B. Lukács

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

CRIP RMKI H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary

President of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomic Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

This study uses 3 disjoint kinds of References, and so disjoint that will have 3 lists of References at the end. (A remote analogy is Russian books, listing papers of Cyrillic and Latin letters separately.

Internet sites are referred as #x. Printed scientific material, including genuine legends &c., plus matter from newspapers, journals and so on are cited by the usual [x]. Fiction books of any kind, however, will be cited as {x}. Notes are marked by (@x).

The reason of such a structure can be understood from the text.

In this study I consequently distinguish Hungary, Hungarian, which refers to state, and Magyar, which is an ethnos and language. The Magyar state ceased to exist at the Christmas of 1000.

Primes, bars, dots &c. are written on Latin letters if possible in the ASCII code, or substituted the next possible character. In Magyar orthography the 2 most unusual letters, o and u not with Umlaut (ö, ü) but two primes ("quotation marks") are substituted with ô and û, respectively, otherwise the Magyar orthography is correct. (For your information: quotation mark on o means simply the long counterpart of short ö, and similarly with u.)

All quotations from documents of Magyar language, if not indicated otherwise, is translated by myself.

In the present study conspecificity or opposite is crucial. So we cannot use the terms Homo sapiens vs. Homo neanderthalensis until the problem is not settled (and I cannot settle it). Moreover, it is an open question if Neanderthals died out completely.

There is no doubt that Linné described moderns as Homo sapiens Linné. Species names have precedence, so the name "sapiens" is theory-independent, and nobody challenges the genus name Homo. Then if Neanderthals were conspecific with moderns, then they were/are H. sapiens Linné too. Therefore we cannot pose the question who invented Upper Paleolithic, sapiens or Neanderthal until conspecificity is open.

Consequently in this study, if not explicitly stated otherwise for specific reasons, I use the following terms. Gracile, honoured people will be called Anatomically Modern Humans, briefly AMH. The strong, stocky, low-brow cold-adapted people will be called Neanderthals (which is not a taxonomic term). Erectus will mean descendants of Chinese or Javan humans earlier called Sinanthropus pekinensis and Pithecanthropus erectus, either conspecific or not with us.

Nice or intelligentsia-type facial characteristics are not necessarily evidences for species level. Think about various sexual preferences about attractive faces in different cultures. And if that is not enough, think about differences of dogs, all conspecific with each other and with wolves.

The present topic grasps human imagination in some extent. I would like to restrict the treatment scientific. Now, the area is too diverse, so nobody can understand everything in every cited source. Referred scientific journals are, of course, above doubt (by definition), but one may misinterpret or misclassify Internet sites. I try to do my best.

There is a similar problem with books. Anybody can edit a book if he has money, and then it may contain a hoax, hidden political propaganda or such. Now, from this point of view, Eastern Central and Eastern Europe were unproblematic until 1989. Books were checked and freelance researchers did not exist. Some academic researches may have been boring but they were either honest or directly influenced by politics; and of course in that geographic region I can see through direct politics, and frequently indirect one too. Outside of the eastern half of Europe I have only guesses.

There will frequently appear a cultural term originating from a village name in South France. The French name is Chatelperronian; however in South France the population is either Provencal or Gascon. Provencal is a separate language with very long history; Gascon is either a language, or a dialect of any of the two. Therefore it seems to be proper to use the original form: Castelperronian.

I will use here this form. It is an alternate form in the literature, and Hungary signed the Charter of Minority Languages. France did not.

Until 1999 we may have told that, good, or bad, History settled the question, and, since we cannot change Past (@1), we do not have to comment the event (we shall see in due course, what). But having the Lapedo Child been discovered (if he is what the discoverers believe about him), we cannot avoid at least comments.

The question of humanity or bestiality, inferiority and final fate, even colour of Neanderthal Man haunts Europeans for almost one century and half. Opinions are very diverse. In this Introduction we mainly avoid References, because they would be almost inexhaustible. However observe that hundred year old books generally characterise Neanderthals as erect but not quite fully, with strange gait. The reconstructions up to the middle of the last century showed "bestial" faces. The Krapina Neanderthals may have been cannibals, but cannibalism in itself cannot explain the caricaturistical ugly and base faces of the pictures; note that the New Guinean tribesmen (I do not name the specific tribe here for Human Rights) who ate a Rockefeller with sago sauce in the 50's were not depicted so. As for outward appearance, note the words of the great H. G. Wells [1]. The Outline of History tells us that the Homo neanderthalensis had been ousted from his caves and stone mines, because the Cro-Magnons, similarly to modern ethnologists, considered them a distinct species. The true humans were not interested in the Neanderthals, even not to rape the women and so cause mixing, which mixing is indeed not seen.

Wells had a great impact on readers, and his opinion was more or less the same as that of the famous Teilhard de Chardin. In addition, Neanderthal reconstructions of that time were ugly, bestial &c. So the absolute majority of scholars (but not all; see later) and readers of Europe accepted that they had nothing common with these old Europeans: they simply "replaced" them. (Neanderthal fossils are almost unknown outside of Greater Europe, i.e. Europe + Near East plus the Caspian region. In details see #1.)

The exact way of "replacement" was doubtful. Some martial-minded people were proud that his ancestors were able to exterminate the previous, bestial and short-limbed population. Some may have guessed that the newcomers ate the original population, but this idea, being inconvenient, was not discussed too much. Some people got a better conscience by telling that the Neanderthals were clumsy hunters compared to the famous Cro-Magnons, or at least their hunting tools were poorer. So, when the newcomers arrived, Neanderthals started to become loosers in the competition, and so they went to the peripheries, maybe to the neighbourhood of the ice sheet. Then their number went down, and finally they became extinct quite peacefully. (I only note here that valid UNO declarations would prohibit this practice too, so it is pointless to look for excuses. But UNO declarations are not valid retroactively. It would be better simply to understand what happened with Neanderthals; which is, of course, not easy.)

For the information of more proper Europeans (including those now living in the Americas and Australia as well) I note that the conscience of all Hungarians is good in this question ex officio. The Hungarian State was founded 1000 years ago (@2) by tribes originating in the East, probably behind the Ural Mountain (@3), and very probably that territory did not have Neanderthal population in any time. We are only spectators of the argumentation about the fate and passing of Neanderthals (#2, #3); we had no responsibility, not having been present at the critical time.

Anyways, it is difficult for an AMH (anatomically modern human) to look impartially at the old controversy. He is anatomically modern, the Neanderthals were not, so they are "ugly" and "unnatural". A lot of different beliefs exist which may be superstitions, e.g. that only AMH's could speak, only AMH's had symbolism, or that AMH = UP (Upper Palaeolithic). These ideas will be discussed in due course. Obviously if Neanderthals had been unable to have art, they were very different from us; and, in addition, if they could not speak, they were far below us for practical viewpoint at least.

This automatism is so strong in Nordic Indo-Europeans, dominating science/media that in an interesting article of the German journal Spiegel [2] a surprising drawing illustrates the Neanderthal-AMH controversy. Two Homos stand confronted. Since Neanderthal bones are short, AMH's are long, the AMH is tall and blond, the Neanderthal is short and black. Now, according to the African Eve hypothesis (accepted in the article) the AMH is the newcomer from Africa; this is the reason of being tall, especially long-limbed with a large crural index, but then I would expect pigmentation. The Neanderthal is autochtonous glacial European, so if there are no counterevidence, he must be taken as depigmented as a Scandinavian, but not so on the picture. Maybe the idea is strange for a German that somebody can be in the same time short, wide and blond.

In the remaining part of this Introduction I recapitulate the story in chronologic order until the Lapedo Child, who will be discussed first in Chapter 2.

We have seen, what was the majority opinion about 1922. H. G. Wells was not attacked scientifically when he had written in a widespread book that 1) the Neanderthal was another species; 2) he has been completely eliminated; 3) the process was advantageous and right; 4) the conquerors did nothing with the conquered, even did not rape the women. (I wonder how Wells could have evidence in this last point: if they were another species, they could not cross-breed with AMH, so we cannot see hybrids even if they behaved as usual for conquerors; however here is also some nicety, whither I will return.) However this was not the only standpoint. Wells himself writes that one scholar seemed to discover Neanderthal-like populations in Greece, another in Western Ireland. Obviously in these places now we cannot found full-blooded Neanderthals, so if something exists, that may only be a Neanderthal component in the population, so then cross-breeding would be possible. Let us see these 2 opinions from the beginning of the last century.

Obviously, conquered populations retreat to the ends of continents, if they are not seafarers. Remember South African Sans or Paleoindians of Tierra del Fuego. So the wildernesses of Thessaly or the westernmost of the Western Hibernia are hopeful locations.

Greeks always mentioned two types of sophont aliens: centaurs and satyrs. Few of them doubted their existence, although centaurs somehow rather belonged to heroic ages. However we know that to a convent of the Seven Sages, in Corynth, the horse shepherds of Tyrant Periandros, one of the Sages, carried a newborn centaur. Sage Thales examined the infant and told that he did not like the manners of the shepherds. I do not discuss centaurs more; obviously Neanderthals did not have 6 limbs. However even classical Greeks believed in satyrs in the woods. Satyrs are generally man-like with minor "animal" traits. Now, according to Plutarch [3], during a campaign of Sulla, about 86 BC, a satyr was captured in a nymphaeon near Apollonia, Illyricum and carried to Sulla. Interpreters asked him to get omens an such, but his speech was unintelligible between the sounds of horse and goat, so the general sent him away. Now one can contemplate if satyrs were surviving Neanderthals, and then he can look for Neanderthal traces in Greece. It is interesting to note that in a historical novel of hers {1} Mary Renault took the liberty to look for surviving Neanderthals + pony horses in Thessaly centaurs about BC 1100. However this is definitely not Greek opinion.

It is interesting to note that in a novel about surviving and superior Neanderthals {2} the Irish author chooses Greek and Irish Neanderthals (and a Greek mermaid) for principal actors. However this already belongs to the Irish reception of Neanderthals, which will come well at the second half of this study. Here we only mention the fact that it seems, some Irishmen honour the Neanderthals. (Anyway, they are not English.) Now, the idea that Neanderthal blood can still be detected on the western coast of Ireland, comes from the (non-Irish) American anthropologist Madison Grant, who wrote in Chap. 2 of Ref. [4]: "Along with other ancient and primitive racial remnants, ferocious gorilla like living specimens of the Neanderthal man are found not infrequently on the west coast of Ireland, and are easily recognized by the great upper lip, bridgeless nose [remember this; B. L.], beetling brow and low growing hair, and wild and savage aspect... The...large upper lip, the low forehead, and the superorbital ridges are clearly Neanderthal characters. The other traits...are common to many primitive races. This is the Irishman of caricature...".

So at the beginning of last century Wells believed the Neanderthals so ugly that AMH's even did not rape the women; Grant, more practically, believes in mixing and considers a part of Irishmen ugly because of it. But they agree that there is no Neanderthal blood in Anglo-Saxons and agree that it is good in this way.

Between the World Wars the majority opinion was the complete replacement of Neanderthals, but there were opposite standpoints too. I cite only one. In 1937 Stolyhwo expressed his opinion that Neanderthals are not more than simply a race; it took its role in the formation of the present humanity, and exists as a component [5]. It is not surprising that this was his opinion; in 1908 he reported a Xth century Neanderthal from Southern ("Austrian") Poland, buried with iron armory [6], indicating Neanderthals in historical times @4. Many scholars guessed that Australian aborigines contain "more Neanderthal component" than other modern populations; they imagined the connection through, e.g. the owner of Wadjak skull. That twenty years were full with discussions about eugenics, races &c., not only in Germany. It is interesting to see that in Germany Weinert [7] does not want to take sides; however tentatively he tells that the whole Middle Palaeolithic humanity cannot be a dead side branch, and maybe the Western European Neanderthals died out without inheritors, but Eastern ones, e.g. the Palestinian Neanderthals, may have evolved into the present humanity.

In the next 2 decades the great majority of scholars were at the opinion that 1) Neanderthal was a separate species, and 2) our species completely replaced it until 30,000 BP. Indeed, there were no later skeletons (if we forget about Stolyhwo's tomb and a few similar reports), no Neanderthal tribes were found in any remote corners (@5) and reports of strange individuals (Almas and other, even more indefinite wild men and women) are always "irreproducible". According to my sources, the leading theory of the 50's was the Presapiens hypothesis (see e.g. [8]). The Presapiens was a hypothetic predecessor of us with generalized properties, with weakening or missing torus supraorbitalis, contemporary with the early Neanderthals (@6). From the early Neanderthals originated the classical Neanderthals of Western Europe, from the presapients the true H. sapiens lurking somewhere (the East?) until cca. 40,000 BP. Then came the migration and complete replacement. In this context Stolyhwo's Neanderthal knight either belonged a miraculously surviving small tribe or is a misclassification. Somebody is either a full-blooded Neanderthal or a full-blooded sapiens.

And then came Loring Brace. Books from the end of the 60's start to tell that "...however Brace has an opposite standpoint" [9]. And still he has it today: "I have long maintained that Neanderthals are obviously the ancestors of living Europeans ... To produce a modern European out of a Neanderthal, all you have to do is to reduce the robustness" #4. It is interesting for me to read this because, as told above, Hungarian population has a strong component which cannot have any tie with Neanderthals (?) and which is called "white" or "Caucasian" in the USA only because Hungary is in Central Europe. It seems that Brace's crusade for the lost case of an extinct community has become finally successful: the pendulum went at least half back.

To the middle of the 60's the dominant opinion had become that Neanderthals belonged to the same species as we; only have died out. I think at least 3 reasons were behind this.

1) In Palestine some skeletons were between the Neanderthal and modern characters, e.g. they were generally Neanderthal but with chin [10], especially the Shkul skulls. Hybridisation is a strong argument to be conspecific; but see this later.

2) To the end of the 60's it turned out that we are genetically quite near to the two species of chimpanzee and to the gorilla [11]. The statement became quantitative in the middle of 70's, but in the 60's already it was felt (@7) that if we procreate congeneric human species without limit, then we must use many hominoid genera too, and we may have problems later. H. erectus is different enough, but why to handle Neanderthals apart?

3) The general political climate preferred to take conspecific as many humans as possible. Anyways, all living humans are in the same species (not only because of the UNESCO declarations; they can cross-breed and the next generation remains completely fertile, so they are conspecific according to biological definitions as well), and we know the consequences when this was not believed; it is less dangerous to go in the opposite direction and include Neanderthal as well, until no counterevidence exists.

So in 1965 Neanderthals are H. sapiens neanderthalensis and modern humans are H. sapiens sapiens. But then they could mix without problem. Then:

1) why did not they do it; or

2) if they did, where is/was the result (apart from Shkul)?

I seem to get the impression that no clear answer was given. Of course, one may go back to Teilhard and Wells, telling that Neanderthals were so inferior for technique, art &c. that they remained apart when meeting and no serious opponents, and that they were so ugly that even the conqueror males did not molest the captured females; however it is unsound to formulate such an opinion if Neanderthal is only a race.

In 1975 came a somewhat indirect evidence for conspecificity, when King and Wilson estimated the human-chimpanzee "genetic distance" as mere 0.62 [12]. 3 years later Bruce and Ayala reduced the distance to 0.39 [13]. Since the average distance between close Drosophyla fly species is 0.83, genetically human and chimpanzee are congeneric, probably close congeneric. (Remember Linnaeus, who introduced, at least tentatively, two species in Genus Homo: Homo sapiens L. and Homo trogdolytes L. Gorilla was then still unknown.) Indeed, the human-chimpanzee distance seems rather small even for neighbouring good species, rather similar to that of two sibling species or so.

At this moment I would have been confused how to force several species between Homo sapiens and Homo (earlier Pan) trogdolytes, namely: H. erectus, H. habilis, H. (Australopithecus) africanus, H. (A.) boisei, &c. But at that time I was not yet head of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Hungarian Academy of Science, I was only looking for solutions of the Einstein Equation and for termo/hydrodynamics of Heavy Ion Collisions. Taxonomy was not my business. Anyway, eliminating at least H. neanderthalensis was a step into the reasonable direction. But from this moment multiregionalism and Loring Brace could not be stopped.

Let us repeat. From 1978 neanderthalensis is no more than a subspecies; I, as a physicist, would prefer this term to race, which has become something half political (@8). However one may at least contemplate if erectus was a separate species or it was also a subspecies. Maybe australopithecus was a separate species; or a subspecies of trogdolytes? One cannot decisively tell until 4 million year old nuclear DNA is not reconstructed, and we are far from that.

I emphasize that this is not theory, but necessary consequence. Individuals can mix, with gene flow, converge &c. unless they belong to disjoint species or if they are strongly separated, generally geographically. Very tricky explanations are needed to exclude Neanderthals to mix with AMH's arriving into Europe; and a priori nothing prevents Neanderthals to change into "modern" directions if the environment prefers this.

The last but one milestone of this Introduction is 1987, when Cann, Stoneking and Wilson compared mitochondrial DNA from living humans [14]. The results were surprising. African average variations were maximal, suggesting that (maternal) ancestors came dominantly from Africa. In a most parsimonious (?) tree after the first split one branch remained in Africa, the other contained non-Africans and still some Africans. The "mixed" branch then splitted into a small group of Asians and a big group still from all continents. The big subgroup then divided into 3. One was Australian, the second contained almost all Australians, some New Guineans and some Asians. The third was still very inhomogeneous in geographic sense, containing all Europeans, a lot of Asians, a number of Africans and New Guineans, and a few Australians.

These data are hard to interpret in face values; in addition it is well known that for many branches such computer codes seldom give unequivocal result, and finally almost all people in the analysis were American residents. Still, the experiment (measurement?) could (can) be repeated as many times as needed. Until counterevidences are not shown, the analysis suggests that

1) the final foremother of all analysed individuals lived in Africa (according to not too reliable rate estimations some 150-300 ky ago);

2) there were first geographic segregations within Africa;

3) then there was/were emigration/s from the segregated groups, but generally leaving some moderately close kins in Africa;

4) and the emigration(s) first went to Asia, then some continued to Australia/New Zealand, some remained in Asia, some went to Europe.

For so much it seems not theory but inevitable fact. The domain of models and theories starts where the picture is too hazy, contradictory or empty. E.g. mitochondrial DNA is not expected to tell anything about forefathers.

So, this is 1987. (Still no Matter Evolution Subcommittee of Hungarian Academy of Sciences; it will be formed in 1989.) Are multiregionalism and Brace doomed? Eve was African, and no trace of Neanderthals is seen anywhere!

All right; there are still logical possibilities. Only they are strange. For example, you can mix a special cocktail of Bachofen [15], Marxism in Engelsian form, ancient Asia Minor stories about Amazons and Xena-type feminism. If you can imagine bands of female warriors starting from Africa, then they carry the mtDNA and conquered local males do not show up until no good methods for nuclear genes will work. And indeed, it seems that cystic fibrosis gene in Europe is older than H. sapiens sapiens (or modern humans, or African immigrants, so on) there, and something similar is seen in Eastern Asia too; some details later.

Still, I do not believe in such a picture, until I do not have to. Maybe I have preconceptions. But in this topics I am not overly influenced, I think (@9). Anyway, Neanderthal skeletons are very robust. Neanderthal females seem at least so strong as modern human men (see e.g. the reconstruction in [16] with a woodden spear; that woman could beat modern ordinary men and to tear apart African or ancient Greek women), and Neanderthal men are much stronger. (True, we do not know the Amazon tricks.) However multiregionalists fought on.

And in the first days of 1999 Cidália Duarte excavated the Lapedo Child, alias Lagar Velho 1. It seems that European Homo sapiens, or modern humans or how I should call my (?) co-Europeans cannot be anymore so simple and innocent as earlier. Namely, the 4 year old child (boy?) is too strong, with as low crural index as today's Lapps (my very far language kins, to be sure), but 30 degreees nearer to the Equator.

South of the Ebro Mousterian survived for a long time, but nobody believed in Neanderthals there after 28 ky BP, and the Lapedo Child lived at 24.5 ky [17]. (Or there are Neanderthal sites even later? See later.) However the Child seems half Neanderthal. Or was he the only attempt to mix genes? Why just?

Of course, immediately came the counteropinion [18]. There are arguments. For example, there are extremely strong children. Still, this is the most convincingly documented "hybrid" skeleton even including the Shkul ones and Stolyhwo's Neanderthaloid knight [7].

The interested readers can follow some part of the argumentation on Mediterranean Prehistory Online (@10); the opening article is #5, and the comments can be found via the Index. In the next several Chapters I comment some points of the original studies and the comments.

The Lapedo Child is a 4-5 year old skeleton, probably boy. The skeleton is dated to 24.5 ky BP. Lapedo Valley is in Portugal, at the coordinates 39° 45' N, 8° 44' W. To prevent confusion, the Abrigo do Lagar Velho is a specific location within the Lapedo Valley (it means roughly the Shelter of the Old Wine-press). So the skeleton Lagar Velho 1 is the skeleton of a 4.5 year old boy who lived and died in the Lapedo Valley some 24,500 years ago.

The body was intentionally buried, red ochre was around and it seems that the boy was a member of a Gravettian tribe. Details can be found in Ref. [17].

At this point it is good to note that in the Iberian Peninsula Cantabria developed differently than the territory "south of the Ebro". In Cantabria Middle Paleolithic Mousterian was followed (about 40 ky BP) by Upper Paleolithic Aurignacian and/or Castelperronian; later these were replaced/continued by Gravettian [19]. However south of the Ebro Mousterian survived rather long and survived until Gravettian, the latter being there the first Upper Paleolithic culture.

As for the population, in Europe Mousterian is as a rule the culture of Neanderthals; but in the Near East early AMH's had the Mousterian too. The very late Mousterian sites (after 20 ky BP) are thought Neanderthals in the very careful Ref. [19], which is interesting (some believe in error in dating), but is not the direct topics of the present study. No clear example is known up to now for Neanderthals with Aurignacian culture. Castelperronian is believed rather or exclusively Neanderthal, but we will return to this question later. So the excavators at Abrigo do Lagar Velho expected at start Gravettian Homo sapiens not too much (cca. 4 ky) after replacing Neanderthals (#6).

Instead they found a Gravettian burial with a skeleton "halfway" between contemporary Homo sapiens of southwestern Europe and Neanderthal. Ref. [17] gives the anatomical details; here I concentrate on 3 points:

1) The crural index (tibia/femur length) is extremely small.

2) The longbones are very thick; generally the body is "too strong" (compared to the age 4.5 year).

3) The mental eminence is not seen or is just on the verge to exist.

The relative thickness of longbones is a general Neanderthal character; it can be seen already on children. For extant populations the crural index is reported to be lowest for Arctic Esquimaux and Lapps, around 0.80, and highest for tropical Africans, e.g. Masai, with 0.87. Both points need really quantitative treatment which will come later. All present humans (except rare malformations) have a mental eminence, so the respective angle at the mandible is <90°, while all non-modern humans (except some Near East Neanderthals, possibly hybrids and some very late European Neanderthals with Castelperronian culture) had this angle >90°. According some opinions the difference was caused by continuous change: shrinking dentition permits the angle to cross right angle. I think, the mental eminence is useful when speaking, because it gives a good leverage for muscles needed in fine tuning in the changes of the resonances in the vocal channel, but this will come later. I note that, apart from present humans, the only anthropoid with mental eminence is the gibbon, famous from his/her singing ability, needing similar fine regulations as speech.

Returning to the Lapedo Child, the obvious consequence has been that the child was born to a sapiens-Neanderthal mixed pair. Newspaper articles preferred an established pair ("no love child"), since the burial seems regular enough, and the male sapiens (but about this I would not be sure, argumentation later). If we assume all this, then at the Lapedo Valley a mixed community lived about 24.5 ky BP, maybe already for millenia. Such a conclusion would seriously question the Out of Africa (African Eve) model, and would decide that indeed Neanderthals are only a subspecies.

However the conclusion (which would be very important) is not yet obligatory, and the next several Chapters deal with problems in concluding. First, there is the possibility that the boy is not half Neanderthal, but simply an abnormally strong child. To decide this we are again back at the 3 Neanderthal characters listed above.

Even if we assume that the child is indeed a hybrid, he can be F1 hybrid, in which case we do not know anything about fertility, and then we cannot conclude about conspecificity. Arguments may go in the way that we do not yet know anything about the Lapedo Valley tribe. Negative arguments that we do not know Neanderthals around after 28 ky BP are not strong enough. So we can think about one tribe (Neanderthal/AMH) established well in the Lapedo Valley, another (AMH/Neanderthal) just arriving at the neighbourhood. Then, even if Replacement happens, that is not necessarily the first step. For example, chiefly families may make marriages for mutual goodwill and alliance (#3; also note {3} to which I will return later). If the Lapedo Child is the offspring of such a mating then he is F1 hybrid, his specific burial is automatic, and then he might have been sublethal because Neanderthals and modern humans were at the verge of being separate species (model details will come in due course). Of course, further anatomical studies of the Lapedo Child may rule out this possibility.

Here we give the titles of the remaining Chapters, dealing with various points of the identification of the Child as a hybrid, details of hybridization, Replacement vs. Multiregionalism, and the impact of the existence on the skeleton on the latters. My treatment will be mathematical at some points, but incomplete. Some points deserve further work.

Chapter 3, On Crural Indices and Other Scalings discusses the crural index repeatedly suggested as proper signature for Neanderthals. As shown, female crural indices are nontrivial even for AMH's, and Lagar Velho 1 was a small child. Chapter 4 is The Thickness of Longbones, a somewhat similar problem. Chapter 5, On the Mental Eminence, discusses another important signature. Mental eminence is observed on every recent humans, and never on classical Neanderthals (and may be connected with good speaking power). However the question is not so simple. Then Chapter 6, Closing Remarks about the Lapedo Argumentation, mainly recapitulates the discussion in Mediterranean Prehistory Online.

Then comes another block. Obviously the Neanderthal-AMH conspecificity was not trivial: evidences are equivocal, so we should keep in mind the possibility that the two asundered branches of humanity i) did not interbred (too much) although they were conspecific and coexisted in Europe for many millenia, or ii) did interbred a bit although they were not conspecific. Both cases seem to contradict qualitative thinking but mathematics can help. Chapter 7, A Comment on Mixing of Populations, gives recent examples when coexisting AMH groups mix rather slowly. Chapter 8, On Neanderthal Linguistics, discusses the suggested low speech ability of Neanderthals, which, if true, produced a quite distinct way of life for them. Again, qualitative argumentation is dangerous; I try to make quantitative statements. Chapter 9, Between a Good Species and a Subspecies discusses the gray zone in between, utilizing also the analogon of mule production industry.

