The Nowosiolka skull considered as a proof of the existence in recent history of forms belonging to H. primigenius.
Memoir of M. Kaimierz Stoly who presented by M. H. Hoyer on the 7th of January 1908.
During the last several years I published several works concerning the existence, in Poland, of a Spy-Neanderthaloid type. These works attracted the attracted the attention of the professor G. Schwalbe, seeing as the subject contradicted several of his opinions. According to Mr. Schwalbe, the Spy-Neanderthal race existed only in the ancient deluvian period, after which it went extinct, as well as the transitional forms between H. primigenius and H. sapiens did not go beyond the Paleolithic. To the contrary, I was of the opinion that the Spy-Neanderthaloid types, having a softer Neanderthal-type structure, existed not only in the ancient deluvian, but also in the later prehistoric periods and can be observed even in the historic period. Of course, there is no question of the existence beyond the Paleolithic of a pure Spy-Neanderthal type, exactly the same as the bones of Neanderthal, the Spy, and to a lesser degree, the bones of the Krapina; it consists only of the existence beyond the ancient deluvian of human bones having a structure that resembles that of the Spy-Neanderthal type, although a lot more delicate than this and even changed in some aspects thanks to the influence of the environment and growth. Mr. Schwalbe found that this way of looking at things was wrong and submitted a critique to the German Anthropological Congress of 1905, also in a memoir that appeared in the Zeitschrift f. Morphologie u. Anthropologie J. 1906. I’ve also been honored to write several letters on the subject. To solve the problems in question, I have submitted the materials previously studied to a new examination; my previous research, not being in the manner of the methods of Mr. Schwalbe did not permit comparison between my skulls and those which were considered by Misters Schwalbe, Klaatsch and Gorjanowie-Kramberger as representatives of the Spy-Neanderthal race. I started by studying use the method of Mr. Schwalbe the “scythic” cranium of Nowosiolka; it’s my opinion that it is the one amongst all the skulls to be found at the Anthropological laboratory of Varsovie that contains the characteristics the most representative of the Spy-Neanderthal race.
We have found archaeological facts concerning the skull in question in a memoir of Mr. Bydlowski “the Kourghans of Nowosiolka of the district of Lipowiec, Government of Kiev” (Swiatowit t. V. 1904); the kourghan from where the skull came is designated as number V. The skull of Nowosiolka must have belonged to a man that was thirty years old; concerning the period from which he came, we can determine this from the objects that were found with him in the tomb. Beside the skeleton, which was lying on his back, the head towards the west, was found a suit of armour complete with iron plates held together by rivets. On the other side were found two long spear points of which one had a flat side, the other was forged in a quadrangular bar. At the feet of the skeleton was a yellow clay goblet with a handle of ornate work, bordered on the inside with a black band; two parallel bands went around the inside of the goblet at the top. Beside the goblet was found a beautiful red clay amphora (antique vase) of conical shape, the bottom shaped obliquely. At the feet and the head of the dead were found two horse skeletons with the harness bridles and four bits the same as those that are used today. Concerning the harness we found only bits of leather and green and oxidized metal ornaments.
The present memoire is solely dedicated to the study of the position that the Nowosiolka skull when compared to the H. primigenius group, which includes the skulls of Neanderthal, of Spy and of Krapina, and also taking into consideration other diluvian skulls. I will not concern myself with the question of the relationship between H. primigenius and H. sapiens, nor of the problem of where the limit is to be marked between these two groups.
