I 0 5

Early Research on Pleistocene Races in Europe:Putting Neandertal Man's Head Together

Stephen R. Holtzman'

The validity of putative associations of disarticu-lated hominid fossil remains has been a recurrenttheme in the history of interpretations of humanevolution. The debate over the supposed affinity, andthe ultimate demonstration of the lack of association,of the mandible and calvarial fragments fromPiltdown is the most notorious example. Simons'(1961) more recent taxonomic association of"Bramapithecus" and "Kenyapithecus" withRamapithecus in another controversial example.

Perhaps the earliest case of an error of association isthat of the Neandertal calvaria and the La Naulettemandible, now recognized as belonging to the sametaxon, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Studies dealingwith the affinities of these two specimens took placedurinig the debate betwseen scholars favoring dar-Willian inatuIral selectioni as a explanlatoi-y device formorphological chanige through tinme and those ainti-evolutionists wkho suggested that immigration wasmor-e importanit. A review of these studies shows thatthe eventual recoginitioin that the Neandertal and LaNaulette specimeins belonged to the same type of fossilImlanI wN'as accoimiplished by anti-evolutionists in a conl-text of Pleistocene racial successioin in Europe. It issuggested that because of this anti-darwiniian heritagethe earliest elucidatioin of Neaindertal cranial mor-phology wNas largely ignored by later workers.The modern view of the morphology of Neandertal

man was first set forth by E.T.J. Hamy in collaborationwith Armand de Quatrefages in 1873 (de Quatrefages1873). Hamy placed the Neandertal skullcap and thejaw from La Naulette in the same early European race,resulting in a "racial type" with flat skullcap and reced-ing jaw. The actual geological association of a similarlyflat skullcap and receding jaw was not found until1886 at Spy in Belgium.

The Neandertal and La Naulette DiscoveriesThe well-known and much discussed Neandertal

remains were found in 1856 by quarrymen digging ina cave in cliffs of the Neander valley over the smallDiussel River, above Dusseldorf (Fuhlrott 1857). Thefind consisted of a calvaria and post-cranial remains.The remains were brought to the attention of J.C.Fuhlrott, a secondary school mathematics teacher,who in turni delivered them over to Hermannl Schaff-hausein, an aniatomiiist at the U'niversity of Bonni.According to Schaaffhausen, "The cranium was of

unusual size, and of a long-elliptical form."

A most remarkable peculiarity is at once obvious in theextra-ordinary development of the frontal sinuses,owing to which the superciliary ridges, which coalescecompletely in the middle, are rendered so prominent,that the frontal bone exhibits a considerable hollow ordepression above, or rather behind them, whilst adeep depression is also formed in the situation of theroot of the nose. The forehead is narrow and low ...

(trans. in Busk 1861:156).

All the remains were "characterized by their unusualthickness, and the great development of all the eleva-tions and depressions for the attachment of muscles"(Ibid: 158).One of the difficulties with the man from Neander-

tal was the question of his antiquity. It was not possibleto date with assurance the remains, as they were notclearly associated with animal remains.Such was not the case with the currently less well-

known La Naulette specimen. The associated fauna atLa Naulette included extinct forms and the LaNaulette jaw was considered clearly Pleistocene in age(Dupont 1866). Edouard Dupont, a Belgian paleoni-tologist, found two-thirds of a edentulous humanmandible and an incomplete ulna in 1866. They werelocated in the floor of the cave of La Naulette on thel'eft bank of the river Lesse, a tributary of the Maas.Dupont submitted the La Naulette jaw to a number

of "most competent" (Dupont 1866:48) scholars,among them Franz Pruner-Bey and de Quatrefages,who communicated to him the results of their exami-nations. The details of Dupont's description, evident-ly, were especially influenced by Pruner-Bey. The LaNaulette jaw exhibited certain pecularities separatingit from the general run of human jaws and its mor-phology was somewhat reminiscent of the simian con-dition, but according to Pruner-Bey it was yet far re-moved from the simian type and well within the rangeof variation of the human type. Pruner-Bey comparedthe La Naulette jaw with ancient European jaws andwithjaws from living races, and found it similar to bothgroups.

In 1886 Paul Topinard reviewed the La Naulettejaw's morphology (Topinard 1886). With regard to thecanine teeth, Topinard believed they had not been"excessive" in either volume or length, nor projectedoutward much, judging from the alveoli (Topinard1886:408). This view of the probable size and disposi-tion of the missing La Naulette canines conflicted withthe views of Pruner-Bey and Dupont. Both Pruner-Bey and Dupont had noted the absence of a chin on

1 06

the La Naulette jaw. Topinard agreed that the chinwas quite receding, "compared to the average in man".However, according to Topinard, the chin was notabsent but only poorly developed. "A snmall triangularsurface . . . exists; its contours are indicated, (and) itsrelief is apparent" (Ibid.:415).Pruner-Bey and Dupont had reported that the ge-

nial tubercles were not present. But, Topinard foundboth the upper and lower genial tubercles representedon the La Naulette jaw. The tubercles had not beenseen previously because the sedimentary matrix sur-rounding the jaw had not been completely removed;"I am one of the first to see the jaw of La Naulettecleaned" (Ibid.:423), said Topinard. Pruner-Bey haddescribed the genial region in terms of a 'long andwide transverse torus attached to the myloidian crest'separating 'two small fossae,' the inferior being itself'subdivided by a small vertical bar situated on the sym-physis.' Removal of the surrounding matrix showedPruner's superior 'small fossa' contained the superiorgenial tubercles. According to Topinard, "The sec-ond, whose nature Pruner-Bey has misunderstood, isthe two digastric fossae separated by the beak of themental triangle (p. 425)." Finally, according to To-pinard, the 'torus' separating Pruner's 'two small fos-sae' did not arise from the myloidian line; "contrary toPruner-Bey's description, it rises spontaneously on thesides without attaching to any elevated area (p. 426)."

Topinard's description of the Naulette jaw is muchmore acceptable today than the absolutely chinlesstroglodyte described by Pruner-Bey and Dupont. Itshould be borne in mind that Topinard's reconstruc-tion was carried out more recently than the eventsdiscussed here.

