reconstruc-
tion of the head of the La Quina woman—for the skeleton is now
regarded as that of a female.

Meanwhile, in 1911, Dr. Martin discusses again ~ the nature of the
La Quina deposits and their archeological contents, some of which
show forms that seem to some observers to be perhaps Aurignacian.
Of the two interesting paragraphs in conclusion the first reads:

But here, as in many other deposits of early man, there are evidences of transi-
tion and of precursor-implements which are of the highest interest, for they
denote a transformation, a progress towards the better; at the same time
certain persistences, such as those of the coups-de-poing, indicate simply the
prolonged use of a good tool.*

Towards the end of 1912 Dr. Martin enumerates, in a brief report
to the Academy of Sciences in Paris,’ the human skeletal remains
found in the La Quina deposits up to that date. They comprised :

Year Layer Parts
1908 C2 2 astragali, evidently of same skeleton.
Biehl B2 Fragment of an occipital.
1910 Ce A dorsal vertebra.
IQII C2 2 lower molars, of probably the same individual.
ye B3 Skeleton.
1912 B2 Piece of a parietal.
G2 Fragment of right frontal, with portion of the supraorbital
arch.
Ci Fragment of left frontal (the two may not be from the same
subject).
G2 Lower jaw.

* Bull. Soc. préhist. France, 1911 Rep., 12 pp., 3 pls.; 1912 Rep., 36 pp., 3 pls.;
1912 Rep., 8 pp., 1 pl.; 1913 Rep., 4 pp. Another brief note on the “ Skull of the
Mousterian fossil man of La Quina” is found in the C. R. Assoc. fr. Acad. Sci.,
PP. 537-538, 1912.

*Les couches du gisement de La Quina et leur age. Sixiéme Congrés pré-
historique de France. 1911 Rep., 4 pp.

*“ Mais ici, comme dans beaucoup d’autres gisements, il y a des termes de
passage et des outils précurseurs, qui sont du plus haut intérét, car ils dénotent

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 279

These remains appeared to Dr. Martin to have proceeded from
nine skeletons. All the remains showed Neanderthal affinities. None,
he believed, were from intentional burial; there were no traces of
cannibalism. .

A further report by Dr. Martin on the discovery of fossil man of
La Quina, in 1912, contains some interesting passages that deserve
to be quoted in full. In these the author says (pp. 63-64) :

At the base of the [La Quina] deposit we have found flint implements with
very simple flaking, while at their top the work reaches a greater perfection;
this modification in the industry proves that the Mousterian period was very
long and that a palpable cultural progress was realized during the period.

Why not then admit that the author of this progress has also himself become
perfected on the spot, and that his procedure as well as his work became more
delicate? It is surely rational to admit that his dawning intelligence augmented
his cerebral mass. The bestial aspect left his physiognomy, his traits became
finer—all this meaning progress towards present conditions..... We feel
authorized to say that according to the present state of our knowledge, this
Neanderthal race, which eventually disappeared, still manifests itself occasion-
ally by atavism, in exceptional development of the supraorbital arches ; but this
ancestral stigma is no more accompanied by other characteristics so peculiar to
primitive man.

In 1913, Dr. Martin reports on the robustness of the La Quina and
other Neanderthal lower jaws.’ He has developed a promising new
graphic technique for the presentation of his results. The Neanderthal
mandibles show considerable uniformity in strength.

For the next few years Dr. Martin devoted himself as much as
practicable to further explorations at La Quina, and to the preparation
of his final memoirs. But the war intervened and he became a surgeon
in the army. Nevertheless a supervision of the deposits was carried
on by Mme. Martin and one of the young sons, a happy result of
which was the discovery, on August 23, 1915, of a unique skull of a

une transformation, un acheminement vers le mieux; de méme certaines per-
sistances, celles des coups-de-poing par exemple, indiquent simplement l’usage
prolongé d’un bon outil.

“Plus tard, lorsque j’aborderai l'étude des nombreuses formes de silex re-
cueillies depuis six ans, il me faudra décrire des pointes avec des crans, et
j'espere que ce mot ne fera pas naitre chez les archeologues étrangers l’idée
d’introduire a La Quina du Solutréen supérieur.”

*Répartition des ossements humains trouvés dans le gisement moustérien de
La Quina. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Vol. 155, pp. 982-983, 1912.

* A propos de la découverte de l’homme fossile de la Quina. Rev. études an-
ciennes, Bord., Vol. 14, pp. 61-64, I pl., 1912.

* A propos de la robusticité du maxillaire inférieur de l-homme Néanderthalien.
Bull. Soc. préhist. France, 8 pp., 1913, reprint.

280 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Neanderthal child. The report of the discovery in the form of a
letter from Mme. Martin which reached the Doctor in a military
hospital reads as follows: “ Asa result of a falling down of some of
the deposits we have seen appear, in the course of the diggings, the
skull of an infant. It was taken out with the block of surrounding
earth and transported to the laboratory in Peyrat ”—Peyrat being the
summer chateau of the Martin family, a little over a mile from the
excavations. The skull was found in the deposits of the upper Mous-
terian. There were no marks of a regular burial. Judging from its
position the skull is somewhat less ancient than the skeleton found
in IQIT.

The first report on the new specimen appears in the Bulletins et
Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, in 1920 (pp. 113-
125). Actually the skull was the eighteenth separate piece of human
skeletal remains found in the Mousterian deposits of La Quina. The
same report gives a good illustration of the skull as contrasted with
the skull of a modern child. The interesting specimen has belonged
evidently to a child about eight years of age. The skull is fairly large
but relatively low, and approaching the Neanderthal skulls in type.
The supraorbital arches are not yet strongly developed, though much
more indicated than they are in a modern male child of that age.

After giving detailed descriptions and numerous measurements on
the specimen, Dr. Martin concludes: “ By its form and other char-
acters the skull offers the infantile stage of the Neanderthal type. While
still presenting numerous primitive features the skull is marked by its
good cranial capacity. The specimen enables us to see that the specific
characters of the Neanderthal man became accentuated quite early
ilies:

In August, 1921, at the meeting of the French Association for the
Advancement of Science,’ Dr. Martin reports still an additional find
of interest, from the deposits of La Quina, consisting of a neander-
thaloid patella, which he designates as No. 19 of the human skeletal
remains in the deposits. This piece was found in the Mousterian
layers in 1920. It differs from recent patellae by its stout summit, and
by the conformation of its posterior surface which is concave and
lacks the median ridge. The bone is also relatively high in relation to
its breadth.

Principal measurements: Height, 4.8; breadth, 4.3 cm. The bone
was a trace higher, but considerably narrower than the patellae of
Spy No. 2.

“Rouen Session: Etude d’une rotule humain trouvée dans le moustérien de
La Quina, pp. 955-958.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 281

Partly before and partly since the preceding publication, Dr. Martin
has finished the three volumes of his detailed studies. Regrettably
these volumes are not as well known outside of France as they deserve
to be. They contain not merely all the separately published studies
but also much additional work with many illustrations. The last
volume is devoted especially to the human skeletal remains.

This volume was published in Paris in 1923. Here in 260 pages,
Dr. Martin enumerates the skeletal finds up to date, and then deals
exhaustively with the La Quina skeleton,

The remains comprise now the following:

H 1, H 1'—1008, layer C 3: 2 astragali, right and left, found at a short dis-
tance from each other; of same proportions and belonging probably to the same
individual.

H 2—1008, layer B 2: Fragment of an occipital, with the right half of the
occipital torus.

H 3—10910, layer C 2: A dorsal vertebra, near the oth.

HT 4, H 4'—1o11, layer C 2: Lower left M3 and lower right M2; found
about 3 feet apart.

AH 5—1o11, layer B 3: The human skeleton; skull with lower jaw, cervical
vertebra, humerus, femora.

H 6—1012, layer B 2: Fragments of a parietal.

H 7—1012, layer C 2: Fragment of the left frontal, with a part of the supra-
orbital arch.

H 9—10922, layer C 2: Lower jaw, with 5 molars; chin less sloping; teeth
in very good condition.

H 1o—1913, layer B 3: A left temporal; very robust; found 3 feet above
skeleton H 5.

H 11—1913: Occipital, fragment of the left region; occipital torus developed.

H 12—10913: M2, fragment of left frontal, with supraorbital arch (broken)
and orbital roof.

H 13—1013; M2, fragment of a parietal.

74—1908; H 1: Portion of a left parietal of a young subject.

15—1913, layer B 2: Posterior part of the right parietal of a young subject.
16—1913, layer C 2: Fragment of a left temporal.

17—1913, layer C1: Left lower canine.

18—1915, layer C 2: Skull of a child, aged about 8 years; discovered by
the wife and a son of Dr. Martin; the lower jaw missing.

H 19—10920, layer B 3: Left patella.

H 21', 22’, 23'—1921, layer C 2: 4 teeth (left upper M2, left upper M3,
right upper Pm, root of a canine) ; these four teeth were found together.

For the many details of Dr. Martin’s erudite study of the skeleton,
the student must consult the original. The main conclusions are as
follows:

Gog ye

Sex: Uncertain; certain indications and a relative slenderness of the bones
would indicate a female, but the heavy supraorbital arches, zygomata, jaws, and
teeth are not female. =

*L’homme fossile de La Quina, 260 pp., numerous illustrations, Paris, 1923.

282 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Age: The individual was a fairly young adult.

Type: One of the most characteristic of the Neanderthal variety.
Stature: Moderate, not perfectly vertical.

Brain: Small, poorly developed anteriorly.

Teeth and Jaws: Much stronger than modern.

Musculature: Powerful, especially that of the neck and the jaws.
Great Toe: Apparently opposable.

NOTES AND CRITICAL REMARKS

In 1912, thanks to Dr. Martin, the writer was able to see, in Dr.
Martin’s laboratory in Paris, the originals of the La Quina skeleton
discovered a year before. In 1921 he saw the child’s skull in Dr.
Martin’s laboratory at Peyrat. In 1923 he had the good fortune for
eight days to be the guest of Dr. and Mme. Martin at Peyrat, and to
participate in the exploration of extensive Aurignacian deposits on the
slopes of La Quina not far to the right of the Mousterian site. Finally
in 1927, thanks to M. Boule, he was able to glance once more over the
originals, both the adult and the child, now preserved in the Musée
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Moreover, through the personal favor of
Dr. Martin he has been enabled to obtain excellent casts of most of
the remains as found, and of both of the reconstructed skulls. For
all of this he wishes once more to express his most grateful acknowl-
edgments.

Dr. Martin (pl. 74) is one of the most persevering as well as
able workers in Irench prehistory. His summer chateau is near La
Quina, and for over 20 years, except during the war, he has spent most
of his spare time in the exploration of the deposits and in the cleaning,
repair, and study of both the cultural and the skeletal remains that
were recovered. Of the cultural and faunal remains there were vast
quantities, reaching into the hundreds of thousands ; yet every flint and
every fragment passed through Dr. Martin’s hands and was ex-
amined, the only assistance obtained, outside of labor, being that of
members of his own family; and all this work at his own expense.
May Prehistory have more Henri Martins!

The deposits in the slope and terrace at La Quina, taking that name
in a broader sense, are still far from being exhausted, though as the
work extends beyond the confines of the large original Mousterian
site, the returns become much scarcer. It is not, however, impossible
that new industrial foci may be found in these slopes which extend for
a considerable distance along the face of the calcareous cliffs to the
southwest of the Voultron. In 1922 considerable excavation was
carried on in the upper parts of the slope to the left of the Mousterian

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDIICKA 283

site by the American School of Prehistoric Research. These excava-
tions uncovered and emptied a moderate sized cave in the rocks—one
of several in the cliffs—and moved a great deal of the earth in front
of it, but without material results. Since 1923 the excavations have
slowed down, other sites claiming Dr. Martin’s attention.

The excavations of La Quina have been visited by probably more
prehistorians than any other site of primitive man with the exception
of those in the Vezére valley. The “ station” is easily accessible and
relatively easily worked, though all the work must be done in the open
and is made difficult by the great quantities of fallen rock and débris
from what were probably in olden times more or less overhanging
rock-shelters.

The amount of archeological material and bones of animals re-
covered from La Quina is such that it has supplied many European
and even some of our American museums. The archeological material
is clearly Mousterian, and in general shows much differentiation as
well as improvement from below upwards, but a distinction of definite
strata, except in the case of the very lowest one, seems difficult. There
was evidently a very long continued occupation attended with local
developments. |

Of the more especially interesting cultural traces, Dr. Martin
mentions the find of a perforated canine tooth of a fox and also a
perforated phalanx of a reindeer, both of which evidently served for
pendants; pieces of black oxide of manganese, showing deep rub-
bing and indicating the use of the black pigment for some purpose ;
and on a series of the incisor teeth of horses, possible traces of a bit,
which would imply the beginnings of domestication.

The fauna of the Mousterian layers of La Quina, as determined
by Dr. Martin, consists essentially of the following forms:

Mammoth (scarce) Marmot

Horse Cave Bear

Bos primigenius Wolf

Bison Hyena

Reindeer A large feline (lion?)
Deer (large) Blue fox

Small rodents
Birds (including a vulture)
It is throughout a cold fauna; there are no traces, even in and be-
neath the lowest cultural layer, of animals of a warm period.
As to the skeletal remains found in the Mousterian deposits at La
Quina, it seems that more than one interpretation is possible. For Dr.

284 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Martin, as is well known, they represent simply so much refuse, except
in the case of the skeleton, which he believes was buried accidentally
in the mud of the river.

These views offer some difficulties. The writer, both as a medical
man and as an anthropologist, has seen accidental as well as intentional
burials of many sorts. In accidental drownings the body, as soon as
decomposition sets in and the abdominal cavity is extended by gases,
rises to the surface. It might, of course, be deposited in the bushes or
the mud at the edge of a river, but in the case of a relatively small
and sluggish stream such as the Voultron it is difficult to conceive
how a body thus deposited or caught could be so completely and
rapidly covered with silt as to be sufficiently buried and remain so.
It would seem much more likely that the body was buried intentionally
in the dry river silts by its congeners. In such a formation and after
such a long time as has elapsed since the burial it could not be ex-
pected that any marked traces would remain of the fossa.

As to the other human skeletal remains disseminated through the
higher deposits, the conditions would seem to agree with what may
be noticed in many much more recent intentional burials. Decay, bur-
rowing of animals, and movements in the earth itself are not seldom
found to have played havoc with skeletal remains. There are Indian
burials, for example, in which practically nothing remains of the
skeletal parts. In others the bones of the same skeleton are found
widely scattered. The skull may be in situ, with the lower jaw at
a distance; the bones from the knees downward may be fairly well
preserved and still almost in their natural position, with all or most
of the rest of the body missing, barring perhaps a few teeth; and
individual bones, especially those of the smaller kind, may be found
at an unexplainable distance from its skeleton. The same agencies were
active both in historic and in prehistoric times, and the far greater
time elapsed must have been all the more potent in producing all
sorts of irregularities. The conditions at La Quina would be easier
of explanation if, as at Krapina, there had been detected evidences of
cannibalism ; but none of the human remains shows signs of intentional
breaking, of fire, or of scraping and disarticulation.

That the remains were simply thrown out is inconceivable ; and it is
still more inconceivable that in some instances the parts thrown out
would have been merely the astragali or the patellae or a few pieces of
the frontal bones, etc. And these parts were not likely the remnants
left by wolves or hyenas, for after the feasts of such animals, as I
had ample occasion to see in Mongolia where all bodies are thrown to

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 285

the wild animals, there remain besides the skull only the hardest parts
of the long bones of the adults, while adolescents and especially chil-
dren disappear entirely. Also if the bodies had been thrown out they
would not have been torn to pieces on the spot, within a few yards of
the habitations, but would have been dragged to a safe distance.
Besides which, it is inconceivable that human beings with such brains
as already possessed by the Neanderthalers would simply throw out
the bodies of their dead in front of their habitations and leave them
there with all the consequences.

Taking everything into consideration it seems more likely that the
human skeletal remains at La Quina are those of regular inhumations.
The idea that an intentional burial must leave forever a discernible
trace of the disturbance is not sustainable. It is found time and again
with Indian burials that no such disturbance can be perceived. It is
well to recall that the bodies are covered with the same substances
that have been excavated from the fossa into which they were laid ;
and that through rains and other causes there takes place in the course
of time a packing which quite equals that of the original deposits, and
which, unless there was a penetration of a very definite layer of sharp
sand or gravel, leaves eventually no indications. How true all this is
may be appreciated from a reflection of what happens with the body
itself. The decay of the soft parts diminishes greatly its volume. It
also means the presence of a great quantity of organic materials. Yet
all this invariably disappears in old graves and the bones become
thoroughly enveloped in whatever materials were originally above and
about them. There are, moreover, very strong indications of inten-
tional burials in most if not all the other cases of Neanderthal
skeletons.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE SKULLS AND JAWS
(Hrdliéka)

Very detailed and excellent descriptions of the La Quina skulls
and jaws are given in his publications by Dr. Henri Martin. If the
writer prefers to give in this place his individual observations it is
for the sake of greater uniformity with the remaining reports in
this treatise, all of which are in large measure from his original
observations.

THE ADULT SKULL

The vault——The skull places itself clearly, by all its characteristics,
within the range of the Neanderthal type. At the same time the
specimen has not a little of individuality ; some of its features are
very primitive and in some respects the specimen is quite puzzling.

286 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The skullcap approaches near to that of Spy No. 1; the supraorbital
arch, the broad depression above, the very low and sloping forehead,
and the characteristics of the occiput are much the same as in Spy
No. 1; but the La Quina specimen is narrow throughout, and its
parietals do not rise into a fairly marked vertex as they do in Spy
Nout:

Sex—The La Quina skeleton indicates a female rather than a male.
The skullcap alone, except for the supraorbital arches, the zygomae,
and to a slight extent the mastoids, would also be diagnosed as a

tte ee
agi Wi woee,s,
ae “

paren

La Quina
Neanderthal = = Spy Tree
la Chapelle =.—.—.—- OBC

Filhécanthrope -+r+e+4-4: Arabe mod! ++++

Fic. 27—Sagittal contours of the La Quina skull compared with those of other
Neanderthalers, etc. (After Henri Martin.)

female ; but the arches, the mastoids (for a Neanderthaler) and above
all the dental arches, the jaws and the teeth are much more masculine
than feminine. Had these parts been found alone they unquestionably
would have been diagnosed as having belonged to a male. If this was
a female, therefore, she was very exceptional—as in Spy No. 1. It
would seem more likely that both Spy No. 1 and the La Quina repre-
sent subaverage males. Cases of similar nature are known among
primitive skulls and skeletons of our times. Of the pelvis, which
would probably have decided the question, nothing unfortunately
remains.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 287

Age.—The patent sutures indicate a young adult. The wear of the
teeth, if these were for instance Eskimo jaws and the teeth were worn
off as they are in this individual, would indicate a fully adult stage,
though not past the 35 year mark. With a broad leeway the La
Quina individual may safely be placed at between 25 and 35 years
of age.

Details: supraorbital arches—There is complete meeting over the
glabella, which itself is slightly elevated ; the arches, which measure
15-16 mm. in thickness about the middle, diminish but slightly towards
their distal portions. The maximum transverse diameter of the arches
reaches only 11.4 cm., which is less than in any of the other Neander-
thal adults.

The forehead is low, sloping, and narrow (see Dr. Martin’s measure-
ments). The nasion-bregma diameter or arc is longer than in Spy
No. 1, but on the other hand the sagittal (B-Z) diameter or arc is
shorter, the sum of the two being very nearly equal in the two speci-
mens. These dimensions, as the student may readily satisfy himself
on modern material, are largely of a compensating nature, and no
great weight can therefore be attached to either an exceptionally short
or an exceptionally long frontal alone.

The sutures are relatively simple. The parietal region, ovoid from
side to side, shows but a slight ridging along the anterior two-fifths of
the sagittal. It is remarkably low. The parietal bosses, as in other
Neanderthalers, are situated low (only slightly above the mastoid
parts of the temporal), though they are relatively a trace less posterior
than the Spy No. 1 and the Neanderthal. The occiput, except for
being narrower, is typical neanderthaloid, being moderately prominent
with a flattening above and below. There is a rather marked occipital
torus reaching on each side the lambdoid suture. The region below the
torus is concave in its upper part, indicating the attachment of
powerful nuchal muscles.

The temporal squamae are relatively small ; the root of the zygomae
forms a pronounced dull crest; the zygomae are stout; the meatus
of moderate size ; the mastoids above average feminine or submedium
masculine. The temporal fossae were spacious ; but the temporal lines
are rather low and but slightly distinct.

The face—tThe orbits are relatively large, high, and irregularly
rounded as in the other Neanderthalers. The upper borders are less,
the lateral and lower better defined. The nasal process of the frontal
was evidently stout. The plane of the orbits, as in other Neander-
thalers, was inclined downwards and forwards, and also somewhat
more outwards and backwards than in modern skulls. The malars

288 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

again, as in the other Neanderthalers, are relatively small, not promi-
nent, and sloping outwards and backwards, but with somewhat broad
frontal processes and zygomata. Nothing definite can be said about
the nosé but that it was evidently broad, and that there had existed
more or less of a nasal spine.

The upper jaw is relatively very large. The shape of the palate was
that of a broad U. The palate was rather deep. The alveolar process
was very stout and fairly high, but not very slanting; there had ex-
isted evidently a facial rather than alveolar prognathism. The teeth
are strikingly megadont.

The facial, as well as the cranial bones are not more massive than
they are in many of the stronger built skulls of today, which 1s
different from all the other Neanderthal crania.

The base-—The anterior parts are missing. The glenoid cavities are
very shallow, but broad (transversely), extending from the over-
developed spinous processes and the tympanic plate mesially, well onto
the base of the zygomae laterally. There is no trace of a spine or a
styloid; and between the tympanic plate and the mastoid there is a
large space, even more marked than in the other Neanderthalers.
There is also a broad space between the mastoid and the lateral edge
of the basal portion of the occipital (digastric groove). Both of these
features, due in the main to the lesser development of the mastoid,
are characteristic of the Neanderthalers, and are absent (pre-mastoid
space) or less marked (digastric groove) in human skulls of today.

The lower jaw.—The lower jaw is very primitive. It is stout, wholly
chinless, and with the inferior portion of the posterior borders of the
rami more curved and more anthropoid than in any of the other early
mandibles. The alveolar border is stout, the teeth large. There is no
diminution in the size of the molars backward.

The symphyseal region is broad and stout; the dental arch was
U-shaped. The body, while not essentially high, in harmony with
other Neanderthal mandibulae, appears nevertheless too high for a fe-
male. it is distinctly higher on the left than on the right side. In-
feriorly the jaw presents much more of a definite dull border than do
other Neanderthalers or the Mauer jaw. These is no trace of any
shelf ; and the anterior region, though very broad, approaches that in
the jaws of today. The rami, above the modern average in breadth,
are also rather high (H., approx., 7.8; Diam. min., 4.7 cm.). The
condyles are broad, but not stout. The coronoid processes are about
as in strong modern jaws, and the sigmoid notches are well marked—
not shallow as in the other Neanderthalers.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDI|ICKA 289

Ges
O0cr.
J
VO
WO

O a e
Z EE ony) 1

ay
GS
emt
th

SS

NX Le
3

Fic. 28.—Endocranial cast of the La Quina skull. (After Henri Martin. )

290

SMITHSONIAN

MISCELLANEOUS

COLLECTIONS

Peres
ef "s
oe! Berg

VOL. 83

(After Henri Martin.)

Fic. 29.—Endocranial cast of the La Quina skull, side view.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 291

Dorsally there is present on each side but especially on the right,
a fairly marked dull ridge such as is seen in the La Chapelle jaw;
but the condition is less developed and the ridges do not reach per-
ceptibly the outer ends of the condyles. Anteriorly to them, however,
there are marked fossae. Ventrally the rami are much like those in
stronger modern jaws, but the mylohyoid ridge is more developed and
the fossae for the internal pterygoids are very spacious.

The brain —The brain of the La Quina skull was larger than that of
Gibraltar, but smaller than those of the La Chapelle and Neanderthal
crania. In form it was much the same as that of the other Neanderthal
subjects, particularly those with the narrower skulls. There is a very
marked smallness of the frontal lobes, a considerable overhanging
of the occipital lobes of the cerebrum, and a marked separation of
the two halves of the cerebellum. The left hemisphere shows a some-
what better development than the right, though the right appears to
have been slightly longer. The convolutions of the La Quina brain
were less simple and gross than those of the man of La Chapelle and
Neanderthal, without reaching the average of the European brain of
today.

In detail the brain presented some characteristics of inferiority,
while in others it approached that of recent man. As in the La
Chapelle and the Neanderthal brains, so also in that of La Quina
the sulcus lunatus was certainly present. The relative development
of the cerebral lobes was almost identical in the La Quina and the
La Chapelle brains." The cerebral breadth-length index of La Quina
was 73.8.

The teeth—(After Henri Martin.) The teeth are more powerful
than those of Spy and even those of Mauer. The crowns are large
and bulging, the enamei thick (reaching 1.5 mm.). The roots are long
and stout, their number tends in instances to an increase, and there is
a marked inclination to doubling. M3 are as large as, if not larger
than, M2. The pulp chambers are spacious. There is no trace of
caries or of abscesses, but there is some tartar. The crowns show
marked, somewhat unequal wear.” There is also on some of the teeth
a marked contact wear, due to the crowding of the teeth against each
other, the result of the large development of the crown.

* The data on the La Quina brain are those of R. Anthony; they form a part
of Henri Martin’s 1923 memoir on L’homme fossile de La Quina, pp. 108-114.

* Would be called moderate according to American standards; no pulp cavity
and but little dentine is exposed.

24

292 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

MEASUREMENTS OF THE LA QUINA SKELETAL REMAINS

(By Henrt Martin)
SKELETON H 5—THE SKULL

em,
Thengthirmaxcypanct 2 Heaton ion ne Steet tiene Pelaon se er mehye cea er 20.3
Breadth axa, 6 oiswe cco bh ce hiecsdes = Rone rowed ae Ge eee eee ere ener eee 13.8
Cranial index ine hehe eek aoe oe eee ueicl eevee eae Rees eee eae eco 08.0
(lea? @riimna\\ Child yer S eee <n ce tren ee ole otal ere 77.0)
Length from: ophiy on) demas nyc ss rete enctes rae epee tee pete ete tee eee 18.3
Cranial index, with:ophryon: lengths. 255/226 42 4 4s ei ee 75.4
Basion-breama sheieht, meaty: =... midterm iels eis rile eee eee 12.2
Mean height index.“(birdlicka) i 2)\-frc «55 cles toe mer eer eaten 71.6
Eleight-breadthy 1md@exs oe 2 cise ole) telefon ieee eer 88.4
Height from elabella-imion line to vertex). 0). sc feeers teeta ee ete 7.05
Galottal index. @Schwalbe)/-: 2estase asceciss | ey ee eee tere 39.09
Gircumferences(horizs) . sce noses seco eno ee eee erie treireter 51.5
Arche middlesot meatus) Over DLeStiiae aac ices cece cee eer etter 30.5
Diam. frontal min. (Broca)).< 22s. ..4. cm. 50 s0) 5.5 tee oe eee 10.0
Diam: frontal (masc. 3 .o./c cai ets cco siete Oo ee che erence aval vol Ranetensto ye horerer peetees 11.6
Nasion=bregimia diam: i’. sisreraiss eis eraelelets cle etnies cleo) eel eee ericete 12.0
Breema-lamibbda diam: 24 cise secs -e ale cyte iepnetrisiet-sere oe ciekaia) eke meee erie 11.2
Wambdacinionn diatms onic cence cect s iacreh cielo ne seas Oe ToRn tn Reema 6.2
Ext. biorbital ibreadthic. ociieemin es oiceec ere etenercl ote one erene eae tenet Poiotede trenton 10.2
Orbits:
THES 5c gas ace-skore'd wre Sid ce ess ete w At tela pahn atta reveled Sis = eee ee etek eee ae 3.65
Breadth, ctisc fois seuss siessiede te areieteye ese ether vere s ieuslencie ciuss rokeke eter eeenen ere ners ?
INOSEis: thn ts State terctars 5, oles ch ouaxese annie foe es eae eee eure eR ieistereeneatei het aeknetets ?
Wpper alveolararch, ext.ibreadth max: a. caet eeilteie cei eiiere oe irr 7.75
Cranial capacity (obtained directly from displacement by intracranial
CASE) 1) Shocks ciS Fk sid Several Gngietete ea otaltole ee terete rehone lele helo et ic eRs Rice E3a50nC)c
THE LOWER JAW OF SKELETON H 5, LA QUINA* by
Mean: height Of (body. crc. <.<:cpnessuevs c'ateie: © ste eaenets aye ae iene scree eenetnerelrete neato 3.4
Mean. thickness: of / body <is/s:..2.2.4...4.< navonddouiele tte tiereeer ene tkereiete Cioener cere 1.5
THiS iis oe So dia 80h a tw ate -g tates 50d rao ie ho Pans TRC ARICT OD Nan EPR RN Nec nek oge rete 44.15
Symphyseal! angle; about 4 s.2 <0). 4etM0i cee es eee eee eres rare 109°
Ramus :
EMH RINE face cesncev 5 evveneile sa fosovol'evouairel ay Staite es Povey eve (e eRe CRA RRR eo near 7.5
Breadth mins *o.e.c. soca 00s ayaa bch 6a Sanev evar Sev aser aoe RO ec eeeieiree 4.7
External breadth between points on external alveolar border outside of
MSE deb Ute Sue 2 shal SS). cine tora tn eis tate Ree oe TSE aR ae ne eean 8.5
Mandibular angle approx. to... ce. as sieeeeeeie eee ORR EE Err 110°
Condyle (right) :
Transverse diam: sci.gi:) 5 sas sadcobaato Selec cee ee DRE errs 2.5
Antero=posta: diame ko. ashes. osters cae eee eae ee DEE CEG 0.9
Breadth of space between M3 and the vertical plane of the anterior
borders of ‘the: ramit.)s.. a0 0 is ad Seas ae eee ae On eee ere 12
Breadth of space between M3, to the lower ends of the anterior borders
Of ‘the ‘rami ee esce svete cules «a SRR ORE Ge ee eee eee 0.5

* In part the measurements have been taken differently from those of other workers, and are
not directly comparable except with those taken in the same manner.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 293

PRINCIPAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE MOLAR TEETH! OF THE
LA QUINA H 5 LOWER JAW

(AFTER HENRI MARTIN)

Mi M 2 M 3
Es 1s Te Nr r. IE
mm. | mm. | mm. | mm. | mm. | mm.
Motallensth crown. 542) a5) | Osh} Sy || Os@ BPS Sas
IROOtH ns ae tele ah aol wales tees TA SSaleLs.ON Lhe 5 1) Loe) | Os 5) 17,10
Crown: Length (anterior-post.
ITE cai ss ha oe SUES ree F220 12) OF 12550) 1235 LE oS PhS
Breadth (transverse diam.)...... TES ahs) | eL2cOnt22O5! L340) | 13-0

1 In his 1923 volume, p. 144 et seg., Dr. Martin gives exhaustive measurements of each of the
25 teeth that are present.

THE SECOND MANDIBLE (1912)

(Mainly after Henri Martin)

The second lower jaw (H g) of La Quina’ is represented by its
left half only, but this is in a good state of preservation. The jaw
is not as receding as H 5 and has a distinct reminder of a chin.
The mental foramen is multiple, consisting of three larger and two
smaller orifices, extending from I2 to Mr. At the cross section
between Pm2 and Mr the height of the body is 3.7, thickness
1.6 cm. [The lower jaw H 5 of the skeleton measures 3.4 by 1.5 cm.,
but the damage to the alveolar border makes the measurement some-
what uncertain, and on the right the thickness of the body was also
about 1.6 cm. The body is distinctly higher on the left than on the
right side (r. approx. 3.2; 1. 3.5 cm.) ] The axis of the condyles is
less oblique than in modern man (same case in H 5). The mylohyoid
ridge is stout, the fossa for internal pterygoid marked, much as in
H 5. The ramus was high, not excessively broad; there is much
more of an angle than in H 5, and the mandibular angle is more
open; the sigmoid notch was fairly deep. The teeth are megadont,
again as in H 5. At the angles the fairly sharp borders of the jaws
are slightly inverted. The unevenness of the right and left sides of
the jaw is remarkable. The right body is distinctly lower but stouter
than the left, and the right ramus is distinctly lower as well as
narrower, but at the same time stronger than the left. There is,

* Reported, briefly described, and pictured by Martin in: Position stratigraph-
ique des ossements humains recueillis dans le Moustérien de La Quina. Bull. Soc.
préhist. France, pp. 3-4, 1912, reprint.

