



Produced by Chris Curnow, Jens Nordmann and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)









             The Cambridge Manuals of Science and Literature


                             PREHISTORIC MAN




                       CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
                        London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
                           C. F. CLAY, MANAGER

                             [Illustration]

                     Edinburgh: 100, PRINCES STREET
              London: H. K. LEWIS, 136, GOWER STREET, W.C.
             WILLIAM WESLEY & SON, 28, ESSEX STREET, STRAND
                        Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
                        Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS
                      New York: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
              Bombay and Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.

                          _All rights reserved_


                             [Illustration]


                             PREHISTORIC MAN

                                   BY

                           W. L. H. DUCKWORTH
                            M.A., M.D., Sc.D.

                     University Lecturer in Physical
                         Anthropology, Cambridge

                               Cambridge:
                         at the University Press
                                  1912

                          _First Edition_, 1912
                         _Second Edition_, 1912


_With the exception of the coat of arms at the foot, the design on the
title page is a reproduction of one used by the earliest known Cambridge
printer, John Siberch, 1521_




                                 PREFACE


This book deals with the earliest phases in the past history of Mankind:
the selected period ends at the Aurignacian division of the Palaeolithic
Age. I regret to be unable to affix definite dates in years to the
several divisions of time now recognised. To illustrate the difficulty of
forming conclusions on this subject, it should be noted that in 1904
Professor Rutot (p. 103) assigned a duration of 139,000 years to the
Pleistocene period, while in 1909 Dr Sturge claimed 700,000 years for a
portion only of the same period. Evidently the present tendency is to
increase enormously the drafts on geological time, and to measure in
millions the years that have elapsed since the first traces of human
existence were deposited.

But in the face of estimates which differ so widely, it seemed preferable
to distinguish subdivisions of time by reference to animal-types or the
forms of stone-implements, rather than by the lapse of years.

In the attempt to summarise a considerable amount of evidence, I have
tried to select the facts most relevant to the subject in hand. And where
an opinion is expressed I have endeavoured to indicate the reasons for
the decision that is adopted.

Additional evidence is pouring in at the present time, and there is no
doubt but that the next few years will witness great extensions of
knowledge. In this connection, I take the opportunity of mentioning the
discovery made a few weeks ago by M. Henri Martin at La Quina, of a human
skeleton resembling the Neanderthal type but presenting (it is said)
definite features of inferiority to that type. Another subject of vast
importance is Mr Moir's recent demonstration (p. 106) of elaborately
worked implements resting beneath strata referred to the Pliocene period.

For the loan of blocks, or for permission to reproduce illustrations, my
cordial thanks are due to the editors and publishers of the journals
mentioned in the following list. The authors' names are appended to the
several illustrations.

    Anatomischer Anzeiger,
    Archiv fuer Anthropologie,
    Archivio per l'Antropologia e la Etnologia,
    Beitraege zur Urgeschichte Bayerns,
    Korrespondenzblatt der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellschaft,
    L'Anthropologie,
    Royal Dublin Society,
    Royal Society of Edinburgh,
    Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie.

                                                   W. L. H. DUCKWORTH

    _December_ 11, 1911




                                CONTENTS


  CHAP.     	                                                     PAGE

    I.  The Precursors of Palaeolithic Man                              1

   II.  Palaeolithic Man                                               17

  III.  Alluvial Deposits and Caves                                    63

   IV.  Associated Animals and Implements                              85

    V.  Human Fossils and Geological Chronology                       112

   VI.  Human Evolution in the light of recent research	              127

       Table A                                        _to face p._ 85

         "   B                                        _to  "   "_ 118




                          LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS


   FIG.     	                                                     PAGE

     1. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc.
        (From Dubois)                                                   5

     2. Outline tracings of Jawbones, (A) Mauer (B) ancient Briton     11

     3. Tooth from Taubach: surface of crown. (From Nehring)           22

     4. Tooth of Chimpanzee. (From Nehring)                            22

  5, 6. Tooth from Taubach: inner and outer sides. (From Nehring)      23

     7. Human skull from Krapina. (From Birkner)                       25

     8. Tracings of teeth from Krapina and Mauer. (From Kramberger)    29

     9. Human skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Birkner)        33

    10. Outline tracings of skull from La Chapelle-aux-Saints etc.
        (From Boule)                                                   35

    11. Contours of skulls, (A) New Guinea man (B) European woman      36

    12. Outline tracing of human skull from Le Moustier                40

    13. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer and Le Moustier        41

    14. Outline tracings of jawbones from Mauer, La Naulette, etc.
        (From Frizzi)                                                  42

    15. Outline tracings of jawbones, (A) ancient Briton (B) Le
        Moustier (C) Mauer                                             43

    16. Outline tracings of the Forbes Quarry (Gibraltar) skull.
        (From Sera)                                                    48

    17. Human skull of the Grimaldi-type. (From Birkner)               51

    18. Outline tracings of skulls from Galley Hill etc. (From
        Klaatsch)                                                      58

    19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. (From Dubois)         64

    20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. (From Birkner)                     65

    21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. (From Birkner)            69

    22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. (From Boule)       72

    23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Boule)  77

    24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene, Pliocene, and
        Pleistocene time. (From Penck)                                107

    25. Chart of oscillations of snow-level in the Glacial period.
        (From Penck)                                                  119

    26. Outline tracings of skulls of Pithecanthropus etc.
        (From Dubois)                                                 129

    27. Position of Palaeolithic Man in the scale of evolution.
        (From Cross)                                                  131

    28. Thigh-bones arranged to illustrate Klaatsch's theory.         136

    29. The human skeleton found beneath the Boulder-clay at Ipswich.
        (From a drawing by Dr Keith, reproduced with permission)      153




                                CHAPTER I

                   THE PRECURSORS OF PALAEOLITHIC MAN


Our knowledge of prehistoric man is based naturally upon the study of
certain parts of the human skeleton preserved in a fossil state. In
addition to these materials, other evidence is available in the form of
certain products of human industry. These include such objects as
implements of various kinds, owing their preservation to the almost
indestructible nature of their material, or again artistic
representations, whether pictorial or glyptic.

The evidence of the bones themselves will be considered first, partly for
convenience and partly in view of the cogency possessed by actual remains
of the human frame. Other branches of the subject will come under review
afterwards.

Of all the discoveries of ancient remains, whether possibly or certainly
human, two in particular stand out pre-eminently in marked relief. The
specimens thus distinguished are known as the remains of _Pithecanthropus
erectus_, on the one hand, and on the other a jaw-bone which is
attributed to a human type described (from the locality of the discovery)
as _Homo heidelbergensis_.

The geological antiquity assigned in each instance is greater than that
claimed for any bones acknowledged unreservedly to be human.

It is thus clear that a high value attaches to these specimens if they be
regarded as documents testifying to the course of human evolution. When
the bones are examined, the contrast they provide with all human remains
is so marked as to emphasise at once the necessity for a thorough and
critical examination of their structure.


