AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 56:435-459(19811
results were finally
itterly criticized and
·acist. It is neverthe­
1any insights which
Illy appreciated.
e that the criminal
, Hooton was also
he osteological and
at Pecos, New Mex­
riod it was perhaps
lction of stratified
een analyzed in the
it occupied Hooton
lS his Irish study,
I as a collaborative
, culture, physical
history of the Irish
nbitious attempt to
tl and racift.! history
mtific importance I
ivity because it iI­
ity to ideas that en­
tion of physical an­
do with design of
lent of comfort and
pport of the Hey­
in Massachusetts,
led survey of the
rrge sample to pro­
rnilarly during the
organized a large
his students par­
, and Air Corps in
;ing space in the
, Most of this re­
! jubilees would be an analysis of Hrdlicka's
rreer, Hooton also
to constitutional
a! concept had ap­
9, and he used its
V of ways and had
lpular writing, he
lly until he under­
d as Young Man
i was, I suspect,
>n with Sheldon,
3 he greatly ad­
ied activities and
; complete, but it
a seminal man he
;e on the develop­
3'.
I
I 0002-9483/81/5604-0435$07.00
____J__----::-::-::-====------­
The Significance of Ales Hrdlicka's "Neanderthal
Phase of Man": A Historical and Current Assessment
FRANK SPENCER AND FRED H. SMITH
Department olAnthropology. Queens College ol the City University ol New
York, Flushing, Neu' York 11367 (PS) and Department ol Anthropologv,
Universitv ol Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37,916 (F.H.S)
KEY WORDS: Hrdlicka, Neandertal, Human evolution, History
ABSTRACT Ales Hrdlicka's hypothesis on a Neandertal phase of human
evolution is examined in light of current data and interpretations on Neandertals.
Hrdlicka's interpretations are related to his ideas regarding the peopling of the
N~w World. A major early statement of Hrdlicka's views on Neandertal was his
Huxley Memorial Lecture of 1927. We assess this formulation and subsequent
development of his hypothesis. Hrdlicka's position is compared with the "pre­
sapiens" and "pre-neandertal" hypotheses on the basis of current theory and data.
In 1980-1981, physical anthropologists perspectives were both interrelated and inter­
celebrate two significant jubilees: the Fiftieth dependent - a fact clearly demonstrated by
Annua! Meeting of the American Association Spencer (1979) - and therefore often misunder­
of Physical Anthropologists and the 125th an­ stand his ideas. For example, his "Neanderthal
niversary of the discovery of the Feldhofer phase of man" concept, the focus of this paper,
Cave Neandertal. Certainly no single in­ certainly does not represent an isolated in­
dividual can be more intimately associated terest. but did, in fact, develop from his study
with both the study of Neandertals and the of and interest in the antiquity of humans in
birth of the AAPA than Ales Hrdlicka the New World. Furthermore, his feelings on
(1869-1943), the founder and first president of both of these issues were inextricably en­
the association. Thus we felt that an ap­ twined with his overall scheme for the peopl­
propriate way of marking the passage of both ing of the earth. Also, the existence of an ar­
chaic morphological stage between "Pithecan­
ideas regarding the evolutionary significance thropus" and recent humans was a necessary
of Neandertals and how those ideas fare in outgrowth of his interpretations of how the
light of current evidence. evolutionary process operated. In the same
Such an analysis of Hrdlicka's views is im­ vein, his belief in and use of what has come to
portant and timely for several additional be called morphological dating - for which he
reasons. First, during his lifetime, Hrdlicka has been unjustly criticized (Stewart, 1949;
stood virtually alone in his support of a uni­ see also Smith, 1977) - was clearly related to
lineal approach to human evolution, which in­ his conception of the evolutionary process and
cluded a "Neanderthal phase of man" was not simply a convenient mechanism to
(Hrdlicka, 1914, 1927, 1930), as an alternative disprove the antiquity of humans in the New
to the "pre-sapiens" hypothesis embraced by World. Recognition of the "interrelatedness"
the vast majority of his contemporaries. In in Hrdlicka's work is particularly essential to
many respects he should be considered the understanding his perspectives on paleo­
founder of the modern unilineal approach to anthropology. Finally, many of the points
Late Pleistocene fossil hominid evolution. Sec­ raised by Hrdlicka, particularly in his Huxley
ond, many recently trained scholars fail to ful­ Memorial Lecture of 1927, both in support of a
ly comprehend and appreciate the degree to Neandertal stage of human evolution as well
which Hrdlicka's diverse and often seemingly as in opposition to other existing hypotheses
unrelated research interests and theoretical on the origin of modern humans. continue to
1981 ALAN R. LlSS, INC.
_
436 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
HRI

be valid and thus warrant discussion in the
light of more recent data on Late Pleistocene
hominids in the Old World.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NEANDERTAL DEBATE
By the time Hrdlicka entered the debate a
considerable amount of controversy a~d
numerous changes of opinion regarding the
phylogenetic significance of the Neandertal
foss!1 assemblage had already occurred.
Durmg the initial phase of the debate
scientific opinion ranged from the view that
Neandertal fossils represented an earlier stage
of human evolution (e.g., Huxley, 1863; King,
1864), to the view that they were simply
examples of severe pathological conditions of
one form or another (e.g., Mayer, 1864; Vir­
chow. 1872, 1882). By the turn of the century,
however, enough Neandertal specimens were
known and their probable antiquity
established to the degree that most scholars
followed the general appraisal of Gustav
Schwalbe (1899,1901,1904,1906) that human
evolution had essentially proceeded in a
stepwise fashion through three distinct
morphological stages of development. with
the Neandertals representing the intermedi­
ary stage.
This .appraisal was strongly opposed by
Marcellm Boule, who emphasized certain "sim­
ian" as well as other unique and primitive
aspe~ts of Neandertals in his analysis of the
speCImen from La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Houle,
1911-1913; Boule and Anthony, 1911) and
concluded that Neandertals were not a reason­
able antecedent of modern humans in Europe
(see also Boule, 1921). Furthermore, Boule
suggested. initially on the basis of some of the
remains from Grotte des Enfants at Grimaldi
(Boule. 1914), that more modern hominids had
lived contemporaneously with Neandertals in
Europe and that this "sapiens" lineage could
be traced, independently of Neandertals to an
earlie.r period. The subsequent discov~ry of
the llltamous Piltdown remains provided
Boule with a possible precursor of the "sa­
piens" lineage.
Following in the wake of Boule's analysis of
the La Chapelle skeleton and the discoveries
at Piltdown (1911-1916) there was a general
retreat from the Neandertal hypothesis in sup­
por~ of what later became known as the pre­
sap.lens theory (see below). This theory re­
mamed the most popular view of later hominid
evolution until well after the Second World
War.
There were those, however, who for various ~ited re~larly, not only in hi~
reasons continued to support some form of a In analytical contexts, by virtu
?asically unilineal concept and rejected the of the later phases of human e
Id~a of a separate pre-sapiens lineage. Among
thIS rather small group of workers - which in­ THE DEVELOPMENT OF HRDLI
cluded Rene Verneau (1924), Franz Wei­ HYPOTHESIS ON THE PEOPLING
denreich (1928,1943, 1947" and Hans Weinert In order to understand
(1932,:. 1953, 1955) -was, of course, Ales Hrdlicka's interpretation of
Hrdlicka (1914,1927, 1930i. fossil hominid record and its 1
For reasons far too complex to discuss iJ;i this thesi~ on the peopling of the
brief synopsis, a "compromise" interpretation
sphere, it is necessary to first c
of the origins of modern humans began to ent features of his particular c(
emerge in the thinking of many scientists in evolutionary process.
the years between the two world wars. This
compromise, later known as the pre-neandertal The theoretical basis of Hrd
h;vp?,thesis, postulated that certain "progres­ on human evoluti<
sive Neandertal groups were conceivably
Succinctly, Hrdlicka was C
ancestral to modern humans but that other
modern humans were the prod
groups (especially the western European
c.alled "an extraordinary progn
Wiirm Neandertals) were noL. The funda­
twtlOn from some anthropogen
mental difference between this theory and the
developed somewhere in the
pre-sapiens theory is that the latter placed the
among th~ primates" (Hrdlickl
divergence of lineages leading to Neandertals
also Hrdlicka. 1907:9). But unlil
and modern llomo sapiens at an earlier date.' jority of his contemporaries wh
While this approach is first encountered in the cess terminating mysteriously
writings of Grafton Elliot Smith (1924), it did
termined point in the late Ter
not become popular until the late 1940s and Quaternary (e.g.. Kollmann 1
early 1950s and is perhaps best represented by .181\7. 1889)2, Hrdlicka was of U
the work of Sergio Sergi (1953a.b) and F. Clark It was an ongoing process {l
Howell (1951, 1952, 1957). r 1907:12-13. 1908,1912a:3-5,1!
The volume commemorating the 100th anrri­ and for this reason he regarded I
versa:y of the 1856 Neandertal discovery (von divers~ty (both contemporary ar
K08mgswald. 1958) and other publications of ( reflectIOn of the inherent "inst
this period (e.g., Boule and Vallois, 1957; human constitution. "Every or
Howells, 1959,1962; Patte, 1955) demonstrate he wrote:
both the continued lack of consensus among (
supporters of the pre-sapiens and various pre­
?f whatever consistency or i
neandertal hypotheses and the virtual absence IS the result of all the
of ~nilinealist views (harring those of Wcinertl which it is affected. With t
which postdate Weidenreich's writings and the parts, by far the strange:
last opinion of Sir Arthur Keith (1949). In the factors, in itself a verv corr
early 1960s, however, C. Loring Brace (1962a.
is the potentiality of hered
1964) resurrected the unilineal approach, and
which in importance com
fro~ ~his point on through to the present.
muscular action. particulc
varIatIOns of all three of these major orienta­
lar use due to long establi:
tions have had their supporters. But in spite of of whole groups of peoplf
the continuing lack of consensus among paleo­ however, especially in so :
anthropologists regarding tbe phylogenetic pli~s to the latest acquire(
significance of the European Neandertals, IStiCS of the skeleton is Sl
Hrdlicka's views, though now necessarily cidental irregulariti~s as
somewhat dated. nevertheless continue to be gradual modifications.
muscle action. on the (
IT~w viewc: of Vv'eincrl. (19;)3. 19;)5) and \Veidcnreit:h (1947, 19·191 change with environmeJ
ca~.m so~n~ ways be considerprl pre·ncandertal rather than strictly
ture; such changes in ad
~TI1IJnea.l .J",n persvective. And in samf' regards, the same can he ,s<tld
lor Hrohcka, who dearly believed that only certain NeandertaJ take place much more slo
groups evolved Into modem JJomo sapiens 11927;272) localities than in others , ..
r

~_l_
-

ver, who for various
lort some form of a
It and rejected the
ens lineage. Among
workers-which in­
1924), Franz Wei­
), and Hans Weinert
s, of course, Ales
»).
lex to discuss iJ.J. this
nise" interpretation
humans began to
. many scientists in
'0 world wars. This
IS the pre-neandertal
at certain "progres­
were conceivably
ans but that other
western European
e not. The funda­
this theory and the
the latter placed the
iing to Neandertals
; at an earlier date. l
t encountered in the
Smith (1924), it did
the late 1940s and
best represented by
953a,b) and F. Clark
ting the 100th anni­
ertal discovery (von
ther publications of
and Vallois, 1957;
,1955ldemonstrate
f consensus among
ms and various pre­
I the virtual absence
ng those of Weinert)
h's writings and the
Keith (1949). In the
,oring Brace (1962a,
ineal approach, and
:gh to the present,
hese major orienta­
rters. But in spite of
;ensus among paleo­
~ the phylogenetic
Jpean Neandertals,
:l now necessarily
~less continue to be
md Weidenreich 11947, 19491
~andertal rather than strictly
egards, the same can be said
lat only certain Neandertal
iens 11927:2721.
I v
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
I
cited regularly, not only in historical but also
I in analytical contexts, by virtually all students
I of the later phases of human evolution.
v ring structural alterations. The great
I
THE DEVELOPM~~NTOF HRDLICKA'S UNIFIED
HYPOTHESIS ON THE PEOPLING OF THE WORLD
I
In order to understand more clearly
Hrdlicka's interpretation of the European
fossil hominid record and its relevance to his
thesi~ on the peopling of the Western Hemi­
sphere, it is necessary to first consider the sali­
ent features of his particular conception of the
evolutionary process,
The theoretical basis of Hrdlicka's views
on human evolution
Succinctly, Hrdlicka was convinced that
modern humans were the product of what he
called "an extraordinary progressive differen­
tiation from some anthropogenic stock, which
developed somewhere in the later Tertiary,
among the primates" (Hrdlicka, 1912a:2; see
also Hrdlitka, 1907:9). But unlike the vast ma­
jority of his contemporaries who saw this pro­
cess terminating mysteriously at some unde­
termined point in the late Tertiary or lower
Quaternary (e.g., Kollmann, 1884; Wallace,
1887, 1889)2, Hrdlicka was of the opinion that
it was an ongoing process ie.g., Hrdlicka,
1907:12-13,1908. 1912a:3-5, 1918:21, 1921b),
and for this reason he regarded human skeletal
diversity (both contemporary and historic) as a
reflection of the inherent "instability" of the
human constitution. "Every organic feature,"
he wrote:
of whatever consistency or importance,
is the result of all the factors by
which it is affected. With the skeletal
parts, by far the strongest of these
factors, in itself a very composite one,
is the potentiality of heredity, next to
which in importance comes habitual
muscular action, particularly muscu­
lar use due to long established habits
of whole groups of people. Heredity,
however, especially in so far as it ap­
plies to the latest acquired character­
istics of the skeleton, is subject to in­
cidental irregularities as well as to
gradual modifications. Habits of
muscle action, on the other hand,
change with environment and cul­
ture; such changes in activities may
take place much more slowly in some
localities than in others, yet they are
437
bound to manifest themselves every­
where in the course of ages and to be
followed by corresponding and recur­
skeletal diversity of mankind today
can be accounted for in no other man­
ner (Hrdlicka, 1907:12-13).
Taken at face value this statement can be in­
terpreted either in a Mendelian or Lamarckian
sense. However, it is evident that Hrdlicka
belonged to neither camp. Essentially, he ad­
vocated the reduction of environmental in­
fluences to the status of modifying rather
than formative factors. That is to say, instead
of employing Mendelian concepts to buttress
essentially pregenetic racial generalizations,
he was toying with the notion of how the
genetic material of an organism is affected by
the multitudinous forces of the environment.
The causes of this "instability," he later ex­
plained:
are on the one hand, the nature of the
human organism, which like every
other organism is in its ultimate
analysis a chemical complex, living
by chemical change and subject to
physical and chemical influences, and
on the other the variability of these
influences. So long as the chemical
status of the organism, especially
'that of the developing organism and
of the perpetuating or generative ele­
ments of the species, is not in ab­
solute and lasting harmony with the
environment, so long it is safe to say,
will absolute fixedness of structure
and form be impossible (Hrdlicka,
1912a:5).
Besides the general implications of his earlier
work in the New York asylums (e.g., Hrdlicka,
1898) and the American Southwest (e.g.,
Hrdlicka, 1908), the major evidence Hrdlicka
used to support his argument against the
prevailing notion of the "permanence of the
modem human type" was from a study he had
made at the Cairo Medical Museum, Egypt, in
2When Alfred Russel Waltace (l ~87) examint:'d the evid('nce for
human antiquity in the New Vv'arld. he saw not only considerable an·
tiquity for the specimens but also a continuity of type. Attempting to
equate this finding with evolutionar~v theory, Wallace (1889) sug­
gested that once man had become morphologically differentiated
from his "apish kin" (apparently in the mid-Tertiary), he had remained
physically stable. This he justified by arguing that with the
emergence of tbe human brain, Homo sapiens had become essenLially
impervious to the whims of natural selection, and thereby became a
special creature in the biotic realm.
 F. SPENCER AND F,H. SMITH
438
1909. 3 This study of a human skeletal collection
excavated from cemeteries (representing a time
span from predynastic times to the early Coptic
period) at Lisht and Nagaed-Der, enabled him to
write with conviction:
the susceptibility of the human organ­
ism to modification, even under ...
exceptionally uniform environmental
conditions, has not been overcome, and
numerous changes in the Egyptian
skeleton between the predynastic and
middle dynastic, and again between
that and the Coptic period, excluding
from consideration the influence of
negro infusion, are perceptible
(Hrdlicka, 1912a:5, see also Hrdlicka,
1909).
Thus, in contradistinction to workers such
as Franz Boas (1911, 1912), who tended to
employ the environment to the virtual exclu­
sion of genetics, Hrdlitka was endeavoring to
develop a concept (albeit a primitive one) of
mutational theory to account for the apparent
"instability" of the human organism (see
Hrdlicka, 1935).
Applying these ideas to the question of
earlier hominid evolution, it was Hrdlicka's
developing conviction that there was a rough
correlation between morphology and chronol­
ogy. According to this view Hrdlicka saw the
modern human form slowly dissolving in a
mosaic of primitive features as one proceeded
back through time. As such the Neandertal
fossils appeared to represent a phase in this
gradual transformation to a more pithecoid
form represented in the fossil record by
Dubois's Pithecanthropus. This being the
case, Hrdlicka believed that a closer examina­
tion of the European fossil hominid record
would reveal the existence of a distinct mor­
phological gradient between the hominid
populations of the Middle-Late Pleistocene
and the early Holocene (Hrdlicka, 1907: 12) - in
which the morphological trend in the former
would be seen to be in the general direction of
"zoological inferiority, while in the latter there
would be a tendency toward the modern
human form. Hence, on the basis of these "au­
thenticated" and "geologically ancient crania"
(which incidentally he did not examine first­
hand until 1912), he felt justified in claiming
that "the greater the separation of two skeletal
populations in time, the more distinct would
be the somatological differences between
them" (Hrdlicka, 1907:12).
v
HRDLIC
This predicted morphological gradient was dispersion, and differentiation
later confirmed, so Hrdlicka believed, by the Homo sapiens in the Old World.
skeletons found at Predmosti by Karel Maska
(see Hrdlicka, 1912a, 1914; Matiegka, 1934, Hrdli'tka's rejection of glad
1938), These fossils, he felt, partially bridged in the New World
the morphological hiatus between Neander­ When Hrdlitka began his
tals and other Aurignacian-associated (but anthropology at the close of th~
less Neandertal-like) specimens. century there was already a I
In the meantime, pursuing the above theme accumulation of evidence that
of functional adaptation in his work-par­ supported the arrival of man in thE
ticularly his studies on the Eskimo of Smith during either glacial or preglacial
Sound (Hrdli'l:ka, 1910) and the natives of the Abbott, 1872, 1888; Ameghino,
Kharga Oasis (Hrdlicka, 1909:143-144, 1908, 1909; Lyell, 1863; Mercer, 18'
1912b) - it occurred to Hrdlicka that perhaps 1897, 1906, 1909; Salisbury, 18!
one of the underlying mechanisms impinging 1892, 1897; Whitney, 1879). Al
on the evolution of the human skull had been a favorable reception received by
change in "masticatory function," namely, a discoveries in the Western Hemi
progressive change in human diet and dietary undoubtedly encouraged by the fl
practices. In a nutshell, he believed that as a battle for "Glacial Man" in EuroI:
result of improved tool use and other technico­ essentially fought and won, it appe
cultural techniques there had been a demon­ willingness with which workers
strable reduction in the size of teeth in human period engaged in enthusiastic
evolution and an accompanying change in the reckless speculation about the ag
size and conformation of the human jaw bones and implements found i
and cranium. association with extinct faunal r
Following a preliminary study (HrdliCka, due largely to a lack of understand
1911), in which he presented an outline of the continental or regional geology
above "dietary hypothesis," Hrdlicka em­ 1907 -1912a; see also Clewlow, r
barked on a lengthy program of research 1968; Wilmsen, 1965).
designed to demonstrate the evolutionary sig­ Between 1899 and 1912 Hrdli
nificance of human dentition (see Spencer, thorough study of all the availal
1979)4. Although all of this research is attributed to early man in the Ne\\
germane to Hrdicka's Neandertal hypothesis, results of this protracted investi
of particular interest are his initial observa· summarized in two major works]
tions on shovel-shaped incisors (e.g., Hrdlicka, 1907 and 1912. From this investi
1907:55, 1908:562, 1910:251, 266) and his litka realized quite correctly that a
subsequent demonstration of their phyloge' had developed little in the way of r
netic significance (Hrdlicka, 1920). Through during the past century and m
this study, along with his concurrent compara­ largely responsible for the pletho
tive studies of hominid and hominoid stantiated claims and absurd OJ
dentition (HrdJicka, 1921 a, 1922, 1923a,b, abounded in the literature on th
1924), he was able to advance not only his case early man in the New World. In
for a Neandertal phase of human evolution but correct this state of affairs, he
also his hypothesis which attempted to recon­ energetic campaign during the fir:
struct the events leading up to the emergence, this century, calling for the institu
rigorous scientific methods and rei
3Hrdli(:'ka's reaSOL1:; for choosing to do research in Egypt are not
without his tori<: interest. Since the (·arly 1840s, when Samuel G£>orge
among other things, the enlisted
\'lorton had used a collection of embalmed heads from Egyptian disciplines such as geology and I
t:atacombs to substantiate his thesis on the "immutability" and (e.g., Hrdlitka, 1907:11-12, 56-5'
"plurality'" of the human races (Morton, 1844). the skeletal ~aterial
from the Nile valley had been frequently cited as an example of the 97,99-125,1917).
historic continuity ofihe human type (e.g., SchmidL1872; Thompson The prescription Hrdli{;'ka laid (
and Handall Mac1ver, 1905),
identification of geologically ane
~This work, which \\/as carried out between 191;') and 1925, con­
stitutes a major contribution to the development of modern dental remains demanded "indisputable ~
anthropology. Besides developing a rigorous method of measuring cal evidence, some degree of fos
I
teeth with calipers of his own design, which are still in use today,
Hrdli'C'ka'.<: work Irnm this period also demonstrated the utility of
the bones, and marked serial s(
ranked scales for describing trait expressivity, as well as encouraging distinctions in the most import
,',' ","" ,,' omW" "'"""" -" w"",,", """W ~"',," "",'w'" parts" (Hrdlitka, 1907:13, see al1
_J_~.


