especially to a number of these peculiar features of the race. All the
earliest observers were impressed by the heavy, overhanging brows and
retreating forehead. In recent man there is often a decided prominence
above the eyes, from the glabella or median point above the nose outward
toward each side, but generally the outer third of the margin of these
prominences turns upward beneath the outer line of the eyebrows. In the
Neanderthals, on the contrary, these prominences beneath the eyebrows
surround the whole upper edge of the eye socket, extending outward around
the external borders of the forehead, so that they may be called '_tori
supraorbitales_'; the extent of this prominent ridge above and to the
sides forms a veritable roof over the eye sockets, which appear like two
deep, lateral caverns. Such lateral prominences do occur, though rarely,
in recent man; they are observed, for example, in certain Australians.
[Illustration: FIG. 113. Skulls of a chimpanzee (left), of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints (centre), and of a modern Frenchman (right), showing
the gradual disappearance of the eyebrow ridges and projecting face. After
Boule.]
The front view of the Neanderthal face, as seen in the female Gibraltar
skull, in which these eyebrow ridges are by no means so prominent as in
the male skulls, is no less remarkable for the great height of the face as
compared with the flatness of the forehead. Placing the skull side by side
with that of the Australian,(50) we observe at once the enormous
difference in the proportions of the face and the cranium in these two
types, although the Australian represents one of the lowest existing races
of _Homo sapiens_; we observe in the Gibraltar skull the very wide space
between the eyes and the very large size of the narial opening, which
indicate a broad, flattened nose; there is a correspondingly long space
between the bottom of the narial opening and the line for the insertion of
the incisor teeth, indicating a very long upper lip.
The jaw is less powerful than that of the Heidelberg man. The Heidelberg
jaw we have seen to be distinguished by its general strength and
clumsiness and its lack of chin, or rather a chin without the slightest
indication of a prominence; on the inside of this very thick, rounded chin
plate, the characteristic chin spine (_spina mentalis_) is lacking;
instead, a double groove is present as the point of attachment for the
muscles which connect the chin and tongue with the hyoid bone; the
ascending process for the attachment of the muscles of the jaw is seen to
be unusually broad, 60 mm., in contrast to about 37 mm. in the recent jaw;
finally, the condyle for attachment with the skull is particularly
large.(51)
[Illustration: FIG. 114. Face view of the Gibraltar skull (left) and of a
modern Australian skull (right), displaying the high, large visage of the
former, which suggests that of the anthropoid apes. After Schwalbe.
One-quarter life size. The comparative horizontal lines are across the
(_a_) _nasion_, or root of the nose, the (_b_) lower edges of the orbits,
and the (_c_) lower edge of the nasal aperture.]
Like the Heidelberg jaw, that of the Neanderthals is distinguished by
great thickness and massiveness. In general the contours are similar; in a
few instances the chin process is suggested by a slight prominence, but in
general the chin is strongly receding, and it agrees with that of
Heidelberg in lacking the _spina mentalis_. In other characteristics there
are decided differences in the Heidelberg and Neanderthal jaws. The form
of the latter is now known from the specimens of Krapina, of Spy, of La
Naulette, of Ochos, and of Šipka, and from the perfect examples of Le
Moustier and La Chapelle. The Šipka specimen proves that even in a child
ten years of age the jaw was remarkable for thickness and strength.
Boule(52) entirely agrees with Gorjanovič-Kramberger(53) that the chin in
the Neanderthal jaw was only in process of formation, and throughout life
attained no more than an infantile form, that the Neanderthals may be
ranked, however, as _Homines mentales_, whereas the Heidelbergs, in which
the chin is entirely lacking, may be regarded as _Homines amentales_.
The proportions of the teeth in the Neanderthals are equally distinctive,
especially in the size of the true grinders and cutting teeth. As in the
Heidelberg jaw, they form a closely set row, from which the canine does
not project as in the Piltdown dentition; in fact, the contour of the jaw
and the proportions of the teeth are distinctly human when compared with
the orang-like jaw of the Piltdown man. The grinding surface of the teeth
has many layers of enamel, and the cusps are well developed. Unlike those
of recent man, the incisors display folds of enamel on the inner or
lingual surfaces, a condition rarely observed in the modern cutting teeth.
In the teeth of the Heidelberg jaw, the pulp cavities are exceptionally
large, whereas in the teeth of the Krapina race there is the unique
feature that the molars have no normal roots, the roots having been more
or less absorbed, a very rare occurrence in recent man. The dentition of
La Chapelle is also distinctly human, but extraordinarily massive,
corresponding with the general massiveness of the skull and masticating
apparatus; in detail it is not that of civilized races, but an exaggerated
form of the type called _macrodont_.(54) The elongation of the crown is
also similar to what is termed hypsodont.
The grinding-teeth do not all show this massive size and columnar form,
for about fifty per cent of the Krapina teeth have distinct roots and are
more like normal modern grinders. In the Neanderthaloids of Spy the teeth
are small and the roots are of moderate size.(55)
This study of the forehead and of the eyebrow ridges, of the great depth
of the face, and of the peculiarly high, square form of the eye sockets
prepares us for a profile view of the skull of La Chapelle in contrast
with that of the most highly developed and intellectual European type,
namely, the profile of the distinguished American palæontologist, the late
Professor Edward D. Cope, who bequeathed his skull and skeleton for
purposes of scientific study and comparison. In La Chapelle we at once
notice the platycephaly, or flattening of the skullcap, the retreating
forehead, the great prominence of the eyebrow ridges resembling that of
the anthropoid apes, the lengthening of the face as compared with the
flattening of the cranium, the great prominence or prognathism of the face
as a whole, and the special prominence of the rows of cutting teeth as
compared with the vertical or indrawn line, and the recession of the tooth
row in the Cope profile. This comparison also brings out the striking
contrast between the high chin prominence of _Homo sapiens_ and the deeply
receding chin of the Neanderthals. The contrast is hardly less remarkable
in the superior view of the skull in which the Neanderthal type is seen to
be extremely _dolichocephalic_, the back of the skull being relatively
broad and the front narrowing in the region of the forebrain until it
suddenly expands in the prominent supraorbital processes.
[Illustration: FIG. 115. Skull of La Chapelle-aux-Saints (outline) in
comparison with that of a high modern type (shaded); illustrating the
projecting eyebrows and prognathous, ape-like face of the Neanderthaloids.
After Boule. One-quarter life size.]
As shown in the diagram on page 8, Fig. 1, the greatest length of the
Neanderthal skull is found on the horizontal line directly through the
brain chamber, known as the _glabella-inion line_, a line drawn from a
prominence between the eyebrow ridges to a point at the back of the skull
known as the external occipital protuberance, or inion. This is also the
longest line in the skulls of Spy and of La Chapelle, as well as of the
anthropoid apes,(56) but in the north Australian skull, Fig. 1, owing to
the greater expansion of the upper part of the brain, the greatest length
of the skull is at a point considerably above the _glabella-inion_ line.