                       _Pithecanthropus erectus._

In the case of these bones, the facts are now so widely known and so
easily accessible as to render unnecessary any detailed exposition here.
The discoveries were made in the years 1891 and 1892 by Professor
Dubois[1], who was engaged at the time on an investigation of the remains
of various animals found embedded in a river-bank in Java. As is well
known, the actual remains are scanty. They comprise the upper part of a
skull, part of a lower jaw (which has never been described), three teeth,
and a left thigh-bone.

[1] The numbers refer to the Bibliography at the end of the volume.

Before entering upon any criticism of the results of Professor Dubois'
studies, it is convenient to give a general statement of his conclusions.
Here we find described a creature of Pliocene age, presenting a form so
extraordinary as hardly to be considered human, placed so it seems
between the human and simian tribes. It is Caliban, a missing link,--in
fact a Pithecanthropus.

With the erect attitude and a stature surpassing that of many modern men
were combined the heavy brows and narrow forehead of a flattened skull,
containing little more than half the weight of brain possessed by an
average European. The molar teeth were large with stout and divergent
roots.

The arguments founded upon the joint consideration of the length of the
thigh-bone and the capacity of the skull are of the highest interest. For
the former dimension provides a means of estimating approximately the
body-weight, while the capacity gives an indication of the brain-weight.
The body-weight is asserted to have been about 70 kgm. (eleven stone) and
the brain-weight about 750 gm. And the ratio of the two weights is
approximately 1/94. The corresponding ratios for a large anthropoid ape
(Orang-utan) and for man are given in the table following, thus:

                Orang-utan                  1/183
               _Pithecanthropus erectus_     1/94
                Man                          1/51

The intermediate position of the Javanese fossil is clearly revealed.

The same sequence is shewn by a series of tracings representative of the
cranial arc in the middle line of the head (Fig. 1). And the results of
many tests of this kind, applied not only by Professor Dubois but also
by Professor Schwalbe, are confirmatory of the 'intermediate' position
claimed for _Pithecanthropus erectus_. The molar teeth are of inadequate
size if the skull-cap is that of an ape, whereas they are slightly larger
than the corresponding teeth furnished by primitive existing human types.
And now some of the objections to this account may be taken.

In the first place, the claim to Pliocene antiquity is contested. So keen
an interest was excited by Professor Dubois' discovery that more than one
expedition has been dispatched to survey and review the ground. It is now
declared in certain quarters that the horizon is lower Quaternary: I do
not know that any attempt has been made to reduce the age of the strata
further. As the matter stands, the difference is not very material, but
Professor Dubois refuses to accept the revised estimate and still adheres
to his own determination. Incidentally the more recent work
(Blanckenhorn[2], 1910) has resulted in the discovery of a tooth claimed
as definitely human (this is not the case with the teeth of
_Pithecanthropus erectus_), and yet of an antiquity surpassing that of
the remains found by Professor Dubois. The latter appears unconvinced as
to the genuineness of the find, but no doubt the case will be fully
discussed in publications now in the course of preparation.

  [Illustration: Fig. 1. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a
                 common dimension, viz. the line _Gl--Op_, representing a
                 base-line of the brain-case. _Pe_, Pithecanthropus.
                 _Papua_, a New Guinea native. _Hl_, _Sm_, _At_ are from
                 skulls of monkeys. (After Dubois.)]

Professor Dubois assigned the bones to one and the same skeleton, and for
this he has been severely criticised. Apart from arguments affecting the
geological age of the specimens, the question of their forming part of a
single individual is very momentous. For if two skeletons are
represented, one may be human, while the other is that of an ape. It is
admitted that the larger bones were separated by a distance of forty-six
feet. By way of meeting this criticism, it is submitted that the distance
is by no means so great as to preclude the possibility of the common and
identical origin of the various bones. Moreover it is at least curious
that if two skeletons are here represented, no further remains should
have been detected in the immediate vicinity.

The fact that the thigh-bone might easily have passed as that of a man,
while the skull-fragment is so divergent from all modern forms as to be
scarcely human, is of great interest. The contrast between the
indications provided by the two bones was remarked at once. Some writers,
rejecting certain other evidence on the point, then drew the inference
that the human thigh-bone had been evolved and had arrived at the
distinctive human condition in advance of the skull. The importance of
this conclusion lies in the fact that the human thigh-bone bears
indications of an erect attitude, while the form of the skull gives
guidance as to the size of the brain, and consequently to some extent
provides a clue to the mental endowment of the individual. Whether the
erect attitude or the characteristic brain-development was first obtained
by man has been debated for many years. In this case, the evidence was
taken to shew that the assumption of the erect attitude came as a means
of surmounting the crux of the situation. Thenceforth the upper limb was
emancipated entirely from its locomotor functions. Upon this emancipation
followed the liberation of jaws and mouth from their use as organs of
prehension. Simultaneously the mechanism whereby the head is attached to
the neck and trunk became profoundly modified. This alteration gave to
the brain an opportunity of growth and increase previously denied, but
now seized, with the consequent accession of intellectual activity so
characteristic of the Hominidae.

The story thus expounded is attractive from several points of view. But
while possessing the support of the Javan fossil remains, it is not
confirmed in the embryonic history of Man, for there the growth of the
brain is by far the most distinctive feature. Nor did those who adopted
this opinion (in 1896), take into account all the characters of the
ancient human remains even then available. For the evidence of those
remains points to an order exactly the reverse of that just stated, and
it indicates the early acquisition of a large and presumably active
brain. And now that additions have been lately made to those older
remains (other than the Javan bones), the same 'reversed' order seems to
be confirmed. On the whole therefore, the soundest conclusion is that
following a preliminary increment of brain-material, the erect attitude
came as a further evolutionary advance.

But to return from this digression to the objections against the
_Pithecanthropus erectus_, it must now be explained that the very
contrast between the thigh-bone and the skull-cap in respect of these
inferences, has been used as an argument against the association of these
bones as part of one skeleton.

The objection may be met in two ways at least. For instance, the
thigh-bone may yet possess characters which lessen its resemblance to
those of recent men, but are not recognised on a superficial inspection.
Careful investigation of the thigh-bone seems to shew that such indeed
is the case (indeed the human characters are by some absolutely denied).
But together with this result comes the discovery that the characters of
straightness and slenderness in the shaft of the bone from which the
inference as to the erect attitude was largely drawn, do not give
trustworthy evidence upon this point. In fact, a human thigh-bone may be
much less straight and less slender than that of arboreal animals such as
the Gibbon, the Cebus monkey, or the Lemurs (especially Nycticebus). The
famous Eppelsheim femur is straighter than, and as slender as that of
Pithecanthropus. It was regarded at first as that of a young woman, but
is now ascribed to an anthropoid ape. And in fact, even if the skull-cap
and thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus should be retained in association, it
seems that the title 'erectus' is not fully justified.

Another method of rebutting the objection is based on the suggestion that
Pithecanthropus is not a human ancestor in the direct line. Thus to
describe an uncle as a parent is an error not uncommon in palaeontology,
and it was treated leniently by Huxley. To my mind this position can be
adopted without materially depreciating the value of the evidence yielded
by the conjoint remains, provided only that their original association be
acknowledged. Should this assumption be granted, the claims put forward
on behalf of his discovery by Professor Dubois seem to be justified. On
the other hand, should the association of skull-cap and thigh-bone be
rejected, the former has not lost all claim to the same position. For the
most recent researches of Professor Schwalbe[3] of Strassburg, and the
further elaboration of these by Professor Berry[4] and Mr Cross[5] of
Melbourne, support Professor Dubois' view. And though the objections may
not have been finally disposed of, a review of the literature called
forth by Professor Dubois' publications will shew a slight margin of
evidence for, rather than against his view.