The Mongoloid Hypothesis DevelopedThe Neandertal skullcap and La Naulette jaw were

much discussed, sometimes together, as being amongthe most primitive specimens known. But they werenot clearly put into the same race until 1873. Whatcaused the delay? The answer is bound up withPruner-Bey's version of the Mongoloid hypothesis andwith his initial interpretation of the La Naulette andNeandertal remains within the context of thathypothesis.

In the middle of the nineteenth century linguisticinquiries had shown that in Europe, in addition to theIndo-European languages which were of relatively re-cent importation, there existed several languages en-tirely different from the others. These languages werefrom two different groups: those spoken by Finns andLapps of the North, and those spoken by Basques ofsouthern Europe. It was generally believed that theaboriginal peoples who spoke these non-Indo-European languages once had occupied commonlythe greater part of Europe.The Swedish anatomist Anders Retzius sought to

determine if there were morphological differences be-

tween the indigenous peoples and the Indo-Europeanspeakers. In 1842 he was able to demonstrate that theSwedes had long heads, which he called"dolichocephalic," while the Finns and Lapps hadshort heads, "brachycephalic." Two Basque skulls laterproved to be brachycephalic, while most of the Frenchskulls that he observed were dolichocephalic (see Ret-zius 1846) For these and other reasons Retzius ar-gued that an autochthonous, brachycephalic race,which spoke languages entirely different from thoseof today, had preceded in Europe an invadingdolichocephalic, Indo-European speaking or Aryanrace. The latter group brought ancestral Europeanlanguages and the use of metals into the West. Retzius'theory of 'ancient brachycephals of Europe' was widelyaccepted.

Marcel de Serres, geologist and paleontologist, wasthe originator of the 'Mongoloid hypothesis' of theracial succession of Europe. De Serres (1853) believedthat he could distinguish two distinct types amongancient Europeans, one of which he called "mon-goloid." Originally pure, this mongoloid type hadgradually become attenuated through admixture,though traces of it could yet be found.Pruner-Bey (1863) added the doctrine of 'ancient

brachycephals' of Retzius to the 'mongoloidhypothesis' of de Serres. For some fifteen yearsPruner-Bey made a number of osteological compari-sons between the remains of prehistoric men and, also,living men whom he called "mongoloid," includingFinns and Lapps. He found mongoloid traits in allPaleolithic skulls, which, according to him, were allbrachycephalic. He believed that a mongoloid,brachycephalic population, autochthonous to Europe,was overrun by invading dolichocephalic Aryans fromthe East. Pruner-Bey considered the onset of theAryan invasions, the first being Celtic, to be contem-poraneous with the start of the Neolithic.Pruner-Bey adhered to his convictions with persis-

tence. According to de Quatrefages and Hamy(1882:136), "The conclusions he has drawn from thecomparisons he had made .. . have achieved under thepen of M. Pruner a degree ofcertainty that is inspired.And there has resulted therefrom quite a body of verysimple and very clear doctrines, very seductive becauseof those very qualities. But the author has unhappilysometimes forced the applications."

Pruner-Bey in 1863 had no difficulty fitting theMoulin Quignon jaw into his general scheme. Thejawwas found by a workman for Boucher de Perthes in1863 in Pleistocene deposits. Its reputed provenance isnow generally believed fraudulent. No skeletal partother than the jaw had been recovered, yet Pruner-Bey judged it, "by its proportions and by the absorp-tion of some dental alveoli," to have belonged to ashort individual who was "very probablybrachycephalic" (in de Quatrefages 1863:302). Thejaw from Arcy-sur-Cure, found by a workman for the

1 07

Marquis de Vibraye in 1859 in Pleistocene deposits,was also an isolated specimen. It had belonged to ashort brachycephal, according to Pruner-Bey: "It isthe rounded chin of ajaw that indicates an individualof short stature. The form indicates moreover that thisrelic scarcely could have belonged to the Celtic stock.Consequently, I class it among the brachycephals"(Ibid.:303). A third jaw, from Aurignac, found byEdouard Lartet, who considered it to be of Pleistoceneage, consisted of the posterior half of a mandibularbody with the three molars intact. It was also assignedto the ancient brachycephalic, pre-Aryan people. "(I)conclude first of all that brachycephalic man was theprimitive inhabitant of our lands and, then, that stockis not extinct. As for the Celts, who show, apart fromtheir high stature, a skull that is dolichocephalic, Iconsider them to be later than the race mentionedabove (Ibid.:303)." The dolichocephalic Neandertalskull showed "the Celtic type perfectly," according toPruner-Bey. By reason of its obvious peculiarities, itwas "probably" that of an idiotic Celt (Ibid.:305). Inorder to place the Neandertal skull among the Celts itsgreat antiquity had to be denied; "Neandertal can datejust as well from 1,000 as from 5,000 years. We have nopositive means to estimate the date of its origination

." (Ibid.: 305).Later in 1863 Pruner-Bey defended his view that the

Moulin Quignon, Arcy and Aurignac jaws necessarilyhad belonged to brachycephalic skulls. Comparing alowerjaw of a brachycephalic skull from the Iron Ageto the Moulin Quignon jaw, he said, "The first corre-sponds in all points to the second with the exception ofthe coronoid process" (Pruner-Bey 1863:323). In con-trast Pruner-Bey compared a jaw belonging to adolichocephalic Celt, noting "the difference of thelowerjaw of the ancient brachycephalic type. .. (W)enotice in general that that of the Celt is triangular; thatof the brachycephal is parabolic. The first shows asquare and pointed chin; on the second it is rounded.The ascending rami are wide and thick in the Celt; thecontrary is found in the brachycephal. Thus, we candistinguish, at least these two races, by just a fragmentof the lower jaw" (Ibid.: 323).