294 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83
therefore, the interesting and rather anomalous combination of a
ereater strength of both the body and the ramus on the right side,
with a lesser development in height of both body and the ramus,
and also a lesser breadth of the ramus.

THE SKULL OF THE CHILD

This skull is of somewhat higher grade than that of the adult. The
vault is higher, and while still showing traces of the Neanderthal type,
especially in the lower frontal and in the occipital region, it neverthe-
less could be much more nearly duplicated today. But there are
features of the skull which attach it distinctly to the Neanderthalers.
Although the specimen is that of a child not over eight years of age,
the supraorbital arch is already plainly indicated and complete, and
there is a shallow broad depression above it. The forehead, however,
is quite as high and well arched as in mesocephalic skulls of children
of similar age of today. It shows also not the single “ cocoanut ”
bulge as in the negro, but a broad expanse which 1s like that in the
crania of present white children.

The sutures are distinctly more simple than in a modern child.
The parietals are formed much like those in modern mesocephalic
skulls of children; but there is already perceptible the location of the
parietal bosses which, as in the adult skull of La Quina, are almost
directly above the mastoid region of the temporal. There is a distinct
vertex ; the lambdoid region is not more flattened than in children’s
skulls of similar shape today; neither is the occipital more pro-
truding or more “ undercut,” or more flattened beneath the protuber-
ance—in fact there is no flattening. The outline of the norma superior
is an oblong ovoid, not yet as “baggy” behind as in the adult
Neanderthalers. The temporal squamae are low—distinctly lower
than in modern skulls of children, and the mastoids are much less
developed, with the digastric groove broader and reaching higher on
the left side, where a considerable part of it is quite external. The
meatus is of about the same size as it is today but its vertical axis is
not quite the same as in modern children’s skulls.

The face—tThe orbits are not of excessive size; their borders are
still fairly sharp; their shape, as far as it can be told, except where
affected by the rather peculiar border of the malars, shows little that
is striking. The interorbital septum is not very stout. The nose
is fairly protruding, concave, rather long, the nasal aperture broad.
The suborbital (canine) fossae are full. There is but moderate facial
or alveolar prognathism. The bones of the nose and maxilla appear

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 2905

to be somewhat stronger than they are in the modern child. The
upper alveolar process (nasal floor to, alveolar point) is rather low.
The shape and size of the palate and the size and conformation of
the milk teeth offer nothing very special; but the four incisors in
eruption are all markedly shovel-shaped (scooped out on their lingual
surface).

The base —The glenoid cavities are remarkedly small and shallow.
The pre-mastoid space is not yet well marked as it is in the adult
La Quina. The condyles are small. There were evidently also other
peculiarities, but the parts are too much damaged for correct de-
terminations.

Principal measurements on the original (Hrdlicka) :

cm, cm.

Vaults enethiamasce el 7.2 Cranialiindexereee crise 76.7

Breadth max.. 13.2 Mean height index approx. 78.9
Height, basion- Height-breadth index ap-

oydeennne) Goode 12.2 PEO os sper cree sieieks svete aeers 90.9

(but basion sm.
unduly elevated,
it seems, in re-
construction ) ;

corrected, abt. 12.0
(or possibly still
a little less).

NOTES ON PARTS OF THE SKELETON OTHER THAN THE SKULL
(Mainly after Henri Martin)

Atlas——Of moderate proportions and strength; some peculiarities
in details, especially as to anterior tubercle which is directed down-
ward, as in other Neanderthalers (as far as known) ; odontoid facet
very spacious.

Axis—Much damaged ; of moderate size and strength.

Other cervical vertebrae —Defective ; moderate size and strength ;
bodies not high; spinous processes wanting.

Bones of the limbs.—Badly preserved for the most part, and largely
missing. What remains shows evident Neanderthal features.

Humeri.—Rather defective. The two bones are so different that
they could be taken for bones of different skeletons ; but they were
found in place with the skeleton. The differences may probably be
explained by some pathological condition affecting the left arm.

The right bone is much the stronger (circumference—r, 7.3; I.
6.2 cm.). [In size and strength and muscular impressions it is about
equal to medium modern masculine.] The shaft of the right bone

296 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

is somewhat flattened; transverse diameter, 2.6; antero-posterior
diameter, 1.3 cm. [At middle the shaft is intermediary in shape
between prismatic and plano-convex.] The lower third of the shaft
approaches cylindrical. Near the nutrient foramen is an exostosis
11 mm. high, probably of traumatic origin.

The left humerus [upper 3] is much more slender, except in its
lower extremity, which equals that of the right bone. The shaft in
its upper third is near lozenge-shaped (on a cross section) [in the
middle region prismatic]. Maximum transverse diameter, 2.1 ; antero-
posterior diameter, 1.5 cm. Notwithstanding the slenderness of the
bone, the muscular insertions are well marked [though not correspond-
ing closely with those on the right bone].

The thickness of the walls is about the same in the two humeri;
but the medullary canal of the left is much smaller (r. 13, 1. 8 mm.
in largest diameter). The transverse diameter of the lower end on
the right is 6.3 cm., and on the whole, near in its characteristics to
that of recent humeri. The olecranon fossa, however, as in other
Neanderthalers is deep and spacious (2.9 broad, 2.2 high, and at
least 1.3 cm. deep). The septum in the right humerus was not perfo-
rated, in the left shows a small aperture. The lower portion of the left
humerus resembles that of the right.

Ulnae.—Present, right to olecranon only. The articular facets are
relatively flat. The posterior surface indicates a strong triceps.

Femora.—The shaft of the left femur is nearly entire but epiphyses
are wanting; of the right femur only about one-half of the bone
(upper part) remains.

[In strength, size and other characters the bones approach closely
a good modern medium male. |

MEASUREMENTS OF THE LEFT SHAFT (MARTIN)
At middle:

cm.

Diam:.antero=post. 20). 25s cee ese eee hese do ae Eee ee nee 2.6
‘Diam, tFanSVerse .s sos. ticle bale ieee Sen ee ee 3.0
Circumference: 4.656 hb neck 226 Se eee eee 9.0

At upper flattening:
Dian: “Min. 5 3.562505 Ss owes bok oeee Sone ee eee 2.6
Diam: ‘max. 268s cols Se caves beaters eae 3.35
Trdext: isis d tected Se ed ssp a Mole oe ee ee 77.0

The later index shows that there was but moderate flattening.
About its middle the shaft approaches cylindrical, with the linea
aspera but slightly developed. The popliteal region is wanting. The
whole shaft is moderately arched forward, resembling thus the other
Neanderthal femora. There is no hypotrochanteric fossa. What

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VO Schrlen iA

Upper, Dr. Henri Martin in his laboratory at La Quina, 1923.
Lower, a partial view of the La Quina site from the road, 1923.

Cunszeyy luazy] Joypy) ‘woyaTays yuTOUe pataAocouN dy} YM ‘sysodap BuING BT YL

GL “1d ‘€8 “10A SNOILOS1100 SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLINS

PE 6

VOL. 83,

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

The La Quina skull, after reconstruction.

(UujIeI WuUoF{ Joyy) “Mel euind) eT ZIOI oyL

ZL “1d ‘€8 “1OA SNOILO31I100 SNOANVIISOSIW NVINOSHLIWS

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 297

remains of the right bone shows the same characters. The walls of
the shaft are stout, particularly posteriorly (anteriorly, near middle,
8 mm.; posteriorly, 11 mm.). On the whole the femora give the
impression of relative shortness and robustness. The distinct charac-
ters of the femora may be summarized as short, robust, arched, with
a distinct torsion, and with but very moderately developed linea
aspera.

FINAL REMARKS
( Hrdlicka )

The La Quina human skeletal remains are of more interest than
has so far been appreciated. While distinctly neanderthaloid they
present variants of the type, in the narrowness and lack of massive-
ness of the adult cranium, in the stoutness of its jaws and teeth, in
the primitiveness of the angles of its mandible, in its shallow but
long (transversely) glenoids. There is a further variant, an approach
to a chin, in the second adult lower jaw. And there is a great deal
of interest in the child skull, which on one hand is a Neanderthaler,
and on the other, in size, form of vault, and form of occiput, ap-
proaches a modern. The majority of the characters of the skull and
of the other skeletal parts indicate a submedium male (for a Neander-
thaler) and not a female.

There is still much left of the Mousterian deposits of La Quina,
taking the classic site alone. The latter is now under the govern-
ment’s protection; it ought to be completely excavated, for there is
good promise of still further remains of human skeletons, and such
remains would all be of great value.

THE LE MOUSTIER MAN

Still another highly interesting and scientifically valuable skeleton
of early man is that of the Homo mousteriensis Hauseri. The skele-
ton is preserved in the addition to the Museum ftir Volkerkunde at
Berlin, where it was seen by the writer in 1923 and again in 1927.
It was discovered in March 1908, by O. Hauser, during archeological
excavations in what is known as “the lower Moustier cave,’ or
“ paleolithic station number 44,” at Le Moustier, in the valley of the
Vezere, Department of Dordogne, France, and was eventually pur-
chased from Herr Hauser for the Berlin Museum.

The cave, or more properly rock-shelter (fig. 30), when excavated
gave numerous evidences of man’s occupation, but no human bones.
The skeleton under consideration was discovered in the terrace in

298 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL, 83
front of the cave, almost vertically below the entrance. It lay about
3 feet deep and no disturbance in the superimposed deposits was
noticeable.

The human bones were uncovered with great care in the presence
of responsible witnesses, then covered again with earth and left im
situ for several months, though shown during this time to a number
of visitors. On August 8 they were exposed for Virchow, v. d.
Steinen, Klaatsch, and other scientific men, and finally, two days

Fic. 30—The Le Moustier rock-shelter, and the position of the human skeleton,
(After Hauser.)

afterwards, in the presence of Professor Klaatsch, they were taken
with the utmost precautions from the deposits.

A somewhat picturesque account of the discovery by Hauser will
be found in the 1909 volume of the Archiv ftir Anthropologie.’ The
skeleton, it appears, lay on its side in a natural extended position,
with the right hand under the occiput, the left extended along the
body. About the body and among the bones were found 74 worked
flints, 10 of which were of a well-defined form. On the skull rested
a charred bone of Bos primigenius, and in the neighborhood of the
thorax lay a tooth of the same animal. Besides this, 45 other frag-

* Klaatsch, H., and Hauser, O., Homo mousteriensis Hauseri. Ein altdiluvialer
Skelettfund im Departement Dordogne und seine ZugehOrigkeit zum Neander-
taltypus. Archiv f. Anthropologie, N. F., Vol. 7, 1909.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 299

ments of animal bones were gathered in close proximity to the human
remains. The examination of the human bones was begun on the spot
by Klaatsch and continued after the removal of the remains to
Germany, resulting in the following conclusions by that author:

The skeleton belongs to an adolescent of perhaps 16 years of age,
probably of the male sex. The height of the boy, as estimated from
the long bones, was probably 1.45 to 1.50 m. (4 ft. 9 in. to 4 ft.
Tole ett.) 2

The skull, notwithstanding the youth of the subject, shows a number
of characteristics which are peculiar to the Neanderthal group. While
of good size, with only moderately thick bones of the vault, and the
latter of a fair height, it shows nevertheless a rather low and sloping
forehead ; a well-marked complete supraorbital arch or torus, which
later in life would doubtless have become much more prominent ;
relatively large dental arches, with decidedly large and in a number
of particulars primitive teeth; a massive lower jaw with complete
absence of the chin eminence; and other interesting features. The
glenoid fossae, especially that on the right, show a marked inclination
upward and outward, as in the skulls of Krapina and as in the skulls
of children in modern man; and there are other characteristics of the
skull and skeleton that connect them morphologically quite closely
with the man of Krapina.

The long and other bones, as far as preserved, possess numerous
primitive characteristics. [Especially noticeable among these are the
relatively large extremities, particularly the head of the femur; a
strong development of the external condyle of the femur ; the peculiar
arching of the femur; the very marked curvature of the radius; ete.
Klaatsch reached the conclusion that the skeleton belongs undoubtedly
to the Homo neanderthalensis variety of the early European.

During these studies Professor Klaatsch attempted also a restora-
tion of the skull; the first results were, as is well known, unfortunate,
but a second restoration proved more successful.

In 1912 the writer saw the originals in the Museum fiir Volker-
kunde, Berlin. They had been purchased from Herr Hauser for a
considerable sum, raised, it was stated, through subscriptions led
by the Kaiser. After their receipt even the second Klaatsch recon-
struction of the skull was recognized to have been somewhat erroneous
and so the pieces were taken apart and a third reconstruction was
begun by E. Krause, the Museum preparator, with expert assistance.
The results were more satisfactory ; nevertheless some doubtful points
remained even then and these eventually lead to the fourth and the

300 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

most satisfactory reconstruction of the skull by Dr. Hans Weinert.
Dr. Weinert also made a thorough study of the skull, including its
measurements.”

By this time it was well seen that the Le Moustier skeleton, while
representing a much more human-like subject than that of the first
reconstruction, and though not adult, was nevertheless a document

Fic. 31.—The left femur of the Le Moustier youth. (After Klaatsch.)

ot human antiquity of much value and importance. Since 1925, the
skeleton has lain, in as nearly the original position and environment
as it was possible to produce, in a large glass case in the building
adjoining the Museum ftir Voélkerkunde, while nearby is a similar
case containing the originals of the nearly as important Aurignacian
skeleton of Combe Capelle, found also by Herr Hauser.

THE SKULL

Dr. Weinert (1925) in his report on the remains restricts himself
essentially to a detailed description, with very complete measurements,

*Der Schadel des eiszeitlichen Menschen yon Le Moustier, in neuer Zusam-
mensetzung, 54 pp., 38 illustrations, Berlin, 1925.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 30!

of the skull. The work is able and leaves little to be said by other
observers. The main conclusions are given in the table below.

The skull in all its features fits among the Neanderthalers ; those
aspects of it that appear more recent are to be ascribed to the youth
of the individual. Although it has been suggested that the skeleton
may be Acheulian, there is morphologically no indication of anything
older than Neanderthal.

A sagittal outline of the Le Moustier skull, contrasted with similar
outlines of seven of the Neanderthalers, shows it to possess a lesser
supraorbital torus (juvenile), a better arched forehead, a better
marked vertex, and a somewhat shorter occiput (pl. 79); but the
differences are of very moderate degree and not such as would tend
to displace the specimen from the group. A comparison of the outline
of the norma superior of the skull with those of Neanderthal and
La Chapelle shows similar conditions.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS ON THE LE MOUSTIER SKULL AS
FINALLY RECONSTRUCTED

(AFTER Hans WEINERT)
The Skullcap:

cm..
Greatest slenethennommes| abpellaneemeerrte tee ater irene 19.6
(Greatestibread the ciycirsicracmch ie aac coche eee ttere terete 15.0
GSE AIT AN AINE KS a5 sya ohare wi sata co ce naete stole ees aie Deano oss Siete cea lere pstehs 76.53
Hermht.:basiona-prepinal ws. <cic eet esis s Cee ere Teak bis, oe oleic ays 12.85
HMeiaht-bread tay index t2iir5 ie ian aehwtcets ved peered eee ote tesete © ere 85.7
Meanbhetshtaingexa (Getnd lic ka)) rane seers ee een rersiereeet ieee tsi 74.3
Sst iistateds Capacity tae ore eee sae See ae areerde ean 1,564 cc.
Wi ammeenhontalenmitiecm oy cee ae ees rocdete cee eres recess ine 10.9
iat troni tal erniaxeneaie ences ters: cies eeerixe ce mie sea ener ere 12.0
Galotte-hetehtCabovesG=l line) las see eee eee cir rae el neice 9.0
Galotte-hetolit amd extras ers sts sais oc fo ee kore chee cae che eee tena sient 47.3
Pndocranialmensthemaxcas cere cstiii a kites eer 17.6
[Greatestrendocranialabreadth mneatec-- erasers eee 13.5]

Face:
HMeightetotalestinated cysscisisis scr et cicero sic einieus lo oei=s > 12.4
Fiera ety Oiy a as oe cayerat ove) skarovacel Sy avslecayava c ovahercyeet ean src nye over se uelone ater tere 8.0
Diam bizverOmaticeateyackia cries oe ocr tree ee ncickeie eee 14.5-15.0
Ractalmandexstotal-. approx. aioe. coctoia Hole Crereyre ie hase lows ciel 85.5-82.7
Hacialmind @xsn1ip pelsrasisacaite ec hor ree ciate cae Sache ers ravens 55.2-00.0
Basion-alveolarsepointadiaienr <1 mec meee temic cies res
Basion-nasloneciatny, 2 cies prensa eo seenteer eavorna ciaiweretic isle ois 12.4
Paci aleatieslerarcsters crete streets ce ceetetets rere eesrepevefe-siartaveielsuceatt evaleie, fe,’ 71 |
WMessrrtiinl Lieb Or Roe idoy, Eide aca omAcoanonoone cco deUboore 121
Orbits:

Elletpin Gamerecciartaerare are 8 eicreceetare mareearerisiesiee sctiafe eds Maas oa 4.2

IB reac thiemeen cian cc ser ariel cies tee a anc re aera viatueiseca ees Uncertain

302 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Nose: em.
Height; ‘near. << ctwaers. sb lote enolate eer: aieeaee eee 5.6
Breadth smear’ sarees atin c.ciemnseeeteveue cers thorns et een rea reReormertos 2.8
Trice ae Ee ae rate acer ale Teer tele e ake erected eee 50.0

Upper Dental Arch:
hemeth,.tmeartig& <6 c.g sa ets fae e som teae euatees = Brae oe ee eee ere ae 6.2
Breadth amides c ccve colo cs crcieteloleietacersterne liens Pals Tol Pat ae nen tenetonckstens 7.4
Bigonial’ breadth csc): sc cs < eteye21eie eta omeet ale leet eee ee 10.4

LOWER JAW

Bicondylar diam. meat... ce flere « tue creraainie aks tt eels pa ieee ie a 13.3

Length'of the bone CMartin 68) )) eerie ae ccc otal tedden esata 9.8

Height at syrmphiysiss sc taie «1+ /<<e:s vere olnystaneVabaes eve af ohatVetctatshetst het tsiea 3.0

Height’ of body at'the mental foramen: 3.15. co slate times tie) oe 2.85

Mhicknessiot body ibelowsLileeiameeeee ts eee aoe ei ern e rater 1.75

Breadthiminvofinamus eine eee noe Reece eaters 3.6

Eeneth of upper dental ‘archias.i..15 <i siecle | seit lee ail yee ieee 6.32

Vength of lower dental: arch)... c cn else: e-alerts 6.45

THE SKELETAL PARTS
(After Klaatsch)

Klaatsch (1909),' as already noted, diagnosed the Le Moustier re-
mains as those of probably a male adolescent of about 16 years of
age. On account of the youth of the individual the measurements of
the bones can have but secondary value, unless they could be con-
trasted with normal modern youths of same age, which is difficult.
Many of the parts, moreover, are more or less defective. The main

measurements and characterizations of Klaatsch are as follows:

em
Remunletts Wcengthr mass, approx. clic eee re 38.0

Shaft cylindrical, its antero-post. and lateral diams. close to..... 2
Extremities relatively large; head large, diams................ 4.6-4.8
Breadth*max. of lower ‘endvapproxeaca. crea eee erne 8.0
Lateral condyle relatively strongly developed.
Arching forward as in the Neanderthal femur.
[Also mild arching inward. |
Linea aspera but slightly developed.
No platymery.
Tibia, fragments only:
Plump, short (not over 29.0 in max. length).
Not platycnemic.
Retroflexion of head must have been present.
Fibula, fragments: stout; resembles that of Spy.
Humerus, incomplete; Length, estimated
Strongly developed.
Deltoid tuberosity pronounced.
Radius, Strong arching, as in most other Neanderthalers; Length,

GO io cinco OCC OMe neo IAS ote otecdmatic tiebus do oboe 19.5
Clavicle, Relatively slender, as general in Neanderthalers.

* Homo mousteriensis Hauseri, etc., pp. 203-204.

“sasnoy,

BZ cild

(-€z61 ‘eyoyprH Aq ydersozoy )

ay} Aq painosgo “UOJaJays URLUNY IY} JO d}1S BY} ‘Jd}TIYS JOMOT «UIs ARI JoddyQ, ‘a4az1 A 94} UO ‘TaTysnOyy 97]

Jf3) aIOA SNOILO31100 SNOSNVTISOSIN NVINOSHLINS

Ww
N

‘YINOA JatsHOP, I] 2Y} JO [NYS

6L “1d ‘€8 “1OA SNOILO31100 SNOANVTIS0SIN NVINOSHLIWS

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 303

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Dieck, W. Das Gebiss des diluvialen Homo mousteriensis Hauseri und seine
Rekonstruktion. Odontologisk Tidskrift, No. 3, 1923.

Kriaatscu, H. Der primitive Mensch der Vergangenheit und der Gegenwart.
Verhandl. Ges. d. naturf. Arzte, 80 Ver., Vol. I, p. 95, Koln, 1908.

Die Fortschritte der Lehre von der Neandertalrasse. Ergeb. Anat. u.

Entwicklungsgesch., Vol. 17, 1907; Wiesbaden, 1908.

Das Gesichtsskelett der Neandertalrasse und der Australier. Ver-

handl. anatom. Ges., 1908.

ANp Hauser. Homo mousteriensis Hauseri. Arch. Anthrop., Vol. 7,

p. 287, 1900.

- anp Hauser. Die neuesten Ergebnisse der Palaontologie des Menschen

und ihre Bedeutung fiir das Abstammungsproblem. Z. Ethnol., Vol. 41,

p- 537, 1909.

anv Hauser. Kraniomorphologie und Kraniotrigonometrie. Arch.
Anthr., Vol. 8, pp. 1-23, 1900.

ScHUCHHARDT. Die neue Zusammensetzung des Schadels von Homo mous-
teriensis Hauseri. Prahist. Zeitschr., Vol. 4, p. 443, 1912.

Vircuow, H. Z. Ethnol., p. 580, 1900.

Die Aurignac-Rasse und ihre Stellung im Stammbaum der Menschheit.

Z. Ethnol., Nos. 3-4, 1910.

Homo aurignaciensis Hauseri. Prahist. Zeitschr., Vol. I, pp. 273, 285,

1910.
Z. Ethnol., p. 1407, 1916.

THE, GALILEE SKULL

In 1925, the British School of Archeology in Jerusalem decided
upon the exploration of certain caves in Galilee, and the work was
entrusted to Mr. F. Turville-Petre who, during a previous season,
had made a preliminary survey of the area. The main site explored
by Mr. Petre during the year was what is now often referred to as
the “ Galilee Cave ” and in this cave, at the depth of 65 feet, towards
the lower limit of a paleolithic horizon, were found parts of a ne-
anderthaloid human skull. The main details of the discovery, since
published,’ are as follows:

Entering the ravine of the Wadi el ’Amud and walking some 150 m. up stream,
a cave known as the Mugharet-el-Zuttiyeh is to be seen high up in the cliffs to
the north of the stream. The stream at this point is not more than 3 m. wide,
and the width of the ravine from base to base of the cliffs might be estimated
at about 15 m. The cave, a natural limestone formation, is situated at the base

of a precipitous wall of rock, facing southwest; the cliff, which rises to a height
of some 20 m. above the entrance, renders it inaccessible from the plateau above ;

2 Turville-Petre, F., Researches in Prehistoric Galilee, 1925-1926.
Keith, Sir Arthur, A report on the Galilee Skull: British School of Archae-
ology in Jerusalem. London, 1927.

304 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

while from below, the cave, the modern floor of which lies some 40 m. above the
level of the stream, is approached by a steep, rocky slope.....

No flint implements, or other evidence of habitation, were to be seen either on
the floor of the cave or on the slope which led up to it, but its size and conve-
nience as a place of habitation, together with the impregnability of its situation,
seemed to merit the digging of a trial trench through the débris which had
accumulated during generations of use as a stabling for goats.

A preliminary trench was dug from the mouth of the cave inwards to the
back wall, running some 2.5 m. northwest of the medial line of the cave. For the
first 120 cm. the deposits were of comparatively recent origin, yielding frag-
ments of bone and potsherds, among which Late Roman and Byzantine types
predominated, but at a depth of 120 cm., towards the front of the cave, a layer

RECENT. 543210
Ey PALAEOLITHIC. = SCALE OF METRES.
BRECCIA. ALA

SANDS AND CLAY

[__] precipitate CLAY.
fy \MESTONE.

Tic. 32.—The Galilee Cave. (After Turville-Petre. )

was reached composed of large blocks of rock apparently fallen from the roof,
and from below these blocks some fragments of bone in a highly mineralized
state were obtained; also a small coup-de-poing of Middle Palaeolithic type and
a few chert flakes of indeterminate form.

The deposits of the cave showed eventually a number of distinguish-
able layers. The layers of approximately the upper 4 feet showed that
the cave had served, latest of all, as a sheep stable; below this and
up to about 35 feet in depth were signs of human occupation extending
to early bronze or neolithic period. At a depth of about 34 feet a layer
of fallen rock was found over the central area of the cave.

Below this layer of rock there was a marked change in the character of the
deposits. They were here composed of a fine reddish, clayey earth, which was
comparatively dry; the bone fragments which they contained were hard and
heavy, reddish in colour and gave out a sharp metallic sound when tapped. This
layer averaged 90 cm. in thickness, and rested on another consisting of yellowish

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 305

sand, containing water-rolled pebbles. Throughout the layer were blocks of
fallen rock, but they never formed a continuous layer, as they had done at a

depth of 120 cm..... Fortunately only a small part of the deposits had thus
become hardened, and throughout the layer numerous fragments of bone and
many worked flints in good condition were found. .... No implements were

found anywhere above the dividing layer of rock, showing conclusively that the
deposits had undergone no serious disturbance since their deposition.

Towards the bottom of this layer of palaeolithic occupation, at a depth of 2 m.
below the modern floor level, were four fragments of a human skull. Their
approximate resting-place is marked X on the plan. They were lying in a shal-
low depression formed by irregularities in the cave floor, and were covered by
two blocks of rock apparently fallen from the roof. The frontal bone has been
separated from the skull to which it originally belonged along the line of suture,
but there is nothing to indicate that the separation was produced by force, or
least of all to suggest that the individual may have been killed by the fall of
the rocks beneath which the fragments lay. Nor was there anything in the posi-
tion of the bones and arrangement of the blocks of rock to suggest an intentional
burial. It is difficult to surmise what may have become of the rest of the skull.
Careful sieving of all the earth taken from the surrounding area and from
numerous other parts of the layer failed to disclose any further human remains.
The fact that the four fragments, namely the frontal bone, part of the right
zygomatic bone, and two fragments of the sphenoid, were all found together,
indicating that they have become separated since reaching their final resting-
place, seems to preclude the probability of their having been washed into the
cave from outside, for in such a process the projecting sphenoid portions would
almost inevitably have become detached; nor is it possible that they could have
fallen through from a higher level, for if so, how did they come to lie beneath
two large blocks of rock, themselves entirely covered by palaeolithic deposits ?
The bone itself is in a hard, highly mineralized state, extremely heavy and red-
dish in colour, in fact in every way similar to the other bone fragments found
in the layer; it differs absolutely from the soft light pieces of a yellowish colour
found in the superior layers.

