Vertesszollos and the Presapiens Theory

The Presapiens theory, suggesting completely separate lineages leading to Neandertals and to Homo sapiens, has recently received a number of setbacks. However, the discovery of two hominids at Vertesszollos could be corroborating evidence. The teeth of the first individual were described as those of Homo erectus, as were most features of the second, represented by an occipital. The two main characteristics used to support the Homo sapiens classification of the second individual are the long lambda-opisthion chord and the high cranial capacity, based on a regression using the lambda-opisthion chord. However, the real position of lambda is obscured by the presence of wormian bones, and the regression used to predict capacity was derived from a sample with more Neandertals than Homo erectus specimens. A comparative treatment of the morphological features and recalculation of the regression suggests that separating the occipital from Homo erectus is not justified. Other evidence indicates Homo erectus specimens as big as Vertesszollos 2. It is unlikely that two hominid lineages occur in the Mid-Pleistocene. The “Presapiens” theory, as described by Vallois (‘58), suggests that Homo sapiens originated as a distinct lineage, completely separate from that which led to the Neandertals. Unlike the “Preneandertal” theory, the presapiens theory holds that this divergence took place before the MindeURiss Interglacial, if not before the Mindel glaciation itself. The theory has suffered a number of serious setbacks, beginning with the demise of Piltdown (Weiner, Oakley and Le Gros Clark, ’53). The sapient qualities of the Swanscombe cranium have been severely questioned. Stewart (‘64) demonstrated that the occipito-mastoid torus is far more like that of Neandertals than it is like anatomically modern Homo sapiens , complementing Morant’s original description (’38) of the cranium as platycephalic with a low and posterior position for the greatest parietal breadth. Morant also showed that the occipital breadth was completely outside the range of population variation in anatomically modern Homo sapiens, and more than three standard deviations from the mean. As both Sergi (‘62) and Brace (‘64) have indicated, these are distinctive features of Homo erectus and Neandertals, and can be used to differentiate these groups from modern man. Finally, Roginskii (‘48) used a simple Chi-square test to demonstrate that the combination of Swanscombe features in modern man has a probability of less than 0.001, while these same features fall completely within Neandertal ranges. Thus, Swanscombe evinces characteristics one would expect in a hominid morphologically transitional between Homo erectus and Neandertals, and not what one would expect in a hominid transitional between Homo erectus and anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Surely, the attachment available for extensive nuchal muscles suggests a Mid-Pleistocene sized face. Using contours, chords, and arcs of Fontechevade 2 as preserved, Sergi (‘62) unambiguously demonstrated its affinities with the Neandertals, rather than with modern men. Brace (’64) showed that the position of the frontal sinus, indicated by a trace on Fontechevade 2, does not preclude the possibility of a well-developed supraorbital torus, based on the position of the sinus in Krapina frontal number 2, a Neandertal specimen with a well-developed torus. I have studied casts of Fontechevade 1 and 2. The larger fragment, 2, gives the general appearance of a Neandertal. The contour in norma verticalis is teardropped, with the greatest breadth well back on the parietals, close to the position of asterion. The biasterionic 209 AM. J. PHYS. ANTHROP., 35: 209-216. 210 MILFORD H. WOLPOFF breadth is even greater than Swanscombe and is close to the Neandertal mean (Vallois, ’58: 83). In norma occipitalis, the cranial contour is almost perfectly circular, as in the Western European Wurm Neandertals. I carefully compared Fontechevade 1, the small fragment of frontal surrounding the region of glabella, with casts of numerous Neandertal crania. The glabellar area of Fontechevade 1 is identical to the corresponding areas in Neandertal crania from Gibraltar and Le Moustier. Neither specimen from Fontechevade gives indication of being anything but a Neandertal. Thus, the separation from Neandertal ancestry or status of the only two “certain Presapiens” accepted by Vallois in 1958 is without compelling substantive basis. Even still, the “Presapiens” Theory has gained new supporters in the last decade. Howell (‘60) attempted identification of two hominid lineages during Mindel. More recently, Briggs (‘68) suggested separation of the Ternifine mandibles into “paranthropoid” (number 3) and “telanthropoid” (numbers 1, 2) groups. Collins (‘69) attempted establishing a number of lineages from Mindel and earlier, based on (apparently somewhat shaky) archaeological and morphological evidence. However, none of these proposals has been generally accepted, even by authors who consider Neandertals a separate lineage (Howells, ’67). Now, new evidence is available which could support the Presapiens Theory. Thoma (‘66, ’69) has used the two individuals from the site of Vertesszollos in Western Hungary to argue for the synchronic occurrence of two hominid species: Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. The taxonomy he suggests for the individuals a t this Intermindel site has raised questions of considerable interest (Howells, ’66; ’67: 180). Is it possible that the occipital of the second individual (Vsz. 2 ) represents an early specimen of Homo sapiens? The question has two different meanings. For those who classify Neandertals in Homo sapiens this is a simple although somewhat muddled terminological question for, as Eckhardt (‘70) has pointed out, we have no unambiguous rules for classifying a specimen which may be a late Homo erectus or an early Homo sapiens. For Thoma, and some others, the question has an entirely different meaning. Authors who consider Homo sapiens and Neandertals parallel but separate lineages would interpret the Homo sapiens classification of Vsz. 2 to mean that these lineages had separated by the time of the Mindel glaciation. The