Then comes History. Chapter 10, Who Invented Upper Paleolithic? poses the question. Chapter 11, Hungary, Cca. 45,000 BC, gives a bird's eye overview about (surprisingly modern) Neanderthals in the Carpathian Basin. Chapter 12, On the Irish Reception of the Neanderthal Paradigm, is not real but virtual history, but real psychology. Chapter 13, Szeletian: the First Attempt of Closing Up in the Carpathian Basin? discusses Neanderthal-AMH contact in Hungary somewhat from Neanderthal side. Chapter 14, The Anatomically Modern Homo Breaks Loose: But Who Invented Upper Paleolithic, goes back to the problem of Chapter 10, but helixwise, on a higher level.

I cannot draw final conclusions. So instead of Conclusions, there is a Chapter 15, But Whither Have Gone the Neanderthals?, trying to summarize the possibilities of this somewhat enigmatic story.

The crural index is (tibia length)/(femur length); it is acommonplace that for Neanderthals it is generally lower than for AnatomicallyModern Humans, but not always. Since Devil may hide in the details, let ussee some details.

First two empirical rules. Members of the same species generally showsmaller size on warmer climate (Bergmann Rule) and definitely "peripherial"parts (as e.g. tail, ear, &c.) are shorter (Allen Rule). (Let me add the Gloger Rulefor later purposes: the pigmentation decreases with colder climate andgenerally quite pale at cold arid places.)

These rules were abstracted from hundreds of homeothermic species, butbefore applying on humans (e.g. not having tails) it is better to look for acause behind. For that observe that mammal and avian bodies are almost alwayswarmer than the air. Observe that higher body temperature means less entropyproduction at the same power rate. Some thermodynamists are contemplatingabout extremum principles governing open systems [20], [21], @11, and minimumentropy production, while true only at constant conduction coefficients, maybe near to the still unknown governing principle [22], [23].

Now, as a toy model, consider a body of square based elongated prism,base lengths a, height b, a/b=e</=1. Then the volume is e²b³, thesurface is b²e(2e+4), or, in a form explicitly showing non-scaling:

(3.1) S = 2(e^2/3+2e^-1/3)V^2/3

Now, if we do not change the shape e, only the size V, then the surface/volume ratio is ~V^-1/3. With invariant biochemistry the energy output/input would increase with decreasing volume, so on tropics, where the output is the real problem (surrounding air being warm) V is expected smaller. This is the original Bergmann Rule. Now, let us assume that it is difficult to change volume in the needed extent. Then you can change e. With fixed volume you can decrease S/V ("to save heat", rather to save entropy production) by increasing e, minimum is at e=1. So you expect stocky bodies at low temperatures, slender ones at tropics.

If we add "appendices" to the body, i.e. parts not producing too muchheat but having blood circulation, so cooling the body, then they help energyoutput at tropics, but should be rather small at lower temperatures; and thisis Allen Rule. So (using also Gloger Rule, anything is behind) a tropicalpopulation is expected to be tall, slender, but of moderate body mass,pigmented, and the most distal limb parts relatively long. On the other hand,at the Arctic we expect small, round depigmented people, with short distalparts of limbs, so with low crural index.

Present Masai, a lot of other Africans, Esquimaux and Mongoliansindeed are conform to this expectation; but a lot of Europids, e.g.Scandinavians, other Germans, &c. are not. Although Scandinavians aredepigmented (Gloger Rule), they are rather large and slender, with longlimbs, at least comparing them with Mongoloids. This discrepancy is a strongargument for the African origin of modern Europeans, but let uscontinue.

It is not so easy to get crural indices. Namely, as we already startedto see, human sizes do not scale, at least not trivially. First, everybodyknows that infants are rather "rounded" or "spherical". Therefore, whengrowing, their volume does not increase with the cube of the length, but moreslowly. Fig. 1 gives the graph of Hungarian data from [24]; the exponent iscca. 2.3. Also, obviously leg bones must be thickening with roughly L^3/2where L is a characteristic length to give a cross section proportional withbody weight. Then transversal/longitudinal ratios definitely do not scale. Ofcourse, it is still possible that longitudinal/longitudinal ratios do scale;that is something to be investigated.

Fig. 1: Modern Hungarian average volumes vs. lengths for children ofvarious ages. Boys.

Now let us go to crural indices. Tables exist for femur and tibialengths. As it is trivial in the Hungarian literature, the tables orapproximate formulae must differ for different "great races" at least(European, Mongoloid, Negrid, Veddo-Australid) [25]. Now let us see e.g.German data. In 1938 Breitinger measured the lengths for living men, viaX-ray [26]. Then in 1965 Bach did the same for women [27]. Let us accept thedata in face values; I definitely cannot do anything else. The tables aregenerally used to determine data of persons from the longbones, e.g. whenexhumated, but now I use them backwards. The graph is Fig. 2. The pattern israther interesting.

Fig. 2: Femur and tibia lengths according to Breitinger (men, [26]) andBach (women, [27]).

For a rather short German man of 154 cm Breitinger's average cruralindex is then 0.810, and for a somewhat tall one, 186 cm, it is 0.817, notdepending too much on body length. However, Bach's female data (for the samepopulation!) behave differently. For a small woman, 145 cm, the crural indexis 0.962, and for a tall one, 175 cm, it is 0.871. The corresponding curve is seen on Fig. 3.

Fig. 3: Crural index vs. total length, from the data of Breitinger and Bach.

It is not impossible to get such a difference between male and female data, even if I do not see the evolutionbal advantage of such a large sexual dimorphism just in crural indices. Still, then caution is needed:

1) Was the Lapedo Child indeed a boy or was it a girl?

2) Crural indices cited in the Lapedo argumentations are male, female, average or what?

3) Bach's female crural indices strongly anticorrelate with length. Would they also anticorrelate with age?

4) Breitinger's male indices are almost constant with length. Is this true for other races, populations, demes &c.?

5) If not, what was the crural index vs. length relation for early Gravettians?

And so on. I do not expect trivial, linear scaling. Scaling is rather exceptional, and must be verified. True, Breitinger's data, while do not show scaling for either femur (femur/total is 0.236 for 154 cm and 0.299 for 186 cm) or tibia, do show an almost constant crural index; Bach's data do not.

I am not criticising Ref. [17]; the opponents did not go beyond scaling either. And their Table 2 seems impressive indeed. In addition, the Lagar Velho 1 crural index, in face value, indeed seems Neanderthal or Lapponian.

Another publication of Trinkaus, Zilhao and Duarte gives tibia vs. femur lengths, as my Fig. 2 (#6). It is their Fig. 7. From the plot we see that indeed the crural index do not scale: for the smallest modern child it is cca. 0.85, and at the largest adult cca. 0.88. (Are they all male, or there is something wrong with Bach's tables indeed?) La Ferrasie 6 is definitely below the modern points and Lagar Velho 1 is also out of the 1s strip; it is difficult to see if it is out of 2s too. Skhul 1 is just amongst the moderns, but it is hard to tell, exactly what are the Shkuls. This bivariate plot is a good indicator, not the Lagar Velho 1 crural index 0.783 in itself.

I wonder what are the Hungarian crural indices, especially in Central Hungary and in the southeastern corner of the Carpathian Basin. It is a commonplace that people have arms and legs there which are rather short in European context. Generally a relative short leg correlates with low crural index; but not always.

I close this Chapter with two Figures made from Tables of Glenn Morton (#7). Fig. 4 comes from his crural index vs. mean temperature Table, which is again is collected from [28]. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation; Scandinavian data would be interesting. Fig. 5 is the Table of BP time vs. crural index from Ref. #7, and apart from Lagar Velho 1, all modern human. Indeed, the Lapedo Child seems something special, and it seems as if the crural index had changed with climate. But again: was the Lapedo Child a boy, and had he such a crural index as he would have had in adulthood? In addition (?) Neanderthals seem gerontomorph; cf. the Teshik-Tash Child.

Fig. 4: Recent crural indices vs. mean temperatures, according to #7.

Fig. 5: Crural indices vs. ages for modern humans and for the Lapedo Child, according to #7.

Note that Lapponian crural indices are the same as Neanderthal ones, for two digits. Still they do not seem Neanderthal; they are not robust, and they have quite expressed mental eminences.

Neanderthals were much stronger than modern humans; let me quote again Loring Brace #4: "To produce a modern European out of a Neanderthal, all you have to do is to reduce the robustness". Many Neanderthal skeletons show this robustness, although sometimes it is told that Late, Castelperronian Neanderthals are not so robust, and similar statements exist for the Vindija fossils too. However let us first see how to measure robustness.

For a longbone the simplest dimensionless number for robusticity is circumference/length. Technical problems exist but I think they are solved. Now the principal problems.

This ratio is transversal vs. longitudinal, and body shape definitely changes with age, as Fig. 1 has shown. (If the shape did not change, volume would scale with length cube.) In addition, for leg bones thickening with body length is necessary, because the legs must support an L³ weight which is impossible with L² cross sections; for arm bones it is probably similar for homology.

Now let us see the data. They are Fig. 5 of Ref. [17]. This Figure is quite significant. The Lapedo Child has both tibia and femur much thicker than modern humans. The 43 modern humans, within them a lot of children, establish a circumference/length strip, the Lapedo Child is far outside the strip; I estimate that at least with 2s. It is interesting that the hybrid (?) child deviates as much from modern humans as full-blooded Neanderthals do.

Or: can anybody know about an anomaly producing very strong but unviable children? I know only the congenital pylorus stenosis. Before modern surgery (the Ramstedt operation) mortality was very high. Now the operated patients survive; and will be very strong, almost as strong as Hercules [28], [29], @12. Can pylorus stenosis be checked on the bones?

This will be a short enough Chapter. The mental eminence can be seen on all men and women recently, all races, without exception. Its formation can vary in details. A very detailed Hungarian book [30] states that the weakest is this eminence at the Southern Indian Malids where "...the eminence is generally backward-turning, small and undeveloped", "the women's chin -especially from profile- is very low and backward turning. ... In addition often appears a weak alveolar prognathy." (my translation). However at the pictures the mental eminence can be observed without problem. Quantitatively, at the gnathion the mandible turns to "horizontal" with an acute angle.

On the other hand, on older hominids until Neanderthals the mental eminence cannot be observed. At the gnathion the angle is always obtuse.

For "classical" Neanderthals there is always an obtuse angle ("no chin"). However the situation is not so simple at Eastern Neanderthals, as e.g. the Palestinian fossils or Shanidar, and also at "latest Neanderthals" about 35 ky BP or later. Some Shkul mandibles show acute angles (but they may be hybrids), one Shanidar mandible shows practically right angle.

Some "late surviving Neanderthals" are discussed in #8. La Ferrasie 1, cca. 50 ky BP, has a "weakly developed" mental eminence (it is still "classic"). Here I list Hortus (45 ky BP), Vindija 42 ky BP), Saint-Césaire (36 ky BP), Arcy-sur-Cure (34 ky BP) and Zafarraya (»27 ky BP). Aurignacians are in the neighbourhood already, except for La Ferrasie 1 if dating is correct, Hortus, and Zafarraya (because the Ebro). As for the mental eminence, the status seems to be as follows:

La Ferrasie 1, 50 ky: Weakly developed.

Hortus, 45 ky: Poorly developed.

Vindija, 42 ky: Definite, but not prominent.

Saint-Cesaire, 36 ky: None.

Arcy-Sur-Cure (Grotte du Renne, Castelperronian), 34 ky: ?

Zafarraya, 27 ky: Slight.

What is seen here, can even be a parallel development to mental eminence, e.g. via decreasing robustness, so retreating/shrinking dentition.

On early European AMH mandibles the mental eminence is always expressed.

So: on the Lapedo Child a slight mental eminence would permit either Neanderthal or hybrid, but not sapiens classification. Lack of the mental eminence would permit the same. Strong eminence would mean probably sapiens, perhaps would permit hybrid. Of course, in very young age the face is more orthognathic.

According to Ref. [17], the Lapedo Child has the anterior symphyseal angle as 89°, conform with early juvenile Neanderthals, 90.3°+/-4.4°, but significantly below early juvenile modern humans, 101.5°+/-4.7°. Indeed, the Lapedo Child is at more than 2s level is out of the modern statistics. Since Gravettian mental eminence do not seem to have been weaker, we are ready with this point.

We are also ready with all the 3 characteristic points listed at the end of Chapter 2. It seems to me that the authors of Ref. [17] have proven even quantitatively Point 3; for Point 2 my only doubt is a possibility of a congenital deformation (undefined); for Point 1 the claim is possible but I, as a physicist, would have liked more quantitative analysis.

A lot of argumentation started with the publications of Refs. 17 and 18. Trinkaus and Zilhao answered the critical remarks on Internet (#8). Also, their matter in Mediterranean Prehistory Online contained some answers to questions. Then some comments arrived at the Mediterranean Prehistory Online; you can find them via a link in #9. I recapitulate very briefly them for later use.

A. Amorim had some doubts of genetics. He stated that the interbreeding was not effective. If it had been, the present genetics of the Iberian peninsula would have reflected it, but no Neanderthal influence is seen either on mtDNA, or on Y chromosomes or on autosomal markers. [We shall see an analogy about the genetic map of Central Europe at the end of the study.] L. Raposo states that we do not know if the usual interpretation of Castelperronian indeed means that "Neandertals were behaviourally inferior no modern humans"; and permits occasional interbreeding. However, his opinion is that the Lapedo Child was a unique case, and a little late. A. B. Vieira tells that he is not convinced that the skeleton is not pathologic, and cannot see support for the existence of a mosaic population between 30,000 and 20,000 BP. In addition he sees the established Neanderthal-sapiens distance in mtDNA too large for fertile hybrids. Eugénia Cunha shows modern young children with crural indices similar to that of the Lapedo Child [that is my previous point], and cites Porter [31] who tells that the mean of recent European crural indices is the smallest on the world, smaller than for Arctic non-Europeans [to where I will return]. Finally she tells that the child may have had any serious trouble which has no trace on the bones and had growth disturbances and enamel hypoplasy. N. F. Bicho tells that the grave was partially disturbed, so while it is sure that it is not older than 25,000 BP, may be even Solutréan. But he cannot see any cultural mixing in the region. And a lot of commentators believe the Child too late for a hybrid.

Then Trinkaus, Zilhao and Duarte answer the comments. I mention only a few points. I am surprised that Cunha and Trinkaus, Zilhao & Duarte may argue if Lagar Velho 1's crural index is 81.5 (Cunha) or 78.2 (TZD). The measurement error cannot be 30% for a length. While Raposo tells that Castelperronian "did not have local immediate typological roots", the technics comes from preceding Moustérian, but the typology is copied from Aurignacians. Then TZD answer that Castelperronian is typologically distinct, and Castelperronian points and knives are unknown in the Aurignacian, and quote d'Errico & al. [32] that in Grotte du Renne bone and antler was used by Neanderthals. Also, they emphasize that Castelperronian and Uluzzian always underlie Aurignacian in Western Europe [32], [33]. I will use these arguments in a later Chapter about Szeletian.

Then Raposo answers and tells that he does not accept the Neanderthal "invention of art" and use of bone and antler in the Grotte du Renne, and he does not see proven the priority of Castelperronian to Aurignacian. [Remember the topics.]

I am surprised that only Portuguese took part in the argumentation, of course, excepting Trinkaus. The last comment arrived on 24th Jan., 2000.

In 1993 we made a toy model, with Ágnes Holba, about the population genetics of the Carpathian Basin (=Regnum Hungariae, the Regnum defunct practically from 1920, in principle from 1946). It took 2 populations: a short-limbed long-rumped stocky one and a long-limbed, slender one, in average taller.

This choice is realistic. From 568 the ethnology of the Basin was the following. The flat center is populated with horsemen from the East, Uralo-Altaic for language (Avars were Altaic, Magyars Uralic) partially from Eastern Asia, Mongoloid stock (short limbs, stocky build, the minority with slanted eyes and/or Mongolian spot). At the periphery there are mountains (the Carpathians) and in the mountain region the population is Indo-Germanic, predominantly Europoid foot warriors (horses do not like mountains), with long limbs, slender rump. One would predict averaging in a few generation. But this did not happen, we know. After 1400 years the Indo-Europeans are still at the periphery, Eurasian Uralo-Altaics in the center. We produced the result with a single extra term [34], but we think that there were 3 causes, effectively acting into the same direction.

1) The two populations are geographically separated so cross-mating is hindered. Note that because of the concentric situation they are not isolated from each other, only inbreeding is easier.

2) The languages are quite different. While in the last 1000 years a lot of people were bilingual, even common folk songs exist with translated texts, mother tongues are somewhat preferred for intimacy. This again does not stop cross-breeding, but still is a barrier.

3) Peripherial women are cca. as tall as central men. Now, in mating taller men are preferred by both. So central man-peripherial woman pair is dispreferred. The opposite would be preferred, but large differences in size sometimes originated in birth problems. So cross-mating is again hindered by the barrier.

This means that the Carpathian Basin is a pot, isolated from the neighbourhood, but not a melting pot. Indeed, look at Marsina's article #10.

It was enough to introduce a single barrier, we did it to Mechanism 3, and it acts effectively for 1) and 2) too. We used a Gaussian centered at a moderate positive difference for height and having a mean deviation s.

Let us check first if the mechanism exists. The official Demographic Yearbook of Hungary (this is the present State of Hungary, with only a few percent of minorities, practically the center of the Basin) gives data of marriages to years according to first languages. E.g. for 1974 it records Magyar-Magyar: 98059, Slovak-Slovak: 43 and Magyar-Slovak and vice versa: 115 [35]. Now let us put this into genetic language. There is an allele, with p probability the gene M and with q probability S (all the others we take now 0, although there are more). Then the zero hypothesis is accidental pairing:

ap² = 98059

(7.1) aq² = 43

2apq = 115

p+q = 1

Using the first three equations one gets a=102320.0, q=0.0205, p=1-q, and the 2% is indeed roughly the ratio of Slovakians. But hence one should get 4109 cross-marriages, instead of the factual 115. The barrier hindered them with a factor 36, while there are practically no cultural differences, the kitchen traditions are identical and the two nationalities have very similar religious structures (Magyars: 65 % Catholic, 25 % Calvinist; Slovaks: 70 % Catholic, 30 % Lutheran). The barrier is geography, language and difference in body sizes.

For the simplest barrier function you may write that for the marriages of people with sizes x',x" (for simplicity, women now normalised to men)

(7.2) ß(x',x") = aG(x'-x")f(x')f(x")

and

(7.3) G(x'-x") = exp{-(x'-x")²/2S²}

Now, taking S the half of the difference of the average heights of the 2 subpopulations it lenghtens the averaging between the subpopulations to 30 generations. It seems for order of magnitude this is the situation in the Basin.

And now observe that, if interbreeding existed at all in the Lapedo Valley at 22,500 BC, the situation may have been smilar, but with a more serious barrier. Cultures were different, languages were different, maybe habitats were different; facial characters were quite different (look at the reconstruction in [16]), and: Neanderthal men were short, stocky, with short limbs, modern human men were too tall and too slender. Neanderthal men were not higher than Gravettian women, although were imponantly strong; Gravettian men were too fragile for Neanderthal women, and were not stronger than they. In addition, probably hunting skills were too different #11.

Even if the two tribes arrived at the desirability of alliance (#3), it did not mix the two tribes, and their average body characteristics may have remained apart for many generations. This is a way to get something which effectively mimics an F1 hybrid after a long time.

I do not know if this "long time" can be say 2,000 years. But in the Carpathian Basin, after 1000 years of a united state, still one can see "characteristic" Magyars, Slovaks or Germans, while you can see F1, F2 and Fn hybrids as well.

The World Wide Web is full with argumentations about, for and against the speech ability of Neanderthals. I do not cite here Internet sites explicitly; there are many dozens. But their points of view and conclusions can be classified into a few groups.

1) Neanderthals were very limited in speech ability. Then

1a) this hindered their development in abstract thinking &c., and were "not as

human as we"; or

1b) therefore they used gestures more and vocal signals less than we.

2) Neanderthal vocal ability was essentially similar to ours.

Opinions 1) go back to Liebermann & Crelin in 1972 [36]. They are continuously attacked from that time; I think, partly because physical speech acoustics is far from anthropology. Then a Neanderthal hyoid bone was found in the Near East [37], and friends of Neanderthals told that here is the evidence for the vocal abilities of Neanderthals. Of course, the hyoid bone, whose good fossilization and contact with the skeleton is rare, is an important key. However I told 21 years ago ([38], @13) that physically Neanderthal speech was possible (even with the Lieberman-Crelin reconstructions). But let us go step by step.

Lieberman and Crelin had the opinion that in some characters the Neanderthal vocal tract is similar to that of modern infants. Then the practice of one of the authors could be utilised [39]. the most important analogous character would be the high position of the larynx. Then they formed the reconstructed vocal channel from silicon rubber and by distorting it they tried to get patterns utilized by modern man when producing simple vowels. They used the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull in the reconstruction of Boule [40].

The vocal channel roughly produces sums of damped oscillations, so the Fourier spectrum is cca. the sum of resonance curves. This is so because the tract forms a sequence of open cavities. For example, there is a cavity between the dorsal of the tongue and the palatum. However this cavity has a nontrivial shape and so more than one characteristic sizes, so the resulting sound will have more than a single frequency. So in the simplest case one may expect something

(8.1) f(x)={exp(-ax)}*[S_i=1^NA_iG_i{(x-X_i)²+G_i²}^-1 + smooth]

for the Fourier transform. Here x is the frequency, the exponential term comes from wave resistance, Ai's are the relative weights, G_i's the half-widths and X_i's the frequency means of the peaks. This is not the true frequency distribution of the sound, only the supralaryngeal part; roughly it should be multiplied with the product of the vocal chord, but that is smooth, see [40].

Now, speech recognization practice shows that the most important parameters to identify the vowels are the X_i frequencies [42], [43], while the ratios of weights A_i may appear in the intonation [44]; the widths G_i are not too important. So now we remain with X_i loosely called formant frequencies.

There is a thumb rule that for vowels the first two frequencies (F1,F2) are sufficient (some believe in 3), the higher formants rather characterise the individual timbre [45]. For simplicity let us continue.

Ref. [41] shows the distributions of the pronounciations of the 10 American English vowels (some believe in 11 or 12). Lieberman and Crelin distorted the Neanderthal silicon rubber vocal channel to the extremes, but they were able to produce only 3 of the American phonemes, and for 2 of them only rather "neutral" pronounciations. Then they concluded as they concluded. After all, English is a regular Homo sapiens language.

Now one would tell about the hyoid bone. But wait a minute. Magyars have difficulties to practicise the good English pronounciation; no matter if that English is Queen's English, American or Australian; it seems that Northern English and Scots are somewhat easier for us. So let us compare Magyar and American. Magyar possesses 9 different vowels as far as the first 2 formants can be distinguished; there are further distinctions for length irrelevant now. The "potatoes" of Magyar and American vowels are compared on Fig. 1 of Ref. [45].

And then one sees that on the 2-formant plane the American domains are generally much wider than the Magyar ones! Both languages, e.g., have a phoneme transcribed internationally by [e]; F1 is cca. around 600 Hz, but the Magyar domain (to be sure: 1s) ends at 2200 Hz in F2 and the American goes above 3000 Hz.

There is another difference: the Magyar vowels have a "vertical structure" [44]. F1 seems to be in close connection with the height of the tongue, i.e. the gap between the dorsal of the tongue and the palate. There are 3 "highest" vowels in Magyar, i, ü and u, all with F1»280 Hz, for men and women the same [44]. There are other 3 vowels, e, ö and o, with F1»400 Hz. Then came ä (however written as "e", @14) and a with F1»540 Hz, and á stands alone with F1»750 Hz. Now, how to distinguish i, ü and u?

Very simply. For men/women, F2 of i is 2260/2520 Hz, of ü it is 1810/2020 Hz and of u 810/810 Hz. Even male and female F2's are not too different. I can tell that sexual dimorphism is not too strong in Magyar speech (and, as told, almost nonexistent in grammar), much smaller than in English.

La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 was male, so let is interpret his efforts as Magyar male sounds. Ref. [36] gave the two-formant frequencies for 13 trials. Trials 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 would be fair representations of Magyar "ä" (the low, front (and unrounded) vowel. 3 and 4 would be fair "e"-s (the mid-low front unrounded one). Trial 8 of Lieberman and Crelin resulted in a good Magyar "á" (very low, back, unrounded). And from 9 to 13 the La Chapelle Old Man's silicon vocal channel produced good Magyar "o"'s. If we consider these trials as stretching the phonological triangle of possibilities, then "ö" is also inside, and maybe marginally "a" too (that is a specific Magyar vowel and Slovakians can be recognised when speaking Magyar, because their "a" is rather "á").

That is 6 vowels from 9. However Lieberman & Crelin's efforts were unsuccessful for Magyar "u", ü" and "i", as well as for English "u" and "i". More physically, they were unable to produce anything with F1<400 Hz.

I cannot quite understand, why not. True, F1 is more or less the eigenfrequency of the vocal channel from larynx to mouth. According to Lieberman & Crelin the larynx does not go down sufficiently, so is closer to the mouth so the channel is shorter, F1 is higher. Q.E.D.

But Ref. [44] demonstrated that in Magyar, contrary to English, male and female F1's more or less coincide. So women, with their shorter vocal channel, form the same F1 as men. This is so, because this is the linguistic habit; and I never heard a Magyar woman to protest against the difficulties to produce a good [u]. And children produce some "u", "ü" and "i" as well. If Magyars can do the trick, maybe Neanderthals could too.