The median section of the skull of the chimpanzee, of the Neanderthal, and
of the north Australian displays in a very striking manner the
generalization made by Schwalbe, in 1901, that the Neanderthal skull is
truly an intermediate or half-way form between that of the anthropoid apes
and that of _Homo sapiens_. We observe in this illuminating section the
growth of the dome of the skull, that is, the great brain-bearing cavity
above the _glabella-inion_ line _g-i_, by noting the contrast in the
length of the vertical line of the _cranial height_, as compared with the
space below the _glabella-inion_ line indicated by the letters. This very
important vertical line terminates below at the opening, where the spinal
cord enters the base of the brain (see Fig. 1).
[Illustration: FIG. 116. Top view of three skulls--of a chimpanzee (left),
of the man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints (centre), and of a modern Frenchman
(right)--showing the retreat of the projecting face and prominent eyebrow
ridges. After Boule.]
In many characteristics the Neanderthal skull is shown to be nearer to
that of the anthropoid apes than to that of _Homo sapiens_. This
conclusion arrived at by Schwalbe, in 1901,(57) has been more than
confirmed by Boule's masterly study(58) of the very complete skull of La
Chapelle. After his detailed review, he concludes: As to the unity of the
Neanderthal head form, these features are not peculiar to the skull of La
Chapelle; in every case they are also found in the skulls of Neanderthal,
Gibraltar, Spy, Krapina, La Ferrassie, which witness to the homogeneity of
that human fossil type called Neanderthal. These features show a
structural affinity between the fossil men of the Mousterian period and
the anthropoid apes. It must be noted that many of these features may be
found also in recent human skulls of the inferior races, but that they are
very rare, very scattered, very isolated, and occur only as aberrations.
It is the accumulation of all these features in every skull of a whole
series which constitutes an assemblage entirely new and of great
importance. In the skull, as in other parts of the anatomy of the
Neanderthals, we should not expect to find every character intermediate
between the anthropoids and recent man. The long Neanderthal face is
somewhat similar to that of the Eskimo and is in contrast with the very
short face of the existing Australians and Tasmanians. The depression at
the root of the nose, just below the glabella, is very marked in all
Neanderthals; there is less of the nose bridge than in any recent races,
except those of the male Australians, yet the nose is not flattened but
somewhat arched or aquiline. This feature is not characteristic of all the
anthropoid apes, and in this respect the Neanderthals, Australians, and
Tasmanians are more different from the anthropoid apes than are some of
the white races; thus the Neanderthal nose, far from resembling that of
the anthropoids, differs from it more than does that of some recent human
types.(59) Many anatomists, following Huxley, have described the
Australian and Tasmanian skulls as more or less Neanderthaloid, and some
authors have gone so far as to regard these races as surviving
Neanderthals. It is true that some of the skulls in these existing races
are extraordinarily platycephalic and show a retreating forehead, that
others show supraorbital ridges almost as prominent as in the
Neanderthals, that sometimes the prominence of the occipital inion is very
marked, that certain jaws show a very retreating chin. Thus one or another
of these Neanderthal features has been observed in these lower existing
races, but all of these characteristics have never been combined in one
race as constant features, and invariably associated, as in all the skulls
of the Neanderthals known to us.
[Illustration: FIG. 117. Scale of ascent indicated in the skull form of
eleven races of fossil and living men, based on the result of twelve
different characters of comparison. At the bottom stands the anthropoid
ape, and above this _Pithecanthropus_, the ape-man of Java. A wide range
is observed between the Neanderthaloid skulls of Gibraltar and of
Spy-Neanderthal. Not far above these in the scale of ascent stand the
modern Australians and the recently extinct Tasmanians. Above these low
races are found the fossil Upper Palæolithic races of Galley Hill, Brüx,
Brünn, and Předmost. At the top stand the modern European races, beside
which the Upper Palæolithic Crô-Magnon race takes a high rank. After
Büchner.]
In brief, the Australian type of head has nothing in common with that of
the Neanderthals except in a small number of characteristics in the region
of the forehead and of the nose. The distinguishing traits of the
Neanderthal head and face are platycephaly, a retreating forehead,
flattening of the occiput or lower portion of the skull, prominence of the
supraorbital ridges, chin retreating or lacking, projection of the entire
face owing to the peculiar form of the upper jaw, and the relatively small
size of the frontal lobes of the brain. In fact, concludes Boule: "All
these modern so-called 'Neanderthaloids' are nothing but varieties of
individuals of _Homo sapiens_, remarkable for the accidental exaggeration
of certain anatomical traits which are normally developed in all
specimens of _Homo neanderthalensis_. The simplest explanation of these
accidents in most cases is atavism or reversion. We cannot assert that
there has never been an infusion of Neanderthaloid blood in the groups
belonging to species _Homo sapiens_, but what seems to be quite certain is
that any such infusion can have been only accidental, for there is no
recent type which can be considered even as a modified direct descendant
of the Neanderthals."
This opinion is confirmed by the latest and most exhaustive researches of
Berry and Robertson,(60) who conclude that neither Australians nor
Tasmanians have any direct relationship with _Homo neanderthalensis_; the
superficial points of cranial resemblance are explicable solely on the
grounds of the remoteness of the ancestry. The Australians and Tasmanians
are descendants not of the Neanderthal stock but of a late Pliocene or
early Pleistocene stock, which, following Sergi, may be called _Homo
sapiens tasmanianus_, of which the Tasmanian aboriginal, now extinct, was
the almost unchanged offspring. In respect to 'low' characters, as shown
in the diagram, Fig. 117, the Spy-Neanderthal skulls stand quite close to
the Tasmanians and Australians, and the Gibraltar skull stands midway
between this type and _Pithecanthropus_ with respect to twelve different
characters of comparison.
It is interesting to note[AH] that the Tasmanians were found in a stage of
flint industry very similar to that practised by the Neanderthals in
Mousterian times; their flints were made from artificially produced
flakes, including a few examples(61) that exhibited a neatness of edge
trimming and resultant regularity of outline, whereas the greater part
were characterized by an unskilful trimming and irregular outline; the low
status of the Tasmanian implements can most correctly be described by the
word Pre-Aurignacian, that is, of Mousterian or of an earlier stage, but
not by any means 'Eolithic.'
[Illustration: FIG. 118. The Neanderthaloid skull of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints, with the right half removed to show the shape of the
brain, as restored by J. H. McGregor. One-quarter life size.]