In 1926 the work in the cave was finished, without further dis-
coveries of note. Sections through the water-laid deposits below the
paleolithic layer showed no earlier traces of occupation, human or
animal.

The fauna recovered from the paleolithic layer, as determined by
Miss Bate, was in the main as follows:

Hippopotamus sp. Felis cf. sylvestris

Bison or Bos Felis chaus

Equus sp. Hystrix sp.

Ursus cf. arctos Cervus sp. (C. elaphus group)
Hyaena cf. striata Dama mesopotamica

Hyaena crocuta Gazella arabica

Sus sp. Gazella sp.

Vulpes cf. nilotica Capra primigenia

Felis cf. pardus Capra sp.

306 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The stone implements, of flint and chert, show essentially Mous-
terian affinities. There are also, however, some short and long blades
and a few other implements that resemble somewhat later types.

Among the specimens collected from the lowest layer of the Zuttiyeh Cave
in 1926 there are a number of fragments of antlers and of limb bones of un-
gulates, bearing incisions and markings which are of considerable interest.
Some of the markings may be the result of gnawing by Carnivora or Rodentia,
but others cannot be accounted for in this way.....

One of the most interesting facts disclosed by the study of the animal remains
from the Emireh and Zuttiyeh Caves is the definite association of Hippopotamus
with a Middle Palaeolithic culture, and the probable association of Rhinoceros
hemitoechus with a slightly later culture. This seems to point to the fact that
there has not been any great faunal change in this region between the Mouster-
ian and the following period. The fact that this rhinoceros is R. hemitoechus
and that this species also occurs in Syria is highly important, emphasizing the
absence of evidence of a so-called cold fauna.

Below the Middle Palaeolithic occupation layers of the Zuttiyeh Cave
“African” types are represented by the spotted hyaena (H. crocuta) and per-
haps by a river hog (Potamochoerus) ; these were associated with a large form
of brown bear (Ursus arctos), a typically Palaearctic animal.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SKULL

The Galilee skull fragment and its endocranial cast have been
studied ably and ingeniously by Sir Arthur Keith." The writer saw the
original in 1927, and has since been able to obtain a good cast of the
specimen, together with that of the endocranium. The parts present
include the whole frontal, upper parts of the nasals, most of the right
malar, and most of the right sphenoid. The frontal and sphenoid
show separation at the sutures, indicating on one hand a young
person (in the opinion of Sir Arthur Keith probably under 25 years
of age), and on the other a separation of the missing parts before
the remains reached the place where discovered. As to sex, Sir Arthur
inclines to attribute the bones to a female, the writer to a not very
robust male. The bones are well preserved, of dark red color, and
highly petrified.

The features are those of the Neanderthal type. There is a
stout, but very distinctly bi-arched supraorbital torus. With the
striking protrusion of the torus goes also that of the glabellar region,
yet the glabella remains behind so that it is located in a marked
depression between the ridges, more marked than in any of the other
Neanderthalers. The tori (for we must speak of two in this case)
are stoutest in their mesial two-fifths, especially on the right (on cast

* Report on the Galilee Skull; in the joint Memoir, pp. 52-106.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 307

r., 17; 1, 15.5 mm.). More distally, from about their middle, the
tori are flattened from above, but not tapering. Above and behind
the tori, as is usual with this conformation, is a marked depression,
though with no semblance of the anthropoid medial prefrontal shelv-
ing and fossa.

The forehead is rather narrow (diam. front. min. 9.7 cm.), but
better arched than in most of the Neanderthalers and less sloping.
From side to side it shows a uniform convexity. It gives indications
that the skull was dolichocephalic (diam. front, max. 11.3 cm.) and
fairly high, higher relatively than most of the Neanderthal crania.’
The frontal squama is about as thick (5-7 mm., Keith) as in stronger
modern male skulls ; in this respect it is much like the La Quina skull
and near to Krapina C, but exceeded by other Neanderthalers. The
surface of the squama shows three scars, one rather deep, caused
probably by injuries in life. The temporal crests are about as in
modern skulls. The coronal suture was fairly well serrated.

The endocranial surface shows a strong metopic ridge. The lower
half of the squama presents numerous though mostly shallow impres-
sions of brain convolutions, some at least of which can be identified
with similar depressions in modern skulls. The inferior frontal-most
region gives the impression of being somewhat more cramped, not
as filled out, and slightly more beaked, than it generally is in modern
crania; yet the actual dimensions of the anterior cerebral fossa in
length, breadth, and height are much like those in similarly shaped
recent skulls. The marked depression and exposure of the cribriform
plate of the ethnoid on each side of the rostrum that are seen in
most modern skulls, appear to have been much less marked in the Gali-
lee specimen. The remaining anterior (sphenoidal) portion of the
temporal fossa shows much the same size, shape, foramina, and im-
pressions as a dolichocephalic white skull used for comparison.

The facial parts and the whole frontal as well as general aspect of
the fragment give a slightly feminine reflection, and Sir Arthur Keith’s
inclination to regard the skull as feminine can readily be understood ;
but the great supraorbital tori cannot possibly, in view of comparative
evidence on the two sexes in apes and of the ontogenetic as well as
all racial evidence on the torus in man, be attributed to a female. The
student is confronted here with the same difficulty as in the cases of
the Spy 1, La Quina, and Ehringsdorf specimens. That the paleo-

-1“Tn height of vault the Galilee skull resembles modern skulls; it was not

low and flat-domed as is the case in all typical examples of Neanderthal skulls.”
Keith, ibid., p. 62.

308 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS — VOL. 83

lithic female conformed to the rule of lesser development of the tori,
is well seen in the middle aged female of Gibraltar, as it is seen also
in those of Predmost, Obercassel and Grimaldi. A great development
of the supraorbital tori is one of the most dependable of male charac-
ters, and no skull with such tori can possibly be definitely identified
as a female without a most convincing proof of the accompanying
skeleton. It is well known that male skulls with more or less female
aspect occur among all peoples, and such a female “ reflection ” would
be heightened in skulls of young adults ; just as a good male skull may
be accompanied by a weak, more or less female-looking skeleton.
It is for these reasons that the writer cannot but regard the Galilee
skull, just as those of the La Quina and Ehringsdorf, as young
masculine.

To return to the description: The nasal process of the frontal bone
is stouter than in modern crania (min. interorbital breadth close to
2.7 cm.), though less stout than in most of the Neanderthal skulls.

The orbits approached irregularly quadrangular, were megaseme,
and deep, but not large (right, h., 3.7; br. 4.0) than in large-orbited
modern crania. They lack the striking subhuman aspect shown in the
Gibraltar skull. The borders are dull all over. Their vertical plane,
notwithstanding the great protrusion forward of the tori, is nearer
modern, due to the fact that the whole orbital and suborbital region
is well forward in this skull; and the lateral inclination of their plane
is even less than in many skulls of whites, due to the relatively back-
ward position of the nasion and forward position of the frontal process
of the malar.

The nasion is considerably more backward than the glabella; it is
situated but slightly above the middle of a transverse line connecting
the intersection points of the borders of the orbits and the malo-
frontal sutures, or much as in modern crania. The nasal bones were
fairly broad and strong. The root of the nose is rather low, moder-
ately and uniformly convex from side to side. It is near that of the
average negro, but could be duplicated in many non-European and
even some European modern skulls.

The malar bone is not far from that in some modern skulls; it
could perhaps best be described as intermediary between the more
typical Neanderthal form and that of modern man. The body is not
large, yet not smaller than in many white males; the frontal process
is decidedly stouter and broader than in European skulls of today,
but not as stout or broad as in most of the Neanderthalers ; and there
was no masseteric protrusion of the lower border. But there is a

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 309

well marked inferior swelling of the bone, corresponding to what
could be described as a moderate prominence of the region in modern
Europeans. The bone forming the malar is throughout somewhat
stouter than in modern whites. A portion of attached maxilla indicates
a considerably broader alveolar arch than in modern Europeans. The
whole face was broad in relation to the vault. The nose also doubtless
was broad.

An interesting condition is seen posteriorly to the external malaro-
frontal boundary of the face, as to the post-orbital and alisphenoidal
region, This area is much more spacious than in modern whites,
owing to the much greater breadth of the orbital plate of the malar
and of the greater wing of the sphenoid. The smallest distance be-
tween the external border of the frontal process of the malar and the
spheno-temporal suture, is (on the cast) 32 mm., the corresponding
distance in modern whites oscillating about 20 mm. This meant a
large space in the Galilee skull for the temporal muscle, indicating
a heavy and large lower jaw with large teeth, as is usual in the .
Neanderthalers. The sphenoid bone shows some strange conditions
in the pterygoid region, but these look abnormal ; they are dealt with
in detail by Sir Arthur Keith.

PRINCIPAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE SKULL

(AFTER KEITH )

Mrxtetransverse breadth “Of trys 7s. 6s c,.i02 i sisistac fetes eae Ss alecieloe ciel 11.9 cm.
MUICKATES SOU ryt GUIS of lore ro fate des arepel tetas hs oie tows tera Rita. w Sia lowey a ctuleta Sousioes 12.0 mm.
fairey Se etst cl seni M lee a eaee he 5: cveyas tel ey el tyes fore io ake ay sea te eiein abeiseaieinye.e ya serd,<svasee 9.7 cm.
PV Iaia OST OLE fy TAN a aries Spoye late ae (arel ada tarcleker atte Suis re Wiarereie''sy 6 & aie wis esetaters 11.3
Mas breadthon therskulls (estimated) iqssesiem eines accent 13.8
DW tS 1ONI~ Eta REIN ee eke tates ere; cra Siete lacs avers ble © erpmianeee aa seals Tite
OPED TENT pn etehitrar tts ase Sie caats Gate charain, Stak bs Shani ace owt tw tw okee elated! a7
PCAC ace race -ns hasti Nols hanays ted che lee ainic ua ieee ee ela ares 4.0
na Sox Siropese eset peso tP CLT oral orotate Sarat archi ATO shoo ates Bas

CONCLUDING REMARKS

‘There can be no doubt about the Galilee skull belonging to the
Neanderthal group; but many points, including the accompanying
industry as well as the fauna, indicate that it belongs probably well
forward in this group. Morphologically, the shape of the forehead,
the height of the vault, the size and form of the orbits, and other
characteristics, as well as the general features of the brain, point
towards later man, while there is yet enough to connect the specimen
with the far past.

310 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Explorations in Palestine, thus auspiciously initiated, will continue ;
some new undertakings are in fact now (early in 1929) under way
under the leadership of Miss Garrod; and Palestine, with other parts
of Asia Minor, may give much that will complement, and perhaps help
us to better understand, conditions in western Europe.

THE ROME SKULL

The specimen was found by laborers, in April, 1929, in a breccia-
filled cave, located about 3 km. from the Porta Pia. It was extracted
by the foreman and placed by the owner, Duke Grazioli, in the
Anthropological Institute of the University at Rome. The skull was
embedded in the breccia and before it was recognized it was damaged
by the workmen, particularly in the most interesting region, that of
the supraorbital arch, of which nothing remains. The lower jaw is
missing.

A preliminary study of the specimen by S. Sergi’ indicates that
it is the skull of a female about 30 years of age, of cranial capacity
not exceeding 1,200 cc., with low vault, relatively large size of the
facial parts compared to the brain case, and marked total facial prog-
nathism. In general the skull shows the well-known Neanderthal
type ; the third molars, however, are smaller than the first and second
(which are equal).

The cave and the further undisturbed site of the find were care-
fully examined. The breccia filling the cave is of alluvial origin. It
has yielded in the course of the excavations various bones of extinct
animals, including Elephas antiquus, Hippopotamus major, Rhinoceros
mercku, Cervus elaphus, Bos primigenius, and others. There are no
worked stones. The human skull proceeds in all probability from an
individual coeval with these forms. The age of the breccia and its
contents is referred to as mid-Quaternary and last (Riss-Wiirm)
interglacial, which seems incongruous, but is connected doubtless
with some local views of the ice period.

THE LA NAULETTE JAW

The La Naulette jaw was found in 1866 by Edouard Dupont in
the cave of La Naulette, Belgium, together with an ulna and a few
other fragments of human bones. The find was reported and the
bones described by Dupont in the Bulletin de 1’Académie Royale de

* Discovery of a cranium of Neanderthal type near Rome (in Italian). By
Sergi (S.)—Riv. Antrop., 1929, Vol. 28; repr. 9 pp.,"2 pls.

(2261 aA} G-APAINL Joy) ‘Avs oaplyper) sy Lp

she. ee
s, PER
0 te ae <7? bd

i

(See
&

08 “Id '€8 “10A SNOILOAIIOO SNOANVTISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

VOLT 83) Res si

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

(After Keith.)

The Galilee skull.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 82

Endocranial cast of the Galilee skull. (After Keith, 1027.)

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 311

Belgique, 1866, and by Topinard in the Révue d’Anthropologie
of the same year.” The original specimen is preserved in the Musée
Royal d’ Histoire Naturelle, Brussels.

The large cave of La Naulette is located in the bluffs of the left
side of the beautiful Lesse river, not far from Dinant, Province
of Namur. The opening of the mouth is situated at present 25 m.
(nearly 80 ft.) above the river. The interior of the cave measures
more than 60 m. in length by an average of 10 m. in breadth. The
deposits in the cave were II m. in depth, but this included a con-
siderable top layer of rock fall and debris. Between the layer that

CouPE GEOLOGIOUE Uo Alucrens acticelles, a 6
U. dryile pune ctoce auillows angulens dé calcare | ae
DU of lee restes de Cindustrie et de (ar faune ide tite fy dukes
. ; . dukone Af nweanossifere — a
TROW DE LA NAU LETTE. Wlinon argdo-sallen ce straty'é ata Base aryile
; arise et ossements de ruminants. 2"myeau ossitere | AULUYIONS

5 Nagppe de stalagmite, FLUYIALES

§ Anyile grse awe Nocs de pier’, ——

mi: 3. Lamon aryile-siNewe stratifié
2hable quartiewx altemant. avee des veines de Aye du
» geasteret des conerttions stlaymiligues. Mannnouth
1 ouche de yracier

TV. Getlloux rules arternus TERRAIN

Vo Angile jaune et reuge de filons EROLITHIQUE

Ekelle de over pA mele

Fic. 33.—The La Naulette Cave and its deposits. (C. R. Congr. préhistor.)

gave the human jaw and the surface there were four separate stalag-
mitic strata.

The fauna in association with which was found the human jaw
comprised the following forms:

Mammoth Deer

Woolly Rhinoceros Badger

Brown Bear Marmot

Horse Chamois

Reindeer Mouflon (probably)
Wolf Water Rat (Arvicola)
Fox Bat

Boar Fish

* Vol. 22, p. 44 et seq.
*Les caractéres simiens de la machoire de la Naulette. Rev. d’Anthrop.,
Vol. 9, pp. 385-431, 1866.
26

312 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The ossiferous layer lay 4.55 m. from the surface and was 0.60 m.
in thickness. Beneath it were sterile layers of gravelly sand and clay.
In addition to the human lower jaw and ulna there was also found in
the ossiferous layer an animal bone with a neatly made artificial per-
foration. There is no mention in the report of any stone implements.

A final report on the exploration of the La Naulette cave, accom-
panied by a chart showing the deposits, was made by Dupont in 1867."
He reached the conclusion that the two human bones were in all
probability introduced in the cave by man himself and that they were
the remains of cannibalism. He also states definitely that notwith-
standing a most careful search, no worked stones nor any remains
of fireplaces were found in the cave; there were, however, intention-
ally broken animal bones indicating human activity.

After having submitted the human remains to various experts,
Dupont proceeds to their description, and then gives the following
measurements :

mm,

Fleight=aty(chitnie.) acca ce accpolaves e nteisiato aoveranteae tetas ete 31
Pleight vat) (Mi2e 35.5 aelesce ais col etoetomnen catcher ena er 22
Thickness: at. chink \a:)sce seme nee on oe ren eters 15
Mhicknesssatlastumol ares eee eee 16

The ulna is also briefly described by Dupont (ibid.). He tells us that
the bone, the head of which is missing, shows a “normal” form;
that it belonged to an individual of small height ; and that its aspect
as well as proportions indicate that it proceeds from a female skeleton,
from which also may have come the lower jaw. The lower jaw was
studied intensively by Topinard, and since then more or less by most
other workers in human Prehistory.

In 1923, thanks to Professor A. Rutot, Director of the Musée at
Brussels, the writer was able to examine the original. The specimen
comprises the frontal part and left body of the jaw. It is a normal
bone of primitive build. It belonged to an adolescent female; the
socket for M3 indicates that the tooth had not yet fully erupted. It
resembles closely the female lower jaws of Krapina.

The bone is stout, especially for a female; at the same time the
body is low, indicating the female sex. The symphyseal region is
nearly flattened from side to side between the elevations of the canine

4 ; : P :
Etude sur cinq cavernes explorées dans la vallée de la Lesse et le ravin de

Falmignoul pendant 1’été de 1866. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, Vol. 23, p. 244
et seq., 1867.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN——HRDLICKA Shs

roots, as in other Neanderthalers, and is quite perceptibly receding ;
nevertheless there is a mild eminence of a chin. The mental foramen
is located beneath Pmz2.

Inferiorly the bone shows the usual neanderthaloid broad surface
for the attachment of the digastrics, with a rather marked submental
or platysmal (H. Virchow) spine; but the surface is not as flat as
usual in Neanderthal jaws, thus approaching somewhat more closely
recent conditions.

Lingually, anteriorly, there is a fairly marked shelving from above,
mildly concave below the incisors, convex below the premolars. In-
feriorly this shelving is bounded by a marked dull transverse ridge,
the well known epimedial torus of early jaws. In the median line a
slight ridge extends from the posterior part of the septum between
the middle incisors to the middle of the torus, thus dividing the de-
pression below the incisors into two lateral shallow fossae. This
vertical ridge does not extend any further downward.

Beneath the torus is a rather marked median depression, corre-
sponding to the anthropoid fossa in this location, without any clear
trace of the genial tubercles. Below this depression is another stout
dull ridge or rather a bilateral welt, into which merges on each side
the much less pronounced mylohyoid ridge. All these conditions are
much as in other Neanderthalers, with some individual variations.
Below the mylohyoid ridge the body of the bone is full, with but a
very faint depression, in this respect approaching modern conditions
and differing markedly from most of the early jaws, in which there
are pronounced depressions.

The teeth were macrodont, the roots of the incisors and canines
being thick antero-posteriorly. The alveoli of the canines are con-
siderably larger than those of the incisors or the neighboring pre-
molars. The alveolus of the posterior premolar on the left side shows
a three-quarter version of the tooth on its axis, so that the latter
instead of being transversal is directed somewhat obliquely forward.
The alveoli of the three molars show a distinct increase in size from
before backwards.

On the whole the jaw is clearly that of an early man and is classi-
fied with the Neanderthal type of lower jaws.

PRINCIPAL MEASUREMENTS

(MaInty AFTer ToPINarD)
mm.

eight ab-syinphysisc res sdcre oe. vee os Osha 31
Vero htt ate VED wi arenetaere ape teaver stetaterecae sree. sane oie 23
‘Ehiekness max at symphysiSs.cassc.nse.- s+ s+ 14.5

BlMtInCleMeSSiaalt, VL Sree a ey ntey epee teNPR TE ore ia reli clos 16

314 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Brake, C. Carter. On a human jaw from the cave of la Naulette, near Dinant,
Belgium. Anthrop. Review, July and October, p. 295, London, 1867.

Broca. Discussion, meme séance, p. 593.

-, Discours a la séance suivante, méme Congres, p. 396.

De Morrittet. Le préhistorique (Bibl. Sc. contemp.), p. 244, Paris, 1883.

De QUATREFAGES ET Hamy. Crania ethnica, p. 23, 1875.

Dupont, Epouarp. Etude sur les fouilles scientifiques exécutées pendant I’hiver
de 1865-66 dans les cavernes des bords de la Lesse. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg-
ique. Vol. 22, pp. 31-54, 2 pls., 1866.

Etude sur cing cavernes de la vallée de la Lesse et le ravin de Falmig-
noul pendant l’été de 1866. Bull. Acad. Roy. Belgique, Vol. 26, p. 244
et seq., Avril, 1867.

Hamy. Précis de paléontologie humaine, p. 231, 1870.

PruneER-BEyY. Sur la machoire de la Naulette. Bull. Soc. Anthr., Paris, Vol. I,
p. 584, 1866.

———. Discours sur la question anthropologique. Congrés internat. d’Anthrop.
et d’Arch., p. 352, Paris, 1867.

Toptnarp, P. Les caractéres simiens de la machoire de la Naulette. Rev.
d’Anthrop., Vol. 9, pp. 385-431, 1886.

THE SIPKA JAW

The Sipka specimen is a fragment of the lower jaw of a child,
probably between eight and ten years of age. It was found in 1880
in the Sipka cave, near Stramberk, Moravia, by Prof. Karel J. Maska,
the Moravian explorer. It shows six teeth—three incisors, the right
canine, and the two right premolars, the three last named not yet
erupted. In 1912 the original of the Sipka jaw was still in the care
of the discoverer at Telé, Moravia, where it was seen by the writer.’
Since then Professor Maska has died and the specimen has come to
the “ Zemské Museum” of Moravia, at Brno.

The extensive but largely obstructed cave after laborious cleaning
showed several (up to 8) distinct layers of paleolithic human occupa-
tion, with many traces of fire. Its exploration was carried on by Maska
from 1879 to 1883, without exhausting the deposits.

The lower jaw was found on August 26, 1880, near the entrance of
a so-called “‘ badger-hole,” a small side cavity. It lay in an undisturbed
layer of ashes in the lowest cultural deposits of the cave, close to

* Schaaffhausen, H., Ueber den menschlichen Kiefer aus der Shipka-Hohle bei
Stramberg in Mahren. Z. Ethnol., Vol. 40, pp. 279-309, 1882.

A detailed description of the Sipka cave (with others) and of the jaw, with
the earlier literature on the find, is to be found in MaSka, Karel J., Der diluviale
Mensch in Mahren, Neutitschein, 1886. Later references are included in the
various textbooks on prehistory.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 83

The Naulette jaw, and a perforated (drilled) bone found in the same deposits.
(After E. Dupont, Bull. Acad. Belgique, Vol. 22, pl. 1, 1866.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 84

The jaw of Sipka, Moravia. (After K. Maska, 1886.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 85

The lower jaw of Malarnaud. (After Tilhol, Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, 1880.)

(‘tatewtoqg
pue ossyoed Joijy) “potoaooor sem Mef uewny ay} YyoryM wor ‘sefouRg IJvau Arenb eyny snoaieoyed ayy,

98 “Id ‘€8 “10A SNOILO31100 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

(‘rereultaqG pue osayseg Joy) ‘apis ysis ‘mel sejourg oy L

28 “Id '€8 “1OA SNOILO31100 SNOANVTITSOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 315

the wall of the hole, at the depth of 1.4 m. (44 ft.). It was enclosed
in a clump of hardened ashes. Nearby and in the same layer elsewhere
were quantities of bones of diluvial fauna, elephant (sp.), /hino-
ceros tichorhinus, lion, leopard, cave lion, cave hyena, cave bear,
brown bear, bison, wolf, horse, elk, reindeer, etc.

The stone implements of the lower cultural layer (which enclosed
the human jaw) are almost all of quartzite, and of crude workman-
ship, on the whole related to the Mousterian. Professor Maska’s
conclusions were that the cave showed*human occupation that extended
over a large part of diluvial time; that this occupation showed three
distinct though not wholly disconnected horizons, the lowest of which
gave the human mandible. |

The jaw itself is regrettably only a fragment of the chin with six
teeth. The bone is both larger and stouter than in a modern child,
and shows various primitive characters; and the teeth are decidedly
large. The symphyseal part was evidently somewhat receding, though
there is a slight indication of a chin eminence; the inferior border
of the anterior region of the jaw shows the cupid’s bow outline, as
it does in the lower jaw of Mauer and more or less in those of the
Neanderthalers; the inferior border itself is broad and flattened, as
is general in Neanderthal mandibles; lingually the bone apparently
shelved backward; and there are other peculiarities.

The writer has twice seen the original. The specimen makes a
strong impression of primitiveness, and of a general relationship with
the lower jaws of the Neanderthalers.

THE MALARNAUD JAW

The lower jaw of Malarnaud was discovered in 1889 in a small
side chamber of the cave of Malarnaud, near the village of Montseron,
Arize, France. It lay 2 m. (about 7 ft.) deep beneath a layer of
stalagmite, in a mass consisting of reddish clay and a great quantity
of bones of Quaternary animals. The fauna was characterized by
mammoth, Rhinoceros tichorhinus, the cave lion, cave hyena, and
cave bear.

The bone itself is that of an adolescent, the third molars being
still in their sockets. The erupted teeth are missing, with the exception
of the first right molar. The jaw is not of great size and is rather low
but stout. Like the La Naulette specimen, it shows a somewhat
receding chin though with a slight indication of chin eminence.’

*For original descriptions of the find, see Filhol, H., Bull. Soc. Philomath.
Paris, 1889, and Congrés Anthrop. préhist., p. 417, 1889. Boule, M., La caverne
de Malarnaud; ibid.; also in his Fossil Men, p. 183, 1923.

~

316 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

THE BANOLAS JAW

The lower jaw of Bafiolas was found in April, 1887, by Senor
Pedro Alsius, a druggist of the town of Bafiolas, which lies on the
eastern bank of the Lago di Bafiolas, about 23 km. to the NNW

bd L£. ace Fspola

\
\
\

\

cx
MXs NY WS
2

i

2000
melras

Fic. 34.—Map of Bafiolas and vicinity. X, site of the jaw. (After Bentabol,
Pacheco, and Obermaier.)

of Gerona, in the northeastern part of Spain. The bone was found
in a block of limestone proceeding from an open quarry of calcareous
tufa, a short distance to the north of the town of Bafolas. The block
of stone had been broken off by the quarrymen, who saw in it indica-
tions of a row of teeth and notified the druggist of the occurrence.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 7,

Upon carefully chiseling the rock away, Sr. Alsius discovered the
human jaw. A portion of the tufa was left adhering to the lingual
side of the bone for fear that the latter might crumble to pieces.

The first notice of the discovery was published in 1909 by Pro-
fessor Manuel Cazurro," who tells us that the specimen lay at the
depth of about 5 m. (165 ft.) from the surface, and that the specimen
is nearly complete, lacking only a part of the ramus. The chin is of
but slight prominence, the incisors show prognathism, the bone is
strong and stout, the muscular insertions very marked, and the third
molars are larger than those that precede them; in all of which
characteristics the jaw resembles those of La Naulette, Spy, Malar-
naud, and other Quaternary mandibles.

In 1912 the specimen is mentioned in a brief communication by
E. Harlé.’ The author tells us that the jaw comes from a very hard
travertine that was quarried for building stone, and that was origi-
nally deposited by the lake of Bafiolas. He calls attention to the
receding character of the symphyseal region and to the advanced
wear of the teeth.

A detailed description of the specimen was given in 1915 by
FE. Hernandez-Pacheco and Hugo Obermaier.’ These authors tell us
that the bone is thoroughly fossilized and of the same color as the
stone that enclosed it and still fills all the interior of the specimen;
it is very fragile ; some of the teeth already show cracks due to drying.
The left part of the specimen had been damaged during its disengage-
ment. The principal primitive characteristics of the jaw brought out
by the authors are as follows:

The transverse diameter of the left condyle, which has left its
impression in the tufa, measures 22.9 mm; it permits an estimate
for the bicondylar breadth of 11 cm. The neck of the condyle had
been very short. The coronoid process, well preserved on the right,
is low and obtuse, its height having about equalled that of the condyle.
The notch was shallow, as in the mandibles of the Neanderthalers.
The rami are relatively low and broad, and nearly vertical. The

* Las cuevas de Serinya y otras estaciones prehistoricas del N. E. de Catalufia.
Annuari del Institut de Studios Cataluns, 1909, Vol. 2, pp. 24-25, 1 fig., Bar-
celona, 1909.

* Harlé, E., Ensayo de una lista de Mamiferos y Aves del Cuaternario, conoci-
dos hasta ahora en la Peninsula Ibérica. Tomo 32 del Boletin del Instituto
Geoldgico de Espafia, pp. 135-162, Madrid, 1912.

*La mandibula neandertaloide de Banolas. Publ. of the Comision de inves-
tigaciones paleontologicas y prehistoricas. Memoria numero 6, 42 pp., 9 pls.,
2 figs., Madrid, rors.

318 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

height of the left ramus from the gonion to the apex of the condyle
was approximately 7 cm.; the vertical height from the coronoid
process was 6.1 to 6.2 cm.; the minimum breadth of the right ramus
is 3.99, or practically 4 cm. The bigonial diameter was about 10.3
cm.; mandibular angle, 105°. The body of the jaw is stout, rather
low, and very appreciably convex. The mental foramina are situated
beneath the Pm 2. The length of the body, from the posterior border
of the ramus to the anterior alveolar point, is 11.08 cm.