                    _The Heidelberg or Mauer Jaw_[6].

Professor Dubois' Javanese researches were carried out in the years 1891
and 1892. Fifteen years separate the discovery of the _Pithecanthropus
erectus_ from that of the second great find mentioned in the introductory
paragraph of this chapter. This period was by no means barren in respect
of other additions to the list of human fossils. But the other results
(including even the finds at Taubach) are regarded as of subsidiary
importance, so that their consideration will be deferred for the present.
In 1907 a lower jaw, known now as the Heidelberg or Mauer jaw, was
discovered by workmen in the sand-pit of Mauer near Heidelberg.

The Mauer jaw is indeed a most remarkable specimen. The first general
outcome of an inspection of the photographs or of the excellent casts
(which may now be seen in many museums) is a profound impression of its
enormous strength (Figs. 2, 13, and 15_c_). By every part of the specimen
save one, this impression is confirmed. This massiveness, together with
the complete absence of any prominence at the chin, would have caused
great hesitation in regard to the pronouncement of a decision as to the
probable nature of the fossil. The one paradoxical feature is the
relatively small size of the teeth. All of these have been preserved,
though on the left side the crowns of four have been removed by accident
in the process of clearing away some adherent earth and pebbles. The net
result shews that the teeth are actually within the range of variation
provided by human beings of races still extant, though commonly regarded
as 'primitive,' if not pithecoid (such as the aboriginal race of
Australia). Yet these teeth are implanted in a jaw of such size and
strength as render difficult the reference of the specimen to a human
being.

  [Illustration: Fig. 2. _A_ outline tracing of a cast of the Mauer
                 Jawbone. _B_ a similar tracing from an unusually large
                 jaw of an ancient Briton. (From specimens in the
                 Cambridge Museum.)]

The most striking features of the Mauer jaw have been mentioned already.
Before entering upon a further discussion of its probable nature, it will
be well to note some of the other distinctive characters. Thus the
portion Fig. 2 (_a_) known technically as the ascending ramus is of great
size, and particularly wide, surpassing all known human specimens in this
respect. The upper margin of this part is very slightly excavated, a
slight depression (_b_) replacing the very definite 'sigmoid' notch found
in almost all human jaws (though the relative shallowness of this notch
has been long recognised as distinctive of the lowest human types). The
difference in vertical height between the uppermost points of the condyle
(_c_) and the coronoid process (_d_) is therefore unusually small. On
the other hand, the lower margin of the bone is undulating, so that it
presents a hollow on each side, as well as one near the middle line in
front. The two halves of the bone are definitely inclined to one another
and this convergence is faintly marked in the two rows of teeth behind
the canines. The latter teeth do not project markedly above the level of
those adjacent to them. The incisor teeth are remarkably curved in their
long axes, with a convexity in front. The prominences called 'genial
tubercles' behind the chin are replaced by a shallow pit or fossa.

In one sense the reception accorded by palaeontologists to the fossil jaw
of Mauer differs remarkably from most of the comparable instances. That
difference consists in the comparative absence of controversy excited by
its discovery. This must not be ascribed to any lack of ardour on the
part of archaeologists. More probable is it that with the lapse of time,
the acceptance of an evolutionary interpretation of the origin of man has
gained a wider circle of adherents, so that the claims of even so
sensational a specimen as this, are sifted and investigated with a
judicial calm much more appropriate and certainly more dignified than the
fierce outbursts occasioned by some of the earlier discoveries.

It remains to institute brief anatomical comparisons between the Mauer
jaw and those of the highest apes on the one hand, and of the most
primitive of human beings on the other.

(_a_) Of the three larger anthropoid apes available for comparison, it is
hard to say which presents the closest similarity. The Gibbons do not
appear to approach so nearly as these larger forms. Among the latter, no
small range of individual variations occurs. My own comparisons shew that
of the material at my disposal the mandible of an Orang-utan comes
nearest to the Mauer jaw. But other mandibles of the same kind of ape
(Orang-utan) are very different. The chief difficulty in assigning the
possessor of the Mauer jaw to a pithecoid stock has been mentioned
already. It consists in the inadequate size of the teeth. In addition to
this, other evidence comes from the results of an examination of the
grinding surfaces (crowns) of the molar teeth. These resemble teeth of
the more primitive human types rather than those of apes. Finally the
convergence of the two rows when traced towards the canine or eye-tooth
of each side, points in the same direction.

(_b_) If the apes be thus rejected, the next question is, Would the Mauer
jaw be appropriate to such a cranium as that of Pithecanthropus? I
believe an affirmative answer is justifiable. It is true that an
excellent authority (Keith[7]) hesitates on the ground that the mandible
seems too massive for the skull, though the same writer recognises that,
in regard to the teeth, the comparison is apt. This is a difficult point.
For instance the _H. moust. hauseri_ (cf. Chapter II) has a mandible
which is far 'lower' than the capacity of the brain-case would lead one
to expect. Therefore it seems that the degree of correlation between
mandible and capacity is small, and to predict the size of the brain from
evidence given by the jaw is not always safe. It is to be remembered that
special stress was laid by Professor Dubois (cf. p. 4) on the fact that
the teeth of Pithecanthropus when compared with the skull-cap are
inadequately small, if judged by the ape-standard of proportion. The
characters of the teeth, in so far as upper and lower molars can be
compared, present no obstacle to such an association, and in fact provide
some additional evidence in its favour. The crucial point seems therefore
to be the massiveness of the jaw. With regard to this, the following
remarks may be made. First, that the skull-cap of Pithecanthropus is on
all sides admitted to shew provision for powerful jaw-muscles. And
further, in respect of actual measurements, the comparison of the
transverse width of the Javanese skull-cap with that of the Mauer jaw is
instructive. For the skull-cap measures 130 mm. in extreme width, the jaw
130 mm. The association of the two does not, in my opinion, make an
extravagant demand on the variability in size of either part. A curious
comparison may be instituted between the Mauer jaw and the corresponding
bone as represented by Professor Manouvrier (cf. Dubois[8], 1896) in an
attempted reconstruction of the whole skull of Pithecanthropus. Professor
Manouvrier's forecast of the jaw differs from the Mauer specimen chiefly
in regard to the size of the teeth, and the stoutness of the ascending
ramus. The teeth are larger and the ascending ramus is more slender in
the reconstruction than in the Mauer specimen.

(_c_) Passing from the consideration of Pithecanthropus to that of human
beings, the general results of the comparisons that can be made will shew
that the gap separating the jaw of Mauer from all modern human
representatives is filled by human jaws of great prehistoric antiquity.