[Illustration: FIG. 119. Outline of the left side of the Neanderthaloid
brain of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, compared with similar brain outlines of a
chimpanzee and of a high type of modern man. One-third life size.]
The brain of Neanderthal man was known to be of large size even when
estimated from the original skullcap of the Neanderthal type. Darwin was
compelled to admit that the famous skull of Neanderthal was well developed
and capacious, and Broca offered an ingenious explanation of the otherwise
inexplicable fact that the mean capacity of the skull of the ancient
cave-dweller is greater than that of many modern Frenchmen, namely, that
the average capacity of the skull in civilized nations must be lowered by
the preservation of a considerable number of individuals, weak in mind and
body, who would have been promptly eliminated in the savage state, whereas
among savages the average includes only the more capable individuals who
have been able to survive under extremely hard conditions of life. The
skulls of La Chapelle and of Spy afforded an opportunity of determining
this very interesting problem, and the results entirely confirm the
earlier estimates of Schaaffhausen and of Broca as to the great cubic
capacity of the Neanderthal brain. The estimates in descending order are
as follows:
Skull of Spy II (Fraipont) ? 1723 c.cm.
" La Chapelle (Boule, Verneau, and Rivet) 1626 "
" Spy I (Fraipont) ? 1562 "
" Neanderthal 1408 "
" La Quina, female (Boule approximation) 1367 "
" Gibraltar, female (Boule estimate) 1296 "
[Illustration: FIG. 120. Brains of Lower and Upper Palæolithic races
compared (top and left side views). Piltdown (left), as restored by J. H.
McGregor; Neanderthal (centre) brain, cast from the type skull;
Combe-Capelle (right) from the base of the Upper Palæolithic, after
Klaatsch. The Combe-Capelle brain, though unnaturally compressed, shows a
relatively broad frontal area. One-quarter life size.]
The size of the brain in the existing races of _Homo sapiens_ varies from
950 c.cm. to 2020 c.cm.(63) Thus in respect to the volume of cerebral
matter the brain of the Neanderthal man is surely human, but in form the
brain lacks the proportions characteristic of the superior organization of
the brain in recent man. In another important respect it is human: in the
larger size of the left hemisphere, indicating the development of the use
of the right hand. In its general form the brain is more like that of the
anthropoid apes in the relatively smaller size of the frontal portion, in
the simplicity and length of the convolutions, and in the position and
direction of the great fissures at the side known as the 'fissures of
Sylvius' and of 'Rolando.' As studied by Boule and Anthony(64) there are
many primitive characteristics in the brain of the Neanderthals. The front
of the forebrain, the so-called prefrontal area, which is the seat of the
higher faculties, is not fully developed but has a protuberance as in the
brain of the anthropoids. The left frontal lobe in particular, which is
associated with the power of speech, is not much developed in the lower
part, so that a limited development of the faculty of speech is inferred.
The lateral fissure of Sylvius is relatively wide and open, and this and
other features suggest the brain of the anthropoid. The brain of the skull
of La Quina, which is believed to be that of a female, also shows many
primitive features.(65) The absolute cubic capacity of the brain is less
significant of intelligence than the relative development of those
portions of the brain which are concerned in the higher processes of the
mind.
The stature of the various examples of the Neanderthal race is estimated
somewhat differently by Boule and by Manouvrier, and also varies with the
sex:
Neanderthal (Boule) 1.55 m. 5 ft. 1 in.
" (Manouvrier) 1.632 m. 5 ft. 4-1/5 in.
La Chapelle (Boule) 1.57 m. 5 ft. 1-4/5 in.
" (Manouvrier) 1.611 m. 5 ft. 3-2/5 in.
Spy (Manouvrier) 1.633 m. 5 ft. 4-3/10 in.
La Ferrassie I (Manouvrier) 1.657 m. 5 ft. 5-1/5 in.
Average of Neanderthals supposed male 1.633 m. 5 ft. 4-3/10 in.
La Ferrassie II (female) 1.482 m. 4 ft. 10-3/10 in.
The Neanderthal head is very large in proportion to the short, thick-set
body, which we observe rarely exceeds 5 feet 5 inches in height in the
male, and 4 feet 10 inches in the female. The proportions of the body and
limbs of the Neanderthals throw a surprising light on their ancestral
history as well as upon their defects as a race dependent upon the chase.
In proportion to the length of the thigh, the lower leg is much shorter
than in any existing human race. The tibia or shin-bone is only 76.6 per
cent of the length of the femur or thigh-bone, whereas in the existing
races with the shortest shin-bone, such as the Eskimos and the majority of
the yellow races, it is never less than 80 per cent of the length of the
thigh-bone. In this respect the Neanderthal man is not like the anthropoid
apes but has a relatively _shorter_ shin-bone, because the gorillas have
an index of 80.6 per cent, the chimpanzees of 82 per cent, the orangs and
gibbons of above 83 per cent; thus all the anthropoid apes and the lower
races of man have a relatively longer leg from the knee down than has the
Neanderthal race.
[Illustration: FIG. 121. Skeleton of the Neanderthaloid man of La
Chapelle-aux-Saints. About one-seventeenth life size. After Boule.]
The shortness of the shin-bone as compared with the length of the
thigh-bone is proof that the Neanderthals were very clumsy and slow of
foot, because this proportion is characteristic of all slow-moving
animals, whereas a long shin-bone and a short thigh-bone indicate that a
race is naturally fleet of foot.
Similarly the Neanderthal man has a very short forearm, only 73.8 per cent
of the upper arm; it approaches the proportions seen in the Eskimos,
Lapps, and Bushmen.(66) Here, again, the Neanderthal man differs from the
anthropoid apes, among which the shortest forearm is that of the gorilla,
having a ratio of 80 per cent.
There are other features which would tend to show that the ancestors of
the Neanderthaloids had been ground dwellers rather than tree dwellers
back into a very remote period of geologic time; the arms are much shorter
than the legs, whereas in tree dwellers they are much longer. Thus, we
have observed in the anthropoid apes that the arm is very long in
proportion to the leg; in the chimpanzee, which has relatively the
shortest arms among the anthropoid apes, the index is 104 per cent, that
is, the arms are slightly longer than the legs. On the contrary, in the
Neanderthals the arm length is only 68 per cent of the leg length; thus it
is very far removed from the anthropoid-ape type and comes nearest to the
Australian and African negro types.
Thus, to sum up the bodily proportions of the Neanderthals:
Arm short in proportion to leg, average index 68 per cent.
Forearm short in proportion to upper arm, average index 73.8 per cent.
Shin-bone short in proportion to thigh-bone, average index 76.6 per
cent.
Stature extremely short in proportion to size of head.