- Tori supraorbitales. I start with this characteristic, recognized as pithicoidal and having, according to M. Schwalbe the most importance as a distinctive trait of the Spy-Neanderthal type. M. Schwalbe affirms that all developed eyebrows cannot be considered as a sufficient enough characteristic to classify a skull amoung the representatives of the Spy-Neanderthal type; The indispensable condition is that the eyebrow protrusion must follow the borders of the entire orbital (eye sockets), with the exception of a slight depression which can be found on the median plane. M. Schwalbe calls these protrusions tori supraorbitales and considers them, the same as M. Klaatsch and M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger, as the most important characteristic amoung the Spy-Neaderthal race. Concerning H. Sapiens, we may sometimes find, according to M. Schwalbe, pronounced eyebrows but which instead of following the complete orbit to the joint of the frontal and cheek bones, hardly get to the middle after which they go obliquely straight up. There exists in H. sapiens, in the lateral part of the orbital, in a trilateral plane or even of a small depression that extends from the middle of the upper edge of the orbitals to where they meet the cheek bone. The lateral plane in question is called by M. Schwalbe planum supraorbitale. For M. Klaatsch and M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger and M. Schwalbe, the protrusion of the lateral part of the eyebrows never happens in modern skulls.According to M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger, the sus-orbital cut (indentation) in the case in question is an important morphological characteristic. According to this author, Neolithic skulls and skulls belonging to recent H. sapiens types present a sus-orbital cut sometimes very deep of which the lateral edge defines the sus-orbital protuberance. Contrarily, the skulls belonging to the H. primigenius type have only a very weak protuberance and laterally a small oblong extension. In addition, the sus-orbital protuberance ordinarily gives birth to a very flat “gutter” which, laterally and obliquely directed, transverses the torus supraobrbitalis and consists of the first developmental stage of the sus-orbital line, that is to say the first degree of separation of the sus-orbital prominences; they are continuous in H. primigenius, but are completely separate in H. sapiens. However, concerning tori and incisorae supraorbitales, M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger recognizes the existence of transitional types between H. primigenius and H. sapiens and cites as an example of the gradual disappearance of the tori, the Néolithic Babsk skull.In studying the Nowosiolka skull, I was careful to take into consideration the opinions that I just cited. My research has demonstrated that 1. the skull in question has extended eyebrows that follow the complete ridge of the orbitals until they reach the cheek bones; this corresponds exactly to the characteristic structure of H. primigenius; 2. that the sus-orbital cuts are greatly developed but the gutters which go off in a obliquely lateral direction are so weak and so shallow that they do not interrupt the continuity of the tori supraorbitales. We can observe similar relationships with the Krapina skull where the gutters are very flat presenting the first degree of separation of the tori supraorbitales in arcus supraciliaris and margo supraorbitales. According to M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger this cranial structure of Krapina is evidence in favor of the existence of recent transitional forms between H. primigenius and H. sapiens. To determine more exactly the thickness of the tore orbitales of the Nowosiolka skull, I measured them and give here the results of these measurements adding also the results found by M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger concerning the tori supraorbitales of several skulls from Krapina.
(see table on page 107)
|Skulls||Median edge||Point of the least thickness||Lateral edge|
|Neanderthal from the right||20 mm||12 mm||12 mm|
|Neanderthal from the left||20 mm||13 mm||13 mm|
|Nowosiolka from the right||16 mm||8 mm||9 mm|
|Nowosiolda from the left||16 mm||7 mm||10 mm|
|Krapina C||13.8 mm||9.5 mm||12.1 mm|
|Krapina D||11.9 mm||9.3 mm||11.5 mm|
|Krapina fragment||9 mm|
|Another Krapina fragment||4 mm|
This table shows that the thickness of the eyebrows of the Nowosiolka skull is very close to that of the Krapina skulls. It is true that the lateral part of the eyebrows are a little less thick than their equivalents in the Krapina skulls (with the exception of one of the fragments) but, in return, the median parts are thicker. In short, the eyebrows of the Nowosiolka skull, thanks to their non-interrupted continuity to the frontal-cheek suture, also in considering their thickness can be designated as tori supraorbitales and not as arcus supraciliaris, as is also recognized by M. Schwalbe based upon a photograph that I had the honour of sending him.
Concerning the eyebrows, the Nowosiolka skull is quite different from the H. sapiens type and can be joined to the Spy-Neanderthal-Krapina group.