Height of the body between second and third molars........ 2.95 cm. (R. side)
Heizhtatemental poramenss seein eee cneeeee 2.76 (R. side)
leicht aatnsympliysisman caer tm ceiereriieritracr erect 2.67

The stoutness of the bone could not be measured on account of the
rock which fills the interior of the specimen. The symphyseal region
shows but a slight chin eminence. The angle formed by the external
line of the symphysis and the basal plane of the body of the jaw
measures 85°. The anterior alveolar border and the basal border
of the jaw are on a vertical line, in front of which protrudes the
slight eminence of the chin. The chin angle is the same as in the
La Ferrassie mandible, but is moderately to markedly smaller than
in other early jaws.

There is a slight submental arching of the cupid’s-bow form; such
arching, though generally more pronounced, is characteristic, it has
been seen, of the Neanderthal mandibles. The border, anteriorly, is
less flat than in most of the Neanderthalers. The dentition is com-
plete and all the teeth, though much worn (especially anteriorly),
are preserved. The dental arch is broad anteriorly and parabolic.

The teeth are megadont, sound. The left M3 still shows five
tubercles. Correct measurements of the molars are impossible due to
the wear ; approximations show the third molar to have been at least
as large as the second. But the crowns were not of the primitive
relatively narrow form, being in fact probably somewhat broader
(linguo-labially) than long.

Messrs. Pacheco and Obermaier diagnose the jaw as that of a male
of some 40 years of age. They believe that the mandible belongs
to Neanderthal man and that, with the skull of Gibraltar, it represents
the oldest so far discovered human skeletal remains in Spain.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

BonarELLI, Gurpo. La mandibula humana de Bafiolas. Revista de la Sociedad
Argentina de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires, Vol. 2, pp. 399-406, 1916.

SERGI, SERGIO. La mandibola di Bafiolas. Estratto dalla di Antropologia, Vol. 22,
7 pp., Roma, 1917-1018.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 319

RESUME OF THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN

A perfect knowledge and understanding of the physical character-
istics of the Neanderthal man is still far from realization. Science
possesses already a very respectable amount of skeletal material
from this very important period of human differentiation, but this
material is as yet not nearly sufficient. It covers but very fractionally
the different parts of the long period; the number of male and
especially female adult remains is far from sufficient for the establish-
ment of either the mean types, or their variation; the facial parts
are mostly wanting; the brain case is mostly so damaged as to make
adequate study of the brain almost impossible; the bones of the
trunk and the pelvis are nearly wholly wanting; most of the bones
of the hands and the feet are not represented at all as yet, or repre-
sented by isolated pieces only, in the collections; and even of the
long bones there is not enough for definite comprehensive generali-
zations. A résumé of the physical characteristics of the Neanderthal
man must therefore for the present remain quite imperfect, and to
have in many particulars more the value of indications than actual
facts. Fortunately the indications in some important respects, at
least, are strong and harmonious enough to constitute doubtless close
approximations to realities.

A critical study of the differences of the Neanderthal from later
and present man brings with it two great appreciations. The one is
that the more inferior of these characteristics give us many indications
as to the nature of the ancestral stock from which Neanderthal man
had developed. Some day it will be quite feasible to reconstruct
from our knowledge of the Neanderthal remains the more immediate,
at least, of the predecessors of that form.

The other important and growing appreciation is, that in many
respects the Neanderthal man did not stand decisively apart, or
very far, from later man. In many characters he is seen to interdigi-
tate with the latter; and there is no one of his characters so far
discovered in which he does not at least connect with those of later
man.

A résumé of the apparent characteristics of Neanderthal man
follows:

SKULLEAP

Size—moderate to large.

Form—markedly dolichocephalic—to mesocephalic—to moderate
brachycephalic.

27

320 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Thickness of bones—mostly somewhat to markedly greater than
in modern skulls of white man.

Supraorbital ridges—in adults invariably a biarched, complete and
more or less stout torus.

Forehead—low and sloping to fairly high and well arched.

Vault—low to moderately high, oval from side to side, without
sagittal ridge or keel.

Temporal lines—at a good distance, as a rule, from the sagittal
suture.

Parietal eminences—often decidedly lower and more backward than
in modern skulls but occasionally approaching conditions in the latter.

Occipital region—relatively broad, somewhat prominent, flattened
from above and from below, and with a more or less transverse torus.

Sub-iniac region—often more or less concave above, and less full
than in modern skulls.

Temporal squamae—low to moderate.

Mastoids—small.

BASE

Petrous portions stout, on level with surrounding parts and filling
anterior lacerated foramen ; no styloid or but slight ; stout tympanum ;
marked premastoid groove or space (Hrdlicka).

Glenoids—shallow to moderate depth, broad transversely, and other
peculiarities.

Basilar portion—relatively flat, condyles rather small; other peculi-
arities of base.

BRACE

Glabella—even with ridges, to a fairly marked depression (from
side to side).

Nasal process of frontal bone—stout to very stout and interorbital
breadth consequently large.

Large, deep, megaseme orbits.

Orbital plane—upper half inclined more or less forward and down-
ward, due to protrusion of the tori; also a tendency towards increased
inclination of plane laterally, outward and backward.

Form of orbits—irregularly circular to irregularly quadrangular.
Borders stout; dull to fairly well defined.

Nasal depression—in a broad uniform concavity.

Nasal bridge—of submedium height.

Nasal bones—broad, stout.

Frontal process of maxilla—stout, broad, bulging.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 321

Suborbital (canine) fossae—wanting, region full, perceptibly con-
vex from side to side.

Malars—relatively small, not protruding, sloping backward.

Frontal process—broad and stout ; zygomatic process, above modern
medium in breadth and strength.

Inferior margin—no masseteric protrusion.

Nose—broad, rather long, aperture approaching simian form;
spine submedium to small.

Maxilla—high, stout, and broad.

Upper alveolar arch—high, broad.

Dental arches—broad in front, more or less U-shaped.

Facial prognathism—somewhat above that in modern man.

Alveolar prognathism—moderate.

TEETH

Upper incisors—shovel-shaped and with reinforcing lingual cusps.

Canines—modern form.

Anterior premolars—tendency to high outer cusps.

Upper molars—beginnings of obliquity of transverse (linguo-
labial) axis.

Lower molars—tendency in most cases towards more or less marked
diminution of M3.

LOWER JAW

More or less prognathism of incisors. Receding chin. Flatness of
front part due to lateral protrusions caused by stout roots of canines.
Beginnings of distinct mental eminence.

Inferior border—tendency to cupid’s-bow form, with more or less
marked submental (“‘ platysmal’’) spine.

Mental foramina—often multiple, not seldom duplicate or triple,
situated mostly farther back (beneath Mr) than in modern skulls.
Body stout, seldom high. A marked hiatus between M3 and anterior
border of ramus.

Ramus—broad, moderately high, often tendency towards simian
rounding of angle.

Coronoid process—broad, mostly low, stout.

Notch—mostly shallow.

Condyle—short, condyle itself broad and mostly stout.

Internal and occasionally also external strengthening crests of
both the coronoid process and the condyle.

Lingually, anteriorly, more or less marked shelving; transverse

Ss)?

epimedian torus; tendency to simian depression below; small genial

322 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

tubercles. Transverse torus connects occasionally with mylohyoid
ridge. Below mylohyoid ridge in some cases pronounced hollows.

Inferior border, from premolar region forward, broad, flat and
with marked impressions of the digastrics.

Internal pterygoid fossae—pronounced and spacious.

Whole bone contrasts from modern by relative stoutness, length
of body, conditions both externally and internally of the frontal
portion, and large teeth.

No dental decay (caries) observed thus far in any true Neander-
thaler (La Chapelle’).

SKELETON

Vertebrae—Spinous processes of lower cervicals tend to project
straight backward; bodies—relatively low; indications of various
other peculiarities.

Ribs—stout, broader curvatures.

Clavicles—relatively long, slender ; other peculiarities.

Scapulae—not well known; occasionally primitive features.

Pelvis and sacrum—not well known; thoroughly human, though
evidently some peculiarities.

Long bones—relatively large extremities.

Bones of forearm and leg—relatively short; but little platybrachy,
platymery, or platyenemy. Marked arching of radius and of femur.
Pronounced muscular impressions.

Popliteal space in femora—tends to be convex.

Linea aspera—slightly to moderately developed.

Head of upper articular facets of tibia tends to more retroversion
than in most modern bones.

Olecranon fossa of humerus—larger and deeper than in modern
bones. Olecranon process of ulna stouter ; peculiarities—particularly
shallowness of articular facets.

Bones of hands and feet—Mostly not well known.

Metacarpus and metatarsus—relatively stout. Tarsal bones stout,
squatty ; peculiarities of articulation.

Astragalus—stout ; short neck; sustentaculum—much developed ;
other peculiarities.

GENERALIZATIONS

Ffead.—The head and face were relatively large and heavy; the
nose must have been stout, the mouth large, chin receding.

Size of the brain—In the size of his brain the Neanderthaler com-
pared with man of today ; but morphologically the brain was generally
inferior.

v

HRDLICI

N

3:

v

MAN

RLY

f

¢

MAINS OF

4

SKELETAL: RI

VOL.

W HOLE

‘aIsselIOy PT =yT ‘ayfedey)

em bry

(ajnog s97;V)
el =IT

[eyjlopues

NG 2.

. TIOuINny

jeyjtopueanN——S€ ‘oly

VOL. 83

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

Wa

(ajnog J1FV )
‘URWIYUeI.T Usepou eB pue ‘sezuedumryd & ‘e][II03 eB Jo asoY} YA poseduios ‘pes [eyJJapueaN—oEe “Oly

4

athe,

ial

eu Ye”

Petra eae

STAT sae

A 32%

»
-
Ss

SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICI

WHOLE VOL.

Canog 493}W)

‘URUIYUeIY Uapour

eB jo yey}

YyM posreduo0s

‘

eIOWS} [ey}Jopura

Nowe ly

326 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The stature of the Neanderthal man, compared to the modern, was
mostly short to submedium, rarely reaching medium,

Proportions —The Neanderthal man had probably a short but
stouter neck and a larger thorax than the man of the present day. He
was also, in the males at least, strongly to heavily muscular. His limbs,
particularly the lower extremities, were rather short. His hands and
feet were broad (rather than long) and strong.

It is doubtful if the Neanderthal man walked as perfectly erect as
man of today.

W eight.—Judging from the very stout walls of his long bones and
the indicated stoutness of his muscles, the Neanderthal man weighed
probably more in relation to stature than man weighs today; but
there were also weaker and lighter individuals.

CriTicAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE NEANDERTHAL PROBLEM *

The characteristics and taxonomy of the Neanderthal man have
been written about most extensively, but often with but little origi-
nality. New finds belonging to his family have become numerous—
almost more numerous than legitimate new thoughts. Today it is no
more the question of a single or a couple of Neanderthal skulls, as
in the time of Darwin, but of « large and important section of man’s
antiquity, documented ever more geologically, paleontologically, and
anthropologically. But the distressing part is that the more there is,
the less prehistory seems to know what to do with it. Of speculations
there have been indeed enough, but most of them so far have lead not
into the sunlight but rather into a dark, blind alley from which there
appears no exit.

The generalized present doctrine about Neanderthal man may best
be seen from the following brief quotations, taken from five of the
most recent and representative authors, two paleontologists, one an
anatomist, and two prehistorians:

Marcellin Boule (Fossil Men, 1923, pp. 242-43) :

Homo neanderthalensis is an archaic species of man. It was abruptly followed

by the Aurignacians, “who differed from the Mousterians as much in their
superior culture as in the superiority or diversity of their physical characters.”

M. C. Burkitt (Prehistory, 1921, p. 90):

The race who made this culture (Mousterian) was of a low type known as
the Neanderthal race. This appears to have been a throw back in the line of
evolution of mankind, and this retrograde sport seems to have had no successor.

*In the preparation of this section the writer has drawn freely on his The
Neanderthal Phase of Man, The Huxley Memorial Lecture for 1927, Journ. Roy.
Anthrop. Inst., pp. 249-274, Dec., 1927. Reprinted in Ann. Rep. Smithsonian
Inst. for 1928, 1920.

.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 327

George Grant MacCurdy (Human Origins, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 209-
Loe

During ages long subsequent to the time when the races of Piltdown and
Heidelberg lived, there spread over the greater part of Europe the primitive
Neanderthal race, of coarse mental and physical fiber... .. This race con-
tributed nothing, in fact, save utilitarian artifacts, the so-called Mousterian in-
dustry, . = = - The Aurignacians were a “new race,” which supplanted com-
pletely the archaic Neanderthal race of Mousterian times.

Sir Arthur Keith (The Antiquity of Man, vol. 1, pp. 189-9) :

The most marvellous aspect of the problem raised by the recognition of Nean-
derthal man as a distinct type is his apparently sudden disappearance. He is
replaced, with the dawn of the Aurignacian period, by men of the same type as
now occupy Europe..... A more virile form extinguished him. ... . He was
not an ancestor of ours, but a distant cousin.

Henry Fairfield Osborn (Man of the Cave Period, in Man Rises
to Parnassus, p. 79, 1927) :

The Neanderthals present a unique instance of arrested and perhaps partly
retrogressive human development.

All these opinions can probably be traced, directly or indirectly, to
the authoritative notions arrived at during the earlier years of this
century, on material less ample than at present, by one of the foremost
students of Neanderthal man, Gustav Schwalbe.

There were, and are, however, also other views. From Huxley and
Busk to Karl Pearson; from Fraipont and Lohest, Houzé, Kollmann,
and Sergi to Stolyhwo, Gorjanovi¢-Kramberger, and, most recently,
Weidenreich, there have been expressed opinions that Neanderthal
man was not a different species, and that he did not completely die
out, but became gradually transformed into later human forms, from
which in turn developed man of today.

The problem of Neanderthal man, as it now exists, presents the
following uncertainties: It is not yet properly known just where,
when, and how he began, and how far eventually he extended
geographically ; it is not yet definitely known just who he was and
what were his phylogenetic relations to the man that succeeded him ;
and it is not known plainly just why and how he ended, and whether
or not he left any progeny. Besides which there are still but more
or less imperfect ideas regarding the exact length of his period, his
average physique, his variations and sub-races, the reasons for his
relatively large brain, his changes in evolutionary direction. And
there are other uncertainties. It thus appears that, notwithstanding
his already numerous collected remains, Neanderthal man is still far
from being satisfactorily known to us taxonomically, chronologically,
and anthropologically.

328 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

This state of uncertainties and of paralyzing premature conclusions
concerning one of the main early phases of humanity, is a serious
obstacle to further progress, and deserves all possible attention, even
if, without further material, it may be possible to do little more
than bring into the subject a greater degree of order and compre-
hensiveness; to point out here and there facts that have not been
sufficiently weighed; and to call attention to some of the inconsis-
tencies in the prevalent assumptions.

The presentation will be as far as possible quite neutral ; and I wish
to acknowledge my deep indebtedness for many of the data to the
authors given in the references, as well as to those who in the past,
and again during the years just passed, have facilitated for me the
study of original Neanderthal sites and materials.

NEANDERTHAL MAN

DEFINITION

The only workable definition of Neanderthal man and period seems,
for the time being, to be, the man and period of the Mousterian
culture. An approach to a somatological definition would be feasible
but might for the present be rather prejudicial.

GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENT

The territory already known to have been occupied by Neanderthal
man was collectively a very large one, including, roughly, all Europe
south of a line drawn from southern England to the northern limits
of Belgium and thence, with a moderate curve northward, over
Germany and Poland to Crimea and possibly the Caucasus, with
parts (at least) of northern Africa and of Asia Minor. Whether
he reached farther east, southeast, or south, must, notwithstanding
some claims, be regarded as still uncertain.’

The whole great territory over which his remains have been dis-
covered was not occupied by Neanderthal man synchronously, or
continually, or with equal density. He was evidently not a nomad,
though probably still more or less of a rover who stayed in a place
for a more or less prolonged time and then moved away. Some of
the deposits he left show up to six different layers of reoccupation
(Grimaldi, Olha, La Quina, Le Moustier, Krapina, etc.). The density
of his remains is greatest in France and Belgium, least in the northern
limits of his territory and in the mountainous parts, particularly the

*See Addendum, written after this paper was in type.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 329

Alps, Carpathians, and the Balkan peninsula. The distribution of
Neanderthal man in Europe is of much significance, as will be seen
later.

LIMITS AND DURATION

The boundaries and duration of the Neanderthal period are those
of the Mousterian culture. They may now be delimited with some
precision, though not finality, by data of paleontological, geological
and archeological nature.

PALEONTOLOGY

Neanderthal man coexisted with a large series of now extinct
animals: the question is, how intimately are these forms associated
with his coming and going. The Mousterian culture is the culture,
essentially, of the earlier times of the mammoth, the woolly rhinoceros,
the cave lion, bear, and hyena, the horse, the old ox, the bison, the
reindeer, the stag. There are many other forms, but these are the
most characteristic.

The Mousterian culture neither comes in, however, nor ends with
any of these large mammals. The mammoth, derived probably from
the Trogontherium, is present since at least the Acheulian and lasts
to, if not beyond, the end of the Magdalenian time. The cave lion,
cave bear, and cave hyena, as well as the horse, ox, bison, and even
the reindeer are all there since or before the beginning of the
Acheulian, and they last throughout the Mousterian, Aurignacian,
Solutrean, and Magdalenian periods, to disappear gradually during
the latter, or persist to historic times.

Mousterian man begins apparently during the latter part of the
last great interglacial and extends deep into the final glacial time,
without perceptible direct relation to the fauna. His remains at
Montiéres, Villefranche, Ehringsdorf, the rock-shelter Olha, some
of the Mentone caves, and elsewhere, are still associated with the
remains of the Elephas antiquus, the Merck’s rhinoceros, the large
lion, and the panther (leopard). On the other hand, various Arctic
species (Ovibos, Gulo, Canis lagopus, Lepus arcticus, etc.) come in
as the cold advances during the Mousterian period, without, however,
marking either its beginning or its end. There is, therefore, no defi-
nite line of faunal demarcation for either the beginning or the end of
the Mousterian period, Neanderthal man did not come in with any
special fauna, nor did he go out with any—all of which are facts
of importance.

330 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

GEOLOGY

Geological information about the Mousterian period is not as
precise or full as is desirable,’ but it permits of several valuable
conclusions. A survey of the better-known Mousterian sites, from
Germany and Belgium southward, shows that fully one-third of
them were in the open, while of the remainder quite a few (La Quina,
Sergeac, La Ferrassie, etc.) are found in and about shallow rock-
shelters that could not have afforded much protection. In Switzer-
land, moreover, the earlier Mousterian man lived in caverns at a
high elevation (Wildkirchli, 4,905 ft.; Drachenberg, 8,028 ft.).° All
of this indicates that the climate during a considerable part of the
Mousterian period was not severe enough generally to drive man into
the caves, or even down from the mountains, thus pointing to inter-
glacial rather than glacial conditions. There is no evidence of any
critical geological manifestations, either about the beginning or about
the end of the Mousterian period.

The cultural remains of the Mousterian in the open stations, as
well as those in caves, denote both considerable age and long duration
of the period. In the open the remains lie mostly in old gravels or
sand, rarely in clay or loess, or in travertine rock of lacustrine origin.
There may be two or three cultural strata or horizons (as at Ste.
Walburge, High Lodge, Ipswich, Amiens, etc.), indicating a repeated
occupation of the same site after shorter or longer intervals, though
there have not been found as many occupational layers as in some
of the caves.

ARCHEOLOGY

Neither paleontology nor geology, evidently, explains Neanderthal
man ; perhaps we may learn more from archeology.

OCCUPATIONS

The chief activities of man in nature relate to his housing and
clothing, to the obtaining and preparing of his food, and to the
manufacture of tools, utensils, and weapons. Let us see briefly how
Neanderthal man compared in these respects with his forbears and
his followers.

‘Many details are given in Bayer, Jos. Der Mensch im Eiszeitalter, Leipzig
and Wien, 1927; in Werth, E., Der fossile Mensch, 3 parts, Berlin, 1921-1928:

and in the books of Boule, Keith, MacCurdy, Obermaier, Sollas and others on
prehistory cited at the end of this treatise.

*See MacCurdy, G. G., Human Origins, Vol. 1, 1924.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 331

Housing.—There is a prevalent idea that Neanderthal man was
essentially a cave-dweller, and this idea seems generally to carry
with it a sense of inferiority. The records now available throw
a different light on this matter. Analysis of 360 better-known
paleolithic sites in Europe and the neighboring regions (from records
compiled principally by MacCurdy) * gives the following interesting
information :

DWELLINGS IN THE OPEN AND IN CAVES DURING PALEOLITHIC

TIMES
Period Sites in the Open Rock-Shelter or Cave

Number Number

recorded Per cent. recorded Per cent.
Pre-Chelleant a0 oe en ee II 100 ~ i
Chelleaties 0.5.52 ak eave Hooke 32 04 2 6
Acheuliants ceca aoe ceey ae ee = 36 7S 10 22
MOuUStEnian «066 feces oo oh. 2 45 34 88 66
NUIONACIAN =p.) tae ts Aa a ese 24 18 112 82
Solutrean sa ee ocsy--3 set srernhr ot 10 I4 62 56
Macdalentanegar ssn ecient 17, 10 148 90
Azilian and Tardenoisian....... 4 9.5 38 90.5
Accompanying Neolithic....... 22 Bons 76 T7aeS)

The figures and chart (fig. 38) show some curious and important
facts. Man begins as a dweller in the open, but already since the
warm Chellean period he commences also to utilize rock-shelters and
caverns, and then, as the climate cools, he gradually takes more and
more to the caves. In these phenomena the Mousterian period shows
nothing striking, nothing individual. It falls harmoniously into the
curve of the progress of cave-dwelling, to be followed equally har-
moniously by the Aurignacian and the succeeding periods. Mousterian
man occasions no perceptible disturbance in the human housing con-
ditions of the time, and what is even more remarkable, no disturbance
or change whatsoever is found to be occasioned, by the advent of the
Aurignacian. Aurignacian man follows in the footsteps of his prede-
cessor without a marked interruption. Like the Neanderthaler, he
builds, in the open, huts of perishable materials that leave no trace,
and he utilizes the caves exactly as much as, and eventually even more
than the Neanderthal man. He continues, in fact, on many of the
same sites and in most of the same caves that the latter has used,
without introducing any detectable innovation. He, also, like the
Neanderthal man, leaves here and there a whole series of occupational

* Human Origins, Vols. 1 and 2, 1924.

VOL. 83

MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

SMITHSONIAN

334

eon 0

a | H Pe
rales a Ht me
a +01
Sere [aail {oe es
See lone a) os ae a | aT
Bez aes a (i a i i | 4
easels | eh a |e oe i a
ST TT REE
ss aa ae et ef ano eect fo Jt of fe nf Js] een Ti i Vs TS | ae on | a ot ee a a
es i a a | es et en a es a | fat a [8 pe tsa oc
a i a] a] ata is it] (ez (ei a |
|e ae et | a i a ae ef i Pa
| | | fl | i] | i || | a a S| i 0h
ot canoe | et nan | en a [eee i ie i [eo i | ec a ft
tee eo ef | ca Fie cn J ef] i a ot J [Sa NG BT | ee
ie | fa oe fea 8 te of] 8 [a J ss cepa NT a TN pitt
ea | oe |e a of ee ofl Fi ee aos ea fae i a a pres i a Ta i RT LE ACYL
os fn tc i ft HH NEE -H [|
os] a aa a a i es ki eg [i TS a
ees Je Ft aa ne fe] in am | en] 0 8 [sf a eh | Ns i | a i
| | | | ce CCEEEEEEE EEE EEE
fee st fe Le enfant i J Uf is a ene as eT I SA -
ai sf sa om sce ee oJ i Pi i fin ern af Nia] ee |e af
ea OA oa | ie ta ae ie | int so fat ee ea as | | i a oe ee Te of
seat nia ef no | ||] [JE Ye [eT] LL Naa es i 50]
af a | a a i eis HH aN | E} tt
FS fa | | a fe a ee i |e fs Pe HEBESabs rt TA (| ss 08
i |S | an | at Fs alt lng tn i [et 2 is [ef psec a Fa tT
i a a | seme meta i ee se a see eo it fe | ee [fas a
| FS (a te | a ies isa [eu ae eo fi [fo] is (a ean SS Ta fs a
PT Ree ee ee ee fa oe 0a ft |i [a Je a | wa a ffs sc 0b
BEES EEE SoCo eee

|S
sf i Le al a fed rea a (oa fn Ls Fg AONE POT SSID TP EEE EEE EEE EEE EER 001

"YW ryooN) uVvIVITY noimajopbvyy, NWILIN IOS ‘viuhuny NWI VIISWOMY nv7VNI4Y) KUVI7AAM NING AMR WL,

y

DMT TPT MEL MY SAS OMTITM |

“3ed

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 333
strata which testify to much the same habits of life. Yet Aurignacian
man is often represented as a new-comer, of a different species from
that of the Neanderthaler, and mentally vastly superior.
Clothing—About the clothing of Neanderthal man nothing is
known directly, as is also the case with Acheulian and Aurignacian
man. But the cooling climate, on the one hand, with the much
increased numbers of tools with a cutting-edge and especially of
scrapers that occur in the Mousterian and later deposits, on the other
hand, indicate extensive preparation of the skins of animals, to be
used, doubtless for clothing and bedding. No sudden change in this
connection is observable from the Acheulian to the Mousterian or
from the Mousterian to the Aurignacian period.
Food.—Neanderthal man was chiefly a hunter and trapper of the
larger mammals of his time. He knew fire, but knew not domestication
of animals, or agriculture. He compared in these respects with the

preceding and following man as follows:

FOOD, AND HABITS RELATING

Acheulian man

Chiefly a hunter and trap-
per.

Fisher (?).

Use of molluscs—no trace
yet.

Knew fire.

Preparation of food:
probably by roasting on
fire or coals—no trace
of any vessels for boil-
ing.

No agriculture.

No domestication of ani-
mals.

Bones broken for brains
and marrow.

Bones and refuse accumu-
lations in inhabited
caves, and in front of
them.

No trace of storage of
food.

Pictorial representation
of hunted animals—not
known.

Mousterian man

THERETO

Aurignacian man

Chiefly a hunter
probably trapper.

Fisher (probably).

Use of molluscs (?).

Knew fire.

Preparation of food:
probably by roasting on
fire or coals—no trace
of any vessels for boil-
ing.

No agriculture.

No domestication of ani-
mals (?).

Bones broken for brains
and marrow.

Bones and refuse accumu-
lations in inhabited
caves and in front of
them.

No trace of storage of
food.

Pictorial representation
of hunted animals—
none known yet posi-
tively.

and |

Chiefly a hunter and trap-
per.
Fisher.

Use of molluscs.

Knew fire.

Preparation of food:
probably by roasting on
fire or coals—no trace
of any vessels for boil-
ing,

No agriculture.

No domestication of ani-
mals (?).

Bones broken for brains
and marrow.

Bones and refuse accumu-
lations in inhabited
caves and in front of
them.

No trace of storage of
food.

Pictorial representation
of hunted animals—
gradual development
from crude beginnings.

334 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Evidently, in food and food habits, as in housing, Mousterian man
was quite like both the Acheulian man that preceded him, and the
Homo sapiens that followed.

Tools —The bulk of the Mousterian period is characterized by a
definite phase of stone industry, but so are all the periods before and
after it. It has no sudden beginning. It uses flint where this can
be had, as do all the other industries ; where flint is absent or scarce,
it employs quartzite and other stones. The use of bone begins in the
Mousterian, to increase henceforward. The period shows three stages
of cultural evolution, the lower, middle, and upper, as do also later
the Aurignacian and the Magdalenian periods. The implements range
from crude to beautifully made (as at La Ferrassie, La Quina,
Le Moustier, Jersey, Sergeac) ; the technique is partly different from,
but in general not inferior to, either the late Acheulian or the earlier
Aurignacian; and there are indications that there was no general
sudden ending of the culture.

On the whole the Mousterian industry, though characteristic, does
not provide evidence of anything wholly new and strange, intercalated
between the Acheulian and the Aurignacian, beginning abruptly by
displacing the former or ending suddenly through displacement by
the latter. There is much in fact at either end that appears to be,
more or less, of a transitional nature.

Thus, even in H. F. Osborn’s opinion (Obermaier, 1924, p. x), the
Mousterian “constitutes a further evolution of the two earlier —
cultures ’—the Chellean and the Acheulian. At Ehringsdorf, in the
lower travertine, “the technique of the chipping is Acheulian, but
the forms are largely Mousterian” (MacCurdy, Human Origins,
1924, vol. 2, p. 392). According to Burkitt (Prehistory, 1921, p. 27),
: . workers in Dordogne find a great difficulty in distinguishing
between Upper Acheulian beds and Lower Mousterian beds. In fact,
M. Peyrony often only solves the problem by the absence or presence
of reindeer.” And quotations of similar import could be multiplied.
As to the upper limits—at the Cotte de Ste. Brelade, Jersey, excavated
by Nicolle, Sinel, and Marett, the upper (fifth) layer gave graceful
implements “that may be either upper Mousterian or Aurignacian ”
(Burkitt). At Le Moustier, the type-station of the Mousterian in-
dustry, the upper rock-shelter showed eight layers, “the top one
being Aurignacian, the second transitional (Audi), and the rest
Mousterian, except the seventh which was sterile.” The lower rock-
shelter was even more instructive. The section from top to base was:
6. Lower Aurignacian; 5. Transitional (Audi); 4. Typical Mous-

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 335

terian; 3. Mousterian with Audi forms and few coups-de-poing; 2.
Mousterian with some Audi forms and many coups-de-poing; 1.
Some Audi forms, no coups-de-poing (Burkitt, 1921, p. 93). But
perhaps the best comprehensive statement on this subject is that of
MacCurdy, one of the oldest and most cautious students of prehistory.
In his Human Origins, 1924, vol. 1, pp. 161-2, we read: “ In certain
French stations, a transition from the Mousterian to the Lower Aurig-
nacian occurs, as for example, at Le Moustier (Dordogne), La
Verriére (Gironde), and especially at the rock-shelter of Audi in the
village of Les Eyzies. In comparison with Mousterian points, those
of Audi are more slender and are slightly recurved. The convex
margin is rendered blunt by retouching so as not to injure the hand
‘ while using the opposite margin for cutting or other purposes. Such
a tool, as much a knife, or scraper, as a point, bridges the gap between
the Mousterian point or double scraper and the Lower Aurignacian
blades of the Chatelperron type. At Audi it is associated with small
cleavers and disks, scrapers, spoke-shaves, asymmetric points, and
scratchers. The Grotte des Fées at Chatelperron, though distinctly
Aurignacian, is so closely related to the transition stage that the
chronologic difference must be small. An intermediate stage is recog-
nizable at La Ferrassie (Dordogne).”