The structure of the shoulder and of the chest is full of interest. All
the ribs are remarkably robust and of large volume, and, whereas in
existing races they exhibit a flattened section, in the Neanderthals the
section is distinctly triangular in form. This implies a very muscular and
robust torso in correlation with the gigantic head and stout limbs. The
collar-bones are correspondingly long, presenting a ratio to the humerus
exceeding 54 per cent, which is much higher than that among the average
existing races; this indicates a very broad shoulder. The shoulder-blade
is also very different in type from that of the higher races of men, and
even from that of the higher Primates; it is extremely short and broad.
While, as noted above, the arm of the Neanderthals is relatively short and
thus non-anthropoid, it presents a mingling of human and ape characters.
The upper arm, or humerus, is truly of the human type, the torsion angle
upon its axis being 148°, whereas in the anthropoid apes the angle of
torsion never passes 141°. Among the bones of the lower arm the most
significant is the radius, with which the turning movement of the hand is
correlated; the structure of the head of the radius has more resemblance
to that of the anthropoid apes than to that of existing species of man.
The structure of the other bone of the forearm, the ulna, is also very
primitive, exhibiting certain monkey characteristics.
[Illustration: FIG. 122. Thigh-bones, or _femora_, of the Trinil,
Neanderthal, and Crô-Magnon races, compared with one of modern type. The
Neanderthal femur seems to be short and stout, whereas that attributed to
_Pithecanthropus_ is relatively long, slender, and straight. Of the
_femora_ illustrated the Neanderthal and Trinil are those of the type
specimens, the Crô-Magnon is from the skeletal fragments of La Madeleine.
After Dubois, Boule, Lartet, and Christy. One-eighth life size.]
The structure of the hand is a matter of the highest interest in
connection with the implement-making powers of the Neanderthals. The hand
is remarkably large and robust, comparable in size with that of men of
very large stature in existing races. With respect to the opposition power
of the thumb against the fingers by means of the opponens muscle, a
distinctively human characteristic, the stage of Neanderthal development
is decidedly lower than that of existing races, because the joint of the
metacarpal bone which supports the thumb is of a peculiar form, convex,
and presenting a veritable convex condyle, whereas in the existing human
races the articular surface of the upper part of the thumb joint is
saddle-shaped, that is, concave from within backward, and convex from
without inward. Thus the highly perfected motions of the thumb in _Homo
sapiens_ were not attained in _Homo neanderthalensis_. Two phalanges which
are preserved in the Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton show that the fingers
were relatively short and robust.
In the structure of the hip-girdle our fossil man is altogether human;
nevertheless, some of its characters are very primitive and distinctive.
Similarly, the thigh-bone shows several primitive characters which are
only rarely seen in existing races, such as the third trochanter and the
strong, general forward curvature.
The structure of the knee-joint in relation to the shin-bone is very
peculiar, because it shows that the shin was always retroverted or bent
backward. Two other features of the shin-bone are its extreme abbreviation
as compared with the femur, and the absence of flattening, or
platycnemism. Where the shin-bone joins the ankle-bone (astragalus) are
shown two facets, such as are preserved only in those races of existing
men which have retained the habit of squatting or the folded position of
the limbs; these facets are not found in races which have the habit of
sitting. They indicate that the resting position of the Neanderthals while
engaged in industrial work was squatting, as shown in our restoration of
one of the Neanderthals at Le Moustier.
Associated with these powerful and peculiarly shaped limbs is the
particularly short and thick-set vertebral column, each bone of which is
remarkable for its abbreviation. The neck especially is entirely different
in construction from that of existing races of men. It would appear that
the concave curvature of the back in the Neanderthals was carried directly
upward and continued into the concave curvature of the neck, as among the
anthropoid apes, and especially in the chimpanzee. The vertebræ of the
neck, especially the fifth, sixth, and seventh, and the first dorsal,
resemble those of the chimpanzee far more closely than those of the modern
European; the spinous processes are directed backward instead of downward.
This caused the habitual stooping of Neanderthal man at the neck and
shoulders and prevented him from ever holding his head entirely erect.
Whereas in the back-bone of existing races the erect position is
maintained by four graceful curvatures, two toward the front, and two
toward the back, in the Neanderthals, as in the newly-born members of the
higher races, we observe only three curvatures, two concave toward the
front, namely, the back and neck curvature, just described, and a sacral
or pelvic curvature; there is also a convex lumbar curvature in the lower
part of the Neanderthal back-bone, which, however, is less pronounced than
in existing species of man.
[Illustration: FIG. 123. Restoration of the head of the Neanderthal man of
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, in profile, after model by J. H. McGregor.
One-quarter life size.]
Summing up the characters of the back-bone in the Neanderthals, certain of
them are very primitive, such as the structure of the vertebræ of the neck
and the robust development of the spinous processes, the absence of
marked curvature in the lower part of the back-bone and the very gentle
curvature of the bones of the sacrum.
[Illustration: FIG. 124. Restoration of the head of the Neanderthal man of
La Chapelle-aux-Saints, in front view, after model by J. H. McGregor.
One-quarter life size.]
The total aspect of Neanderthal man may be characterized in the following
manner:(67) An enormous head placed upon a short and thick trunk, with
limbs very short and thick-set, and very robust; the shoulders broad and
stooping, with the head and neck habitually bent forward into the same
curvature as the back; the arms relatively short as compared with the
legs; the lower leg, as compared with the upper leg, shorter than in any
of the existing races of men; the knee habitually bent forward without the
power of straightening the joint or of standing fully erect; the hands
extremely large and without the delicate play between the thumb and
fingers characteristic of modern races; the resort to a squatting position
while occupied in flint-making and other industries. Thus the ordinary
attitudes characteristic of _Homo neanderthalensis_ would be quite
different from our own and most ungainly. The heavy head, the enormous
development of the face, and the backward position of the foramen magnum,
through which the spinal cord connects with the brain, would tend to throw
the upper part of the body forward, and this tendency, with the lesser
curvature of the neck, the heavy shoulders, and the flattened form of the
head, would give this portion of the body a more or less anthropoid
aspect.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF MOUSTERIAN STATIONS
The Neanderthal race of Mousterian times established stations all over
western Europe, of which upward of fifty have already been discovered, as
compared with the fifty-seven or more Acheulean stations known. At some
points the old open camps of the Acheulean flint workers were still
visited, as along the Thames, the Somme, and the Marne. Thus Abbeville,
St. Acheul, Montières, and Chelles, in northern France, show a succession
of Mousterian industry following the Acheulean, the Chellean, and, at St.