- Interorbital index. [dakryon-dakryon x 100 / internal biorbit. diameter] (dacryon)Interorbital diameter (dakryon-dakryon) (dacryon)
|Spy I skull||32 mm||Krapina C skull||20 mm|
|Brüx skull||31 mm||Krapina fragment||28 mm|
|Neanderthal skull||30 mm||Cannstadt skull||26.2 mm|
|Nowosiolka skull||30 mm||Gibraltar skull||20 mm|
The interorbital diameter of the Nowosiolka skull does therefore not go beyond the dimensions of H. primigenius.
Diameter of the interal biorbital:
|Spy I||116-113 mm||Krapina C||107 mm|
|Neanderthal||112 mm||Krapina fragment||106 mm|
|Nowosiolka||110 mm||Brüx skull||104 mm|
The biorbital diameter of the Nowosiolka skull does therefore not go beyond the dimensions of H. primigenius.
The interorbital index of the Nowosiolka skull does therefore not go beyond the dimensions of H. primigenius.
III. Frontal-biorbital index [frontal minima width x 100 / external biorbital diameter]
Diameter of the external biorbital:
|Krapina D||126.2 mm||Spy I||123 mm|
|Neanderthal||126 mm||Nowosiolka||122 mm|
|Krapina fragment||126 mm||Krapina C||118 mm|
|Spy II||124 mm||Pithecanthropus||106 mm|
The external biorbital diameter of the Nowosiolka skull does therefore not go beyond the dimensions of H. primigenius.
Frontal minima width:
|Krapina D||100.4 mm||Tilbury||101 mm|
|Spy II||109 mm||Krapina C||98.5 mm|
|Neanderthal||107.5 mm||Podbaby||98 mm|
|Nowosiolka||104 mm||Cannstadt||96 mm|
|Spy I||104 mm||Gibraltar||95 mm|
|Krapina fragment||104 mm||Brüx||92 mm|
|Sligo||102 mm||Pithecanthropus||87 mm|
The frontal minima width of the Nowosiolka skull does therefore not go beyond the dimensions of H. primigenius.
Frontal biorbital index
|Spy II||87.9||Krapina C||83.4|
|Krapina D||87.3||Krapina fragment||82.5|
The frontal biorbital index of the Nowosiolka skull does therefore not go beyond the dimensions of H. primigenius.
- Bregmatic angle
|Cannstadt||60||Brüx||51.5 – 45.5|
|Krapina C||52||Spy I||46|
|Gibraltar||51 – 50||Pithecanthropus||37.5|
The brgmatic angle of the Nowosiolka skull is close to that of H. primigenius.
- Frontal angle (m. g. i.):
|Nowosiolka||78 *||Krapina D||65|
|Brüx||77 – 72.5||Neanderthal||62|
|Gibraltar||74 – 73||Pithecanthropus||52.5|
The frontal angle of the Nowosiolka skull differs from that of H. primigenius. However, it is to be noted that closeness of this measurement with the Brüx skull which is considered by M. Schwalbe, in terms of the frontal angle measurements as being transitional between H. primigenius and H. sapiens.
- Angle of frontal convexity (Angle A) (n. r. b.)
The angle (n. r. b.) of the Nowosiolka skull differs from those of H. primigenius.
Angle B (g. e. b.)
This angle is more important than the last one by which the opening is dependant, to a certain degree, of the position more of less depressed of the nasal opening.
|Spy||151||Krapina A (child)||134|
The angle (g. e. b.) of the Nowosiolka skull differs from those of H. primigenius.
VII. Angle: lambda – glabella – inion (l. g. i.)
|Krapina C||17||Spy II||16.5|
The angle lambda – glabella – inion of the Nowosiolka skull is close to that of H. primigenius.
VIII. Convex index of the frontal arch
A: [diameter: nasal-bregma x 100 / curve: nasal-bregma]
|Neanderthal||119 mm||Brüx||115 mm|
|Cannstadt||117 mm||Egisheim||115 mm|
|Nowosiolka||116 mm||Pithecanthropus||112-96 mm|
|Spy II||115 mm||Spy I||108 mm|
The diameter of the nasal-bragma of the Nowosiolka skull is within the range of H. primigenius. bregma
|Cannstadt||135 mm||Egisheim||130 mm|
|Brüx||135 mm||Spy II||124 mm|
|Neanderthal||133 mm||Pithecanthropus||120 – 100 mm|
|Nowosiolka||132 mm||Spy I||115 mm|
The nasal-bregma curve of the Nowosiolka skull is within the range of H. primigenius.