Pruner-Bey had many followers, among them Du-pont and de Quatrefages. In dealing with the Nean-dertal skull, de Quatrefages (1867:258) spoke of "itseminently Celtic character (Pruner-Bey), which seemsdemonstrated to me." Of the jaws from Arcy and Au-rignac, de Quatrefages (Ibid.: 258-259) said, "M.Pruner-Bey, by virtue of his minute researches on theharmonies of interrelationship of skull and face, hassustained his original estimations." Generally de Quat-refages (Ibid.: 261) supported the "so remarkable"views of Pruner-Bey.Further discoveries provided more fossil evidence

for Pruner-Bey's mongoloid hypothesis. In 1865Dupont found in Frontal Cave, at Furfooz on the riverLesse, skulls and skull fragments belonging to about

sixteen individuals. The associated fauna includedreindeer and thus Dupont (1872:195) assigned thedeposits to the Upper Paleolithic. Because of theirgenerally presumed Upper Paleolithic age, the Frontalremains became important in substantiating the mon-goloid hypothesis of Pruner-Bey. Unlike Arcy, Aurig-nac and Moulin Quignon, sufficient numbers of cra-nial fragments were recovered to enable the cephalicindices of the Furfooz people to be directly deter-mined. They had been brachycephalic tomesocephalic and, therefore, formed a support for thetheory of 'ancient brachycephals of Europe.'

In his original announcement of the La Naulettejaw, Dupont (1866) found significant similarities withthe Arcy jaw, especially in the vertical mental regionand "width and form" of the mandible (p. 50). Theinternal mandibular torus, however, was more pro-nounced oh the La Naulette specimen. In addition tothe Arcy jaw, one of the jaws from the supposedlyUpper Paleolithic or Reindeer Age Frontal Cave,mandible No. 6, was cited as being comparable to,although deriving from a younger individual, the LaNaulette mandible (Dupont 1866). The jaws ofNaulette, Arcy and Frontal, then, were intimately re-lated, according to Dupont.The Frontal jaw was found in association with well

preserved skulls which "one cannot cannot confuse, asMr. Pruner-Bey has so well demonstrated, with thoseof an Aryan race in which all contours are oval. Theangular contours of the skulls found at Furfooz andthe lozenge-shaped face, class them evidently amongthe ... Mongol races ... (Dupont 1867:93)." Dupontlikened the Furfooz people, and by implication thoseof La Naulette and Arcy, to peoples both living andancient called "mongoloid" by Pruner-Bey. Dupontthus accepted the results of the study made byPruner-Bey, and considered this race to be of rela-tively small stature and lightly brachycephalic.

In 1866 Pruner-Bey discussed the race to which theLa Naulette jaw had belonged. He found it similar tothe Arcy jaw, as had Dupont (1866), except that Arcypossessed a "triangular" chin, the genial tubercleswere "weakly indicated" and the prognathism is "con-siderably diminished." However, he continues,"everything else in these two jaws corresponds, and,judging by the spacing of the horizontal rami and bytheir lack of length ... (Arcy) must have belonged to asmall and brachycephalic skull" (Pruner-Bey1866:591-592). According to Pruner-Bey, the LaNaulette jaw belonged to the "paleontological andprehistoric brachycephalic race."Pruner-Bey (1866) cited the Frontal Cave mandibles

and associated brachycephalic crania as supportive ofthis hypothesis. In this manner, the La Naulette man-dible became associated with brachycephaly in the con-text of the mongoloid hypothesis as originally prop-osed by de Serres (1853).

1 08

Brachycephaly and/or Dolichocephaly in PleistoceneEurope?

In 1867 Pruner-Bey reiterated his view that the LaNaulette, Arcy and Aurignac jaws represented theearliest known men of Pleistocene Europe; the Frontalremains derived from the Reindeer Age, somewhatlater in time. All these Paleolithic fossil remains werethose of brachycephals. To the earlier group he nowadded the remains known as Bruniquel No. 1 from theBlacksmith's Grotto (Pruner-Bey, 1868a). TheBlacksmith's Grotto had yielded in 1863 fragments oftwo badly damaged lowerjaws and a postmortally de-formed skull. It was impossible to determine thecephalic index of this cranium with precision, butPruner-Bey noted that the foramen magnum was dis-placed posteriorly, that the glenoid fossae were widelyseparated and that the zygomatic processes of thetemporals showed an "eccentric direction." For thesereasons he concluded that, "this skull must have beenbrachycephalic originally" (Ibid.: 353).

Blacksmith's Grotto mandible was reminiscent ofthe La Naulettejaw with respect to its thickness, lack ofmental eminence and relative size of the molars, thesecond molar being "at least equal to the first in size"(Ibid.: 352).

Pruner-Bey referred to the Reindeer Age Frontalskull as "mongoloid," because of similarities to modernday Lapps, "men for whom the reindeer is both preyand companion" (1868a:347). By implication allEuropean Pleistocene remains were those ofbrachycephalic mongoloids, who had been overrunthough not extinguished by dolichocephalic Aryans atthe start of the Neolithic.The views of Pruner-Bey (1863, 1866, 1868a), Du-

pont (1866) and de Serres (1853) were challenged byPaul Broca. Broca (1868a:374) opposed "that precon-ceived idea that all that is not brachycephalic mustdecend from Indo-European conquerors." Broca em-phasized that Retzius (1846) had developed his ideason the succession of races in Europe before the greatantiquity of man had been appreciated, i.e. before theexistence of fossil man had been generally accepted.Within a framework of three technological ages(Stone, Bronze and Iron), Retzius had maintained thatdolichocephalic Aryans had invaded and displaced in-digenous brachycephalic peoples at the same time thatmetal had come into use. Notwithstanding attemptsprimarily by Pruner-Bey (op. cit.), Broca (1868a) didnot consider that evidence favored this hypothesis.Once the antiquity of man was appreciated, it was nolonger plausible to dismiss summarily human remains,particularly dolichocephalic crania, from Pleistocenedeposits as later interments. Said Broca. "the discoveryof fossil man rendered improbable the ethnogenictheory of Retzius, but it did not render it impossi-ble"(Ibid. :373).Broca (1868a) suggested that the test of Retzius'