Acheul, even the Pre-Chellean. These may well have been summer stations,
visited at favorable seasons of the year because of their abundant supply
of flint. About 125 miles to the east of St. Acheul, in Belgium, on a
small tributary of the Meuse, is the grotto of Spy, which, together with
Mousterian implements, has yielded two human fossil skeletons of the
Neanderthal race.
In southern Devonshire is the famous cavern of Kent's Hole, near Torquay,
discovered as long ago as 1825 by MacEnery and described in 1840 by
Godwin-Austen.(68) It is interesting to note that teeth of the sabre-tooth
tiger (_Machærodus latidens_) have been found in this cavern, leading Boyd
Dawkins to believe that this animal survived to late geologic times: it
will be recalled as a contemporary of the early Chellean flint workers at
Abbeville. The animal life of Kent's Hole, as originally described by
Godwin-Austen, included remains of "elephant, rhinoceros, ox, deer, horse,
bear, hyæna, and a feline animal of large size"--fauna now known to belong
to the period of the fourth glaciation.[AI]
[Illustration: FIG. 125. Geographic distribution of the principal
Mousterian industrial stations in western Europe, attributed to the
Neanderthal race.]
To the south are three stations, one of which, La Cotte de St. Brelade, on
the present isle of Jersey, then part of the mainland, has yielded
Mousterian flakes and thirteen human teeth of Neanderthal type.
Still farther to the south, in the Dordogne region, is found the type
station described on a previous page, of Le Moustier, the centre of a
group of eight sites crowded along the north and south shores of the
Vézère, which have become famous for the knowledge they yield of the
successive stages in the development of the Mousterian implements,
beginning with the primitive culture station of La Micoque, and including
La Ferrassie, Le Moustier, La Rochette, Pataud, La Mouthe, Laussel, and
finally the Abri Audit, which marks the closing stage in the development
of the Mousterian industry and, in the opinion of many archæologists, its
transition to the Aurignacian. At several of these places important
discoveries have been made, both of human fossils and of noteworthy
transitions in the progress of invention. Circling round this Vézère group
are the stations of Petit-Puymoyen, La Quina, where implements of the
closing stage of Mousterian industry have been found as well as a human
fossil of the Neanderthal type, and La Chapelle-aux-Saints, which has
yielded the only complete skeleton of a Neanderthal man so far discovered.
[Illustration: FIG. 126. The Mousterian cave of Hornos de la Peña, in the
Cantabrian Mountains of northern Spain. Photograph by N. C. Nelson.]
In Spain is the station of San Isidro, near the headwaters of the Tagus,
and the beautifully situated grottos of Castillo and Hornos de la Peña, on
the northern slopes of the Cantabrian Mountains.
As contrasted with the very numerous Acheulean sites of Italy, it is
surprising to note that only two Mousterian grottos have thus far been
discovered in this region: the Grotte delle Fate in the mountains of
Liguria, and the very important group of caves on the Riviera, near
Mentone, known as the Grottes de Grimaldi, close to the seashore and at
the very point where the Italian Alps abut upon the sea. Crossing to the
north, we note the superb Swiss grotto of Wildkirchli, on the headwaters
of the Rhine, 5,000 feet above sea-level.
[Illustration: FIG. 127. Outlook from the cave of Hornos de la Peña.
Photograph by N. C. Nelson.]
In all Germany there are only about seven stations of unquestioned
Mousterian age. Of these six are grottos, and the seventh, Mommenheim, is
a fluvial redeposit of loess along a small stream, where only _one_
implement has been found.(69) It is interesting to observe that in Germany
these Mousterian sites occupy the great wedge of territory between the
Scandinavian ice-fields on the north, and the Alpine on the south, and
that Wildkirchli was actually within the area of glaciation; while the
caves of Räuberhöhle and Šipka were not far from the glaciers which
clothed the Carpathian Mountains, and Baumannshöhle was not so very remote
from the great Scandinavian ice-field. In the region of the headwaters of
the Rhine and Danube the industry of the Neanderthal race has thus far
been traced only at the stations of Irpfelhöhle, Räuberhöhle, and
Sirgenstein. The latter cavern is of especial importance because it
comprises the entire Palæolithic history of this region, presenting a
series of successive culture layers from Mousterian times up to the
arrival of the Neolithic race. Further to the east are the Gudenushöhle,
near Krems, in Lower Austria, and Ochos and Šipka, in Moravia, while over
the Russian border are Wierschovie and Miskolcz. Well to the northwest of
Wildkirchli are the stations of Mommenheim and Kartstein, and to the north
that of Baumannshöhle.
WORKMANSHIP OF THE NEANDERTHALS
The dense communal life of Mousterian times may have favored a social
evolution, the development of the imagination and of tribal lore, and the
beginnings of the religious belief and ceremonial of which apparent
indications are found to be wide-spread among the entirely different races
of Upper Palæolithic times. The life is not, however, marked by industrial
progress or invention.
The successive stages of the Mousterian industry have not as yet been so
clearly defined as those of the Acheulean (Schmidt(70)). In the open
Mousterian stations and caverns of Belgium and England Schmidt has
observed the stages of early, middle, and late Mousterian. Breuil and
Obermaier consider La Micoque as belonging to the close of the Acheulean
but as marking the transition into the Mousterian. Breuil considers the
industry of the Combe-Capelle station as representing the oldest true
Mousterian culture. The researches which have been carried thus far would
appear to justify the following subdivisions of the Mousterian culture in
southwestern France:
6. Abri Audit culture, marking the transition from late Mousterian to
early Aurignacian industry.
5. Late true Mousterian industry. La Quina type of implements with
scrapers and bone anvils.
4. Middle Mousterian industry, with a predominance of handsome, large
Mousterian points carefully 'retouched' on the edge and sometimes on
one side, a 'retouch' at times approaching the superior Solutrean
technique.
3. Primitive early Mousterian industry, with a limited inventory of
implements.
2. Combe-Capelle stage, with heart-shaped coups de poing and typical
Mousterian 'points.' (Arrival of reindeer.)
1. La Micoque culture, transitional from Acheulean to Mousterian
times. (No reindeer.)
The flint industry, although very different in its outward appearance, is
recognizable as a direct evolution from the Acheulean, with the
suppression or decline of certain implements and the improvements of
others. It is the product of the same kind of mind at work with the same
materials, but under different climatic conditions and with new demands,
especially for clothing as protection against the severe weather. We also
cannot avoid the feeling that the abandonment of the free, open life of
Chellean and early Acheulean times and the crowding of the Neanderthal
tribesmen beneath the shelters and in the grottos had a dwarfing effect
both upon the physique and upon the industry itself. The Mousterian
implements, as compared with the Acheulean, impress one as the work of a
less muscular and vigorous race.