Index A) of the convexity of the frontal arch:
The index A) of the convexity of the frontal arch of the Nowosiolka skull is within the range of H. primigenius.
Index of the convexity of the frontal arch
B): [diameter: glabella-bregma x 100 / curve: glabella-bregma]
This index is more important than the one before by which the size depends, to a certain degree, to the position more or less depressed of the nasal cavity; in the case of deep concavity at the base of the nose the median curve of the front gains in length; however this is not an equivalent of the growth of the convexity of the frontal arch.
|Spy-Neanderthal||93.8 – 89.4|
|Krapina A (child)||90.3|
The index of the convexity of the frontal arch of the Nowosiolka skull does not go beyond the range of H. primigenius. It is also to be noticed that the Nowosiolka skull contains a persistent frontal suture for most of it’s length, and that the light bulges that accompany each side contribute to produce the effect of convexity fo the frontal arch when seen on the photograph of the skull in question in it’s norma lateralis.
- Glabello – cerebral index[diameter: frontal glabello x 100 / diameter frontal cerebral]Diameter of the frontal glabello:
|Neanderthal||38 mm||Nowosiolka||25 mm|
|Gibraltar||36 mm||Pithecanthropus||24 mm|
|Spy I||32 mm||Galley-Hill||24 mm|
|Spy II||30 mm||Brüx||24 mm|
|Brünn||30 mm||Cannstadt||13 mm|
|Krapina C||28.2 mm|
The frontal glabella diameter of the Nowosiolka skull is close to those of H. primigenius.
Diameter of the frontal cerebral
|Cannstadt||104 mm||Pithecanthropus||80 – 95 mm|
|Brüx||99 mm||Neanderthal||86 mm|
|Nowosiolka||99 mm||Krapina C||86 mm|
|Brünn||96 mm||Gibraltar||82 mm|
|Galley-Hill||95 mm||Spy I||81 mm|
|Spy II||92 mm|
The diameter of the frontal cerebral of the Nowosiolka skull differs from those of H. primigenius.
|Spy I||41.5 – 40.9||Nowosiolka||25-26|
The glabello-cerebral index of the Nowosoilka skull is beyond the range of H. primigenius. M. Schwalbe came to the conclusion that this index is very important and that it permits us to mark a limit between the H. primigenius and H. sapiens groups which are to date not linked by the existence of any intermediate form. However, the table below shows that the skulls of Brünn, of Egisheim and even that of Pithecanthropus consist of similar transitional forms. This fact is all the more remarkable when we consider that M. Schwalbe does not put aside the possibility of genetic development of Pithanthropus and H. primigenius. In this hypothesis, we would have to wait until Pithecanthropus develops precisely this distinctive and important trait to a degree as pronounced as H. primigenius. The previous table proves the contrary. The two facts mentioned above: the existence of intermediate forms and the reality that Pithecanthropus is of such form concerning the glabello-cerebral index, considerably diminishes the value that M. Schwalbe attributes to the index in question.
- Angle of the protrusion of the part of the frontal cerebral (a. t. h.)
|Spy I||155.5||Spy II||147|
The angle in question for the Nowosiolka skull differs from that of H. primigenius. The small size of this angle of the Nowosiolka skull must certainly have as a cause the median convexity of the frontal produced by the persistence of the frontal suture.
- Index of the convexity of the cerebral part of the frontal[diameter of the cerebral part x 100 /curve of the cerebral part]
Curve of the cerebral part of the frontal
|Cannstadt||113 mm||Neanderthal||95 mm|
|Brüx||105 mm||Pithecanthropus||98 – 78 mm|
|Nowosiolka||105 mm||Spy I||88 mm|
|Spy II||100 mm|
The curve of the cerebral part of the frontal of the Nowosiolka skull differs from those of H. primigenius.
Index of the convexity of the cerebral part:
This index for the Nowosiolka skull is within the range of H. primigenius.