The progress of an evolutionary development is accordingly
well-illustrated by these specimens. And although _Homo heidelbergensis_
is seen to be separated from his modern successors by great differences
in form as well as a vast lapse of time, still the intervening period
does provide intermediate forms to bridge the gulf. Not the least
interesting of many reflections conjured up by the Mauer jaw, is that
this extraordinary form should be met with in a latitude so far north of
that corresponding to the Javanese discoveries. This difference, together
with that of longitude, suggests an immense range of distribution of
these ancestral types. Some of their successors are considered in the
next chapter.




                               CHAPTER II

                            PALAEOLITHIC MAN


The fossil remains described in the preceding chapter possess good claims
to that most interesting position, viz. an intermediate one between
Mankind and the more highly-developed of the Apes.

From such remarkable claimants we turn to consider fossil bones of
undoubted human nature. Of such examples some have been regarded as
differing from all other human types to such an extent as to justify
their segregation in a distinct species or even genus. Yet even were such
separation fully justified, they are still indubitably human.

In the early phases of the study of prehistoric archaeology, the
distinction of a 'stone age' from those of metals was soon realised.
Credit is due to the present Lord Avebury[9] for the subdivision of that
period into the earlier and later parts known as the Palaeolithic and
Neolithic stages. At first, those subdivisions possessed no connotation
of anatomical or ethnical significance. But as research progressed, the
existence of a representative human type specially characteristic of the
palaeolithic period passed from the stage of surmise to that of
certainty. Yet, although characteristic, this type is not the only one
recognisable in those early days.

In the following pages, some account is given of the most recent
discoveries of human remains to which Palaeolithic antiquity can
undoubtedly be assigned. The very numerous works relating to prehistoric
man are full of discussions of such specimens as those found in the
Neanderthal, at Spy, Engis, Malarnaud, La Naulette or Denise.

That some of these examples are of great antiquity is inferred from the
circumstances under which they were discovered. The evidence relates
either to their association with extinct animals such as the Mammoth, or
again the bones may have been found at great depths from the surface, in
strata judged to have been undisturbed since the remains were deposited.
One of the earliest discoveries was that of the Engis skull; the
differences separating this skull from those of modern Europeans are so
extraordinarily slight that doubt has been expressed as to the antiquity
assigned to the specimen, and indeed this doubt has not been finally
dispelled. The bones from Denise (now rehabilitated in respect of their
antiquity by Professor Boule) present similar features. But on the other
hand the jaws found at La Naulette and Malarnaud suggest the former
existence of a lowlier and more bestial form of humanity. Support is
provided by the famous skull of the Neanderthal, but in regard to the
latter, conclusive evidence (as distinct from presumption) is
unfortunately lacking. Further confirmation is given by the Forbes Quarry
skull from Gibraltar, but although its resemblance to that of the
Neanderthal was clearly noted by Dr Busk and Sir William Turner[10] as
long ago as 1864, the specimen was long neglected. In this case, as in
that of the Neanderthal, corroborative evidence as to the geological or
archaeological horizon is lamentably defective. After a lapse of some
twenty years, the discoveries of human skeletons at Spy in Belgium,
undoubtedly associated as they were with remains of Mammoth, threw a
flood of light on the subject, and enormously enhanced the significance
of the earlier discoveries. The former existence in Europe of a human
type, different from all other known inhabitants of that continent, and
presenting no small resemblance to the lowliest modern representatives of
mankind, may be said to have been finally established by the results of
the excavations at Spy. Moreover the differences thus recognised are such
as to lend strong support to the evolutionary view as to the origin of
the more recent human stocks from an ancestral series including
representatives of a simian phase. Yet the co-existence of a higher type
represented by the Engis skull must not be overlooked, nor indeed has
this been the case. The significance of so remarkable a phenomenon is
more fully discussed in the sequel; but no detailed account of the
earlier discoveries need be given. A bibliography is appended and here
references (H[oe]rnes[44], 1908; Schwalbe[55]) will be found to the more
important sources of information upon those specimens.

  _Locality_      |  _Date_   | _Literary reference_ | _Synonyms_
                  |           |                      |
  Taubach         |   1895    | Nehring[11]          |
  Krapina         |   1899    | Kramberger[12]       |
  S. Brelade      | 1910-11   | Marett[13]           |
  La Chapelle aux |   1908    | Boule[14]            | "Correze"
  Saints          |           |                      |
  Le Moustier     |   1908    | Klaatsch[15]         | "<DW25> mousterensis
                  |           |                      |   hauseri"
  La Ferrassie    |   1909    | Peyrony[16]          |
  Pech de l'Aze   |   1909    | Peyrony[16]          |
  Forbes Quarry   | 1848-1909 | Sollas[17] Sera[18]  | "Gibraltar"
  Andalusia       |   1910    | Verner[19]           |
  Grotte des      |  1902-06  | Verneau[20]          | "Grimaldi"
  Enfants         |           |                      |
  Baradero        |   1887    | (S. Roth) Lehmann-   |
                  |           |   Nitsche (1907)[21] |
  Monte Hermoso   |     ?     | Lehmann-Nitsche      | "<DW25> neogaeus"
                  |           |   (1909)[22]         |
  Combe Capelle   |   1909    | Klaatsch[23]         | "<DW25> aurignacensis
                  |           |                      |   hauseri"
  Galley Hill     |   1895    | Newton[24]           | "<DW25> fossilis"

In the present instance, an attempt will be made to provide some account
of the most recent advances gained through the results of excavations
carried out in late years. And herein, prominence will be given in the
first place to such human remains as are assignable to the lowlier human
type represented previously by the Spy skeletons. Following upon these,
come examples possessing other characters and therefore not referable to
the same type.

The discoveries are commonly designated by the name of the locality in
which they were made. Those selected for particular mention are
enumerated in the list on p. 20.


                        _Taubach in Saxe-Weimar._

Certain specimens discovered at Taubach and first described in 1895
possess an importance second only to that of the Mauer jaw and of the
Javan bones found by Professor Dubois. Indeed there would be
justification for associating the three localities in the present series
of descriptions. But upon consideration, it was decided to bring the
Taubach finds into the present place and group. It may be added that they
are assigned to an epoch not very different from that represented by the
Mauer strata whence the mandible was obtained.

  [Illustration: Fig. 3. The grinding surface of the first right lower
                 molar tooth from Taubach. The letters denote several
                 small prominences called cusps.]

  [Illustration: Fig. 4. The grinding surface of the corresponding tooth
                 (cf. Fig. 3) of a Chimpanzee. (Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 are
                 much enlarged.)]

The actual material consists only of two human teeth of the molar series.
One is the first lower 'milk' molar of the left side. This tooth exceeds
most corresponding modern examples in its dimensions. In a large
collection of modern teeth from Berlin no example provided dimensions so
large. The surface is more worn than is usual in modern milk teeth of
this kind. The second tooth (Fig. 3) is the first lower 'permanent' molar
of the left side. It bears five cusps. Neither this number of cusps, nor
its absolute dimensions, confer distinction upon the tooth. Its chief
claim to notice is based upon its relative narrowness from side to side.
That narrowness (proportion of transverse to anteroposterior diameter),
represented by the ratio 84.6:100, is present in a distinctly unusual and
almost simian degree. In this character the Taubach tooth resembles the
same tooth of the Chimpanzee (Fig. 4), to which it stands nearer than
does the corresponding tooth of the Mauer jaw. The manner in which the
worn surface of the tooth <DW72>s downwards and forwards has been claimed
as another simian character. In these respects, the Taubach tooth is
among the most ape-like of human teeth (whether prehistoric or recent) as
yet recorded, and in my opinion there is some difficulty in deciding
whether this is the tooth of a human being or of a pithecoid human
precursor. There is a very slight tendency (Figs. 5, 6) to concrescence
of the roots, and these are curiously parallel in direction, when viewed
from the side. In the latter respect no similarity to the teeth of apes
can be recognised.