v
>hological gradient was
'dlicka believed, by the
:1mostf by Karel MaSka
1914; Matiegka, 1934,
l felt, partialiy bridged
tus between Neander­
nacian-associated (but
>ecimens.
'suing the above theme
ion in his work-par­
I the Eskimo of Smith
and the natives of the
icka, 1909:143-144,
Hrdlicka that perhaps
nechanisms impinging
IUman skull had been a
r function," namely, a
iUman diet and dietary
, he believed that as a
use and other technico­
,re had been a demon­
size of teeth in human
panying change in the
1 of the human jaw
lary study (Hrdli(;ka,
~nted an outline of the
hesis," Hrdlicka em­
program of research
e the evolutionary sig­
mtition (see Spencer,
of this research is
Jeandertal hypothesis,
re his initial observa­
ncisors (e.g., Hrdlicka,
[0:251, 266) and his
ion of their phyloge­
jcka, 1920). Through
s concurrent compara­
inid and hominoid
121a, 1922, 1923a,b,
ance not only his case
f human evolution but
h attempted to recon­
: up to the emergence,
.0 do research in Egypt are not
arly 1840s, when Samuel George
'llbalmed heads from Egyptian
sis on the "immutability" and
~on, 1844), the skeletal material
~ntly cited as an example of the
,(e.g.. Schmidt, 1872: Thompson
t between 19\.5 ~U1d 1925, con·
development of modern dental
rigorous method ot" measuring
:n, which are still in use today,
.so demonstrated the utilit.v of
ressivity, as well as encouraging
DUS other dental features.
1
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
I
I dispersion, and differentiation of modern
Homo sapiens in the Old World.
I Hrdlitka's rejection of glacial man
in the New World
When Hrdlitka began his career in
anthropology at the close of the nineteenth
century there was already a considerable
accumulation of evidence that seemingly
supported the arrival of man in the New World
during either glacial or preglacial times (e.g.,
Abbott, 1872, 1888; Ameghino, 1878, 1879,
1908,1909; Lyell, 1863; Mercer, 1892: Putnam,
1897, 1906, 1909; Salisbury, 1897; Wright,
1892, 1897; Whitney, 1879). Although the
favorable reception received by these early
discoveries in the Western Hemisphere was
undoubtedly encouraged by the fact that the
battle for "Glacial Man" in Europe had been
essentially fought and won, it appears that the
willingness with which workers from this
period engaged in enthusiastic and often
reckless speculation about the age of human
bones and implements found in apparent
association with extinct faunal remains was
due largely to a lack of understanding of either
continental or regional geology (Hrdlicka,
1907-1912a; see also Clewlow, n.d.; Willey,
1968; Wilmsen, 1965).
Between 1899 and 1912 Hrdlicka made a
thorough study of all the available evidence
attributed to early man in the New World. The
results of this protracted investigation were
summarized in two major works published in
1907 and 1912. From this investigation Hrd­
licka realized quite correctly that archeologists
had developed little in the way of methodology
during the past century and as such were
largely responsible for the plethora of unsub­
stantiated claims and absurd opinions that
abounded in the literature on the subject of
early man in the New World. In an effort to
correct this state of affarrs, he mounted an
energetic campaign during the first quarter of
this century, calling for the institution of more
rigorous scientific methods and recommended,
among other things, the enlisted aid of other
disciplines.Juch as geology and paleontology
(e.g., HrdlIcka, 1907:11-12, 56-57, 1912a:55­
97,99-125, 1917l.
The prescription Hrdli<:'ka laid down for the
identification of geologically ancient human
remains demanded "indisputable stratigraphi­
cal evidence, some degree of fossilization of
the bones, and marked serial somatological
distinctions in the most important osseous
parts" (Hrdlicka, 1907:13, see also Hrdlicka,
439
1912a:3-5). Using these criteria, Hrdlicka
reported that without exception he did not
find a single human bone or artifact that could
be unequivocally assigned to a glacial context.
Furthermore, all of the osteological material
fell within the established range of normal
variation of modern American Indians. Tak­
ing these findings into account, and guided by
the knowledge that the "first traces of man's
appearance" were confined to the Old World,
Hrdlicka arrived at the conclusion: "that
America was peopled by immigration ...
[from Asia], which could not have taken place
until after great multiplication and wide
distribution of the human species and the
development of some degree of culture"
(Hrdlicka, 1907:9). And, according to the
available evidence, Hrdlicka said this
migration from the Old World had probably
occurred toward the close of the Pleistoc{ne or
the beginning of the Holocene (Hrdlicka,
1907:9-10)5.
During the next decade Hrdlicka's ideas on
the peopling of the New World matured. Criti­
cal to this development had been his study of
shovel-shaped incisors, which provided not
only a genetic basis for the Asiatic origin of
the American Indians but also evidence to
support the thesis that the European
Neandertals were the progenitors of modern
human populations. In essence, Hrdlicka
(1920) found the highest frequencies of shovel­
shaped incisors among the aboriginal
populations of the New World and Asia, while
among contemporary European and African
populations the frequencies were of a much
lower order. Upon extending this investi­
gation, he found this dental character in
Neandertals as well as in the nonhuman
primates and a variety of other mammals
(Hrdlicka, 1920: 460, 462-464). Commenting
on these findings, Hrdlicka said, "The whole
study affords one of the clearest and most
remarkable illustrations of the common origin
of man with the rest of the mammals"
(Hrdlicka, 1920:464).
To explain the distribution of this ubiqui­
tous dental character in the Hominidae,
Hrdlicka argued that its development had
probably been an adaptive response - a "call
"As shown hy Fig-. 20 nrdli~ki.1 allowed from 20,000 to 70,000 years
for the onset of thp postglacial period (c.g., Hrdlicka, 1907:9-11).
Although present estimat.cs. based on radiocarbon dating techniques,
have reduced these dates to something like 11,000 to 10,000 vears, it
is IOteresting to note that in spite of this human remains in the New
\\'orld have not been shown to predate Hrdli~ka's estimates for the
commencement of the Holocene.
z------------------f-----­
440 F. SPENCER AND F.Il. SMITH
HRDLII
for strengthening the dentition" - but with the
gradual improvement in food preparation
techniques and tool technology, the need for
stronger incisors steadily decreased, leading
to their subsequent replacement with the
"weaker" flat-surfaced tooth (Hrdlicka, 1920:
464-465). Hence, since the expectation was to
find lower frequencies of shoveling ulllOng the
descendants of those people who had solved,
by cultural means, the problems that shovel­
shaped incisors had solved biologically, and
who had done so for the longest period of time,
to Hrdlicka the only satisfactory explanation
for the present high frequency of the trait
among the peoples of Asia and the New World
was that these groups must have remained
committed to an Upper Paleolithic way of life
long after those groups in the western sector
of the Old World (Hrdlicka, 1920:465).
Unfortunately, because Hrdlicka failed to
elaborate on this latter point, the reader unfa­
miliar with his work will miss the implication
of this statement. However, given his commit­
ment to the notion that Europe had been the
"cradle" and site of dispersion of the human
genus, the inference of the above statement
becomes that much more apparent. As will be
discussed in the next section, it was Hrdlicka's
contention that Asia and the New World had
been peopled exclusively from the western sec­
tor of the Old World, principally Europe. Ac­
cording to Hrdlicka's scheme, some of these
early itinerant populations from Europe had
moved slowly northeastward across the
Siberian tundra into East Asia, and from there
into the New World, while others moved east­
ward to the south of the Himalayas. Thus, in
marked contrast to those populations south of
the Himalayas, this northern branch of
humanity had, because of prevailing environ­
mental conditions, remained committed to a
way of life not far removed from that of their
western Paleolithic ancestors (Neandertals).
After 1920, Hrdlicka's researches were di­
rected primarily to the task of vindicating the
"Neanderthal phase of man" and thereby dem­
onstrating that the emergence and dispersion
of modern Homo sapiens had occurred during
the terminal stages of the Pleistocene in
Europe, and that it was not until after this
event that man had entered Asia and the New
World. The results of this work were summa­
rized in his 1927 Huxley Memorial Lecture.
Following this summation, the focus of
Hrdlicka's work shifted to Beringia, where he
assigned his efforts to the pursuit of evidence
to document the thesis that it had been in this
I,
region that the first Americans had entered
the New World,
Hrdlicka's scheme for the peopling of the u'orld
During the first three decades of this century
the idea that Asia had been the officina gentium,
the "cradle and nursery" of the genus Homo, had
been popular among both American and Europe­
an paleoanthropologists, particularly after
Boule's censure of the European Neandertals and
insistence that modem Homo sapiens had
evolved outside of Europe, probably somewhere
in Central Asia. Indeed, it had been largely for
this reason that Davidson Black (e,g" 1925) had
been so eager to work in China, and why Hemy
Fairfield Osborn had vigorously promoted pale­
ontological research in Mongolia (see Andrews,
1926),
By 1920 the case for an Asiatic origin of
Homo rested on the evidence of Dubois's
Pithecanthropus and a scant collection of an­
thropoid fossils from the Siwalik Hills in
northwest India. According to Guy E. Pilgrim
(1915), the PU:1j ab fossils represented two
clistinct types of Miocene apes. One, he claimed,
closely resembled the European dryopithecine
material and morphologically stood much
closer to the modern hominoids, whereas the
other possessed a number of anatomical fea­
tures which placed it directly in the hominid
line of primate evolution. In fact, Pilgrim
(1915:2) even went so far as to suggest that it
had been from this latter stock that Dubois's
Pithecanthropus had been derived,
While not denying the evolutionary signi­
ficance of either Dubois's or Pilgrim's speci­
mens, Hrdlicka was nonetheless strongly op­
posed to the idea that Asia had been the
"cradle-land" of the genus Homo. In his opin­
ion all of the available evidence pointed to a
western rather than an eastern origin. This
opinion was based on two simple facts: (1) that
after "Pithecanthropus the next beings in the
line of man's ascent" were confined to Europe,
and (2) that there had not been a single piece
of evidence recovered thus far on the Asiatic
mainland suggesting the presence of man
prior to the Neolithic period (Hrdlicka, 1921b:
536). In the light of these apparent facts,
Hrdlicka conceded two possible arguments to
account for the presence of Dubois's Pithecan­
thropus in Southeast Asia. First, it could be
argued that for reasons "doubtless environ·
mental" the "Pithecanthropines" had been
prompted to migrate westward into Europe,
where they underwent subsequent develop­
ment. Although willing to admit that such a (
migration was not beyond the re
bility, noting that there was su
separating "Pithecanthropus" frc
being in the line of man's asce
"Homo heidelbergensis" - for the J.
evolved from the former, Hrdli~
doubted that this had been the
opinion, a more plausible explanati
the "Pithecanthropines" had not b~
to Southeast Asia but had been wil
uted throughout the Old World. "U
origin should be regarded as a pu
which seems unjustifiable," he Sl
well be assumed that conditiol
favored the differentiation from
towards man in one locality, exi
other regions" (Hrdlicka, 1921b:5
ing this to be the case, Hrdlicka
able to propose that the eas1
canthropines" never acquired a I
hold in Asia, and that in all prob2
been a "Pithecanthropine" popula
somewhere in Africa from which 11
humanity, represented in the Em
hominid record, had sprung.
Essen tially, Hrdlicka's reason
ding the demise of Dubois's Pith
was because its geographical loc2
the door to the possible arrival oj
Bering landbridge at a time much
he was willing to entertain, Altho!
logical evidence at this time evidel
ed the possibility of a northern E
hominid populations during the
period (Hrdli~ka, 1921b:536), Hrd
evidence from which to argue th
conditions had prevailed during t
and as he well realized, there was ~
tion that Dubois's Pithecana
emerged in Java during the late
fact it was precisely for this I
Hrdlitka (1930l had rejected Davi<
assessment of the early Pleistocl
found at Choukoutien. Black wa
this specimen, which he had dub
thropus pekinensis," was a pn
representing an intermediary fOI
the anthropoid apes and Homo (Sl
1930:366-367). Viewing this dia,
direct threat to his earlier positie
endeavored to downgrade Blae
thropus" to that of a "Neanderthal
ing to Hrdlitka (1930:365 -36E
Spencer, 1979:592-602), the sp
within the known range of varh
Neandertal phenotypic pattern, 1
indicated that Neandertals had s
 1

.
I v

I HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN 441

nericans had entered
I migration was not beyond the realm of possi­
bility, noting that there was sufficient time
farther eastward than hitherto suspected.
This view was later substantiated, so Hrdlitka
Ie peopling of the world I separating "Pithecanthropus" from the "next believed, by the discovery in 1938 of a
iecades of this century I being in the line of man's ascent" - that is, Neandertal skeleton at Teshik-Tash, near
~n the officina gentium,
"Homo heidelbergensis" - for the latter to have Baisun, Uzbekistan. Seizing on this discovery,
lithe genus Homo, had evolved from the former, Hrdli<:'ka seriously he wrote:
\ doubted that this had been the case. In his
American and Europe­
s, particularly after I opinion, a more plausible explanation was that Thus. unexpectedly, Central Asia fur­
-opean Neandertals and the "Pithecanthropines" had not been confined nishes a first-rate piece of evidence of
Homo sapiens had I to Southeast Asia but had been widely distrib­ early man, which is bound to have a
e, probably somewhere uted throughout the Old World. "Unless man's great bearing on the concepts of
it had been largely for I origin should be regarded as a pure accident, human prehistory in the Old World,
1 Black (e.g., 1925) had
I which seems unjustifiable," he said, "it may and will necessitate a material revi­
China, and why Henry well be assumed that conditions such as sion of notions relating to the Nean­
Jrously promoted pal~­ I favored the differentiation from anthropoids derthal phase of human antiquity.
longolia Isee Andrews, towards man in one locality, existed also in The eastern most localities of
I other regions" (Hrdlicka, 1921b:541). Assum­ Neanderthaloid remains hitherto
an Asiatic origin of ing this to be the case, Hrdlicka was thereby known were Palestine, Crimea and
"vidence of Dubois's able to propose that the eastern "Pithe­ the Caucasus-the Uzbekistan find
,cant collection of an­ canthropines" never acquired a lasting foot­ extends the territory far beyond this,
the Siwalik Hills in hold in Asia, and that in all probability it had and halves the distance from the
ing to Guy E. Pilgrim been a "Pithecanthropine" population located western Neanderthals to Peking Man
sils represented two somewhere in Africa from which later forms of (Hrdlicka, 1939:297).
apes. One, he claimed, humanity, represented in the European fossil
lfopean dryopithecine hominid record. had sprung. In the meantime, however, having established
19ically stood much Essentially, Hrdlicka's reason for deman­ a case for hominid origins in the western sector
minoids, whereas the ding the demise of Dubois's Pithecanthropus of the Old World, Hrdlicka was able to proceed
ler of anatomical fea­ was because its geographical location opened with the orchestration of his scheme for the
rectly in the hominid the door to the possible arrival of man at the emergence of modern Homo sapiens and the
I Bering landbridge at a time much earlier than peopling of the earth. Succinctly, Hrdlicka's
on. In fact, Pilgrim
. as to suggest that it he was willing to entertain. Although the geo­ scheme can be divided convenientlv into four
r stock that Dubois's logical evidence at this time evidently preclud­ stages. The first stage is characterized by the
m derived. ed the possibility of a northern extension of dispersal of Neandertals throughout southern
e evolutionary signi­ hominid populations during the Quaternary Europe and North Africa during the Middle­
.'s or Pilgrim's speci­ period (Hrdlicka, 1921 b:536), Hrdlicka had no Late Pleistocene. This stage terminates essen­
etheless strongly op- evidence from which to argue that the same tially with the emergence of what he called
Asia had been the conditions had prevailed during the Tertiary, "western Paleolithic man." From his work on
s Homo. In his opin­ and as he well realized, there was everv indica­ the Ptedmosti assemblage and other Aurigna­
vidence pointed to a tion that Dubois's Pithecanthrop'us had cian skeletal material, Hrdlicka believed that
eastern origin. This emerged in Java during the late Pliocene. In there was every reason to suggest that the
)simple facts: (1) that fact it was preciselv for this reason that emergent modern human form had been a
ne next beings in the Hrdlitka i1930) had r~jected Davidson Black's "generalized type," analagous somewhat to the
e confined to Europe, I assessment of the early Pleistocene hominid Australian aborigine (Hrdli~ka, 1921b:5411. In
It been a single piece found at Choukoutien. Black was convinced the second and subsequent stages, which cov­
us far on the Asiatic this specimen, which he had dubbed "Sinan­ ered a time period from the "early Aurigna­
Ie presence of man thropus pekinensis," was a preneandertal, cian" to "the early Neolithic," Hrdlicka con­
iod (Hrdlicka, 1921b: representing an intermediary form between tended that "western Paleolithic man" became
1ese apparent facts, the anthropoid apes and Homo (see Hrdlitka, separated into a number of discrete geographi­
ossible arguments to 1930:366-367). Viewing this diagnosis as a cal breeding units, a process which resulted in
of Dubois's Pithecan­ direct threat to his earlier position, Hrdlitka their subsequent differentiation into the
:ia. First, it could be endeavored to downgrade Black's "Sinan­ various racial types characterizing modern
"doubtless environ­ thropus" to that of a "Neanderthaler." Accord- Homo sapiens (Hrdlitka, 1921b: 542-544). It
I ing to Hrdlitka (1930:365-368; see also was during the second stage that "western
nropines" had been
stward into Europe, Spencer, 1979:592-602), the specimen fell Paleolithic man" established a foothold in
subsequent develop­ within the known range of variation of the Asia. According to Hrdlitka, this had prob­
,0 admit that such a • Neandertal phenotypic pattern, and as such ably been achieved by two routes: (1) a south·
indicated that Neandertals had spread much ern route along the Mediterranean Basin to