As for, say, the high F2 of [i], then the tongue is to be elevated high (towards the palate). This is easy, and it is easy to produce a stop by elevating the tongue extremely, which is, of course, no more a vowel but an "n"-type sound. Ref. [36] tells that the Neanderthal vowels may have had a nasal tone; no problem, in Magyar there is no nasal/unnasal distinction of vowels, and nowhere is in the Carpathian Basin. Maybe acrobatics would have been needed for English (or Magyar) "u" and "i"; as tricks are needed for a Magyar for English "th"'s. (Sometimes we are told we would need a longer tongue.) We know only that Lieberman and Crelin were unsuccessful when trying to pronounciate "u" and "i" with the reconstructed sound channel of the la Chapelle Old Man.

Then assume that Lieberman & Crelin were absolutely good with the efforts. Then Neanderthals could have produced 6 vowels of the 9 Magyar, and lots of consonants (but not "k" and "g"). Good; would fully human speech be possible with 6 vowels and some consonants?

Polynesian speech is "fully human"; myths, hymns &c. are formulated on Polynesian. Polynesian languages generally have 12 phonemes: 5 vowels and 7 consonants. Maybe the recorder is Rotokas, on Bougainville Island, with 11 at all [38], [46]. Litterary Arab is rather poor in vowels, having only 3, "a", "i" and "u", but this is not at all extraordinary. The Abhasian (in Caucasus) has only 2; van Ginneken believed that before 3000 BC speakers could have done even without vowels [47], but this last point is a hypothesis. However Arab and Abhasian can be studied. Semitic and Hamitic languages, while using vowels, have developed great literatures, including a lot of history and even some natural science, without writing vowels at all.

So far about the existing vowel simulations. But there happen to be problems with the La Chapelle Old Man. As told already, Boule reconstructed the Old Man as primitive, brutish and not quite erect. At least at 1955 it was known that he was fully erect. In 1957 Straus and Cave found osteoarthritic degenerations on the Old Man ([48], but see also [49] and [50]). If he was a subject of degenerative processes, then La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1 may be misguiding when reconstructing Neanderthal speech.

But not only that. In 1989 J-L. Heim (Musée National de la Histoire naturelle, Paris) re-reconstructed the skull, and it is told that now its base is not so flat. Ref. [51] tells the story in the way that first Heim stated that the flexion of the base had so become similar to many modern skulls (@15), including a medieval Hungarian one; and then D. Frayer of Kansas replied: "Nobody argues that the medieval Hungarians weren't able to talk" (@16) #12.

So, very probably, Neanderthal skull was more "modern" than used in the simulation of Ref. [36]. In addition, we have the essentially modern hyoid bone of the Kebara Neanderthal. From that, Shreeve states [51]: "The discovery of the hyoid bone ... has seriously challenged the notion that Neanderthals lacked the anatomy for rapid-fire, fully human speech".

And, to make the case round, remember that Lapponians mimic Neanderthals for crural index and height; even if not in other bodily characteristics. Lapponians are reindeer hunters (and keepers) as we expect it from archaic Arctic people. Let me confront Indo-German vowels to that of another reindeer people, the Samoieds (farther relatives of mine and Lapponians, never before XXth century under Indo-European influence).

Everybody reconstructs 5 original vowels for proto-Indo-German (see e. g. [52]), with or without a neutral swa-sound. Proto-Slavic raises even some problems for having a sixth. The canonical 5 is (a,e,o,u,i) which was tried in Ref. [36]. If 2 or 3 are unsuccessful of these 5, the result is bad, although not as bad as Hayden's example [53] with a single "e", next paragraph. Now, the biggest Samoiedic language, Nenets (behold; almost 25,000 people!) utilizes 10 vowels, its smaller brother (sister?), Selkup 11 [54]. A vowel can be (simultaneously!) velar or palatal, and labial or illabial and high or mid or low; only low labials are not opposed to low illabials. A quite different system. Neanderthal system might have been even more exotic for Indo-Germans.

Now, Hayden's example, only for vowels; only one sentence. "...et seems emprebeble theth ther speech wes enedeqwete bekes ef the leck ef the three vewels seggested". In "seems", "speech" and "three" the sound is simply long; even with the old Old Man vocal channel could make long vowels. But, since a sound between "u" and "o", and maybe an "a" sound was possible too even in the Lieberman-Crelin recounstruction [36], the sentence should be something: "...et seems emprobeble that ther speech was enadeqwate bekos of the lack of the three vowels", which is better. We have seen that in Magyar the speech defect would be even less disturbing. Since it is hopeless to give you the Neanderthal Magyar version, I only repeat that we got earlier in this Chapter that even with the reconstruction [36] only the high vowels would have been unsuccessful. So if you substitute "i"'s and "ee"'s with "e", and "u"'s and "oo"'s with "o", that would give a picture.

Data of a Magyar monography about speech problems [55] confirm the self-consistency of the Lieberman-Crelin results. Rarest vowel lisping of children is for "a", most frequent for "i" and "u" (since there is nothing for "ü", this is an overall Hungarian statement), because "it is hardest to articulate i and u". For paralaly substitution of u with o, i with e may appear." In connection with nasal speech this lisping is more frequent. "Children retarded in speech generally pronounce erroneously the stops of the third articulation area (k-g)." So according to [36] and [38] the La Chapelle Old Man talked as a lisping Hungarian child; I would also tell that according to my experience the group of symptoms described above (i/u lisping + open nasal speech + k/g problems) can also be observed at very drunken or very sleepy Magyar speakers. However they can speak.

But now the Old Man's skull is re-reconstructed, and there is the essentially modern-like Kebara hyoid. And still I sympathize with the cautious point of view in part. Namely, if there is no mental eminence (simpler: chin), I would not expect "rapid-fire" speech @17. In addition, Lieberman & Crelin guessed the unavoidable nasal tone of Neanderthal speech; something not too surprising for a glacial population.

However vocalisation could have been partially substituted by gesticulation. Somebody in earlier times must have been gesticulating very much, otherwise right-handedness would not go hand in hand with left-brain speech.

I close this Chapter with 2 very brief notes. First, is it possible at all that vocal language appeared with AMH's or even afterwards? The idea always reappears, see van Ginneken in the 30's. in some sense Jóhannesson [56] in the 60's and Halloran (#13) in the 90's. While van Ginneken put the appearance of vocal language to 4000 BC, Halloran to 8000 BC, both data are well within AMH times, even Neolithic.

If so, however, it must have preceeded a long time of gesticulating period, since human right-handedness is very old.

Maybe the simplest model is which handles the present single representation of the speech center in the left lobe and the 3 dimensional orientation in the right one [57]. Maybe they are too big?

Chimpanzee population is not right-handed and not left-handed: some chimpanzees are but in average chimpanzee is not [58]; but they have no speech. The change can happen in cca. 100 generations [59], so it may have happened in any time, but it seems that the asymmetry was ready at cca. 1.5 My BP [60]. Of course, transition from gesticulation to vocalization may have happened in any time in any transitional steps, as far as a model calculation of type [59] is concerned.

The other point is the age of the La Chapelle Old Man. It seems that it is a common belief that Neanderthals aged faster; it is a recurrent statement that he "was in his forties but seemed in the sixties". Also, there is an opinion that Neanderthal women died in the thirties because of childbirth complications and men slightly later (see e.g. #14).

If so, post-menopausal life was practically nil. Now, if old individuals can educate young ones and can impart their wisdom to the horde, then simple "group-selection" processes will lenghten the life expectancy (for an explicit model see [61]). The brain of Neanderthals was large enough to fill it with useful knowledge; the mechanism would not work only if Neanderthal was without language (either it be vocal or not). So if one is sure that Neanderthal women did not survive menopause, then it is a strong argument against effective language; but if one is sure that some language existed, then, backwards, it seems that there is some problem with the guessed short lifetimes.

Now I start to summarize the opinions and possibilities about Neanderthal survival/inheritance, although the question cannot yet be answered with certainty. One reason is that the topics is overloaded with emotions. Few scholars would claim that he has (brute, primitive) Neanderthal genes (and if the scholar is female, the claim is almost unheard of). And everybody wants to belong to the winner: it is a well known and frequently checked phenomenon that after elections more people tells that they voted to the winner party than its real voters. But such questions belong to sociology and will come later. Now the question is: what is the genetic connection between Neanderthals and the present population of Greater Europe?

By sheer logics there are 5 possibilities:

1) None; present Europeans came from Africa, cca. 40 ky ago. Neanderthals died out, and we shall see when. Reasons are manifold: better Upper Paleolithic tools and weapons, better AMH speech, easier AMH childbirth via gracile body plan, etc. This is the Out of Africa or African Eve model, dominant now. Victorious Aurignacians conquered the continent in a few millenia, from Bacho Kiro to the Atlantic shores (of either today's France or Ireland).

2) None. The African invaders died out in Europe because they were unable to compete with the autochtons. This is a caricature of Replacement, and was never seriously suggested so far, but would be a convenient ideology for the European Union (with a common currency Euro, common European flag, standardisation &c.).

3) None but Coexistence: since autochtons and invaders belonged to separate species, they could not mix. Neanderthals for a while kept some territories, maybe hilly, remote or cold ones, but now they are not seen. This was the opinion a century ago, and even now of cryptoanthropologists.

4) Coexistence: although autochtons and invaders belonged to the same species, the post-Hengelo population of Europe has become a geographic mosaic. Later serious gene flow may have happened. I think this is Multiregionalism.

5) Dilution: since autochtons and invaders belonged to the same species, some Neanderthal genes could find their way to the new population of Greater Europe, although everywhere in Europe the invaders dominated. This is either the weaker form of Out-of-Africa, or that of Multiregionalism.

A sixth possibility, that moderns are hybrids of Neanderthals and aliens, may be left to ezoterics. Now see arguments and counterarguments within the above paradigms pointwise.

1) Out-of-Africa is conform with the mtDNA tree, having one root cca. 200,000 years ago. That the tree is rooted in Africa may or may not be doubted on statistical grounds. But it could be rooted in Europe only if Neanderthal conquerors entered Asia, Australia and Africa, which seems impossible. The recovered Neanderthal mtDNA is far from modern human ones (although not at species distance, it seems! #15), and the claim (which needs confirmation from different samples, of course) that it is not nearer to Europeans than to any other moderns indeed is an argument against too much Neanderthal genetic matter surviving. And Aurignacians were indeed fast to spread.

On the other hand, Neanderthals probably could talk, Szeleta weapons do not seem worse than Aurignacians (later), we do not see organised warfare, and really, Late Neanderthals do not seem worse hunters than Aurignacians (later). There is a theory too that childbirth was no harder (but with longer gestation) for Neanderthals than to Cro-Magnons [62]. And, simply, the picture contradicts common sense. A tropical population, in the short Hengelo interstadial, enters Europe, and during the returning glacial epoch replaces the cold-adapted autochtons ([63]). Such a Replacement would be easy to accept in 10,000 BP, but not in 30,000.

2) As told, the inverse Replacement theory was not suggested seriously by anybody, but still may be. The idea would be logical: after the Hengelo interstadial tropical Aurignacians found themselves confronted with cold-adapted foes with concurrent Upper Paleolithic techniques (Castelperronian, Uluzzian, Bohunician, Szeletian and Jerzmanowician) and were no match. As introducing more sophisticated technology, the Neanderthals, lacking so the necessity of strong body, also might become step by step gracile, and mental eminence developed as dentition became gracile. However mtDNA analyses contradict this logical story.

3) Surviving Neanderthal pockets cannot be easily disproven. The satyr, mentioned in Plutarch's Sulla [3], may or may not have been a surviving Neanderthal. Note that Plutarch does not use the story for anything. The captive does not tell omens; simply produces unintelligible noises. Also look for Stolyhwo's medieval Neanderthal warrior in White Croatia; even in Nature. (I mean the respectable journal.) You may or may not take Alma, Yeti and other European Wildmen observations seriously; anyway they are not published in Nature. For lesser Europe the last wildman was reported from Kronstadt, Hungary, in 1781; being a Hungarica specialitas, it deserves a Note (@18).

However Madison Grant's Western Irish Neanderthals can be ruled out. We have seen that one of his Neanderthal characteristics was bridgeless nose. Now, Neanderthals are characterized just by big and well developed nose. And (apart from Stolihwo's knight) where are fresh Neanderthal bones?

4) My opinion (which does not count too much, even for myself, being a physicist) is that this Multiregionalist view is most confirmed by hard data. Indeed, Europe is a mosaic between 40,000 and 32,000 BP. Aurignacian spreads indeed from the Eastern Balkan to the Atlantic, but Castelperronian on the West, Uluzzian in Middle Italy and Szeletian in the northeastern Carpathian Basin, together with its satellites Bohunician and Jerzmanowician, live, and use another Upper Paleolithic cultures, on Mousterian grounds (later). And south of the Ebro Neanderthals live their Middle Paleolithic life; the Aurignacians/Africans no pasaran (do/will not break through, as Dolores Ibarrurri, La Pasionaria, formulated cca. 1936 AD, also behind the Ebro). The mosaic had been formed.

Only we do not know if conspecificity permitted the gene flow, or mixing was genetically impossible. If it was possible, it happened. The Lapedo Child is not the only witness (although note: we still do not know if he was not sublethal!); on the core territory of Szeletian Szeletians and Aurignacians were not only neighbours by a few kilometers, but also contemporary, as we shall see in Chapter 13 (and Szeletian seems dominant). The aim of the present Chapter is just to clarify up nontrivial ways about gene flow.

5) All right, AMH's and Neanderthals were conspecific (were they?) and Aurignacians drangen nach Westen and finished this march in 3-4 millenia. The Neanderthal pockets more and more declined in population and then finally vanished. But at least 10,000 year coexistence was behind the humanity. (Even more. From Hungary Aurignacians are reported before 41,700 BP, on Neanderthal territory. The last Croatian Neanderthal, also in the Carpathian Basin, is reported from 27,000, and that is the time Gravettians finally march through the Ebro, but there Mousterian/Neanderthal remains are reported even after 20,000 [19].) Some genes Europeans share, albeit few, because a) Neanderthals declined too fast, and b) after the Younger Dryas cold-adapted Neanderthal genes were unnecessary, except maybe for Lapponians.

But: where are these genes at all? There are only three tangible and serious suggestions. The nose of Europeans is generally bigger and more prominent than those of Asians and Africans. And one careful genetic analysis of cystic fibrosis found 52,000 BP as the time of the original mutation [64], #1. But note immediately that concurrent analyses yielded 3000 BC and similar dates as well [65], [66]. And the European Arctic population has lower crural index than non-European Arctic ones [31], as if the non-Europeans were all African, while Europeans had Neanderthal genes too. A very limited gene collection coming from the Neanderthals. Of course, it is possible that Brace is right, the only difference was Neanderthal robustness, and Upper Paleolithic technical civilization made everybody gracile; but what about the large mtDNA distance?

To pose the topics of this Chapter properly, now let us turn to Titus Livius. His monumental Ab Urbe Condita [67] dealt with Roman history from the foundation of Rome in 753 BC to 9 BC, in 142 booklets. The majority of them is lost now, but still a big part is available. Livy worked mainly from written records including official records of the state, although he, of course, often invented dialogs from times when writing was rare. Amongst many sources, he looked for the records of omens and anomalies. The Roman state collected them for official purposes. Anyway, the Roman gods sometimes communicate their desires with the Roman People and Senate, although not clearly; the state must hearken.

In Book XXVI Chapter 23 he gives the greater omens to year 211 BC. The military situation was improving, Hannibal not an immediate danger anymore; but still the enemy was in Italy. Some omens we, after 2200 years, can explain, only they are rare events. Some, we are sure, are impossible and the panic or something else produced the original report. And in some cases one cannot be sure.

So the recorded omens were the following. Lightning (or thunderbolt?) stroke the Statue of Victoria (!); the statue tumbled down. In Anagnia and Fregellae lightning stroke the city walls. All 3 cases are quite possible, but bad omens obviously. In Eretrum stone poured from the sky. This may be hailstorm; but meteorite shower as well. On the forum of Subertum blood creeks were flowing for a whole day. Very bad omen, although highly improbable; maybe a false report or gross exaggeration. And: a she-mule foaled in Reate. Now, she-mules do not foal, so this report also seems false. Or do they, only seldom? According to Linnéan zoology, horse (Equus przewalski/caballus) and donkey (Equus asinus) are disjoint, good species. But then what is mule at all? Is mule the analogy of the Lapedo Child, and maybe of the Shkul individuals? Then Neanderthal/sapiens hybrids would be possible, but without any consequence. Przewalski and asinus are good species, they form disjoint populations, so horse genes cannot go over donkeys and vice versa. Mules are dead ends.

But we now have a reference to the opposite. Unus testis nullus testis; let us continue. In Book XXXVII, Chapter 3, to year 191 BC again: a she-mule foaled. Where: in Reate again. There is no more such foaling in the extant books, but Reate is a mule-oriented city. Book XL, Chapter 2 mentions a 3-legged mule foal (possibly, now, ordinarily from horse and donkey), and the same to the year 179 BC.

Cynical modern times taught us that the following pattern is quite possible. Higher religious authorities expect some report. Nothing turned up. Reate is strong in mule production, their thinking is centered about mules; they report something about mules. The foaling she-mule is optimal: not obviously a good omen, not obviously bad, and if Roman priests want to check (but why at all?) they will be shown a mule colt.

But ancients were not so cynical, or only if it was absolutely necessary. A respectful and pious Roman, even if he is a Sabin, will not make idle jokes about omens. Does a possibility exist for fertile mules in Reate?

Fortunately, the Reatian expert is available. He is M. Terentius Varro Reatinus, 116-27 BC. He had his village lands in Reate and was born there. He was a country gentleman, his great-grandfater was consul and died at Cannae. Our Varro had a good schooling in Rome, then spent 3 years in Athens, learning "philosophy". He had various offices. In 69 he was a popular tribunus, in 68 praetor In 67 he got the corona navalis order, and in 66 became the Governor of Asia (by modern terms, some half of Asia Minor). With the Civil War his ascent stopped (he fought against C. Iulius Caesar), still he was nominated to head of a great library in Rome. In 43 he retired to Reate and wrote books. Most are now lost, but the De rerum rusticarum libri tres, first published in 36 BC is available. I used a Hungarian edition with Latin-Magyar bilingual text [68]; the English sentences will be my translations.

I went into details to show that it is unimaginable that Varro would lie (maybe: without very serious political purposes) or make idle jokes, puns &c. Here he is writing about the profession of country gentlemen: how to handle an estate, produce food. Wrote he some known falsity, he would make a fool from himself for the other country gentlemen. And now the text about fertile mules. Book 2, Chapter 27.

Country gentlemen discuss agriculture in the garden of a temple. Varro makes a 9*9 classification. It will be spoken about 9 "animals" of the estate, 3 small: sheep, goat, pig; 3 big: ox, horse, donkey, and 3 accessory: mule, dog, shepherd. All animals will have 9 aspects. And of this nine 2 are dropping and mounting. After some other discussion a certain Atticus tells that the 9*9 scheme is impossible: mounting and dropping cannot be treated for shepherds and mules. All right, maybe for shepherds it is not impossible, because the estate has slave women. But no way for mules. Varro answers that classifications are only approximative, and they may leave out these 2 items for mules. But then a Vaccius interrupts: "Parturam? inquit, proinde ut non aliquotiens dicatur Romae perperisse mulam." The dropping? As if it were not a common saying in Rome that the she-mule has foaled. Then Varro Reatinus continues: "subicio Magonem et Dionysium scribere, mula et equa cum conceperint, duodecimo mense parere". Mago and Dionysios write that when the she-mule and mare are conceived, they foal in the twelfth month. And he closes with: "Quare non, si hic in Italia cum peperit mula sit portentum, adsentiri omnes terras." So, even if in Italy the foaling mule is considered a miracle, it cannot be taken so for all countries. Then in Chapter 8 of Book 2 a Murrius, seemingly also a Reatian, discusses mules along more conservative lines and calls Varro "Reatinus auctor", a Reate specialist. And then Murrius continues with the other kind of "mules". "Hinnus qui apellatur, est ex equo et asina, minor quam mulus corpore, plerumque rubicundior,..." I cannot give here a correct English, but to be at least zoologically correct: Hinny comes from stallion and she-donkey. It is smaller for body than mule (mulus!), generally russet,... Do not confuse, however, the next sentence: "Item in ventre est, ut equus, menses duodecim." It is meant for the hinny foal, not the adult she-hinny.

So, two Reate specialists explain horses, donkeys and the two different mules to non-Reatine nonspecialists. And the ex-praetor and tribunus populus tells that, true, here it is a miracle when a she-mule (the "mare" of the hybrid from mare and he-donkey) foals, but not impossible (not so for hinna); it may be possible and not a miracle elsewhere.

I think, this statement of Varro comes from Aristotle and we can neglect this geographic difference mechanism. Let us see. In the History of Animals, Book 6, Part 36 the Stagirite writes [69]: "There is found in Syria a so-called mule. It is not the same as the cross between the horse and ass, but resembles it just as a wild ass resembles the domesticated congener, and derives its name from resemblance ... The animals of this species interbreed with one another...". Aristotle, the brightest and clairest thinker until Galileo, science organiser, and collector of many facts, saw the problem of mules. Horse is a (good) species, ass is too, and the wild mule as well (since Linné, Equus hemionus). But wild mule is not mule. We cannot expect the same clarity and distinguishing ability from M. Terentius Varro who got the ideas of the Lykeon from second hand, in the best case. According to him, mules procreate in Syria, but in Italy it is taken as miracle. Not impossible but very rare. We know that the resemblance is misleading: wild mule is a good species Equus hemionis and domesticated mule is not a species at all, and has no hemionus ancestors.

We might even neglect completely ancients if modern literature of mules were not also obscure. But it is; so let us remain with clear-headed Aristotle for a more minute. Anyways, ancients produced much more mules than moderns. At the end of Book 2 of Generation of Animals, Part 8 is fully about infertility of mules. The theory is now obsolete, but let us see empiry. First, "...the whole of the mule kind is sterile". But then: "the male [mule] does generate at seven years of age", "...it is the female alone that is entirely sterile, and even she is so only because she does not complete the development of the embryo, for a female mule has been known to conceive". And: "the male, again, may sometimes generate... The result in such cases is a 'ginnus', that is to say, a dwarf mule". History of Animals is more explicit. Book 6 Part 24 tells the somewhat stunning "A mule is fitted for commerce with the female after the first shedding of its teeth", and then continues with "at the age of seven will impregnate effectively". The male mule with a mare has produced a "hinny", and a hinny is a stunted mule. But we already know from Varro, what is the hinnus: the stallion+she-donkey mule, opposite but analogous to mulus, from mare and he-donkey. Mammals always resemble more the mother and donkey is smaller than horse.

Then we can summarize the opinion of ancient Mediterraneans, Aristotle's vast thinking ability and Varro's vast empiry about Genus Equus. Mules are generally sterile. Very exceptionally they are not. Now let us see modern science. First a Hungarian source, the late director of the Budapest Museum of Agriculture [70] (my translation): "In Hungary only the mulus species hybrid is produced [not the hinnus] ... The biologic experience about the millenial interspecific hybridisation is that the male mule is always sterile [contrary to Aristotle]. It is reported that the she-mules sometimes are conceived from either stallion or he-donkey, but this is so seldom that the literature records them individually. According to Hagedoorn (1950) the big-bodied Spanish and African donkeys got their imposing forms from horse genes via fertile she-mules". The statement is not more definite than those of Aristotle and Varro: maybe sometimes, but very rarely.

However Hagedoorn's note [71] calls our attention to a mechanism which may be very important about the fate of Neanderthals.

Even if sapiens and neanderthalensis are two good species, the hybrid may exist (Lapedo Child?), but not as a viable self-producing population. Then without Neanderthals there is no way to detect that the hybrid would be possible. But in Europe Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis coexisted for 15 ky and may cohabitated a lot. Spanish donkeys are under horse influence maybe for the sixth of this period and already [71] have some horse genes; then proper Europeans ("Caucasians" in the USA) may have even more Neanderthal genes even if Eve lived in Africa.

To be clear: I am not arguing for this. To me moderns and Neanderthals are nearer than donkeys and horses. Donkeys and horses have been being apart more than the 500,000 years seen from the Feldhoffer mtDNA sample; they asundered at the Pio/Pleistocene border. But this may still be proven as the last way out.

Now, there is an explicitly calculable model with the properties that we have 2 populations, both completely fertile in itself, the crossbreed's fertility either with any of them or in itself is reduced. If we make a barrier between the original populations, after some time the crossbred dies out; but in between genes can cross the species (?) boundary. Then the two "populations" are not quite 2 good species; but they are not mere subspecies either. Comes the model.

The human chromosome set is 2*22 + sexuals, while all "great apes", i.e. other extant hominids + Pongo have 2*23 + sexuals. But most problems vanish if we observe that human chromosome 2 seems as unification of two chimpanzee chromosomes: both forms and general band pattern are the same. So much was known 15 years [72], [73] ago. It seems that somewhere between the human-chimpanzee missing link and Homo sapiens one Robertson translocation (central fusion) has happened, with several inversions [72]. All these processes cause decreased fertility between "wild" and "mutated" forms, because the pairing is disturbed in mitosis; still even the central fusion do not prevent the normal development of zygote and embryo, as seen for 15/21 central fusion (Down carriers, who are totally normal and have children) [29].

Let us concentrate then on the Robertson translocation. Probably it was the strongest barrier to crossing back, and then it was synchronous with the greatest leap in the singling out of our pathway. But of course according to personal preferences a few possibilities exist still. Taking into account the new hominid trees [11], [12], the last being with 48 chromosomes among our ancestors may have been

1) the chimpanzee-human common ancestor; or

2) the australopithecine/human link (either missing, or ramidus, afarensis, or any); or

3) erectus or ergaster in Africa, and archaic moderns there speciated via the Robertson translocation; or

4) the archaic sapiens, and then the translocation caused the very subtle change invisible on skeletons between Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic AMH's.

I can rule out, I think, Case 4), but it will not be done in this Chapter. Obviously, the model belongs to the Lapedo Child problem in Cases 3) & 4).

Recently it turned out that the story is slightly more involved. The telomere of human chromosome 2 coincides with that of the chimpanzee precursor "2p", and traces of the telomere of "2q" can still be detected on the human 2. Gorilla 2p had an inversion near the end, and maybe also minor translocations on 2p, and between 2p and 2q. Orang structure is most different, in accordance with modern evolutionary trees [74], #16. However this is only something to think about in the early gorilla-chimpanzee-australopithecus triangle.