  [Illustration: Fig. 5. Inner side of the Taubach tooth.]

  [Illustration: Fig. 6. Outer side of the same. (From Nehring.)]


                          _Krapina in Croatia._

Next in order to the discovery of human teeth at Taubach, the results of
excavations in a so-called 'rock-shelter' on the bank of the river
Krapini[vc]a in Croatia, call for consideration. Immense numbers of bones
were obtained, and the remains of a large number of human beings were
found to be mingled with those of various animals. Apart from their
abundance, the fragmentary character of the human bones is very
remarkable. The discovery that one particular stratum in the cave
consisted mainly of burnt human bones has suggested that some of the
early inhabitants of the Krapina shelter practised cannibalism.

Indeed this view is definitely adopted by Professor Kramberger, and he
makes the suggestion that the remains include representatives of those
who practised as well as those who suffered from this custom. Both young
individuals and those of mature age are represented, but very aged
persons have not been recognised.

Turning to the details of the actual bones, the conclusion of outstanding
interest is the recognition of further instances of the type of the
Neanderthal and of Spy, the latter discovery being separated by a lapse
of twenty years and more from that at Krapina. An attempt has been made
to reconstruct one skull, and the result is shewn in Fig. 7, which
provides a view of the specimen in profile. Viewed from above, the chief
character is the width of the cranial portion, which exceeds very
distinctly in this respect the corresponding diameter in the more classic
examples from the Neanderthal and Spy. It is very important to note that
the brain-case is thus shewn to be remarkably capacious, and this is all
the more remarkable since the limb-bones do not denote a very great
stature or bulk.

  [Illustration: Fig. 7. Profile view of a reconstructed human skull from
                 Krapina. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)]

Having recently examined the specimens now in the Museum of Palaeontology
at Agram in Croatia, I venture to add some notes made on that occasion.
The Krapina skull-fragments and the head of a femur are certainly most
impressive. It is shewn that early palaeolithic man presents examples of
skulls both of brachy-cephalic and dolicho-cephalic proportions.
Variations in the form and arrangement of the facial bones also occur.

The form and proportions of the brain-case have been noted already. The
profile view (cf. Fig. 7) shews the distinctive features of the brow
region. The brow-ridges are very large, but they do not absolutely
conform to the conditions presented by the corresponding parts in the
skulls of aboriginal Australian or Tasmanian natives. The region of the
forehead above the brows is in some instances (but not in all) flattened
or retreating, and this feature is indicated even in some small fragments
by the oblique direction of the lamina cribrosa of the ethmoid bone.

Two types of upper jaw are distinguishable: no specimen projects forwards
so far as might be expected, but the teeth are curiously curved downwards
(as in some crania of aboriginal Australians). The facial surface of the
jaw is not depressed to form a 'canine fossa.' The nasal bones are
flattened.

The mandibles present further remarkable characters. By these again, two
types have been rendered capable of distinction. In their massiveness
they are unsurpassed save by the mandible from Mauer. In absolute width
one specimen actually surpasses the Mauer jaw, but yet fails to rival
that bone in respect of the great width found to characterise the
ascending ramus in that example. In the Krapina jaws, the chin is absent
or at best feebly developed. In one specimen the body of the jaw is bent
at an angle between the canine and first premolar tooth, and is thus
reminiscent of the simian jaw. Behind the incisor teeth the conformation
is peculiar, again suggestive of the arrangement seen in the Mauer jaw,
and differing from that found in more recent human specimens.

The distinction of two types of lower jaw was made in the following
manner. The bone was placed on a flat surface. The vertical height of the
tooth-bearing part was measured in two regions, (_a_) near the front,
(_b_) further back, and close to the second molar tooth (cf. Fig. 2_f_,
_g_). In some of the bones these measurements are nearly equal, but the
hinder one is always the less. In the instances in which the two
measurements approximate to one another, the proportion is as 100:92. In
other instances the corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being
about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered by Professor
Kramberger to indicate a special variety (krapinensis) of the Neanderthal
or _Homo primigenius_ type. The second type is that of the Spy mandible
No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects to the distinction, urging
that the indices (92 and 86) are not sufficiently contrasted. However
this may be, it is noteworthy that other bones shew differences. Thus
the curvature of the forehead is a variable feature, some skulls having
had foreheads much flatter and more retreating than others. The limb
bones are also called upon to provide evidence. Some of the arm-bones and
thigh-bones are longer and more slender than others.

How far these differences really penetrated and whether the thesis of two
types can be fully sustained, does not appear to admit of a final answer.
The view here adopted is that, on the whole, the distinction will be
confirmed. But nevertheless I am far from supporting in all respects the
view of Professor Klaatsch to whose imagination we owe the suggestion of
realistic tableaux depicting the murderous conflict of the two tribes at
Krapina, the butchery of one act culminating suitably in a scene of
cannibalism. Nor am I persuaded that either variety or type found at
Krapina can be reasonably identified with that of the Galley Hill
skeleton. But of these matters further discussion is reserved for the
sequel.

                    *       *       *       *       *

  [Illustration: Fig. 8. Tracings (from skiagrams) of various molar
                 teeth. The specimen _K.o._ from Krapina shews the
                 conjoined roots characteristic of teeth found at Krapina,
                 and in Jersey at S. Brelade's Bay. The large pulp-cavity
                 of the Krapina teeth should be noted. _K.o._, _K.C._,
                 _K.E._, _K.G._, from Krapina; _H._ Mauer. (From
                 Kramberger.)]