theory was simply whether or not any dolichocephalic

skulls in western Europe could be dated to before thetime of the Aryan invasion, i.e. before the introductionof metals. Broca had come to believe thatdolichocephalic skulls were as prevalent or even moreprevalent than brachycephalic skulls in the Stone Age.During the polished stone period, especially,dolichocephalic skulls were altogether predominant,at least in France. Pruner-Bey (1868a and b) had mod-ified Retzius' (1842) theory to account for the exis-tence of dolichocephalic skulls in the polished stoneperiod by calculating the onset of the Aryan invasionsto coincide with the transition from the period ofworked stone to that of polished stone, i.e. from thePaleolithic to the Neolithic. That transition was by thenbelieved more-or-less coincident with the end of thePleistocene, and thus the question became whether ornot any fossil men were dolichocephalic. Broca con-cluded, "(I)t is clear in any case that the beginning ofthe epoch of polished stone is the final limit to which itmay be reasonably possible to place the Aryan migra-tions." (Broca 1868a: 382-383).According to Broca, Pruner-Bey had argued his

case, first by rejecting a Pleistocene age for anydolichocephalic skull and, second by multiplying thecandidates for Pleistocene brachycephals. The latterhe had accomplished largely by arguing from smallscraps of thejaw to the cephalic index. "His procedureis very simple ... (M)y skillful colleague ... haserected brachycephalic skulls from incomplete skullswhose cephalic index cannot be estimated and evenfrom skulls of which there remain only minimal frag-ments." Broca admitted there was evidence forbrachycephalic peoples during the Pleistocene, such asat Furfooz. "And I think we will discover more .. . But,it does not result at all that the brachycephalic type waswide-spread at that time. . ." (Ibid.:384). Broca notedthat wide jaws can belong to dolichocephalic and nar-row jaws to brachycephalic skullcaps.With regard to the antiquity of the man from Nean-

dertal, Broca said there was no evidence from theNeandertal site to support the contention that theremains were those of a Celtic burial. "And if I askwhat in that supposed sepulture characterizes the Cel-tic epoch, I am told that the skull is dolichocephalic.That is to say, the question is always resolved by thequestion" (Ibid.:388). Broca believed the Neandertaland Eguisheim skulls closely resembled each other inpossessing a "depression of the base of the frontal andthe enormous projection of the superciliary arches."The Eguisheim skull was found by workmen digging abeer cellar in Alsace-Lorraine in 1865 (Faudel 1867).There was no doubt, said Broca, that the individualwho had owned the dolichocephalic Eguisheim skulllived contemporaneously with the mammoth.2 Otherdolichocephalic skulls, e.g. the skull from Engis, werealso derived from Pleistocene deposits. Broca (1868a)thus concluded that both brachycephalic anddolichocephalic peoples had lived in Europe during

1 09

the Pleistocene. However, the known dolichocephalsdated from the older and "probably very much long-er" (Ibid.:392) Age of the Mammoth, while the knownbrachycephals dated from the Age of the Reindeer,according to Broca.

It is of interest to note that Broca referred to the LaNaulette jaw as a "contemporary of the mammoth"(Ibid.: 396), which would place it chronologicallymore-or-less contemporaneous with thedolichocephalic skulls from Eguisheim and "veryprobably" (p. 392) Neandertal. Why, then, did Broca(1868a) not anticipate Hamy (in de Quatrefages 1973)relating the La Naulette mandible with the Neandertalskullcap? There are at least two reasons why he couldnot have taken that position. First, in the early 1860'she had argued in favor of Retzius' theory of 'ancientbrachycephals' primarily on the basis of negative evi-dence. By 1863 new evidence had forced him to rec-ognize the antiquity of dolichocephaly in westernEurope. "I have been one of the first, maybe the first,to uphold the multiplicity and the diversity of prehis-toric races (p. 375)." Could he, then, in 1867 argue thatdolichocephals had preceeded all brachycephals,again on negative evidence? And if there might havebeen brachycephals in addition to dolichocephals inEurope contemporaneous with the mammoth, mightnot the La Naulette mandible have belonged to one ofthe brachycephals? A second reason for not associat-ing the La Naulette jaw with a dolichocephalic Nean-dertal or Eguisheim skullcap is that, to having at-tacked Pruner-Bey for concluding from the shape ofthe jaw to the cephalic index, could Broca, then, havedone the same? It remained for Hamy later to as-sociate the La Naulette jaw with the Neandertalskullcap, following an independent line of evidence.

Cro-Magnon: The Mongoloid Hypothesis UndoneThe Cro-Magnon remains were found in 1868 by

workmen digging into the base of a cliff close to theright bank of the Ve'z'ere River, a tributary of theDordogne, near Perigord. The remains belonged to atleast five individuals with an associated Pleistocenefauna. Louis Lartet, Edouard's son, described the cir-cumstances of the discovery. The morphology of theCro-Magnon remains was discussed by Pruner-Bey(1868b) and Broca (1865-75), both of whom studiedthem extensively at the request of L. Lartet.

Pruner-Bey fit the Cro-Magnon remains into hisgeneral scheme. He accepted them as dating back toPleistocene times; therefore, they had to be mon-goloid, in Pruner-Bey's view. "The Mongoloid charac-ter of the bony faces is certain (1868b: 153)." The 'OldMan's' skull, however, was clearly dolichocephalic.Therefore, Pruner-Bey was compelled to search fordolichocephaly among the Mongoloids of today.Pruner found two Estonian skulls which proved to bedolichocephalic. This fact demonstrated thatdolichocephaly occurred among people whom

Pruner-Bey cadled "Mongoloid." "(F)urthermore, thephysiognomy of these Estonian skulls agrees in itscharacteristic traits with that of our Troglodyte"(Ibid.: 153).At Solutr6 the remains of a number of individuals

were unearthed beginning in 1867 and they weredeemed Pleistocene in age. Among the Solutre re-mains Pruner-Bey (1 868b) found skulls comparable tothose of Lapps, Finns, the 'Old Man's' skull fromCro-Magnon, Eskimos of the Bering Straits and amodern Estonian. This indicated strongly that theCro-Magnon and Solutre'remains were "mongoloid."Further studies by Pruner-Bey (1865-75) of Pleis-

tocene human fossils revealed two series of mon-goloids, one resembling the Finns and the other re-sembling the Lapps. The Cro-Magnon remains, how-ever, did not closely resemble either group. Pruner-Bey (1865-76:88) suggested that Cro-Magnon rep-resented a "new" group of mongoloids in the Pleis-tocene, a group allied to the later Reindeer Age "mon-goloids" and to modern Estonians.