The Audi culture is still somewhat controversial, Abbé Breuil (re-
cent letter to the writer) regarding it as “ degenerate Mousterian.”
Notwithstanding this, the impression is growing that the more the
initial and the terminal stages of the Mousterian industry are becom-
ing known, together with the late Acheulian and the earliest Aurig-
nacian, the less abrupt and striking appear their differences and the
greater grows the feeling that they are not absolutely separated. Some
interesting things in this connection have been encountered at Spy
as well as at Krapina, and others are now being gathered by Absolon
in Moravia.

SEQUENCE OF CULTURE

The sponsors of the view that Aurignacian man was a man of
different and superior species to the man of the Mousterian period,
conceive him generally as an invader who came from somewhere
outside the Neanderthal area, overwhelmed the established less
capable species, brought about its rapid annihilation, and replaced
it wholly, over all the great domain over which it once extended.
These ideas, however, are never expressed very clearly, and little
thought is given to the incongruities they involve.

28

330 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

They would imply, first of all, the invasion of Europe during the
height of the last glaciation. This is not in harmony with the main laws
of human and biological spread, namely: Movement in the direction
of least resistance, and movement in the direction of better material
prospects, which latter are, first of all, climate and food. In the entire
history of Europe, free movements of men have tended always toward
“a place in the sun” and away from the cold.

Such views postulate, next, relatively large numbers of the new-
comers to suffice for the vast task. But such large numbers would
necessarily mean somewhere near a still larger mother-population, and
there is no trace, either in western Asia or northern Africa, the only
regions from which such invasions at those times would have been
practicable, of any such great Aurignacian population. Moreover
even in those parts everywhere the Aurignacian follows upon the
Mousterian.

It is a very serious question whether in paleolithic times, when man
was without tamed animals, without stocks of non-perishable food,
dependent wholly on hunting without yet a bow and arrow, and in
the imperfect social organization of that time, any larger armed
invasion would have been feasible. A peaceful extension, on the other
hand, would not lead to the annihilation or expulsion of the invaded
population, but to a greater or lesser amalgamation with the native
stock. A complete displacement of an extensive group by any agency
is difficult to conceive, and there would remain to be explained the
fate of the displaced people.

It stands to reason that these great difficulties would have to be
satisfactorily explained away before there could be a general in-
telligent acceptance of an Aurignacian invasion with Mousterian
extinction.

Finally, the coming of a distinct and superior species of people
ought to have left a very tangible record on the sequence and nature
of the cultural levels of the two stocks.

As to sequence, 257 of the better-known and recorded Mousterian
sites (as recorded by MacCurdy) show, on analysis, the conditions
given in the table on page 337.

The Mousterian culture, in nearly one-half of its stations in the
open, follows, it is seen, direct upon the Acheulian ; and the Aurigna-
cian, in very nearly one-half of the rock-shelters and.caves, and in
not far from one-third of the stations in the open, follows upon the
Mousterian. It would seem that these figures speak for a rather
close relation of these peoples in their habits, and that particularly

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 337

between the Mousterians and Aurignacians—who should represent
two different species of man, one greatly superior to the other.

An objection may here be raised to the effect that the number of
available, and especially of the more suitable, caves was limited and,
therefore, the same caves that once served the Neanderthalers had to
be used also by the shelter-needing Aurignacians ; but this point is
invalidated by the showing of the Solutreans and Magdalenians, who
were even more cave-dwellers than the Aurignacians, yet are found
collectively in less than one-fourth of the Mousterian caves. Another
point is, that it is not always the lower or earliest Aurignacian that

SEQUENCE OF INDUSTRIES

oe Open Stations Rock-Shelters and Caves
Mousterian Topped by: No. Per cent No. Per cent
(Noveullture))js25)) 22506 ck «5: (34) (55-7) (15) (18.9)
INcOUEMIC ener cei ceoc 4 6.6 4 Fen
Magdalenian..........----- 3 4.9 9 11.4
Solutrean. ais s5 PAlvossinters 2 Bg 10 127
SIPAICOMEMIC Sass wees 2 I 1.6 2 2.5
AIISMACIAT ta eeiy-e -yi9) = 17 27.9 39 49.4
(61) ae (79)
Mousterian =
(54) ee (63)
Mousterian Reposing on:
NGheUlian ere ear aie : 24 44.4 4 6.3
(Clits Se doke seacweoseace 5 9.4 3 4.8
(Notculture) sess ets eke (25) (46.3) (56) (88.9)

ip SSS ee Allin 6, ee es

follows upon the Mousterian. But such a discord is common to all
the periods. It may mean a discontinuity, and may also mean a
persistence of any given culture in some localities longer than in
others. In both cases, however, it would speak against a sudden
general displacement of one culture.

There is evidently much here, once more, to be explained by those
who conceive of Aurignacian man as very distinct from, and superior
to, the Mousterian, and as having suddenly replaced the latter.

ART

The Aurignacian period does not appear to come in full-fledged,
as is sometimes taken for granted, but to develop locally, both in
industry and art, from humbler beginnings (Breuil, Burkitt, Evans,

338 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

MacCurdy, et al.). Also there seems to be more difference in these
respects between the lower and the middle Aurignacian than there
is between the lower Aurignacian and the upper Mousterian with the
Audi and the Chatelperron stages.

It may, moreover, be unjust to assume that Mousterian man was
devoid of art-sense. He may not have left any designs in caves
(though that is not perhaps certain), but the same is true of the
bulk of the Neolithic and many other early, as well as later, popula-
tions. How many such designs, or other permanent forms of art,
for instance, have been left by the post-Neanderthal man of England,
or Belgium, or Germany, Moravia, Poland, or Russia? How many
have been left more recently by such highly artistic people as the
Slovaks and the peoples of the Carpathians and the Balkans? And
how many cave designs comparable to those of southern France and
northern Spain do we find in the whole continent of America, with
all its able and highly artistic population, a large part of which—
the Lagoa Santa-Algonkin type—may even be blood-related to the late
Aurignacians ? On the other hand, practically a replica of the European
cave-art was produced by the lowly Bushmen of South Africa, who
certainly were no superior race or species.

That the Mousterians may not have been lacking in artistic sense
is indicated by some of their beautiful implements from La Quina
and other stations ; by the beautiful topaz and then by a crystal cleaver
found in 1925-6 by the American school at Sergeac ; by the decorated
bone fragment from La Ferrassie ; and possibly by the pierres-figures
(ce. g., Roellecourt, Dharvent), and used chunks of manganese oxide,
found occasionally in the Mousterian deposits (e. g., La Quina, Henri
Martin). Sir Arthur Evans tells us that, “ When we turn to the
most striking features of this whole cultural phase, the primeval arts
of sculpture, engraving, and painting, we see a gradual upgrowth and
unbroken tradition. From mere outline-figures and simple two-
legged profiles of animals we are led on step by step to the full
freedom of the Magdalenian artists ”’ (‘‘ New Archaeological Lights on
the Origins of Civilization in Europe,” by Sir Arthur Evans, Science,
1916, n. s. Vol. 44, No. 1134, p. 406). MacCurdy is even more direct :
“ The inception, development, and decay of Quaternary art all took
place during the upper paleolithic period. The beginnings of sculp-
ture, engraving and fresco are traceable to the Aurignacian epoch ”
(MacCurdy, Human Origins, Vol. 1, p. 155). And there are some
very good words of appreciation of the abilities of Mousterian man in
Sir Arthur Keith’s recent two volumes (The Antiquity of Man, 1925,

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 339

Vol. 1, p. 223). Thus archeology fails also, as did paleontology and
geology, in isolating Neanderthal man, and in separating him from
the succeeding forms of humanity.

THE SKELETAL REMAINS

The crucial part of the whole question of Neanderthal man is, how-
ever, that of the evidence of the skeletal material, for it is essentially
upon this that the separateness and discontinuance of the Neanderthal
type of man has been based. It would probably be easy to harmonize
all the rest of the differences between Neanderthal and later man with
the idea of a simple evolution and transmission, were it not for the
obstacle of the Neanderthal man’s skulls and bones. These impress
one by such marked differences from those of any later man, that a
bridging over of the gap has, to many, seemed impossible.

It will be well in this connection to contrast the Neanderthal re-
mains with those from the Acheulian on one side, and those from the
Aurignacian and the following periods on the other. The results are
unexpected. There is nothing authentic from Acheulian times; and
there is less, in the number of finds, from the Aurignacian than there
is from the Mousterian period. Moreover, what there is from the
Aurignacian is found, on consulting the details of the discoveries,
to be essentially middle and upper, rather than the most needed early
Aurignacian. The data leave a strong impression that the material,
and especially that from the earlier portion of the Aurignacian period,
is still far from sufficient for drawing from it any far-reaching
deductions.

Taking the Neanderthal remains by themselves, we find that, not-
withstanding their defects, they constitute a very respectable array
of precious material. Let us see what it teaches. If we placed all
this material on a table before us, ranged by the date of discovery,
we should see a remarkable assembly of more or less deficient or
fragmentary skulls, jaws, and bones, with a good number of loose
teeth, the specimens differing widely in color, weight, state of
petrifaction, and in principal morphological characters. We should
be struck by the prevailing aspect of age and somatological inferiority
of the material, but the arrangement would soon prove unsatisfactory
and we should proceed to another. As there is not enough for a

“Tn size of brain Neanderthal man was not a low form. His skill as a flint-
artisan shows that his abilities were not of a low order. He had fire at his com-
mand, he buried his dead, he had a distinctive and highly evolved form of cul-
ture—Neanderthal man was certainly not a dawn form of humanity.”

340 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

geographical subdivision, it would be logical to try next an arrange-
ment of the specimens by their antiquity, from the oldest to the latest.
The indications are that the Mousterian period was a long one, and
of three cultural stages—the inferior, middle, and superior. We
should like, therefore, at least to arrange our material by these stages.

But we strike at once great difficulties. The very type-specimen
of the lot, the Neanderthal skeleton, lacks direct chronological identi-
fication. There were neither animal nor industrial remains with it,
or, if there were, they were not saved. Everything indicates that it
is very old: physically it is in every one of its parts a prototype of
Mousterian man; chronologically it may be even pre-Mousterian.
Similar and other difficulties confront us in the case of the first
Gibraltar skull and the Bafolas jaw, the important Krapina remains,
and the Ehringsdorf jaws; and it is not certain just where within the
period to place most of the remaining specimens. The final conclusion
is that, if the eyes are shut to the somatological characters of the re-
mains, a satisfactory chronological grading of them becomes very
difficult and uncertain.

The state of preservation or petrifaction of the remains is a
question of local geophysics and geochemistry, and therefore incapable
of giving any fair basis for classification. Thus there remain only
the somatological characteristics of the skulls and bones themselves,
and the endeavor to arrange them on this basis proves of much interest.

The general physical characters of the Neanderthal race have been
more or less summed up by a number of eminent anatomists and
anthropologists, including especially Schwalbe, Boule, Keith, and
Sollas. The main features of the average Neanderthaler are therefore
fairly well known. They include a moderate stature, heavy build, and
a good-sized, rather thick, oblong skull, with pronounced supraorbital
torus, low forehead, low vault, protruding occiput, large, full upper
maxilla, large nose, large teeth and a large, more or less heavy lower
jaw with receding chin. To which may be added stout bones of the
skeleton, particularly the ribs and the bones of the lower part of the
body, femora and tibiae with heavy articular extremities, the tibia
relatively short and with head more than now inclined backward, a
peculiar astragalus, and a variety of secondary primitive features.
To this generalized type some of the specimens conform, it is soon
seen, much more than others. It is realized that the general conception
of the type has been built up essentially on the Neanderthal, Spy
No. 1, the La Chapelle and the adult La Quina skulls and skeletons,
but that from this generalization there are many aberrations.

WHOLE VOL, SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 341

An arrangement of the specimens in morphological order, beginning
with those that show the most primitive or old features and advancing
gradually towards more modern standards, is now in order, and the re-
sults are very striking. The first strong impression is that, with all the
seeming riches, there is still not nearly enough material for satis-
factory grading. The next appreciation is that it is hard to grade
whole lots, but that it is necessary to grade the skulls, jaws, teeth,
and bones separately. In one and the same skeleton are found parts
and features that are very primitive and far away from man’s later
types, with parts and features-that are practically modern; and every
skeleton is found to differ in these respects. Here is facing us,
evidently, a very noteworthy example of morphological instability,
instability, plainly, of evolutionary nature, leading from old forms
to more modern.

The Neanderthal skull and skeleton proper, in all the parts that
have been saved, is found to stand at the base of the series. It lacks,
regrettably, the lower jaw and the teeth, as well as the sternum, most
of the scapulae, and the ribs, vertebrae, sacrum, the leg, the hand and
the foot bones. Of what is present, the farthest from modern type
is the skull, the next being the thigh bones; the nearest to modern
forms, though still somewhat distinct, are the bones of the upper
extremity. The closest in general to the Neanderthal skeleton is
Spy No. 1, La Chapelle, and apparently the Le Moustier youth. But
Spy No. 1 has almost primitive-modern jaws with practically modern
teeth ; the La Chapelle shows high cranial capacity, an “ ultra-human ”
nose, and a strongly developed nasal spine ; the Le Moustier skull has
a higher vault and forehead, with less protrusion of the occiput ; while
the bones of the upper extremity in all three approach closely to the
modern types. Thus, even in these most nearly related four specimens,
there is in evidence a considerable variability, with more or less ad-
vance in various parts in the direction of later man.

These facts deserve, undoubtedly, earnest consideration. But there
is much more to be learned. Taking the remainder of the skulls, jaws,
and bones attributed to the Neanderthal man, it is seen that both the
variability and the number of characters that tend in the direction of
later man increase considerably. The Krapina series, by itself, is
probably more variable from the evolutionary point of view than
would be any similar series from one locality at the present. This is
true in respect to the cranial form, the development of the forehead,
the jaws, the teeth, and that of some of the bones of the skeleton.
The additional Neanderthal remains manifest signs of similar insta-

342 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

bility of type and of tendencies of an evolutionary nature, this being
particularly true of Spy No. 2, and of the recently discovered Galilee
and Ehringsdorf crania. In his excellent description of the Galilee
specimen, Sir Arthur Keith has shown that it has a fair forehead
with “ no suggestion in the vaulting of its frontal bone that the roof
of the skull was low and flat, as is usual in Neanderthal skulls.” And
in his fine reports on the Ehringsdorf (1925, 1927) cranium, F. Wei-
denreich shows us a specimen with even better developed frontal
region, and a vault of good height.

But the most instructive, though most neglected, specimens in this
connection are the crania of Spy, Belgium. Here the student is
confronted with a find in the same terrace and deposits, at the same
level, and but 6 feet apart, of two adult male skeletons from the
later Mousterian time. One of these skeletons, No. 1, has a skull
the vault of which is like a replica of that of the Neanderthal cranium,
with typically Neanderthal bones of the skeleton. But this same skull
is associated with upper and lower jaw and teeth that may be dupli-
cated today among the lower races. And the skull of the second
skeleton is so superior in size, shape, height of the vault, and height
of the forehead, to No. 1, that the morphological distance between the
two is materially greater than that between No, 2 and some of the
Aurignacian crania, such as the Most (Brux) or Brno No. 1 (Brunn)
specimens.

About the most distinguishing and important marks of difference
of the typical Neanderthaler from later man are, we may repeat, the
lowness of his head, with low receding forehead and a peculiay pro-
truding occiput ; a heavy, supraorbital torus; a heavy, chinless jaw ;
and, as determined from intracranial casts, a low type of brain. It
will be well to see how these characters stand the light of our present
knowledge. Lowness of the vault, low and receding forehead, and
projecting occiput, all show in the series of the Neanderthal skulls
known today a large range of gradation, the lower limits of which
are well below, but the upper grades of which are well within, the
range of variation of the same characters in later, and even present,
man. There exists today a whole great strain of humanity, extending
from Mongolia deep into America, which is characterized by low
vault of the skull (see Cat. Crania, U. S. Nat. Mus., Nos. 1 and 2;
also Bull. 33, Bur. Amer. Ethnol.). Low foreheads are frequent in
prehistoric America (Bull. 33, Bur. Amer. Ethnol., and Proc. U. S.
Nat. Mus., Vol. 35, pp. 171-75, 1908). The pronounced Neanderthal
occiput, such as shown by the La Chapelle, La Quina and La Ferrassie

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 88

Skulls of Most (Briix), upper; Podkoumok, middle; and Brno (Briinn)
No. 1, lower: showing transitional features. (Hrdliéka.)

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 89

Transitional form: Lower jaw of an Australian woman. (Skull No. 331,347.
U.S. National Museum. )

(‘uinosnyy [euoneN
‘SQ ‘€Zo€hz ‘oN uaudedS) *(eYQNPIH) edA} proyey}sopuvou we Surmoys ‘(quod01) [NYS uvipuy uesaq V

06 “Id ‘€8 “10A SNOILOAT1I00 SNOANVTIZOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 343

skulls, would be difficult to fully match in later man; but on the one
hand the character is not present or marked in all the Neanderthalers,
while on the other there are decided approximations to it among recent
skulls.

A heavy supraorbital torus, such as is common to the Neanderthal
skulls, is not found in later man; but not all the Neanderthalers had
the torus equally developed (e. g., Gibraltar), and, as has been pointed
out by Huxley, Sergi, Stolyhwo, the author and others there are later
male skulls in which there is a marked approach to the torus. A whole
series of specimens may be mentioned (Podkoumok, Brix, Brno
No. 1, Predmost, Obercassel, Alcolea, Djebel-Fartas, two neolithic
skulls at Warsaw, the neolithic miner from Strépy at Brussels, etc.)
in which the feature is of a distinctly transitional character. More-
over, it is well known that, first, the torus is essentially a sexual
(male) and adult feature ; second, that a reduction of such characters
is easier than that of those which are more deeply rooted ; and third,
that in the civilized man of today a continuance of such reduction
is still perceptible. There is less difference in this respect between the
Neanderthal and the skulls just’ mentioned than there is between
these and the mean development of the ridges in the highly cultured
man—or, for that matter, the ordinary African negro—of the present.

Heavy, large, and receding lower jaws, such as the La Chapelle
and some of the Krapina specimens, are among the most striking
characters of Neanderthal man. Jaws such as these are not known
in later skulls. But with them we have within the Neanderthal group
itself specimens very much more advanced morphologically toward
the present human type, such as Spy No. 1, La Quina (1912), and
the La Ferrassie. Even at Krapina itself some of the jaws are of
a less primitive type than others. Let us add to this the various huge,
nearly chinless, and even receding jaws that occur now and then in
the Australian, Melanesian, Mongolian, American Eskimo, and
Indian, and the picture loses much of its discontinuity. Much the
same may be said also of the teeth. Teeth of primitive form—incisors,
canines (dents du chien), molars—occur to this day (see Am. J. Phys.
Anthrop., 1922-24), while practically modern teeth may already be
observed in Spy No. 1, and more or less also in other jaws of the
Neanderthal group.

As to the bones of the skeleton, the conditions are quite as signifi-
cant as those of the jaws and teeth. There are scales of gradation
from forms that stand considerably apart from those of later man
(as in Neanderthal, Spy, La Chapelle, Le Moustier) to forms that

344 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

approach to, or merge with, the modern (many parts of the Krapina,
La Ferrassie, La Quina skeletons). To which may be added a word
about the brain. .

The size and variation of the Neanderthal brain are comparable
with those of the Aurignacian, and even the present primitive man.
The idea that the Aurignacians were exceptional in this respect 1s,
if due regard be given to the factor of stature, erroneous. The
surface conformation of the brain, as shown by intracranial casts,
is of a low type in the Gibraltar, La Chapelle, and other specimens.
But this does not hold true of the Weimar or the Galilee brain. The
intracranial cast of the Galilee skull shows, in the words of Sir Arthur
Keith, that “in its mass and its markings it has reached at least to
the level attained by individuals in living races—such as that repre-
sented today by the aborigines of Australia” (Report on the Galilee
Skull, p. 106). And the brain of Spy No. 2, as well as that of the
Gibraltar child, were both large and well formed.

RECAPITULATION

In relation to what perhaps was its most important period, the .
Mousterian, prehistory is found to have reached a position approaching
dogmatism. But this has only led into a blind alley, from which so
far there has been found no exit, notwithstanding much speculation.
It has been decided, on the weight of a limited initial group of speci-
mens, that Neanderthal man was a man of a different species; that
he may possibly have originated from his European predecessors, but
that, after a long period of existence and after having spread far
and wide, he perished abruptly and completely, without leaving any
progeny, on the approach of a superior species, the Homo sapiens.

This H. sapiens has been assumed to have come from elsewhere,
possibly from Africa or Asia; he was, somehow, cryptically, coeval
from far back with the pre-Neanderthaler and the Neanderthaler,
eventually to assert himself suddenly and completely, to take over the
human burden. He comes on the stage in body and brain largely
as man is today, and has, since the beginning of the Aurignacian,
undergone but slight alteration.

A whole line of the foremost workers in prehistory are seen to have
become identified with these notions, which obliges every student to
give them earnest and respectful attention. But no notion or dogma
can possibly reach the status of a fact before it has been proven to
be such through full demonstration. Owing to scarcity of material,
such demonstration has hitherto in this case been impossible ; but the

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 345

more the material remains of early man accumulate and are better
understood, the more it is sensed by the fresh students of the question
that the whole Neanderthal question is in need of a revision.

If the given assumptions are true, then we are confronted by some
strange major phenomena, viz., a long double line of human evolution,
either in near-by or the same territories ; a sudden extinction of one
of the lines; and evolutionary sluggishness or pause in the other.
The consideration of these hypotheses brings us into a maze of
difficulties and contradictions. They lead to an outright polygeny—
which is undemonstrable and improbable; or they concede the evolu-
tion of H. sapiens from the same old stock that gave also H. neander-
thalensis, but deny the possibility of such evolution from Neanderthal
man later on; they give us H. sapiens, without showing why, or how,
and where he developed his superior make-up, and imply that, while
he evidently developed much more rapidly at first to reach the status
of H. sapiens, he then slackened greatly to remain, from the beginning
of the post-glacial to this day, at nearly the same evolutional level.

They place H. sapiens in Africa or Asia, without troubling to offer
the evidence of his ancient dominion in those regions. Or, if he lived
in Europe, coexisting with the Neanderthaler, where are his remains,
and why did he not prevail sooner over his inferior cousin? His
traces, it will be recalled, never, in Europe or elsewhere, precede
or coexist with, but always follow, the Mousterian. And where are
there any other examples of a sudden, complete extinction of a whole
large group of humanity; or of any wholesale Aurignacian conquest ;
or of any superior mentality of the early Aurignacians? And where
are, in fact, in anything like a sufficient number, the undoubted skeletal
remains of the early Aurignacians that could be used for comparison ?
Why did they, a new, superior species, strong and able enough to
completely do away with the Neanderthaler, take over the poor
Neanderthaler’s caves and sites, and live in them exactly, except for
technical differences in stone-chipping, as did their crude prede-
cessors? And how shall we explain the anomalous fact of an invasion
during the last ice encroachment, an unfavorable period, when man
might logically be expected to move from, rather than into, such a
territory ?

Valid answers to these and other questions are as yet impossible.
There is a need of much further exploration ; of much further good
fortune in locating additional skeletal remains of all periods, but
particularly of the latest Mousterian and earliest Aurignacian; and
of a new generation of able, critical workers, well equipped, and
unhampered by tradition.

346 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

The indications, for the present, seem however to be the following:

(1) The Penck-Briickner conception of the Ice Age, as composed
of four distinct periods of glaciation with three well-marked inter-
glacial periods, is hard to harmonize with either the paleontological or
the human evidence. Both of these tend to show rather but one main
interglacial interval, from which there is a gradual progression to-
wards an irregular cold period, after which follows an irregular post-
glacial. There is no marked faunal reaction that would correspond
to the assumed third (Riss-Wiirm) full, warm interglacial. There is
evident no substantial change, such as would necessarily be brought
about by a marked alteration in climate, in man’s housing and living
habits from the middle Mousterian to the Magdalenian cultural
periods.

(2) The Mousterian or Neanderthal phase of man begins appar-
ently towards the end of the warm main interglacial. It is the period
of the gradual cooling preceding the last main ice invasion, and the
Neanderthal man reaches to, and probably somewhat beyond, the
culmination of this invasion. If there had been two general ice periods
separated by a substantial warm interglacial (the 3rd), then it would
be necessary either to extend the existence of the Neanderthalers
over the whole interglacial and much of the 3rd glacial—for which
neither archeology nor paleontology affords any substantiation ; or
the Acheulian man, who followed the Chellean sometime after the
middle of the main (Penck’s 2nd) interglacial, would have to be
extended over the whole 3rd glaciation and a large portion of the
3rd interglacial
here of adjustments of views between geology and prehistory.

(3) During his existence the Neanderthal man is brought face
to face with great changes of environment. He is gradually con-
fronted with harder winters, which demand more shelter, more cloth-
ing, more food, more fire, and storage of provisions; there are
changes in the fauna which call for new adaptations and develop-
ments in hunting; and there are growing discomforts with, it may be
assumed, increasing respiratory and other diseases, that call for new
efforts and seriously hinder the growth of the population.

which is impossible. There is plainly a great need

(4) Such a major change in the principal environmental factors
must inevitably have brought about, on the one hand, greater mental
as well as physical exertion, and on the other hand an intensification
of natural selection, with the survival of only the more, and perishing
of the less, fit. But greater sustained mental and physical exertion,

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 347

where not over the normal limits, leads inevitably towards greater
efficiency attended by further bodily and mental development, which,
with the simultaneous elimination of the weak and less fit, are the
very essentials of progressive evolution. Strong evidence that a
relatively rapid, progressive change, both mental and physical, was
actually taking place during the Neanderthal period, is furnished by
the great variability of the skeletal remains from this time.

(5) Such evolution with attendant mutations would certainly differ
from region to region, as the sum of the factors affecting man differed,
reaching a more advanced grade where the conditions in general
proved the most favorable ; while to many of the less favored groups
disease, famine, and warfare would bring extinction. All these
agencies are known to science today; only they acted with more
freedom of old when social organization and mutual aid were at a
low level.

(6) With these processes it is conceivable, if not inevitable, that,
towards the height of the glacial invasion, the population decreased
in numbers, and that the most fit or able-to-cope-with-the-conditions
group or groups eventually alone survived, to carry on. Here seems
to be a relatively simple, natural explanation of the progressive evo-
lution of the Neanderthal man, and such evolution would inevitably
carry his most advanced forms to those of primitive Aurignacian and
H. sapiens—such H. sapiens as may to this day be seen in the
Australian.

(7) The physical differences observable between Neanderthal and
later man are essentially those of two categories, namely: (1) Re-
duction in musculature—that of the jaws as well as that of the body—
with consequent changes in the teeth, jaws, face, and vault of the
skull; and (2) Changes in the supraorbital torus, of the order known
well to morphology as progressive infantilism. For both these cate-
gories of changes there are later parallelisms. Further reduction of
teeth, jaws, and the facial bones has taken place since Magdalenian
times, and is now going on in more highly civilized man of whatever
racial derivation; while evolutionary “infantilism,” or lesser de-
velopment of some of the pronounced sex and age modifications, is
commonly accepted as an explanation of the differences of the negrillo
from the negro, and for the greater average reduction of the supra-
orbital ridges in the negro than in the whites. It would be illogical
to deny the probable instrumentality of these agencies in men of an
earlier period.

348 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

(8) Anthropology is thus confronted with the following condi-
tions:

Neanderthal man is of a primitive physique, appears to have ended
by a sudden and complete extinction, and to have been replaced by
H. sapiens.

But there has been discovered no previous home of this H. sapiens
outside of that of the Neanderthal man, nor any remains whatsoever
of his ancestors; and, if he coexisted with Neanderthal man in the
same territory, it is impossible to understand why he did not prevail
sooner, or why he did not mix, or, above all, why he left no cultural
and other remains of his existence in this region.

On the other hand, the Neanderthal man is now known to show
wide morphological variation, leading in the direction of later man;
and there are individuals among later men, even to this day, who show
transitional features reminiscent of the Neanderthalers. This might
be explained by an original common parentage of the two strains;
or by an intermixture of the Neanderthal stock with the succeeding
H. sapiens ; or most naturally, it would seem, by a development, evo-
lution, of the former into the latter.

(9) A critical examination of the known facts does not favor the
assumption of a far-back common parentage and early Quaternary
separation of H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens, for lack of cultural
evidence of H. sapiens and other great difficulties.