This brief sketch of the cranial characters of the Krapina remains must
be supplemented by a note on the teeth. Great numbers were found, and
some of them are of enormous dimensions, surpassing those of the Mauer
jaw. But some of the molar teeth are further distinguished in a very
remarkable way, for the roots supporting the crown of the tooth are
conjoined or fused: they are not distinct or divergent as is usual. The
contrast thus provided by these anomalous teeth is well illustrated in
the accompanying figure (8, _Ko_). Now such fusion of roots is not
absolutely unknown at the present day; but the third molar or wisdom
tooth is most frequently affected. The occurrence is extremely unusual in
the other molar teeth of modern men. Yet among the Krapina teeth, such
fusion is striking both in its degree and in its frequency. So marked a
characteristic has attracted much attention. Professor Kramberger holds
the view that it constituted a feature of adaptation peculiar to the
Palaeolithic men of Krapina. In opposition to this, Professor Adloff
holds that the character is so definite and marked as to enter into the
category of distinctive and specific conformations. The discussion of
these views was carried on somewhat warmly, but yet to some extent
fruitlessly so long as the only known examples were those from Krapina.
Dr Laloy supported Professor Kramberger, and on the other side may be
ranged the support of Professor Walkhoff. But a recent discovery has very
substantially fortified the view adopted by Professor Adloff and his
supporters. For in a cave near S. Brelade's Bay in Jersey, the
explorations of Messrs Nicolle, Sinel and Marett (1910-1911) have brought
to light Palaeolithic human teeth of very similar form. They are said
indeed by Dr Keith to be precisely comparable to those from Krapina. The
conjoined roots of such teeth should be regarded therefore as more than a
peculiarity of the Palaeolithic men of Croatia, and rather as a very
definite means of assigning to a particular Palaeolithic epoch any other
instances of a similar nature. Space will not admit of more than a
simple record of two other features of the Krapina teeth. They are (_a_)
the curvature of the canine teeth and (_b_) the remarkable size and
extent of the 'pulp-cavity' (cf. Fig. 8, _Ko_) of the molar teeth. In
entering upon so protracted a discussion of this part of the evidence,
the excuse is proffered that, as may be noted in the instances at Trinil
and Taubach, teeth are remarkably well-fitted for preservation in the
fossil state, since they may be preserved in circumstances leading to the
complete destruction of other parts of the skeleton.

The limb bones of the Krapina skeletons are chiefly remarkable for the
variety they present. Some are short and stout, of almost pygmy
proportions: others are long and slender, inappropriate in these respects
to the massive skull fragments which predominate. The distinction of two
human types upon evidence furnished by the limb bones has already been
mentioned.


                       _S. Brelade's Bay, Jersey._

A cave in this locality has been explored during the last two years
(1910, 1911). Human remains are represented by the teeth already
mentioned on account of their resemblance to those found at Krapina. The
resemblance depends primarily upon the curious fusion of the roots in the
molar teeth. Moreover, the circumference of the combined and thickened
roots is so great as to confer a most remarkable 'columnar' appearance
on the affected teeth (cf. fig. 8, _K.o._). The teeth from Krapina and
Jersey while thus associated must be contrasted with some specimens which
they resemble in other respects. The corresponding teeth in the Mauer jaw
have been described as similar to those from Krapina, but I cannot
confirm this from Dr Schoetensack's illustrations, of which fig. 8 (_H_)
is a fair representation. The teeth of the Forbes Quarry and Le Moustier
specimens do not conform to the precise requirements of the test. The Spy
teeth are said to have three distinct roots save in two cases, where the
numbers are four and two respectively. The test of combined molar roots
therefore provides a means of subdividing a group of examples otherwise
similar, rather than a mark of recognition applicable to all alike.

The S. Brelade teeth also resemble those from Krapina in the proportions
of their crowns and the unusually large size of the pulp-cavity. The
latter character may prove more important than the fusion of the roots.
But the evidence of their surroundings assigns the teeth from Jersey to
an epoch less ancient than that of the Krapina men.


                   _La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze)._

  [Illustration: Fig. 9. Profile view of the skull from La
                 Chapelle-aux-Saints (Correze). (From Birkner,
                 after Boule.)]

The human skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints holds a very distinguished
position among its congeners. In the first place, the discovery was not
haphazard, but made by two very competent observers during their
excavations. Again, the remains comprise not only the nearly intact
brain-case, but much of the facial part of the skull, together with the
lower jaw and many bones of the trunk and limbs. The individual was a
male of mature age, but not senile (Manouvrier). For these reasons, the
value of this skeleton in evidence is singularly great.

Speaking generally, the specimen is found to resemble very closely the
Neanderthal skeleton in practically every structure and feature common to
the two individuals. This correspondence is confirmatory therefore of the
view which assigns great antiquity to the Neanderthal man, and in
addition to this, further support is given to the recognition of these
examples (together with those from Spy and Krapina) as representatives of
a widely distributed type. It is increasingly difficult to claim them as
individual variations which have been preserved fortuitously.

Beyond these inferences, the skeleton from La Chapelle adds very greatly
to the sum total of our knowledge of the structural details of these
skeletons. For here the facial bones are well preserved. Before
proceeding to their consideration reference should be made to the side
view of the skull (Fig. 9), as well as to the tracings of the brain-case
brought into comparison with those provided by the Neanderthal and Spy
crania. In the case of one illustration of those tracings (Fig. 10) it
must be remarked that objection is taken by Professor Klaatsch to the
base-line selected, though in this particular instance, that objection
has less weight than in others.

  [Illustration: Fig. 10. Outline tracings (cf. Fig. 1) of various human
                 skulls of the Palaeolithic Age. (From Boule.)]

Turning to the facial parts of the skull, the brows will be seen to
overhang the face less than in many crania of aboriginal Australians.
Prognathism, _i.e._ projection of the jaws (Fig. 11), though distinct, is
less pronounced than might be expected. Hereby the reconstruction of the
facial parts of the Neanderthal skull, as prepared by Professor Klaatsch,
is shewn to be much exaggerated. The skeleton of the nose reveals some
simian traits, and on either side, the canine fossa (below the eye) is
shallow or non-existent. A good deal of stress has been laid on this
character, perhaps more than is justifiable. Yet it is quite uncommon in
this degree among modern European crania, though alleged by Giuffrida
Ruggeri to characterise certain skulls from the Far East. The
reconstructed skull contains teeth which are large and in the incisor
region (_i.e._ in front) are much curved downwards in the direction of
their length. But this, though probably correct, is yet a matter of
inference, for only a couple of teeth (the second premolars of the left
side) were found _in situ_. And so far no detailed description of these
teeth has appeared. The mandible is of extraordinary dimensions; very
widely separated 'ascending rami' converge to the massive body of the
jaw. The sigmoid notch is almost as shallow as in the Mauer jaw. The chin
is retreating or absent.

  [Illustration: Fig. 11. Contours of two skulls, _A_ of a New Guinea
                 man; _B_ of an European woman. The angle _B.PR.P_
                 measures the degree of prognathism, and in this respect,
                 the two specimens are strongly contrasted. (From
                 specimens in the Cambridge Museum.)]

Such are the more easily recognisable features of the skull. It will be
understood that many more details remain for discussion. But within the
allotted space, two only can be dealt with. The capacity of the
brain-case is surprisingly large, for it is estimated at 1600 cubic
centimetres: from this figure (which will be the subject of further
discussion in the sequel) it appears that the man of La Chapelle was
amply provided with cerebral material for all ordinary needs as judged
even by modern standards. In the second place, MM. Boule and Anthony, not
content with a mere estimate of capacity, have published an elaborate
account of the form of the brain as revealed by a cast of the interior
of the brain-case. As the main result of their investigations, they are
enabled to record a list of characters indicative of a comparatively
lowly status as regards the form of the brain, although in actual size it
leaves little to be desired.

The principal points of interest in the remainder of the skeleton refer
in the first instance to the estimate of stature and the evidence
provided as to the natural pose and attitude of the individual. Using
Professor Pearson's table, I estimate the stature as being from 1600 to
1620 mm. (5ft. 3in. or 5ft. 4in.), a result almost identical with the
estimate given for the Neanderthal man. In both, the limb bones are
relatively thick and massive, and by the curvature of the thigh-bones and
of the upper parts of the shin-bones, a suggestion is given of the
peculiar gait described by Professor Manouvrier as 'la marche en
flexion'; the distinctive feature consists in an incompleteness of the
straightening of the knee-joint as the limb is swung forwards between
successive steps.

