Vloga in mesto neandertalcev v človeški evoluciji

Povzetek

This paper is an extension of a sim ilar survey (Škerlj '51). T hough the discussion on m an’s natural origin from a P rim ate form is basically settled, there has been much controversy as y et about the m ode of hum an evolution from th a t (hypothetical) ancient Prim ate. F irst a su rv ey is given on the paleontological m aterial available so far. The subfamily Australopithecinae may represent an adaptive radiation. It is fairly sure that, towards the end of the Pliocene period, the Australopithecines acquired an upright gait; they were also the first known Primates who, very probably, fed on more meat and became primitive hunters. Devoid of any bodily means of defence they became dependant on some kind of implements. From many points of view the transition from a purely gathering economy to a hunting one is of the greatest importance in the evolution of man’s ancestry. But the actually known Australopithecines are geologically too young to be considered real forebears of man. Therefore, the Pliocene layers, probably somewhere between Kenya and South Africa, are of the greatest interest to scientists studying human evolution. A short review on human remains is presented; Kanam, Kanjera, Swanscombe, and Fontéchevade are duly considered. Ternifine is mentioned as a probably Pi[1]thecanthropoid form of man. There are few important news regarding Neandertals and fossil Sapiens finds. Though the inventory of fossil human finds is quitenumerous as oompared w ith th at of some 30 years ago, it is too scarce as yet to allow for only one interpretation of hum an evolution. In fact it involves m any problems and hypotheses. There are still some physical anthropologists who insist upon a stadial uni[1]linear evolution of m an, as offered by Stolyhw o (' 08) and H rdlicka (' 27). This theory implies, however, an orthogenetic evolution and thus a supernatural teleo[1]logically thinking being; it has, apparently, nothing to1 do w ith D arw inistic evolution based on n atu ra l selection, isolation, and chance m utation. O ne must adm it, however, th a t this unilinear concept of hum an evolution m ade some sense some 90 to 30 years ago, and th at hum an paleontological m aterial then available seemed to support such an exceptional theory of evolution. A fter the disoovery of the Australopithecinae and the relatively m odern hum an rem ains from the Middle Pleistocene a t least, this seems som ew hat outmoded. Besides, to compare only adult forms from a purely anatom ical point of view does not cover the whole affair. Though m any anthropologists — e. g. H rdlicka him self — had a m ore than adequate anatom ical an d even m edical training, they lacked in bio[1]logical erudition and thinking. To avoid difficulties for the unilinear stadial theory the simplest w ay (still practised b y some authors) is not to recognize or even mention the finds at Kanam, K anjera, Swansoombe and Fontéchevade. There are, of course, other real problem s such as Steinheim o r some Palestine specimens. At any rate, these qnasi-N eandertals allow for various hypotheses as yet. W here did the »classic« N eandertals come from? H ad they developed outside Europe or are they genuine descendants of a Steinheim form of m an? W hy and how did they disappear at the end of the first W ürm Stadial? W ere they wiped o u t or am algam ated b y a more successful m odem form o f Homo? A re there no other reasons for their disappearance? Coon’s hypothesis of hybridization ('39) seems to m ake sense, a t least for Palestine Man so far. Howell’s study (' 52) is discussed in this connection. As for N eandertal Man, his skeletal remains do not seem to fit neither Allen’s nor Bergm ann’s rules. The N eandertals were relatively short, had a big head w ith a large surface area, and relatively big hands and feet. Therefore, contrary to Howell’s estim ation, it seems th a t the N eandertals w ere not w ell adapted to cold clim ates. Also, a t th a t tim e (W ürm I), »classic« N eandertals very probably were already too specialized to get adapted to the clim atic stresses of a G lacial. Considering th e fetalization theory, according to D e Beer ('48), N eandertal Man m ight be the Teal ancestor o f Homo sapiens. Beyond doubt the fetalization theory has a sound core; yet when com paring some relatively prim itive characters of the Australopithecinae and Homo sapiens w ith some ap p aren tly specialized features of Pithecanthropus and N eandertal Man, there arise some difficulties. As shown in Fig. 3, w here the interaction o f fetalization and gerontom orphization is shown, even the fetalization theory does not seem adequate to overcome such difficulties. T herefore another hypothesis w hich duly considers fetalization (with encephalization) as w ell as geronto(thero)m orphization is p resen ted to fu rth er discussion (Fig. 6). It is a striking fact — to m y knowledge in discussions on evolution not duly considered as yet — th a t the female »form« o f m an and some other Primates, in m any characters (even on the skeleton) represents the biologically more fetalized, paedom orphically prim itive, relatively unspecialized and, therefore, evolutionally m ore progressive form. As a m atter of course, in the hypothesis presented by Fig. 6 the position and rôle of both Steinheim and P alestine Man isproblem atic. But, considering all know n facts, and the fetalization theory as well, at present the above hypothesis shows one possible reconstruction of hum an evolution a t least. There remains to m ention the disputable position of N eandertal Man, but a somewhat different version of the presented reconstruction m ay fit also other points of view (cf. Le Gros Clark, '55).