620 ANNUAL EEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 192 8 



with Neanderthal man, it is impossible to understand why he did not 

 prevail sooner, or why he did not mix, or, above all, why he left no 

 cultural remains of his existence. 



On the other hand, this same Neanderthal man is now known to 

 show wide morphologicajl variation, leading in the direction of later 

 man; and there are individuals among later men, even to this clay, 

 who show transitional features. This might be explained by an 

 original common parentage of the two strains ; or by an intermixture 

 of the Neanderthal stock with the succeeding II. safiens\ or by a 

 develojDment, evolution, of the former into the latter. 



(9) A critical examination of the known facts does not favor the 

 assumption of a far-back common parentage and early Quaternary 

 separation of H. neanderthalensls and II . sapiens, for Jack of cultural 

 evidence of H. sapiens and other great difficulties. 



It is equally unable to favor a separate origin of the two stocks 

 with subsequent hybridization, for again there is no evidence of the 

 pre-Aurignacian whereabouts and the doings of H. sapiens, there 

 is no trace of his ancestry, and knowing his and his descendants' 

 characteristics, it is impossible, as said already by Karl Pearson, to 

 conceive his origin without a Neanclerthal-like stage of development. 



There remains but the third alternative — which is the evolution of 

 the Neanderthajer into later man. This proposition is not yet 

 capable of conclusive demonstration. There is not yet enough ma- 

 terial to decide it one way or the other. But the thoroughly sifted 

 indications appear to the speaker to favor this assumption. 



The great current need of prehistory, it may be accentuated once 

 again, is more exploration and more good fortune in discoveries. 

 Meanwhile there appears to be less justification in the conception of 

 a Neanderthal species than there would be in that of a Neanderthal 

 phase of man.^ 



PRINCIPAL REFERENCES 



Adloff, p. Das Gebiss des Menschen und der Anthropomorphen. 8°. Berlin, 



1908. 

 Bayer, J. Mensch im Eiszeitulter. Vol. I, 8". Leipzig and Wieu, 1927. 

 BouLE, M. Fossil Men. 8". Edinburgh, 1923. 

 Breuil, M. I'Abbe. Personal communications. 

 BuRKiTT, M. C. Prehistory. 8°. Cambridge, 1921. 



Fleure, H. J. Some Early Neauthropic Types in Europe and their Modern 



Representatives. Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst., 1920, Vol. L, 



pp. 12-40. 



Gremiackii, a. Podkumskaia cerepnaia kryska i ieio morfologieeskie 



osobennosti (La calotte du crane de I'homme de Pod- 



koumok et ses caractgres morphologiques). Russ. Antropol. 



Journ., 1922, Vol. XII, pp. 92-110. 



1 The detailed evidence of the new Gibraltar skull and brain cast, just submitted to 

 the Royal Autliropological Institute (Nov. 1, 1927), goes far to support this assumption. 