second interpretation is questioned here. Thoma published a detailed comparison of the tooth fragments comprising the individual Vsz. 1 (‘67). Two of the fragments, a lower deciduous canine and second molar, proved complete enough for comparisons using diagnostic features. These detailed comparisons, based on both morphology and multivariate statistics, utilized samples of australopithecines, Homo erectus from Choukoutien, Neandertals, and a number of Homo sapiens groups. Regarding especially the extreme caniniform character of both Vsz. 1 and Choukoutien deciduous canine 120, as well as the lingual cinglulum, crown size, and lobated structure of the lingual surface, the Vsz. tooth is identical to the Choukoutien sample and different in these same features from the other groups compared. The molar seems somewhat too large for a Neandertal tooth. Thoma concludes: . . . comparing the Vertesszollos teeth with all the other Hominid groups known from homologous teeth, it is possible to find in every case morphological criteria which, combined into discriminative patterns, properly differentiate them from each other with only the exception of Sinanthropus (’67: 176). Thus, the first specimen is a Homo erectus , while the second, in his view (‘66, ’69) is Homo sapiens. The “chopper-chopping tool” industries at Vertesszollos and at Choukoutien are similar to each other (Kretzoi and Vertes, ’65; Bordes, ’68). This leads to the somewhat bizarre conclusion that two different hominid species are associated with a chopper-chopping tool industry at Choukoutien (Homo erectus) and Vertesszollos (Homo sapiens) while the same two species are associated with a hand axe industry at Ternifine (Homo erectus) and Swanscombe (Homo sapiens). Because of the similarities between the industries a t Vertesszollos and at Choukoutien where a Homo erectus sample from the same . time period occurs (Bordes, ’68; Howells, VERTESSZOLLOS AND THE PRESAPIENS THEORY 21 1 ’66), and because Thoma convincingly demonstrated that Vsz. 1 cannot be distinguished from this Homo erectus sample (‘67), it is of some interest to examine his reasons for placing Vsz. 2 in Homo sapiens (‘66, ’69). In his most recent analysis, Thoma (‘69) states that most characteristics of Vsz. 2, like Vsz. 1, are similar to those in Homo erectus. Indeed, he concludes: “The majority of gross morphological features of Vsz. I1 is Archanthropic in character” (p. 240). Vsz. 2 shares a number of features with both Homo erectus and Neandertals. Complexity of the Vsz. 2 sutures at the metasterionic angle and the variations described for the cruciform eminence and the sinus grooves occur in almost all hominid taxa. The small cerebellar fossae compared to the cerebral fossae are also characteristic of the Peking crania (Weidenreich, ’43: 40) and the Solo and other Neandertal crania as well (Weidenreich, ’51; 26). If anything, these fossae seem more nearly equal in size in the Swanscombe occipital. The size relation in anatomically modern Homo sapiens is the opposite. Inion is about 25 mm above the internal occipital protuberance. This distance can be matched in other Homo erectus crania as well as in Neandertal crania. Weidenreich suggests that the separation occurs because the cerebellar fossae are small (‘51: 26), but the height of the nuchal torus, and the very great extent of the nuchal musculature implied, could be another factor. Measurements of thickness are completely within both Homo erectus and Neandertal ranges of variation, but often fall outside the range of variation of anatomically modern Homo sapiens. The inion angle of the occipital is quite low, falling again within Homo erectus and Neandertal ranges of variation. Other features, however, place the occipital squarely with Homo erectus, and distinguish it fiom Neandertals and other early European crania such as Swanscombe and Steinheim. The occipital torus is prominent and extends laterally across the entire bone in the fashion of almost every other Homo erectus specimen, and unlike australopithecines, Neandertals, modern men, and the other two early European crania. This torus is pictured in the excellent series of figures published by Thoma (‘66), in which the lateral view, his figure 3, is upside down. The nuchal plane itself is huge, attesting to the presence of a very heavy neck musculature. On the internal surface, the transverse sulcus passes directly to the temporal in Vsz. 2, and in Peking 12 and Java 4 as well. In Swanscombe, however, the sulcus passes to the parietal, as is the case in anatomically modern Homo sapiens. The Vertesszollos individual was probably quite large, and, based on the robustness of the nuchal muscle attachments, was probably a male. The total morphological pattern is far more similar to that of known large Homo erectus specimens than it is to large Neandertals. Unfortunately, the two somewhat later crania, Swanscombe and Steinheim, are quite possibly female. Thus comparisons could be somewhat misleading since gracile features due to grade cannot easily be distinguished from those due to sexual dimorphism. In contrast, the reasons for placing the occipital in Homo sapiens, Thoma’s “Palaanthropus” grade, are few indeed. Thoma (‘69) claims only two: a high and fairly curved profile of the upper part of the occipital squama projected in the sagittal plane, and a cranial capacity significantly greater than that of Homo erectus. The sagittal curvature of the upper part of the squama is indicated by the index of the lambda-inion arc to the lambdainion chord. In Vsz. 2 this index is 108.2; a sample of 9 Homo erectus specimens average 105 and range from 102.3 to 108.4 (SD = 1.8). One Homo erectus specimen, Olduvai hominid 13, has a greater curvature (108.4). The curvature in Java 1, the specimen with the next highest index (107), is almost as great. The high profile of the upper part of the squama is misleading. Actually, the angle at inion is not particularly great. Its value, 103”, is equal to or less than those of almost every occipital in the Peking group, and is considerably smaller than the angle in Swanscombe (118”), a more recent European specimen. The upper squama matches Peking crania such as ten quite well in sagittal profile, except for the fact that it extends more