XII. Index of the position of the bregma
[diameter g. w. x 100 / diameter glabella-inion]
|Galley-Hill||204 mm||Nowosiolka||194 mm|
|Brünn||201 mm||Gibraltar||187 mm|
|Neanderthal||199 mm||Brüx||186-180 mm|
|Spy I||198 mm||Pithecanthropus||181 mm|
|Krapina D||197.5 mm||Cannstadt||174 mm|
|Spy II||196 mm|
The glabella-inion diameter of the Nowosiolka skull is close to that of H. primigenius.
Index of the position of the bregma
The index of the position of the bregma is within the range of H. primigenius.
XIII. Fronto-parietal index
[minima width of front x 100 / maxima width of front]
|Krapina A||72.5||Krapina C||66.4|
The fronto-parietal index of the Nowosiolka skull is within the range of H. primigenius.
XIV. Index of the convexity of the parietals
[diameter of the sagittal suture x 100 / curve of the sagittal suture]
|Krapina D||92.8||Krapina (adult)||86.3|
This index for the Nowosiolka skull is within the range of H. primigenius.
- Index of the parietals
[sagittal curve of the parietals x 100 / sagittal curve of the front]
The index of the parietals are within the range of H. primigenius.
XVI. Cephalic index
[maxima width of the skull x 100 / maxima length of the skull]
|Galley-Hill||205 mm||Brüx||195-190 mm|
|Brünn||204 mm||Gibraltar||192.5-190 mm|
|Nowosiolka||200 mm||Pithecanthropus||181 mm|
|Neanderthal||199 mm||Krapina C||178 mm|
|Spy II||198 mm||Cannstadt||178 mm|
|Krapina D||197.5 mm|
The maxima length of the Nowosiolka skull is close to that of H. primigenius.
Maxima width (euryon – euryon)
|Krapina D||169 mm||Tilbury||140 mm|
|Krapina C||149 mm||Brünn||139 mm|
|Gribraltar||148 mm||Brüx||135-130 mm|
|Neanderthal||147 mm||Pithecanthropus||133 mm|
The maxima width of the Nowosiolka skull is close to the range of H.primigenius.
|Krapina C||83.7||Spy I||72.2|
The cephalic index of the Howosiolka skull is close to that of H. primigenius.
XVII. Height of the cranial arch in relationship to the glabella-inion diameter (Kalottenhöbe)
|Cannstadt||105 mm||Gibraltar||85 mm|
|Nowosiolks||104 mm||Neanderthal||81-80.5 mm|
|Brünn||103 mm||Krapina D||83.5 mm|
|Galley-Hill||97 mm||Krapina C||82 mm|
|Brüx||92-85 mm||Spy I||81 mm|
|Spy II||87 mm||Pithecanthropus||62 mm|
The height of the cranial arch in relationship with the glabella-inion diameter of the Nowosiolka skull differs from that of H. primigenius.
XVIII. Index of the height of the cranial arch in relationship to the glabella-inion (Kalottenhöbe index)
[diameter c. h. (cranial arch height) x 100 / diameter: glabella-inion]
|Cannstadt||60.34 – 58.99||Gibraltar||45.4|
This index of the Nowosiolka skull is outside the range of H. primigenius.
XIX. The height of the cranial arch in relationship with the glabella-lambda diameter (Lambda-Kalottenhöbe)
|Cannstadt||75 mm||Neanderthal||57-54.5 mm|
|Egisheim||70 mm||Brüx||56 mm|
|Nowosiolka||66 mm||Krapina D||53 mm|
|Spy II||58 mm||Spy I||51 mm|
The height of the cranial arch in relationship with the glabella-lambda diameter of the Nowosiolka skull differs from the that of H. primigenius.
- Index of the height of the cranial arch in relationship with the glabella-lambda diameter
[diameter k. p. (height of the cranial arch) x 100 / glabella-lambda diameter]
|Spy II||31.3||Spy I||27.4|
This index of the height of the cranial arch of the Nowosiolka skull is close to that of H. primigenius.