Finally, as added proof for Cro-Magnon's mon-goloid affinities, Pruner-Bey concluded from theshape of the "peculiar palate, low and extending for-wards" in the Cro-Magnon that the language spokenby their owners had "a weak phonology, and sweet attimes; and such are the Finnish idioms" (Ibid.:91).Broca (1865-76) attacked the now modified mon-

goloid hypothesis of Pruner-Bey. Pruner-Bey had ap-proached the Cro-Magnon materials with his old pre-conceptions intact. Broca considered that the exis-tence of dolichocephalic crania contemporary withmammoth remains disproved the mongoloidhypothesis. As he pointed out, "M. Pruner-Bey en-deavors to prove that, if the Cro-Magnon people werenot brachycephalic, they were at least mongoloid; andas it would seem singular and contrary to all expecta-tions that a race of the mongoloid type would be at thesame time highly dolichocephalic, he has been led toweaken this contradiction by referring the Cro-Magnon race to the modern Estonians .. ." (Broca1965-76:121-22). Broca denied any specific affinitiesbetween Cro-Magnon and Estonians. He insteadthought that the contemporaneous presence of thechinless, wide La Naulette mandible and the moremodern-appearing Cro-Magnon mandible indicatedthe presence of more than one race in PleistoceneEurope.

Broca's argument gained an influential convert inde Quatrefages, who felt the "well-markeddolichocephalism" (in Broca 1968b:4 10) of the Cro-Magnon skulls provided the first good evidence forthe existence of dolichocephals in the Pleistocene.

"I am one of those who ... have thought it very proba-ble that Western Europe was peopled at first by a smalland brachycephalic race . .. I supposed it possible thatpopulations existed in Europe presenting the twocephalic types; but I did not think that any fact au-thorized us to suppose that the brachycephalic (sic)

1 10

type had at so early an epoch reached Western Europe... (I)t is evident that my opinion must be changed"(de Quatrefages 1865-75:123).

Pleistocene Europe had been inhabited by two distinctraces, one dolichocephalic and the otherbrachycephalic, according now to de Quatrefages.

Two Dolichocephalic Races in Pleistocene EuropeThe wide acceptance of a Pleistocene age for the

dolichocephalic Cro-Magnon people and a lack of ac-ceptance of Cro-Magnon's supposed Estonian (mon-goloid) characteristics, put an end to Pruner-Bey'scontention that all Pleistocene peoples of Europe werebrachycephalic mongoloids. If, then, there were onedolichocephalic race firmly established in the Pleis-tocene, i.e. Cro-Magnon, might there not have beenanother, namely that of Neandertal? Broca had ar-gued for a Pleistocene Neandertal race. Hamy, a stu-dent of Broca, followed suit in his Precis de paleontologiehumaine (1870).Hamy described in detail a number of remains he

believed to be of Pleistocene age. Pruner-Bey's at-tribution of the La Naulette jaw to a brachycephalicrace was retained, but, his view that brachycephals hadpreceded dolichocephals in Europe was rejected byHamy, who wrote of "the sad necessity of recognizingthat ... Pruner-Bey has committed a great ethnologi-cal error" (Ibid.: 131).Hamy divided the Pleistocene into four periods.

The first was the Age of the Mammoth and Cave Bear.Between it and the Reindeer Age was a Period ofTransition. The succeeding Reindeer Age was dividedinto a first and a second part. The Arcy, La Naulette,Neandertal and Eguisheim remains all came from theMammoth Age. The Aurignac and Cro-Magnon fos-sils came from the time of Transition. Bruniquel andSolutre were from the first part of the Reindeer Ageand the Furfooz remains from the second part, accord-ing to Hamy.Hamy (1870) accepted the Neandertal remains as

deriving from the Age of the Mammoth, and alliedwith these the Eguisheim cranium, the Olmo craniumdiscovered in Tuscany in 1863 (Cocchi 1867), and theClichy fragmentary skull found in Paris (Bertrand1868). These specimens formed the core of Hamy'searly European race, characterized by dolichocephaly,projecting browridges and a flattish forehead region.The Olmo cranium had less pronounced browridgesand Hamy considered it to have belonged to a femaleof this race. Hamy (1870:206) concluded that "adolichocephalic race, the anatomical study of which isyet quite imperfect has ... exclusively peopled the val-ley of the Rhine ... in the Age of the Mammoth."A second "brachycephalic" race seemed to appear at

the end of the Age of the Mammoth, according toHamy (1870). This interpretation was prompted bythe discovery, at a higher stratigraphic level at Clichy,of cranial fragments and mandibles of a "highly

brachycephalic" race, cited as corresponding toPruner-Bey's "mongoloid group." To this group wasassigned the La Naulette and Arcy mandibles.A third, completely different, "powerful" race ap-

peared in western Europe during the Transition bet-ween the Mammoth and Reindeer Ages. It includedremains from Cro-Magnon, Engis and Grenelle, thelatter located along the Seine in the west sector ofParis. "The bones discovered by M. Em. Martin are ofa third race, dolichocephalic and of great height likethe first, but the skull is voluminous." The remainsfrom Aurignac were assigned to the Cro-Magnon racealthough Hamy (1870:261) suggested that some ad-mixture with the earlier brachycephalic race may haveexisted. A skull from Bruniquel was considered afemale specimen of the Cro-Magnon, but similarly,other remains from "the curious station" of Bruniquelmight properly be attributed, Hamy (1870) thought,to the race of Clichy, La Naulette and Arcy (p. 334).