So, between something and human happened a Robertson translocation and appeared Chromosome 2. Obviously first one of the pair; the other 2p and 2q were still apart. What does happen when crossing back? Down carriers are a good analogy. There are 3 independent parameters in the equations [75]:

1) The mutation rate e. For the 15/21 central fusion e is cca. 10^-4. Then I take 10^-4.

2) Preference of the fused chromosomes in meiosis, k. While I have not the slighest idea, why, this preference exists in the 15/21 fusion [29]. (Does some mechanism in mitosis or meiosis prefer less chromosomes? It is not impossible.)

3) From the final result it is obvious that the fused chromosomes must result in higher surviving (otherwise the fusion could not have spread). The reason is obscure; genetically it happens via position effect (which is mysterious enough but exists), biologically I refer the equally mystic Upper Paleolithic psyche and continue. One can distinguish even two survival parameters: v for 47 chromosomes and w for 46. Then the resulting equations are:

n₄₈ -> Q(1-e)[n₄₈+v(1-k)n₄₇/4

n₄₇ -> Q{(2-e)[(1+k)vn₄₇/4+wn₄₆][n₄₈+(1-k)vn₄₇/4)] +

+ e[n₄₈+(1-k)vn₄₇/4]²+(1-k²)v²n₄₇²/8}

(9.1) n₄₆ -> Q{[(1+k)vn₄₇/4+wn₄₆]² +

+ e[(1+k)vn₄₇/4+wn₄₆][n₄₈+(1-k)vn₄₇/4)]}

where the arrow means going over to the next generation, n's are the normalised concentrations

(9.2) n₄₆ + n₄₇ + n₄₈ = 1

and Q guarantees normalisation:

(9.3) Q = {(n₄₈ + vn₄₇/2 + wn₄₆)² + (1-k²)v²n₄₇²/8}^-1}

The most important point in these equations is the existence of lethals, semilethals and sublethals. Let us switch back to the analogy: Down carriers. Small Chromosome 21 may be attached to big Chromosome 15. Let us assume that in pairing the composite chromosome is handled as 15. Then a carrier ovum and a normal sperm can give 15,15;21,21 (normal), but 15,15;-,21 (monosome, lethal, never seen); 15,15/21;21,21 (effectively Down, semilethal, under wild situations do not survive maturity); 15,15/21;21,- (normal but carrier). Monosomes are not born, trisomes die early. We do not know anything about hominids trisomic for 2q; but may assume a similar pattern and did it.

It is easy to see that the heterozigote (hybrid) population cannot exist in itself. Starting with n₄₇=1, in the next generation n₄₆ and n₄₈ appear too with high enough concentration. Also, if k, v and/or w are not high enough, the mutation does not "break through". To see when it breaks through, several scenarios have been simulated. For example, v=w generally may be close to 1, but in special circumstances it may go up. But then these circumstances can exist only for limited time. For example, if k=0.2, and v is transiently 2 (!), the critical time is 31 generations, <1000 years; and then the transition practically happens in 25 generations. For k=0.2 the mutation cannot anyways begin to spread below v=1.7. With an extreme inbreeding (because of bottleneck) only 1 (one) breeder remained from one of the sexes (obviously one man is more practical) the transition happens above k»0.35, which is not hopeless. And so on.

However imagine that the mutant population, in any way, appeared in a remote corner. Now already again v=w=1, and the new population goes out of isolation and meets the wild form. What happens?

For k=0 the situation would be symmetric. For k>0 the mutants are preferred. However if at the meeting the mutants were too few, they cannot win. For each k there is a critical concentration of mutants. Above them in the long run they win and all the wilds vanish, below oppositely. The necessary time is cca. 20 generations.

But during these 20 generations always there is cross-breeding. Genes may flow during that time. These genes preserve the vanished phenotype in some sense, this is not extinction. If you are interested, look for the details in [75]; the Volume was originally sent to some 100 institutions most working in "Space Physics" (space research, cosmic radiation, &c.)

There may be other mechanisms too. Geist suggests (#11) that the sapiens-Neanderthal hybrid was viable but a bad compromise: too weak for frontal combat with megaherbivores and too strong to be good with missile weapons. Then the meiosis is trivial but the hybrid has lower survival than both. This also results in equations whose solutions disprefer the hybrid, so after mixing the smaller population dies out and the hybrid is transient. The only problem is that there are too many free parameters which we cannot measure.

But generally mules, and specially fertile she-mules may show us an easy way to reconcile the existence of the Lapedo Child with the scarcity of Neanderthal genes in autochtonous Europeans; if the Neanderthal genes are indeed scarce and if the hybrid interpretation of the Child is correct. Unfortunately, I never met good genetic literature about mules.

Middle vs. Upper Paleolithic is an idea of European origin (both for scholars and for sites), and not very old. I think, the problems of the last years in the origin of Upper Paleolithic arise from the historical definition, and after some years a more natural definition will turn up. However I cannot suggest any such definition now, so we can remain with the present one for a while. But first some history of ideas.

The story starts with Ch. Thomsen, Keeper of the Danish National Museum in Copenhagen. He observed in 1819 that tools are made of 3 materials: stone, copper (bronze) and iron, and if a site contains more than one, this is the order of sequence. His successor at the Museum, Worsaae, somewhat generalised the idea [76]. The idea was chemically plausible. Metals do not appear in their metallic forms but in chemical bounds, with a very few exceptions. Gold, and not so frequently, silver, are common in metallic form and copper nuggets are not extremely rare. Sometimes tin appears too, e.g. in Southwestern Australia. Metallic iron is always meteoritic except for the Ovifak and/or Disko irons in basalt (Greenland) [77], [78], [79]. So copper nuggets had to be collected; but copper is weakly bound in its ores so even with not advanced technology it can be deliberated; not so iron, but iron ores are much more abundant. So the stone -> copper -> iron sequence is natural.

Lubbock refined the classification by contrasting Palaeolithe to Neolithe [80]. Roughly speaking, in the older age stone was only "cracked", while in the newer it was cracked, and then polished or "ground". Obviously the new technique takes more time but gives better edge or point and can produce more specialised tools.

So far so good. However at the end of the XIXth century there was an alternative definition: that Neolithic Man not only ground and polished but also he produced splinters and ground, polished and used that for tools. However if we define a difference by two criteria, there is the danger that sometimes the two criteria will contradict each other. Now the splinter production (alternately: "blade technology") is the/a criterion for Upper Paleolithic.

In the middle of the XXth century the picture was simple and clear. Paleolithic humans were only cracking. There was the Lower Paleolithic, connected with Pithecanthropus/Homo erectus. He had a small brain cca. 1000 cm3, so his technology was simple and rude, and now we can neglect Lower Paleolithic. Then came Neanderthal Man and Middle Paleolithic/Mousterian (synonymes). All Mousterians were Neanderthal and all Neanderthals were Mousterian (if Micocquian is different enough, then Mousterian or Micocquian). Mousterian was dominantly a core technique, splinters were removed and thrown away as rubbish. Neanderthal Man had big enough brains, but maybe its structure was different and not lucky, because his technique was not too developed and his life was brutal.

Then arrived Modern Man, first Cro-Magnon, to France. (Whence?) He started a new technique, Upper Paleolithic, much more sophisticated than Middle Paleolithic/Mousterian. There were good arguments that Cro-Magnons came from elsewhere, from a remote Western nook of presapiens, or from Middle East, therefore they had time to develop a quite different culture and the change was sharp even if some coexistence of say 2 millenia happened. (Look into [81] from 1969: last Mousterian date from Southern France is Les Cottés, Vienne, 30,350+/-400 BC, first Aurignacian is Abri Pataud, Dordogne, 32,300+/-675 BC). French Upper Paleolithe started with the Castelperronian, followed by Aurignacian, then Gravettian; in the remaining Europe it started with Aurignacian. Maybe the Upper Paleolithe was slightly earlier in Western Asia and Libia than in France; maybe it started from an Eastern local Middle Paleolithic liking splinter tools [81].

Now stop for a moment. If Upper Paleolithic was imported after a long hidden development, then it was a brand new culture. Then the better scholar is who can list more differences compared to Mousterian/Middle Paleolithic. Therefore longer and longer lists appeared. But later it turned out that if we go back towards the origin of UP, we shall find cultures fulfilling only a part of differentiae specificae. Is a culture Upper Paleolithic which fulfils half of the definition, or is it still Middle Paleolithic? A similar problem has arisen at the "mammal/reptile border" [82], #17, but there, at least, is now an attempt to find 1 (one) fundamental mammal criterion. One criterion either is fulfilled and then we have Upper Paleolithe or mammal, or not and then the fossil is Middle Paleolithic or reptile. This is the way of classifying according to mathematical logics.

Back to the beginning of UP, as we knew about in 1969. Castelperronian is mysterious. It is completely without parietal or figurative art, poor in bone tools, somewhat Mousterian (but that may be layer mixing) quite distinct from next Aurignacian. Good; that is the first phase, still primitive. However i) it appears only in France; ii) Castelperronian and Aurignacian are practically synchronous in France (Aurignacian Abri Pataud, Level XIV is 32,300+/-675 BC, Castelperronian Les Cottés is 31,350+/-500 BC).

Everything would be all right if UP had started in France and if there Castelperronian were earlier than Aurignacian. Then Castelperronian is the most primitive phase of UP. Moderns either developed from Neanderthals in France or came from England, Ireland or any isolated Western part with Castelperronian technique, already superior to Mousterian but not too superior. Therefore for a while they could not absolutely dominate and Mousterian influence is seen. Then in Phase 2 they developed Aurignacian and conservative Mousterian Neanderthals were no competitors anymore. However the new culture came from East (or South? Haua Ftea?) into France [81] so it is impossible to have its initial phase only in France, and "Phase 1" and "Phase 2" of French UP was synchronous rather. The French Chronology of the 60's was self-contradictory logically.

The simplest solution would have been to remove Castelperronian from before Aurignacianand to put it after Mousterian as its successor. By other words, if Upper Paleolithic or Aurignacian (matter of definition) were import in France, then Castelperronian would have belonged to the autochtons who were Neanderthals. (Or, which is almost the same, Castelperronian would have been the Upper Paleolithic of local communities with heavy Neanderthal influence, either substrate, or superstrate. Do not forget: from body plan one can see that individually Neanderthals were better warriors than moderns #11.)

And some years ago it turned out that just this is the situation. Castelperronian is the Upper Paleolithic of Neanderthals. Castelperronian sites were found with Neanderthals but never with moderns #1; At Arcy-sur-Cure Neanderthal fragments were found in a Castelperronian layer [83], in the Saint-Cesaire Castelperronian layer also a Neanderthal was found, for any case less robust as usual [84]. On the other hand, good Aurignacian sites were found with moderns, but never with Neanderthals [19], #1. But: Castelperronian is Upper Paleolithic. Who invented Upper Paleolithic?

The first approach would be: which one is older, Castelperronian or Aurignacian? Difficult to tell. Ref. [19] contains a large database, 468 layers dated with measurement error and classification to culture and human remnants. Now, the most ancient standard Aurignacian is at 44,300+/-1900 BP at Istállóskô, Carpathian Basin. On the West it is El Castillo, but with large error, 42,100+/-5400 BP. The oldest Castelperronian is La Gallardi, 40,000+/-5,000 BP, again with big error, and there is an old date with moderate error, Camiac, 35,100+/-2,000 BP. In general, as if Aurignacian data bracketed Castelperronians, but the result is not significant. Similarly, Ref. [16] suggests that in southern France and northern Spain Aurignacian is marginally older than Castelperronian, but the conclusion does not seem significant because of the measurement errors.

Then we may try to answer qualitatively. But of course the answer will depend on the definition of Upper Paleolithic, and I already have told my opinion about the traditional definition from the point of view of mathematical logics. But let us take now the "definition" of Zilhao [63], #18, who compiled it from Brézillon [85] and Mellars [86]:

A) Bone tools

B) Preference of blades

C) Regional variation (ethnic differentation)

D) Internal spatial organisation of camp sites

E) Massive use of colorants

F) Adornments and art

G) Increased population density

H) Specialised hunting

I) Bird, fish and sea food as subsistence.

Now, Zilhao tells that some Mousterian sites fulfil some points: A) is known from Crimea, B) is fulfilled in Rocourt and Seclin, D) is found at Vilas Ruivas, Portugal, and there are Middle Paleolithic examples to Point I) at Figueira Brava or Salzgitter-Lebensdadt.

Then I would add the following. The above short list of "exceptions" already verifies Point C). In the next Chapter I tell Hungarian examples for E) and H) in Mousterian; also for D) but I think, D) is not a human invention, only a consequence of "good weather". Point G) is not constructive and so it should be left out. And then what? I doubt that Conditions A-I) indeed define anything at all.

Still, a life satisfying A-I) is "superior" to sufficiently previous ones without these points. If we go deeply into Mousterian, they were not parts of life. If we go deeply into Aurignacian, they are present. The population of Europe changed its lifestyle. But the question is: how? And who was behind it?

In sheer logic a finite number of answers is possible:

1) Anatomically modern humans did it, without Neanderthals;

2) Neanderthals did it without anatomically modern humans;

3) AMH's started it, and Neanderthals aped them.

4) Neanderthals started it and AMH's aped them;

5) AMH's started it and Neanderthals followed;

6) Neanderthals started it and AMH's followed;

7) Common result with AMH dominance;

8) Common result with Neanderthal dominance;

9) Common symmetric result.

Now, some possibilities can be ruled out. Point 1) is impossible if Castelperronian is UP, and according to "definitions" as the above, it is. 9) is a limiting case so it could not be proven. Cases 2) and 4) would not be believed anyway because today's Europeans regard themselves as AMH, maybe from Africa. But my point is that Points 3) and 5-8) are all compatible (still?) with data.

I definitely call attention to possibilities 7 & 8). If Upper Paleolithic could not have been produced without the interaction, then UP could not have been occurred anywhere else than in Greater Europe: in Levant, France or any other place where AMH and Neanderthals met. And we see just this. Anyway, AMH's lived in Africa some 100,000 years without transition to Upper Paleolithic. To be sure, I could not explain such a phenomenon; but it is possible to discuss this.

In the next Chapter I am telling some Hungarian stories about Mousterian Neanderthals. I am sure that they are published in German, English, Russian or French somewhere or other, but I cannot find them generally. So I tell them from Hungarian books; if somebody is interested, the names of authors will give a first clue.

Of course there is a Blickfang in the title. Hungary, as a state, did not exist before 896 AD, and her eponym, the Onogur tribal alliance, did not arrive before 677 AD. Still, let me cite D. Czvittinger's pioneering work from 1711, Specimen Hungariae Literatae (Thesaurus of Learned Hungary). The book contains everybody with scientific activity born or permanently having lived in Hungary. For example Pope Caius I, from IIIrd century Pannonia, was Hungarian according to Czvittinger. But nobody is surprised if somebody speaks about Neanderthals in France: France is as old as the Frank rule there. The traditional date is Chlodwig's victory against Dux Syagrius, 486 AD. If somebody believed an Asian background for the strange name Czvittinger, I tell that his mother tongue was a dialect of German, most probably he was a Szepes Zips, so he was a Hungarian. In Germany his name would have been cca. Zwittinger (@19).

The southern border of the area is a complicated matter and only Hungarians and Croatians understand it. For simplicity, let us say that the Vindija and Krapina Neanderthals are Croatian, although that territory is Slavonia proper, and then in exchange Ottokár Kadic, the first geologist looking for the Szeleta culture is Hungarian.

I am going to speak about 3 Neanderthal cultures and look for the Upper Paleolithic criteria A-I) of Zilhao above. The localities are, Tata, Érd-Nagytétény and Subalyuk (or generally the Bükk). If somebody wants to find them on map, I tell that Tata is west of Budapest, not too far, Érd and Nagytétény are neighbours of each other, Érd a city and Nagytétény a southwestern district of Budapest, and Bükk is a mountain (up to 950 m) in northeastern direction above the river Tisza (Tisia, Theiss, &c.)

Tata is a very young open-air camp at thermal springs, cca. 33,000 BP. Because of the springs the July average temperature was 19 °C [87] (we are just after Hengelo interstadial, climate cooling but not yet extremely cold). So an open air camp at hot springs is viable. This belongs to Criterion D, but I think in mild climate nobody is huddling in caves. The Tata culture was microlithic, not quite a "robust" culture. Average tool length is 3.025 cm, 40% bifacial [88].

There is an artefact from Tata, which reflects symbolism, although we do not understand its meaning. A mammoth molar is carved and shaped oval; a part of it ochered. Its state reflects a lot of handling [89]. As Marshack tells: "Here the artisan planned for a 'non-utiliarian', symbolic object.". So UP criteria D), E) and F) are fulfilled (what does mean "massive" use?). Of course you cannot expect seafood without sea.

The next story is the Nagytétény-Érd open air camp. The terrain is low plateau, traversed by one valley going to the Danube. The bigger precipitation goes here into the Danube; and the cave bears also marched in the valley. Consequently if one wanted to hunt bears, somewhere near to the valley a camp meant key position. Now, there is a double small side valley, cca. 2*10 m long similarly wide and 4 m deep. The Mousterians lived in the two small side valleys, 112 m²ether and went out to the big valley to hunt [87]. The wind generally was northwestern.

The whole bigger hollow was residential area. In the smaller hollow human occupation was near the entrance, but the back part was deeper and was utilized as meat depot. The bones of the last season formed a 1.5 m thick layer, the equivalent of cca. 7 metric ton meat.

So far so good. Small tool workshops were identified in the camp(s); the stone was collected from a pebble layer, extant. The available stone is quartzite and fist-sized pebbles; in minority flint.

Six layers can be recognised, from above a, b, c, d, e and the bottom. Going upward the average size of tools decrease.

In the layers a, b and c the charcoal was scarce for C14 dating, but from the spectrum of small rodents the July mean temperature was, in Layers a & b, 16.3 °C, so post-Hengelo. Layer d is 35.3-38.1 ky old, Layer e is 44.3 ky, and the bottom layer >50 ky.

In average 89% of the prey was cave bear, but decreasing upwards. In the young layers the sequence is cave bear > horse > rhino > others. The bear was hunted in early spring, deer, horse and rhino in summer.

The statistics shows that the prey was chopped up outside, at the hunting field and some parts were not carried home. Something similar was observed in France, with the conclusion that males ate the majority of meat on the spot and carried home only a moderate quantity to the females and kids #19, Binford mentioned there as final source, see [51]. Now the Érd picture does not support the above idea. The camp is full with thighs. The detailed picture is species-dependent.

The skulls, in pieces, were always taken home, for the brains. As for other parts, most parts of the bears were carried home; vertebrae and ribs not. For horses, donkeys and deer the limbs were carried home; for rhinos only the lower extremities; according to the author of Ref. [87], because rhino is too big.

Now let us stop for a moment. The composer of #19 is a female, as well as the author of [87]. Still, a similar phenomenon is interpreted in two, diametrally opposite ways. According to #19 Neanderthal males are blamed because they ate something instead carrying home for females and kids. According to [87] they were reasonable, well-educated males because they did not carry rubbish into the flat. This shows some difficulties of archeological reconstructions, as well as the difficulties for foreigners to recognise who is male and who is female with Magyar names.

Let us compare the statements of [87] to [90]. The 2 papers generally confirm each other; the author of Ref. [90] guesses genetic connections with the Veternica and Krapina Caves, according to tool pattern.

Now come the UP criteria. Point A is debatable. Namely antler was used as socket or shaft of stone tools. B) is absent, and C) is obviously fulfilled; this camp is unique so far. D) is observed, E) seems absent, and I postpone F) for a minute. G) cannot be evaluated, I) cannot be expected for geography. The author of [87] states "strong specialization of hunting"; which is Criterion H.

Now back to Criterion F), art & adornment. Not too long ago an argumentation went on Internet about the "Shaman's Cape Religion" of Neanderthals #12, #20. From Hortus, France, a grave is reported; it seems that the deceased in it was clothed into leopard costume, with paw and tail bones. Now, the arguments go, this is either adornment, or the bearer was shaman, sorcerer &c. in life and then it is religion. In both cases it is "symbolic behaviour".

Now, the Érd bone statistics shows something similar, but with clearer meaning [87]. In the camp hyena, wolf, leopard and cave lion remnants have been found. However only skull and paw bones. The author states that they were trophies, used as skin covers. Sure; but also the killing of dangerous carnivores is a success, proving the ability of the hunter. Cave bear's skin is good enough for cover and as byproduct of food, a great quantity of bearskins was available. Leopard, lion or wolf skins are proper to trophy, the document of past hunt success. So, I think, Adornment is seen, and then Point F) is met; and also, the Hortus male may have been a shaman, but if not, he was a distinguished hunter. Ref. [90] confirms that the skull and paw bones were carried home with the carnivore skin; remember that the leopard skin in Hortus also contained one paw and the tail bones. In Hortus, either the bones remained permanently in the trophy, or it was the last and recent prey of the deceased, so it was freshly buried with him. There was no burial at the Érd camp, so it would be difficult to tell more.

And then the Subalyuk Mousterians. Subalyuk is a cave with 2 layers and probably a burial. The tools contain also leaf-shaped ones and the bifacials are more frequent in the newer layer [87]; [91] notes that in the upper layer "blade-like" tools appear too, which establishes a connection with the Hungarian Upper Paleolithic.

But I mention Subalyuk, because here was a specialized hunting of Capra ibex. In the lower layer Capra ibex is the most frequent prey. "So this is local speciality -a peculiar hunting specialization" [87]. UP criteria C) and H) fulfilled, and as if there were a tendency towards B).

I emphasize: the 3 discussed Hungarian Neanderthal groups are all Mousterian. And still, they fulfil some Upper Paleolithic criteria, Érd the majority of it. It seems that either the criteria are useless, or there was an evolution to Upper Paleolithic direction among Hungarian Mousterians.

Now we make a detour to Ireland.

Magyars generally do not look for connections in Europe before the Migration Period. They came from the East. There is a poem of Gyula Illyés, greatest national poet of the 60's and 70's which describes the Conquest in 896 AD. The Petchenegs just have defeated the Magyars, took the women and some part of the herds. The warriors flee into the Carpathian Basin; the leader of the conquest, Prince Árpád, stops on the watershed, and looks back. He knows that the physical appearance of the people will change. There are no women; they will have to take European women in the Basin, and then the almond-shaped eyes will vanish forever. A terrifying thought; but the nation must live {4}.

Historians in Hungary spent some time to disprove the poem. For example they collected the earliest available woman names and determined that a lot of specially Magyar names appear, so traditions do not seem to differ between men and women. Now it becomes possible to check the idea via mtDNA, which detects the maternal line. Interestingly enough, there is a statement on Internet that for haplogroups Hungarian population does not seem to differ from the neighbours (#21). This is strange for a Magyar who knows the anatomical differences; if, however, it is true, then there is some nontrivial complication in history, similar to that which prevented the Neanderthal mtDNA to survive.

Interestingly enough, historians neglected the fact that the great poet was always proud to be Petcheneg. There is a possibility that this coloured his picture about the degree of Petcheneg victory against Magyars, some days before the Magyar Conquest. Most Hungarian historians believe the Petcheneg victory was not overwhelming; some believe there was no Petcheneg victory at all and Magyars crossed the Eastern Carpathians in good order in April, 896. History is even more complicated than anthropology. (To avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations: we do know that there were more than one immigration waves. Plus there were individual immigrations from all possible directions. The ancestry of present Magyars, i.e. Magyar-speaking Hungarians are rather mixed. However 1) the 896 event was important; the topmost political organization is continuous from 896; and the history of Hungary indicates more Eastern components than those of neighbouring countries.)

But Neanderthals did not have almond eyes, although they were bowlegged as many Magyars (and Mongolians, Japanese &c.).

Now, we saw that the idea of Neanderthal traits in Western Ireland was an Anglo-Saxon idea. But it seems it has not been indignantly refused.

Let us see first {2}. At the beginning of Chapter 14 the book comments the opinions of moderns. I quote some comments:

"Ah, we were a short stubby folk, bandy-legged and a little stooped. How is it then that even God remembers us as giants?"

"We were the people of the earth itself. We were here at the making of the hills. And how can we be called aliens?"

"We were a Childhood in the deep fimbul-winter, and we invented all childhood inventions. How then have we become the boogermen?"

And two quite explicit questions:

"We were the people before the people, and how is it said that we are not people at all?"

"We labored the million years [in fact, only half a million at most] to raise ourselves. And who were these ganglers who arrived full-blown and full-brained to supercede us? Are not they the aliens?"

Imagine a nation, subjected to another but struggling for independence. Then that nation will be sensitive to similar cases happened earlier. Struggle against Englishmen, so the Eastern mainland (compared to the Irish Island, the British is mainland; there was nothing to West, and a lot to East, the first the British Island) is firmly rooted in tradition. While the Irish Island had enough internal strife, invaders were outsiders. The national myth may go as: If there were Neanderthals on the western coast [we have seen that there were not; Grant's criteria were partially wrong], even they would be autochtons, allies against outsiders. Everybody is as ugly as he wants to be if good patriot.

And this is written in {3}. Cena, Rhi (@20) of the Tuatha de Danann from the sky and Sixarm, biggest War Chief of Fomorians (Neanderthals from description of the book) plan a marriage; otherwise one of the peoples would be exterminated in the inevitable conflict. Lifestyles, ideals of beauty &c. may differ, but honour not; and it must be done. (It seems they would like it too; but that is irrelevant.)

I, of course, am not interested in literary critics. I refer the book for two reasons. First, there are strange resonances both with the Hungarian (Magyar? Petcheneg?) poem mentioned above, and with the next Chapter (which, in turn, will not be fiction, only hypothesis). Second, if the Lapedo Child is really a hybrid, he may have been the product of such a union as I told in Chapter 7 (or this is the simplest mechanism).

I cite two passages. In the first Sixarm just have made the proposal; Cena temporizes, telling: "We'd make strange-looking children together. Did you not think of that? Would Danan or Freth want any part of them?" But it should be done for the lifes of nations. This resonates to the words of the Magyar poet as told above: the external appearance of the nation will change and it is almost unimaginable; but at least it will survive. And, when the royal family is discussing the proposal, Prince Nemed of Alba, to the question how to reach peace, answers: "One people will swallow the other in the end. The question is which." And "His words left an echo". The end of the novel is the marriage & alliance; but we do not know yet about the fate of strange-looking children and the two peoples. Of course, we know from DNA data that the African-rooted anatomically moderns are around and we do not know that Neanderthal-rooted people would be. The question is: do we know that they are not?