The bones of the foot are not lacking in interest, and, in particular,
that called astragalus is provided with an unusually extensive
joint-surface on its outer aspect. In this respect it becomes liable to
comparison with the corresponding bone in the feet of climbing animals,
whether simian or other.

That these features of the bone in question are not peculiar to the
skeleton from La Chapelle, is shewn by their occurrence in bones of
corresponding antiquity from La Quina (Martin, 1911) and (it is also
said) from La Ferrassie (Boule, L'Anthropologie, Mai-Juin, 1911).


                _Homo mousterensis hauseri_ (_Dordogne_)

This skeleton was discovered in the lower rock-shelter of Le Moustier
(Dordogne, France) in the course of excavations carried out by Professor
Hauser (of Swiss nationality) during the year 1908. The final removal of
the bones was conducted in the presence of a number of German
archaeologists expressly invited to attend. The omission to inform or
invite any French archaeologists, and the immediate removal of the bones
to Breslau, are regrettable incidents which cast a shadow quite
unnecessarily on an event of great archaeological interest. By a curious
coincidence this took place a few days after the discovery of the human
skeleton of La Chapelle (_v. supra_). The two finds are very fortunately
complementary to each other in several respects, for the Dordogne
skeleton is that of a youth, whereas the individual of La Chapelle was
fully mature. In their main characters, the two skeletons are very
similar, so that in the present account it will be necessary only to
mention the more important features revealed by the study of the Dordogne
specimen. Outline drawings of the two skulls are compared with the
corresponding contour of the Neanderthal calvaria by Klaatsch.

  [Illustration: Fig. 12. Outline tracing of a cast of the Moustier skull
                 (Dordogne). (From a specimen in the Cambridge Museum.)]

  [Illustration: Fig. 13. Tracings from casts (in the Cambridge Museum)
                 of the jaw-bone from Mauer and of that of the Moustier
                 skeleton. The Mauer jaw is indicated by the continuous
                 line.]

In the Dordogne youth the bones were far more fragile than in the older
man from La Chapelle. Nevertheless, photographs taken while the bones
were still _in situ_ but uncovered, provide a means of realising many
features of interest. Moreover although the face in particular was
greatly damaged, yet the teeth are perfectly preserved, and were replaced
in the reconstructed skull of which a representation is shewn in Fig. 12.
This reconstruction cannot however be described as a happy result of the
great labour bestowed upon it. In particular it is almost certain that
the skull is now more prognathous than in its natural state. Apart from
such drawbacks the value of the specimen is very great, and this is
especially the case in regard to the teeth and the lower jaw. The former
are remarkably large, and they agree herein with the teeth from Krapina
(though their roots are distinct and not conjoined as in the Krapina
examples). In respect of size, the teeth of the Dordogne individual
surpass those of the Mauer jaw, but the first lower molar has proportions
similar to the corresponding tooth of that specimen. But, large as they
are, the lower teeth are implanted in a mandible falling far short of the
Mauer jaw in respect of size and weight (Fig. 13). In fact one of the
great characteristics of the Dordogne skeleton is the inadequacy of the
mandible when compared to the remainder of the skull, even though
allowance is made for the youth of the individual. Were it not that the
facts are beyond dispute, it is difficult to imagine that such a mandible
could be associated with so large and capacious a cranium. And yet the
jaw is not devoid of points in which it resembles the Mauer bone, in
spite of its much smaller bulk. Thus the chin is defective, the lower
border undulating, and the ascending branch is wide in proportion to its
height. A good idea of these features is provided by the illustration of
the side-view (cf. Fig. 14) given by Professor Frizzi. Seen from above,
the contour is in close agreement with that of several well-known
examples, such as the jaws from Spy (cf. Fig. 15) and Krapina.

  [Illustration: Fig. 14. Outline tracings of jaw-bones. In the lower
                 row, sections are represented as made vertically in the
                 median plane through the chin, which is either receding
                 or prominent. In this series, the numbers refer to those
                 given in the upper set. (From Frizzi.)]

  [Illustration: Fig. 15. Outline tracings of jaw-bones viewed from above.
                 _A_ an ancient Briton (cf. Fig. 2, _B_). _B_ Moustier.
                 _C_ Mauer. (_B_ and _C_ are from casts in the Cambridge
                 Museum.)]

The limb bones agree in general appearance with those of the skeletons of
the Neanderthal and La Chapelle. Though absolutely smaller than in those
examples, they are yet similar in regard to their stoutness. The femur is
short and curved, and the articular ends are disproportionately large as
judged by modern standards. The tibia is prismatic, resembling herein the
corresponding bone in the Spy skeleton. It is not flattened or
sabre-like, as in certain other prehistoric skeletons.

Another point of interest derived from the study of the limb bones is the
stature they indicate. Having regard to all the bones available, a mean
value of about 1500 mm. (about 4 ft. 11 in.) is thus inferred. Yet the
youth was certainly 16 years of age and might have been as much as 19
years. The comparison of stature with that of the other examples
described is given in a later chapter. At present, it is important to
remark that in view of this determination (of 4 ft. 11 in.) and even when
allowance is made for further growth in stature the large size of the
skull must be regarded as very extraordinary indeed. A similar remark
applies to the estimate of the capacity of the brain-case. A moderate
estimate gives 1600 c.c. as the capacity of the brain-case (practically
identical with that of the La Chapelle skull). In modern Europeans of
about 5 ft. 6 in., this high figure would not cause surprise. In a modern
European of the same stature as the Dordogne man (4 ft. 11 in.), so
capacious a brain-case would be regarded if not as a pathological
anomaly, yet certainly as the extreme upper limit of normal variation.
Without insisting further on this paradoxical result (which is partly due
to defective observations), it will suffice to remark that early
Palaeolithic man was furnished with a very adequate quantity of
brain-material, whatever its quality may have been. In regard to the
amount, no symptom or sign of an inferior evolutionary status can be
detected.


                  _La Ferrassie_ (_Dordogne, France_).

This discovery was made in a rock-shelter during its excavation in the
autumn of 1909 by M. Peyrony. A human skeleton was found in the floor of
the grotto, and below strata characterised by Mousterian implements. The
bones were excessively fragile, and though the greatest care was taken in
their removal, the skull on arrival at Paris was in a condition described
by Professor Boule (L'Anthropologie, 1911, p. 118) as 'tres brisee.' No
detailed account has yet appeared, though even in its fragmentary
condition, the specimen is sure to provide valuable information. From the
photographs taken while the skeleton lay _in situ_ after its exposure, it
is difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion as to its characters. But
in regard to these, some resemblance at least (in the jaws) to the
Neanderthal type can be detected.

M. Peyrony found also in the same year and in the same region (at Le Pech
de l'Aze) the cranium of a child, assignable to the same epoch as the
skeleton of La Ferrassie. But so far no further details have been
published.


                     _Forbes Quarry_ (_Gibraltar_).