In addition to the many fine transitions that one observes(71) between the
Acheulean and Mousterian industries at St. Acheul, strong evidence is also
furnished in favor of a close connection between these cultures by the
discoveries at Laussel, on the Vézère, near Les Eyzies. There, broad and
deep before this shelter of Laussel, lies the Mousterian layer, and
directly beneath it is a true Acheulean layer close to the waters of the
valley of the Beune. This proves that in Acheulean times this valley was
deepened to the same degree as to-day, and a close union of the Acheulean
to the Mousterian is here again evident. In the valley of the Somme near
St. Acheul Commont has also observed proofs of a similar close connection
between these cultures. With such records in northern and southern France,
the Neanderthal race, which is known toward the end of Acheulean times and
especially covers the entire period of Mousterian time, comes much nearer
to us. If we assign the Mousterian industry to the last glacial period,
we give it a duration of some 30,000 years, and this is about the
reckoning which thoughtful anatomists have already assigned for the
Neanderthal man.
SPECIAL MOUSTERIAN IMPLEMENTS
Two instruments are especially typical of the Mousterian industry from
beginning to end; these are the 'pointe' and the 'racloir.' The former,
pointed and spear-shaped, is from 1 to 4 inches in length; the latter is a
broad scraper, from 1 to 2 inches in width; and both have the distinctive
peculiarity of being composed of a large flake of flint struck off from a
larger bulb or nodule and of being retouched only on one side, leaving on
the opposite side the smooth conchoidal surface of the flake.(72) This
point and scraper are highly characteristic not only of the early stages
but of the Mousterian industry throughout its entire course, including
even the late La Quina types, and their manner of making is obviously a
modified usage of the late Acheulean discovery of the flakes of Levallois.
[Illustration: FIG. 128. Typical Mousterian 'points' from the type station
of Le Moustier, made of a large flake of flint struck off from the nodule
and retouched on only one side, leaving on the opposite side a smooth,
conchoidal surface. After Déchelette, by permission of M. A. Picard,
Librairie Alphonse Picard et Fils.]
A matter of the greatest interest in the industrial development of western
Europe at this time is the fact that this discovery of the _utilization
of the flake_, whether in the 'lames de Levallois' or in the Mousterian
point and scraper, led to the decline of the coup de poing. The retouched
flakes of various shapes were easier to make and to repair and served
equally well the purposes of skinning and dismembering game which had been
previously served by the ancient coup de poing.(73)
[Illustration: FIG. 129. Mousterian 'points' and scrapers from various
parts of Europe, as interpreted by de Mortillet. In some cases both sides
of the implement are shown; all are one-quarter actual size except 101,
which is one-half actual size. 100--De Mortillet's theory of the manner of
using the Mousterian 'point,' which was held in the hand and not shafted.
101--Mousterian point from Suffolk, England. 102--Mousterian point from
Umbria, Italy. 103, 104--A single flake point from the Crimea, in southern
Russia. 105, 106--A long, narrow Mousterian point from Oise, France.
107--A curved-in scraper, or _grattoir_, from Dordogne, France; perhaps an
implement for dressing a wooden spear or lance. 108--Bone splinter, broken
for the marrow, but not shaped.]
In consequence, the coup de poing, fashioned from the core of the nodule,
begins to play a very secondary rôle and occurs but rarely in the
Mousterian levels. Even at St. Acheul, the very centre of its former
reign, we begin to find decadent forms and poor workmanship, which make it
difficult to recognize that these are the successors of the finely
retouched Acheulean coups de poing. While the coups de poing at the type
station of Le Moustier continue to retain the old Acheulean patterns--the
oval, the heart-shaped, the sharp-pointed--they are all of smaller size
and rather coarsely retouched. Thus, after thousands of years of
development and employment, the coup de poing falls into a period of
degeneration and of final disuse. The history of this. implement, which we
have traced from its Pre-Chellean prototypes, presents a most interesting
analogy with the course of evolution observed in so many animal and plant
forms. It passes through many stages of improvement and reaches a climax
of perfection and adaptation; it then comes into competition with another
form evolving on a fundamentally different and superior plan and
disappears in the struggle for existence through the greater usefulness of
the replacing type.
SUCCESSIVE STAGES IN THE MOUSTERIAN INDUSTRY
The succession of industrial stages is best shown along the Vézère. The
oldest Mousterian industry is that of Combe-Capelle with its heart-shaped,
roughly fashioned coups de poing, entirely lacking, however, any evidence
of a surface prepared for the grasp of the hand.
In the valley of the Somme Commont(74) has observed the three following
stages in the advance of the Mousterian industry:
3. A late Mousterian culture which lies on the upper layers near the
top of the same gravel deposit and which shows entirely new technical
elements. The old coup-de-poing culture is no longer valued, and all
the implements found here are of flakes worked only on one side and
with an extraordinarily fine retouch.
2. A middle Mousterian horizon which lies in the lower layers of a
gravel deposit, belonging to the 'newer loess,' and which contains
only _one_ small coup de poing.
1. An early Mousterian, with quite numerous lance-shaped coups de
poing, lies at the base of the 'newer loess,' showing that the
coup-de-poing tradition still lingers and the coup-de-poing type is
still preserved. With these are associated the new types of implements
and especially the 'hand-points,' which are so typical of the
Mousterian industry.
The more recent levels (2, 3) contain longer flakes, which already
exhibit a tendency toward the blades, or 'lames,' of the Upper
Palæolithic.
In the shelters and caverns of Dordogne the same industrial sequence may
be observed, although the chronological succession of the strata is not
always clearly defined. At the grotto of Combe-Capelle the heart-shaped
coups de poing retain most strongly the old traditions, but even here
these are outnumbered by the well-fashioned Mousterian 'points,' chipped
only on one side.
The further development of the Mousterian industry may be observed in the
type station of Le Moustier, where the lower levels show a primitive
Mousterian consisting mostly of very fine, irregularly fashioned flakes,
made into small scrapers, triangular points, borers, and disks. The
overlying layer includes very carefully worked Mousterian points which are
frequently retouched on one side over the entire surface; here the
Mousterian technique reaches its highest development, so that Schmidt
designates it as 'high Mousterian.'(75) Above this layer, again, is a
level of typical late Mousterian forms, quite unlike the small primitive
flakes of the lower level and resembling the characteristic forms of La
Quina, the dominant type being the finely shaped La Quina racloir. The few
diminutive coups de poing which occur in this level at Le Moustier furnish
the only distinction between the industry here and that of La Quina, where
no coups de poing are found. At Le Moustier also occur the typical bone
anvils which were first recognized at La Quina.
The Mousterian industry of the Neanderthals was thus devoted mainly to the
development of the smaller forms of implements, for the most part
retouched on one side only, and with a constant improvement of technique.