(10) A critical consideration of the question is equally unable to
favor a separate origin of the two stocks with subsequent hybridiza-
tion, for again there is no evidence of the pre-Aurignacian where-
abouts and the doings of H. sapiens, there is no trace of his ancestry,
-and knowing his and his descendants’ characteristics, it is impossible,
as said already by Karl Pearson, to conceive his origin without a
Neanderthal-like stage of development.

(11) There remains but the third alternative—which is the evolu-
tion of the Neanderthaler into later man. This proposition is not yet
capable of fully conclusive demonstration. There is not yet enough
material to definitely decide it. But the thoroughly sifted indications
appear to the writer to favor this assumption.

(12) The great current need of prehistory, it may be accentuated
once again, is more exploration and more good fortune in discoveries.
Meanwhile there appears to be less justification for the conception of

a Neanderthal species than there is for that of a Neanderthal phase
of Man.

349

HRDLICKA

REMAINS OF EARLY MAN

SKELETAL

WHOLE VOL.

‘(BYOPIH) JYSIA oWo1}xX9 oy} UO UMOYS MAIA JY} SIOARJ BDUBPIAI quoso1d

‘uel Jo}e] pu Jolj1eo YPM JeYy}opuraNy ay} JO uoT}eIoI dtjauaso]Ayd 94} 0} se suo1}da0u09 sno1ieA—Of “SI

smdowyywv97 437d

OWL

TICUIVYTUTPUVIN vate

Over 0 FI
5 OMOK

: alesis

“savud

SH SWITIVE

350 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Tue TEETH oF Earty Man’

During the summer of 1923 and of 1927, the writer was able to
revisit the various European Institutions in which the more valuable
skeletal remains of early man and fossil European apes are preserved,
and the occasions were utilized for careful reexamination and remea-
surement of the teeth of these remains, more particularly of the lower
‘molars, new data on which have become of great importance since the
recent work on the Piltdown jaw.

Measurements of the teeth of most of the remains of early man
and higher apes in Europe have been made and published before,
some by the present writer. But they were made by almost as many
different methods and instruments as individuals. Measurements of
teeth are, it is well known, in themselves extraordinarily difficult, in
addition to which there is no definite agreement as yet as to the
exact points from which to measure, or the precise manner of measur-
ing. As a result hardly any two separate measurements of the same
teeth, even by the same observer, give absolutely the same values,
and occasionally the differences are so marked that the student loses
confidence in the records. Nor is he helped by the casts of the various
specimens, for due to imperfections of technique and changes in
plaster these generally give results on which one can place no great
reliance.

Yet there is a growing evidence that accurate measurements of the
teeth and particularly of the lower molars will be of signal value in
the studies of human evolution and variation. The teeth have changed
with time in their absolute as well as in their relative dimensions,
and they are evidently still changing. There is therefore an urgent
need of uniform data on all the important early material in this
line, data that could safely be used by every worker as basis for
comparison.

To obtain such data as far as possible has been the writer’s aim for
years; but the effort would have been quite useless without the
formulation beforehand of a definite, uniform method of measure-
ment, and such a method was developed, as has already been de-

*See Hrdlicka, A., New Data on the Teeth of Early Man and Certain Fossil
European Apes. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 7, No. 1, 1924. The author
desires also in this place to call attention to the very good work on fossil teeth
of both man and apes carried on by William K. Gregory, Milo Hellman, and
Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. (see bibliography ).

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 351

scribed in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. The
greatest former difficulty with measurements of teeth, particularly
the molars, was that while some of the teeth were loose, others were
still in position in the jaws. Now on a loose molar, particularly one
from the lower jaw, it is relatively easy to secure the maximum length
and breadth as well as other dimensions ; but on the same tooth when
in position and close contact with the neighboring teeth, accurate
measurement of the maximum length is often difficult if not im-
possible. A few trials in this direction will soon convince the student
of this fact. The difficulties are due to the frequently irregular contour
of the teeth and to the greater or lesser bulging of the enamel below,
the upper border of the crown, which cannot be reached by the
instrument when the teeth are in close apposition. If we add to this
the fact that the maximum lengths of the three molars measured
separately give, in many instances, a greater total length than that
of the three teeth measured as a whole, the desirability of seeking
the maximum length of the crown becomes questionable.

The method arrived at by the writer was to measure the length
of the molars along their median antero-posterior axis, in other words
along the middle of the crown, from articulation (or contact) to
articulation if the tooth is still in the jaw, or from the middle of the
upper border of the articular facet anteriorly to a similar point of
a similar facet posteriorly, if the teeth are loose. Even this method
encounters some difficulties due to occasional notching of the anterior
border of the tooth, or an absence or unusual position of the facets,
but on the whole it has proved easier and more satisfactory than the
measurement of length maximum. With the breadth there are no
such difficulties. All observers, it seems, take the greatest breadth
of the tooth, and the measurement may be safely defined as the
greatest breadth of the crown at right angles to the length as well
as to the vertical (mid-crown-mid-root) diameter of the tooth.

The principles of the method having been settled, the next point
was that of instruments. It was soon seen that the ordinary compas
d’épaisseur, though accurate enough for other purposes and though
its blunt branches are very useful for the measurement of the maxi-
mum breadth of the teeth, was not entirely satisfactory for measur-
ing the tooth length. The best instrument for the latter measurement
was found to be a pair of sharp-pointed calipers, supplemented by a
magnifying glass. The practice developed therefore of taking the
length of the tooth by the sharp pointed compass under a magnifying

29

B52 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

glass, reading the measurement on a standard scale;* and of taking
the maximum breadth of the tooth with the blunt extremities of a
sliding compass, the latter well tested as to accuracy. .

In the case of the third molar which lacks the posterior contact
facet and in all other cases where the contact facet is missing or dis-
placed, the length is measured to where the upper edge of the facet
would normally be if it existed. In the case of teeth presenting
peculiar conditions the worker must use his trained common sense.

Under these conditions results are obtained, particularly as to the
length, that do not vary on repeated measurements more than, at most,
two-tenths of a millimeter. With all due care, however, measure-
ments on some teeth have to be repeated several times until the
observer is fully satisfied as to the results. Such minutiae are quite
necessary when dealing with the teeth of smaller primates or with
teeth of such importance as those of fossil anthropoids and early man ;
and they are indispensable when studying the relations of the teeth
in the two sexes, on the two sides, or among themselves in the same
individual.

The human teeth that were measured or remeasured included the
following :

The lower molars of the Piltdown Jaw—British Museum of Natural History;

The Mauer Jaw—Geologisch-Palaeontologisches Institut, Heidelberg ;

Two jaws of Ehringsdorf—Stadtisches Museum, Weimar;

Le Moustier youth—Museum fiir Kunstgewerbe, Berlin;

Spy skeletons—at the home of Professor Maximin Lohest, Liége;

Krapina remains—Narodni Muzej, Zagreb;

Aurignacian remains of Predmost—The Provincial Museum (of Natural His-
tory), Brno;

H. aurignacensis Hauseri—Museum ftir Kunstgewerbe, Berlin; and

The Chancelade skull—Museum of Perigueux, France.’

In addition to the preceding, various specimens were seen that on
account of wear could not be measured, or that were too far from
man and the upper apes to be of much use in this connection.

‘For which the rod of the sliding anthropometric compass is quite useful.

* The teeth of La Ferrassie and La Quina alone could not be measured. The
former are still under study by Dr. Boule; the dimensions of the latter are given
by Dr. Henri Martin in his L’Homme fossile de La Quina, Paris, 1922.

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 353

Size-——As shown in a previous communication on this subject,’ the

es h+ Breadth
Cahn of the lower M 1 and M 2 (the M 3 being

too irregular to measure) in present man ranges as follows:

module

Mtr M2
c Male Female Male Female
Whites rh eee os Senne clea 10.53 10.46 10.32 10.07
EREGES Sees oi feist Male ea II .03 10.69 10) 9/7) 10.57
akin Rete Aen oo ak Viets 10.99 10.95 10.63
Melanesians css es verre W244) Ts 10.84 10.41
Radianses irae ee aise Dies 10.78 10.93 10.30

Compared to the above the lower molars of early man give the
values shown in the table on page 354.

The teeth of early man are seen from the table to be in general
larger than the teeth of even the most macrodont groups of man
of today. If it is born in mind that two of the groups of early teeth
(Krapina, Predmost) comprise those of both males and females, the
latter of which lower the averages, it may be said that with the
exception of very few individual specimens all the teeth of early
man are larger than those of any known group of man of today.

Although there is some correlation between the size of the teeth
and the antiquity of the remains, this is not regular. The largest teeth
are those of the Mousterian youth, followed in the order named by
the Krapina man; the dawn-man of Piltdown; those of the Mauer
jaw; some of the Predmost teeth;” those of Ehringsdorf; those of
Spy No. 1; and those of H. aurignacensis (Berlin) ; while the smallest
are those of Spy No. 2 and some of the Predmost molars. The largest
individual teeth found were the left M1 of Krapina jaws C (13.1 x
12.1 mm.) and D (13.0 x 12.0) ; the right M2 of the jaw of Mauer
(12.8 x 12.0) ; and the right M3 of Le Moustier (13.0 x 12.0) ; as
well as a loose Krapina tooth (13.0 x 12.0). Notwithstanding these
irregularities in individuals and forms of early man the indications
given by the above facts are that they are all derived from decidedly
macrodont predecessors ; that man’s precursors were in all probability
also highly macrodont ; and that a gradual reduction in tooth size has
taken place during man’s progress, becoming now most marked in the
more civilized parts of the white race.

1 Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 423-438, 1923.
? Middle to upper Aurignacian.

VOL. 83

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

354

*Y399} OAT ¢ *Y}99} VATOM I z 7227 U2AIS |
fo or 09°01 O1°O1 gf-1r Se'11 ot 11 SE onE ov Il EST Yes ae ea cn (ul[Jaq) ‘2DUustdnD *]
Oz Ir 98 ‘OI 999 II ¢6°O1 oL:o! zg 11 gz°Ir CL Or 1S Of ieee lai (y399} BI fsaxas 4}0q) Jsowpalg
gv Ir 96°01 j10°ZI oS 11 to'll 140°ZI 89°11 CO: 11 POMC Tae ota ake co ancne eee ne er enmey ohshcheesienexerels (43993
ZI jo uevaul) (saxas y}0q) euldery
Z°O1 g' OI 9°01 O°IL O'll O'll O°IL O'll CTT | ese ens ed Meee ene eee Rede D ae I “ON Ads
£411 ol 11 og II fbr C'1l cer GS-15 SZ at Crean | eer aes Mere sia [ig sON AUS
of 21 ol "11 06°ZI Zo 21 OL iI CL°z1 £2: 11 oo: Ti Te Mea | Cease ee ee See i TaTISHOWN 87]
eseRe eee esl) | een ecm Meus ya tenee SQ 11 0g OI oS ‘zI Oz‘II oS ‘or 06'I1 Bs Saas se TO FTO PS Aun |
09° OI ¢°6 OL TI ZOOL {9 Ol O1°ZI 221% O11 Sega (| saet eet ee ee Catia cee ynpe jsopssuryy
g&-11 O'll CLorn *J are O'll Cann Oz‘ II Oz‘ II Oz‘ II @) \e) |e} fe: ie jel aitnljv.iej | ee) ae) (en ejieiiel@ 6 el e\s\.e) 6) '6) 10 Janey
Beata csueh le sme reuere! ml it) lel siceneue CZ arer oz‘ II of‘ zI oS‘ Ir O11 O'ZI ne he oie a eae ae eens ATMO DA] Ley

(] pue “1 ‘| pue ‘1 (‘] pue ‘1 (] pue “1 (] pue ‘1 ‘| pue ‘1
Sn pOW jo teat uf each) SInpOIN jo uvoul) jo ueaul) SEN Me each mt uvoul)
Yyyproig yysueT yypreag yy3ue7T 9 yy prag yywuey

fW ZW IW

eee 5588

NVW ATUVA NI SUVIOW YAMOT AO YZIS

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 355

Relative proportions —The relative proportions of the lower molars
Crown breadth x 100.
Crown length
This index, as we proceed back in time, decreases gradually in man,
and from man to the lower primates. The remeasurement of the
teeth of early man gave values and indices which are reported in

detail on pages 356-360.
The principal points brought out by the data are briefly as follows:

are readily expressed by the Crown Index

1. As in absolute, so in relative size, the lower molars bear a general
definite correlation with time; the greater their antiquity the greater
the relative length of the teeth and vice versa.

2. The breadth (or stoutness) of the tooth in the course of man’s
existence has shown but little change, much less than the length.

3. The facts indicate that in man’s precursors the lower molars were
longer but probably only slightly stouter than they are in man of today.

4. Concerning the lower molars in present man, it is safe to regard
as primitive or phylogenetically inferior a tooth that is absolutely
large, or one that is relatively long, giving a low crown index.

The progressive shortening of the human lower molars must have
been concomitant, it is plain, with a progressive shortening of the
jaws, though the change was primarily in the teeth and not in the
jaws ; had it been in the latter there would in all likelihood be observ-
able a compensatory increase in the breadth (stoutness) of the teeth
and the M3 would be least affected, which is not the case.

Some additional observations of interest were possible on the
M3 in the remains of early man. With very few exceptions this
tooth shows no degeneracy or alteration such as are common in
modern man. As may be seen in the table on the “ Size of the lower
molars in early man”’ (p. 354) there is a progression in the size of
the teeth from before backward in the jaw of Piltdown, though in
this case we have only the more anterior two molars; in the jaw of
Mauer, where the M2 is larger than M1 and M3 larger than M2;
in both the jaws of Ehringsdorf, where M2 is larger than Mr,
though in the adult the M3 is smaller than either of the preceding
teeth; and in the Mousterian youth, where we have a decided pro-
gression in the size of the three molars from before backward. In
all the rest of the teeth, the M2 averages slightly less than the M1, and
the M3 is smaller than the M2, except in the Predmost teeth where the
M3 is larger than the M2, equalling the Mr. Individually, a progres-
sion from before backwards in the size of the three molars was

VOL. 83

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

356

.

Onne 1'9f
feos o'9f
o;rge o-
rl al
€'z ‘iW

£

0)

9° S6 Ol! C11 8°99 Catal 6°ZI Ceata O°ZI
saa ae 9°09 bir Lica faic0 OPE of!
: 9°06 9°01 ATEN
: b°z6 Manca reset
9° £6 et 6°zI
: 6°16 Zz Ol Kear
b°96 gol o'Il o'oor | O'll o'll 0'O00OI | O'Il orl
orZOr.| O° EI z' Ol o'oor | O'lIl OFI1 0'001 | O'lIl oO'Il
2°90 gil f° a1 ZeTOT Nore d Cit QuzOr.| =9e11 Sein
g sor | 201 vir Geoore|s se 1x o-11 DVO Seca oii
I‘ 69 17? it o8 1 0°99 Cupli OF £: £6 Cater Oxer
£°26 ¢O'TI o'¢1 b'06 Cart S21 £°66 S11 Aa
ae OSES b°99 gO Cer Z° 99 ¢ oI 6°11
(2200) 4| (232 0°) 9° 56 Grr O°zI o't6 OnUT Later
z°1g ¢°6 Led £99 gor CCL Z° 906 Omir Gated
2°16 Own Onc ZaeO O'ZI marae | 0° OOI Calo Soule
e) etieae. o. Z°10 O'll OeZl
TaehO Caml ete 2°16 ol! 0°71

I q AI I dq ali el ca TAL

fWw ZI IW

‘|

Seratnie ony 5

‘T

ae taners: q

I siksh gi eibinal <6 (1v0u Io yNpe)
eon a

aT Oo Oece City 0 OaL) eee eee (pyry9)
ei ees 5

aT aealemeneul esl e)c8, 6) ie re) phe 6 (Piry9)
BIA es q smef eurdery
i
spettee esses esses T cons

‘T

Uy iceo ii eee nucieaceny CONTA!
if

eee eee Jarysnoy a]
i

Seesteeiree) arene eihs prod

i

euyrsmenslatige py jlopssurnyy
‘T

siyiertehecas) een toleae Met Janel aL
!

aiyie see eee mef UMOPIIg au

ea ee i I i SS ee
SUVIOW UAMOT ‘NVI ATAYVA AO HLYAL AO SNOISNAWIG

IS
Wn
oO
<
s%
0
=
a
QA
oe 5
j Zune 0°9f
Z
<
=
>
-
a
<
oa}
&
oO
n
Z
=
<
=
2
4
|
<
a
B é o Se
a ze 9g St
n os 0°9£
rl Gl
€'z ‘IW

WHOLE VOL.

8

NmWOoO MN

iS

ce

“88
‘16

6°6

™~

Ono

Qn
4

er
Tour
ae

“cI

mM ANN
NCO N
BAAS

0°96
6°06

9'O1
9° OI
al
len

6°6
0° OI

cIN

oO nM OD

‘OI
‘OI
‘SI
‘CI

“OI
Law

£°S9

b'16
Zz’ 69
0° S6
Zz’ £6
£°69
£69
£69
9° 59

6° £6

“OI
.OD
eld
elue
“OI
“OI
moze
“OI

HNDAAOC ONY

CO sf NI A SO) "Oy Out

SLT
“oI
Sir
i
‘CI
“SI
ual
iol

re ee er

4

awa TA “Ant
“A
ee aH
rach aeloiens Ir anf
See se ;
BL wets) aie) pfe..e wap. Sheree Kel e sel
, (asourpezq)

SISUBIDUBLAND * FT

piney ere om aliane 9 yq22 azeiedas

‘see CET = SME POE Ia

adaANILNOD—SYVIOWN YWAMOT INVW ATYVA AO HLAAL AO SNOISNAWICG

VOL. 83

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

358

‘J ‘uelpeusiuny 1addn 0} app y

oolxX de “Xe 2

“ulezI190 Ajaynjosqe SAPM]S JOU UOIZBOYIQUAPyT 9g

“IeaN

£ pue z ‘i Fw joy

¢ ool X ‘xeul *g ’
*J20ePJ JOLJUOD JO (9UO ZuIpuOodsai109 10) JuIOd aus 07 IOLIazUe JO JapiIOg Jeddn jo ajpprur wor; ‘aypprur VW |;

Z° 96 O'll
Se Srar z'Ol

0°66 o'O1

ZL
06

0° OOI
T' 66

Crt
Catt

oir

* ©

Oo Ww;

ZAC.
9 v6
£°16
1°26
9° 6
9°16

Oar
Cele

‘II
“OI
SOD

wmt+o

°

‘OI
‘OI
ed

Nw

ae
Es

er
II

“II
lar
Sur

al

eee ree eee (UT a ur)

LAS & Gz
AAs Cee:
ove b'6z
g LSE
6:1 Sane
6°0£ 9°9f
1 J
£2 ‘1

Z°998 Cat
9° £6 eL II
I a

fw

eW

IW

SISUIIDUBLAND * FT
6Sz ‘anf
oLY
oLoe
AIX
xX

XI sme f[

1 (4sourparg )
SISUIIDUBLAND * FT

daONIINOD—SUYVIOW AAHMOT ‘NVI ATAYVA AO HLYAL AO SNOISNYWIG

-

HRDLICKA 359

MAN

SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY

WHOLE VOL.

“ce
“ve
“Peo
Boe
emi,
ale
OS
aeTie
ane
ie
“of

SmOvO SN fi to Oo Nm NS

xapuy
£TIV

“* "7 (UlpIag) ‘9pusLanD “FT
"* "I (UIpIag) ‘9DUsLAND “FT

oLo£ ‘oN Jsourpslg
aulemeyeilelis\piekers ay ‘Ione
se 8 we I axe ‘euldeiy
"* "1 “TTT ‘ysoupezg
se eee aT ‘H 7.

Oo. eon i ary vs
or #1 (a| ete: sive rn ‘eulde1y

“*reau “I ‘uMOpIIg
oe 2ST exe ‘ysOuIpaig

AyTeIOT

NNO MESA COO) im im Bs 169) 16) 10) IS SEI QO) 1) 8000

Lol Beene lets el 6) 6) ee) aie) le oy oT
ZOl’ 1 ‘z ‘Ads
‘OOl tte x z.

OOM sae ses oLoe ‘ysourpaig
"96 °°] ‘(Ul[1eq) ‘IDUsLND “FT
‘96 bet 606 Uns) se!) a eee) ea» aT a “5
96 Si-(ejvelcewevie! is) e (eles te. esis T T Ads
C6 Siye.e) (a) /e Ne) ell) e) sis elle (ele, I ‘raneyy
C6 Sete Uy) LP ONOs Ce) Cts nr) ‘euldely

see ee oey ‘XI ‘ysoulpolg

z6 eharuttniislieiele sey ‘dos ‘euldely
z6 = raj eplellelalleteiete aT ‘TaI{snoJ aT
16 otal elteierie ehelleis 1 ‘das ‘euldery
16 oheue i elles iske: 6 esa es a ewa ay ‘ane
16 auehalel eles sisters aT SET a
06 @) eLielisieteieietiesi 7s I ET ‘euldeiyy
68 a) sell wile) allelelisie I STi ‘Jsoulpaig
68 e)ehie Kesivlhatiete te A ‘dos ‘euldeiyy
6g bt @talvets)ie) level le al ‘TaIWsNoJ la |
88 eure ace a! eae l/s\a 1 ‘das ‘euldeiy
98 ainey (eaelle\ els eivey-a, I aay ‘ysoulpsig
Tire hs “pe “1 ‘jropssursyy
xopul “gq “J AYTEIOT

fw

I . 96 ey sibiaie ul ele) ate I ‘A -.
O'R6 ttt ry

Zz . L6 atte he ativnlie ie, elvals I ‘A -

I WG Be etasteils fe veneie, ie I aT =

j? -96 ere iehiplie-Uwee lice AIX i
6°S6 Glisi's) 7», ofc le a SEI ‘ysoulpelg
8 . C6 6) airs el e)celeie I “pe ‘jlopssulsyy
iy . £6 Gl. 8) 0 6).0l, 5,10) phat ie.0 lee aklelate Janey
Y:°£6 eee 0) tees ntas 6 I ‘XI ‘ysoulpalg
v . C6 B\ Gihelhesre' eicelel ie wie! ofis I a
£°C6 efia\te 56 Sxelelere I Vor, FT ‘euldeiyy
c . £6 b) 1s bei) 6c? sy eho ay OU A

6° z6 vibe! ehe Teva ele I oTelel ‘ysoulpaig
I . 16 Oy Biles eite, 16 @).6) eee) meen 8. UMOP Ig
6206. = glh ‘ON JsOUIpalg
6° 06 fe) 0) 6) Si/e" 6) speeds I aT ‘ysoulpoig
v . 06 ®) (eave 6, biel insu. shy ‘TaI}SNof aT
8 . 68 © a ‘ene! ‘en Ore ellie.’ arel ‘euldery
So99.- 2° 2a“ peEpopssumig
6° 98 CL OLereuee te) sere I ‘TIIYSNO JL aT
8 . 98 OG aire cel ona; (eels: o/ema ny euldery
LEC IGA ee SPINS opssuata
xepu] ‘gd “T Aqeo07]

ZW

6 os oe ee Fs ep SOI OF
ZS6 oot I TT *
ZLGH tee 6Sz i
becw6 cc ee ‘ysourpaig
+26 Shu petde lsh aeeaate eye y I a .
E26 occ te ay =

6° 16 awe Mat wis eres eles 6s q eurdesyy
9°16 Crejith el etnieats I ‘AIX ‘Jsoulpalg
LAG ee TY MICE IST
L: 16 aMelielyer wet wha misie ie I bey ‘uUMOp}{Ig
9° 16 syle" hie atrny sland aeaire I EET ‘euldery
+16 Ss) Sle (0 niet sles pia ‘| oN a

¢: 16 sWelisile cue reve gLt "ON jJsOW psig
9°06 coe eet meee tee d ‘euldery
1:68 shalisisye se eeey ‘XI -
S68 ele latavelelisiienele tata I ‘T a
£°6g ry | bey ‘TI 3

z 6g O26 jel sheree laters “I aN ‘JsOUIpsl g
Zz gg creer pry ‘jlopssuliy |
ORgo ee TC _

O° Sg se SlaMoifetoms ay -
xapuy ‘g “Ty AqeOOT
IW

yysue7T ueipayy

ATAHAILNOASNOD GHONVAUAV OOf X “Xe YIpeelg SHOIGNI UVIOWN

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

360

xopuy
e1v

ARO]

CTT ankemns corerenelvy, “IDUBLAND WEF
xapuy “g “T APPLIC]
ew

Pes Olivet oLof ‘oN “ysourparg
Le ATi OP ence cece aoe eee Ree T na BA
GOO Tee ee eee a
COMOON ee een eee I cor OT. ‘Ads
OAOIIH AL. ow e-B.ee 1 ‘das ‘eurdery
OXOOT Ts 9;

1°66 ‘1 ‘(ul[Jag) ‘IDUsLAND “FT
XS PUT a ah

cW

Yy4sueT] UeIpel\y

Ayyeooy | xopuy “g “T
IW

“-'T “(ulpiag) ‘9pudtann “FT
ojos 6) eee ie ele I aT ‘eurdersyy
w Segiehiee ae) eave aT ‘pe ‘jlopssursyy
Ul aio ie i.6; Bale Lavine, al ‘das ‘euldery
Si pWie 1siieihe! ea alens, oZoe ‘ysoulpalg
“1 ‘(ulpiag) ‘Ipustann * FT
GBctapial ooo SaeeEH AIX -

sagen AAS eT oe

Sell) (ele eee gly ‘ON ysOouIpalg
prime heal lone ube ae Te I ‘TIIWSNOJ aT

eiapeteasinetichote I ‘pe jtopssuryq
Sees eer AF a

Oe) moe 7s) se Je ce eee I 2) -
“s+xcy ‘vuldery

AP[BIOT

daONILNOD—ATAAILNOASNOD GAONVUUAY OOF XK “Xe YIPeetd SHOIGNI UV IOW

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 301

observed in the Predmost jaw No. 3, while in jaw No. g from the
same locality the progression on the right is M1, M2, M3 (the M3
being the largest), while on the left it is M2, M1, M3. We see thus
that in early man, the ancient condition of the molars progressing in
size from before backwards is still more or less in evidence in the
older forms, disappearing more and more as recent times are
approached.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Grecory, WILLIAM K. The dentition of Dryopithecus and the origin of man.
Anthrop. Papers Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. 28, Pt. 1, N. Y., 1926 (with
bibliography of earlier contributions).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This work has been limited to the more ancient skeletal remains
of man, or to those up to the end of the Mousterian cultural period,
which ended during the last ice invasion. A good number of defective
specimens, of isolated teeth and bones, and of remains imperfectly
known, such as Podkoumok skull or the Crimea neanderthaloid
bones, have been omitted ; they would add but little to the presentation.
There are in addition, however, many valuable remains of similar
nature from later paleolithic times, the Aurignacian, Solutrean, and
Magdalenian ; these, though nearly all known to the writer personally,
and though presenting many points of much interest, must be left
for a future revision. They will call for a large volume by themselves,
and that a critical volume, for the reports that have accumulated
on these remains lack much in uniformity and are much marred by
speculation and by errors due to the earlier lack of comparable ma-
terial. It may safely be foretold that the notions as to Homo sapiens,
the idolatry of the Cro-Magnons, the ideas of direct Eskimo connec-
tions, the conclusions about negroids in Europe, and other vested
opinions will suffer much elucidation.

The most notable individual skeletal remains of the post-Mousterian
paleolithic times are those of Predmost, upper Aurignacian, compris-
ing 14 skeletons some of which are almost complete, with parts of 6
others, found by K. Maska and preserved in Zemské Museum, Brno,
Moravia; the apparently Aurignacian skeletons of the French and
Italian Riviera (Mentone, Grimaldi) ; and the, Aurignacian to Mag-
dalenian skulls and skeletons of Most (Briix), Brno (Brinn),
Canstadt, Chancelade, Combe-Capelle, Cro-Magnon, Eguisheim, Lauc;
Laugerie Haute and L. Basse, Obercassel. Paviland, Solutrée,

362 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Viestonice, etc., together with some of those of Spain (Alfolea) and
North Africa (Djebel Fartas, etc.). The literature on these remains
is extensive and widely scattered. Some of the originals are known to
but a few men, have never been studied thoroughly, and are difficult
of access ; others have received much attention. The most valuable of
the series, that of Predmost, is still in the process of preparation for
publication.

The striking thing about these remains is the great dearth of
specimens that could be definitely assigned to the early Aurigna-
cian. Yet it is precisely this material which is most needed.

The later remains show many a primitive feature of evidently
transitional character between earlier man and the modern. These
occurrences indicate still more primitive and transitional conditions
in the further past; and this further past falls essentially to the
earliest Aurignacian, from which there is as yet the greatest
dearth of skeletal human material. Between the late Mousterian and
the early Aurignacian there has taken place apparently, through the
intensified cold or through an epidemic or by both, a crisis which
reduced the population so much that the linkage between the preceding
and later time has been much weakened. This transition period needs
clearing more than almost any other in prehistory ; and this clearing
may come perhaps from marginal regions, outside of Europe or at
least western Europe.

Besides the above described or enumerated well authenticated speci-
mens, there are scattered in the museums of Europe many others, for
which greater or less antiquity has at some time been, or is still being,
claimed. In many of these instances the student finds that the evidence
adduced is insufficient and that the testimony of the skeletal parts them-
selves speaks rather against any great age, or leaves the subject in
serious doubt. It would seem best for the progress of science to elimi-
nate all such specimens from consideration until new and ample evi-
dence is found to convince us that they really deserve a place among the
precious authentic documents that represent the earlier phases of man’s
natural history.