Although {3} is fiction, it is not a baseless fantasy. (It is fantasy but has some basis.) It is difficult to tell exactly who were the Tuatha de Danann, but according to the chronicle Lebor Gabala it was the fifth population in Ireland, surely Celts. The Celts opposing Englishmen a thousand years ago were the next wave, the Milesians; however Irish tradition honours the Tuatha De Danann maybe even more #22. Fomorians were the first wave or autochtons; later they lived on the west, and were strange-looking #23. Now Cena, Rhi of the Tuatha De Danann has in the novel 3 brothers, Oghmal, Carbri and Garanowy. The first two are great names at the beginning of a Tuatha De Danann lineage [92]. There is a female character from royal/divine descent who becames the wife or lover of a Fomorian king, but the name varies, not unusually in Irish mithology. The lady is either Eithne or Eri, the Fomorian is either Balor or Elatha. Their son (who, then is the analogon of the Lapedo Child) is mostly Bres.

Indeed, it may seem as if first the Tuatha De Danann had some unstable peace and/or alliance with the Fomorians; anybodies at all the two groups may have been.

For a Hungarian it is quite interesting to meet with Ref. #24. It is a list of archaeological sites but from the end you can jump into a sequence of slides. The 15th slide has the title "Aurignacian & Szeletian". It is the map of Europe about 33,000 BC. Although the legends explain only 2 colours, there are rather 4.

The "dirty" colour shows uninhabitated regions, or at least such where no site was found. Light, "beige" colour (but I rather will avoid such feminine termini technici) is Mousterian Middle Paleolithic Hispania. Darker colours are Upper Palaeolithic cultures; one Aurignacian and another (the darkest) the 3 (3.5?) Mousterian-rooted (yes!) UP: Castelperronian north of the Pyrenees, Uluzzian in Italy and Szeletian+Jerzmanowician "on the East". Aurignacian extends from the Maritsa River to the Ebro, but 3 Neanderthal islands still exist in the more developed victorious Aurignacian sea. But soon they will sink. The Saint Césaire individual is already dead and we know that Uluzzian is only a short interlude. And Szeleta in the Carpathian Basin (later Hungary)? What did come ever from the Carpathian Basin? (Cf, mutatis mutandis, John 1, 46.)

But, interestingly in the title Szeleta represents all the surviving Neanderthals, not western Castelperron. And we know the end of Castelperronian, we know the fading of Uluzzian, but the fate of Szeletian is not clear. Ten thousands years after the assumed extinction Epiaurignacians produced Szeletian leaf-points #3. Shupp's opinion is that they copied them. Possibly; but we simply do not know, from what time Szeletian tools were made by non-Szeletian population. Not surprising; we do not know the Szeletians. Only their tools.

Szeleta is the name of a cave in Hungary, near to the big city Miskolc (that is the Magyar name, the Slovakian is Miskovec), just east of its westernmost extension Lillafüred, at cca. 300 m level, near to the Szinva Creek, in the Bükk Mountains. For a detailed map see #25. The first tools were found in the city, in 1892. Then archeologists looked for the source and in 1906 they found a deposit of tools in the Szeleta Cave. As for English sources you can turn to [93], [94] and #1, but I can handle Magyar sources too and Szeleta is a Hungarian phenomenon. It was in the Carpathian Basin.

The first description of the Szeleta tools is in [95], but they were carried there by the Szinva Creek. These first tools were classified as hand axes, because they were bifacial and big enough. The matter was flint in broader sense.

The cave site was found after 14 years by O. Kadic [96]. (For the carreer of Kadic and for a map of the neighbourhood of Szeleta Cave see #25.) Ref. [96] reinterprets the first founds. They are still hand axes, but the material is chalcedon jasper. The biggest piece is 23.8 cm long, 11.0 cm wide and 2.3 cm thick. (Too thin for a hand axe? Cf. #11.) In the meantime Hoernes guessed them Solutréan [97], an interpretation still sometimes haunting.

The cave is rather big. First there is a vestibule, 15 m wide and 20 m deep; then come 2 corridors a wider, 40 m long and a narrow, 300 m long. Cave bear stones were found in great quantities, and in the first year 40 stone tools were found. All similar to the 1892 tools, only smaller. But Herman doubted that they were hand axes. Too thin, bad grip &c. Then he spoke with a Hungarian traveler to Japan, who had drafts of Ainu arrows @21. The arrowheads were similar; so Herman considered the small ones up to 6 cm arrowheads, the bigger ones spearheads. They can be put into a split wooden handle. Although the arrowhead interpretation is doubtful (did bows exist then?), there seems no problem with the spearhead hypothesis. Herman's opinion is that the recent Tasmanian spearheads reported by Klaatsch [98] are analogous to the Szeleta "hand axes".

As I told, I do not write History of Science. But I am writing about reception of Neanderthals. So I proceed with a book from 1958, Ref. [91]. The text is cautious and full with understatements about the Szeleta culture. It tells about 3 other caves with Szeleta tools, but still the holotype is the most characteristic Szeleta. There are two Szeleta layers there, an older (I would say Lower Szeletian, LSz) and a newer, more developed (USz). They are not Solutréan, so the French Solutréan did not originate from Hungary. The Upper Szeletian "keeps the characteristics of local Lower [now we would say, Middle] Palaeolithic and directly comes from the early Szeletian [my LSz]". And the Lovas red ochre mine (near to Lake Balaton) is "from the late period of Szeletian".

Now, the statements are either erroneous or unequivocal, even if the author does not write the final conclusion. Both Szeleta layers continue Moustérian traditions (of, say, Subalyuk). So either the Neanderthals survived long in Hungary, or the first Hungarian Homo sapiens learnt the industry from Neanderthals. But it is better not to state this. Hungary, for her Asian traditions, was a laughingstock/scapegoat of Europe in the XXth century and just now (1958!) is a half-colony of an unpopular Eurasian power, plus poor. If archaeologists find something with French connections, that is nice and good for collaboration + Hungary's reputation. Local long-living Neanderthals are not chic; and dirty jokes could be done against Hungarians.

One decade later, let us look at a snapshot from outside of the Carpathian Basin. Ref. [81] mentions Szeletian only twice. In both cases he states that there seems to be a similarity with Solutréan, but that is not real; and that the leaf points appearing in Hungary and in Southern Russian (?!) UP root in MP.

Neanderthals are not chic; still Szeletian is ours, so it is studied. Nobody else has Szeletian. (Now, in 2001 it is no more true: Slovakians have Szeletian sites too and I found more about Szeletian on Internet in Slovakian than in Magyar + English. But of course Szeleta Men had no reason to stop at the 1920 boundary within the Basin. Also, in the last years people begin to call every UP on the East @22 Szeletian.) And the first, big spearheads are beautiful. For any case, Szeleta tools are no more Moustérian. The next step in chronology is Ref. [90]. The age of the Szeleta layers is 36,000 BP, the vegetation as now, the climate mild. [Then it is cca. the Hengelo.] The Szeleta layers are 12 m thick, but maybe the cave was not always used. The number of found stone tools is "several hundred", small for such thick layers, and the chips of stone industry are few: maybe the majority was made elsewhere. The big bifacials were spearheads, the small ones arrowheads. The spearheads became "the most perfect stone weapons ever produced by the fossil man".

Now, this is not an understatement. But as for the origin: the Szeleta is local, there were similar tools in the Moustérian; it developed for millenia. And: the Aurignacians were "more developed and wiser" than the Szeleta Men (who produced the "most perfect stone weapons").

And now: Szeleta-Aurignac interaction. The Szeleta Cave contained 2 (two!) ground bone spearheads too. They were pencil-wide, split-base spearheads. Not compatible with Szeletian spearheads. There is a site with bone split-bases 20 km to West, Istállóskô, which is Aurignacian. The bone spearheads were bracketed by Szeleta tools. One Szeleta stone spearhead, on the other hand, was found in the Istállóskô Cave. So the two cultures were synchronous and there was some contact between them.

Now comes a detailed Hungarian source in Magyar language from 1980 [87]. The autochtonous Szeletian roots probably in Subalyuk Moustérian: both like laurel leaf-points. Tata likes leaf-points too but Tata bifacials are too small, it cannot have developed into Szeletian. [Also, if C14 dates are good, I think there was no time.] The LSz is 41,700 BP, the USz 32,580 BP. (This is the holotype: Szeleta Cave.) The prey, in decreasing order, cave bear, deer, mammoth, Capra ibex, horse; reindeer is very rare. The climate is relatively mild. [Obviously Hengelo.]

The characteristic LSz tool is the early leaf-point: 4-8 cm long laurel forms. 50 % bifacial, from local chalcedony. The early leaf-points are not really points but scrapers (the point is unfinished), the form is Moustérian-like. And: they were produced with pressure, and the other tool was an antler!

The emphasis is mine. Namely then [87] lists a dozen kinds of other tools, states that the tool industry is on UP level, "only the bone tools are absent" (we saw: Cond. A of UP). But they are not absent: the scrapers were produced with antlers. (Or do we want to discriminate bone and antler?) Plus: some Moustérian tools.

Then come the USz. Remember LSz and USz are locally connected in the Szeleta Cave. And still the USz "...is quite new... as if it had no connection with its precedessor, the LSz" [87]. [But no! The spearheads are bifacial, laurel leaf shaped.] Still, some Moustérian tools show the local roots. Then Ref. [87] states that the early LSz can be found in other caves. I write the names: Balla Cave, Lökvölgy Cave, Háromkút Cave, Mexikó Cave, Diósgyôr-Tapolca Cave, Büdöspest Cave, Gunpowder Niche and Herman-Ottó Niche. But I repeat: this is the older, Lower Szeletian. The Upper Szeletian (in 1980?) is known only from the Szeleta Cave. And what is the USz? We know: autochtonous. But: which is its upper time boundary (the uppermost layers vanished from Szeleta Cave) and then whither? We do not know (says [87] in 1980). And: what were the gigantic "spearheads"? We know, they are well formed spearheads, but too large and they never were used. Symbols for the leaders?

Now let us stop here for a moment. There are some groups in the Carpathian Basin called Szeletian in the last years; and there are some other groups, incertae sedis, which were always or repeatedly called Szeletian with some adjective. First I finish in some sentences the first group.

We saw that LSz is not restricted to the Szeleta Cave and immediate neighbourhood. LSz is reported near Felsôtárkány (just next to Eger), some 40 km from the Szeleta Cave. If Lower or Early Szeletians are found 40 km southwest, they may have roamed 60 km north too, and that is another University city: Kosice (Slovakian), Kassa (Hungarian), Kaschau (Saxon) or Cassovia (Latin), collaborating with Silvia Tomasková @23, whose Comments to McDermott #26 are eqivocal in the question whether she considers Szeletian as variant of Aurignacian or of Pavlovian. It does not look like a variant of Istállóskô to us, maybe only from as far as USA. But now started an activity to investigate settlement geography in the Cassovia region between 70,000 and 40,000 BP. Maybe it will tell something about Szeletian precursors. If Miskolc/Miskovec studies Szeletian, why not Kosice/Kassa? Moravany nad Váhom #27 is already far, and Moravia (do not confuse the two) is outside of the Carpathian Basin #28. But why not; although the case of Drnovice suggests caution: if a site may be either Szeletian or Epigravettian, one remembers Shupp #3 who tells that Epigravettian mimicked Szeletian tools. But let it be: maybe early Szeletian was more widespread as thought earlier.

But if so, why not in the corner of Danube @24? So Hungarian archaeology defined (with some hesitation) the notion of "Transdanubian Szeletian". It is a culture with bifacial leaf-points, not unsimilar to Early Szeletian. Traces can be found in a lot of caves but either the early excavations confounded the layers, or they were washed away. However 3 sites are better documented: Jankovich Cave in the Gerecse Mountain, near to Tata; Remete Upper Cave, in the northwestern corner of Budapest; and Lovas, at the north coast of Lake Balaton. It seems that the ages are everywhere the Würm I/II interstadial (or not...), and then it is slightly >70,000 BP. In 1980 Gáboriné Csánk Vera concludes [87] that the Transdanubian Szeletian is simply (?) Late Mousterian, more definitely Micoquian, from Southern Germany (e.g. Altmühl).

Lovas is even more problematic. There was an ochre mine [99], [100]. Mousterian mining is not unheard of; the author of [87] found another case [101] from Budapest-Farkasrét @25. But mining red ochre? That would be rather UP habit (we saw: Definition E). And still: there was a "Transdanubian Szeletian" leaf-point (or: leaf-shaped scraper) in the mine. And if your opinion is that an ochre mine is too symbolic for a Moustérian brute: it is sure that in the Remete Upper Cave Neanderthal lived, because 3 characteristic incisors were found. Now, on a shelf of the cave wall were 2 big cave bear canines plus a big Miocene sea-shell from the Tétény Plateau (cca. 20 km). Collecting spectacular sea-shell is no less symbolic than mining colorant.

To 1994 Jankovichian is established (in Hungary certainly), see [102]. And now there is a study pointing to Micoquian origin of Upper Szeletian, via Sajóbábony-Méhésztetô #29, @26. If so, USz was triggered by the arrival of something; either the Altmühl Micoquian from the west, or the Istállóskô Aurignacian from the east, or both. I will return to this point in the next, penultimate, Chapter, and I confess, I do not feel myself able to decide this question. However still remains the problem: is the Lower Szeletian the same as Jankovichian (both practically Mousterian), or is a hybrid of Jankovichian and some Micoquian?

I will not decide even this, and, although it is important for specialists, it is not too vital for me from evolutionary point of view. In Europe both industries are purely Neanderthal. So I close this Chapter with the problem of the chronology of Jankovichian, or of the Hungarian (and Croatian) classic Mousterian.

In this Chapter I mentioned that the layers suspected for Jankovichian, or being Lower Szeletian, or Hungarian Mousterian with bifaces or leaf-points are generally guessed to be "Würm I/II interstadial" or such. That is beyond C14. But in Central Europe notions were quite clear about Würm even before C14 (although maybe erroneous). To see the situation better, let us go back to cca. 1930.

Geologists of Alpine countries (Germany, Switzerland & Austria) have studied remnants of past end-moraines of glaciers and established that Würm was treble: three advances. So there was 2 interstadials, Laufen/Göttweig and Hengelo. (Of course, this was Alpine lore. But Hungarians were near to Austria and spoke the Alpine language, called German, quite well.) Then came Milankovic, who explained glacials/stadials as times when terrestrial excentricity was small + axial tilt low + perihelion in January. He needed only celestial mechanics to date. The latest 3 maxima then were 124-112, 80-68 and 34-22 ky BP. So that is Würm I, II & III.

Now comes Libby. Sooner or later Hengelo gets into the scope of C14. And just now the C14 age of Hengelo Interstadial seems to be around 40 ky, Isotope Stage 3 [103]. So African AMH/Aurignacians arrived and advanced is the tepid millenia. But cool-adapted Neanderthals survived the Hengelo #11; however let us not to stop here.

All right. Now, what is the age of Laufen/Göttweig? Milankovic and the C14 quite agree for Hengelo; maybe Milankovic was right. He would tell "before 80 ky". Now Ambrose tells "before 71 ky" [104], obviously outside the scope of C14. We may be content with this; if there were only 2 interstadials. But we cannot directly check this. Maybe the Carpathian Basin is near enough to the Alpine glaciers where Würm was treble; maybe not. For example, California seawater measurements found 17 (!) interstadials since 60,000 BP #30. True, most are very short. Hengelo can be seen, a big one around 38 ky, but there is another big aroug 52 ky. The age of Jankovichian (or Lower Szeletian?) is a tepid climate, but is it really Laufen/Göttweig, or this anonymous one?

I do not know. But I am not interested either. As C14 is improving, there will be some time a date to Jankovichian. Even if it is only 52 ky, Jankovichian/Lower Szeletian cannot do anything with AMH's. There are not yet AMH's anywhere except Africa, Palestine and South India. And even Boker Tachtit blade technology is still the future. Lower Szeletian must be purely Neanderthal.

If we look at the map of #24, we see something called Jerzmanowician. Now Jerzmanowice or Jerzmanovka is a cave near to Kraków (Krakov/Krakkó/Krakau/Cracovia), Poland. No Hungarian and Pole (and definitely: no Southern Pole) would be surprised that Hungarian and Polish Neanderthals marched together. And indeed, it seems that Jerzmanowician is somewhat the northern analogue of Szeletian [105].

Let me start this Chapter with a brief prelude and then a snapshot in 48,000 BP, after a very brief prelude. What is theory, will be given here according to the picture arising from mitochondrial studies, because that picture is simple. This does not mean that we should accept it; but I must narrate the story somehow. So, until the snapshot, you may consider the text a chat.

Homo erectus emigrated from Africa, say, 1.7 My BP and continuously populated Eurasia. At 500 ky BP he exists in local variants, in Southern India/Indonesia #31 (as far as Flores [106]), in China, and in Europe (Homo antecessor/heidelbergiensis [107], #31, #32, #33). Because of glacials, the European variant is going to be cold-adapted. At cca. 500 ky BP gene exchange ceases even between Africa and Europe [108], #15. The African stock is in transition to archaic Homo sapiens.

In the next 350 ky the South Asian/Chinese erecti undergo brain expansion independently of Africa and Europe. In Europe Homo neanderthalensis is formed and increases his brain independently of Africa. Neanderthal is an extremely cold-adapted form, strong and stocky. In Africa Anatomically Modern Homo is formed, gracile, also with big brains.

Around 100 ky BP (or in the Riss/Würm interglacial?) AMH tries to emigrate from Africa via Sinai. He reaches Israel/Palestine/Holy Land, meets Neanderthals and is stopped/pushed back/replaced/&c. (because of Würm?) [34], [35]. About 75 ky BP (relatively tepid climate) Neanderthals populate Europe, Near East, Asia Minor, Central Asia, maybe to western Mongolia #1. In the Würm I/II (Laufen/Göttweig) interstadial Jankovichian develops in Hungary. Big-brained post-erecti populate South Asia as Indonesia (+ Australia?) and China [109], [110], #31, #15. Africa is AMH country.

At cca. 70 ky BP the Toba volcano erupts. 6 years insolation deficit follows with "winter" and a millenium of severe cold ("instant ice age") [104]. Some Asian post-erecti die out. Neanderthals are cold-adapted. In Africa climate changes trigger migrations. Sea level goes down and some East African ("Ethiopian") population crosses the Bab el Mandeb, going to India #15, #34, #35. Maybe they are the ancestors of Tamil, Andaman, Negrito &c. Some part of them continues, via Indonesia, to Sahul (New Guinea, Australia + Tasmania).

Just prior to 48 ky BP something happens and a North African population again starts to immigrate into Asia via Sinai (during Würm II!). AMH and Neanderthals again meet somewhere in Israel, both have Moustérian stone industry. (Middle Stone Age in Africa, Middle Paleolithic in Greater Europe). Then comes 48,000 BP, and the Boker Tachtit Revolution [111], [112], [113], #3, #34. Some AMH's invent blade technology and so multiply edge/mass output dozenfold. Shortly afterwards they pass Neanderthals and enter Central Asia. In the same time South India, Indonesia and Sahul is populated by East African Homo sapiens, but some post-erectus still lives in Java. Neanderthals show regional differences in industry in Europe. Spain, Portugal and France have classic Mousterian. Germany has that and Micoquian. Hungary has the Subalyuk Mousterian (specialised hunting, bifacials &c.), the Jankovichian (bifacials, mining, some symbolic behaviour &c.; connection to South German Micoquian?) and Lower Szeletian (if it be not Jankovichian). Croatia has her Neanderthals (Krapina, Vindija), either with connections to Jankovichian or to Italy or both; Italy, Greece and Crimea has specific industries too.

Homo sapiens remaining in Africa exhibits widespread use of colourants.

Some millenia later abruptly starts Upper Paleolithic in Greater Europe. Maybe the cause of the advent of Upper Palaeolithic is hidden amongst the events narrated now. But what was that?

Maybe we should repeat Zilhao's UP definition. So then: UP is when the culture is characterised by [63]:

A) Bone tools

B) Preference of blades

C) Regional variation (ethnic differentation)

D) Internal spatial organisation of camp sites

E) Massive use of colorants

F) Adornments and art

G) Increased population density

H) Specialised hunting

I) Bird, fish and sea food as subsistence.

But there are some problems here. First, the above definitions together hold for Aurignacian, as we know it, say, in France, 35,000 BP. All right, let us tell that Aurignacian was the first UP. It is not self-contradictory to tell this. However, then, Aurignacian started somewhere, somewhen. And at that moment and place at least C) and G) could not hold! And if a definition requires more than one condition, then all of them must be fulfilled to obey the definition.

Good; let us then leave out Conds. C) & G). Maybe even early Aurignacian will fulfil it, and Upper Szeletian from Szeleta Cave will not. (Sources of Szeleta were duely referred in the previous Chapter.) To be sure, it seems that USz fulfils A), because stone tools were produced with bone ones (the pressure technique); and it may fulfil F) if the first found Szeleta artifacts were symbolic regalia. H) may or may not hold (it held to Subalyuk), but not the others. The culture seems to be core culture (non-B), as holotype does not show differences (non-C), as a cave, non-D, colourants are not reported from Szeleta Cave (non-E), and neither bird nor freshwater fish food is reported (non-I); seafood is impossible in the Bükk. Still, Szeletian is generally considered Upper Palaeolithic. Then not A)-H) are the definitions of UP; or A)-H) are not its definition.

My guess is that some points want to stress new possibilities. A) is mysterious for first glance. Why it is "Upper" to use bone tools? Everybody can form a passable bone spearhead, which then perhaps will break at first use, while experience is needed to form a good stone one. But if one uses both stone and bone points, he is forward as compared with fellows using only one of them. And the same is true for food. And if somebody can make a nice plan for a camp, he is wiser than guys simply huddling together; except if there is severe cold (and, maybe we cannot see the plan). Conds. E) & F) tell something "recognised beyond mere material needs"; good, and how to classify a group using art, but not colourants @27?

I will not manufacture an alternative definition. I here accept the classification: Aurignacian with descendants, Castelperronian, Uluzzian, Szeletian and Jerzmanovician (and Bohunician) are UP, Moustérian and Micoquian (and Jankovichian?) are MP. But still: who invented UP?

I repeat the logical possibilities. UP's origin is one of the followings:

1) Anatomically modern humans did it, without Neanderthals;

2) Neanderthals did it without anatomically modern humans;

3) AMH's started it, and Neanderthals aped them.

4) Neanderthals started it and AMH's aped them;

5) AMH's started it and Neanderthals followed;

6) Neanderthals started it and AMH's followed;

7) Common result with AMH dominance;

8) Common result with Neanderthal dominace;

9) Common symmetric result.

Now, these are the logical possibilities. Henceforth come probabilities, which are subjective. However I think I have the professional right to state my subjective opinion if already a lot of people have done it @28.

I do not believe in Possibilities 1) & 2). AMH's existed from cca. 125,000 BP in Africa in Middle Stone Age ~ Middle Paleolithic. If we do not assume an unknown mutation leaving the skeleton unchanged, then a slow accumulation of knowledge has to be referred, for 60 ky, and then a "topping over". It is improbable and would be hard to prove. The mirror idea is similarly but even more improbable.

Now comes another mirror pair. Possibilities 3) & 4) tell that one group started it and the other mimicked some features "without really knowing what they do". Possibility 3) was very severely suggested for Castelperronian. The idea is that in the Far West, in a densely populated Neanderthal country appeared a handful of Aurignacians (maybe the "Aurignacian 0" of La Ferrassie, and Geissenklösterle in Germany; for present dating see e.g. [103] and #1). Their culture was superior and the autochtons started to mimic it. But they did not know, why; the mimicked culture did not work optimally in their hands, so they could not close up. They became finally marginal, later they died out by any mechanism.

This explanation, as I told, is seriously considered, and it may or may not true for Castelperronian (and Uluzzian). For example, Castelperronian Neanderthals produced beads and pendants. But we do not know what was their idea about pendants. Of course, we do not know either what was the Aurignacian idea; scholars use Bushman parallels for beads but the two cultures are very far apart. I seem to know why recent women wear pendants and beads, because I heard their comments; but I have a woman colleague not wearing them except at formal occasions when one must have formal dress as well. I formulated the mirror Possibility 4) just for completeness and provocation (on behalf of extinct Neanderthals...). And now I can tell the counterargument for Szeletian at least.

(Upper) Szeletian is continuous from Jankovichian and/or Lower Szeletian. It may or may not import UP characteristics from nearby Istállóskô Aurignacian, but it did not import tool types and tool technologies. It did not import art. And, if the big unused spearheads were ceremonial "regalia" (but what else?), it did not import symbolism. Aurignacian did not use big stone spearheads as symbols. It seems that, during the contact, the Szeleta Cave community kept its own "values". One would tell that in the Szeleta Cave leadership used old (MP?) symbols. One may imagine, with modern analogons, that the biggest hunter had a ceremonial spear with the nicest and biggest stone head. (See the Neanderthal in the Hortus grave with leopard skin mentioned earlier.) He should have been ridiculed if parading with a puny Aurignacian spear with a pen-wide mere bone head. I will return to this point later, but see Geist's discussion why Neanderthals needed wide stone weapons while Aurignacians/Cro-Magnons were happy with bone spearheads #11. His idea is that Cro-Magnons threw the spears in groups, while stronger Neanderthals hunted in twos retaining the spears, in hand-to-paw combats. Then Neanderthals needed strong stone weapons, Aurignacians risked breaking warheads but the bone head is labour-saving.

Observe that in Jankovichian symbolism is already present without any AMH influence in the Würm I/II interstadial (?); think about the Remete Upper Cave big cave bear canines and the spectacular sea shell collected 20 km away. Think about the Nagytétény-Érd wolf and lion skins (and the leopard skin in Hortus) without any possible nonsymbolic use. A lion skin is proper only to mark the mighty hunter, killer of lions. Now, the bigger-than-life and beautiful Szeleta spearheads found in 1892 are not good for anything else than to single out the mightiest warrior/ruler/leader of the local Neanderthal group. Aurignacians had there bone spearheads and accultured Neanderthals would have used Aurignacian symbols as well @29. So the Szeleta Cave leadership used their own symbols. Explanation 3) is clearly impossible for Szeletian; since Jerzmanovician continuously fits geographically to Szeletian (#24), in this Chapter I will not distinguish them @30.