Yet the chief types of Mousterian implements remain the same as in
Acheulean times, as shown in the accompanying table.
The implement known as the _pointe_, or the 'hand-point,' is a principal
and very characteristic Mousterian form further perfected from its
Acheulean stage. It is spear-headed in shape and chipped on one side only,
and continues into late Mousterian times, being still found in the
Mousterian levels of Spy, in Belgium.
The _pointe double_, a double-pointed, spear-shaped form, at times almost
attains the elongate shape of the Solutrean _pointe de laurier_, though
never its slenderness, symmetry, and perfection of technique.
INDUSTRIAL.
Coup de poing (decadent), hand-stone.
ovoid.
heart-shaped.
sharp-pointed.
Hachette, chopper.
Grattoir, planing tool.
Perçoir, drill, borer.
Couteau, knife.
Racloir, scraper.
knife-edged.
curved-out edge.
saw-edged.
double-edged.
beak-shaped.
many-edged.
Pointe, 'hand-point.'
Percuteur? hammer-stone?
WAR AND CHASE.
Pointe, 'hand-point.'
Pointe double, spear head?
Coup de poing, hand-stone.
Pierre de jet, throwing stone.
Couteau, knife.
There are five or six well-defined varieties of the racloir, or scraper,
carefully fashioned out of flakes. The principal form is crescentic in
shape, with outward-curved edge. Other forms are saw-like with straight
edges or knife-edged. Another form with very neatly and symmetrically
incurved borders has its edges sharply retouched, as if for the smoothing
down of bone or wooden shafts. The borer is also fashioned of an elongate
flake and sometimes finished with a very fine point at one of its
extremities. It is noteworthy that the grattoir, or planing tool, so well
developed in the Upper Palæolithic industries, appears only sporadically
in Mousterian times. For example, at La Quina, in the closing stages of
the Mousterian industry, out of 220 implements collected at hazard, there
were 166 scrapers of six different forms, 45 'hand-points' of five
different forms, and 5 double points, as compared with 5 grattoirs, or
planing tools. There are very few knife-shaped forms. It would appear that
the racloir and the perçoir were the principal implements employed in the
preparation of skins for clothing.
In early Mousterian times the coup de poing may still have been used by
the Neanderthals in the chase, and the fine, spear-headed 'point' and the
rarer 'double point' may have been developed in response to the needs of
hunters, who now ventured the chase of the bison, the urus, the wild
horse, and the reindeer.
The most striking features of all the implements which may have been used
in the chase are: first, the absence of any definite proof of their
attachment to a shaft or handle; and second, the absence of any barbed or
headed type of point. The use of the barb, as we shall see, appears to be
a relatively recent discovery of the later cultures of Upper Palæolithic
times.
[Illustration: FIG. 130. Late Mousterian implements, after de Mortillet,
one-quarter actual size. 109, 110--Point, finely retouched at one end,
from Seine-et-Marne, France. The reverse shows a retouch on the flaked
surface which suggests the double-face Solutrean retouch. 111, 112--A very
large _racloir_, or scraper, from La Quina, Charente, France; part of the
bulb of percussion has been chipped off. 113--Double-ended point from Le
Moustier, retouched on both surfaces. 114, 115--Combination point and
scraper from Le Moustier, Dordogne, France. 116--Double scraper, or
_racloir_, with _grattoir_, or planing end.]
The transition from the Mousterian to the Aurignacian appears in the Abri
Audit, which also lies in the valley of the Vézère. Here we still find
irregularly fashioned coups de poing, decadent followers of the
heart-shaped types of the earliest Mousterian industry; this is nearly the
last phase in the decline of the old coup-de-poing manufacture. While the
lance-shaped coup de poing of the late Acheulean never appears in any true
Mousterian industry, the shorter, more heart-shaped type of Combe-Capelle
traverses the entire Mousterian and, after further stages of degeneration,
passes into the Abri Audit culture and even lingers into the early
Aurignacian. At this latter station the typical Mousterian 'points' are
almost wanting.
The Mousterian, observes Schmidt,(75) which preserves the traditions of
the Lower Palæolithic coup-de-poing culture, is one of the most
interesting phases in the development of Palæolithic industry, in that its
successive stages exhibit the very last phases of the great coup-de-poing
industry, of which only the almond and oval scraper types appear, and that
very rarely, in the early Aurignacian. On the other hand, in the late
Mousterian we observe a trend toward the blade (_lame_) industry of the
Upper Palæolithic. Careful study and observation of the subdivisions of
Mousterian culture have thus far been limited to central and southern
France, and they have not yet been traced in Spain; but in the grottos of
Belgium and England the early, middle, and late Mousterian types are known
to exist.
Bone anvils, fashioned out of the hard surfaces of the foreleg and foot
bones of the bison and horse, were discovered at La Quina in 1906. They
show a flattened surface with cross incisions too regular to be accidental
and too far from the articulation to be the result of an inexpert attempt
to sever the joint.(76) This was not the only use of bone in Mousterian
times, however, for primitive pointed implements of bone are occasionally
found in Dordogne, mingled with Mousterian flints. A variety of rudely
fashioned bone implements also occurs at Wildkirchli, in Switzerland.
DISAPPEARANCE OF THE NEANDERTHAL RACE
We have seen that the Neanderthals dwelt in Europe for a very long time,
many thousands of years, during which they doubtless underwent
considerable evolution from lower to higher types, and into varieties,
under the modifying influences of climate, food, and racial habits.
Consequently the known remains of Neanderthals exhibit a decided variation
in head form, as well as in dentition: some are more primitive and
ape-like; others, such as Spy II, are more like the modern races. The
Krapina variety is more broad-headed than the typical Neanderthal variety.
The Gibraltar variety is in many respects of low type. The individual
known as Spy II is of higher type than the other Neanderthals. The
variations in stature so far as known are slight.
For these and other reasons Hrdlička,(77) who has recently made a broad
comparative study of the chief Neanderthal remains of Europe, is of the
opinion that the Neanderthals partly evolved into the lower races of _Homo
sapiens_; being not only in some measure ancestral to such very primitive
forms as the Brünn or Předmost race of Upper Palæolithic times, but even
contributing to the higher race of the Crô-Magnons. He also holds that
traces of Neanderthal blood and physiognomy are not lacking even among
modern Europeans.
A contrary view is set forth in the present volume; namely, that the
Neanderthals represent a side branch of the human race which became wholly
extinct in western Europe. This view the author shares with Boule and with
Schwalbe. Certainly the evidence afforded by the known Upper Palæolithic
burial sites does not support the theory that the Neanderthals persisted.