The ever accumulating finds that throw light on the physical past
of man naturally stimulate further exploration in these lines ; and the
various failures and uncertainties connected with some of the finds
in the past have impressed all investigators in the field with the neces-
sity of the most careful and properly controlled procedure. Besides men
of science, the educated public, engineers controlling public works,

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 363

and even many among the workmen in Europe, have been impressed
by these remarkable discoveries, and in hundreds of instances are
doubtless watching for new treasures. Under these conditions we are
justified in hoping that from time to time there shall come to light
further important additions to the precious material already in our
hands; and that these additions will fill the existing gaps, and
gradually extend farther and farther back, to the earliest forms of
man and even to the intermediary forms between man and his an-
cestral stock, and perhaps eventually even to the source of these
link-forms themselves, to the peculiar, morphologically unstable
family of the anthropogenous primates that represented the human
phylum before the arising of human precursors.

While the anthropologist is thus painstakingly and slowly recon-
structing the past physical history of man, he is also with every new
fact adding another imperishable smaller or larger block to the solid
foundation upon which will stand not only man’s future knowledge in
regard to himself, but also the understanding of the laws of his further
development. It is upon this foundation that will rise sound and
beneficent rules of future human behavior, and of true scientific
human eugenics. This is a part of the service of anthropology to
humanity.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

Among the more recent anthropological literature there are a
number of monographs that deal more or less comprehensively with
the subject of ancient man. These publications, which contain numer-
ous further references, are as follows:

Anutin, D. Proizchozdéni ¢elovéka i ievo iskopaiemi predki. Itogi. Nauki,
Moskva, pp. 691-784, 1912.

Bazor, J. Paleontologie Clovéka. Véstnik Klubu Piirodovéd, Prostéjov, Vol.
14, pp. I-40, IOII.

BackMAN, G. Om Manniskans utveckling efter manniskoblifvander. Ymer,
Tidskrift Utgifven af Svenska Sallskapet fur Antropologi och Geografi,
H. 2 Och 3, Arg. 1909. Also Manniskans Forhistoria, Stockholm, 1911.

Bayer, Joser. Der Mensch im Eiszeitalter. Leipzig, 1927.

Boutr, M. La Paléontologie humaine en Angleterre. L’Anthrop., Vol. 26,
Repr., pp. 1-67, 1915. °

. Fossil men. Edinburgh, 1923.

Branca, W. Der Stand underer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen. Leipzig,
IQI0.

Burkitt, M. C. Prehistory. Cambridge (England), 1921.

De QuatreracEs, A., AND Hamy, E. T. Crania ethnica. Text and atlas, Paris,
1882.

DuckwortH, W. L. H. Prehistoric man. Cambridge, 1912.

304 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

Fiscuer, E. Fossile hominiden. Handworterbuch der Naturwissenschaften.
Vol. 4, 1913.

GEIKIE, J]. The antiquity of man in Europe. London, 1913.

Keane, A. H. Man past and present. Cambridge (England), 1920.

Keiru, A. Ancient types of man. London, 1911; The antiquity of man, London,
I9I5; new edit., 2 vols., 1925.

MacCurpy, G. G. Recent discoveries bearing on the antiquity of man in Europe.
Smithsonian Rep. 1909, pp. 531-583.

—. The man of Piltdown. Science, pp. 158-160, 1914.

Human origins. 2 vols., New York, 1924.

Munro, R. Paleolithic man and terramara settlements in Europe. Edinburgh,
1912.

OperMaAIER, H. Quaternary human remains in Central Europe; Smithsonian
Rep. 1906, pp. 373-397.

Der Mensch der Vorzeit; Berlin, 1912; also later in Spanish and
English. :

Oszorn, H. F. Review of the Pleistocene of Europe, Asia, and Northern Africa.
Ann. New York Acad. Sci., Vol. 26, pp. 215-315, 1915.

Men of the Old Stone Age. New York, 1st ed., 1915; 2d ed., 1916. ©

Peake, H., anv Fieure, H. J. Apes and men. London and New Haven, 1927.

Pucciont, N. Ricerche sui rapporti di grandezza tra corpo e ramo ascendente
nelli mandibole fossili Europee. Riv. Antrop., Vol. 17, 1912.

RenaAneE, A. Beitrage zur Morphologie des Anthropoiden gebisses. Arch. f.
Naturgesch., 87 Jahrg., Abt. A, H. 11, pp. I-170, 1921.

StneEL, I. Prehistoric times and men of the Channel Islands. Jersey, 1914.

Situ, G. Ettior. The evolution of man. Smithsonian Rep. 1912, pp. 553-572.

The evolution of man. London, 2d ed., 1927.

Sottas, W. J. Ancient hunters and their modern representatives. New York,
1924.

Went, A. Der fossile Mensch. Berlin, 3 parts, 1921-1928.

ADDENDUM

Since the preceding was put in type, new finds of importance have
been made in northern China. Not much definite is known as yet
about these discoveries ; what has been reported is briefly as follows.

THE SINANTHROPUS

The name of Sinanthropus pekinensis was given in 1927 by David-
son Black, Professor of Anatomy at the Peking Union Medical Col-
lege, to some ancient human remains that had been found during
the period 1920 to 1927 in evidently Pleistocene deposits at Chou
Kou Tien, 25 miles from Peking. The amount of material already
discovered is relatively large. It consists of a portion of an adult
skull and the symphyseal part of a child’s lower jaw; many teeth;
parts of the calvarium of a juvenile individual; and a nearly com-
plete adult calvarium. Recent cable advices have claimed also nine
headless skeletons, but of these there is no confirmation. The human
remains have thus far been found in five separate loci; for the most
part the remains are embedded in hard travertine; and they are asso-
ciated with mammalian fossil fauna that is believed to be lower
Quaternary.

Professor Black has given a description of three of the teeth
and of the fragments of the two mandibles. The adult jaw resembles
much the “g” Krapina (Hrdlicka), but is somewhat smaller, less
heavy, and the M3 shows a distinct diminution in size as compared
to the first and second, which are about equal. The latest cable
reports on the skull (December 29, 1929) are that it is of a very
interesting character. Before the discovery of the adult skull, Sir
Arthur Keith, and shortly after that Professor Elliot Smith, pub-
lished each an account of the finds, with some rather premature
though interesting speculations as to its significance. Little definite is
known as yet about the site, but a report upon it by Teilhard de
Chardin is in preparation. .

A letter to the writer from Professor Black, dated December 13,
1929 (received January 16, 1930), reads as follows:

This is just a hasty chit to let you know that on December 2 Mr. W. C. Pei,
who has been in charge of the field-work this year, discovered an uncrushed
and almost complete adult Sinanthropus skull in the Chou Kou Tien deposit.

The news will be specially announced at a meeting of the Geological Society of
China on December 28, but I am sending this off beforehand.

365

306 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

I am not yet sure myself how much of the skull is preserved since I have so
far only uncovered the vault from the lambda to the massive supraorbital region
and from one temporal squame to the other. I have taken casts of it in this
condition and will recover the vault in plaster before uncovering the base in
order to take no chances of breakage. The left half of the skull below the
temporal squame is embedded in very hard travertine and the nasal and part of
the glabellar region is similarly enclosed so it will be some time before the
whole is entirely worked out. But the base which is still in its field wrappings
of burlap and plaster is, I think, fairly free from travertine, and can easily
be exposed after I have completed the preliminary casts of the vault. I do not
yet know if one or both poria are preserved but I am hopeful from the look of
the vault. The supraorbital ridges are massive as one expected from the jaw.
They are apparently equal in development to those of Pithecanthropus. The
frontal and parietal development of Sinanthropus is much more advanced than
the Java type but the frontal development is apparently less than in Eoanthropus.
Sinanthropus is of approximately similar length to Pithecanthropus but its
shape implies a considerably larger volume than the latter. I shall report on
this specimen at the Annual Meeting of the Geographical Society in February
when I will know a bit more about it. The December 28 Meeting is only to
announce the discovery and to show the casts and photos. I hope to have a
fairly complete report on the cranium with photos and drawings ready before the
spring and I shall send you further details as soon as I know anything. We
have not nearly completed the working of the original deposit and this is the
fifth distinct locus within it that has yielded Sinanthropus remains. I now
have enough teeth alone to describe completely the deciduous and permanent
dentition of this form aside from the two jaws and innumerable other specimens
still in their field wrappings. We need the leg, arm and foot bones now to
complete the picture but if our luck holds as it has so far we should get these
next year.

I shall let you know when my work has progressed further exactly how much
of this specimen is preserved.

On January 27, the preceding was supplemented by a more explicit
statement, and with it Professor Black had the great kindness to
enclose a precious photograph. The statement reads as follows:

DISCOVERY OF SKULL OF ADULT SINANTHROPUS AT
CHOU KOU TIEN

On December 2 last Mr. W. C. Pei of the staff of the Cenozoic Laboratory of
the Geological Survey of China, while excavating a sheltered recess of the main
deposit at Chou Kou Tien discovered the greater part of an uncrushed adult
skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis. Mr. Pei at once recognized the importance
of the specimen and personally carried out the difficult work of excavation and
subsequent field preparation of the block of matrix in which it lay. It is
entirely due to his skill and devotion that this bulky mass with its unique and
fragile contents reached the Cenozoic Laboratory quite undamaged.

Mr. Pei has been in charge of the Geological Survey’s field excavations at
Chou Kou Tien during the past season. He was also associated with Drs. Bohlin
and C. C. Young in the work of excavation carried on at that site during the

WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN—HRDLICKA 367

season of 1928 which resulted in the recovery of the major parts of two lower
jaws and numerous teeth and skull fragments referable to the genus Sinanthro-
pus. Within the main cave deposit at Chou Kou Tien up to the present time
Sinanthropus remains have been recovered from five different loci, three of
which, including the last major find, have been discovered by Mr. Pei during
the last season’s work. Contrary to any reports which have been circulated, no
skeletal parts other than the skull and numerous isolated teeth have been
recovered during this year’s excavations.

It should be noted that the different Sinanthropus loci discovered within the
main Chou Kou Tien deposit are all clearly contemporaneous with one another,
being Lower Quarternary (Polycene) in age. This latter statement is based
on the evidence collected in a preliminary report on the geology and paleontology
of the site by Pere Teilhard de Chardin and Dr. C. C. Young which is now in
press. Further it should be added that up to the present time, though hundreds
of cubic meters of material have been examined, no artifacts of any nature have
been encountered nor has any trace of the usage of fire been observed.

The greater part of the left lateral surface and the fore part of the base of
this unique skull specimen of Sinanthropus' is still embedded in a block of very
hard travertine. The vault of the skull from its massive brow ridges to the
occiput, and the whole right side of the specimen was however supported within
a relatively soft matrix which has now been removed. In the present stage of
its preparation it thus becomes apparent that the brain case has been almost
completely preserved while most of the facial region would seem to be lacking.

The skull of Sinanthropus would seem to be of approximately similar length to
that of Pithecanthropus and like the latter form is provided with massive brow
ridges, a feature to be correlated with a powerful jaw mechanism. However,
Sinanthropus characteristically differs from the Java type in the following
important features: relatively well developed frontal eminences, well localized
parietal eminences and greater height of skull vault, all these characters pointing
to a relatively greater brain capacity in Sinanthropus. The mastoid processes
of Sinanthropus are small and massive. The sockets in which the lower jaw
articulated are well preserved on both sides, a circumstance which will be of
great value in the restoration of the lower jaw fragments recovered in 1928.

In general it may be said that while the new skull specimen bears out what
little was already known from other fragments, the perfection of its preservation
will enable much to be learned that is now obscure concerning the evolution of
the head region in early man. Preliminary photographs and notes will be pub-
lished in an early issue of the Bulletin of the Geological Society of China and a
more complete report on the specimen will be made at the annual meeting of the
Society to be held next February.

Davipson BLAck,
Honorary Director, Cenozoic Research Laboratory,
Geological Survey of China.

COMMENTS

It is now certain that the Peking discoveries are of decided impor-
tance. They show us the presence of early man much farther east
than he has previously been known or legitimately suspected. The

30

308 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83

exact chronological and anthropological position of the finds remains
to be determined. As to age, the inclination was at first to place the
remains in the Tertiary. They are now regarded as earlier Quater-
nary. Possibly even this may be subject to revision.

Professor Black’s illustration of the adult jaw, and above all the very
clear and satisfactory full-size photographs of the skull, make possi-
ble the formation of some fairly definite morphological opinions. The
lower jaw resembles very closely No. “g” of Krapina, and the
plainly diminished third molar suggests a moderate rather than
extreme antiquity. The skull is clearly neanderthaloid. It appears to
represent no distinct genus, species, or even a pronounced variety.
And it is not like the lowest type of the Neanderthaler, but corre-
sponds rather to the better developed specimens of that class, such as
the Galilee skull. How far these still necessarily provisional views
may be substantiated, remains to be seen. Even a later Neanderthaler
in China would, however, be a discovery of much interest as well as
importance.

Grateful acknowledgments are hereby given to Professor Black
for his most generous attitude in this matter and for his exceedingly
valuable assistance.

Nore.—While this is about to be issued, Professor Black most kindly sends
to the writer a series of very valuable photographs of the specimen as finally
disengaged. The two main views are here reproduced. They greatly strengthen
the impression of the specimens as expressed above. Had the skull been found
in Europe or in Asia Minor, it could hardly be taken by any expert student of
the subject as anything else than Neanderthaler.

LITERATURE

Brack, Davipson, The lower molar hominid tooth from the Chou Kou Tien
deposit. Palaeontologia sinica, Vol. 7, fasc. 1, 24 pp., 8 figs., 2 pls., Peking,
1927.

Preliminary note on additional Sinanthropus material discovered in
Chou Kou Tien during 1928. Bull. Geol. Soc. China, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.
15-20, 6 pls, Peking, 1929; same published under the title “ Sinanthropus
pekinensis: The recovery of further fossil remains of this early hominid
from the Chou Kou Tien deposit.” Science, 1929, 674-676, 2 figs. See also
Nature, Dec. 28, 1920, pp. 973-974.

Kerry, Str ArtHur. The fossil man of Peking. The Lancet, Sept. 28, 1920,
pp. 683-684.

Smitu, G. Etxiorr. The Peking man. A new chapter of human history. The
Illustr. Lond. News, Oct. 19, 1920, 672-673, 4 figs. and a reconstruction.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLE? 83, 5PE. 194

2

Ow

1. Skull of adult (?) Sinanthropus, side (?) view.
2. Mesial view of the six normae of the adult Sinanthropus jaw fragment, mesial
view. (After Black.)
3. The unerupted left permanent canine of Sinanthropus juv. on the fractured
surface. (After Black.)

‘yoRjq uospraeq ‘Jorg wory ydessojoyq ‘sndosyyUueUrs

26 “Id ‘€8 “1OA SNOILO311090 SNOANVIISOSIN NVINOSHLIWS

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 83, PL. 93

Sinanthropus. Photograph from Prof. Davidson Black.

~3 wel pence a> STs
Ligh ae er ee anny
A « a " ae a i. {| 4 is" she

7 ' . @
: ; =f ie i) 5 i= v Lee * ue
re at iw) 5 awe . at : 7 - ie “s . ie
elie Dn + YS ae

fi x
i s '

a 7
ea aaa,
By = a > z Om oe
é i ne a : =
i 2 . ao s 7 = al
4 oi aT Lo o
Sa / To md
‘ ua he

"ae ae See ;
Aa i ee WS) ua lve
7 aw ou : ~~ Syne
: . oo Pilea
“9 j . wr Ue

INDEX

A

Acheulian, 269, 329, 333, 334, 339, 346
Adloff, 242
Age, determinations of—
by suture obliterations, 72
by wear of teeth, 234
Alsius, Pedro, 316
Alveolar prognathism in skulls of —
Neanderthal, 192, 207, 235, 258, 262
Rhodesia, 130
American Journal of Physical Anthropol-
ogy, 27, 64, 73, 78, 343
American Journal of Science, 42
American School of Prehistoric Research,
283
Andrews, 246
Antevs, Ernst, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20
Anthony, R., 291
Anthropithecus erectus, 36
Anthropithecus troglodytes, 35
Anutin, D., 363
Archiy ftir Anthropologie, 298
Artifacts—
early, I, 6
eolithic, 23
progression of, 2
stone, It, r2
Art, Mousterian, 338
Astragalus of —
Krapina, 225
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 263, 266
La Ferrassie, 273
La Quina, 277
Le Moustier, 298
Spy No. 2, 201
Atlas, La Quina, 295
Audi implements, 173, 334, 335
Aurignacian man, 13, 331, 333, 334, 335
dearth of remains, 339, 362
relationship to Neanderthal man, 336-
338, 344, 345, 362
Australian teeth, compared with Piltdown,
83
Azilian-Tardenoisian period, 12

B

Babor, J., 363
Backman, G., 363
Bafiolas jaw, 316-318
Bardon, L., 251, 252
Barron, W. E., 99, 105, 106, 107
Base of skulls of—
Gibraltar, 166-168
Krapina, 210
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 257, 258
La Quina, 228
Rhodesia, 128, 129
Spy, 191
Bassler, R. S., 4
Bates, M.A; 123, 17%, 173, 305
Bather, F. A., 116
Bayer, Jos., 19, 330, 363

Beattie, J., 71
Bec aux Roches, 178
Bengawan River, in Java, 30, 57, 58
Berry, E, W., 64
Black, Davidson, 365, 366, 367, 368
Blake, C. Carter, 152, 314
Blanckenhorn, M., 44
Bonarelli, G., 318
Bone implements, 205, 242, 250, 277
Bonnet, 159
Boule, Marcellin, 115, 134, 171, 244, 252,
253, 255, 256, 263, 267, 270, 271,
274, 314, 326, 363
Bouyssonie, A. and J., 251, 252
Boyle, Mary E., 12
Brachycephaly, 209, 212, 227
Brains—
Eoanthropus, 75, 76
Gibraltar-—
adult, 167
child, 175, 176
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 267
La Ferrassie, 270
La Quina, 282, 289, 290, 291
Neanderthal, 155
Pithecanthropus, 48, 56
Rhodesian, 119-121
Spy No. 1 and No. 2, 191
See also Endocrania
Brain of the Neanderthaler, 175, 322, 323
Brain weight, approximate, of Pithecanthro-
pus, 62
Branco, W., 64, 363
Breuil, Abbé, 170, 171, 183
British Museum (Natural History), 78, 81,
845 102, 1135, DL6
British School of Archeology (Jerusalem),
303
Broca, Paul, 162, 171, 314
“Broken Hill,” in Rhodesia, too
Brooks, ©.) 2b) 10
Brtickner, E., 6, 21, 346
Bulawayo Museum, 102
Burials, accidental and intentional, 284, 285
Burials, intentional, remains of—
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 253, 255
La Ferrassie, 269, 270, 274, 275
La Quina, 276, 278, 279, 284, 285
Rhodesia, 115
Spy, 181, 182, 202
Burkitt, M. C., 12, 326, 334, 335
Busk, G., 25, 164, 170, 171
Buxton, &. H. Di; 171; 173, 074

C

Calcanea, Neanderthal, 201, 225, 266, 273
Calotte index, 154, 155
Canine fossa, jaws of—

Gibraltar, 164

Krapina, 210

La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 258

La Ferrassie, 271

La Quina, 294

369

370

Canines—
Ehringsdorf, 235, 237
Gibraltar, 166, 177
Krapina, 213, 214, 219
Mauer, 94
Piltdown, 87
Rhodesian, 128
Cannibalism, suggestions of, 115, 206, 238,
239, 312
Capitan, 268, 270
Caries, teeth of Rhodesian man, 128
Carter licmbe42
Carthaus, E., 53
Caves—
Neanderthal, 203, 204, 244-246, 251-
254, 267, 268, 297, 298, 303-305,
310, 311, 314, 315
. Rhodesian, 103, 110
Cazurro, Manuel, 317
Cephalic index, See Cranial index
Chamberlin, T. C., 19
Chappius, 245
Chauvet, Gustave, 276
Chellean, 244, 331, 337, 346
Chimpanzee mandibles, 81-84
Chin eminences—
Heidelberg, 92, 93
Neanderthal, 177, 193, 207, 214-216, 235,
236, 270, eGo, 2935-290) 3 ne, sis.
315, 317, 318
Pithecanthropus, 32
Chou Kou Tien, in China, 365, 366
Chronology—
cultural, 14-16, 19, 20
geological, 4
glacial, 4
Chubb; Ey G:, 101; 134, 137; 138
Classification of Neanderthal man, 348
Clavicles, Neanderthal, 107, 156, 221, 264,
272, 302
Clothing of Neanderthal man, 333
Coleman, A. P., 19
Collyer, Robert H., 24, 25
Color of remains—
Galilee, 305, 306
Heidelberg, 92
Krapina, 206
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 255

Piltdown, 69, 72, 88
Rhodesian, 112, 113, 11}
Spy, 189

Trinil, 46, 59
Colson, R., 245
Combe Capelle, skeleton, 300
Cranial capacity—
Fhringsdorf, 239
Eoanthropus, 73
Gibraltar, 168
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 267
La Quina, 292
Le Moustier, 301
Neanderthal, 155
Pithecanthropus, 36, 39, 52, 56, 62
Rhodesian, 119
Rome, 310
Cranial index
Ehringsdorf, 239
Foanthropus, 73
Gibraltar, 168
Krapina, 206, 209
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 262
La Quina, 292, 294

INDEX

Cranial index—Cont’d

Le Moustier, 301

Neanderthal,154

Pithecanthropus, 51, 62

Rhodesian, 130

Spy, 187, 192
Cro-Magnon, 361
Cultural subdivisions, 11, 12, 14-16, 19, 20
Cunningham, D. J., 41, 42, 248
Czekanowski, Jan, 159

D

Davis; Js Bin 152
Dawson, Charles, 65-70
Deformation, Trinil skull, Dubois’ view, 47
De Geer, G., 13, 15, 19
De Loé, Baron, 183
Dental arch—
Bafiolas, 318
Ehringsdorf, 234

Gibraltar—
adult, 164-166
child, 177

Krapina, 214-217
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 259, 262
La Ferrassie, 271
Le Moustier, 299, 302
Rhodesian, 128, 131
Spy, 193
Dépéret, 19
De Perthes, Boucher, 11
De Puydt, M., 179, 180
De Quatrefages, A., 159
De Terra, M., 229
Devil’s Tower, in Gibraltar, 170-172
Dieck, W., 303
Dinant, 311
Dozy, K., 53
Dryopithecus rhenanus, teeth of, 86, 243
Dubois, Eugéne, 28, 33, 35, 36, 37, 41, 46,
7, 48, 114, 134
Duckworth, W. L. H., 170, 244, 363
Dupont, E., 310-312, 314
Dwellings, early, 331-333

Ehringsdorf—
quarry, work at, 230, 231, 241
village, 229

Ehringsdorf remains—
age, 230, 231, 234, 236
antiquity, critical note, 239-241
artifacts with, 230, 234
bibliography, 241
cannibalism suggested, 238, 239
chin, 235, 236
classification, 230, 239, 240
culture period asociated with, 234, 239,

240
date of discovery, 230
dental arch, 234, 235
depository, present, 234
discoveries, 230, 231
evolutional stage of, 234, 235, 236, 238,
239, 240

faunal remains with, 230, 233
geology of site, 229, 230, 231, 233
jaws, lower, 234 et seq.
locality, 229, 230

INDEX

Ehringsdorf remains—Cont’d
measurements of skull, 239
parietal, 238
parts of, 230, 231, 234, 237, 238
pathology, 235
preservation, 231, 235, 237, 238, 239
prognathism, mandibular, 235
Sex, 234, 235, 238
shovel-shaped teeth, 238
skull, description of, 238, 239
teeth, 234, 238

Endocrania—
comparative, 169
Ehringsdorf, 239
Galilee, 307
Gibraltar, 167, 169, 175
Krapina, 210, 211
La Ferrassie, 271
Neanderthal, 154
Pithecanthropus, 52, 62
Rhodesian, 121
Spy, 192
See also Brains

Eoanthropus dawsoni—
age, 72
archeological associations, 68, 70
- author’s examinations of originals, 79 et
Neseq:
brain, 75, 76
canine, 87
conclusions—

jaw and teeth, 86, 87
vault and nose, 74
controversy, association of fragments,
77-79; 86, 88
cranial capacity and index, 73
critical remarks, 88-90
discoverers, 65, 67, 70, 76
discovery, 65, 70
faunal associations, 68, 70
fragments, 77-79, 86, 88
geological age, 68, 71
_ geology of site, 67
history of finds, 66 et seq.
jaw, lower, 79-83, 86
measurements of cranium, 73
molar, the separate, 87
nasal bones, 74
preservation, 67, 72
remains, 65, 70
sex, 72
skull, 72
second skull, 88
teeth, 82-88

Eocene, 6

Eoliths, 68, 70 ;

Epimedian ridge, Ehringsdorf, 236, 237

Evans, Arthur, 338

Evolution, Neanderthal and present man,
144, 319, 345, 346, 347

F

Face, Neanderthal, 320, 321
Facial prognathism—
Neanderthal, 259, 271, 288, 294
Rhodesian, 128, 130
Falconer, Hugh, 162
Feet, bones of—
Krapina, 225
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 266
La Ferrassie, 273

31

371

Feldhoffer, Grotte, 149, 150
Femora—
Krapina, 223, 224
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 265
La Ferrassie, 272, 273
La Quina, 296, 297
Le Moustier, 302
Neanderthal, 158, 159, 160
Pithecanthropus, 36, 39, 49, 51, 52
Spy No. 2, 197, 198, 199, 200
Fibulae—
Krapina, 224
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 265
La Ferrassie, 273
Le Moustier, 302
Spy No. 1, 197
Spy No. 2, 201
Filhol, H., 315
Fischer, E., 227, 364
Fischer’s Quarry, 231, 238
EFleure; Hi. J.; 12; 364
Flint implements, 247, 250, 269, 298
Foods, and habits relating thereto, of early
man, 333, 334
Foramen magnum—
Neanderthal, 257, 258
Rhodesian, 129, 131
Forbes Quarry, in Gibraltar, 162, 170
Foreheads—
Ehringsdorf, 238, 239
Eoanthropus, 74
Galilee, 307
Gibraltar, 165, 176
Krapina, 208, 210, 211
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 256
La Ferrassie, 271
La Quina, 286, 287, 294
Le Moustier, 299
Neanderthal, 153
Pithecanthropus, 74
Rhodesian, 124, 125
Spy, 191
Foxhall jaw—
critical notes, 26
discovery, 24, 25
geological age, 24
somatological conclusions, 27
Fraipont, C., 184
Fraipont, J., 179, 183, 184 et seq.
Frontals—
Eoanthropus, 88
Pithecanthropus, 47
Rhodesian, 123, 125
Neanderthal, 211, 307
See also Forehead
Fuhlrott, C., 149, 150, I51, 159

G

Galijan, D., 204

Galilee skull—
artifacts with and age of, 306
classification, 309
critical remarks on, 309, 310
discovery, 304, 305
endocranium, 307
faunal remains with, 305, 306
forehead, 307
locality of find, 303, 304
malars, 308, 309
measurements, 309

372

Galilee skull—Cont’d
nose, 308, 309
orbits, 308
pathology, 307
preservation, 305, 306
sex, 306, 307, 308
stratigraphy of site, 304, 305
supraorbital torus, 306, 307
vault, 307
Garrod, D. A. E., 170, 171, 173
Geikie, J., 21, 364
Geological Society, London, 65, 68, 69
Gibraltar Scientific Society, 162
Gibraltar skull, adult—
base, 166, 167, 168
brain, 167
classification, 164, 167
cranial bones, 166
dental arch, 164-166, 169
depository, present, 161, 164
discovery, 162
endocranium, 167, 169
face, 164, 165, 168
forehead, 165
history connected with, 162, 163
measurements, 168, 169
preservation, 162, 164
sex, 164, 165
site of find, 163
teeth, 164-166
vault, 165, 166, 168
Gibraltar skull, child—
age of individual represented by, 170,
174
artifacts with, 171-173
brain, 175, 176
classification, 174, 176
description, 174-177
discovery, 170-174
endocranium, 175
face, 174, 177
faunal remains with, 173
geology of site, 172
jaw, lower, 177, 178
measurements, 175
palate, 177
preservation, 174, 176
sex, 174
teeth, 174, 177
vault, 175-177
Gibraltar caves, explorations of, 170
Gieseler, W., 65
Glacial period—
charts, relation to fauna and man, 8-10,
20
chronology, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13
critical notes on, 4, 7, 346
ice, retreats, stages of, 19
reports on, 16-18
Glenoid fossae—
Eoanthropus, 74
Neanderthal, 177, 207, 210, 212, 2309,
258, 294, 299, 301
Rhodesian, 129
Gorjanovic-Kramberger, K., 204-206, 209,
212, 224, 225, 227, 229
Gotze, A., 242
Graves, See Burials
Graving, intentional, 269, 277
Grazioli, 310
Gregory, W. K., 65, 244, 361