It is of great interest that Hamy (1870) does notappear to have appreciated the proper relationship ofthe La Naulette jaw and the Neanderthal skullcap in1870. But he did point out the similarities in form ofboth these specimens and modern aboriginal Aus-tralians, which were to be of importance later.De Quatrefages (1871), reviewing Hamy's Precis,

made several concessions towards the views first laiddown by Broca and then pursued by Hamy. But deQuatrefages continued to adhere to certain ofPruner-Bey's ideas that Hamy had rejected. DeQuatrefages agreed with Hamy that the Eguisheimand lower level Clichy remains demonstrated the greatantiquity of Neandertal's peculiarities. There hadbeen, in fact a dolichocephalic race of tall stature "sincethefirst days of the Mammoth Age." "That race ... wouldhave been characterized by a forehead both flat andnarrow, by a laterally compressed face" (de Quatre-fages, 1871:207-08).De Quatrefages also agreed with the appearance of

a third dolichocephalic, more modern-appearing, raceduring the "Period of Transition," as exemplified bythe Cro-Magnon and Grenelle finds. However, deQuatrefages continued to considered the La Nauletteand Moulin Quignon mandibles as Mammoth Agespecimens belonging to brachycephals ("mongoloids"of Pruner-Bey). He also considered the Frontal Cavespecimens as later representatives of this same race.Two other discoveries of ancient dolichocephalic

skulls were to play an important role in the determina-tion of Neandertal morphology: Cannstatt and Bruix.The provenance of the Cannstatt skull is obscure. In1835 the paleontologist G.F. von J'ager found, in thecollection of the princes ofWiurtemberg, among bonesfrom Cannstatt of supposedly Pleistocene age, ahuman skull consisting of the frontal and a part of theright parietal (von J'ager, 1839). At Brux (now Most)on the BNa River in Bohemia cranial fragments andpost-cranial remains were found in 1871. The Briux

11 1

skull fragments were early identified as Neadertal-like; the site was considered Pleistocene.Hamy (1872) specifically discussed the Neandertal,

Eguisheim, Brux and Cannstatt remains as belongingto individuals of the same race, all of them dating fromthe Age of the Mammoth. In respect to classificationhe said, "I will adopt willingly, modifying it a little, thetheory of Mr. Huxley, who classified this primitiverace of Europe with certain races now living in Au-stralia." (in Schaaffhausen 1873:548).

The Race of CannstattDe Quatrefages announced the first part of his and

Hamy's monumental Crania Ethnica in the spring of1873. So extensive was the work that it was not ready inits entirety for publication until 1882. In this first partthe race ofCannstatt was described in great detail. Theideas that were "specified" in the Crania Ethnica in "theorder in which they had to be presented" and in "theconclusions" were common to both de Quatrefagesand Hamy. But the burden of the execution of thatwork fell to the younger Hamy, said de Quatrefages(Quatrefages and Hamy 1882:viii).De Quatrefages spoke for himselfand Hamy of "the

race of Cannstatt, of which the famous Neandertalskull would seem to be ... the exaggerated type." "Theessential characteristics of the race of Cannstatt are,especially in the men, a remarkable flatness of thecranial vault coinciding with a very pronounceddolichocephaly, the projection backwards of the pos-terior region of the skull, the sometimes enormousdevelopment of the frontal sinuses and the very ob-lique direction of the frontal, (and) the depression ofthe parietals in their postero-internal third" (de Quat-refages 1873:1315). Other supposed male specimensincluded the Eguisheim and Briux skulls. The charac-teristics of the Cannstatt race were less expressed infemales, represented by skullcaps from Olmo andClichy. De Quatrefages characterized the race ofCannstatt as "dolichoplatycephalic." The mandibles ofLa Naulette, Arcy and Clichy, (lower level) were, forthe first time, attributed to the same race, adding todolichoplatycephaly a receding chin.The remains attributed to the race of Cannstatt

"were fragmentary, especially in the face region." Be-cause the Gibraltar skullcap found in 1848 in Forbes'Quarry resembled the Briux and Neandertal skullcaps,de Quatrefages believed the morphology of the face ofthe Gibraltar skullcaps, would fill the void. The Gibral-tar face was large and massive. The orbits were "re-markably large," and the nasal cavities were "veryovert." The maxilla was "very prognathous," saidde Quatrefages. "This whole ensemble concords quitewell with what the isolated cranial vault implies" (p.1316).De Quatrefages and Hamy (de Quatrefages 1873)

were "profoundly convinced" that fossil races werecontinuous with modern races. This belief opened the

way for comparison with modern skeletal material.A major problem to be overcome in assigning the La

Naulette mandible, and others, to the dolichocephalicrace was the relatively great and receding chin of theformer. The Neandertal skull had been compared toa dolichocephalic Australian skull from Port Western,Victoria by Huxley (1863). De Quatrefages and Hamy(Ibid:39) also noted the similarities in cranial mor-phology between these two specimens, and also with athird (Australian) skull, whose facial morphology re-sembled the Gibraltar skull. The modern mandiblesassociated with these crania possessed inarkedsimilarities with those of La Naulette, such as a re-duced chin. The demonstration that such a mandiblecould be associated with a "dolichocephalic" craniumin modern man, removed the problem with such anassociation in fossil man.

Racial Succession in Pleistocene Europe.The determination of the race of Cannstatt and the

attributions of skulls andjaws to it in the Crania Ethnicawas, essentially, an achievement of Hamy. In the give-and-take of ideas de Quatrefages had altered his viewsmuch the more. Hamy in thePrecis in 1870 had arguedfor the precedence of dolichocephaly in the Pleis-tocene. In the Crania Ethnica, published in 1882, deQuatrefages had come to accept the precedence of thedolichocephalic Cannstatt race, including Neandertal,with brachycephals appearing considerably later in thePleistocene.De Quatrefages in 1867 had believed brachycephals

were more ancient in western Europe thandolichocephals. Later, in 1871 he modified his views toinclude both brachycephals and dolichocephals inwestern Europe from the beginning ofthe Pleistocene.His conversion to the view that dolichocephals hadpreceded brachycephals derived from Hamy's views in1874 on the Grenelle site, the stratigraphy of which isnow generally deemed indeterminable.According to de Quatrefages (1879), speaking for

himself and Hamy, the world had been the scene ofcountless migrations ofmankind. "With every increaseand extension of knowledge we learn to appreciatebetter the wandering instincts of man. Humanpalaeontology and prehistoric archaeology are dailyadding their testimony to that of the historic sciences"(pp. 179-80). Migration and intermixture constitutethe mechanism in terms of the consequences of whichpresent-day racial configurations must be understood.Characteristics of races now lost occur by atavism inpeoples today. It was in the context of racial migrationsand intermixtures, arguing from present types back-wards, that human remains from the Pleistocene wereto be considered.