I
I

~-----j~-------------­
442 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
Asia Minor, and (2) a northern route into the
Caucasus and the Caspian-Aral-Turkestan
region. In the third stage, those populations
which had entered Asia via the northern route
moved slowly eastward where they eventually
populated northeast Asia and the New World,
while those populations in Asia Minor gradu­
ally spread south into the Arabian peninsula
and Northwest India. In India some of these
early itinerant populations either moved fur­
ther south or continued their trek eastward
that was to terminate with their arrival in the
geographic cul-de-sac of Australia. The final
stage in H rdliXka's scheme involved the peopl­
ing of Micronesia and Polynesia, and the
continuing differentiation of the peoples of the
Old and New World into their present ethnic
units.
The Piltdown obstacle
At the beginning of the twentieth century
there was considerable support for Neander­
tals representing a phylogenetic intermediary
between Pithecanthropus and modern Homo
sapiens (e.g., Gorjanovic-Kramberger, 1906;
Keith, 1911; Schwalbe, 1899, 1901, 1904.
1906; Sollas, 1908). However. by the begin­
ning of the second decade this trend was
dramatically reversed. To a large extent this
reversal in scientific opinion can be traced to
the influence of Marcellin Boule. though it is
also evident that the discovery of the Pilt­
down "fossils" was also an important contribu­
ting factor in that it essentially consolidated
Roule's "pre-sapiens" position.
As mentioned earlier, Boule's contribution
to the Neandertal debate dates essentially
from 1908 when he was charged with the ana­
lysis of the recently discovered Neandertal
skeletons of La Chapelle-aux-Saints (1908) and
La Ferrassie (1909-1910). In a series of com­
munications extending through the sixth,
seventh, and eighth volumes of the Annales de
Paleontologie , and culminating in their repub­
lication as a large independent monograph in
1913, Boule established the classic description
of a Neandertal (Boule, 1908, 1911-1913; see
also Boule and Anthony. 1911).6 Summarizing
this work in a paper presented at the XIVth
International Congress of Prehistoric Anthro­
pology and Archaeology in Geneva in 1912.
Boule (1914) contended that the Neandertals
were an archaic and extinct species, and
therefore urged their immediate removal from
the human phylogenetic tree. At the same
time he axed Dubois's Pithecanthropus,
declaring the specimen to be nothing more
than a giant gibbon!
HRDI
At this juncture Boule left the question of study of the European Neand
i
the precursor of modern Humo sapiens in suIts of this work were presente
abeyance. However, following the announce­ scientific reports published in I
ment of the discoveries at Piltdown, Boule lost American Juurnal of Physical
no time in endorsing these "fossils," which he iHrdlitka. 1922, 1923a,b. 192
said, established the fact that there had not nated with his now classic pap
been one, but two "races of man" living in the derthal Phase of Man," which]
lower Pleistocene - one being the "Piltdown the Huxley Memorial Lecture c
race," and the other the "Heidelberg race" (rep- ~
resented by the Mauer jaw). Of these two so- I
called races, Boule said: "The Piltdown race The Huxley 1vfemorial j
seems to us the probable ancestor in the direct By 1926, when Hrdli6ka wm
line of the recent species of man. Homo sa­ liver the Huxley Lecture of
piens; while the Heidelberg race may be con­ acutely aware of the fact tha
sidered, until we have further knowledge, as a almost alone in considering II
possible forerunner of Homo neanderthalen­ ancestral stage in human evol
sis" (Boule, 1913:245-246). It is interesting to the roster of scientists Oppose
note, however, that Boule was among the few interpretation was impressive
European workers at this time to question if (among others): Boule (19231.
the Piltdown cranial remains and jaw be­ Burkitt (1921), Elliot Smith
longed to the same individual (Boule, 19171. (1921), Gregory (1927; see alsc
From the outset Hrdlitka had viewed the McGregor, 19261, Giuffrida-R
Piltdown "fossils" with considerable skepti­ Hill-Tout (1921,1924), Lull (19~
cism (Hrdli((ka, 1914:501-509). Aside from the (1924), Moir (1926), Morant (
nagging doubt of the reliability of the mid­ (1916, 1926, 1927), Todd (19
Tertiary geologic age assigned to the (1926), and Woodward (19231. T
specimens (Woodward, 1913), there was the theory was now even being
"insurmountable problem" of equating what former supporters of a unilineal
was an essentially modern-looking skullcap Keith, 1912, 1915, 1925; Sollas,
with an entirely apelike jaw. Had this jaw of the weight of opinion agains
articulated with an equally primitive skullcap importance of the unilineal Uf:
like that of Pithecanthropus. then this would
have been an entirely different matter alto­
gether. But as it was, this "monstrous hybrid"
demanded the existence in Tertiary times of a
hominid precursor with a modern high fore­
head and overall cranial vault. From
Hrdli~ka's standpoint this was completely at
variance with his understanding of biome­
chanics and the evolution of hominid crani­
ofacial morphology (e.g., Hrdlicka, 1911). But
I I .II,~L' SI.ll-!;,.' II) (iJ.1CI,l!iPIl
while, for obvious reasons, doubting the anti­ III
quity of the cranial fragments, Hrdlicka I IlL.' I .ll'I y (i!dLl,d ('(lllJpln
nevertheless regarded the jaw as a "truly
remarkable specimen" and morphologically
commensurate with its suggested geological
age (see Hrdli~ka, 1911:501-509, 1930:86).
After the First World War, Hrdli((ka made a
detailed study of the Piltdown "fossils" in an
attempt to discredit the association of the jaw
and calotte. At the same time he reopened his
;'SignificanLl.\'. lfrdJ:~ka'::; desLripLion of the La Chapellt' skelNon
both in his 1914 and 19;10 monographs were esscnLially very .similar
to tho-se of Boule. In his 1914 draft. however, Hrdlitka not.ed t.hat
_l
many of Uoulc's sLatements on t.he "inferior characteristics" of La
Chapl.:lIe had been "some'what over-emphasized," and lhat most (if not
all) 01 these features could ht' dUIJlicaLed in modern skeletal samples.
But for reasons which appear to have been e.ntirdy political, these Fig. 20 Hrdlicka's version of Pleistocl
,,,mm~,, "'CO ,,,,,,. ;'''00 "'" ""'0"'" e," ,,",,,em eoM on HrdliCka. 19271.

Boule left the question of
nodern Homo sapiens in
" following the announce­
ries at Piltdown, Boule lost
.g these "fossils," which he
1e fact that there had not
races of man" living in the
-one being the "Piltdown
the "Heidelberg race" (rep­
lUer jaw). Of these two so-
said: "The Piltdown race
Jable ancestor in the direct
;pecies of man, Homo sa­
idelberg race may be con­
'e further knowledge, as a
of Homo neanderthalen­
1-246). It is interesting to
Boule was among the few
t this time to question if
al remains and jaw be­
ndividual (Boule, 1917).
Irdlilka had viewed the
ith considerable skepti­
501-509). Aside from the
e reliability of the mid­
age assigned to the
d, 1913), there was the
llem" of equating what
11Odern-looking skullcap
like jaw. Had this jaw
lually primitive skullcap
hropus, then this would
y different matter alto­
this "monstrous hybrid"
ce in Tertiary times of a
th a moder~ high fore­
cranial vault. From
this was completely at
1derstanding of biome­
lltion of hominid crani­
g., Hrdli~ka, 1911). But
sons, doubting the anti­
I fragments, Hrdlitka
i the jaw as a "truly
" and morphologically
11111lI,11) 11\<.lu'Ilr Il ....
ls suggested geological
4:501-509, 1930:86).
d War, Hrdlitka made a
Piltdown "fossils" in an
e association of the jaw
ne time he reopened his
ption of the La Chapelle skeleton
-aphs were essentiau.;," very similar
aft, however. Hrdlicka noted that
he "inferior chmacteristics" of La
-emphasized." and that most (if not
icated in modern skeletal samples.
have been entirely political, these
Jublished tex: (Spencer. 1979).
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN 443
study of the European Neandertals. The re­ general conception of evolution and his ideas
sults of this work were presented in a series of regarding the peopling of the earth, HrdliCka
scientific reports published in his journal, the decided to use this prestigious occasion to
American Journal of Physical Anthropology systematically defend his position that
(Hrdlitka, 1922, 1923a,b, 1924), and culmi­ Neandertals had not become "extinct without
nated with his now classic paper, "The Nean­ issue," but had in fact been gradually trans­
derthal Phase of Man," which he prepared as formed into modern Homo sapiens.
the Huxley Memorial Lecture of 1927. In his defense of a "Neanderthal phase of
man," Hrdliha (1927, see also 1930:319-349)
presented his classic definition of Neandertals
The Huxley Memorial Lecture as "the man of the Mousterian culture"
By 1926, when Hrdlitka was invited to de­ (1927:251) and outlined their geographical
liver the Huxley Lecture of 1927, he was distribution (Europe, western Asia, and North
i acutely aware of the fact that he was now Africa; and paleontological and geological
almost alone in considering Neandertals an context. The latter (Fig. 20; he determined
I ancestral stage in human evolution. Indeed, from a consideration of the work by Bayer,
Boule, Breuil, MacCurdy, and Peyrony
I the roster of scientists opposed to such an
interpretation was impressive and included (Spencer, 1979).
(among others): Boule (1923), Broom (1918;, From the analysis of 360 known Paleolithic
I
Burkitt (1921), Elliot Smith (1924), Fleure sites in Europe, HrdliCka found that as one
j (1921), Gregory (1927; see also Gregory and proceeded from the Pre-Chellean on through
McGregor, 1926), Giuffrida-Ruggeri (19181, the Acheulean to the Mousterian there was a
( Hi11-Tout (1921, 19241, Lul1 (1922), MacCurdy dramatic decrease in the number of open
(1924), Moir (1926), Morant (1927), Osborn living sites. This suggested to him that during
I
(1916, 1926, 1927;, Todd (1914a,b;, Wilder Pre-Chelle an and Chellean times the climate
(1926;, and Woodward (1923;. The pre-sapiens had been more temperate - namely that these
theory was now even being espoused by cultures had flourished during the "Main
I former supporters of a unilineal approach (e.g.,
Keith, 1912, 1915, 1925; Sollas. 1924). In view
Interglacial Stage." The gradual decrease in
the number of open sites in the Acheulean he
of the weight of opinion against him, and the interpreted as a direct response to changing
importance of the unilineal approach to his environmental conditions, and for this reason
1111 711 45 35 ,) 15 7
.'l()r;
I I .11 .~'( St,l~( \)f (iLIU.lllllll
",
'"
I
I
S(llutrL>tln
Aunglldl'lilll i\:l<1~d<lklll.lIl
}
Trail . .
Nl'lllilhrl
II",
I ~.
(l[ J.()[ l( I \\:ar~
I
~l'ill'lLkIIJ;~tl i\LIIl
I
I
Fig. 20 Hrdli~ka's version of Pleist.ocene chronology and it.s relat.ion to the Neandert.al phase of human evolution (based
on Hrdlitka, 19271.

444 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
he considered the Acheulean must have
straddled the tail end of the interglacial period
and the opening stages of the last glacial
complex. By comparison, Hrdlicka found that
well over two-thirds of the Mousterian sites
were confined to either rock shelters or caves.
Un the basis of this evi&nce he placed the
Mousterian tradition on the fluctuating
downward curve of the "Late Glacial Period"
(see Fig. 20). But of greater interest to
Hrdlicka were the statistics on sites from the
Aurignacian and succeeding periods. Here he
found that the number of rock-shelters and
cave sites increased, rather than decreased.
This finding harmonized completely with his
conception of the European environment at
the close of the glacial epoch, and served to
reinforce his argument for the cultural
continuity between the Mousterian and
Aurignacian (Hrdlicka, 1927:256-257).
Equating this evidence with the notion that
the Mousterian culture and its author had
been "swept away" by the coming of a "distinct
and superior species of people," Hrdliha
encountered a number of "inconsistencies" and
"difficulties." Assuming for the moment, how­
ever, that the hominids of the Aurignacian
period had been "superior" and more "virile," as
Keith and others contended. then the expecta­
tion, Hrdlicka felt, would be to find cultural
evidence indicating a radical departure from
the preceding cultural traditions. But this was
not the case. In fact, not only did the Aurig­
nacians continue to occupy many of the sites
previously occupied by Neandertals, but their
cultural artifacts showed quite plainly that
the Aurignacian life-style was not signifi­
cantly removed from that of the Mousterian.
To develop this ar b'1lment Hrdlicka had made
a careful study of the various cultural
assemblies of the European Paleolithic. From
this study he could find no evidence to
support the view that these lithic industries
were indepenent of one another (Hrdlicka,
1927:258l. At the sites of Le Moustier, La
Verriere, and especially the rock-shelter of
Audi in the village of Les Eyzies, Hrdlicka
said there was palpable evidence of a cultural
transition from the upper Mousterian to the
10we~vAurignacian (Hrdlicka, 1927:258-259).
Hrdlicka also noted that just because
Neandertals apparently did not produce the
cave art characteristic of the Aurignacians, it
did not mean that Neandertals had no esthetic
appreciation and went on to note other
possible expressions of Mousterian artistic
endeavor (Hrdli~ka, 1927:262).
Hrdlicka's belief that the Aurignacian was
not an intrusive technology but an indigenous
development from the Mousterian was also
due in no small"measure to the analysis of the
Mousterian sequence at La Quina by Henri
Martin (e.g., 1911), whom he met in 1912.
Unlike many of his contemporaries, notably
Boule, Martin felt that the Mousterian had
undergone an increase in sophistication from
its earlier to later phases (see Spencer,
1979:403).
Yet another aspect of the "Aurignacian
influx" orthodoxy which troubled Hrdlicka
was why these people had waited until the
heig~~ of the glacial period to invade Europe.
Hrdhcka (1921 b:545) felt that this violated the
"laws" governing the movement of human and
animal populations. According to Hrdlicka,
human populations always tended to move in
the "direction of least resistance [climate]" and
"in the direction of better material prospects
[food]" (Hrdlicka, 1927:260).
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the
invasion hypothesis presupposed the exist­
ence of not only a large invading population
capable of exterminating the resident Nean­
dertals, but also the existence of a still larger
mother population elsewhere. And as Hrdlicka
noted, there was no evidence for any such non­
Neandertal mother population - either in
Europe or elsewhere. As for the suggestion
that this "invasion" may have been a "peaceful
extension," Hrdlicka contended that this
would have led to an "amalgamation" with,
rath,er than the "extinction" of, the European
Ne~ndertals (Hrdlicka, 1927:260).
The crux of the entire issue, however, was
the skeletal material, for it was essentially on
this evidence that the idea of the separateness
and discontinuance of Neandertals had been
based. This impression, Hrdlitka claimed, was
based on the erroneous supposition that Nean­
dertals were an unusually homogenous group
which conformed to a "generalized primitive
type." This latter concept had been based on
specimens like La Chapelle, Spy 1, and Nean­
dertal (Feldhofer Cave). However, when the
entir~v Neandertal sample was considered,
Hrdhcka saw not only extensive variation but
also a clear tendency for certain specimens
and features to approach closely the pattern of
modern Homo sapiens. Considering this point,
he wrote:
Here is facing us, evidently, a very
noteworthy example of morphologi­
cal instability, an instability, evi­
dently, of evolutionary nature, lead-
v
HRDLICI
ing from old forms to more n
. .. Taking the remainder
skulls, jaws, and bones attrib
the Neanderthal phase, it is se
both the variability and the 1
of characters that tend in th
tion of later man increase c(
ably. The Krapina series, by i
probably more variable from t
lutionary point of view than w
any similar series from one loc
the present \Hrdlitka, 192'
268).
Since it was not possible to
Neandertal fossil record in a relial
gical sequence Hrdlicka was obI
his transformational argument 01
tological" evidence. This he did b,
the Neandertal assemblage with a
ing number of early postglacic
From this comparative study he
possible to demonstrate "scales'
from forms that stand considE
from those of later man (as in l
Spy, La Chapelle, Le Moustier) t
approach to, or merge with, the m
parts of the Krapina, La Ferrass
skeletonsl" (Hrdlicka, 1927:2691.
Although this would seem to
Hrdlicka was advocating the
Neandertals into earlier and
(namely, what later became know
gressive" and "classic" Near
appears that what he was really
convey to his London audience \I
of the fossils under consideratior
garded as an expression of the r
phological variation of the Neanl
typic pattern. This is particula
from his description of the B.
dertals. "Here the student is con
a find in the same terrace ar
Hrdlicka said:
at the same level, and but 6 f
of two adult male skeletons
later Mousterian time. One
skeletons, No.1, has a skull
of which is a replica of th;
Neanderthal cranium, with
Neanderthal bones of the
But this skull is associa
upper and lower jaw and tl
may be duplicated today aJ
lower races. And the skull I
cond skeleton is so superio
shape, height of the vault,