Now comes another mirror pair. One group invented UP culture and the other adapted it. It would not be easy to distinguish this pair from the previous one, but in principle not hopeless. Some scholars believe that Castelperronian Neanderthals mimicked but "did not understand" symbolism. We also have seen that in Szeleta the Neanderthals used their own proper symbolic spearheads. So Szeleta may be compatible to Possibility 5) but not to 3). However there are two strong reasons for not to remain here too much.

Assume, as some scholars like just now, that Upper Palaeolithic started in Boker Tachtit. Sure, there blade technology developed continuously from a pure Moustérian one. However 1) we do not know who invented the blade technology at Boker Tachtit and 2) Boker Tachtit does not obey the list of UP "definitions". And, if we accept the dominant idea that UP spread from the Near East (which we, of course, does not have to do), after Boker Tachtit it is too late to study the inventor. If a scholar in the XXXIst century will try to determine who discovered first America, he may hesitate between Amerigo Vespucci (America) and Cristoforo Colombo (Colombia, District of Columbia) and will not think about Leif Eriksson. We, in the XXIst, still know the C14 dated Viking house at L'Anse aux Meadows [114], but even now tradition already heavily supports the later discovery.

The dating of the blade invention at Boker Tachtit seems equivocal; we are almost at the limit of C14. The bottom Moustérian Level 1 seems to be 47,000 BP #3, and experimentation started in the next level. However Shupp puts Level 1 to cca. 51,000 since in Ksar Akil the same Moustérian layer is so dated. All right: then I guess that the invention of new stone technology at Boker Tachtit is 48,000 BP. This date is quite proper for now.

Namely, then it is possible to reconstruct a Near East -> Balkan -> Central Europe -> Western Europe -> Iberia path in time too. The invention started from Boker Tachtit (where we think to see the process of invention) in 48,000. Maybe it diffuses through Asia Minor, and appears in 43,000+/-5,000 at Bacho Kiro, Bulgaria, near to Asia Minor [19]. The next is Istállóskô, Bükk Mnt., Hungary, in 44,300+/-1,900 [19]. As it can be seen, the uncertainties are big enough for Bacho Kiro -> Istállóskô direction, if we like that. Then, more on the west, comes Geissenklösterle, 38,400+/-850 [103]. Then comes the extreme West France and Franco-Cantabria. (Although in those times the Farthest West was Ireland.) There is an Aurignacian date at Reclau Viver 40,000+/-1,400 and there are ages at El Castillo >40,000 but with enormous s's [19]. And the Ebro Frontier existed until at least 28,000 [63].

So, would narrate scholars preferring African origin: we tried to pass Neanderthals of the Holy Land in 100,000, but it was cold. They blocked the geographic bottleneck for the next 50 ky, but in 48,000 we invented the superior blade technology, slipped past them in the bottleneck, and then Upper Palaeolithic/Aurignacian was impossible to be stopped. The superior way of life spred as prairie fire and victorious Cro-Magnons reached the western ocean in 8,000 years @31. The story is compatible with dating.

But, as told, we do not know who experimented with blade technology at Boker Tachtit. And the Boker Tachtit culture does not seem UP! As Shupp formulates #3: "...no skeletal materials, no evidence of art, no personal decoration - nothing that might offer a clue".

So, were we accept that Boker Tachtit is the spark starting UP, we would not yet know who stroke the spark. Boker Tachtit, autochtonously, reached Definition B), and, e.g. not F). Even the next Ahmarian about 39,000 does not seem to fulfil Definitions F) and H), and A) only marginally.

Hence we can make two conclusions by sheer logic. First, Boker Tachtit and Ahmarian are not Aurignacian. Aurignacian did not yet formed then and there. Second, Boker Tachtit was the start of the prairie fire of UP only if the transition from core to blade technology was very advantageous.

As for the first point, according to Ref. [19] Aurignacian is ready at Istállóskô, 44,300+/-1,900. Ref. [19] considers Bacho Kiro different. I would not like, however, base too much on the difference of Bachokirian from Aurignacian; simply remember it later. Then, counting the error too, Aurignacian was formed between 48,000 and 43,000, somewhere on the path Asia Minor -> Balkan -> Croatia/Hungary (#34 seems to prefer Asia Minor).

As for the second, I quote Ambrose (#34): "Blade technology permits the production of 40 feet of usable edge per pound of stone versus 40 inches in the MPL/MSA Levallois technology.". This is a great invention; if there was stone shortage which I do not think so.

Edges go as L, masses as L³, therefore there is an "unusable area" ~L² behind the edge. But this area is needed! Try to cut with safety razor blade. You can cut paper nicely; maybe lighter cloth too, but for thicker cloth already scissors are needed. And so on. The Szeleta spearheads could not have been made with Aurignacian technology. The advantages of Ahmarian blade technology cannot be simply explained via more cutting edge. We should understand first why thin "razor blades" were preferable for them.

But, following Geist #11 we at least understand why thin blades and bone points were a viable alternative. Around 55,000 BP in the Holy Land two populations used the Moustérian tools: a more robust maybe with European origin/connections and a more gracile with African one. The graciles were predisposed to handle gracile weapons (blades; gracile spearheads) better. If you are strong enough, you may attact big herbivores in pairs and the pair can fight the animal with hand-held weapons; but then the weapons must be robust #11. If you are weak but lean, you can attack in groups and can use projectile weapons #11. But then the rate of unsuccessful casts will be high. If you can lower the work in the spears, this is not a problem. If all the non-optimal hits are unsuccessful but you use cheap warheads, your strategy is not bad. A lucky hit, on the other hand, will still result in serious consequences even with the cheap (and gracile) bone warhead.

Both strategies are good, and I think the potential bifurcation might result in the split of the population even with an original single-peaked distribution in robustness. I did not calculate it but we @32 can, if we or somebody else are interested. But now, ab initio, there was a more gracile population, which invented how to make more gracile weapons. I do not believe that Ahmarians wanted to spare stone. Stone can be found everywhere. Good quality stone is another matter @33; standardised stone is again. Maybe Ahmarians preferred several identical spearheads to experience and get more accurate casts and then they made the warheads from the same good quality flint. I do not know; I simply tell that there was no scarcity of stone @34. All right, Ahmarians became successful with the many identical and slender throwing spears; later, between 48,000 and 43,000 BP somewhere in Asia Minor a gracile genius made a further step to use gracile ground bone as spearhead. They had a lot of bones and they could grind them very economically. Maybe the bone points broke frequently but were replaced with minimal work. Anyway, you can get back the thrown spear, broken head or not, only when hunting is over, so durability of a slender warhead is not needed.

Then imagine that a robust group with robust laurel leaf-point spearheads and a gracile one with split-base bone spearheads meet. They either remain in the same area or not. If not, there is no problem. If they remain, either there is enough prey for both or not; if there is then there is no problem. If there is not enough, either the robusts are more successful or the graciles. If the robusts are, the graciles must leave. However if the graciles take more prey, I think, the robusts will protest and that will be dangerous for the graciles. See Geist #11; a quarrel with spears in hand would be hopeless for the graciles.

Of course, graciles can win if some conditions are met. For example, if they are much more; but they only recently have entered Neanderthal country. Or their better speech may help; but not in hand-to-hand combat of handful of men. And so on. It seems, AMH's were victorious in France; I do not know why. I simply tell that it does not seem so around Szeleta Cave #3, and I just told now why it was possible. I can imagine that the Istállóskô Aurignacians used much more red ochre than the Szeleta Men. However it is quite possible that Szeleta Men knew the red ochre (as Tata and French Neanderthals did; for the latter see [115]; and maybe Jankovichians mined the ochre at Lovas) but simply did not need it for hunt or fight (and now we know they were right). And if in a combat Neanderthals were successful, they became the core of the groups. UP people needed organisation above local herd level for a lot of reasons; and Ref. #3 guesses that they could make multicultural alliances too. Then they could form the alliance under AMH leadership but under Neanderthal leadership as well; probably in each case scholars must decide which of the alternative happened.

Now we can turn to the pairs of possibilities 7) & 8). Maybe contact produced the jump to UP level. It may have happened in several ways. Adding up two different traditions, using a stereoscopic sight may produce something qualitatively new.

I mention only one example; I think Shupp thought about this when writing rater obscurely that "We owe to them, indirectly, our agriculture...". Mammals generally produce their needed Vitamin C. One exceptional group is apes/humans. Obviously Vitamin C synthesis is not needed to fruit-eaters on the tropics. But after the Boker Tachtit "prairie fire" passage AMH's entered glacial "temperate" altitudes where they may have died in scurvy in wintertime.

There are Esquimaux tricks, and surely there were Neanderthal tricks too. Obviously invading AMH's sooner or later learnt it and then their lifeways became more complex. In the same time this example shows that there must have been communication and ideas went both ways. But of course the roles might not have been quantitatively symmetric.

I can accept that Castelperronian was dominated by superior Aurignacians; I simply tell that I do not see any signal of Aurignacian superiority in the Carpathian Basin cca. 43,000.

42 ky later the German Empire tried to organise 3 Central European communities, which then became the Bohemian, Polish and Hungarian nations. (Croatians were still fighting Byzantians.) The attempt was quite successful in Bohemia; the state became the member of the Empire, later with a King who, however, was one of the 7 electors of the Empire. It was also temporarily successful in Poland; the Kingdom of Poland was disorganised for a time. But it was utterly unsuccessful in Hungary: the Archduke of Hungary transformed the country into an European and Christian state, his son became King, married the daughter of the Bavarian Duke, and this son imported Western knights. Some thirty years later a German Emperor attacked; the German, Viking, Italian and French knights of the Hungarian King fought together with the Eastern Hungarians against the invaders and won. Hungary started then a convergence [116], but on her own terms. Our latest information is that maybe we shall be admitted fully and finally into the western community in January 2004, after 1004 years; we will see. Szeletians worked more; but at the end Epigravettians mimicked Szeletian tools #3.

In the last Chapter we shall see that the above conclusion is independent of the final fate of Neanderthals. AMH's can make Szeletian tools. A Hungarian is somebody accepting Hungarian culture & traditions, and not somebody with special anatomy. (A Magyar is less anatomically diverse; but still diverse enough. In addition to be Hungarian, a Magyar is supposed to speak the characteristic Uralic language. The Central Statistical Office of Hungary defined how to ask a deaf-mute citizen about first language.)

We are almost ready. Honour has been done to the nameless but able leaders of Szeleta Cave who, in an Europe changed into something strange almost overnight, led their people into the new Europe as (almost?) equal partners. If somebody thinks it was easy, read either the story of Baalam and his donkey in the Old Testament, or a fiction novel of J. Pournelle {5}.

They, indeed, led their people into the Gravettian Europe (otherwise Epigravettians would not have copied Szeletian leaf-points #3). But: where are their people? Slightly simplifying: we do not see Neanderthals even in Miskolc, the present city of the Szeleta Cave.

If one is as shrewd as a Hungarian, he/she can tell immediately half an answer @35. But that would be only half an answer, so let us proceed.

Obviously the answer depends on whether Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans were two disjoint species or not. I, personally, feel that they were not; the cca. 500 ky divergence time between Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans guessed from comparison of recent and Feldhoffer mtDNA [108], #15 is cca. 1/4 of the horse-donkey divergence and the mtDNA difference would be at subspecies level at chimps. However, still for a time we shall not know the answer for this point. So I am going to make the best available answer for 3 different cases: if Neanderthals and AMH's were two species; if they were on the verge of this; and if they were both Homo sapiens. (Homo sapiens Linné as species name has precedence.) And, of course, in the spirit of reductio ad absurdum, if one does not believe the explanation then he/she/it will not believe the assumption about speciation.

It is difficult to believe that tropical Homo sapiens invades North and wins. To be sure, the invasion happened during Hengelo Interstadial, and that was not too cold. But Neanderthals still lived when the cold returned, and they were adapted to that. For me, Zilhao's explanation [63] is incomplete. It is true than when cold returns, Homo sapiens must cross the Ebro Frontier, but how can they do that against cold-adapted strong foes? Geist tries to explain why Neanderthals did not respond to the return of familiar climate #11 but that does not seem complete for me either.

However, assume that somebody answers this. Then and only then Shupp's argument #3 holds. In 35,000 BP Neanderthals were already a minority (AMH's in Africa, East and South Asia and Australia; and even a lot in Greater Europe); fluctuations prefer the bigger community. One can, in addition, assume slightly bigger reproduction rate and then the faster exponential wins. And there is one more possible agent against Neanderthals. As Montgomery suggests his virtual book #36, the SN event whose remnant is the Cygnus Loop, or Veil on the northern sky may have had impacts including perhaps the transient damage to the ozone shield on higher northern latitudes. Indeed, the radio source G 74.0 -8.6, possibly the remnant of a supernova explosion, is cca. at 800 pc distance, less than half of the distance of the Crab pulsar, maybe double of Vela [117]. So the impact may have been nontrivial. Montgomery recognizes that the Cygnus Veil effect may have been more dangerous for Neanderthals than for AMH's if the latter just arrived from Africa. Namely Gloger Rule requires dark skin for African AMH's and white one for Neanderthals and then solar UV caused skin cancer to Neanderthals. The idea is excellent, if the SN event happened cca. 35,000 BP. The problem is that there is no pulsar in the Veil, so the age estimations are rather guesses; for any case, it is in the good order of magnitude, between 10 and 60 ky. Within some years gravity wave apparatuses will be at the sensitivity detect the neutron star there (if exists) independently of its axial tilt [118]. Then we may know more.

Still, the Szeleta culture was a success, and not something produced by a community in death struggle. Maybe the last Neanderthal near Miskolc still could see when at the yearly ritual a strange-looking gracile leader raised high the bigger-than-life spear with the characteristic bifacial laurel leaf-point, showing the excellence of the leader and the Szeleta culture.

I do not know when this replacement happened. I guess, after the last Vindija Neanderthal (northeastern part of the Carpathian Basin is less open than the southwestern part); but I do not know if this happened before of after the collapse of the Ebro Frontier. But such things belong only to chronology tables and the Guiness Book of Records.

Everything I told above remains valid. But a very limited gene flow (whose evidence is the Lapedo Child) happens. Of course, after a time wise old men and women of tribes recognized that F1 hybrids are infertile and mixed marriages became rare; but even then...See also Ref. {6} Now: do we see Neanderthal genes in Europe?

I do not know. We saw that cystic fibrosis is a candidate but not very strong [64], [65], [66]. The big and prominent noses of Greater Europe can be another candidates. A third is the remnant of the Neanderthal occipital bun as a "bump in the center of the back part of your head", tells G. Morton #37, and states that he has "such a bump on the back of my head". The fourth is the fact that Lapps (European Arctic population) have "more Neanderthal" (more cold-adapted) crural indices than North Asians and North Americans, although North Asian African immigrants may have been as long at cold climate than North European African immigrants. Maybe some North Europeans partly inherited the low crural index (according to Allen Rule) from well-adapted Neanderthals; and then the same may hold to the very depigmented skin.

Are these limited gene transfers enough? So much may have happened even between horse and donkey. But: do we see more?

Then we must take pains to explain why we do not see serious Neanderthal traits in Europe. But, I think, the efforts are not hopeless.

Theories range widely about genetic differences below species level. At one end of the spectrum there are theories in which there is only quantitative difference between Neanderthals and Anatomically Modern Humans. I am going to mention three of them; one may imagine or manufacture further varieties.

Howard emphasizes the importance of hormones estradiol, testosterone and dehydroeriandrosterone (DHEA). (The idea is summarized in #38, whence one can go to DHEA Home Page and read more.) In older terms his idea could be formulated as the evolutionary path of Genus Homo (starting with habilis) as orthogeny. Increased level of testosterone triggers bifurcation and positive feedback. What is interesting now is that DHEA increases heat production [119]. So glacial climate selected for DHEA and testosterone, but the high level has its drawbacks too, so warm climate pefers lower level. If so, Neanderthals and AMH's may be simply geographic variations and interstadials automatically bring more gracile, "more modern" anatomy. I cannot decide the possibility of the picture from hormonal viewpoint, but the approach is interesting. There is a structural similarity between this idea and #39, which originally was a lecture. Grace points out that the rapid "replacement" is similar to a phenomenon seen in chaotic systems. (He uses the example of palaeomagnetic polarity changes.) Then he considers the Neanderthal/Sapiens relationship as "the same population with oscillating anatomical traits rather than separate sub-species". Indeed, combining Refs. #11, #38 and #39 it is possible to build up a model with behaviour like an "astable/bistable multivibrator".

The third view without major genetic difference is narrated in Cuozzo's book [120]. The author, being orthodentist, approaches from a very specific viewpoint. He cites measurements telling slow increases in bone sizes after maturity. If one extrapolates them, a Neanderthal cranial pattern might appear. The problem is that for this a few centuries would be needed, and such longevity would need some specific genes not working in us, so now I ignore this explanation.

The other extreme is big (but still subspecies) genetic distance between Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens, and in the encounter Neanderthals were unable to compete because smaller abilities. The problem is that we do not know what these "abilities" were. It is not impossible that a population collects alleles which under glacial situations were useful but in warm climate they are improper, therefore they die out. However they vanished in a cold period after Hengelo, and Neanderthals flourished in the Würm I/II interstadial (Jankovichian?).

The biggest counterargument is Feldhoffer mtDNA [108]. In a part successfully cloned, the mtDNA of the Neanderthal holotype showed a sequence not found until now in recent populations. To be sure, the genetic distance in itself is not extraordinarily great. The Feldhoffer sample is somewhere at 3.5 s within the recent sample. Such difference in itself seems to be compatible with hybridization: in chimpanzees it is subspecies difference and examples show that hybridization is less sensitive on mtDNA than nuclear DNA differences [121]. The argument against hybridisation works only backwards.

The Feldhoffer type of mtDNA has not been preserved (or at least: found) in the recent gene pool, which we would expect if the difference be only subspecific; and especially would expect in Europe. This is a definite argument against hybridization to have happened. The Lapedo Child is not a counterargument against the counterargument, because 1) he died before reproductive age; and 2) he was a male so a dead end for mtDNA. (Still, he demonstrates that hybridization was not unheard of.)

But the mtDNA counterargument is not too strong. More definitely, it proves something, but not the lack of Neanderthal contribution to the European gene pool. It means that now there is no (or: found no) such person whose all ancestors on the pure maternal line go back to a Neanderthal woman.

For definiteness let us take some numbers which are not impossible for order of magnitude. Define two key moments first: one during Hengelo cca. 35,000 BP, the other sometimes at the end of Magdalenian, still before agriculture. It is not impossible to tell that Europe's population in the two stages was equal, let us say that Europe was able to support 10,000 women in reproductive age, + men, children, oldsters. Betweeen the two time points we can estimate some 1000 generations. In addition, assume that in the first moment half of the women were Neanderthals.

Paint on the family tree the women with Neanderthal mtDNA to green, the others red. Colour is maternally inherited, other characteristics except the Y chromosome on both lines.

Then the zero hypothesis is no selection. However generally one woman in her life bears more than two children, so a lot of offsprings die, so "no selection" means random deaths. Assume that in average one woman bears and raises up beyond infancy 4 children of which 2 dies without offspring; in average 1 girl dies, 1 lives and continues the line. However this is only an average. Each child has 1/2 chance to die prematurely. Then a woman has 1/4 chance that her mtDNA dies out in the next generation. The probability that her mtDNA still has successors after the fifth generation is <24 %. Since now we are confronted with 1000 generations, most of the original mtDNA lineages died out.

We have empiry, how much. An Oxford-based group claims that now 98 % of the European population belongs to 7 haplogroups #40. With a constant population cca. 50,000 the others would not be present at all. Now, the oldest lineage is guessed 40 ky, the youngest cca. 25 ky, so that is just our era considered. By other words, in our previous example one would expect the great majority of lineages die out in 1000 generations, with only a few remaining.

The few remaining lineages seem to be African. To me the statements seem somewhat obscure and here only a newspaper reference will be given [122], still the general belief is that the European haplogroups seem to go back to a variant of ancestral African L, called L3, which is told to be the East African variant; while the analyzed 2 Neanderthal sequences (the second from Mezmaiskaya [123]) are very different. Now let us see what is compatible with the lack of Neanderthal mitochondria.

Obviously it does not tell anything about nuclear genes. It simply tells that Neanderthal maternal lineages died out. This may have happened, e.g. if

invading Africans did not molest the Neanderthal women (Wells' idea [1]; or

if the invading Africans were led by warrior women (we may call it African Amazons); or

if Neanderthals had higher death rate, e.g. because of exotic diseases carried by the

Africans; or

if Neanderthal women were slightly worse/less effective mothers; or

if gestation time for Neanderthals were longer (Trinkaus' old hypothesis [62]; the last three cases are common in: the faster exponential wins) or

if the victors were Neanderthals preferring the gracile tropical slave women; and so on. All of these scenarios permit a lot of gene flow.

(The last scenario is improbable if European Y's really turn out to be African; now they seem African and Asian, but of course the Asians may be also African originally, but there is still large uncertainty about the coalescence times &c.)

Note that the Australian Mungo Man (Lake Mungo 3), a gracile 60,000 year old immigrant, is known, since Jan. 16, 2001 to have had a mitochondrial DNA seen nowhere now [124], [125], #41, #42, #43. Mungo Man was not Neanderthal or erectus, still his mtDNA is different and extinct. Of course in itself this does not prove or disprove too much; obviously a lot of mtDNA lineages died out. However his mtDNA contained a short section which is now an insert on Chromosome 11 of some recent people #42. So Mungo Man's relatives were ancestral to a lot of moderns, his mtDNA is very ancient, it is an AMH mtDNA; and no more extant.

The importance of Mungo Man is that he invalidates (?) the argumentation with the Feldhoffer and Mezmaiskaya argumentation: Mungo Man, an AMH, did not die out although his mtDNA did. (The question mark refers the fact that Mungo Man's sequence seems to be nearer to us than the Feldhoffer one.) Milford Wolpoff and his fellow Multiregionalists again argue that this find shows that AMH's developed parallelly from many lineages [126] and that Homo is one species since at least erectus (so Homo sapiens erectus Dubois?). As I told, this is one of the possibilities.

One more stone of the puzzle is the beta-globin gene. Harding & al. found [127] that this gene appeared first in Africa some 800 ky ago, but its history in Asia is longer than 200 ky. If it is so, there was an early immigration to Asia, and African invaders aroung 50,000 BP did interbreed with this older population. Either this is not true or there is trouble with the African Eve paradigm, or, again, Asian males won and captured the African women, or we do not understand genetics. The argument is similar to European cystic fibrosis, but there two contradicting datings are at hand: here not (yet?). Similar is the observation of Hey and Harris [128]. Take the PDHA1 genes on Chromosome X. The variants discriminate two ancient populations back to cca. 200,000 BP. One variant in that time existed in Africa and now appears only in Africans. (So it has not been carried by African emigrants at cca. 70,000 and 50,000 BP; maybe it appeared in Central, Western or Southern Africa). However the second variant existed only outside of Africa around 200,000 BP, and now it appears both in Africans and in non-Africans. But then 1) descendants of people outside of Africa in 200,000 BP still exist (were they late large-brained erecti?) which directly contradicts Replacement by invading Africans, and 2) there was a successful immigration to Africa as well. Both beta-globin and PDHA1 genes are probably under heavy selection pressure (the first working for the immune system, the second for metabolism), so even with a slight possibility to diffuse they will. Of course such a gene flow implies that the populations belonged to the same species.

Or paternal influence obscures the picture? It is a dogma that mtDNA is inherited from the mother, without cross-over. But the sperm contains mitochondria. Still, it is possible that they simply die. But new results exist for rare crossover [129], and some mtDNA sequences in Nguna, Vanuatu, Melanesia would be tremendously improbable without mtDNA recombination [130]. Now, one cannot see without detailed model calculations what happens retroactively with mitochondrial Eve and her age. Anything may happen. I would tell that the extinction of lineages will be harder and then Eve goes backward in time; but it is not sure and another result is that we see "anomalies". Those we see, no doubt. But does the Eve age remains the same in first approximation? If not, then Eve still may have existed but in a so old time that only conspecificity with erectus can save her. All right; that is the present third scenario, but then really Eve should be recalculated with paternal influence.

But anyway: it seems that after 30,000 BP only 3 parts of the Merry Old (Neanderthal) Europe survived. In Hispania, beyond the Ebro Frontier where Neanderthals had no competitors and so could continue their sleepy Middle Palaeolithic existence for a time. In Croatia, where the youngest full-blooded Neanderthal (up to now) is dug out with cca. 28,000 BP [131]. The late Vindija Neanderthals had AMH competitors at nearby Velika Pecina, and their lithic assemblage was mixed #44. I would quote one of the Vindija researchers J. Radovcic through Kate Wong [132], telling: "The Vindija hominids were modernized Neanderthals" and "The Neanderthals were trying to control the region". And, of course, there was Szeleta in Hungary and Szeletian in general; the core territory of surviving autochtonous but UP culture, maybe also changing the old, familiar nice (to them) faces. But even then, the nation must live.

Now, once more: I should decide which scenario holds for the conspecificity of Neanderthals and AMH's, but I cannot (not only I...). I seem and probably am an AMH (chin & speech ability; even if I am nicely bowlegged and not absurdly tall) and in Case 1 Neanderthals absolutely cannot be among my ancestors, in Case 2 it is highly improbable, and even in Case 3 it is improbable enough and contradicts to the origin of my tribe. Then why to represent the Neanderthal paradigm?

Well, there was J. Láng, the modest economist and excellent anthropologist. In his book [133] whose title is translatable as "Soul and god" (not with capital!) he posed the hypothesis that all religion started from respect to the outer soul, or eidolon [134], or "shadow" of the deceased; another, the thymos, or "interior soul" was also postulated from experience @36. People saw the deceased in dreams and they believed that the outer soul of them still moves around. The strong was respected even after death because, although this eidolon is without willpower, not having thymos [134], [135], still the great ancients were so strong that even their eidolon is dangerous. Of course people were most afraid of the founding fathers. They were hardly remembered but sometimes somebody dreamed something about them and then went to perform offers. The morale is: remember sometimes about great ancients of the country and you will sleep well. The great Szeleta leaders were ancient heros of Hungary and I like my good dreams.