XXI. Lambda angle (l. g. i.)
|Nowosiolka||82||Gibraltar||73 – 69|
|Krapina C||76||Krapina D||65|
The lambda angle of the Nowosiolka skull differs from that of H. primigineius.
XXII. The angle of the opisthion (o. i. g.)
The angle of the opsthion of the Nowosiolka skull differs from that of H. primigeius.
XXIII. Occipital convexity index
[diameter: lambda-opisthion x 100 / curve: lambda-inion-opisthion]
The occipital convexity index is close to that of H. primigenius.
XXIV. Configuration of the zygomatico-maxilla.
According to M. Garjonowie-Kramberger, the zygomatico-maxilla suture of the Krapina C skull has a different configuration from that observed on recent H. sapiens skulls. The sub-orbital part of the cheek bone of the skull in question doesn’t extend as far towards the nose and is not as receded as modern and Neolithic European skulls. The result is that the zygomatico-maxilla suture of this skull goes vertically down and then turns towards the back. This configuration is related to the considerable development of the sub-orbital part of the maximilla which normally brings about the absence of canine dimples. However, with the Nowosiolka skull, the configuration of the zygomatico-maxilla suture is similar to that of the Krapina skull; the canine dimples are also missing. Therefore, it can be said that the configuration of the zygomatico-maxilla of the Nowosiolka skull does not differ from the same structure of H. primigenius.
XXV. The level of the zygomatic eyebrow. The position of the zygomatic eyebrow in relationship with the german horizontal constitutes according to M. Garjonowie-Kramberger an important morphological trait. In recent H. Sapiens, the eyebrows in question extend ordinarily either above the horizontal plane, either at the same level and only on rare occasions will it be found below this plane. With the Krapina C skull, on the temporal part of the zygomatic eyebrow starts at the level of the german horizontal plane but then lowers so much that the anterior upper edge of the cheekbone apophysis is found below the plane in question. M. Fairpont and Klaatsch think that a configuration like this existed on the Spy I skull. A similar structre can be found in several anthropoids: the gorilla and the chimpanzee. On the Nowosiolka skull the structure is exactly the same as that described on the Krapina C skull. Therefore, in terms of the zygomatic eyebrow on the Nowosiolka skull it is not different that that found in H. primigenius.
XXVI. Akanthion-prosthion diameter
|Spy I||28 mm||Krapina C||21 mm|
|Krapina E||27.7 mm||Nowosiolka||18 mm|
|Krapina F||24.7 mm|
The akantion-prosthion diameter is close to that of H. primigenius.
XXVII. Height of the inferior jaw index
[height of the jaw at the 2-me molar x 100 / height of the jaw at the symphysis]
Height of the jaw at the 2-me molar:
|Krapina H||34.3-33 mm||Krapina B||25 mm|
|Spy I||33 mm||Krapina E||24.1 mm|
|Krapina I||32.2 mm||Arcy||24 mm|
|Krapina D||29 mm||La-Naulette||23 mm|
|Nowosiolka||28 mm||Mularnaud||22 mm|
|Krapina G||27.5 mm||Krpaina C||20 mm|
|Krapina F||27.4 mm|
The height of the jaw at the 2-me molar is within the range of H. primigenius
The height of the jaw at the symphysis
|Krapina I||42.3 mm||Krapina F||31 mm|
|Krapina H||40 mm||La-Naulette||31 mm|
|Spy I||38 mm||Krapina C||29-28.5 mm|
|Nowosiolka||35 mm||D’Arcy||28 mm|
|Krapina E||35 mm||Malarnaud||26 mm|
|Krapina D||33-30.5 mm||Krapina B (child)||25.3 mm|
|Krapina G||31.5-30.4 mm|
The height of the jaw at the symphysis is within the range of H. primigenius.
According to M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger, the inferior jaw of H. primigenius is noticeable due to the considerable height of the jaw at the symphysis; numerous diluvian skulls also have some height at the symphysis that goes beyond the upper molar. M. Gorjanowie-Kramberger considers that when a similar structure is seen in recent H. sapiens, it is an atavic variation. This exists also on the Nowosiolka skull.