It is possible, however, that the Upper Palæolithic skeletons discovered
at Předmost, and now awaiting description by Maška, may modify this
conclusion and demonstrate Hrdlička's theory that the Neanderthals
survived and left descendants or men of mixed Neanderthal and _Homo
sapiens_ race along the valley of the Danube.
Whatever may have been their fate in other regions, certainly the most
sudden racial change which we know of in the whole prehistory of western
Europe is the disappearance of the Neanderthal race at the close of the
Mousterian culture stage, which was the latest industrial period of Lower
Palæolithic times, and their replacement by the Crô-Magnon race. From
geologic evidence the date of this replacement is believed to have been
between 20,000 and 25,000 years before our era. So far as we know at
present, the Neanderthals were entirely eliminated; no trace of the
survival of the pure Neanderthal type has been found in any of the Upper
Palæolithic burial sites; nor have the alleged instances of the survival
of the Neanderthal strain or of people bearing the Neanderthal cranial
characters been substantiated. We incline to agree with Boule and Schwalbe
that the supposed cases among modern races of the transmission of
Neanderthal characters are simply low or reversional types, which, upon
close analysis, are never found to present the highly distinctive and
peculiar combination of Neanderthal characteristics.
There is some reason to believe that the Neanderthals were degenerating
physically and industrially during the very severe conditions of life of
the fourth glaciation, but the consequent inferiority and diminution in
numbers would not account for their total extinction, and we are inclined
to attribute this to the entrance into the whole Neanderthal country of
western Europe toward the close of Lower Palæolithic times of a new and
highly superior race. Archæologists find traces of a new culture and
industry in certain Mousterian stations preceding the disappearance of the
typical Mousterian industry. Such a mingling is found in the valley of the
Somme in northern France.
From this scanty evidence we may infer that the new race competed for a
time with the Neanderthals before they dispossessed them of their
principal stations and drove them out of the country or killed them in
battle. The Neanderthals, no doubt, fought with wooden weapons and with
the stone-headed dart and spear, but there is no evidence that they
possessed the bow and arrow. There is, on the contrary, some possibility
that the newly arriving Crô-Magnon race may have been familiar with the
bow and arrow, for a barbed arrow or spear head appears in drawings of a
later stage of Crô-Magnon history, the so-called Magdalenian. It is thus
possible, though very far from being demonstrated, that when the
Crô-Magnons entered western Europe, at the dawn of the Upper Palæolithic,
they were armed with weapons which, with their superior intelligence and
physique, would have given them a very great advantage in contests with
the Neanderthals.
(=1=) Commont, 1912.1, p. 294.
(=2=) Smith, W., 1894.1, chap. XV.
(=3=) Dietrich, 1910.1, pp. 329, 330.
(=4=) Penck, 1909.1.
(=5=) Leverett, 1910.1, pp. 306-314.
(=6=) Geikie, 1914.1.
(=7=) _Op. cit._, p. 272.
(=8=) _Op. cit._, pp. 265-266.
(=9=) Keith, 1911.1, p. 23, Fig. 5.
(=10=) Munro, 1912.1, pp. 46, 47.
(=11=) Lartet, 1861.1; 1875.1.
(=12=) De Vibraye, 1864.1.
(=13=) Massénat, 1868.1.
(=14=) Smith, W., 1894.1, chap. XIV.
(=15=) Geikie, 1914.1, p. 119.
(=16=) Smith, W., _op. cit._, pp. 196, 197.
(=17=) _Op. cit._, p. 224.
(=18=) Geikie, 1914.1, p. 118.
(=19=) Bächler, 1912.1.
(=20=) Schmidt, 1912.1, pp. 18-32, 165-171.
(=21=) _Op. cit._, Table opposite p. 270.
(=22=) Osborn, 1910.1, pp. 419, 420.
(=23=) Niezabitowski, 1911.1.
(=24=) Harlé, 1908.1, p. 302.
(=25=) Obermaier, 1912.1, p. 135.
(=26=) Keith, 1911.2.
(=27=) Boule, 1913.1, pp. 220, 221.
(=28=) _Op. cit._, p. 64.
(=29=) Fischer, 1913.1, pp. 336, 337.
(=30=) Schaaffhausen, 1875.1; 1858.1.
(=31=) Lyell, 1863.1, pp. 80-92.
(=32=) Schwalbe, 1897.1; 1901.1; 1901.2; 1904.1.
(=33=) King, 1864.1.
(=34=) Cope, 1893.1.
(=35=) Wilser, 1898.1.
(=36=) Fraipont, 1887.1.
(=37=) Schwalbe, 1914.2.
(=38=) Dupont, 1866.1.
(=39=) Maška, 1886.1.
(=40=) Rzehak, 1906.1.
(=41=) Fischer, 1913.1.
(=42=) Klaatsch, 1909.1.
(=43=) Bouyssonie, 1909.1.
(=44=) Boule, 1908.1; 1908.2; 1909.1; 1911.1; 1912.1.
(=45=) Boule, 1913.1.
(=46=) Martin, H., 1911.1.
(=47=) Nicolle, 1910.1.
(=48=) Keith, 1911.1.
(=49=) Fischer, 1913.1, p. 352.
(=50=) Schwalbe, 1914.1, p. 544, Figs. 4 and 5.
(=51=) Fischer, _op. cit._
(=52=) Boule, 1913.1, p. 85.
(=53=) Gorjanovič-Kramberger, 1909.1.
(=54=) Boule, 1913.1, p. 104.
(=55=) Tomes, 1914.1, pp. 588-598.
(=56=) Schwalbe, 1901.2; 1914.1, pp. 534, 535.
(=57=) Schwalbe, 1901.1.
(=58=) Boule, 1913.1.
(=59=) _Op. cit._, pp. 66, 67, 72, 75.
(=60=) Berry, 1914.1.
(=61=) Johnson, 1913.1.
(=62=) Quatrefages, 1884.1, p. 394.
(=63=) Martin, R., 1914.1, p. 645.
(=64=) Boule, 1910.1; 1911.1.
(=65=) Anthony, 1912.1.
(=66=) Boule, 1913.1, p. 119.
(=67=) _Op. cit._, p. 120.
(=68=) Geikie, 1914.1, p. 130; Godwin-Austen, 1840.1.
(=69=) Schmidt, 1912.1, pp. 23, 32, 66, 75, 76, 101, 169.
(=70=) _Op. cit._, p. 128.
(=71=) Schuchhardt, 1913.1, p. 144.
(=72=) Déchelette, 1908.1, vol. I, pp. 98-101.
(=73=) Obermaier, 1912.1, p. 130.
(=74=) Commont, 1909.1.
(=75=) Schmidt, 1912.1, pp. 126-128.
(=76=) Déchelette, 1908.1, vol. I, pp. 104, 105.
(=77=) Hrdlička, 1914.1.