Maybe somebody asks me: where should he look for surviving Neanderthals? The first, and professional, answer is: nowhere. And this answer is safe too. But if somebody read so much and he wants to get a very tentative answer, I give it, without any guarantee. But again, the answer depends on conspecificity.

If Neanderthals were a different species, very probably they have already died out completely. All right, maybe Sulla's satyr [3] was a surviving Neanderthal; but two millenia ago on a sparsely habitated Earth. True, cryptozoologists suspect the Caucasus and Mongolia. I think, Mongolia is out of question: Geist #11 believes that Neanderthals were unable to adapt deserts and the greater part of Mongolia is desert. The Caucasus would not be improbable for geography, and indeed in the valleys of Caucasus many fragmented populations survived; but a minimal number is needed for survival of an inbreed population. For a cca. one millenium survival the smallest empirical number can be taken from the Samaritan community on Holy Land: the present number is cca. 400. Now 400 Neanderthals cannot have been undetected in the home country of Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili (Stalin), who maintained the most formalised dictatorship with interior passports and all.(He was AMH.)

If Neanderthals were only a race or subspecies of Homo sapiens, then the question is: where has the highest relative weight of Neanderthal traits remained in the population? I do not know. But obviously a remote part of Greater Europe offers the highest (but rather low) chance, in some cold region. Then one can think about the Alps or the Caucasus. But the Alps are too well known now; albeit medieval stories told about dwarves in Tyrol. Anyway, the popular German dwarf statuettes may indicate a strange pre-German populatioon in the Alps; but they cannot be seen now. The Caucasus is another matter. In that mountain some 40 languages are spoken even now, and in the previous 200 years the Russian Empire did not like foreign scholars there.

Henceforth we can use linguistics, be it as weak an indicator as is. I will not give linguistic references here; the whole discussion is so tentative that it is no more than a chat.

Neglecting first the Caucasus, all Europe is Indo-Germanic, except for Basque, some Uralians (Magyar, Finn, Estonian, smaller Finnish relatives, Lapp, Samoied), and Altaic Turkish and Kalmyk just at the periphery. Magyar is the only one in the interior. But it is possible that all these were originally Asian; except for Basque. Now: Basque may (or may not) have relatives in the Caucasus. A nostratic idea is that Indo-European is somehow related to Semitic, which is again so to Hamitic, which is African; so Indo-European should be an AMH language too. In addition: characteristic Indo-Germans seem rather of long and straight legbones. Basque could be anything; but the Basques are generally believed the first Africans in Europe, not Neanderthals.

Anybodies be Basques, a genetic map of Europe [136] shows a peculiarity. The fifth principal component is something which may be connected with the oldest detectable genetic substrate of Europe, before the immigration of Near East agriculturalists at 10,000 BP. The corresponding genes are now strongest in the Pyreneans (so they are the Basques), but there are two other, weaker maxima too. (As if some new peoples "replaced" the ancients everywhere except for these 3 regions). One is in extreme Scandinavia, maybe connected with Lapps. However the second is the relatively isolated area between Lower Don and Lower Volga. For a Hungarian the proper name is Khazaria. If you build the fortress of Sharkel at the point where Don and Volga are nearest, you get a quadrangle Black Sea-Lower Don-Sharkel-Lower Volga-Black Sea; you can isolate the quadrangle. Magyars were for a time (cca. bw. 750 and 830 AD) at the periphery of Khazaria, to be sure, on the western shore of Don, but still in dependence from the Khagan (or rather, from the Beg). At the end Sharkel was built against the Magyars.

So the interior of the quadrangle may remain relatively undisturbed. The question is: what was its original composition? The answer is easy for higher classes. The Khazar State was a successor state of the Western Turkish Khaganate, which again, was the successor of the united Turkish Khaganate starting in the Altai, in 551 AD (as told earlier). According to some sources the Khazars were organized by members of the Asina clan, which was Asian (and not European) Hun. All traces point away from original Neanderthal countries. Of course, one might contemplate about unknown substrates; but what for? Anything about Khazaria's prehistory are very obscure. Even we, Hungarians, have very dim memory of Khazaria and I think we kept the most detailed one, since they have no successor organization @37. Anyway, according to Hungarian royal chronicles, the Khazarians still recognised the father of Árpád (the Conqueror, Chapter 12), Álmos, when he had been raised on a shield as leader of the Magyar State. And behold: these royal chronicles start at Maeotis (the Azov Sea), just west of Khazaria. Two royal brothers + followers went to hunt a miraculous white hind (sometimes shown with antlers). The hind led them to a nicer place westward. Hercules had his third task (Chapter 126 of [28]) also with a hind with antlers; and then she cannot have been anything else than a rein-hind.

One point remained. We do not see the traces of Neanderthals in the mtDNA map. But we do not see the trace of Magyar conquerors at the mtDNA map either [136], [137], #40, #45 @38! And that is something, one more analogy between us and Neanderthals @39.

I think this is not a counterevidence to the existence of Magyars, but an example that not everything died out which is not seen by modern anthropology. Magyars indeed invaded Hungary cca. in April 896. The main evidence is not the 1895 Parliament decision; I could cite Parliament decisions worldwide in history which were false. However some contemporary Western sources mention the event, and 15 million people speaks a strange language in the Carpathian Basin (and in USA too, think of Teller (Ede), Szilárd (Leó), Wigner (Jenô), Neumann (János) @40, Kármán (Tódor) or Gábor (Zsa-Zsa)). Still the mtDNA map is silent. An Y-chromosome map shows something [138]: most (but not too much) similar to Poles but with some lesser similarity to Croats and Ukrainians too. And indeed, Poles and Croats have the tradition of Sarmathian origin and some Ukrainians must share that. But Magyars are not Sarmathians; Sarmathians were Indo-Germans, namely Iranians. See also #46; in the Y chromosome distribution there is something in Hungary, but we still do not know what.

This is the point where even myself tell that it is enough. But note that our great Petcheneg poet Gy. Illyés told us 20 years ago that Magyars did not have women because his people, the Petchenegs, captured all {4}. Now, I believe so much about Neanderthal extinction until no stronger arguments are found than a strange mtDNA sequence. History is a complicated discipline.

To turn a full circle, I recapitulate the (then) cryptic words af the Abstract. Of course, everybody may believe about his origin as he likes. Moreover, it is possible that Neanderthals died out in 27,000 BP. Even if not, and if they are conspecific with sapiens, so some Neanderthal components are in the European gene pool, still slender, long-limbed tall Western and Northern Europeans may consider themselves almost pure-blooded Africans. But even then (read the book review of van der Dennen #47) one cannot be philantrope on one hand and proud about the (hypothesized) Total Replacement made by his ancestral "Killer Africans" (the term is from Milford Wolpoff and is not racism but a paraphrase from agressive Brasilian domesticated bees of African origin). Until the Lapedo Child was discovered, everything was simpler.

What happened, happened @1. A physicist will not mix science and self-conscience. But, I think, at least we should clarify what we are and (if was struggle at all) on what side our forefathers were (the two are not necessarily the same). A XXth century Hungarian poet called Attila József @41 wrote that the fightings of his forefathers (against each other) have been dissolved in (his) remembrance. A nice and humane idea. But it works only for persons who accept their mixed origin (if they have such) and do not applaude as one side annihilated the other (if that happened at all at 30,000 BP or in any time).

Some part of the preliminary version of this text was told at the weekly seminar of the Experimental Particle Physics Department of the Institute of Particle and Nuclear Physics, CRIP, Hungary on 23rd May, 2001. The possibility helped me in final formulation. Thanks for the discussions.

I worked on this study as president of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Geonomy Scientific Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Science.

I consider partly this text as a contribution to the millenary celebrations in Hungary.

@1 This is the opinion of all Physics except General Relativity. As relativist, I must make this Note. In General Relativity we are still unable to prove Causality, i.e. the impossibility of influencing Past. However even theoretical constructions for acausal influence were unsuccessful as well. Some authors believe that there is a Cosmic Censorship (anything it may be) preventing acausal world lines in Reality (they are not at all uncommon in solutions of the Einstein equation). Others must accept that regions in the Universe permitting to construct such world lines must be very rare or remote in some sense. Here this Note suffices, but the problem is an object of serious research just in these years.

@2 The State of Hungary (Hungaria in the original Latin, Uhorsko in Slovakian, and so on) was founded either on 25 Dec, 1000, AD, or on 1 Jan, 1001; the date is the coronation of the first Hungarian King, Stephen, and the Hungarian Parliament is not sure to choose. When I am typing this, the millenary celebrations are still going. The foundation was the direct consequence of a conquering act of Eastern horsemen called Magyars a century earlier, exactly in April, 896 AD, according to an 1895 decision of the Hungarian Parliament. (While everybody can be sure about April, some historians, in spite of the valid Parliament decision, would prefer 895). According to some scholars, the name of the state goes back for a more century, to the name of the Bulgarian (or r-Turkish) tribal alliance Onogurs, meaning Ten Tribes. Otherwise the State (Archkingdom) of Hungary has no precedessor State, although for the ruling clans there are connections to the Hunnish (IV-V c.) and Avar (VI-VIII c.) Empires. But they came from the East too.

@3 The exact place of origin is not known, similarly to that of the Thuatha De Danann, which, however, came "from the sky" (see in Chapter 12). Most probably there is no single place of origin: the Magyar tribal alliance (of 7+3 tribes) may have complex origin. We can trace, however, back the path with certainty to the Azov Sea (Pontos, Maeotis), and the nearest kins for language, the Ob Ugors (Chanti & Manyshi) now live just east of the Ural Mountain, on the Tyumen oilfields of Russia. Some components of the Hungarian population indicate origins from the quite eastern Baikal and Aral Lakes. I note that Hungarian state exists, Hungarian population can be defined in some sense, but Hungarian language does not exist. Explanation will appear in due course in the text. If foreigners do not believe this simply for my word of honour, they may consult with the article of somebody else from the (late) Kingdom of Hungary, a leader of the patriotic Slovakian organisation Matica Slovenská [139], #10, who tells practically the same. Also see Stanislas Poniatowski, later Polish King (1764-1795). In 1753, as Lord Lieautenant of Przemisl he crossed Northern Hungary (Slovakia) and ate at a post-house. His experience is published in his memoirs [140]. He writes that in Hungary everybody speaks trade Latin fluently, even women. (This last fact was really interesting for him.) His opinion comes from something he observed while eating. The wife of the postmaster sent her dog to a company frying meat to lick the grease. She told this in Latin, and "the dog understood". Of course, at post-houses it was the best to speak the common and official language Latin.

@4 In 1908 Neanderthals meant something less definite than now. If the bones were thick enough with curved longbones, with a strong mandible, heavy skull bones, receding frontal and strong torus, the individual went to primitive cavemen, more or less Neanderthals. Now, observe that Xth century AD was times of troubles everywhere in Europe, but definitely so on the Polish plains. (Polska comes from "pole" meaning "fields" or "plains", indeed with no natural borders on East and West.) If somebody was very strong, he was a great chief, warrior and leader. Such times preferred strong Neanderthaloids; they preferred true Neanderthals even more provided they still existed.

@5 Ireland got her home rule in 1921 and is practically independent from 1937. So Englishmen (incl. USA WASP's) stopped to comment Western Irishmen's un-Anglo-Saxon appearance.

@6 Vallois identified 2 presapient partial skulls: Swanscombe and Fontechévade. Both in Western Europe.

@7 According to [11] the common ancestors of all apes + man lived until the beginning of Pliocene. Then lesser and greater apes asundered. The next split in Lower Pliocene was (ancestors of) Pongo pigmaeus vs. other apes and man. But if so, then the taxonomic unit "pongids" (vs. hominids) cannot hold. The minimal semantic (but huge principal) change would be: (maybe Genus) Pongidae, Pongo pigmaeus + extinct species (including Gigantopithecus?) vs. Hominidae (H. sapiens/erectus/?, H. trogdolytes, H. paniscus, H. gorilla, extincts including australopithecus/i?). Or we may refuse to accept blood serum data. After one more decade there remained nothing else to do; consequently taxonomy did not do anything at all.

@8 A valid Hungarian "constitutional" law (meaning that change would need 2/3 majority) regulates the defense of personal data of individuals. According to it, somebody's religion, skin colour, nationality (in Hungary meaning cca. first language), subspecies or species cannot be published without explicit consent. Since in this moment Hungary has only Homo sapiens citizens, I (as a consultant) suggested before voting that species should be left out. The answer was No. Because 1) there was already an agreed 2/3 majority and 2) "it means something", but nobody could tell what and this is still the situation.

@9 Hungary is special. I am fairly depigmented but my education never told I am white (and a minority in Hungary is not depigmented). I am definitely not Indo-European, although some Hungarians are (including the most pigmented ones). In my language (the dominant Hungarian one) there are no genders, and so we have a lot of common terms to men/women. (If somebody think this unnatural, he (she) can ask Turkish or Japanese, either men or women.) My first name is Béla, but I am male and this name in fact comes second in Hungarian. (Again, compare Japanese.) I am roughly as tall as an European/American woman -or as a Neanderthal man. And I am first a physicist. Which side I am on?

@10 Although Portugal is definitely not the Mediterranean; she has only Atlantic shores.

@11 From this point papers in Magyar language (often called, incorrectly, Hungarian) start to be being cited. Maybe some readers of this site would have problems with that language. The only easy thing I can tell is that our language, while somewhat similar to Japanese for structure, is written with Latin letters. So it is easy to read; you will understand it cca. as Basque. I cannot help. Note that in Magyar given name is second, as in Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean and in telephone directories. You will find names in citations likewise. As courtesy, we do not invert the name orders of foreigners. They may remain in their illogical order. Quotations from Magyar books are translated by myself.

@12 One characteristic symptom of pylorus stenosis is jet-like vomiting. The infant vomits in this way the milk, because the pylorus is constricted, obviously because of the very strong muscles around. This recalls the Greek myth about the creation of the Galaxis (Milky Way) via the milk jet vomited to the sky by infant Hercules (the milk was Hera's, see e.g. Chapters 118-9 of Ref. [28]). Hercules survived and became an extremely strong infant, strangling big snakes while in his craddle. Was Stolyhwo's Neanderthal knight very strong, and who is he in Polish (or White Croatian) legends?

@13 The paper is in Hungarian, therefore its impact was 1 citation according to ISI/SCI standards. But, as I told, people reading Hungarian can get interesting Neanderthal informations.

@14 Slovakian ortography correctly distinguishes the 2 "e"'s of Magyar; it uses ä for the lower one. Magyar orthography was seriously influenced by a literary fellow called Kazinczy, whose dialect did not have the ä-sound. M. Kovác, first president of Slovakia from 1992 was born only a dozen kilometers northward, so his (Slovakian) dialect lacks this sound too, what is very marked "anomaly" in Slovakian, while in Magyar it is now characteristic for the speech of Budapest.

@15 There is an experimental correlation between basicranial curvature and speech ability in ontogeny.

@16 Definitely not. I could give lots of references that Magyars already talked some years before arriving to the Carpathian Basin (true, according to St. Methodius' Vita, "howling as wolves"; you can look at Pannonian Legends of the Orthodox Christian Church), and Slovakians' ancestors spoke Old Slavic and Proto-Slavic in previous centuries. In addition, Magyar is a member of the Uralic family, and proto-Uralic sentences are reconstructed as an everyday business of linguistic sholars for ten thousand years back. (Of course, direct checks are hard.) I agree that the intonation, stress, &c. of Magyar is rather unusual for some Indo-Europeans; some 15 years ago physicist R. Penrose visiting Budapest referred as "a completely artificial language for Hollywood fiction movies".

@17 So, briefly: Neanderthals spoke, but not so well as I, not even as I in English.

@18 The Wildman of Kronstadt appeared in 1781. Since it seems to be the latest wildman report in Europe, and in Europe cryptic humanoids can hardly be other than Neanderthals, this wild man got some popularity. Since the case happened in Hungary, I give some data. As a crypto human case, see #48. Kronstadt is the Saxonian name of a quite substantial merchant city in Southeastern Transylvania. Between cca. 1200 and 1872 the city belonged to the Saxon Autonomy of Hungary. The Magyar name of the city is Brassó; this name is Bulgarian (or Onogur) Turkish: Bora Shu = Gray Water/River. (In Ottoman Turkish it would be Boz Su. In Transylvania Bulgarian Turkish names are not rare: it is possible that the Magyar name of a creek is Karassó=Kara Shu, Black water, and in the same time the Roumanian is Cerna Voda, the same but in Bulgarian Slavish. Life is not simple.) The Roumanian name is Brasov. The city is located very near to the Southern Carpathians. Court secretary Michael Fronius (Transylvania in that time, as a Grand Duchy, was administered, unlawfully, from Vienna) gave a report. The report states that

1) The wild man was found by a Vlach (Roumanian) living in Kronstadt.

2) He was found in the forest of the mountain, on a tree as eating leaves.

3) The description is quite indefinite, and the savage appearance is emphasized. However, the nose is flat.

4) The wild man uttered some sounds but did not speak.

5) In the first half a year he ate leaves and grass, sometimes raw meat. Then he became familiar with usual human food.

The Roumanian exhibited the wild man, who still lived in 1784. My opinion is that this wild man cannot have been a surviving Neanderthal. His lifestyle was semi-arboreal, his diet mainly vegetable, and the description does not mention strong torus; the flat nose is quite contrary to Neanderthal traits. In the neighbourhood of Kronstadt no forest can be isolated enough for undetected survival for millenia. Maybe he started as a feral child.

@19 This is exactly the difference, to remain at our topics, between scholars of Neanderthal problems Schwartz and Schwarcz.

@20 Cena is Rhi. This title would suggest a translation King (with a spiritual/magic emphasis, guaranteeing fertility of land &c., as e.g. Khazarian Khagans in the Early Medieval Ages), as later Ard Righ is High King. (Rhi rather seems to be the Welsh/Cymru form, but maybe Old Irish.) However in English this translation is impossible for females. Now remember that in Hungaria the actual ruler, who is crowned with the crown of Saint Stephen I, is the Rex, seemingly the same root as Rhi/Righ. (No surprise: both are finally Italoceltic.) The royal consort is crowned with an ordinary but nice crown and the Holy Crown (kept now in the Parliament Building under the surveillance of 5 high dignitaries: the President of State, the Chairman of Parliament, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the President of the Academy of Sciences, but they must not touch It) touches once the consort's bare left shoulder. Therefore Maria Theresa (1740-1780) was Rex, because was crowned with the Holy Crown, and on the Parliament session 1741 in Pressburg, when her capital city Vienna (where she was Archduchess of Austria) was under siege by the German Emperor/Bavarian Elector, the Hungarian Parliament exclamated as "Vitam et sanguinem pro rege nostra, Maria Teresia", which cannot be translated in any other way that "Our life and blood for our REX, Maria Theresa", Regina being the wife of the Rex and not a female Rex. In English/Scottish of course (?) Elisabeth II/I is Queen, being female. Ref. {3} suggests that the early Irish principle was similar to the Hungarian; Cena could not have fulfilled the later Irish rite in the early Middle Ages when, as tradition tells, the nominated Ard Righ had to have intercourse with a mare. Also Khazarian Khagans always were male. But Japanese Emperors can be female too: the title tenno (cf. Chinese shan-yü 'Son of Heaven', Hunnish tan-hu) does not indicate gender, Japanese grammar being as neutral in gender as Turkish and Magyar.

@21 I write here the name: Benedek Balogh of Barátos, being he from my tribe. I do not explain my tribe in details. Magyars consider us Magyars; we do not, at least not quite and not always.

@22 In pessimist moments my guess is that just now the European Union calls everything Szeletian without direct parallel at the present territory of the Union. Then they may declare: how to take new members with Szeletian roots? Maybe I am dreaming bad; and the "East" is not homogeneous. But [141] may help. Somebody suggests similarities with Szeletian in Greece. Greece is in the European Union.

@23 No mistype. The name Silvia/Szilvia contains two "i"'s in Hungarian languages.

@24 The Hungarian name is Transdanubia. However that term may be equivocal for outsiders, because it reflects a unique perspective from Pest (eastern part of Budapest) which was not even the seat of the King but rather the meeting place of medieval royal elections/parliaments.

@25 Farkasrét is roughly midway between the open air camp Nagytétény-Érd (or the Tétény Plateau) and Máriaremete (the Remete Upper Cave), although slightly to the east.

@26 I am sorry for the irreproducible place names. But not really. Congratulation to the Frenchman (-woman?) who invented the name Abri Tapolca. It does not exist, of course. I guess the name is Tapolca-Menedékház, or something similar, but consider that there is a (Miskolc-)Tapolca, a few km south of Miskolc, but there is another too, just north of the Lake Balaton; maybe Abri Tapolca is a shelter near to the second. (I have got the information that there is no shelter at the first.) I guess, there are more, because Tapolca means Hot Springs, only not in Magyar. Not even in Slovakian: there it is Teplice. Maybe Tapolca comes from Proto-Slavic. Hot Springs is Héviz in Magyar, and Héviz is some kilometers west of the second Tapolca.

@27 A woman colleague of mine is an excellent physicist and practically does not use colourants (unusual for women). Now, it is impossible to tell that she does not use colourants although being physicist; my guess is that she does not use because she is physicist. Now: are physicists less spiritual than actors/actresses? And if so, do they belong to the Neanderthal community? Or to Moustérian culture?

@28 I am a physicist, so sensitive to errors in mathematical logic. Scholars may feel some of my points too punctilous; scientists will not.

@29 An analogy is the 3 sacred objects of the Japanese Emperor, most probably a necklace, a (metal) mirror and a sword. They do not symbolize anything in Europe, but Japanese were not simply acculturing during contact with the West; they retained their traditions. Another example is the Holy Crown of Hungary. Crowns are regalia throughout Europe, but the Holy Crown of Hungary is not an adornment on the head of the actual king but rather backward. (It was interesting to read the end-2000 Western guesses about the Holy Crown and actual politics.)

@30 Here I follow old Hungarian-Polish traditions. The southern border of Poland is unchanged since 1000, and a well-known Polish-Hungarian drinking song tells (in Polish) that Pole and Hungarian are two brethren: they fight and drink together. Of course, Poland and Hungary are only 1000 year old.

@31 Not an enormous speed. In 551 AD Turks of the Altai revolted against their Avar overlords and won; Chinese records confirm that the Turkish Khaganate was already independent in the autumn of 551. Avars started to West, and in 562 AD defeated the Thuringian King Gisebert I. Then turned back to the Carpathian Basin (Hungary would be anachronism here; Onogurs are still on the way) and established their state there on Easter Monday of 568. 17 years altogether.

@32 The "we" is of course Ágnes Holba & myself. Look at e.g. the model in [142]; the differences are trivial.

@33 As an analogy see the beginnings of iron & steel industry. Some scholars believe that reduction of iron ores were difficult. Indeed Fe is more bound to O than Cu; still, the reduction needs only some charcoal, and the mixture has to be put into a hole, ignited and covered by earth for a week. But then the reduced iron is either fragile (too much C) or soft (too little) [143]. The necessary trick is blacksmith's work for regulate carbon. There is a letter of the Hittite King Hattusilis III (first half of XIIIth c. BC) to his Assyrian colleague telling that "just now" he does not have "good quality iron" in his Kizzuwatna stores and the time is improper for production, so he sends only one iron sword [144], [145]. In another century the Bronze Age Migration destroys Hattusas, breaks up the Hittite iron monopoly and Iron Age starts. But artificial iron production was known already for 1500 years.

@34 Shupp's Table 3 #3 shows that in Cantabria Middle Paleolithic used rather quartzite, Upper Paleolithic (both Aurignacian and Castelperronian) rather flint.

@35 This half of an answer is: a Szeletian does not have to have been (I hope the grammar is correct) a Neanderthal. AMH's may have been in Szeletian.

@36 The Greek "thymos" has no direct translation in modern languages (although there is the thymus gland in medicine, but its role is obscure). Therefore it is translated variously as "willpower", "anger", "temper" &c.

@37 To be sure, in 1996 an organization appeared on Internet with the claim that they are the successors of the Khazarian Khaganate #49. They claim that they keep Khazar tradition, and the document closes with the words "The Kaz-Khan is calling!". Of course hoaxes are possible on Internet. I can only tell that the group behind is quite familiar with steppe lore (surprisingly so for Westerners), and they have indeed some non-Western tradition, which is also not always the textbook Hungarian. If somebody is interested about Khazarian prehistory, he/she may try to connect them without my guarantee.

@38 Ref. [137] even states that "Magyars imposed their language on Hungarians but seem not to have affected their genetic structure". If it is true, the analogy with Szeleta is excellent. During Aurignacian and Gravettian times the Neanderthals have vanished and AMH's stubbornly continue the production of Moustérian-Micoquian-based tools which their forefathers learnt from the mystic prognathe Ancients; we are here in the center of Europe stubbornly speaking a language imposed on us by mystic horsemen maybe gone to the stars.(Indeed my tribe calls the Milky Way "The Way of Hosts; the youngest son of Attila, tanhu of Huns, rides in the sky with his followers, and in times of great calamities comes back to help us along Milky Way.) I think the situation cannot be such strange. If scientists cannot find something, that is not yet a strong reason to conclude that it does not exist. Borrowing the title of a study on modern human origin #50, the slightly Eastern facial and postcranial characteristcs in the plain and Southeastern regions of the Carpathian Basin are "Highly Visible, Curiously Intangible".

@39 Remember A. Amorim's counterargument to Neanderthal components of the recent gene pool of Iberia. That proves that persistent Iberian Neanderthals died out without descendats if we accept the same for Magyars. But then why 36 % of Hungarians cannot digest raw milk? That is quite an Asian (and un-German and un-Slavic) rate.