Neandertal and Naulette: Why Not the Evolutionists?The Neandertal and La Naulette remains were not

placed in the same race in the context of argument on

1 12

the question of human evolution. Because, since thebeginning of the twentieth century, Neandertal Manhas generally been considered in an evolutionary con-

text, usually considered either a stage in or a side-lineof the evolution of modern man, we might be inclinedto assume that the Neandertal and Naulette remainswere originally associated in an evolutionary context.However, the Neandertal skullcap and the Naulettejaw were, in fact, first associated as belonging to indi-viduals of the same race in the context of the questionof the morphology of Pleistocene races in westernEurope.

Evolutionists did not make the association of Nean-dertal and Naulette, because most ofthem were, essen-

tially, not interested in doing so. Ardent evolutionistswere more interested in championing the cause ofevolution than in determining the morphology ofPleistocene races of Europe per se. Evolutionists were

primarily concerned with demonstrating a string ofincreasingly inferior fossil specimens leading into thepast.

In Germany Ludwig Bluchner in 1894 came close toassociating Neandertal and La Naulette, but he did notexplicitly do so. After describing the La Naulette jaw,he concluded, "All these characters in conjunctionwith the general aspects of the bone indicate that it is ahuman lowerjaw of very animal formation, and espe-

cially that it is the most ape-like jaw hitherto dis-covered. The lowerjaw of La Naulette is, however, no

more a peculiar and isolated bone of its kind, than theNeandertal skull in its way, but it is supported in itsevidence by a complete series of similar or alliedbones" (1894:38). He listed a series ofhumanjaws thattended toward the La Naulette condition; they in-cluded Moulin Quignon, Arcy and Frontal. He alsolisted a series of skulls tending toward the Neandertalcondition; they included Engis and Cannstatt. Ofthese remains Biichner stated that the "difficulty ofpreservation, and the small number of very ancienthuman remains render it all the more significant thatthese remains almost without exception bear upon

them the evident signs of an inferior conformation,and that among them there are some which exceed intheir animality ofcharacter the lowest and most animalof existing races of men .'.!" (p. 149). Biuchner doesnot appear to have been especially motivated to attri-bute the cranium and the jaw to the same race. Hisprimary motive was to popularize the idea of humanevolution. To that end it was enough to point outcharacters of inferiority leading to the ape.

In England Huxley (1863) was the first to nmakesystematic comparisons between the Neandertalcranium and crania of modern Australians. Hamy was

inspired to make similar comparisons of his own, andin the process he associated Neandertal and LaNaulette. Huxley, himself, did not associate them; in-deed, he expressed disinterest in the exact race towhich the man from Neandertal had belonged as well

as in the question of whether Neandertal Man himselfwas a direct ancestor of modern Europeans or anextinct side-line. Huxley's apparent goal was to makeas strong a case as possible out of Neandertal forhuman evolution. In so doing he avoided ancillaryissues.

It was the French, for the most part, who wereconcerned with the racial succession in ancientEurope. In the context of this interest Pruner-Bey firstexplicitly dissociated Neandertal and Naulette by at-tributing them to two different races; and Hamy sixyears later explicitly associated them. Not one of theinfluential French scholars was an avowedevolutionist. Both Pruner-Bey and de Quatrefageswere outspokenly anti-evolution, and Hamy appearsto have ignored the question of evolution, at leastpublicly. Indeed, evolution had few adherent inFrance until later in the century. It was, then, in amilieu of apathy, even antipathy, towards the idea ofhuman evolution that the Neandertal and Nauletteremains were associated.

It is likely that evolutionists were thinking in termsof a simian species in the human past, not unlike theNeandertal type, with a low and robust cranium and areceding, ape-like jaw. But Neandertal Man wasclearly human, because of his large cranial capacity,and, therefore. a primitive race, not species. As only aprimitive race, Neandertal provided no support orargument for the idea ofhuman evolution. The notionof human evolution implied a series of more primitivespecies in the past leading down to the apes. As only a"brutish" race, Neandertal Man fitted no better intothe conceptual framework of evolutionists than intothat of anti-evolutionists, because both camps ex-pected "brutal" races to have existed in man's un-civilized past. Therefore, the association of the Nean-dertal skullcap and the Naulette jaw in the same racecould provide no argument for the Darwinists vis-a-vistheir opponents.

In the twentieth century, Neandertal Man has gen-erally been considered in an evolutionary context. Itseems ironic today that the type of the first discoveredfossil man should have been determined in a milieu ofgeneral anti-evolutionism. But it was almost necessarythat an anti-evolutionist or, at least, an anthropologistwhose explanatory device for human morphologicalchange was migrations and intermixture of types,make this association.

Anti-evolutionists, e.g. de Quatrefages, were quickto charge evolutionists with seeking to invest Neander-tal with proof for evolution. Quatrefages, after notingthe strictly human nature of the Neandertal remains,said in 1879 ofthem that, "Some anatomists wished ...to consider this specimen as a special species . . . It wasespecially considered as intermediate between manand apes, and here and there traces may still be foundof these opinions" (p. 302). But the efforts of theDarwinists were in vain, according to Quatrefages.

I 1 3

After careful research, he said, the Neandertal skullwas revealed as strictly that of an individual belongingto an ancient race of the human species, whose bestialcharacters "were merely exaggerated in his case" (p.303).Quatrefages' charges indicate that the Darwinist

position, a minority viewpoint until later in the cen-tury, was under careful scrutiny by opponents. In thismilieu associating Neandertal and Naulette in thesame race, and, especially, a separate species withsimian characterisitics would probably have broughtmore charges of contrivance from the anti-evolutionary camp. And it was not necessary for theirpurposes for the evolutionists to explicitly associateNeandertal and Naulette in the same race; their fun-d(amental goal was achieved by just noting the similarcharacters of these two primitive bone pieces from theancient past. It was left, then, to the anti-evolutionists,concerned as many were with the question of racialsuccession in ancient Europe, to explicitly associate theremains from Neandertal and La Naulette in the samerace, thus determining for the first time the mor-phological type of Neandertal Man.