INDEX

H

Hambruch, P., 115
Hamy, 5. i, 150; 324
Hands, bones of —
Krapina, 223
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 265
La Ferrassie, 272
Harle, E., 317
Harris, W. E., 134
Haubold, 230
Hauser, O., 297, 299, 300, 303
Head, Neanderthal, 322. See also Skull
Form
Heberlein, C. E. J., 62, 63
Heidelberg jaw—
arching of lower border, 93
classification, 93
comparisons with German and Eskimo
jaws, 97, 98
depository, present, 90
description, 92, 94
discovery, 90, 91
faunal associations, 92
geological age, 92
geology of site, 91
hyperostosis, 94
measurements, 94-97
pathology, 92
preservation, 90
sex, 90
teeth, 94, 96, 97
weight, 92
Hellman, M., 65
Hernandez-Pacheco, E., 317
Homo—
colpicus, 164
heidelbergensis, 90 (see Heidelberg jaw)
mousteriensis, 297 (see Le Moustier)
neanderthalensis, 152 (see Neanderthal
skeleton)
Sapiens, 344, 345
Hornes, M., 229
Houses. See Dwellings
Hrdlitka, A., 7) 28, 455 575 65, 72-74; 78, 80,
86, 93, 129, 134, 154, 159, 169,
184, 189, 192, 198, 244, 276, 282,
326
Humeri—
Krapina, 221, 222
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 264, 266
La Ferrassie, 272
La Quina, 295, 296
Le Moustier, 302
Neanderthal, 155, 156, 157
Spy, 195, 196, 197, 199
Hunter, J. I., 71
Huxley, Thomas, 25, 155, 159
Hyperostosis, Mauer jaw, 94

I

Ilm valley, 231, 232
Incisors—
Ehringsdorf, 237, 238
Krapina, 213, 214, 219
La Quina, 295
Indian teeth, 83
Invasions, presumed, 335-337, 344, 345

INDEX

J

Java—
author’s visit to, 57 et seq.
exploration, lack of, 57
man of, See Pithecanthropus
paleontological work in, 29
Jaws, lower—
Baniolas, 316, 318
Ehringsdorf, 234, 238
Foxhall, 23-28 r
Gibraltar child, 177, 178
Heidelberg, 92-98
Krapina, 207, 213-219
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 260, 261
La Ferrassie, 271
La Naulette, 310-314
La Quina, 288, 292, 293, 294
Le Moustier, 299, 302
Malarnaud, 315
Spy—
No. 1, 193, 194
No. 2, 194, 195
Trinil, 32-35
Jaw, lower, the Neanderthaler’s, 321, 322
Jena Museum, 243
Jersey, Island of, 244
Jersey man—
artifacts with, 245-247, 250
bibliography, 251
classification, 244, 249
cultural chronology of, 247, 250, 251
depository, present, 245
discovery, 244-246, 249
explorations, 245, 247, 249
faunal associations, 246, 247, 250
fire, in cave, 246
identification of remains, 246, 247
preservation, 246, 248
primitive nature, teeth of, 248, 249
remains of, 244-247, 249
site, 244-246
skull, intrusive recent, 249
teeth, 246, 248, 249
Jersey Society (England), 245, 247
Jessen, Knud, 15
Journal Anatomy and Physiology, 37, 247

K
Kaempfer, Herr, 230, 231
Kaempfer’s Quarry, 230
Keane, A. H., 364
Keith, Arthur, 13, 14, 71-73, 76, 115, 134,
162, 247, 248, 303, 305, 327, 339,
342, 344, 364, 368
King, 159
Klaatsch, H., 161, 211, 228, 241, 298, 299,
302, 303
Knowles, F. H. S., 247, 248
Koken, E., 21
Kopjes, in Rhodesia, 100
Krapina, in Croatia, 202
Krapina man—
* ages, individual, 205, 208, 209, 212, 213
archeological remains associated with,
204, 205
bibliography, 227-22
cannibalism, suggestions of, 206
chin eminence, 207, 214, 215, 216
classification, 225, 227
cranial sutures, 208, 210, 211

373

Krapina man—Cont’d
cultural stratification associated with, 204
dental arch, 214-217
discovery, history of, 204
endocrania, 210, 212
evolutional stage, 206, 207
faunal remains associated with, 204, 205
frontal bones, 211
geology of site, 203, 204
jaws, evolutional characteristics of, 218!
219
lower, 207, 213, et seq.
locality of, 202, 204
mastoids, 207
maxillae, 212, 213
measurements of—
mandibles, 214 et seq.
teeth, 220
musculature, 206
nose, 209, 210, 213
occipitals, 211, 212
pathology of mandibles, 216, 221, 223
preservation, 202, 205, 206, 208, 209,
213 et seq.
remains, 202, 204, 205, 208, 209, 212,
219, 221 et seq.
sexes, 206, 209, 212, 214, et seq., 221,
227
skull—
A and B, 208
C, 209, 210
D, reconstruction of, 212 :
fragments, description of, 211, 212
stature, 206
supraorbital arch, 207-211
teeth, 207, 208, 213-217, 219, 220
transitional nature of, 219, 225, 227
vault of, 206-210, 212, 225-227
Krapina rock-shelter, 203, 204
Krapinica, stream of, 203
Krause, E., 299
Krause, W., 41

I

La Chapelle-aux-Saints man—

artifacts with, 253
base of skull, 257, 258
brain, 267
burial, intentional, 253, 255
classification, 255, 261
cranial capacity, 267
cranial index, 262
dental arch, 259, 262
depository, present, 251
discovery, 251, 253, 255
explorations, cave of, 251
face, 258, 259, 262
faunal associations, 253
jaw, lower, 260, 261
measurements——

skeletal, 266

of skull, 262
nose, 258, 262
orbits, 258, 262
palate, 259
pathology, 256
preservation, 255, 257, 263
primitive nature ot lower jaw, 261
prognathism, 258, 259, 262
sex, 261

374

La Chapelle-aux-Saints man—Cont'd
skeletal remains, 263 et seq.
skull comparisons, 256, 257
stature and musculature, 261, 266
stratigraphy, site of, 253, 254
teeth, 259, 260
vault, 256, 257, 262

La Cotte cave, 244-246

La Ferrassie remains—
ages, individual, 270
artifacts with, 268, 269
brain, skull No. 1, 270
burial, intentional, 269, 270, 274, 275
critical remarks, 274, 275
cultural stratification, site of, 268
depository, present, 269, 270
discovery, date and locality, 267, 268
endocranium, 271
jaw, lower, 271
pathology, 273
position of, in situ, 268-270
preservation, 269, 270
sex, 270, 271
skeletal parts, 271-273
skulls, description, 270, 271
stature, 270-272 :
teeth, 271
transitional significance of, 274

La Ferrassie, village of, 267

Lancet, 115

La Naulette Jaw—
bibliography, 314
bones, human, with, 310
cannibalism, suggestion of, 312
classification, 313
depository, present, 311
description, 312, 313
discovery, 310
faunal associations, 311
measurements, 312, 313
preservation, 312
sex,. 312
site of, 310-312
teeth, 313,
ulna associated with, 312

La Quina remains—
age, 280, 282, 287
astragali of, 277
base of skull, 288
brain, 282, 289, 290, 291
burial, critical note on, 284, 285

doubt of, 276, 278, 279
classification, 277-279, 280, 285
comparisons, skull, 286
critical remarks on, 283-285, 297
cultural identification, 275, 276, 283
depository, present, 278, 282
discoverer, comments on, 282
discovery, dates, 275, 277-280
excavations, further, site of, 282, 283
explorations, early, site of, 276
faunal remains, site of, 276, 283
femora, 296, 297
humeri, 295, 296
jaw, lower, 282, 288, 291, 292

second lower, 293, 294
measurements—

adult skull and jaw, 292

child’s skull, 295

of molars, 293
musculature, 282
nose, 288, 294

INDEX

La Quina remains—Cont’d
orbits, 287, 294
palate, 288
patella, 280
pathology, 295, 296
position of, in situ, 275, 276
preservation, 276, 277, 295
prognathism, 288, 294
publications on, 281
sex, 278, 281, 286, 297
shovel-shaped incisors, 295
site of, 275
skeletal parts, 295-297
skull, adult, 285-289, 292
child’s, 279, 280, 294, 295
stature, 282
stratigraphy, site of, 276, 277
supraorbital arches of skulls, 287, 294
sutures of skull, 287, 294
teeth, 282, 288, 291, 293
thickness, skull, 288
toe, 282
transitional characters, 279
vault—
adult skull, 286, 287
child’s skull, 294, 295
Leakey, 132
Leclerq, S., 161, .184
Lehner, Hans, 152
Le Moustier, site of, 297
Le Moustier youth—
age, 299
artifacts with, 298
bibliography, 303
classification, 299, 301
cranial index, 301
dental arches, 299, 302
depository, present, 297, 300
discovery, 297, 298
faunal associations with, 298, 290
jaw, lower, 299, 302
locality of find, 297, 2908
measurements, skull, 301, 302
position of, in situ, 298
remains of, 297, 299, 302
restorations of skull, 230, 290
sex, 299
skeletal parts, 299, 300, 302
skull, 299, 300-302
comparisons, 301
stature, 299
supraorbital torus, 299
teeth, 299
vault, 301
Lesse River, 311
Leverett, Frank, 14, 16, 17, 21
Lindig, E, 230
Lingual surface, mandibular, of—
Eoanthropus, 82
Mauer, 93, 94
Neanderthal jaws, 178, 193, 194, 213,
2045) 207, 208;02305)237,) 2004 ang
Lohest, M., 179, 180, 183, 184
Lyell, Charles, 151, 161 _

M

Macartney, R. K., 99, 102, 104, 108
MacCurdy, G. G., 12, 230, 327, 330, 364
Macrodont teeth, of early man, 353
Magdalenian, 329, 337

Malarnaud jaw, 315

INDEX

Man, early, in Europe, 87
evolution of, 36, 48
Mandibular angles—
Heidelberg, 95
Neanderthal, 178, 217, 218, 237, 261,
318
Manouvrier, L., 40, 41
- Marett, R. R., 247, 251
Marsh Oni "42
Martin, Henri, 53,.275-282, 293
Martin, R., 41, 114
Maska, Karel J., 314, 361
Mastoids of—
Eoanthropus, 72, 74,
Neanderthal skulls, 166, 177, 207, 210,
212, 257, 287, 294
Rhodesian skull, 126
Matthew, W. D., 65
Mauer—
village of, 91
further excavations at, 98
Mauer jaw, see Heidelberg jaw
Maxillae—
Jersey, 348
Krapina, 212, 213
Rhodesian, 113
Spy, 192, 194
Mayet, L., 21
McGregor, J. H., 65, 71
Median frontal ridge, Pithecanthropus, 47
Mennell, F. P., tor
Mentone, 361
Miller, Gerrit S., Jr., 41, 64, 65, 78, 79, 244
Mineralization of —
bone implement from Piltdown, 69
bones secured by author at Trinil. 59
critical notes on, 89
Foxhall jaw, 25, 26
Heidelberg jaw, 92
Neanderthal remains, 152, 162, x64, 189,
206, 255, 305, 306
Piltdown remains, 67, 69, 72, 88
Rhodesian remains, 110, 111, 112, 113
Trinil remains, 46
Miocene, 6
Moir, Reid, 23,
Molars, from—
Ehringsdorf, 234,
Heidelberg, 94, 96
Krapina, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219
La Quina, 293
Piltdown, 78, 83-87
Spy, 194, 195
Taubach, 243, 244
Trinil, 35, 37, 49
Trinil, Selenka-Blanckenhorn expedition,

24, 26

235, 237

44
Molars, lower—
dimensions and indices, 354, 356-360
early man compared with present, 353,

355
Mollison, Th., 65, 241
Montseron, village of, 315
Moravia, 314
Morphological characteristics,
résumé of, 319, 326
Morselli, E., 65
Mortillet, G. de, 11, 23, 314
Mousterian man—
art, 338
clothing, 333
cultural sequence,

Neanderthal,

336, 337

375

Mousterian man—Cont’d
faunal associations, 329
food, 333
geological period of, 14, 330
housing of, 331, 333
implements, 205, 250, 277, 315, 334, 335
See also Neanderthal family
Museum fiir Vélkerkunde, 300
Mylohyoid ridge, 194, 213, 214, 217, 218,
236, 260, 291, 293
Mysberg, W. A., 64

N

Narodni Muzej, 204, 205
Natur. Hist. Soc. Pruss. Rhineland, 149, 150
Neander, gorge of, 148, 149
Neander, Joachin, 148
Neanderthal family—
art of, critical remarks, 337, 338
brain, 322, 344
classification, remains, on morphological
basis, 341-344
classification, on bases of antiquity, date
of discovery, state of preservation,
339, 340
clothing, 333
confusion on, 326
culture sequence, 336, 337
definition, 328
duration of, geological, 346
dwellings of, 331
environment, 346
evolution of, 144, 319, 345
facé, 320, 321
food, habits relating to, 333, 334
geographical range, 144, 328, 3290
geology associated with, 330
head, 322
implements, transitional character, 334,
335
jaw, lower, 321, 322
morphological characteristics of, 225, 340
morphological comparison with H. sapi-
ens, 347
musculature, 326
natural selection, 346, 347
opinions on, 326, 327
paleontological delimitations, 329
physical replacement of, views and
critique, 335, 336
preservation, remains of, 319
problem of, uncertainties, 327, 328
recapitulation, problem of, 344-349
relationship to Aurignacian man, 331,
333-338, 344, 345, 347, 348
remains, 145-147, 365
skeletal delimitations, critique of, 339-344
skeletal remains, paucity of, 319
skeleton of, 322, 323, 325
skull base, 320
skulleap, 319, 320
stature, 326
taxonomy, 144, 327, 348
teeth, 321
transitional nature of,
type specimens of, 340
variability, morphological,
weight, individual, 326
Neanderthal skeleton—
age, individual, 153
brain, 155

202, 279, 319

341-344, 348

376

Neanderthal skeleton—Cont’d
capacity, skull, 155
classification, 152
controversy on, 151, 152
depository, present, 152
discovery, date and locality, 148, 150
evolutional stage, 144, 148, 155, 159
measurements, skull, 154
methods used in measuring, 153
musculature, 159
pathology, 152, 155, 156
preservation, 152, 153
remains of, 149
report, first, on, 150
skeletal bones, 155 et seq.
skull vault, 153, 154
stature, 159
stratigraphy, site, 150, I51
supraorbital arch, 153
sutures, cranial, 152, 153
thickness, skull, 153

Neave, S. A., 134

Nehring, A., 43, 242, 244

Neolithic period, 12
remains, 170

New Britain, teeth of, compared with Pilt-
down, 83

Nicolle, E. T., 244, 245, 247

Norris, G. C., 99

Nose—
Eoanthropus, 74
Galilee, 307, 308
Gibraltar, 164, 165, 168, 175, 177
Krapina, 209, 210
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 258, 262
La Ferrassie, 271
La Quina, 288, 294
Le Moustier, 302
Rhodesia, 128, 131
Spy, 192

O

Obermaier, Hugo, 21, 229, 317, 364
Occiput of —

Eoanthropus, 74, 88

Neanderthal skulls, 153, 165, 191, 208,

211, 212) 238, 239, 250, 270, 2875
294, 301

Pithecanthropus, 38

Rhodesian, 125, 126
Olecranon fossae, 155, 196, 197, 222, 272, 296
Oppenheim, Stefanie, 161
Orbits—

Galilee, 308

Gibraltar, 164, 165, 168

Krapina, 209, 210

La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 258, 262

La Ferrassie, 271

La Quina, 287

Le Moustier, 301

Rhodesia, 126, 127
Original notes on—

Foxhall jaw, 24, 25

Gibraltar adult skull, 162

Gibraltar child skull, 171-176

La Quina remains, 279

Neanderthal skeleton, 150, 151

Piltdown remains, 66-69

Rhodesian cave, 134-142

Rhodesian remains, 104 et seq., 142-144

INDEX

Original notes on—Cont’d
“Second ’’ Pithecanthropus, 63
Spy archeological stratification, 182

’ Trinil remains, 29 et seq.

Origins, Homo sapiens, 344, 345

Ornaments, early, 283

Orneau, stream of, 178

Osborn, Hi. JB: 135 16; 275) 23) 2639327516345
364

Osterman, S., 204

Owen, Richard, 25

iP
Palates—
Neanderthal, 192, 213, 259, 271, 288
Rhodesian, 128
See Dental arch
Paleolithic period, subdivisions of, 11
sites, comparative, of, 331
Paleontology, chronological value of, 2
cautions in use of, 3
Palestine, explorations in, 310
Parietals of —
Eoanthropus, 74
Neanderthal skulls, 165, 177, 210, 211,
238, 256, 287, 294
Rhodesian, 125
Pariser loess formation, 230, 233
Paris Museum of Natural History, 251, 270,
278, 282
Patellae of —
Krapina, 224, 225
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 265
La Quina, 280
Spy No. 2, 201
Pathology of —
Heidelberg jaw, 91
Neanderthal remains, 152, 155, 156, 180,
216, 221, 223, 235, 256, 273, 295,
296, 307
Pithecanthropus femur, 48, 49
Rhodesian remains, 116, 121, 123, 128
Peake, H., 12, 364
Pei, W. C., 366
Pelves of —
Krapina, 223
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 265
Neanderthal, 156, 158
Pithecanthropus, probable, 51
Penck, A., 6, 21, 346
Peyrony, M., 268, 270
Piltdown Common, 66, 67
bone implement from, 68
further excavations at, 90
Piltdown man. See Eoanthropus
Pissot).l.. 20
Pithecanthropus erectus—
author’s examination of originals, 45, 46
brain of, 45, 48, 56
classification, 38, 48, 55, 56, 60
controversy—
causes of, 53, 54
on remains of, 41-44, 51, 60
cranial capacity, 36, 52, 62
cranial index, 39, 51, 62
critical remarks, 53, 57
faunal associations of, 31
femur, description, 36, 39, 49, 51
geological age, 47, 53
history, finds of, 29 et seq.
jaw, lower, 32, 35
locality, discovery, 28, 30, 31

INDEX

Pithecanthropus erectus—Cont'd
locomotion, mode of, 36, 51
measurements, Dubois, 39, 51, 52, 62
measurements—

femur, 36, 39, 52
mandible, 33, 34
measurements, Weinert, 62
pelvis, probable shape, 51
preservation of remains, 46
relationship to H. sapiens, 61
remains attributed to, 28, 32
Sex, 41, 54
skullcap, 35, 36, 39, 51, 62
stature, 40, 55
stratigraphy of site, 29, 31, 60
teeth, attributed to, 35, 37
description of, 49
wear of, 54

Podkumok skull, 239

Pohlig, H., 53

PYedmost, 361, 362

Premolars from—

Ehringsdorf, 235, 237

Krapina, 213, 219

La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 259, 260
Trinil, 37, 49

Primates, tertiary, 6

Pruner-Bey, 314

Pterion, of Krapina skull C, 210

Puccioni, N., 364

Pycraft, W. P., 117

R
Radii—
Krapina, 222, 223
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 264
La Ferrassie, 272
Neanderthal, 156, 157
Spy No. 1, 196, 199
Rahin, E., 183
Ramstrom, Martin, 65
Rauff, Hermann, 161
Renane, A., 364
Rhodesia— ;
additional remains secured by writer in,
110, 113
“ Broken Hill,’’ too
writer’s visit to, 99, 100
Rhodesia Broken Hill Development Company,
99, 101
Rhodesian cave, reports on, 134-137, 138-142
Rhodesian man—
age, 129, 130
brain, 119, 121
British Museum report on, 116-119, 121-
123
classification, 116, 118, 124, 129
critical remarks, 115, 116
dental arch, 128
depository, present, 99
discovery of, summary, 110
face, 126-128
faunal associations, 112, 122, 137
forehead, 117, 124
fractured associated bones, significance
Obie. Tas
history of discovery, 99 et seq.
measurements, skull, 130, 131
morphological type, 116, 124
original documents on, 104 ef seq.

377

Rhodesian man—Cont’d
palate, 128
pathology, 116, 121, 123, 124, 128
preservation of remains, 110, III, 112,
113 .
prognathism, 128
remains, 98, 113
reports on Cave, 134-142
sex, 123
skeletal associations, author’s views on,
Ur4, L6G, 134
skull, 117, 118, 123-131
base, 123, 129
thickness, 118, 126
stratigraphy, 103, 135, 138, 139
supraorbital torus, 124
sutures, cranial, 125
teeth, 121, 123, 128
tibia attributed to, 131-134
Rhodesian Scientific Association, 134, 138
Ribs—
Krapina, 219, 221
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 263
La Ferrassie, 272
Neanderthal, 156
Rock-shelters, 331, 332.
Rome skull, 310
Rosch, Joseph, 90
Royal Anthropological Institute, 171
Rucquoy, M., 178
Rudyerd, G. W., 99
Rutot;. Ass 21, 183, 229, 312

Ss

Salisbury, R. D., 19

Saller, K., 241

Salomon, W., 92

Sandegren, Ragnar, 15

Scapulate, the Neanderthal, 156, 197, 221, *
272

Schaaffhausen, D., 149, 151, 155, 161, 314

Schoetensack, Otto, 90, 91, 96, 98, 242

Schliz, A., 21

Schlosser, M., 228

Schmidt, R. R., 21, 183, 242

Schuchhardt, 303

Schuster, D., 53

Schuster, E., 231, 234

Schuster, J., 53

Schwalbe, G., 41, 44, 152, 155, 161, 17.
229, 230, 244

“Second ”’ Pithecanthropus, the—
discovery of, 63
true identification, 64

Selenka-Blanckenhorn expedition to Trinii,
44, 53

Selenka, M. Lenore, 44

Sera, G. L., 114, 171

Sergi, S., 310, 318

Sewell’s Cave, in Gibraltar, 170

Sex determination, 307, 308

Shovel-shaped teeth in early man, 213, 274
219, 238, 295

Siffre, 115

Sinanthropus pekinensis—
classification, 367, 368
communications, 365-367
description of remains, 367
discovery, 365
preservation of, 365, 366, 367
remains, 365

See also Caves

378

Sinel, J., 244, 247, 251, 364
Sipka jaw, 314, 315
Skeletal remains, need of, 3
significance of, 22
Skulls. See under locality or generic name
Skull, base, of the Neanderthaler, 320
Skullcap, the Neanderthal, 319, 320
Skull form of—
Eoanthropus, 72
Neanderthal, 153, 166, 176, 191, 208,
209, 256, 257, 271, 294, 307
Pithecanthropus, 47
Rhodesian, 125
See Vault
Skull thickness of —
Eoanthropus, 72, 88
Neanderthal, 153, 166, 175, 187, 190,
192, 206, 208, 210, 211, 238, 257,
288, 299, 307
note on, 89
Rhodesian, 118, 126
Smiths (G Blliot;) 72, 735,75) 765, BES, LzO;
134, 171, 175, 364, 368
Smithyn Rapes ater
Smith, S. A., 134
Soergal), Wey 21, 233) 241
Sollas, W. J., 134, 364
Solo River, see Bengawan
Solutrean, 329, 337, 361
Sonnrein, H., 243
Sourdoire, stream of, 251
Specific gravity of—
Piltdown remains, 67
Trinil remains, 33, 34, 46
Spy, in Belgium, 178
Spy, skeletons—
ages, individual, 189
archeological stratification
with, 180-182, 183
brains, 191
burials, intentional, 181, 182, 202
classification of, 184, 186, 190, 202
color of, 189
critical remarks on, 188, 189
depository, present, 184, 187, 202
discovery, 179
faunal associations of, 181
geological age, 183
jaw, lower—
No. 1, 187, 193, 194

associated

No. 2, 194
locality, 178, 179
maxilla—

Spy No. 1, 192
Spy No. 2, 194
measurements—
crania, 187, 192
long bones, 187, 196, 197, 199, 200
lower jaws, 194
teeth, 195
mineralization of, 189
observations on originals, 185, 186
palate, skull No. 1, 192
pathology, 189
positions, im situ, 180
remains, 188, 189
sex, 186, 189, 190, 196
skeletal bones—
No. 1, 195, 196, 197, 199-203
No. 2, 197-203
skulls, 187, 190-192
bases of, 191

INDEX

Spy, skeletons—Cont’d
stratigraphy of site, 180, 181
supraorbital ridges, 190
sutures, cranial, 191
teeth—

No. 1, 192, 193, 194, 195
No. 2, 194, 195
transitional nature of, 202
vaults, crania, 190-192
Statures, men of—
Krapina, 206
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 261, 266 -
La Ferrassie, 270, 271, 272
La Quina, 282
Le Moustier, 299
Neanderthal, 159
Pithecanthropus, 40, 55

Stature of the Neanderthaler, 326

St. Brelade man, see Jersey man

St. Brelade’s Bay, 245

St. Heliére, 245

Stone implements, 170, 231, 234

Stramberk, in Moravia, 314

Stremme, H., 53

Styloid process of —
Eoanthropus, 72
Neanderthal skulls, 167, 210, 258, 288
Rhodesian skull, 129

Sulcus lunatus, 291

Sulje, F., 205
Supraorbital arch, in skulls of —
Eoanthropus, 74
Ehringsdorf, 238
Galilee, 306, 307
Gibraltar, 164, 165, 176
Krapina, 207, 208, 209, 210
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 256
La Ferrassie,. 271, 272
La Quina, 287, 294
Le Moustier, 299
Neanderthal, 153
Pithecanthropus, 36
Rhodesian, 124
Spy, 187, 190, 192
Supraorbital torus, reduction of, 343
Sutures, cranial
Eoanthropus, 72
Galilee, 307
Krapina, 208, 210, 211
La Quina, 287, 294
Neanderthal, 152, 153
Rhodesian, 125
Spy, 191
Sutures, nasal, of Eoanthropus, 74
Swinton, W. E., 123
Symphisis. See Chin

iE

Taubach, near Weimar, 241, 242
Taubach teeth—
archeological associations of, 242
culture associated with, 244
depository of, present, 242, 243
discovery, 241, 242
faunal associations of, 242
geological age of, 241, 242
identification of, 241, 242, 244
locality, 241 —
molar of, 243, 244
premolar of, 242, 243

INDEX

Taubach teeth—Cant’d
stratigraphy of site, 242, 243
wear of, 241, 242
Taungs skull, 61
Taxonomy, of Neanderthal man, 144, 348
Teeth—
comparative measurements, 85
conclusions, early man, 355, 361
difficulties in measuring, 350, 351
methods of measuring, 350, 351, 352
module of molars, range of in present
man, 353
molars, dimensions and
356-360
reduction, size of, 353, 355
specimens measured, 352
Teeth of—
Bafolas, 318
Ehringsdorf—
adult, 234, 235, 236
child, 236, 237
Eoanthropus, 69, 82-86
Gibraltar—
adult, 164, 165, 166
child, 174, 177
Heidelberg, 94, 96, 97
Jersey, 244, 246, 248
Krapina, 207, 208, 213-215, 217, 219,
220
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 259, 260
La Ferrassie, 271
La Naulette, 313
La Quina, 288, 291, 293
Le Moustier, 299
Rhodesia, 121, 123, 128
Taubach, 241-244
Trinil, 35, 37, 49, 54
Spy—
No. 1, 192-195
No. 2, 194, 195
Teeth, the Neanderthaler’s, 321
Teilhard, P., 70
Temporals of—
Eoanthropus, 74
Neanderthal skulls, 166, 177, 191, 207,
210, 239, 256, 257, 287, 294, 307
Rhodesian, 125, 126
Tertiary man, 2, 23, 24
Third Internat. Zoolog. Cong., Leyden, 40
Tibia attributed to Rhodesian man—
association with Rhodesian skull, doubt
CianLo6s 1S wr as. 44
compared with white and negro tibiz,
T3213
description, 131, 132
measurements, 132
sex, 131
Tibiae of—
Krapina, 224
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 265, 266
La Ferrassie, 273
Le Moustier, 302
Spy, 198, 199
MRoldt; (G., (220, 241
Topinard, P., 311
Travertine deposits, 229
Trinil man. See Pithecanthropus
Trinil, village of, 30, 35
Trogontherium, 320
Turville-Petre, F., 303

indices, 354,

379
U

Ulnae of—
Krapina, 223
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 264
La Ferrassie, 272
La Naulette, 312
La Quina, 296
Neanderthal, 156, 157
Spy, 106, 107

U. S. National Museum—
chimpanzee jaws in, 81, 82-84, 97
crania in, 56, 342

Vv

Vault—
Ehringsdorf, 238, 239
Eoanthropus, 72, 73, 74
Galilee, 307
Gibraltar, 165, 166
Krapina, 206-210, 212
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 256, 257, 262
La Ferrassie, 271
La Quina, 285, 286, 294
Le Moustier, 301
Neanderthal, 153
Pithecantropus, 36, 47
Rhodesian, 125
Vertebrae—
Krapina, 219, 221
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 263
La Quina, 295
Vezére, valley of, 297
Virchow, Rudolf, 41, 43, 151, 231, 241, 303
Voultron, 275
W

Wallace, A. F., 99, 104, 108
Walkhoff, O., 229
Wardseke DexG@.. 21
Wear, teeth of—
Eoanthropus, 84, 87
Neanderthal, 165, 192, 216, 234, 241,
242, 248, 250, 260, 271, 201, 317,
318
Pithecanthropus, 54
Weidenreich, F., 231, 238, 341, 342
Weight of the Neanderthaler, 326
Weimar culture, 234
Weimar Museum, 231, 234
Weinert, H., 34, 60, 62, 65, 300
Weiss, A., 241, 242
Werth, E., 244, 364
White, F., 102, 134, 138
Wiegers, F., 21, 231, 234
Woodward, A. Smith, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74,
77, 78, 114, 134, 246
Wyman, J., 161

ay
Yearsly, M., 121

Z

Zagreb, 202, 204
Zemské Museum, 314
Zschokke, F., 21
Zwigelaar, T., 99, 103, 104
Zyzgomae—
Neanderthal, 177, 210, 212, 238, 256,
287
Rhodesian, 127

a -

*
es
’
.
fF
.

i Pak

aah?
i Bie}
shat

a ar at
cee 4 7% ry a
ara
ae 0) i

U ey i
site ae ie
Gig

iF
F *

rm
i

( 7 ;
- 7 7
aN cca ee
iat -

ne

a i i ‘ i
a

?

eee
eed
. i

punit *
aa Nl

a

pt

3 9088 01424

, a