@40 He was John von Neumann in USA. However the "von" is not Hungarian; the family had Austrian nobility. They were Hungarians and within that Magyars; I would not start to narrate Austro-Hungarian history to Westerners below a PhD in European history or politics. (Maybe Henry Kissinger could follow it.) It is enough to tell that between 1878 and 1918 Bosnia was governed by one of the 3 Ministries of Finance, that which was responsible for the finances of the common army and corps diplomatique, because Austria and Hungary could not agree who take the responsibility for Bosnia.

@41 This is the English name order. I emphasize this because originally even his family name was a genuine given name. I note that Attila (the name of a Great Hunnish ruler/tanhu) is a favoured given/Christian name in Hungary, possible at baptization. Attila's elder brother Buda gave his name to the city which is the royal capital since 1250, now western half of the city Budapest.

[1] Wells H. G.: The Outline of History, Collier, New York. 1922. The book has a long printing history, appended, improved &c. in many times. The editio princeps seems to be at Somerset Publ. Inc., 1920, but I used the first Hungarian edition: A világtörténet alapvonalai, Genius, Budapest, 1925. This includes the Ulster affair, so very probably is translated from the above 1922 book.

[2] M. Schulz: Todeskampf der Flachköpfe. Spiegel, 20. März 2000

[3] Plutarchos: Sulla. In Plutarchi Vitae parallellae, Teubnes, Leipzig, 1892

[4] M. Grant: The Passing of the Great Race. Ch. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1916

[5] K. Stolyhwo: Les prénéanderthaloïdes et leur rapports avec la race de Néanderthal. Bull. Ethnol. du Musée d'Ethnographie de Ljubljana. 10, 147 (1937)

[6] News: Late Survival of Neanderthal Type. Nature 77, 587 (1908)

[7] H. Weinert: Stammesgeschichte des Menschheit, Kosmos, Stuttgart, 1941

[8] H. V. Vallois: Les théories de l'origine d'homme. La Nature 3252, 121 (1956)

[9] C. L. Brace: Refocusing on the Neanderthal Problem. Amer. Anthropol. 64, 729 (1962)

[10] G. H. R. von Koenigswald: Die Geschichte des Menschen. Springer, Berlin, 1960

[11] V. M. Sarich & M. C. Wilson: Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution. Science 158, 1200 (1968)

[12] M. C. King & C. A. Wilson: Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees. Science 188, 107 (1975)

[13] Elizabeth J. Bruce & F. J. Ayala: Humans and apes are genetically very similar. Nature, 276, 264 (1978)

[14] Rebecca Cann, M. Stoneking & A. Wilson: Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution. Nature 325, 31 (1987)

[15] J. J. Bachofen: Das Mutterrecht. Verlag von Krais und Hoffmann, Stuttgart, 1861.

[16] P. Mellars: The Fate of the Neanderthals. Nature 395, 539 (1998)

[17] Cidália Duarte & al.: The Early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo de Lagar Velho (Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. Proc. Natl. Acad. USA 96, 7604 (1999)

[18] I. Tattersall & J. H. Schwartz: Hominids and hybrids: The place of Neanderthals in human evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. USA 96, 7117 (1999)

[19] J-P. Bocquet-Appel & P. Y. Demars: Neanderthal contraction and modern human colonization of Europe. Antiquity 74, 285 (2000)

[20] P. Glansdorff & I. Prigogine: Thermodynamic Theory of Structure, Stability and Fluctuations. Wiley Interscience, London, 1971

[21] Martinás K.: Transzportfolyamatok irreverzibilis termodinamikai elmélete és alkalmazása a félvezetôk vizsgálatában. Magy. Fiz. Foly. XXXIII, 182 (1985)

[22] B. Lukács: On the Thermodynamics of the Evolution. In: Evolution: from Cosmogenesis to Biogenesis, eds. B. Lukács & al. Proc. 1st Symp. of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1990. KFKI-1990-50, p. 125

[23] B. Lukács: On Earth's Thermal History. In: Carpathian Basin: Evolutionary Stages, eds. B. Lukács & al. Proc. 4th Symp. of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1993. KFKI-1993-32, p. 2

[24] Kiszely I.: A világ népei. Európa. Gondolat, Budapest, 1979.

[25] Lipták P.: Embertan és emberszármazástan. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, 1980.

[26] E. Breitinger: Zur Berechnung der Körperhöhe aus den langen Gliedmassenknochen. Anthrop. Anzeiger 14, 249 (1938)

[27] H. Bach: Zur Berechnung der Körperhöhe aus den langen Gliedmassenknochen weiblicher Skelette. Anthrop. Anzeiger 29, 12 (1965)

[28] R. Graves: The Greek Myths. Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1955.

[29] J. A. Fraser Roberts: An Introduction to Medical Genetics. Oxford University Press, London, 1967

[30] Kiszely I.: A világ népei. Ázsia. Gondolat, Budapest, 1984.

[31] A. Porter: Modern Human, Early Modern Human and Neanderthal Limb Proportions. Int. Journ. Osteoarcheol. 9, 54 (1999)

[32] F. d'Errico & al.: Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Critical Review of the Evidence and Its Interpretation. Current Anthropology 39, S1 (1998)

[33] J. Zilhao & F. d'Errico: The Chronology and Taphonomy of the Earliest Aurignacian and Its Implications for the Understanding of Neanderthal Extinction. J. World Prehistory 13, 1 (1999)

[34] Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: Is Every Basin a Melting Pot? In: Carpathian Basin: Evolutionary Stages, eds. B. Lukács & al. Proc. 4th Symp. of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1993. KFKI-1993-32, p. 78

[35] Demográfiai Évkönyv 1974. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Budapest, 1975.

[36] Ph. Lieberman & E. S. Crelin: On the Speech of Neanderthal Man. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203 (1984)

[37] B. Arensburg & al.: A middle palaeolithic hyoid bone. Nature 338, 758 (1989)

[38] Lukács B.: Tudott-e beszélni a neandervölgyi ember? Élet és Tudomány XXXV, 586 (1980)

[39] E. S. Crelin: Anatomy of the newborn: An Atlas. Philadelphia, 1969

[40] M. Boule: L'homme fossile de La Chapelle aux Saints. Ann. de Paleont. 6, 109 (1911); 7, 21 (1912); 7, 85 (1912); 8, 1 (1913)

[41] J. L. Flanagan: Speech Analysis, Synthesis and Reconstruction. Springer, Berlin, 1965

[42] G. E. Peterson & H. L. Barney: Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 24, 175 (1952)

[43] Tarnóczy T.: A magánhangzók akusztikai vizsgálatának problémái, in Åltalános nyelvészeti tanulmányok X. (szerk. Telegdi Zs. és Szépe Gy.), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1974, 181.

[44] I. Borbély & B. Lukács: Symmetries in the Phoneme Recognition. Acustica 68, 52 (1989)

[45] I. Borbély & B. Lukács: The Deviation Functional of Phoneme Recognition. Acustica, 63, 129 (1987)

[46] N. McWhirter: Guiness Book of World Records, Bantam Books, New York, 1979

[47] J. van Ginneken: La Reconstruction Typologique des Langues Archaiques de l'Humanité. Amsterdam, 1939

[48] W. L. Straus & J. E. Cave: Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man. Quart. Rev. Biol. 32, 348 (1957)

[49] E. Trinkaus: Pathology and the Posture of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal. Am. J. Phys. Anthropology 67, 19 (1985)

[50] D. N. Menton: Making Monkeys Out of Man. St. Louis Metro Voice Vol. 5, N° 3, March 1995

[51] J. Shreeve: The Neanderthal Enigma: Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins. Morrow, Fairfield, New Jersey, 1995.

[52] K. Brugmann: Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Trübner, Strassburg, 1904.

[53] B. Hayden: The Cultural Capacities of Neanderthals. J. Human Evol. 24, 113 (1993)

[54] Hajdú P.: Chrestomathia Samoiedica. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, 1968.

[55] Frint T.: A pöszeség. In: A hangképzés és zavarai, beszédzavarok, eds. Surján L. & Frint T., Medicina, Budapest, 1982., p. 180

[56] A. Jóhannesson: The Third Stage in the Creation of Human Language. Rejkjavík & Oxford, 1967

[57] R. E. Passingham: The Human Primate. W. H. Freeman and Co., Oxford, 1982

[58] H. Prossinger: The Emergence of the Symmetry Perception and the Asymmetry in Morphology in Early Man., Symmetry and Structure (eds. Gy. Darvas & D. Nagy), Budapest, 1989, p. 448

[59] Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: Hominid Cerebral Lateralization As Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking. Symmetry 4, 161 (1993)

[60] N. Toth: The Prehistoric Roots of a Human Concept of Symmetry. Symmetry and Structure (eds. Gy. Darvas & D. Nagy), Budapest, 1989, p. 575

[61] Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: On the Prehuman Selection for Longevity. In: Mutual Dynamics of Organisation Levels in Evolution. eds. B. Lukács & al. Proc. 3rd Symp. of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1992. KFKI-1992-32, p. 2

[62] E. Trinkaus & P. Shipman: The Neandertals: The Changing Image of Mankind. Knopf, New York, 1993

[63] J. Zilhao: The Extinction of Iberian Neandertals and Its Implications for the Origins of Modern Humans in Europe. In Proc. XIIIth Int. Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forli, Italy, 8-14 Sept., 1996, Vol. 2 p. 299

[64] N. Morral & al.: The origin of the major cystic fibrosis mutation (DeltaF508) in European populations. Nat. Genet. 7, 169 (1994)

[65] Serre J. L. & al.: Studies of RFLP closely linked to the cystic fibrosis locus throughout Europe lead to new considerations in population genetics. Hum. Genet. 84, 449 (1990)

[66] M. Slatkin & B. Rannala: Estimating Allele Age. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 1, 225 (2000)

[67] Titus Livius: Ab urbe condita libri. Teubner, Leipzig, 1902-30.

[68] M. Terentius Varro: A mezôgazdaságról. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 1971.

[69] Aristoteles of Stageira: Historia animalium. Canonical Bekker numbers for the HA: 486a5 - 638b38

[70] Matolcsi J.: A háziállatok eredete. Mezôgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest, 1975.

[71] A. L. Hagedoorn: Animal Breeding. London, 1950

[72] B. Dutrillaux: Les chromosomes des primates. La Recherche 12, 1246 (1981)

[73] M. Blanc: L'histoire génétique de l'espèce humaine. La Recherche 15, 654 (1984)

[74] J. J. Yunis & O. Prakash: The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science B215, 1525 (1982)

[75] Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: How to Jump into Humanity: A Mathematical Reconstruction. In: Evolution: from Cosmogenesis to Biogenesis, eds. B. Lukács & al. Proc. 1st Symp. of the Matter Evolution Subcommittee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1990. KFKI-1990-50, p. 125

[76] J. Worsaae: The Prehistory of the North, 1886

[77] A. K. Pedersen: Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 77, 307 (1981)

[78] J. M. Bird, Cyrena Anne Goodrich & Maura S. Weathers: Petrogenesis of Uivfaq Iron, Disko Island, Greenland. J. Geoph. Res. 86, 11,787 (1981)

[79] Sz. Bérczi, Adrienn Kiss & B. Lukács: Comparison of the Reduction Processes in Native Iron Bearing Basalts from Disko Island, and in Chondrites. Antarctic Meteorites XXI, 14 (1996)

[80] Sir John Lubbock: Prehistoric Times. London, 1865

[81] G. Clark: World Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969

[82] T. S. Kemp: Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals. Academic Press, London, 1982

[83] J-J. Hublin & al.: A late Neanderthal associated with Upper Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 381, 224 (1996)

[84] M. H. Wolpoff: Paleoanthropology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1999

[85] M. Brézillon: Dictionnaire de la Préhistoire. Larousse, Paris, 1969.

[86] P. Mellars: The Character of the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition in South-West France. In: C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London, 1973, p. 255

[87] Gáboriné Csánk Vera: Az ôsember Magyarországon. Gondolat, Budapest, 1980.

[88] Gábori M.: Az ôsember hétköznapjai. In: Évezredek hétköznapjai. Panoráma, Budapest, 1973.

[89] A. Marshack: Some Implications of the Peleolithic Symbolic Evidence of the Origin of Language. Curr. Anthropol. 17, 274 (1976)

[90] Gábori M.: Az ötvenezer éves ember. In: A magyar régészet regénye. Panoráma, Budapest, 1976.

[91] Ferenczy E.: A magyar föld népeinek története a honfoglalásig. Gondolat, Budapest, 1958.

[92] J. MacKillop: Dictionary of Celtic Mythology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998

[93] P. Allsworth-Jones: The Szeletian and the Stratigraphic Succession in Central Europe and Adjacent Areas: Main Trends, Recent Results and Problems for Resolution. In: The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, ed. P. Mellars, Cornell University Press, New York, 1990, p. 160

[94] P. Allsworth-Jones: The Szeletian. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987

[95] Herman O: A miskolci paleolit lelet. Archeológiai Értesítô 1893, p. 2. Abridged German text: Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, XIII, 77 (1893)

[96] Herman O: A borsodi Bükk ôsembere. Természettudományi Közlöny XL, 545 (1908)

[97] M. Hoernes: Der diluviale Mensch in Europa, Braunschweig, 1903.

[98] H. Klaatsch: Steinartefakte der Australier und Tasmanier. Z. für Ethnologie, XL, 420 (1908)

[99] Mészáros Gy.: A kôkori ember piros festéke. In: Régészeti barangolások Magyarországon, ed. Szombathy V., Panoráma, Budapest, 1978., p. 9

[100] V. Domosi & I. Vörös: Data to an Evaluation of the Finds Assemblage of the Palaeolithic Paint Mine at Lovas. Folia Archaeologica 30, 7 (1979)

[101] Veronika Gabori-Csank: Une mine de silex Paleolithique a Budapest, Hongrie. In: H. L. Dibble & A. Montet-White (eds.): Upper Pleistocene Prehistory in Western Eurasia, p. 141. Monograph 54, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1988

[102] Veronika Gábori-Csánk: Le Jankovichien. Une civilisation Paléolithique en Hongrie. Service de Préhistoire, Université de Liège, 1994.

[103] D. Richter & al.: Thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance and C-14-dating of the Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic site of Gleissenklosterle cave in Southern Germany. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 71 (2000)

[104] S. H. Ambrose: Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J. Human Evol. 34, 623 (1998)

[105] J. K. Kozlowski & S. K. Kozlowski: Le Paléolithique en Pologne. Préhistoire d'Europe, 1996.

[106] M. Rose: First Mariners. Archaeology 51, (3) (1998)

[107] J. M. Bermúdez de Castro & al.: A hominid from the lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible Ancestor to Neanderthals and modern humans. Science 276, 1392 (1997)

[108] M. Krings & al.: Neanderthal DNA sequences and ther origin of modern humans. Cell 90, 19 (1997)

[109] M. Rose: Homo Erectus Survival. Archaeology 50, (2) (1997)

[110] C. C. Swisher III, W. J. Rink, S. C. Antón, H. P. Schwarcz & al.: Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science 274, 1870 (1996)

[111] O. Bar-Yosef: Modern Humans, Neanderthals and the Middle/Upper Paleolithic in Western Asia. In: The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic (Colloq. of yhe XIIIth Int. Cong. of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sci.), Forli, ed. by O. Bar-Yosef & al., ABACO Edizioni, 1996, p. 175

[112] H. P. Schwarcz & W. J. Rink: Progress in ESR and U-Series Chronology of the Levantine Paleolithic. In: Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, eds. T. Akazawa & al., Plenum Press, New York, 1998, p. 57

[113] A. E. Marks: The Early Upper Paleolithic: The View from the Levant. In: Before Lascaux: The Complex Record of the Early Upper Paleolithic, eds. H. Knecht & al., CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1993

[114] H. Ingstad: Vesterveg til Vinland. Gyldendal Norks Forlag, Oslo, 1965

[115] P. C. Mellars: The Neanderthal Legacy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996

[116] M. Banai & B. Lukács: Attempts at closing up by long range regulators in the Carpathian Basin. In: Technological Lag and Intellectual Background: Problems of Transition in East Central Europe, ed. J. Kovács, Dartmouth, Aldershot, 1995, p. 323

[117] D. E. Hogg: Supernova Remnants. In: Galactic and Extra-Galactic Radio Astronomy, eds. G. L. Verschuur & K. I. Kellermann, Springer, Berlin, 1974

[118] G. Vasúth: Radiating Spinning Binaries. Proc. Sixth Hungarian Relativity Workshop, eds. C. Hoenselaers and Z. Perjés, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest (to appear)

[119] V. Bobyleva & al.: Concerning the mechanism of increased thermogenesis in rats treated with dehydroepiandrosterone. J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 25, 313 (1993)

[120] J. Cuozzo: Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man. Master Books, Green Forest, 1998

[121] N. Barton & J. S. Jones: Mitochondrial DNA: new clues about evolution. Nature 306, 317 (1983)

[122] N. Wade: The Human Family: 10 Adams and 18 Eves. New York Times, May 2, 2000

[123] I. V. Ovchinnikov & al.: Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from northern Caucasus. Nature 404, 490 (2000)

[124] G. J. Alcock & al.: Mitochondrial DNA Sequence in Ancient Australians: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Ptoc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 537 (2001)

[125] R. Highfield: Mungo Man shows how Australia was a craddle of culture. The Daily Telegraph, Jan. 9, 2001

[126] T. Radford: Neanderthal man challenges African Eve. Guardian, Jan. 12, 2001

[127] Rosalind M. Harding & al.: Archaic African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans. Am. J. Human Genet. 60, 772 (1997)

[128] E. E. Harris & J. Hey: X Chromosome Evidence for Ancient Human Histories. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 3320 (1999)

[129] E. Strauss: mtDNA shows signs of paternal influence. Science 286, 2436 (1999)

[130] Erika Hagelberg & al: Evidence for Mitochondrial DNA Recombination in a Human Population of Island Melanesia. Proc. Roy. Soc. B266, 485 (1999)

[131] F. H. Smith & al.: Direct radiocarbon dates for Vindija G_1 and Velika Pecina Late Pleistocene human remnants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 12281 (1999)

[132] Kate Wong: Cave Inn. Sci. Amer. Dec. 1999

[133] Láng J.: Lélek és isten. Gondolat, Budapest, 1974.

[134] Sz. Bérczi, B. Lukács & K. Martinás: Symmetry and Katachi in the Works of Aristotle. Forma 15, 173 (2000)

[135] Aristotle of Stageira: Ethica Nicomachea at Bekker number 1116b; also in Politica

[136] L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, peoples, and languages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 7719 (1997)

[137] Ornella Semino & al.: mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the paleolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 8, 339 (2000)

[138] Ornella Semino & al.: The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective. Science 290, 1155 (2000)

[139] R. Marsina: Ethnogenesis of Slovaks. Human Affairs 7, 15 (1997)

[140] St. A. Poniatowski: Pamietniki, Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1914

[141] C. Runnels: A Prehistoric Survey of Thessaly: New Light on the Greek Middle Paleolithic. J. Field Archaeology 15, 277 (1988)

[142] Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: Volvox: A Simple Example of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking. Symmetry 4, 117 (1993)

[143] B. Lukács: On Some Ancient Meteorite Falls. Antarctic Meteorites XX, 144 (1995)

[144] K. Birket-Smith: Kulturens veje I-II, Jespersen og Pio, Kobenhavn, 1941, 1948

[145] Sz. Bérczi & B. Lukács: Possible Meteorites with Human Transmutation: Royal Weapons. KFKI-1995-13

{1} Mary Renault: The Bull from the Sea. Vintage Books, New York, 1975

{2} R. A. Lafferty: The Devil Is Dead. Avon Books, New York, 1971

{3} K. Taylor: The Sorcerer's Sacred Isle. Ace Books, New York, 1989

{4} Illyés Gy.: Árpád. In: Versek, Osiris, Budapest, 2001.

{5} J. Pournelle: King David's Spaceship. Futura, London, 1988

{6} B. Kurtén: The Dance of the Tiger. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1995

(Note: *** stands for missing title/author.)

#1 S. J. Brown: Neanderthals and Modern Humans -A Regional Guide. http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/

#2 The Fate of Neanderthals. http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/fate.html

#3 M. Shupp: The Passage of the Neanderthals. http://www.csun.edu/~ms44278/up_paleo.htm

#4 Reuters: American Neanderthal? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/neanderthal000218.html

#5 E. Trinkaus, J. Zilhao & Cidália Duarte: The Lapedo Child: Lagar Velho 1 and our Perceptions of the Neanderthals. http://www.med.abaco-mac.it/issue001/articles/doc/013.htm

#6 E. Trinkaus & J. Zilhao: Lagar Velho FAQ. http://www.ipa.min-cultura.pt/news/noticias/lapedo/lapedofaq

#7 G. R. Morton: The Neandertal Hybrid. www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/hybrid.htm

#8 E. Trinkaus & J. Zilhao: A Correction to the Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz Concerning The Interpretation of the Lagar Velho 1 Child. http://www.ipa.min-cultura.pt/news/noticias/lapedo/lapedo_corrections

#9 J. Foley: The Lagar Velho 1 Skeleton. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lagarvelho.html

#10 R. Marsina, Ethnogenesis of Slovaks. http://www.elis.sk/hum/human197.htm

#11 V. Geist: The Neanderthal Paradigm. http://cogweb.english.ucsb.edu/EP/Neanderthal/Paradigm.html

#12 G. Morton: Re: The Shaman's Cape Religion..., http://asa.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199612/0201.html

#13 J. A. Halloran: The Proto-Sumerian Language Invention Process. http://www.sumerian.org/prot-sum.htm

#14 Shari Rudavsky: The Secret Life of Neanderthal. Omni 14, 42; 55 (1991)

#15 M. Roberts: The Origin of Modern Humans: Multiregional and Replacement Theories. http://www.linfield.edu/~mrobert/origins.html

#16 R. Williams: Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry. wysiwyg://38/http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

#17 B. Lukács: On the Emergence of Mammals. http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/adelobasil.html

#18 J. Zilhao: The Extinction of Iberian Neandertals and Its Implications for the Origins of Modern Humans in Europe. Mediterranean Prehistory Online, http://www.med.abaco-mac.it/issue001/articles/doc/006.htm

#19 Kharlena Ramanan: Lifeways. http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/lifeways.html

#20 G. Morton: Re: The Shaman's Cape Religion among the Neanderthals. http://asa.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199612/0210.html

#21 ***: Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.oxfordancestors.com/faq.html

#22 J. H. Morales: Tuatha De Danann Family Tree. http://members.home.net/tahama/celtic/

#23 Fiona Broome: Fomorians (or Formorians) -a few notes. http://www.fionabroome.com/history/fomor.htm

#24 ***: Human Evolution. http://tyr.ioa.ucla.edu/CSUN/Anthro150s99/EUP/tsld002.htm

#25 File F.: Kadic Ottokár bükki barlangkutatásai. www.ngo.hu/~mibe/evkonyv/kadic.htm

#26 Silvia Tomaskova: Comments. cmsu2.cmsu.edu/~ldm4683/c_tomaskova.htm

#27 J. Hromada: Moravany nad Váhom. http://www.iabrno.cz/vjournal2.html

#28 ***: List of Sites. http://www.iabrno.cz/4baba.html

#29 B. Adams: Archaeological Investigations at Two Open Air Sites in the Bükk Mountain Region of Northeast Hungary. www.neanderthal.de/n_thal/pg_40.htm

#30 ***: Changes in Coastal Marine Communities off California Show Intimate Linkage to Global Climate Change. nigec.ucdavis.edu/westgec/news/article3.html

#31 F. F. Steen: Paleoanthropology. http://cogweb/english/ucsb.edu/EP/Paleoanthropology.html

#32 ***: Homo antecessor. http://www.humanevolution.f2s.com/antecessor.html

#33 A. Arribas & P. Palmqvist: On the Ecological Connection Between Sabre-tooths and Humans: Faunal Dispersal Events in the Lower Pleistocene and a Review of the Evidence for the First Human Arrival in Europe. http://www.itge.mma.es/museo/investigacion/paleontologia/invesceno2/orce3.htm

#34 S. H. Ambrose: Late Upper Pleisthocene Modern Humans and Modern Human Technology. http://www.scale.uiuc.edu/anth102/lec2000/041700.html

#35 S. H. Ambrose: Origin, Dispersal and Differentiation of Modern Human: the Neandertals and Their Contemporaries. http://www.scale.uiuc.edu/anth102/lec2000/041400.html

#36 D. Montgomery: Aquatic Ape and African Eve. homepages.tesco.net/~sondela/AA.book_pdf, Chapter 7, or http://homepages.tesco.net/~sondela/html/AA_07.html

#37 G. Morton: The Artistic Neanderthal. www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199610/0142.html

#38 J. M. Howard: Androgens in Human Evolution. A New Explanation of Human Evolution. www.maples.net/~nfn03605/dheaandr.htm

#39 B. Grace: Chaos in Prehistory. http://www.hf.uio.no/iukk/roger/lithic/CHAOS/chaoscon.html

#40 ***: Frequently Asked Questions.

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/faq.html

#41 Constance Holden: DNA Recovered from 60,000-Year-Old Man. http://www.bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/01_1now/010109a.html

#42 Leigh Dayton: Mungo Man: the last of his kind? wysiwyg://168/http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,1590695%255E11011,00.html

#43 ***: Parallel Development of Modern Man? http://www.futureframe.de/news/010111-1.htm

#44 I. Karavancic: The Early Upper Paleolithic of Croatia. Mediterranean Prehistory Online, http://www.med.abaco-

mac.it/issue001/articles/doc/004.htm

#45 Saara Finnilä: Phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA. (Dissertation at University of Oulu).

hercules.oulu.fi/isbn9514255674/isbn9514255674.pdf

#46 G. Passarino & al.: Y-Chromosome Markers in Hungarians. Conference Poster. www.cowan.edu.au/pa/hgsa/conpos12.htm

#47 J. M. G. van der Dennen: The Continuing Story of Neandert(h)al Man: Book Review Essay. http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/neander.htm

#48 ***: European Wild Man. http://cryptozoology.freeservers.com/eurowildman.htm

#49 The Kaz-Khan and the Khazar Organization: The Khazar Heritage. wysiwyg://368/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6784/khazdoc.html

#50 G. A. Clark: Modern Human Origins: Highly Visible, Curiously Intangible. http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human520Nature%20S%201999/modern_human_origins.htm

June 18, 2001

My HomePage, with some other studies, if you are curious.