Neanderthal Man

In this paper I will discuss two main topics: the differences between the early “progressive” Neanderthals and the late “conservative” Neanderthals, and the question of how broad the term “Neanderthal” should be, or more specifically, whether the Rhodesian-Saldenha or Solo men should be considered Neanderthals.

I. Are the Rhodesian and Solo Men Neanderthals?

The European type Neanderthals form a definite and rather special group. Many anthropologists, however, like to class as Neanderthals the Solo Men of Java and the Rhodesian-Saldamha type of man of Africa. For example, R. Singer quotes Frany Weidermich as follows: “I would like to quote two appropriate sentences of Franz Weidermich’s (1940) with which I readily concur:

‘... for it proves that the so-called Neanderthal Man of Europe, notwithstanding his uniformity when compared with the Rhodesian Man of South Africa{1} (sic) or the Homo Soloensis of Java, has produced certain regional variations which are equivalent to social differences of to today.’”[1] (Weidermeich classifies the European Neanderthals, the Rhodesian and Saldaha men, and the Solo Men as these different sub-species of Homo primai-genius.) Also, von Koenigswald and others refer to these men as Neanderthals.

I think this is wrong. First consider the Solo Men. What traits do they actually have in common with the European Neanderthals? Compared to Homo sapiens, both have very heavy brow ridges, a low, thick skull with its widest point for down, a marked occipital tower, small mastoid [TEXT ILLEGIBLE]. But every non-sapien man we know of (excepting perhaps some of the Mt. Carmel specimen) has most of these traits — Homo sapiens is special in not posessing them. There is considerable difference between the European Neanderthals and the Solo Men — actually, the Solo skulls are much closer to the Pithecanthropines than to the Neanderthal Men, so if they must be classed with one or the other they ought to be put with the Pithecanthropus-Sinathropus group.

First of all, the cranial capacity of [TEXT ILLEGIBLE] was apparently much smaller than that of Neanderthal Man, but much the same as that of Sinathropus. According to Van Koenigswald, the interval volumes of the Solo skulls were all between 1035 and 1255 cc. But Boule and Vallois, in Fossil Men, give these figures for various Neanderthals:

... Thus, in any respect in which Solo Man seems similar to Neanderthal Man when contrasted with Homo Sapiens, he can be shown not only to differ from the Neanderthals in no small degree, but also to be much closer to the Pithacanthropus-Simanthropus group. It is not sensible to put him in the former group (much less call him a mere race of Homo neandertalensis) when he is so much more like the latter. To call Solo Man a Neanderthal is to make the term “Neanderthal” so broad as to include almost anything between the Sinathropus and sapiens levels....

... Thus it is wrong to call Rhodesian-Saraha Man a “Neanderthal”, or to make him a race of the same species, for two reasons: first, it would imply a close genetic relationship where the similarities are not sufficient to prove such a relationship; second, it would imply that Rhodesian Man fits in morphologically with the special Neanderthal group, while he does not; the differences are greater than any present-day racial differences. The term “Neanderthal” should be reserved for those fossils exhibiting a majority of the special characteristics of the European Neanderthals, as these form a natural grouping.

II. The Difference Between the Early and Late Neanderthals

The datable Third Interglacial Neanderthal finds are few. According to F.E. Zeuner (The Age of Neanderthal Man) the only Neanderthals which can be assigned to this period are: ... Mt. Carmel skeletons ... Steinheim (maybe) ...

... Boule and Vallois say of Saccopastore I that the cranial vault is lower and the [ILLEGIBLE] is longer relative to the brain case than in the classic Neanderthals, and also that the cheekbone is especially massive. In these respects, Saccopastore would seem to be even more primitive than the late Neanderthals. But in many other respects, these skulls are more advanced. Saccopastone I has a more neatly vertical, better developed forehead than any of the classic Neanderthal skulls of which I could find photographs. Sengi also remarks on this character.... the angle formed by its base part is the same as in Homo sapiens, but different from that in the Fourth [ILLEGIBLE] Neanderthals. According to Sengi, the dental arches of the Saccopastore skulls are horseshoe shaped, rather than U-shaped as in the later specimens, ...

This puts the Steinheim skull in an ambiguous position — neither a good Neanderthal nor a good sapien. Boule and Vallois call it a “Preneanderalian” with the other early Neanderthals. Howello thinks it is more like Homo sapiens, and not a Neanderthal.... I agree with Howells, myself. THe steinheim skull does not seem to fit in with the early Neanderthals....

Bibliography

[1] R. Singer, “The Rhodesian, Flourbad and Suldanha SKulle” in “Hubdert Hi=agbe Beabdertgaks” p.6.

{1} Singer appended a footnote here: “Broken Hill is in Northern Rhodesia, not South Africa.”