,f that the Aurignacian was
~chnology but an indigenous
n the Mousterian was also
easure to the analysis of the
mce at La Quina by Henri
1), whom he met in 1912.
lis contemporaries, notably
.t that the Mousterian had
rease in sophistication from
iter phases (see Spencer,
spect of the "Aurignacian
I which troubled Hrdlicka
eople had waited until the
ial period to invade Europe.
45) felt that this violated the
;he movement of human and
lS. According to Hrdlitka,
IS always tended to move in
ast resistance [climate]" and
)f better material prospects
1927:260).
haps most significantly, the
sis presupposed the exist­
i large invading population
linating the resident Nean­
he existence of a still lar~er
elsewhere. And as Hrdlicka
o evidence for any such non­
ler population either in
ere. As for the suggestion
i" may have been a "peaceful
tka contended that this
o an "amalgamation" with,
xtinction" of, the European
itka, 1927:260).
entire issue, however, was
ial, for it was essentially on
the idea of the separateness
:e of Neandertals had been
ision, Hrdlitka claimed, was
eous supposition that Nean­
!Usually homogenous group
to a "generalized primitive
concept had been based on
Chapelle, Spy 1, and Nean­
Cave). However, when the
sample was considered,
mly extensive variation but
mcy for certain specimens
)roach closely the pattern of
:ens. Considering this point,
: us, evidently, a very
wmple of morphologi­
" an instability, evi­
lutionary nature, lead­
1 v
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
ing from old forms to more modern.
. .. Taking the remainder of the
skulls, jaws, and bones attributed to
the Neanderthal phase, it is seen that
both the variability and the number
of characters that tend in the direc­
tion of later man increase consider­
ably. The Krapina series, by itself, is
probably more variable from the evo­
lutionary point of view than would be
any similar series from one locality at
the present (Hrdlicka, 1927: 267­
268).
Since it was not possible to arrange the
Neandertal fossil record in a reliable chronolo­
gical sequence Hrdlicka was obliged to base
his transformational argument on the "soma­
tological" evidence. This he did by comparing
the Neandertal assemblage with a correspond­
ing number of early postglacial hominids.
From this comparative study he said it was
possible to demonstrate "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
approach to, or merge with, the modern (many
parts of the KraRina, La Ferrassie, La Quina
skeletons)" (Hrdlitka, 1927:269).
Although this would seem to imply that
Hrdli~ka was advocating the partition of
Neandertals into earlier and later forms
Inamely, what later became known as the "pro­
gressive" and "classic" Neandertals), it
appears that what he was really intending to
convey to his London audience was that each
of the fossils under consideration could be re­
garded as an expression of the range of mor­
phological variation of the Neandertal pheno­
typic pattern. This is particularly apparent
from his description of the Belgian Nean­
dertals. "Here the student is confronted with
a find in the same terrace and deposits,"
Hrdlicka said:
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 a replica of that of the
Neanderthal cranium, with typically
Neanderthal bones of the skeleton.
But this skull is associated with
upper and lower jaw and teeth that
may be duplicated today among the
lower races. And the skull of the se­
cond skeleton is so superior in size,
shape, height of the vault, and the
-
445
height of the forehead, to No.1, that
the morphological distance between
the two is greater than that between
No.2 and some of the Aurignacian
crania, such as the Most (Brux) or
Brno No. 1 (Brunn) specimens
(Hrdlicka, 1927:268).
The full significance of this argument was
not fully appreciated until after the appear­
ance of the published description of the Nean­
dertal material from Mount Carmel in 1939.
By advancing the idea that Neandertals
were a highly variable group, Hrdlicka was
thereby able to argue that natural selection
had operated on a basic neandertaloid pattern,
in which those hominids endowed with the ge­
netic properties favoring their survival, or as
he phrased it: "the most fit or able-to-cope­
with-the-condition group," evolved into early
modern sapiens, while their less fortunate kin
became extinct.
As for the pre-sapiens hypothesis, Hrdlicka
astutely pointed out that:
they give us Homo sapiens without
showing why, or how, and where he
developed his superior make-up....
They place Homo sapiens in Africa or
Asia without troubling to offer the
evidence of his ancient dominion in
these regions.... If he lived in
Europe, coexisting with the Neander­
thaler, 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 else­
where, precede or coexist with, but
always follow the Mousterian
(Hrdlicka, 1927:270).
Summarizing his picture of the evolutionary
development of the Mousterian hominids,
Hrdlicka said:
During this period man is brought
face to face with great changes of en­
vironment ... which call for new
adaptations and developments....
Such ... 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 ...
evolution would certainly differ from
region to region, as the sum of the
446 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
factors affecting man differed, reach­
ing 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. ..,
Here seems to be a relatively simple.
natural explanation of the progres­
sive evolution of Neanderthal man,
and such an evolution would
inevitably carry his most advanced
forms to those of primitive Homo
sapiens (Hrdlicka, 1927:271-272).
Contrary to Hrdli~ka's expectations, the
Huxley L~cture was not successful in turning
the tide of general scientific opinion (e.g.,
Elliot Smith, 1928; Osborn, 1930: Hooton,
1930,1931; MacCurdy, 1937). The pre-sapiens
scheme was now firmly entrenched, and for
the next several decades, Hrdlitka's phylo­
genetic interpretations were generally either
avoided completely or mentioned as a highly
unlikely alternative to the pre-sapiens view
(e.g., Vallois, 1954).
A CURRENT VIEW OF UPPEH PLEISTOCENE
HOMINID EVOLUTION I;\; EUROPE AND
the Aurignacian to be intrusive (Kozlowski,
WESTER" ASIA
The years since Hrdlitka's Huxley Memorial
Lecture have witnessed an enormous accumu­
lation of various types of information perti­
nent to Upper Pleistocene hominid evolution
in the Old World. Much of this information
has fortunately been in the form of additional
fossil hominid remains (see Mann and Trin­
kaus 1974 for a review of all but the most
rece~t finds). However, equally important, at
least in some respects. are such factors as a
better understanding of the evolutionary pro­
cess and how it applies to the later phases of
hominid evolution, a more accurate picture of
chronology and paleoecology of the Late Pleis­
tocene, as well as an improved understanding
of the cultural complexes of the Middle and
Upper Paleolithic in Europe and technologi­
cally equivalent periods in other areas of the
Old World. While it is neither appropriate nor
feasible to discuss all of this in detail, it would
seem a fittin!;\,contribution to this considera­
tion of Hrdlicka to examine the degree to
which his observations, interpretations, and
criticism of other perspectives on human
evolution are still valid or "measure up" in the
light of this knowledge.
Archaeology
In his archaeological discussion, Hrdlicka
(1927) emphasized the continuity between the
Mousterian and the earliest phases of the Up­
per Paleolithic and argued, contrary to the
vast majority of his colleagues, that the
Aurignacian emerged from the Mousterian in
Europe. In this regard, he noted that no non·
European source area for the Aurignacian had
been conclusively demonstrated. Today it is
generally accepted that the earliest Upper
Paleolithic traditions in Europe, the Ch&.­
telperronian in France and the Szeletian in
central Europe, developed from indigenous
Mousterian le.g., Bordes, 1965a,b, 1972;
Chmielewski, 1972; Movius, 1969; Pradel,
1966; de Sonneville-Bordes, 1972). The Aurig­
nacian, however, is still considered by most
prehistorians to be an intrusive culture into
western Europe (e.g., Bordes, 1968a,bl,
although the apparent contemporaneity of
some Aurignacian and Chatelperronian levels
has led to the suggestion that they might
represent adoptive or functional variants of
the same tradition IBinford, 1972). In central
Mousterian in Europe, and (2) a r
Europe, although some workers also consider
conclusively established.
1979) into this area, a growing number of
scholars argue that the roots of the Aurig­
nacian are clearly evident in central European
Middle Paleolithic traditions (e.g., Hahn,
1973,1977; Valoch, 1972,1976). It is interest­
ing to note that the earliest dates for the
Aurignacian in central Europe (Gabori-Csank,
1970; Kozlowski, 1979) are in excess of 40,000
years B.i'., while the earliest in western Europe
are around 34,000 years B.P. (Movius, 1960,
1972).
In addition to the distinct possibility (and
perhaps even probability in central Europe)
that the Aurignacian is an indigenous devel·
opment in Europe, it is important to note that
those who favor an extraneous origin for the
Aurignacian in Europe have yet to identify
the source area. In the Near East, which has
traditionally been considered the most likely
source, the Middle Paleolithic-Upper Paleo­
lithic transition occurs at roughly the same
time as in Europe (Farrand, 1965, 1972). And
I
while there are elements that can he regarded
as somewhat Upper Paleolithic-like in pre­
Upper Paleolithic cultural complexes in the
Near East, the same can also be said for pre­
Upper Paleolithic complexes in Europe (e.g.,
~_l
HRD
Brose and Wolpoff, 1971). Th\
appear to be no conclusive evidl
an earlier development of thE
lithic in the Near East than in
consequently makes it difficult
support the Near East as the!
the European Aurignacian.
Where then might the soure
our knowledge, the only othl
certain technological advances
tries might be occurring signif
than equivalent developments
southern Africa during the Mil
Stone Ages (Klein, 1977). HOWl
nology (specifically the early
Middle Stone Age) is not conclu
more, there is no indication of a
of these innovations toward E
would be necessary to demons!
vocally) their influence on tl
Paleolithic.
Hence, on the basis of preset
the following points asserted by .
are still strongly defendable: (1)
cian could certainly have develo!
source area for the Aurignacian
In other respects, however
Hrdlitka's 1927 ideas and argum
held up. For example his concept
of Pleistocene glacial phenomen
simplistic and his chronology, t
far off as some, was neverthelesl
Musil and Valoch, 1966; Butzer,
all indications, the earliest Au
least in central Europe, is assoc
interstadial period. Consequent
ment that the Aurignacian I
probably not invaders because t
unlikely to "invade" Europe at
the "glacial period" would no
valid, if in fact it ever was.
Likewise, Hrdlitka's definitior
tal as the man of the Mousteri
longer seems accurate. The s
terian-Neandertal and ModeJ
Upper Paleolithic association pa
certainly the norm, clearly does
all cases. For example, at Qafzeh
Tsrael basically modern Homo,
hominids are associated witl
Mousterian (McCown and I
Vandermeersch, 1977; Wolpoff, ]
Europe the recent discoveries at
.

'ology
l
I
. discussion, Hrdlicka
:ontinuity between the
liest phases of the Up­
~ed, contrary to the
colleagues, that the
:om the Mousterian in
he noted that no non­
lr the Aurignacian had
Jnstrated. Today it is
it the earliest Upper
in Europe, the Chil­
and the Szeletian in
lped from indigenous
rdes, 1968a,b, 1972;
lovius, 1969; Pradel,
'des, 1972). The Aurig­
II considered by most
intrusive culture into
., Bordes, 1968a,b),
t contemporaneity of
Chiltelperronian levels
:tion that they migh t
functional variants of
Iford, 1972). In central
workers also consider
intrusive (Kozlowski,
a growing number of
Ie roots of the Aurig­
nt in central European
aditions (e.g., Hahn,
'2, 1976). It is interest­
earliest dates for the
Europe (Gabori-Csimk,
are in excess of 40,000
liest in western Europe
rs B.P. (Movius, 1960,
stinct possibility (and
'ty in central Europe)
, an indigenous devel­
important to note that
,raneous origin for the
! have yet to identify
Near East, which has
idered the most likely
tleolithic-Upper Paleo­
at roughly the same
'and, 1965, 1972), And
s that can be regarded
)aleolithic-like in pre­
Iral complexes in the
III also be said for pre­
llexes in Europe (e.g.,
v
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
Brose and Wolpoff, 1971). Thus, there would
appear to be no conclusive evidence to indicate
an earlier development of the Upper Paleo­
lithic in the Near East than in Europe, which
consequently makes it difficult at this time to
support the Near East as the source area for
the European Aurignacian.
Where then might the source area be? To
our knowledge, the only other area where
certain technological advances in lithic indus­
tries might be occurring significantly earlier
than equivalent developments in Europe is
southern Africa during the Middle and Late
Stone Ages (Klein, 1977). However, the chro­
nology (specifically the early dates for the
Middle Stone Age) is not conclusive. Further­
more, there is no indication of a clinal spread
of these innovations toward Europe, which
would be necessary to demonstrate (unequi­
vocally) their influence on the European
Paleolithic.
Hence. on the basis of present knowled-Re,
the following points asserted by Ale~ Hrdlicka
are still strongly defendable: (1) The Aurigna­
cian could certainly have developed out of the
Mousterian in Europe, and (2) a non-European
source area for the Aurignacian has yet to be
conclusively established.
In other respects, however, certain of
Hrdlitka's 1927 ideas and arguments have not
held up. For example his concept of the nature
of Pleistocene glacial phenomena was far too
simplistic and his chronology, though not as
far off as some, was nevertheless incorrect (cf
Musil and Valoch, 1966; Butzer, 1971). From
all indications, the earliest Aurignacian, at
least in central Europe, is associated with an
interstadial period. Consequently his argu­
ment that the Aurignacian peoples were
probably not invaders because they would be
unlikely to "invade" Europe at the height of
the "glacial period" would no longer seem
valid, if in fact it ever was.
Likewise, Hrdli'(;ka's definition of Neander­
tal as the man of the Mousterian period no
longer seems accurate. The simple Mous­
terian-Neandertal and Modern Humans!
Upper Paleolithic association pattern, though
certainly the norm, clearly does not apply in
all cases. For example, at Qafzeh and SkhUl in
Israel basically modern Homo sapiens-grade
hominids are associated with Levalloiso­
Mousterian (McCown and Keith, 1939;
Vandermeersch, 1977; Wolpoff, 1980), while in
Europe the recent discoveries at St. Cesaire in
France (Leveque and Vandermeersch, 1980,
447
1981) and possibly at Vindija in Yugosolavia
(Wolpoff et al., 1981) illustrate the association
of Neandertals with early Upper Paleolithic
traditions. As was suggested several years
ago (Stringer, 1974), continuing to define
"Neandertal" on the basis of culture does not
appear appropriate.
The Possil Hominids
Some time ago, Howells (1974) suggested
that a clearer understanding of the evolu­
tionary relationship between archaic Homo
sapiens (Neandertals in Europe and the cir­
cum-Mediterranean region) and early modern
Homo sapiens might be attainable by con­
sidering the problem from a more regionalized
"populational" approach rather than on a
worldwide basis. Concentrating on the Nean­
dertal!early modern relationship, there would
appear to be three generalized regions where
such an approach is possible: western Europe
(essentially France, Belgium, England, Italy,
and the Iberian Peninsula), south-central Eur­
ope (basically the Pannonian Basin and its
surrounding highlands - composed primarily
of northern Yugoslavia, eastern Austria,
western Rumania, and parts of Czechos­
lovakia), and the Near East (the Levant and
surrounding inland countries, like Iraq and
Iran). Other areas, such as eastern Europe
(primarily consisting of European Russia) and
North Africa, were also inhabited by similar
hominid forms during the Late Pleistocene,
but there are not enough pertinent specimens
from these regions to make this type of
analysis possible.
vVestern Europe, For a number of reasons
(see Brace, 1964), the study of Neanderthals and
European Late Pleistocene hominid evolution
in general has been concentrated primarily on
material from this region. As a consequence of
this, the sites and hominid fossil remains from
western Europe are the most well-known (e.g.,
La Chapelle, La Ferrassie, Gibraltar, Cr6­
Magnon, Combe Capelle, and Grimaldi). and
the conceptions of the course and nature of
European Late Pleistocene hominid evolution
have historically been based primarily on
western European evidence.
For the most part, the Neandertals from
this area conform to the generalized descrip­
tions given by most authorities as character­
istic for the taxon Homo sapiens nean­
derthalensis (e.g., Hrdlitka, 1930; Vallois,
448 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
1954; Howell, 1957; Howells, 1973, 1974;
Brace and Montagu, 1977; Trinkaus and
Howells, 1979; Wolpoff, 19801, and are often
referred to as "classic" Neandertals (e.g.,
Howell, 1952). Significant features include a
continuous, projecting supraorbital torus; a
relatively low, broad cranial vault, generally
exhibiting occipital bunning and lambdoidal
flattening; a large, prognathic face; lack of a
canine fossa; very broad nasal aperture and
anterior palate; large anterior teeth, generally
exhibiting heavy att.rition: a mandible lacking
a mental eminence and t.rigone, but. exhibit.­
ing a receding symphysis and retromolar
space; and certain postcranial characteristics
(to be discussed later). Of course, as Hrdlirka
noted, and as more recent workers have
emphasized (Brose and Wolpoff, 1971; Brace
and Montague, 1977; Wolpoff, 1980), there is a
considerable degree of variability in the ex­
pression of these features. SeveraI specimens
exhibit certain features that approach the
modern Homo sapiens condition to a greater
degree than is usual for western European
Neandertals. For example, rather vertical
symphyses and incipient mental eminences
are noted in Monte Circeo 2 and La Ferrassie
1, while very little occipital bunning is ex­
hibited in specimens like Saccopastore 1 and
Le Moustier.
The chronological problem that faced Hrd­
litka in 1927 still frustrates the analysis of
western European Wl.lrm Neandertals.
Presently the majority of these remains
(including those from La Chapelle, La
Ferrassie, La Quina, and Hortusl are
correlated to Wurm II (Heim, 1976a,b; de
Lumley, 1976; Vandermeersch, 1976), placing
t.hem temporally between approximat.ely
55,000 and 37,000 years H.P. However, for
various reasons, the temporal position of
many of the specimens (particularly those
found early in t.his century) within this period
cannot be determined conclusively, which
severely hampers the search for systematic
pat.terns of change over time during Wurm II.
Only a meager number of Late Pleistocene
specimens seem to be pre-Wl.lrm II (see Wol­
poff, 1980), and there appear to be very few
systematic differences between the pre-Wurm
II and Wl.lrm II ~eandertal samples in west­
ern Europe. There is, however, clear evidence
of anterior dental reduction from the pre­
Wurm II to Wl.lrm II Neandertal samples
(Frayer, 1978; Wolpoff, 1980): and reduction of
Wurm I I anterior teeth is particularly evident.
at the late Wurm II site of Hortus (de Lumley,
HRD!
1973, 1976), where the anterior teeth are con­
the natu.re. of the relationship
sistently smaller than the rest of the Wurm II
two hon11lud types. The earliest
sample. Except for this tendency for dental
sapiens specimens include the f~
reduction, the only other exis tence of "progres­
from Cra-Magnon and Gratte
sive" features in the Wurm II western Euro­
(Billy, 1976), which while qui
pean sample consists of occurrences of traits
nev~rthe~ess unquestionably II
such as those mentioned earlier, which are
sapiens m total morphological
generally isolated in specimens otherwise
rob~~tness itself, however, esr;
exhibit.ing "typically" Neandertal morphology.
oCCIpital region, is reminiscent
The recent discovery of a Neandertal in Cha­
telperronian context at Saint Cesaire in morphology, as are other asr:
rr;orphology (see Wolpoff, 1980,
France (Leveque and Vandermeersch, 1980,
SlOn that there is virtually
1981) deserves special consideration at this
between these specimens and I
point. Although the preliminary consider­
peans (see Vallois, 1954) is far fl
ations of the morphology of this specimen em­
A significant amount of evoluti
phasize that it is virtually identical t.o earlier
is documented from the early to t
(Wurm III Neandertals (Leveque and Vander­
Paleolithic samples in western I
meersch, 1980, 1981; ApSimon, 1980), limited
1976; see also Frayer, 1978). Thu
examination of the specimen by one of us
European early Upper Paleolith
(F.H.S.) in Paris in 1978 left the impression of
demonstrably intermediate in tl
a strong similarity to the Vindija Neandertals
of certain features and in overa
in certain features. Others (Wolpoff, personal
bet.ween Neandertals and later E
communication) have come to the same
C,entral Europe. Although Sf
conclusion. It is interesting to not.e that the PleIstocene fossil hominid speda
only other hominid remains definitely
C.entral ~urope were aUJong the
attributable to the Chatelperronian (teeth dlscovenes made (e.g. Sipka, in ,
from Arcy-sur-Cure) also exhibit. Neandertal begin.ning in 1881; P¥edmostf, j
affinities (Wolpoff, 1980).7 While more
Krapma, beginning in 1899; aJ
information is needed to be certain, it would
: 905) and certainly consitute son
appear that the latest Neandertals in western
Important fossil hominid sampll
Europe, Saint Cesaire and possibly Hortus, do
th~y have received proportiona
indicate some pattern of morphological
tmled attention in comparisoIl
change toward the direction of modern Homo European and western Asian
sapiens. However, if the age of the Saint except by central European s
Cesaire specimen is comparable to the few ~eHnek, 1969, 1976; Vl~ek, 196,
available radiocarbon dates for the Chatel­ mteresting to note that Hrdli~ka
perronian at other sites (like Arcy-sur-Curel,
recognize the tremendous impor
the specimen would date about 31,000 to
mvaterial, especially that from
33,000 years B.P., which would make it rather
Predmosti (Hrdlitka, 1912a,
lat.e for a Neandertal. Some support for this
1930), to the question of t
date comes from the approximate 35,000-year'
tal/modern Homo sapiens reI
B.p. date associated with the aparently Neander­
E~rope. R~cently, interest in an
tal La Quina H27 temporal (Vallois, 1969). We
this matenal by noncentral Eura
shall return to the possible significance of this
have increased significantly
later.
1976a,b, n.d.; Smith and RaJ
Except for the above mentioned Chatel·
Frayer, 1978; Wolpoff, 1979, 198
perronian specimens, the earliest significant al., 19811.
Upper Paleolithic remains known from
western Europe are associated with the Mid· While many of the sites in thi,
dIe Aurignacian. Thus, a critical (albeit shortl initially excavated around the t~
tury, and thereby suffer from th
temporal gap still remains between the latest
Neandertals and earliest moderns in western lems of imprecise methodology
Europe, which also complicates evaluat.ion of contemporaneously excavated sit
Europe, several of the more im
have been recently reexcavated
'The robust skelf'toa from Combe Capelle, reroverpd by Klaatsch more acceptable techniques of ex
and HaustJr (I ~1101 under :-iom('what dubiou~ l:irCUlllstance.... , cannot bt\ documentation. Furthermore r
stratigraphy and other asp~ct
definitely consjderpd to be C'h5telperronian