Index of the height of the inferior jaw:
|Krapina G||92.1-88.8 mm||Malarnaud||84.6 mm|
|Spy I||86.8 mm||Nowosiolka||80 mm|
|D’Arcy||85.7 mm||La-Naulette||74.19 mm|
|Krapina H||85.7 mm||Krapina I||71.3 mm|
|Krapina B||84.8 mm||Krapina E||68.8 mm|
The inferior jaw height index is within the range of H. primigenius.
XXVIII. Thickness of the main part of the symphysis of the lower jaw
|Krapina I||74 mm||Spy I||68 mm|
|Krapina C||70.4 mm||Krapina H||66.5 mm|
|Nowosiolka||70 mm||D’Ochos||66 mm|
This distance on the Nowosiolka skull is within range of H. primigenius.
XXIX. Anterior mandible angle
|Krapina H||106||Krapina D||94|
|Krapina G||103.5||Krapina I||94|
|Krapina C||96.5||Spy I||84.5|
The anterior mandible angle is not within the range of H. primigenius.
XXX. Teeth size
See table on page 120
The results from the table show that the Nowosiolka skull has some teeth of considerable size of which some correspond to the Krapina skull. We notice that in the case of the Nowosiolka skull a reduction in teeth size and a reduction in the whole dental system since the wisdom teeth have not yet appeared. Concerning the teeth size, the Nowosiolka skull approaches that of H. primigenius.
I present the results of my observations concerning the Nowosiolka skull in the following table on page 121
This table shows that, out of 47 characteristics studied, the Nowosiolka skull possesses 23 which are identical to that of H. primigenius, 11 that are close to that of H. primigenius and only 13 that differ from H. primigenius. These results prove that the Nowosiolka skull possesses in some aspects a structure as primitive as the H. primigenius type and permits us to establish a morphological link between this skull and those of Spy-Neanderthal-Krapina.
Not forgetting that the Nowosiolka skull does not belong to the ancient diluvian, nor the Paleolithic, but to recent history.
- Schwalbe affirms that the Spy Neanderthal race only existed on earth until the middle of the quarterly period, period when they became extinct and replaced by H. sapiens. It is true that M. Schwalbe admits the existence of transitional forms between H. primigenius and H. sapiens but according to him, these forms to not possess the characteristic traits of H. primigenius and they probably belong to the middle diluvian because they rarely go beyond the Paleolithic.
The analysis of the Nowosiolka skull has shown that it contains numerous characteristics which are only associated with H. primigenius. Several very important, such as the tori supraorbitalis, the low level of the zygomatic eyebrow, the considerable thickness of the mandible. Also, the Nowosiolka skull according to the bregmatic angle considerably approaches that of the Brüx skull, which according to M. Schwalbe, constitutes a transitional form between H. primigenius and H. sapiens.
In conclusion, the facts cited earlier demonstrate that 1. that morphological forms belonging to H. primigenius existed not only in the Paleolithic, but also later eras as well as recent history 2. that transitional forms between H. primigenius and H. sapiens contain distinctive traits that differ from H. primigenius. IT is possible that the opinion of M. Schwalbe, that H. primigenius existed only during the ancient diluvian is true only for regions in southern Europe where the Spy-Neanderthal-Krapina type did not live beyond the Paleolithic; but this can not be applied to all of Europe. We must assume that this race was progressively pushed towards the north, where by this fact, it could survive much more longer than in the south of Europe.
I attach to this work the medien diagraphic countour of the Nowosiolka skull (fig. 1) and four pictures of this skull representing it’s norma verticalis (fig 2), norma frontialis ( fig. 3), normal lateralis (fig. 4) and a position which permits the appreciation of the tori supraorbitalis and their uninterrupted continuum (fig 5).
I wish to express my sincere thanks to M. Schwalbe, L Kollmann, A. Rauber, and K. Maska who have made available several of their precious works. I thank also M. Z. Weyberg for the excellent reproductions of the Nowosiolka skull.
Anthropology Laboratory and Museum of Industry and Agriculture of Varsovie.