Notes'This article appears posthumously. Stephen Holtzman, aBerkeley Ph.D. in anthropology in 1970, died at the age of 38in December, 1975. He had taught anthropology at BrandeisUniversity and had served as Assistant Professor of An-thropology at Northern Illinois State University. The de-partmental reading room at the latter institution bears hisname. His obituary was published in the American Journalof Physical Anthropology, v. 45:349. Portions of this articleare revised from Holtzman's doctoral thesis.2According to the Catalogue of Fossil Homitids, Part II(1971:108), the remains from Eguisheim "remain undated"-Ed.

REFERENCES CITED

Bertrand, E. 1868 Crane et ossements trouve's dansune carriere de l'avenue de Clichy. Bull. Soc. An-throp. Paris, 21, Ser. 3:329-335, 408-410.

Broca, Pierre Paul 1965 On the Human Skulls andBones found in the Cave of Cro-Magnon, Near LesEyzies. In Lartet and Christy eds., Reliquiae Ac-quitanicae: 97-122.1868a Discours sur l'ensemble de la (luestion (carac-teres anatomiques de l'homme dans les temps pr(-historiques). C.R. Congres international d'An-thropologie et d'Archeologie prehistorique. 2i.sess., Paris 1867: 367-402.1868b On the Crania and Bones of Les Eyzies, or,the Ancient Cave Men of Perigord. Anthropologi-cal Review 6: 408-411.1868c Sur les cranes et ossements des Eyzies. Bull.Soc. Anthro. Paris 2i Ser. 3:350-392.

Biichner, Ludwig 1894 Man in the Past, Present andFuture: A Popular Account of the Results of RecentScientific Research Regarding the Origin, Positionand Prospects of Mankind. New York: Peter Eckler.(Translated from the 1872 German language edi-tion).

Busk, George 1861 On the Crania of the Most AncientRaces of Man. Natural History Review 2(1): 155-176.

Cocchi, Ignio 1867 L'Uomo fossile nell'ltalia centrale.Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. 2(7): 1-80.

Dupont, Edouard 1866 Etude sur les fouilles scien-tifiques ex6cutee's pendant l'hiver de 1865-66 dansles cavernes des bords de la Lesse. Bulletins del'Academie royale des Sciences, des Lettres et desBeaux-Arts de Belgique (Classe des Sciences) 2i.ser. 22:31-54.1867 Le terrain quaternaire dans la province deNamur. Bulletin de la Socie'te' g6ologique de France2i. ser. 24:76-99.1872 Les temps antehistoriques en Belgique:L'homme pendant les ages de la pierre dans lesenvirons de Dinant-sur-Meuse. Bruxelles:Muquardt. 2i. ed.

Faudel, Charles Frederic 1867 Sur la decouverte d'os-sements humains fossiles dans le lehm de la valle'edu Rhin, a Eguisheim, pr'es de Colmar. Bulletin dela Soci`t6 geologi(lue de France 2i. ser. 24:36-44.

Fuhlrott, J.C. 1857 (On the Neanderthal Skeleton).Verh. Natur. Ver. Preus. Rheinl. Westf. 14:50.

Hamy, Ernst Theodore Jule 1870 Precis de paleon-tologie humaine. Paris: J.-B. Bailliere.1872 Quelques observations anatomiques etethnologiques 'a propos d'un crane humain trouvedans les sables quaternaires de Briix (Boheme).Revue d'Anthropologie 1:669-682.

1 14

..

von Jfager, Georg Friedrich 1839 Uber die fossilenSaugethiere, whelche in Wurttemberg in ver-schiedenen Formation aufgefunden worden sind,etc. Stuttgart.

Huxley, Thomas Henry 1863 Evidence as to Man'sPlace in Nature. New York: D. Appleton and Com-pany.

Pruner-Bey, Franz 1863 Pieces anatomiques presen-tees par M. Prumer-Bey. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris4:323-324.1865-1875 An Account of the Human Bones Foundin the Cave of Cro Magnon in the Dordogne. InLartet and Christy eds.1866 Sur la machoire de la Naulette (Belgique).Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris 2i. Ser. 1:584-603.1868a Discours sur la question anthropologique.C. R. Congr'es international d'Anthropologie etd'Arche'ologie prehistorique/2i. sess., Paris 1867:345-363.1868b Description sommaire de restes humains d£-couverts dans les grottes de Cro-Magnon, pres de lastation des Eyzies, arrondissement de Sarlat (Dor-dogne), en avril 1868. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zoologie etPale'ontologie) 5i Ser. 10:145-155.

de Quatrefages de Breau, Jean Louis Armand 1863Decouverte d'une machoire humaine fossile, dansle diluvium de Moulin Quignon, pr'es Abbeville.Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris 4:207-208, 248-250, 298-307, 323-324.1865-1875 Remarks on the Human Remains fromthe Cave at Cro Magnon. In Lartet and Christyeds., Reliquiae Acquitanicae: 123-125.1867 Rapport sur les progr'es de l'anthropologie.Paris: L. Hachette et Cie.1871 Histoire naturelle de l'homme: Pre'cis depale'ontologie humaine par le docteur E.T. Hamy.Paris 1870/Deuxieme et dernier article. Journal desSavants, Avril-Mai-Juin 1871: 194-226.1873 Races humaines fossiles Race de Canstadt.C.R. Acade*mie des Sciences 1313-1317.1879 The Human Species. New York: D. Appletonand Company. (Translated from the 1877 Frenchlanguage edition).

de Quatrefages, J.L.A., and E.J.J. Hamy 1882 CraniaEthnica/Les cranes des races humaines. Paris: J.-BBailli'ere et Fils.

Retzius, Anders 1846 Sur la forme du crlne des habit-ants du Nord. Ann. Sci. nat. 31, Ser. 6:133-172.

Schaaffhausen, Hermann 1873 Sur l'anthropologiepre'historique. C.R. Congr'es international d' An-thropologie et d'ArchCologie prehistorique/6i.sess., Bruxelles 1872: 535-549.

de Serres, Marcel 1853 Note sur la pale'ontologiehumaine. C.R. Acad. Sci. 36-37:519-520.

Simons, E. 1961 The Phyletic Position ofRamapithecus.

Topinard, Paul 1886 Les caracteres simiens de lamaAchoire de la Naulette. Revue d'Anthropologie 3i.ser. 1: 385-431.

Postilla (Yale), No. 57.