he anterior teeth are con­
ill the rest of the Wiirm II
this tendency for dental
ther existence of "progres­
~ Wiirm II western Euro­
,s of occurrences of traits
tioned earlier, which are
in specimens otherwise
." Neandertal morphology.
~ry of a Neandertal in Cha,­
{t at Saint Cesaire in
ld Vandermeersch, 1980,
:ial consideration at this
be preliminary consider­
Jlogy of this specimen em­
rtually identical to earlier
:als (Leveque and Vander­
e; ApSimon, 1980), limited
~ specimen by one of us
1978 left the impression of
;0 the Vindija Neandertals
Others (Wolpoff, personal
lYe come to the same
:eresting to note that the
nid remains definitely
~ Chatelperronian (teeth
) also exhibit Neandertal
f, 1980).7 While more
ed to be certain, it would
st Neandertals in western
re and possibly Hortus, do
Hem of morphological
iirection of modern Homo
if the age of the Saint
s comparable to the few
on dates for the Chatel­
sites (like Arcy-sur-Cure),
ld date about 31,000 to
hich would make it rather
al. Some support for this
~ approximate 35,000-year­
'lith the aparently Neander­
mporal (Vallois, 1969). We
ossible significance of this
above mentioned Chatel­
s, the earliest significant
remains known from
, associated with the Mid­
LUS, a critical (albeit short)
emains between the latest
rliest moderns in western
complicates evaluation of
Combe CapelJe, recovered by Klaatsch
~what dubious circumstances, cannot be
latelperronian.
v
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
the nature of the relationship between these
two hominid types. The earliest Homo sapiens
sapiens specimens include the famous remains
from Cra-Magnon and Grotte des Enfants
IBilly, 1976), which while quite robust are
nevertheless unquestionably modern Homo
sapiens in total morphological pattern. The
robustness itself, however, especially in the
occipital region, is reminiscent of Neandertal
morphology, as are other aspects of their
morphology (see Wolpoff, 1980). The impres­
sion that there is virtually no difference
between these specimens and modern Euro­
peans (see Vallois, 1954) is far from the truth.
A significant amount of evolutionary change
is documented from the early to the late Upper
Paleolithic samples in western Europe (Billy,
1976; see also Frayer, 1978). Thus, the western
European early Upper Paleolithic material is
demonstrably intermediate in the expression
of certain features and in overall robusticity
between Neandertals and later Europeans.
Central Europe. Although several Upper
Pleistocene fossil hominid specimens in South­
Central Europe were among the earliest such
discov~ries.made(e.g.!.tSipka, if ~880; Mlade't,
beginnIng m 1881; Predmostl, m 1894-1895;
Krapina, beginning in 1899; and Ochoz, in
1905) and certainly consitute some of the most
important fossil hominid samples in Europe,
they have received proportionately little de­
tailed attention in comparison to western
European and western Asian specimens­
except by central European scholars (e.g..
Jelinek, 1969, 1976; VItek, 1967, 1969). It is
interesting to note that Hrdlitka was quick to
recognize the tremendous importance of this
material, especially that from Krapina and
Predmosti (Hrdli~ka, 1912a, 1914, 1927,
1930), to the question of the Neander­
tal/modern Homo sapiens relationship in
Europe. Recently, interest in and analysis of
this material by noncentral European workers
have increased significantly (e.g., Smith,
1976a,b, n.d.; Smith and Ranyard, 1980:
Frayer, 1978; Wolpoff, 1979, 1980; Wolpoff et
al,,1981).
While many of the sites in this region were
, initially excavated around the turn of the cen­
tury, and thereby suffer from the same prob­
lems of imprecise methodology that plague
contemporaneously excavated sites in western
Europe, several of the more important sites
have been recently reexcavated using much
more acceptable techniques of excavation and
documentation. Furthermore, reanalysis of
stratigraphy and other aspects of earlier-
449
excavated sites has been carried out in many
instances. Thus, while problems certainly
remain, a reasonably good stratigraphic!
chronologic framework is available - at least
for the most productive hominid fossil­
producing regions in Czechoslovakia (Musil
and Valoch, 1966) and northern Yugoslavia
(Malez, 1978).
In the context of this framework, the Nean­
dertal remains from South-Central Europe can
be confidently divided into two temporal
samples (see Smith, n.d.). The early sample
consists of the remains from Krapina,
Gimovce, Ochoz, and probably Subalyuk. The
time span represented extends from the
Riss/Wiirm Interglacial through the Early
Wiirm Stadial (roughly equivalent to Wiirm I
in western Europe). The late sample is
comprised of the sPE:Simens from Vindija
(level G3), Klilna, and Sipka, all of which are
encompassed within the time range of the
Lower Wiirm Stadial (Wiirm II).
The early Neandertals from this region,
when considered as a group, clearly exhibit all
of the characteristic morphological features of
the taxon Homo sapiens neanderthalensis;
and despite the fact that many of them have
often been considered more "progressive" or
more "generalized" (i.e., less extreme) in their
expression of Neandertal anatomical charac­
teristics than western European "classic"
Neandertals, there is no feature or complex of
features which supports this assertion. In
every aspect of cranial, dental. and postcranial
anatomy where comparisons are possible, the
early South-Central European Neandertals
exhibit the same morphological pattern as
their counterparts in western Europe (Vitek,
1969: Smith, 1976b, n.d.; Wolpoff, 1980). For
example, the Neandertals from Krapina have
often been portrayed as being more "progres­
sive" than the western European Neandertals.
In fact. Hrdlitka frequently cited the Krapina
remains as an example of Neandertals
exhibiting features which presented a
"considerable variation and that of a rather
progressive tendency" (1930:215). It is clear,
however, that he did not consider them any
more "progressive" as a group than the western
material (Hrdlitka, 1914, 1927, ] 930).
Recentlv, a series of detailed studies on
various' aspects of the Krapina samples
(Smith, 1976b, 1978; Trinkaus, 1978; Wolpoff,
1979) have demonstrated conclusively that the
Krapina hominids do not differ from western
European Neandertals to any significant
extent,
450 F. SPENCE]{ AND F.H. S\llTH
The late NeanderLal sample from South-Cen­
tral Europe exhibits basically the same total
morphological pattern as the early sample;
Qut as the descriptions of Vindija, Kulna, and
Sipka (Wolpoff et al., 1981; Jelinek. 1967;
Vlcek, 1969) demonstrate, there are a number
of features in which this late group ap­
proaches the early Homo sapiens sapiens con­
dition to a consistently greater extent than
the early group does. This fact has been
pointed out repeatedly by centralvEuropean
scholars (e.g., Jelinek, 1969; Vlcek, 1958,
1969), but these assertions were based on the
\lither sparse Czechoslovakian material from
Sipka, Kulna, and Bala. The relatively recent
discovery of the Vindija hominids (Malez et
al., 1980) has solidified this position. At Vin­
dija additional specimens preserving the same
anatomical regions Isupraorbital tori,
mandibles, and maxillae) represented in the
Czechoslovak sample have been recovered,
thus markedly increasing sample sizes. The
Vindija specimens have confirmed the same
general "progressiveness" in these areas pre­
viously observed in the Czechoslovak speci­
mens, indicating that the entire "population"
of late Neandertals in South-Central Europe
were more evolved than the early sample in
the direction of early modern Homo sapiens,
I n the supraorbital region, for example, it has
been documented elsewhere (Smith and Ran­
yard, 1980; Wolpoff et aI., 1981) that the
},'indija supraorbital tori (as well as that of
Sala) exhibit both metric diminution and cer­
tain morphological changes from the earlier
Krapina sample. The latter basically concerns
relatively greater midorbit reduction in the
late sample, which can be considered an in­
cipient stage in the emergence of distinct
supraorbital trigone and superciliary arch
segments of the supraorbital area. Addition­
ally, the mandibular remains from Vindija
exhibit (as a group) relatively vertical sym­
physes (all less than 90°1; {)TId two of the
Vindija specimens, as well as Sipka (probably),
give indications of at least incipient mental
eminences and trigones. There is also evidence
of some degree of reduction in certain sig­
nificant facial characteristics in the late
group. For example, the Kulna and both Vin­
dija maxillae exhibit rather narrow nasal
apertures compared to the western European
sample. Furthermore, the Vindija (but not
Kulnal specimens have rather shallow palates
and reduced alveolar heights. Also the Klilna
and perhaps the Vindija maxillae possess very
shallow canine fossae. For further details on
these finds see Wolpoff et al. (1981) and Smith
(n.d.).
The early modern Homo sapiens (early
Upper Paleolithic) sample from South-Central
Europe exhibits several characteristics that
indicate a close morphological connection with
late South-Central European Neandertals and
suggest an intermediate position between Ne­
andertals and later European modern hominid
populations. The material that constitutes
this sample is dated to older than circa 25,000
years H.I'. and includes specimens from
P'fedmosti, Zlaty. Kun., Mladet, Brno, Velika
Pecina, Dolni Vestonice, and Pavlov. Hrdlicka
clearly recognized that the morphology of
some of these specimens, specifically the
Predmosti and Brno crania, was more similar
to Neandertals than that of most western
Europ.ean Upper Paleolithic specimens
(Hrdlicka, 1912, 1914, 1927, 1930). There is,
however, no record of his examining the
complete Mladec sample, which indicates this
connection even more distinctly. This
morphological "connection" is illustrated by a
number of features (see Smith, n.d.; Smith and
Ranyard, 1980; Wolpoff, 1980 for more
detailsl.
For example, the supraorbital superstruc­
tures, although essentially modern in form,
are generally considerably more salienL and
robust than later Homo sapiens sapien8
populations. Furthermore, the division
between the supraorbital trigone and super­
ciliary arch is not alwavs distinct, as in later
popuiations. Some specimens, such as Mladec
5, almost exhibit a supraorbital torus. It is
argued elsewhere in more detail (Smith and
Ranyard, 1980) that the supraorbital region in
South-Central European hominids represents
a morphological continuum from early Nean­
dertals, through late Neandertals, to early
modern Homo sapiens. In addition, hominids
which make up this early modern Homo
8apien8 sample are intermediate in tooth size
between Wiirm Neandertals and later Upper
Paleolithic-associated specimens (Frayer,
1978; Smith, 1976b), contributing to a distinct
pattern of dental reduction traceable from
Riss/Wiirm Neandertals through Mesolithic
and Neolithic Europeans (Brace, 1979; Frayer,
1978). Nasal apertures tend to be only slightly
narrower than late South-Central European
Neandertals, and canine fossae are not
extensively more excavated. Prognathism,
general facial robustness, and rugosity are
generally more developed in the early modern
Homo sapiens sample than in later European
HR
Upper Paleolithic "populat
buns, though somewhat difJ
generally less developed that
dertals, are common in the ea
lithic sample and are most logi
remnants of a Neandertal :
structures are much less fr
populations.
While these and other feat
good deal of morphological sin
early Upper Paleolithic and
specimens from South-Central
tal morphological pattern of e:
olithic hominids unequivocall)
the taxon Homo sapiens sap
men, not even Mladet 5 or
complex of features that WOl
classification as a Neandertal.
1978) has illustrated this q
means of multivariate analy:
tinent material (see also
Trinkaus and Howells, 1979).
multivariate evidence has hal
enforcing the idea of a qualit:
between Neandertal and early
sapiens morphology, an idea
roots in the original replacemel
Boule, 1914, 1923; see also Val
important Lo note that neither
Brauer's analyses can includE
andertal remains from South-(
due to their fragmentary condi
at present, it would appear th
from such studies are not dire
to the Late Pleistocene homin
this area of Europe.'
Western Asia. The Near East
point for the study of UPI:
hominid evolution ever since t]
the Mount Carmel hominids
Keith, 1939). Historically, tl
nological interpretation of theSE
contemporaneity of the Skhul
minids and their Riss/Wiirm I
contributed to the impressior
Homo sapiens had evolved sar
"east" of Europe. Recent strati/
and archaeological analyses f
1973) have shown that the sit
temporary and certainly not RiE
Presently, all work~rs agree
East was populated by popul,
sapiens neanderthalensis dur:
circa 60,000 (or earlier I to 46
Specimens attributed to this t,
the sites of Tabun, Shanidar, j
tiyeh and exhibit only rather

1
I
Ipoff et a1. (1981) and Smith
.ern Homo sapiens (early
sample from South-Central
,everal characteristics that
Irphological connection with
European Neandertals and
ediate position between Ne­
r European modern hominid
material that constitutes
ld to older than circa 25,000
includes specimens from
Kurt, Mladec. Brno, Velika
;onice, and Pavlov. Hrdlicka
i that the morphology of
:pecimens, specifically the
no crania, was more similar
han that of most western
r Paleolithic specimens
914, 1927, 1930). There is,
)rd of his examining the
,ample. which indicates this
1 more distinctly. This
nnection" is illustrated by a
s (see Smith, n,d.; Smith and
Wolpoff, 1980 for more
he supraorbital superstruc­
ssentially modern in form,
siderably more salient and
lr Homo sapiens sapiens
lrthermore, the division
'aorbital trigone and super­
, always distinct, as in later
l specimens, such as Mladec
a supraorbital torus. It is
in more detail (Smith and
.at the supraorbital region in
ropean hominids represents
~ontinuum from early Nean­
late Neandertals, to early
Diens. In addition, hominids
this early modern Homo
'e intermediate in tooth size
leandertals and later Upper
iated specimens (Frayer,
,b), contributing to a distinct
I reduction traceable from
ldertals through Mesolithic
opeans (Brace, 1979; Frayer,
;ures tend to be only slightly
Ite South-Central European
d canine fossae are not
l excavated. Prognathism,
bustness, and rugosity are
~veloped in the early modern
mple than in later European
_J""-------
v
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
Upper Paleolithic "populations." Occipital
buns, though somewhat different from and
generally less developed than those of Nean­
dertals, are common in the early Upper Paleo­
lithic sample and are most logically considered
remnants of a Neandertal ancestry. These
structures are much less frequent in later
populations.
While these and other features indicate a
good deal of morphological similarity between
early Upper Paleolithic and late Neandertal
specimens from South-Central Europe, the to­
tal morphological pattern of early Upper Pale­
olithic hominids unequivocally places them in
the taxon Homo sapiens sapiens. No speci­
men, not even Mlade~ 5 or 6, possesses a
complex of features that would warrant its
classification as a Neandertal, Stringer (1974,
1978) has illustrated this quite nicely by
means of multivariate analysis of the per­
tinent material (see also Brimer, 1980;
Trinkaus and Howells, 1979). Although the
multivariate evidence has had the effect of
enforcing the idea of a qualitative difference
between Neandertal and early modern Homo
sapiens morphology, an idea which has its
roots in the original replacement concepts (d,
Boule, 1914, 1923: see also Vallois, 1954), it is
important to note that neither Stringer's nor
Brauer's analyses can include the late Ne­
andertal remains from South-Central Europe,
due to their fragmentary condition, Therefore
at present, it would appear that impressions
from such studies are not directly applicable
to the Late Pleistocene hominid sequence in
this area of Europe,'
Western Asia. The Near East has been a focal
point for the study of Upper Pleistocene
hominid evolution ever since the discovery of
the Mount Carmel hominids (McCown and
Keith, 1939), Historically, the early chro­
nological interpretation of these sites (e.g., the
contemporaneity of the SkhUl and Taban ho­
minids and their Riss/Wtirm equivalent age)
contributed to the impression that modern
Homo sapiens had evolved somewhere to the
"east" of Europe. Recent stratigraphic, faunal,
and archaeological analyses (J eliiiek et al.,
1973) have shown that the sites are not con­
temporary and certainly not Riss/Wtirm in age.
Presently, all workers agree that the Near
East was populated by populations of Homo
sapiens neanderthalensis during the period
circa 60,000 (or earlier) to 46,000 years B.P.
Specimens attributed to this taxon come from
the sites of Taban, Shanidar, Amud, and Zut­
tiyeh and exhibit only rather minor regional
l
451
,I
differences from European Neandertals
(Stewart, 1977; Trinkaus and Howells, 1979;
Wolpoff, 1980), The Skhal hominids are
considered by most scholars to be early
modern Homo sapiens, although certainly
exhibiting a number of features very remi­
niscent of Near East Neandertals (Wolpoff,
1980). In fact, the mostwell·known cranium
(Skhal 5), which is generally represented as
"typical" of the Skhal hominids, is one of the
most modern-looking of the specimens in the
sample, Other specimens (e.g., Skhal 4 and 9)
are somewhat more Neandertal-like. The
Skhal hominids are clearly more recent than
the Neandertal specimens listed above (Smith,
1977; Trinkaus and Howells, 1979; Wolpoff,
1980) and would appear to date between
31,000 and 35,000 years fl. P.
The Qafzeh hominids, the first of which were
discovered in the 1930s, have only recently
been systematically described by Vander­
meersch (1977). They are very similar to the
Skhal hominids i~ total' morphological
pattern, as well as in the expression of con­
siderable variation (see Wolpoff, 1980), and
would appear to represent the san1e evolu­
tionary stage of development. These homi­
nids, however, have been claimed to be any­
where from 44,000 to around 70,000 years old.
But even in the detailed geological analyses of
Farrand (1972, 1979), who favored an early
date, there is nothing that would preclude ~
age of between 30,000 and 40,000 years for
these hominids - a range which is supported
by certain archaeological considerations and
some admittedly questionable amino-acid
racemization dates (Bada and Masters Helf­
man, 1976), as well as morphology. Thus at
the present time, there appears to be little
reason for considering the Qafzeh hominids to
date significantly earlier than those of Skha1.
Unfortunately, there are no hominid remains
attributed to the early Upper Paleolithic of
western Asia.
Postcranial evidence. Although supposedly
primitive postcranial morphology constituted
one of the major arguments for a separate
Neandertal lineage (Boule, 1911-1913, 1914,
1923: Vallois, 1954), more recent analyses
have shown that while Neandertal postcrania
are characterized by extreme rugosity and ro­
busticity, virtually all aspects of Neandertal
MBrauer's (19RO) complete analy'sis of the Hahnofersand frontal
(dated at ca. :~6,OOO years ILl'.) indicate it to he demonstrably in­
termediate beLween Neandertals and modern Homo sapiens -in a
number of features.
_
452 F. SPENCER AND F.B. SMITH
postcranial morphology are within the range
of modern human variability (e.g., Trinkaus,
1976b, 1978; Stoner and Trinkaus, 1981).
Exceptions are (1) the unusually elongated
and thinned superior pubic ramus of Nean­
dertals (Stewart, 1960; Trinkaus, 1976a;
Smith, 1976b), which possibly relates to par­
turition, and (21 the unusual pattern of the
axillary border of the scapula, which exhibits
a dorsal rather than a ventral axillary groove
(the latter being typical of modern hominids).
Trinkaus (1977) relates this to different
muscular demands, noting that transitional
morphologies are found in both Neandertals
and modern Homo sapiens and demonstrate
that this morphology is the norm in "transi·
tional" groups like European Upper Paleoli­
thic and SkhuI hominids.
THE EVIDENCE FOIt A NEANDEltTAL
evolving to modern Homo sapiens. Further­
PHASE OF MAN
more, while not attempting a regional
The archeological and morphological
information presented above indicate, in our
opinion, that a transition between Neander­
tals and modern Homo sapiens is even more
defendable than in Hrdlicka's day. There are
demonstrable morphological continua in the
Late Pleistocene hominids of both South­
Central Europe (early Neandertals-late
l\eandertals-early moderns) and the Near East
(Neandertals-SkhullQafzeh group) which do
not exhibit the extensive morphological
breaks we would expect with replacement
senso stricto. Late Neandertals in South­
Central Europe, for example, make excellent
intermediates between the earlier, more
"typical" Neandertals and the early modern
Homo sapiens sample. The latter sample
exhibits numerous well-developed Neandertal­
reminiscent features, which occur in rather
high frequencies and decrease in both fre­
quency and similarity to Neandertals in later
samples. Clearly, the morphological gradient
between Neandertals and modern humans
which Hrdli~ka recognized in 1927 has been
supported by subsequent discoveries. Like
Hrdli~ka, we believe that the most logical
(although not the only) interpretation of this
gradient is that it represents a phylogenetic
continuum between Neandertals and modern
humans in these regions.
In western Europe, a temporal/morphologi­
cal continuum in Late Pleistocene hominids is
less clear, and it appears that Neandertals
may have survived later in this region than
the other two. Furthermore, on the basis of
~~----=---------~~~-,
present evidence, the earliest Upper Paleo­
lithic in western Europe seems to appear more
recently than in central Europe. All of this
may indicate that the appearance of modern
Ho'mo sapiens in western Europe was influ·
enced by gene flow from central Europe, but
these indications may also be the result of the
chronological and other problems noted l!cu-lier.
Even if it should be demonstrated that
western European Neandertals did not evolve
into modern Homo sapiens, Hrdlitka's argu­
ments are not invalidated. It is evident that,
although Hrdli~ka is generally considered to be
a unilinealist in the same mold as Schwalbe (see
Vallois, 1954, 1958), this is not completely
accurate; his views are somewhat more com­
plex (Spencer, 1979). As his writing
continuously emphasizes, Hrdli~ka did not
conceive of all l\eandertal populations as
More recently, the Niah juveni
been suggested to indicate the
approach, largely because the fossil record was
not complete enough at that time to allow such
an analysis, it is clear that Hrdli<:'ka recognized
regional geography as an integral factor in the
evolutionary process (e.g., Hrdlicka 1912a:3-5,
1927:271-272). At any rate, in order to defend
the "Neandertal phase of man" in Hrdli~ka's
sense, it is not necessary to demonstrate that
all Neandertal populations everywhere were
ancestral to European modern Homo sapiens
but only that at least some were. In the light of
the abo've discussion, we obviously believe this
can be demonstrated.
THE PRE·SAPIENS A.\lD OTHF,R
REPLACEvlENT HYPOTHESES
In his classic presentation of the pre-sapiens
theory, Vallois (1954) noted two maj or points
as evidence favoring this perspective: (1) the
lack of morphological evidence of a transition
between Neandertals and modern humans
(1954:116-119), and (2) the existence of fossil
specimens proving the existence of a pre-sa­
piens lineage (1954:120-125). Having dem­
onstrated that evidence does exist for a transi­
tion, we now turn to the question of the exis­
tence of a pre-sapiens lineage. Like Boule,
Va11ois's pre-sapiens lineage was European
and consisted of the specimens from
Fontechevade and Swanscombe. More recent
analyses (e.g., Brace, 1964; Corruccini, 1975;
Trinkaus, 1973; Wolpoff, 1980) have shown
that none of these specimens differ
significantly from other contemporaneous
HRD
specimens. A more recenl
European pre-sapiens S1
Vertesszollos occipital (Thoma,
been demonstrated to be inl
from Homo erectus IWolpoff
there is no convincing evidence
existence of a European pre-sa
Outside of Europe. the initil
sapiens specimens was registl
Leakey for remains from the l'
Kan~ and Kanjeradiscovered
have subsequently been exclu<
pre-sapiens specimens for dif
(see Coon, 1962; Wolpoff, 1980)
sibility of a very early appearel
humans in the Near East wa~
but is now hard to defend, at lel
pre-sapienist sense (see previo
very modern group in this reI
years H.P. Apart fram the prabll
this in a juvenile specimen,
question regarding its stratigr
which is difficult to resolve
(Kennedy, 1979). Furthermore,
cations of this early occurrence
mans have been recovered fr
East Asian site. Additionally,
sider a 40,000-year date to b
earlier than the earliest appear;
Homo sapiens in Europe or thf
Presently, the best case for a
for anatomically modern huma
South Africa, specifically the
Cave (Beaumont et al., 1978; Hi
Among other remains, a very I
cranium and separate mandi
recovered from this site, and a
from levels dating in excess (
B.P. (see Butzer, 1978). Then
contextual problems with tb
and the existence of modern
early a date has not yet be
demonstrated at other site
Africa, with the possible e}
Klasies River Mouth sites (Sl
Otherwise, there is a reasonab:
logical sequence in South Af]
1976, 1978) in which evolu
appear equivalent to those
hominids in other areas of the
Wolooff, 1980). Thus. while WI
bility with great interest, WI
siderably more substantiati<
before the idea that South Afr


ce, the earliest Upper Paleo­
1 Europe seems to appear more
n central Europe. All of this
hat the appearance of modern
in western Europe was influ­
flow from central Europe, but
1S may also be the result of the
ld other problems noted ~lier.
;hould be demonstrated that
Jan Neandertals did not evolve
'omo sapiens, HrdliCka's argu­
invalidated. It is evident that,
~ka is generally considered to be
the same mold as Schwalbe (see
1958), this is not completely
iews are somewhat more com­
r, 1979). As his writing
!mphasizes, HrdliCka did not
II Neandertal populations as
)dern Homo sapiens. Further­
not attempting a regional
Iy because the fossil record was
l~ugh at that time to allow such
s clear that Hrdli(';ka recognized
phy as an integral factor in the
'ocess (e.g., Hrdlicka 1912a:3-5,
At any rate, in order to defend
il phase of man" in Hrdli~ka's
necessary to demonstrate that
populations everywhere were
Jropean modern Homo sapiens
t least some were. In the light of
lssion, we obviously believe this
trated.
~E-SAP[ENS AND OTHER
~CEMENT HYPOTHESES
:presentation of the pre-sapiens
(1954) noted two major points
voring this perspective: (1) the
llogical evidence of a transition
ldertals and modern humans
I, and (2) the existence of fossil
ving the existence of a pre-sa­
(1954:120-125). Having dem­
evidence does exist for a transi­
urn to the question of the exis­
e-sapiens lineage. Like Boule,
apiens lineage was European
d of the specimens from
and Swanscombe. More recent
Brace, 1964; Corruccini, 1975;
3; Wolpoff, 1980) have shown
)f these specimens differ
from other contemporaneous
v
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
specimens. A more recently suggested
European pre-sapiens specimen, the
Vertesszbllbs occipital (Thoma, 1969), has also
been demonstrated to be indistinguishable
from Homo erectus (Wolpoff, 1971). Thus,
there is no convincing evidence to support the
existence of a European pre-sapiens lineage.
Outside of Europe, the initial claim of pre­
sapiens specimens was registered by L.S.B.
Leakey for remains from the Kenyan sites of
Kanam and Kanjera discovered in 1932, These
have subsequently been excluded as suitable
pre-sapiens specimens for differing reasons
Isee Coon, 1962; Wolpoff, 1980). Also, the pos­
sibility of a very early appeareance of modern
humans in the Near East was once popular
but is now hard to defend, at least in the strict
pre-sapienist sense (see previous discussion).
More recently, the Niah juvenile (Borneo) has
been suggested to indicate the presence of a
very modern group in this region at 40,000
years B.P. Apart from the problem of inferring
this in a juvenile specimen, there is some
question regarding its stratigraphic context,
which is difficult to resolve at this point
(Kennedy, 1979). Furthermore, no other indi­
cations of this early occurrence of modern hu­
mans have been recovered from any other
East Asian site. Additionally. we do ~ot con­
sider a 40,000-year date to be significantly
earlier than the earliest appearance of modern
Homo sapiens in Europe or the Near East.
Presently, the best case for a very early date
for anatomically modern humans comes from
South Africa, specifically the site of Border
Cave (Beaumont et al., 1978; Rightmire, 1979).
Among other remains, a very modern-looking
cranium and separate mandible have been
recovered from this site, and are said to come
from levels dating in excess of 80,000 years
B.P. (see Butzer, 1978). There are, however,
contextual problems with these specimens;
and the existence of modern humans at so
early a date has not yet been conclusively
demonstrated at other sites in southern
Africa, with the possible exception of the
Klasies River Mouth sites (see Klein, 1977).
Otherwise, there is a reasonably clear morpho­
logical sequence in South Africa (Rightmire,
1976, 1978) in which evolutionary grades
appear equivalent to those contemporary
hominids in other areas of the Old World (see
Wolpoff, 1980). Thus, while we view the possi­
bility with great interest, we feel that con­
siderably more substantiation is necessary
before the idea that South Africa is the area of
453
origin for modern Homo sapiens, in a classic
monocentric sense (Beaumont et al., 1978;
Protsch, 1975), can be accepted. In fact, as the
evidence now stands, although clade differ­
ences certainly exist on a broad geographic
basis, grade differences appear to be minimal
at any particular time during the Middle and
Late Pleistocene of the Old World (Coon, 1962;
Wolpoff. 1980).
The pre-neandertal hypothesis is probably
the most popular perspective on the phyloge­
netic position of Neandertals at the present
time. According to this viewpoint, modern
Homo sapiens evolved out of "progressive"
Neandertal or other archaic Homo sapiens pop­
ulations outside of Europe and subsequently
influenced the origin of modern Homo sapiens
in Europe. This influence is generally
considered to have been derived from the Near
East and to have taken one of two forms: (1) an
influx of fully modern Homo sapiens into
Europe, probably with some assimilation of
Neandertal genes into the invader's gene pool,
or (2) extensive gene flow, with "progres­
sive" genes being introduced into Europe, but
without a significant influx of modern peoples
themselves. As has been demonstrated, the
available evidence provides virtually no
support for the first possibility. Regarding the
second proposition, it is our considered opinion
that, because paleontological models are pres­
ently inadequate to deal effectively with gene
flow, it is simply not possible at this juncture
to judge what the precise effects gene flow
(without major population movements) may
have had on the transition from Neandertals to
modern Homo sapiens in Europe (see Weiss
and Maruyama, 1976). From all indications,
there were no impassable geographical
barriers preventing populational contacts
within Europe and between Europe and any
adjacent region; thus, it is quite likely that
gene flow may have played an important role.
On the other hand, there is no a priori reason
why the transition in South-Central Europe,
for example, would have necessarily been influ­
enced by the influx of "progressive" alleles to
any greater extent than the transition in other
regions. including the Near East, was influ­
enced by the influx of "progressive" alleles
from South-Central Europe. Similarly, while it
is tempting to suggest that the origins of mo­
dern Homo sapiens in western Europe was
strongly influenced by gene flow from central
Europe, such an assertion requires further
clarification of the nature of Neandertal/early
 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
454
modern Homo sapiens relationships in the
former area of Europe.
In light of the evidence presently available,
we believe that Hrdlirka's major point of
criticism regarding the replacement hypothe­
sis continues to be valid. There is still no
conclusive evidence for the existence of a pre­
sapiens lineage separate from and contem­
porary with archaic Homo sapiens. This is true
both within Europe and in the remainder of the
Old World. Furthermore, though southern
Africa may prove to be an exception, we do not
see convincing chronological evidence that
modern Homo sapiens appears significantly
earlier in any portion of the world than in
Europe. Thus the source area for modern
Homo sapiens necessary for any strict
replacement interpretation regarding the
origin of modern Europeans has yet to be
identified. 9
MONOCENTRISM A"'D POLYCENTRISM
There are some important differences in how
Ale¥" Hrdli~ka viewed his Neandertal phase of
man and what the existing fossil record in­
dicates. Hrdli~ka (l921b, 1927, 1930) was
clearly espousing a strict monocentric perspec­
tive on the origin of Homo sapiens. In his
opinion Europe had been the "cradle and nur­
sery" of early modern Homo sapiens. In our
opinion, the existing human fossil record does
not support this or any other strictly monocen­
tric concept of the origin of modern Homo sa­
piens. To the contrary, it appears to support
the idea of several, regionally somewhat dis­
tinct and apparently contemporary, origins of
modern Homo sapiens-grade hominids - ana­
logous to the ideas presented by Weidenreich
(1947, 1949) and Coon (1962), However, there
are certain theoretical problems which make it
very difficult to accept the idea of a strict
polycentric origin for modern Homo sapiens
(see Howells, 1976).
Wolpoff (1980:298-300) has suggested that
the changes necessary for the archaic-to-mo­
dern Homo sapiens transition are essentially
the same throughout the Old World and "can
be understood and documented in terms of
worldwide changes in selection acting on
already differential local populations of
archaic Homo sapiens," Furthermore, he notes
that the "explanation for these developments
relates to the consequences of the last series of
cultural and technological changes that were
truly worldwide (before the industrial age): the
appearance of Middle Paleolithic industries
and the development of the prepared-core tech­
----~--~-----=---------~--=--=-{----.........,=~=~cs
,
HRDLH
nique" (Wolpoff, 1980:299). Basically, his We trust that the importance
argument is that these innovations changed dertal phase to Hrdlicka's genen
the orientation toward the use of the anterior of the peopling of the world and hi
teeth for nonmasticatory and paramasticatory cerning the antiquity of man in th
purposes. The resulting anterior dental reduc­ is evident. His ideas on these and
tion and decreased degrees of stress generated are often considered as if they we
in the face and cranial vault in turn brought dependent segments of his think
about the morphological changes marking the clearly not the case. When one apr
emergence of a modern Homo sapiens grade fact, it is that much easier to und
world wide. This is a more complex restatement he doggedly defended some of the
of Hrdlirka's (1911) suggestion that changes in (e,g., his insistence that "Sinanth:
"masticatory function" was an integral Neandertail. Furthermore, Hrdli
function in later patterns of human cranial criticized for such concepts as I
evolution. This idea was subsequently logical dating." As we demonstra'
developed by Brace (1962b, see also 1979) and a necessary and pragmatic soh
later espoused in various forms by several obstacle of imprecise methodolog~
other workers (e.g., Brose and Wolpoff, 1971; made the question unanswerabl
Frayer, 1978; Smith, 1976b, 1978). geological grounds, Besides, it IT
terms of his concept of the
SUMMARY AND CO"'CLUDING REMARKS process (which was quite accuratl
In this paper we have taken the position that and it worked well, in his expl
those hominid remains whose ill
Ale¥ Hrdlicka's basic idea of a Neandertal
phase in human evolution is strongly support· demonstrable by other means. ~
able. It is contended that the existence of a Ne· an analysis of the evidence will •
andertal phase is supported by the following invariably right!
evidence: (1) the presence of a morphological To what extent the anticipate!
continuum in appropriate chronological frame­ of the next 50 years will
works for both Europe and the Near East be­ assessment of Hrdli~ka's Neande
tween archaic Homo sapiens (Neandertals) and human evolution remains to b
early modern Homo sapiens; (2) the lack of whatever the outcome we are cc
either any evidence for a pre-sapiens lineage in future generations of Americ
Europe or the unequivocal appearance of mod· anthropologists will continue tl
ern Homo sapiens anywhere in the Old World contributions with respect and ac
at any appreciably earlier time than in Europe; LITERATURE CITED
(3) the indications that the Aurignacian Abbott, CC (1872) The stone age in New J
assemblage can be logically considered an 6:144- 160.
indigenous European phenomenon. Abbott, CC (1888) Evidences of the ~nti,
Furthermore, we have hopefully shown that eastern North America. Proc. A.A.A.S. ,
Ameghino, F (1878) L'homme prehistoriqu
Hrdli~ka's concept was not a simple intel·
de La Plata. CoR Congo Int. Sci. A
lectual outgrowth of earlier unilineal schemes pp, 341 -350.
but in fact was more complex, involving the Ameghino. F (18791 L'homme prehistoriqu
idea of differential survival of Neandertal Rev. d'Anthropol. 2:210-249.
groups. A defense of Hrdli~ka's position, there· Ameghino, F (1908) Notas preliminares se
thomo argentinu8 un precursor del hom
fore, does not require proving that all Nean· superior de Monte Hermoso. Anal Ml
dertal "populations" everywhere evolved into Aires 16:107-242.
modern Homo sapiens. In the light of the Ameghino, F (19091 Le Diprothomo plate.
available evidence from both central Europe Nac. Buenos Aires 19:107-209.
Andrews. RC (19261 On the Trail of An'
and the Near East we feel that Hrdli~ka's prop­ York: Putnam.
osition is much more supportable now than it ApSimon, A (1980) The last Neanderthal ir
was in 1927. 287:271 -272.
Bada, JL, and Helfman, P Masters (1976)
amino-acid racemization dating in paleoa
<IEven jf u ver.y early presence of modern Homo sapr:ens jti demon­
archeology. In J Labeyrie and C Lalou
strated in southern Africa or elsewhere, thIS does not necessarily
mean that such a phenomenon would have had an effect on Lute Absolutes et Analyses lsotropiques
Pleistocene hominid succession in Europe. In a strict replacementist Methodes et Limites. Paris: CNRS. pp, .
scheme (i.e., population replacement!' it would also be necessary to Beamont, P, de Villiers, H and Vogel, J (19
document the movement of such populations toward and into Europe in sub-Saharan Africa prior to 49,000 yet
as well as their morphological similaril~' to European modern Homo and evaluation with particular reference
RapiellR S. Afr. J, Sci. 74:409~419,
....

980:299). Basically, his
lese innovations changed
trd the use of the anterior
ltory and paramasticatory
jng anterior dental reduc­
egrees of stress generated
lial vault in turn brought
:pcal changes marking the
lern Homo sapiens grade
norecomplex restatement
mggestion that changes in
tion" was an integral
ltterns of human cranial
dea was subsequently
(1962b, see also 1979) and
'arious forms by several
Brose and Wolpoff, 1971;
, 1976b, 1978).
ONCLUDING REMARKS
lve taken the position that
lic idea of a Neandertal
ution is strongly support­
that the existence of a Ne­
.pported by the following
'sence of a morphological
,riate chronological frame­
pe and the Near East be­
sapiens (Neandertals) and
, sapiens: (2) the lack of
or a pre-sapiens lineage in
ivocal appearance of mod­
lYwhere in the Old W orId
trlier time than in Europe:
that the Aurignacian
logically considered an
I phenomenon.
ave hopefully shown that
was not a simple intel­
earlier unilineal schemes
e complex, involving the
survival of Neandertal
Hrdlitka's position, there­
e proving that all Nean­
everywhere evolved into
ms. In the light of the
'Om both central Europe
feel that Hrdli~ka's prop­
supportable now than it
! of modern Homo sapiens is demon­
elsewhere. this does not necessarily
I would have had an effect on Late
in Europe. In a strict replacementist
ment), it would also be necessary to
1 populations toward and into Europe
imilarity to European modern Homo
"
HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN
We trust that the importance of the Nean­
dertal phase to Hrdli~ka's general conception
of the peopling of the world and his beliefs con­
cerning the antiquity of man in the New World
is evident. His ideas on these and other issues
are often considered as if they were totally in­
dependent segments of his thinking, which is
clearly not the case. When one appreciates this
fact, it is that much easier to understand why
he doggedly defended some of the things he did
(e.g., his insistence that "Sinanthropus" was a
Neandertal). Furthermore, HrdliCka is often
criticized for such concepts as his "morpho­
logical dating." As we demonstrated, this was
a necessary and pragmatic solution to the
obstacle of imprecise methodology which often
made the question unanswerable on strictly
geological grounds. Besides, it made sense in
terms of his concept of the evolutionary
process (which was quite accurate for its day);
and it worked well, in his experience, with
those hominid remains whose antiquity was
demonstrable by other means. What is more,
an analysis of the evidence will show he was
invariably right!
To what extent the anticipated discoveries
of the next 50 ~ears will change our
assessment of Hrdlicka's Neandertal phase of
human evolution remains to be seen. But
whatever the outcome we are confident that
future generations of American physical
anthropologists will continue to regard his
contributions with respect and admiration.
LITERATURE CITED
Abbott, CC (18721 The stone age in New Jersey, Am. Nat.
6:144--160.
Abbott, CC (18881 Evidences of the antiquity of man in
eastern North America, Proc, AA,AB, 37:1-25,
Ameghino. F (18781 L'homme prehistorique dans Ie bassin
de La Plata, CoR Cong, Int. Sci. Anthropol. Paris.
pp.341-350,
Ameghino, F (1879) L'homme prehistorique dans La Plata.
Rev. d'Anthropol. 2:210-249.
Ameghino. F (19081 Notas preliminares sobre el Tetrapro­
thomo argentinus un precursor del hombre del Mioceno
superior de Monte Hermoso. Anal Mus. Nac. Buenos
Aires 16:107-242,
Ameghino, F (1909) Le Diprothomo platensis, Anal. Mus.
Nac. Buenos Aires 19:107-209.
Andrews. RC 11926) On the Trail of Ancient Man. New
York: Putnam.
ApSimon. A (1980) The last Neanderthal in France? Nature
287:271- 272.
Bada, JL. and Helfman, P Masters 119761 Applications of
amino-acid racemization dating in paleoanthropology and
archeology. In J Labeyrie and C Lalou ledsl: Datations
Absolutes et Analyses Isotropiques en Prehistoire:
Methodes et Limites. Paris: CNRS. pp_ 40-61.
Beamont. p. de Villiers. H and Vogel, J 11978) Modern man
in sub-Saharan Africa prior to 49.000 years B.P. A review
and evaluation with particular reference to Border Cave.
S. AIr. J. Sci. 74:409-419.
455
Billy, G (1976) Les hommes du Paleolithique superieur. In
II de Lumley (ed_I: La Prehistoire Franyaise, Vol. 1. Paris:
CNRS. pp. 595-603_
Binford, SR (1972) The significance of variability: A mi­
nority report. In F Bordes led.): The Origin of Homo sa­
piens. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 199-210.
Black, 0 (19251 Asia and dispersal of Primates. Bull. Geol.
Soc. China 4:113-183.
Boas. F (1911) Changes in the Bodily Form of Descendants
of Immigrants. Senate Document 208. 61st Congress.
2nd session. Washington, D.C.
Boas, F 119121 Changes in bodily form of descendants of im­
migrants. Am. Anthropo!. 14:533.
Bordes. F 11968al The Old Stone Age. New York: McGraw­
Hill.
Bordes. F (1968bl La question perigordienne. In J Piveteau
led.l: La Prehistoire: Problemes et Tendances. Paris:
CRNS.
Bordes, F 119721 Du Paleolithique moyen au Paleolithique
superieur, continuite ou discontinuite? In F Bordes led.):
The Origin of Homo sapiens. Paris: UNESCO. pp.
211-218.
Boule, M (19081 L'homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints
ICorrezel. CoR Acad. Sci.. Paris pp 1349-1352.
Boule. M 11911-19131 L'homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux­
Saints. Ann. Paleontol. 6(1911):111-172: 7(1912);21­
192,8(19131:1-70_
Boule. M (19141 L'homo neanderthalensis et sa place dans
la nature. Cong_ Int. d'Anthropol. Arch. Prehist. CoR du la
XIve session, Geneve, 1912.2:392-395.
Boule. M (19171 The jaw of Piltdown Man. L'Anthropologie
28:157 -159.
Boule. M (19211 Les Hommes Fossiles: Elements de Pa­
leontologie Humaines. Paris: Masson et Cie.
Boule. M, and Anthony. R 119111 L'encephale de l'homme
fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. L'Anthropologie 22:
129-196.
Boule, M, and Valois, HV (19571 Fossil Men. New York:
Dryden.
Brace, CL 11962al Refocussing on the Neanderthal problem.
Am. Anthropol. 64:729~741.
Brace, CL (l9b2bl Cultural factors in the evolution of the
human dentition. In MFA Montagu led.): Culture and the
Evolution of Man. New York: Oxford University Press,
pp_ 343-354.
Brace. CL (1964) The fate of the "classic" Neanderthals: A
consideration of hominid catastrophism. Curro An­
thropol. 5:3-43.
Brace. CL 119791 Krapina "classic" Neandertals and the
evolution of the European face. J. Hum. Evol.
8:527-550.
Brace. CL. and Montagu. A (1977) Human Evolution.
2d ed. New York: MacMillan.
Brauer. G (19801 Die morphologischen Affinitaten des
jungpleistozanen Stirnbeines aus dem Elbmiindungsge­
biet bei Hahnbfersand. Z. Morpho!. Anthropol. 71:1-42.
Broom. R 119181 The evidence afforded by the Boskop
skull of a new species of primitive man. Anthropol.
Papers Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 23:67-69.
Brose. OS. and Wolpoff. MH (1971) Early Upper Paleoli­
thic man and late Middle Paleolithic tools. Am. Anthro­
pol. 73:1156-1194.
Burkitt. MC (19211 Prehistory. London: Cambridge Uni­
versity Press.
Butzer. K (1971) Environment and Archeology. Chicago:
Aldine.
Butzer. K (1978) Lithostratigraphy of Border Cave. Kwe­
Zulu, South Africa: A Middle Stone Age sequence be­
ginning c.195,OOO BP. J. Archaeol. Sci. 5:317-341.
Chmielewski. W (19721 The continuity and discontinuity
of the evolution of archaeological cultures in central and
 456 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
eastern Europe between the 55th and 25th millenaries
B.C. In F Bordes (edl: The Origin of Homo sapiens. Paris.
UNESCO. pp. 173-179.
Clewlow, CW (n.d.) Some thoughts on the background of
Early Man, Hrdlicka, and Folsom. Kroeber Anthropol.
Soc Pap. 42:27 -46.
Coon, CS (1962) The Origin of Races. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Corruccini, R (1975) Metric analysis of Fontechevade I I.
Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 42:95-98.
Farrand, WR 11965) Geology, climate and chronology of
Yabrud rock·shelter I. Ann Archeol. Syrie 15:35-50.
Farrand, WR (19721 Geological correlation of prehis·
toric sites in the Levant. In F Bordes (ed): The Origin of
Homo sapiens. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 227-235.
Fleure, HJ 11921) Some early neantropic types in Europe
and their modern representatives. J. R. Anthropol. lnst.
Grt. Br. 1:12-40.
Frayer, DW (1978) Evolution of the Dentition in Upper
Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe. University of Kansas
Publications in Anthropology 10.
Gilbori-Csimk. V (19701 C-14 dates of the Hungarian Pale­
olithic. Acta Archaeol. Acad. Sci. Hung. 22:1-11.
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V (1918) Unicita del philum umano
can pluralita dei centri specifici. Rev. Ital. Paleontol.
24:13-25.
Gorjanovic-Kramberger, K (1906) Der diluviale Mensch
von Krapina in Kroatia. Ein Beitrag zur PaHlOanthro­
pologie. Wiesbaden: Kriedels Verlag.
Gregory, WK (19271 The origin of man from the anthro­
poid stem: When and where'? Proc. Am. Philos. Soc.
46:439-463.
Gregory, WK, and McGregor, JIl (1926). A dissenting
opinion as to Dawn Man and Ape Men. Nat. Hist.
26:270- 271.
Hahn, J (1973) Das Aurignacien in Mittel-und Osteuropa.
Acta Praehist. Archaeol. .'1:77 -107.
Hahn, J (1977) Aurignacien das altere Jungpaliiolithikum
in Mittel-und Osteuropa. Fundamenta (Ser. A) 9:1-355.
Heim, JL (1976a) Les Hommes Fossiles de La Ferrassie.
Tome 1. Archiv. L'Inst. Paleontol. Humaine Mem. .'15.
Heim, JL (1976bl Les Neandertaliens en Perigord. In H de
Lumley (edl: La Prehistoire Fran,aise, Vol. 1. Paris:
CNRS. pp. 578-·583.
Hill-Tout, C (19211 The phylogeny of man from a new
angle. Trans. R. Soc. Canada 15:47 -82.
Hill·Tout, C (19241 New trends in anthropology (abstract).
Trans. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. (Torontol 65-66.
Hooton, EA (1930) The Indians of Pecos Pueblo: A Study
of Their Skeletal Remains. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Hooton, EA (1931) Up From the Ape. New York:
MacMillan.
Howell, FC (1951) The place of Neanderthal man in
human evolution. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 9:379-416.
Howell, FC (19521 Pleistocene glacial ecology and the evo­
lution of "classic Neanderthal" man. Southwestern J. An­
thropol. 8:377-410.
Howell, FC (19571 The evolutionary significance of vari·
ation and varieties of "Neanderthal'" man. Q. Itev. BioI.
.'12:330-347.
Howells. WW (19591 Mankind in the Making. Garden
City, NJ: Doubleday.
Howells, WW (ed) (1962) Ideas on Human Evolution:
Selected Essays 1949 -1961. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Howells, WW (19731 Evolution of the Genus Homo.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Howells, WW (19741 Neanderthals: Names, hypotheses,
and scientific method. Am. Anthropol. 76:24-38.
Howells, WW (1976) Explaining modern man: Evolution­
ists versus migrationists. J. Hum. Evol. 5:477-496.
HrdliCka, A (18981 Report on Anthropological Work in
the State Institution for Feeble-Minded Children,
Syracuse, New York. 48th Annual Report, Managers of
Syracuse State Institution, 1898.
Hrdlicka, A (18991 Report on the human femur and pari·
etal [from Trenton, New Jersey). National Anthropo·
logical Archives, Washington, D.C., later published in
Papers, Peabody Mus. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. Harvard
Univ. 5:244-247.1911.
HrdliCka, A (19021 The crania of Trenton, New Jersey,
and their bearing upon the antiquity of man in that
region. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 16:23-62.
HrdliCka, A (1903) The Lansing skeleton. Am. Anthropol.
5:323-330.
Hrdlicka, A (19071 Skeletal remains suggesting or attri·
buted to early man in North America. Bull. Bureau Am.
Ethnol. Smithsonian Institution No. 33.
HrdliCka, A (1908) Physiological and medical observa·
tions among the Indians of southwestern United States
and northern Mexico. Bull. Bureau Am. Ethnol. Smith·
sonian Institution No. 34.
Hrdlicka, A (19091 Note sur la variation morphologique
des Egyptiens depuis les temps prehistoriques ou
predynastiques. Bull. Mem. Soc. d'Anthropol. Paris
10:143-l44.
Hrdlicka, A (1910) Contribution to the anthropology of
Central and Smith Sound Eskimo. Anthropol. Papers
Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 5:177-280.
HrdliCka, A 11911) Human dentition from the evolu·
tionary standpoint. Dominion Dent. J. 23:403-422.
Hrdlil'ka, A (1912a) Early Man in South America [in col·
laboration with WH Holmes, B Willis, FE Wright, and
CN Fenner]. Bull. Rureau Ethnol. Smithsonian Institu·
tion No. 102.
Hrdlicka, A 11912bl The natives of Kharga Oasis, Egypt.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections No. 59.
Hrdlicka, A (19131 A search in eastern Asia for the race
that peopled America. Smithsonian Yliscellaneous Col·
lections No. 60.
Hrdlicka, A 119141 The most ancient skeletal remains of
man. Ann. Report Smithsonian Institution (1913), pp.
491-552.
HrdliCka, A (1917) Preliminary report on finds of sup'
posedly ancient human remains at Vera, Florida. J. Geol.
25:43-51.
Hrdlicka, A (19181 Physical anthropology: Its scope
and aims. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. ](0.5.):3-23.
Hrdlicka, A (19201 Shovel-shaped teeth. Am. J. Phys.
Anthropol. 3(0.5.):429-465.
HrdliCka, A (1921 al Further studies of tooth morphology.
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 4(0.5.):141-176.
HrdliCka, A (1921 b) The peopling of Asia. Proc. Am.
Philos. Soc. 60:535-545.
Hrdlicka, A (1922) The Piltdown jaw. Am. .J. Phys.
Anthropol. 5(0.5.):337-347.
Hrdlicka, A (1923al Dimensions of the first and second
lower molars, with their bearing on the Piltdown jaw and
man's phylogeny. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 6(o.S):
195-216.
Hrdlicka, A (1923b) Variation in the dimension of lower
molars in man and anthropid apes. Am. J. Phys. An­
thropol. 6(0.5.):423-438.
Hrdlicka, A (19241 New data on the teeth of early man
and certain fossil European apes. Am. ,J. Phys. Anthro·
pol. 7(0.5.):109-132.
HrdliCka, A (1927) The Neanderthal phase of man. J.R.
Anthropol. Inst. Gr. Br. 57:249-274.
Hrdlicka, A 11930) The skeletal remains of early man.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, No. 83.
HrdliCka, A (19351 Some reflections regarding human
HRDLI
heredity. Proc. Philos. Soc. 75:295-312
Hrdlil'ka, A (1937) Early man in Americ.
bones to say? In GG MacCurdy (edl
Depicted by Leading Authorities at t
Symposium of the Academy of N
Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Lippincott. ]
Hrdlicka, A (1939) Important Paleolithic
Asia. Science 110:296.
Huxley, TH 118631 Evidence as to Man's
London: Williams and Northgate.
Jelinek, A, Farrand, WR, Haas, G, H
Goldberg, P (1973) New excavations at
Mount Carmel, Israel, 1967 -1972: Apr
Paleorient 1:151-183.
.Jelinek, J (19671 Der Fund eines near
(Kulna II aus der Kulna-Hohle in Mahre
(Erno) 5:3-19.
Jelinek, J (19691 Neanderthal man and j
central and eastern Europe. Curr. Anthro
Jelinek, J (1976) The Homo sapiens nean
Homo sapiens relationship in centr
thropologie (Brno) 14:79-81.
Keith, A (1911) Ancient Types of Man.
Keith, A (1912) The Neanderthals place iJ
88:155.
Keith, A 119151 The Antiquity of Man. L
and Northgate.
Keith, A 119251 The Antiquity of Man.
Williams and Northgate.
Keith, A (19491 A New Theory of Human
York: Philosophical Library.
Kennedy, KAR (1979) The deep skull of .
ment of twenty years of speculation coni
tionary significance. Asian Perspectives
King, W (1864) The reported fossil man
Q. J. Sci. 1:88-97.
Klein, RG (1977) The ecology of early I
Africa. Science 197:115-126.
Koenigswald, GHR von, (edl (1958) Hune
derthaler. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
Kollmann, J (1884) Hohen Alter der ]
Z. EthnoI.16:191-193.
Kozlowski, J (1979) La Rachokirien -Ia plu:
trie du pilleolithique superieur en
Kozlowski (ed) Middle and Upper Paleol
kans. Prace Archaeologiczne 28. Warsa,
Leveque, F, and Vandermeersch, B (H
de restes humains dans un nivea~ cI
Saint-Cesaire (Charente-l\laritimel. CoR
D) 291:187-189.
Leveque, F, and Vandermeersch, B 1191
talien de Saint Cesaire. La Recherche 12
Lull, RS 119221 The antiquity of man
sell (ed): The Evolution of Man: A Se
Delivered Before the Yale Chapter of tb­
ing the Academic Year 1921-1922. NE
University Press. pp. 1-38.
de Lumley, M (19731 Anteneandertalie
taliens du bassin mediterraneen occie
Etudes Quaternaires (Universite de PrOVE
de Lumley, M (1976) Les Neandertalien
mediterraneen. In H de Lumley (edl:
Fran,ais, Vol. I. Paris: CNRS. pp. 567-1
Lyell, C (1863) The Geological Evidence (
of Man, With Remarks on the Theory
Species by Variation. London: Murray.
Malez, M (19781 Fossile Menschen aus N·
und ihre quatiirgeologische, pabon'
palaolithische Grundlage. Collegium
29-41.
Malez, M, Smith, FH, Rukavina, D, a
...

 HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN 457

ts. J. Hum. Evol. 5:477-496.

heredity. Proc_ Philos. Soc. 75:29S-312. (1980) Upper Pleistocene fossil hominids from Vindija.
)rt on Anthropological Wark in
HrdliCka, A 11937) Early man in America: What have the Croatia. Yugoslavia. Curro Anthropol. 21:36S-367.
1 for Feeble-Minded Children,
bones to say? In GG MacCurdy led): Early Man, as Mann. A, and Trinkaus. E (19741 Neanderthal and Nean­
8th Annual Report, Managers of
Depicted by Leading Authorities at the International derthal-like fossils from the Upper Pleistocene. Yrbk.
tion. 1898.
Symposium of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Phys. Anthropol. 17:169-193.
rt on the human femur and pari­
Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp_ 93-104. Martin. H 11911) Recherches sur revolution du Mous­
'ew Jersey). National Anthropo­
Hrdlicka. A 119391 Important Paleolithic find in Central terian dans la gisement de la Quina. Bull. Soc. Prehist.
lington. D.C" later published in
Asia. Science 110:296. France. Paris, 1911, reprint.
Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. Harvard Huxley, TH 11863) Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature. Matiegka. J 119341 Homo Predmostensis. Fosilni
London: Williams and Northgate. Clovek z Predmosti na Morave. I. Lebky. Prague: Ceska
crania of Trenton, New Jersey, Jelinek, A, Farrand, WR, Haas, G, Horowitz, A. and Akademie Ved i Umen!.
,n the antiquity of man in that Goldberg, P 11973) New excavations at the Tabun Cave, Matiegka. J (19381 Homo Predmastensis. Fosilni
Nat. Hist. 16:23-62. Mount Carmel, Israel, 1967 -1972: A preliminary report. Clove!< z Pi'edmosti na Morave. I I. Ostatni Casti
,ansing skeleton. Am. AnthropoL Paleorient 1:1S1-183. Kostrove. Prague: Ceska Akademie Ved a Umen!.
Jelinek, J 11967) Der Fund eines neandertaler Kiefers Mayer. A (18641 Uber die fossilen Uberreste eines men­
Jtal remains suggesting or attri­
(Kulna II aus der Kulna-Hohle in Miihren. Anthropologie schlichen Schadels und Skelettes in eines Felsenhohle des
'Iorth America. Bull. Bureau Am_
(Brnol 5:3 -19. Diissel-oder Neander-Thales. Arch. Anat. Physiol.
1stitution No. 33.
Jelinek. J 11969) Neanderthal man and Homo sapiens in wissensch. Med. 1: 1 - 26.
'siological and medical observa­
central and eastern Europe. Curro AnthropoI.10:47S-S03. MacCurdy, GG (1924) Human Origins: A Manual of Pre­
1S of southwestern United States
Jelinek. J 119761 The Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and history. New York: Appleton.
Bull. Bureau Am. Ethnol. Smith­
Homo sapiens relationship in central Europe. An­ MacCurdy. GG led_) 1937 Early Man. as Depicted by
34. thropologie (Brno) 14:79-81. Leading Authorities at the International Symposium of
. sur la variation morphologique Keith. A (1911) Ancient Types of Man. London: Harper. the Academy of Natural Sciences. Philadelphia .
s les temps prehistoriques au Keith, A (1912) The Neanderthals place in nature. Nature Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Mem. Soc. d'Anthropol. Paris ~:ISS. McCown, TD and Keith, A (1939). the Stone Age of
Keith. A 1191S1 The Antiquity of Man. London: Williams Mount Carmel II: The Fossil Human Remains from the
.ribution to the anthropology of
and Northgate. Levalloiso-Mousterian. Oxford: Clarendon Press .
,und Eskimo. Anthropol. Papers
Keith, A 119251 The Antiquity of Man_ 2d ed. London: Mercer, HC 11892) The result of excavations at the
:177-280.
Williams and Northgate. ancient argillite quarries recently discovered near the
man dentition from the evolu­
Keith, A (1949) A New Theory of Human Evolution. New Delaware river on Gaddis Run. Proc. A.A.A.S.
)minion Dent. J. 23:403-422.
York: Philosophical Library. pp.304-307.
ly Man in South America [in col­
Kennedy, KAR (1979) The deep skull of Niah: An assess­ Moir, JR 11926) The fossil bones of early man. Sci.
lolmes, B Willis, FE Wright. and
ment of twenty years of speculation concerning its evolu­ Amer.135:348-349.
eau Ethnol. Smithsonian Institu­ tionary significance. Asian Perspectives. 20:32-S0. Morant, GS 11927) Studies of paleolithic man II: A bio­
King, W (1864) The reported fossil man of Neanderthal. metric study of Neanderthaloid skulls and their relation­
natives of Kharga Oasis, Egypt.
Q. J. Sci. 1:88-97. ships to modern racial types. Ann. Eugenics 2:318-381.
eous Collections No. 59.
Klein, RG (1977) The ecology of early man in southern Morton. SG 11844) Crania Aegyptiaca: or Observations
~rch in eastern Asia for the race
Africa. Science 197:11S-126. on Egyptian Ethnography. Derived From Anatomy.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Col- Koenigswald, GHR von, ledl (1958) Hundert Jahre Nean­ History. and the Monuments. Philadelphia: Penington.
derthaler. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon. Movius. HI. 11960) Radiocarbon dates and Upper
most ancient skeletal remains of
Kollmann. J 11884) Hohen Alter der Menschenrassen. Paleolithic archeology in central and western Europe.
Iithsonian Institution (1913), pp.
Z. Ethnol. 16:191-193. Curro Anthropol. 11 :365-391.
Kozlowski, J (1979) La Bachokirien -Ia plus ancienne indus­ Movius, HI. (1969) The Chiltelperronian in French arche­
iminary report on finds of sup­
trie du pilleolithique superieur en Europa. In J. ology: The evidence of Arcy-sur-Cure. Antiquity, 43:
remains at Vero, Florida. J. Geol.
Kozlowski led) Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the Bal­ 111-123.
kans. Prace Archaeologiczne 28. Warsaw: Pimstwowe. Movius. HI. 11972) Radiocarbon dating of the Upper Pale­
ysical anthropology: Its scope
Leveque, F. and Vandermeersch. B (19801 Decouverte olithic sequence at the Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dar­
. Anthropol. 110.5.):3-23.
de restes humains dans un niveau chatelperronien a dogne). In F Bordes ledl: The Origin of Homo sapiens.
vel-shaped teeth. Am. J. Phys.
Saint-Cesaire ICharente-Maritime). CoR l'Acad. Sci (ser. Paris: UNESCO. pp. 253-260.
-465.
D) 291:187-189. Musil. Rand Valoch, K (1966) Beitrag zur Gliederung des
her studies of tooth morphology.
Leveque, F, and Vandermeersch. B (19811 I.e neander­ Wiirms in Mittel-europa. Eiszeitalter Gegenwart
)1. 410.S.):141-176.
talien de Saint Cesaire. La Recherche 12:242 - 244. 17:131-138.
Le peopling of Asia. Proc. Am.
Lull, RS 119221 The antiquity of man. In GA Bart­ Osborn. HF (1916) Men of the Old Stone Age. New York:
5. sell ledl: The Evolution of Man: A Series of Lectures Scribner.
l Piltdown jaw. Am. ,J. Phys. Delivered Before the Yale Chapter of the Sigma Xi Dur­ Osborn. HF 119261 The evolution of human races. Nat.
-347. ing the Academic Year 1921-1922. New Haven: Yale Hist. 26:3-13.
lensions of the first and second Umversity Press. pp. 1-38. Osborn. HF 119271 Fundamental discoveries of the last
r bearing on the Piltdown jaw and de Lumley, M (1973) Anteneandertaliens et Neander­ decade in human evolution. BulL N_Y. Acad_ Med.
o. J. Phys. Anthropol. 610.S.): taliens du bassin mediterraneen occidental europeen. 3:513-521.
Etudes Quaternaires IUniversite de Provence). Memoire 2. Osborn. HF 11930) The discovery of Tertiary man_ Sci­
iation in the dimension of lower de Lumley, M (19761 Les Neandertaliens dans Ie Midi ence 71:1-7.
lthropid apes. Am. J. Phys. An­ mediterraneen. In H de Lumley (ed): La Prehistoire Patte, E (19551 Les Neanderthaliens: Anatomie, Physiolo­
18_ Fran,ais, Vol. 1. Paris: CNRS. pp. 567 -577. gie, Comparisons. Paris: Masson et Cie.
data on the teeth of early man Lyell, C 11863) The Geological Evidence of the Antiquity Pilgrim. GE 11915) New Siwalik Primates and their bear­
.pean apes. Am. J. Phys. Anthro- of Man. With Remarks on the Theory of the Origin of ring on the question of the evolution of man and the
Species by Variation. London: Murray. Anthropoidea. Rec. Geol. Surv. India 45:1-74.
Neanderthal phase of man. J.R. Malez, M (1978) Fossile Menschen aus Nordwestkroatien Pradel, I. (1966) Transition from Mousterian to Perigor­
r.57:249-274. und ihre quatiirgeologische, paliiontologische und dian: Skeletal and industrial. Curro Anthropo!. 7:33 -50.
skeletal remains of earlv man. palilOlithische Grundlage. Collegium Anthropol. 2: Protsch, R 11975) The absolute dating of Upper Pleisto­
eous Collections, No. 83. ­ 29-41. cene sub-Saharan fossil hominids and their place in
ne reflections regarding human Malez, M. Smith, FH. Rukavina. D. and Radovcit. J human evolution. J. Hum. Eva!. 4:297-322.
458 F. SPENCER AND F.H. SMITH
Putnam, FW (1897) Early man in the Delaware ,·alley.
Proc. A.A.A.S. 66:344 - ,148.
Putnam, FW 11906) Evidence of the works of man on ob­
jects from the Quaternary caves of California. Am. An·
thropol.. 8:220-23G.
Putnam, FW (1909) Note on the Calaveras skull 119071.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Pub!. Archaeo!' Ethno!.
7:128-129.
ltightmire, GP (1976) Relationships of Middle and Upper
Pleistocene hominids from sub-Saharan Africa. Nature
260:238-240.
Rightmire, GP (1978) Florisbad and human population
succession in Southern Africa. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
48:475-486.
Rightmire, GP (1979) Implications of Border Cave
skeletal remains for later Pleistocene human evolution.
Curr. Anthropol. 20:23 - 35.
Salisbury, RD (l8971 A new investigation of man's an­
tiquity at Trenton. Proc. A.A.A.S. 66::350-355.
Schmidt, E (1872) Zur Urgeschischte Nordamerikas.
Arch. Anthropol. 5:237 - 244.
Schwalbe, G (1899) Studien liber Pithecanthropus ereclus
Dubois. Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 11:-240.
Schwalbe, G (1901) Der NeanderthabclHidel. Bonner
Jahrblich 106:1-72.
Schwalbe, G (Hl041 Die vorgeschichte des Menschens.
Braunschweig: Vieweg und Sohn.
Schwalbe, G 11906) Studien zur Vorgeschichte des ~len­
schen. Stuttgart: Schweizenbart.
Sera, GL (1917) Un preteso hominidi miocenico: Siva­
pitheetls indieus. l\atura 8:149-173.
Sergi, S (1953a) I Prolanerantropi di Swanscombe e di
Fontechevade. Atti Accad. Lincei 14:601 -608.
Sergi, S (l9,'>,1h) 1 Profanerantropi di Swanscombe e di
Fontechevade. Riv. Antrop. 40:65-72.
Smith, FH In.d.) Upper Pleistocene hominid evolution in
south-central Europe. A review of the evidence and
analysis of the trends. Current Anthropol. in press.
Smith, FH (1976a) A fossil hominid frontal from Velika
PeCina ICroatia) and a consideration of Upper Pleistocene
hominid, from Yugoslavia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropo!.
44:127-1.34.
Smith, FH (1976bl The Neandertal Remains from
Krapina: A Descriptive and Compar"ti ve Study. Reports
of Investigations, No. 15. Knoxville: University of Ten­
nessee, Department of Anthropology.
Smith, FH (1977) On the application of morphological
"dating' to the hominid fossil record. J. Anthropo!. Res.
33::302-:316.
Smith, F'H 11978) Some condusions regarding the mor­
phology and significance of the Krapina Neandertal re­
mains. In M Malez, (ed): Krapinski Pracovjek i Bvolucija
Hominida. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti
Umjetnosti. pp. 103-118.
Smith, FH, and Ranyard, GC (19801 Evolution of the sup­
raorbital region in Upper Pleistocene fossil hominids
from south-central Europe. Am. ,I. Phys. Anthropo!.
53:;;89-609.
Smith, GE (1924) The Evolution of Man. London: Ox­
ford University Press.
Smith, GJ-: (1928) Neanderthal man as distinct species.
Nature 121:141.
Soli as, WJ (19081 On the cranial and facial characters
of the Neanderthal race. Philo. Trans. R. Soc. 199:
281-339.
Soli a.', WJ (1924) Ancient Hunters. 3rd ed. l\ew York:
MacMillan.
de Sonneville Bordes, D (1972) Environment et culture de
I'homme du Pcrigordien ancien dans Ie sud-ouest de la
France: donnees recentes. In F Bordes led): The Origin of
Homo sapiens. Paris: UNESCO. Pl'. 141-146.
HHD
Spencer, F 11979) Ales Hrdlicka, M.D., 1869-1943: A
Chronicle of the Life and Work of an American Physical Virchow, R (18721 Untersuchung
Anthropologist. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Schadels. Verhand. Berlin Gesells. I
Michigan. Ann Arbor. Urgesch.4:157-165.
Stewart, TO 11949) The development of the concept of Virchow, R (1882) Der Kiefer aus der
morphological dating in connection wit.h early man in der Kiefer von La Naulette. Z. Ethno
America. Southwestern J. Anthropol. 5:1-10. Vlcek, E (1958) Die Reste des Neande
Stewart, 'I'D 119fiO) Form of the pubic bone in Neander· dem Gebiete der Tschecho,lowaJ"
thaI man. Science 131:1437 -1438. Koenigswald (ed): Hundert .lahr
Stewart, TO (19771 The Neanderthal rem"ins from Shani· Utrecht: Kemink En Zoon. Pl'. 107-1:
dar Cave, Iraq: A summary of the findings to date. Proc. Vlcek, E (1967) Morphological relati
Am. Philos. Soc. 121:121-165. human types Brno and Cro-Magnon ir
Stoner, BP, and Trinkaus, E 11981) Getting a grip on Pleistocene. Folia Morphol. (Praha) it
Neandertals: Were they all thumbs? Am. J. Phys. An· Vlcek, E (19691 'I eandertaler der
thropo!. 54:281-282. Prague: Academia.
Stringer. CH (1974) Population relationships of later Wallace, AR (1887) Antiquity of man
Pleistocene hominids: A multivariate study of available Nineteenth Century. Novemher, Pl'. 61
crania. J. Archeo!. Sci. 1:317-342. Wallace, AR (1889) Darwinism appJ
Stringer, CB 119781 Some problems in Middle and Upper Darwinism. New York: MacMillan, pp
Pleistocene hominid relationships. In D Chivers, and K Weidenreich, F ([928) Entwicklungs UIl(
Joysey, ledsl: Recent Advances in Primatology, vol. 3. Homo primigenius. Natur Volk ,18:[­
London: Academic Press. Pl'. :395-418. Weidenreich, F (1943) The "Neandertl
Todd, TW 11914a) Neanderthal Man. Cleveland Med. J. ancestors of Homo sapiens. Am. Anth
13:375-~84. Weidenreich, F 11947) Facts and specu
Todd, TW (1914bl The ancestry of Homo sapiens. Cleve' the origin of Homo sapims. Am. Anthl
land Med. J. 13:460-469. Weidenreich, F (1949) Interpretatior
Thoma, A 119691 Biometrische Studi" lIber das Occi· material. In WW Howells (edl: Earl]
pitale von VertessbIlbs. Z. Morpho!. Anthropol. East. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. Stud.
6'0:229-241. 1:47-59.
Trinkaus, B (197:31 A reconsideration of the Fontcche· Weinert, H (1932) Ursprung der Mel
vade fossils. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. .'19:25-35. gart: Enke.
Trinkaus, E (1976al The morphology of European and Weinert, H (195:3) Der fossile Mense
southwest Asian Neandertal pubic bones. Am. J. Phys. led): Anthropology Today. Chicag,
Anthropol. 44:95-104. Chicago Press. Pl'. 101-119.
Trinkaus, E 11976b) The evolution of the hominid femoral Weinert, H (19551 Die Neanderthaler
diaphysis during the Upper Pleistocene in Europe and the Praesapien-Funde. Forschungen u
Near East. Z. Morpho!. Anthropol. 6/:291-:319. 29:297 -304.
Trinkaus, E (1977) A functional interpretation of the axil·
lary border of the Neandertal scapula. J. Hum. Evol.
6':2:J 1- 2:34.
Trinkaus, E (1978) Functional implications of the Krapina
Neandertallower limb remain,. In ~1. tvlalez (edl: Krapin·
,ki Pracovjek i Evolucija Hominida. Zagreb: Jugoslaven'
ska Academija Znanosti j umjetnosti. Pl'. 155-192.
Trinkaus, E. and Howells, WW (1979) The Neander·
thais, Sci. Am. 241:122-1:3:3.
Vallois, HV (1951) Neanderthals and presapiens. J. R.
Anthropol. lnst. Gr. Br. 84:111-130.
Vallois, HV (1958) La Grotte de Fontechevade II.:
Anthropologie. Arch. Inst. Paleont. Hum. Mem.
29:1-164.
Vallois, HV (1969) Le temporal neandertalien H27 de la
Quina. Etudie anthropologique. Anthropologie (parisi
73:365-400, ,'>25-544.
V"loch, K 11968) Evolution of the Paleolithic in central
and eastern Europe. Curro Anthropol. 9:351-390.
Valoch, K (1972) Rapports entre Ie Paleolithique moyen ot
la Paleolithique superieur en Europe centrale. In F
Bordes led): The Origin of Homo sapiens. Paris:
UNESCO. Pl'. 151-171
Valoch, K (1976) Neuemittelpalaolithische [ndustrien in
Slidmahren. Anthropologie (Brno) 14:55 -64.
Vandermeerseh, B (19761 Les Neandertaliens en Charente.
In H de Lumley (ed): La Prehistoire Fran,aise, Vol. l.
Paris: CNRS. pp. 584-587.
V anderme~rsch, B 11977) Les Hommes fossiles de Qual·
zeh I1sraeli. These de Doctorate d'Etat, Universite de
Paris.
Verneau, R 119241. La race de Neanderthal et la race de
Grimaldi; leurs roles dans l'humanitc. J. R. Anthropol.
Inst. Gr. Br. 54:211-230.
 -

HRDLICKA'S NEANDERTHAL PHASE OF MAN 459

Ales Hrdlicka. M.D.. 1869 -1943: A
Life and Work of an American Physical Virchow. R (18721 Untersuchung des Neanderthal­ Weiss, KM, and Maruyama, T (1976). Archeology, popu­
Ph.D. dissertation. University of Schadels. Verhand. Berlin Gesells. Anthropol., Ethnol. lation genetics and studies of human racial ancestry. Am.
'rbor. Urgesch. 4:157 -165. J. Phys. Anthropol. 44:31-50.
J) The development of the concept of Virchow, R (1882) Der Kiefer aus der Schipka-Hbhle und Whitney, JD (1879) Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra
ating in connection with early man in der Kiefer von La Naulette. Z. Ethnol. 14:277-310. Nevada. Cambridge. Massachusetts:
{estern J. Anthropol. 5:1-16.
Vlcek, E 11958) Die Reste des Neanderthalmenschen aus Wilder, HH (1926) The Pedigree of the Human Race. New
I) Form of the pubic bone in Neander­
dem Gebiete der Tschechoslowakei. In GHR von York: Holt.
e 131:1437 -1438.
Koenigswald ledl: Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler. Willey, tiR 119681 One hundred years of American arche­
1 The Neanderthal remains from Shani­
Utrecht: Kemink En Zoon. pp. 107-120. ology. In JO Brew, ledl: One Hundred Years of An­
, summary of the findings to date. Proc.
VlCek, E (19671 Morphological relations of the fossil thropology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
121:121-165.
human types Brno and Cro-Magnon in the European late Wilmsen, EN 119651 An outline of early man studies
Trinkaus. E (1981) Getting a grip on
Pleistocene. Folia Morphol. IPrahaI15:214-221. in the United States. Am. Antiq. 31:172-192.
,re they all thumbs? Am. J. Phys. An­
Vlcek, E 119691 Neandertaler der Tschechoslowakei. Wolpoff, MH (19711 Vertesszbllbs and the presapiens
282.
Prague: Academia. theory. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 35:209-216.
74) Population relationships of later
Wallace, AR (1887) Antiquity of man in America. The Wolpoff, MH (1978) The dental remains from Krapina. In
!nids: A multivariate study of available
Nineteenth Century. November, pp. 667 -679. M. Malez led): Krapinkski Pracovjek i Evolucija
II. Sci. 1:317-342.
Wallace, AR (1889) Darwinism applied to man. In: Hominida. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i
II Some problems in Middle and Upper
Darwinism. New York: MacMillan, pp. 454-461. Umjetnosti. pp. 119-144.
inid relationships. In D Chivers, and K
Weidenreich, F (19281 Entwicklungs und Rassentypen des Wolpoff, MH (19791 The Krapina dental remains. Am. J.
,cent Advances in Primatology, vol. 3.
Homo primigenius. Natur Volk 58:1-13, 51-62. Phys. Anthropol. 50:67 -114.
lic Press. pp. 395-418.
Weidenreich, F (1943) The "Neanderthal man" and the Wolpoff, MH (19801 Paleoanthropology. New York:
Neanderthal Man. Cleveland Med. J. ancestors of Homo sapiens. Am. Anthropol. 45:39-48. Alfred A. Knopf.
Weidenreich, F (19471 Facts and speculations concerning Wolpoff. MH, Smith, FH, Malez, M, Radovcit. J, and
The ancestry of Homo sapiens. Cleve­ the origin of Homo sapiens. Am. Anthropol. 49: 187 -- 203. Rukavina, D (1981) Upper Pleistocene hominid remains
160-469. Weidenreich, F (19491 Interpretations of the fossil from Vindija Cave, Croatia. Yugoslavia. Am. J. Phys. An­
Biometrische Studie liber das Occi­ material. In WW Howells led): Early Man in the Far thropol. 54:499-545.
rtessbllbs. Z. Morpho!. Anthropo!. East. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. Stud. Phys. Anthropol. Woodward. AS (1913) The Piltdown skull. Nature, 62:
1:47 -59. 110-111.
II A reconsideration of the Fonteche­ Weinert, H (1932) Ursprung der Menschenheit. Stutt­ Woodward, AS 119231 Presidential address. Proc. Linnean
. J. Phys. Anthropol. 3.9:25-35. gart: Enke. Soc. Lond. 27 -34 .
la) The morphology of European and Weinert, H 119531 Der fossile Mensch. In A Kroeber Wright, GF (1892) Man and the Glacial Period. London:
I Neandertal pubic bones. Am. J. Phys. led): Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Murray.
-104. Chicago Press. pp. 10 1-119. Wright, GF i1897) Special explorations in the implement
)) The evolution of the hominid femoral Weinert. H 119551 Die Neandertbaler-Gruppe und die bearing deposits on the Lalor Farm, Trenton, New
the Upper Pleistocene in Europe and the Praesapien-Funde. Forschungen und Fortschritte, Jersey. Proc.A.A.A.S., 66:355 -364.
"rphol. Anthropol. 6;':291-319. 29:297 -304.
A functional interpretation of the axil­
he Neandertal scapula. J. Hum. E vol.

Functional implications of the Krapina

limb remains. In M. Malez (ed): Krapin­
volucija Hominida. Zagreb: Jugoslaven­
nanosti i umjetnosti. pp. 155-192.
Howells, WW (1979) The Neander­
41:122-133.
) Neanderthals and presapiens. J. R.
Gr. Br. 84:111-130.
81 La Grotte de Fontechevade II.:
Arch. Inst. Paleont. Hum. Mem.

Le temporal neandertalien H27 de la

nthropologique. Anthropologie IParisl

-544.

~volution of the Paleolithic in central

pe. Curro Anthropol. 9:351-390.

lpports entre Ie Paleolithique moyen et

superieur en Europe centrale. In F

,e Origin of Homo sapiens. Paris:

1-171

~euemittelpalaolithische Industrien in

,ropologie IBrnol14:55 -64.

)976) Les Neandertaliens en Charente.

ledl: La Prehistoire Fran<;:aise. Vol. 1.

584-587.

119771 Les Hommes fossiles de Quaf­

;e de Doctorate d'Etat, Universite de

La race de Neanderthal et la race de

Oles dans l'humanite. J. R. Anthropol.

11-230.