The human skull thus designated was found in the year 1848. It was, so to
speak, rediscovered by Messrs Busk and Falconer. The former authority
described the specimen in 1864, but this description is only known from
an abstract in the Reports of the British Association. Broca published an
account of the osteological characters a few years later. After 1882, the
skull again fell into obscurity for some twenty years: thereafter it
attracted the attention of Dr Macnamara, Professor Schwalbe, and above
all of Professor Sollas, who published the first detailed and critical
account in 1907. This has stimulated yet other researches, particularly
those of Professor Sera (of Florence) in 1909, and the literature thus
growing up bids fair to rival that of the Neanderthal skeleton. A most
important feature of the specimen consists in the fact that the bones of
the face have remained intact and in connection with the skull. But the
mandible is wanting, and the molar teeth of the upper set are absent.

As may be gathered from the tracing published by Dr Sera (cf. Fig. 16)
the upper part of the brain-case is imperfect. Nevertheless the contour
has been restored, and the Neanderthal-like features of distinct
brow-ridges, followed by a low flattened cranial curve, are recognisable
at once. The facial profile is almost complete, and in this respect the
Forbes Quarry skull stood alone until the discovery of the specimen from
La Chapelle. Since that incident, this distinction is not absolute, but
the Forbes Quarry skull is still unique amidst the other fossils in
respect of the bones forming what is called the cranial base. In no
other specimen hitherto found, are these bones so complete, or so well
preserved in their natural position.

  [Illustration: Fig. 16. Outline tracing and sectional view of the
                 Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull. The various angles are
                 used for comparative purposes. (From Sera.)]

The Forbes Quarry skull is clearly of Neanderthaloid type as regards the
formation of the brain-case; in respect of the face it resembles in
general the skull from La Chapelle. But in respect of the estimated
capacity of the brain-case (estimated at 1100 c.c.), the Forbes Quarry
skull falls far short of both those other examples. Moreover the cranial
base assigns to it an extremely lowly position. The individual is
supposed by some to have been of the female sex, but there is no great
certainty about this surmise. The enormous size of the eye-cavities and
of the opening of the nose confer a very peculiar appearance upon the
face, and are best seen in the full-face view. Some other features of the
skull will be considered in the concluding chapter, when its relation to
skulls of the Neanderthal type will be discussed in detail.


                           _Andalusia, Spain._

In 1910, Colonel Willoughby Verner discovered several fragments of a
human skeleton in a cave in the Serrania de Ronda. These fragments have
been presented to the Hunterian Museum. They seem to be absolutely
mineralised. Though imperfect, they indicate that their possessor was
adult and of pygmy stature. The thigh-bone in particular is of interest,
for an upper fragment presents a curious conformation of the rounded
prominence called the greater trochanter. In this feature, and in regard
to the small size of the head of the bone, the femur is found to differ
from most other ancient fossil thigh-bones, and from those of modern
human beings, with the exception of some pygmy types, viz. the dwarf-like
cave-dwellers of Aurignac (compared by Pruner-Bey in 1868 to the
Bushmen), the aborigines of the Andaman islands, and the aboriginal
Bushmen of South Africa. A full description of the bones has not been
published, but will probably appear very shortly.


                      _Grimaldi_ (_Mentone Caves_).

Among the numerous human skeletons yielded by the caves of Mentone, two
were discovered at a great depth in a cave known as the 'Grotte des
Enfants.' The excavations were set on foot by the Prince of Monaco, and
these particular skeletons have been designated the 'Grimaldi' remains.

Their chief interest (apart from the evidence as to a definite interment
having taken place) consists in the alleged presence of 'negroid'
characters. The skeletons are those of a young man (cf. Fig. 17), and an
aged woman. The late Professor Gaudry examined the jaw of the male
skeleton. He noted the large dimensions of the teeth, the prognathism,
the feeble development of the chin, and upon such grounds pointed out the
similarity of this jaw to those of aboriginal natives of Australia. Some
years later Dr Verneau, in describing the same remains, based a claim to
(African) negroid affinity on those characters, adding thereto evidence
drawn from a study of the limb bones. In both male and female alike, the
lower limbs are long and slender, while the forearm and shin-bones are
relatively long when compared respectively with the arm and the
thigh-bones.

  [Illustration: Fig. 17. Profile view of young male skull of the type
                 designated that of 'Grimaldi,' and alleged to present
                 'negroid' features. _Locality._ Deeper strata in the
                 Grotte des Enfants, Mentone. (From Birkner, after
                 Verneau, modified.)]

From a review of the evidence it seems that the term 'negroid' is
scarcely justified, and there is no doubt that the Grimaldi skeletons
could be matched without difficulty by skeletons of even recent date.
Herein they are strongly contrasted with skeletons of the Neanderthal
group. And although modern Europeans undoubtedly may possess any of the
osteological characters claimed as 'negroid' by Dr Verneau, nevertheless
the African <DW64> races possess those characters more frequently and more
markedly. Caution in accepting the designation 'negroid' is therefore
based upon reluctance to allow positive evidence from two or three
characters to outweigh numerous negative indications; and besides this
consideration, it will be admitted that two specimens provide but a
feeble basis for supporting the superstructure thus laid on their
characters. Lastly Dr Verneau has been at some pains to shew that skulls
of the 'Grimaldi-negroid' type persist in modern times. Yet the
possessors of many and probably most such modern crania were white men
and not <DW64>s.

Enough has however been related to shew how widely the skeletons from the
'Grotte des Enfants' differ from the Palaeolithic remains associated as
the Neanderthal type.

                    *       *       *       *       *

_South America._ With the exception of Pithecanthropus, all the
discoveries mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs were made in Europe.
From other parts of the world, actual human remains referable to earlier
geological epochs are scanty save in South America. The discoveries made
in this part of the New World have been described at great length. In
many instances, claims to extraordinary antiquity have been made on their
behalf. It is necessary therefore to examine the credentials of such
specimens. Upon an examination of the evidence, I have come to the
conclusion that two instances only deserve serious attention and
criticism.


                               _Baradero._

Fragmentary remains of a human skeleton: the mandible is the best
preserved portion; unfortunately the front part has been broken off so
that no conclusion can be formed as to the characters of the chin.
Otherwise in regard to its proportions, some resemblance is found with
the mandible of the Spy skull (No. 1). More important and definite is the
direction of the grinding surfaces of the molar teeth. In the lower jaw,
this surface is said to look forwards. The interest of this observation
consists in the fact that the tooth from Taubach presents the same
feature, which is unusual.

Beyond these, the skeleton from the loess of Baradero presents no
distinctive features save the remarkable length of the upper limbs.


                            _Monte Hermoso._

From this region two bones were obtained at different dates. These are an
atlas vertebra (the vertebra next to the skull) and a thigh-bone. The
latter is of less than pygmy dimensions. Both are from fully adult
skeletons.

An attempt has been made to reconstruct an individual (the Tetraprothomo
of Ameghino) to which the two bones should be referred. It will be
noticed that the circumstances bear some, although a very faint, analogy
to those in which the remains of Pithecanthropus were found. The results
are however extraordinarily different. Professor Branco has ably shewn
that in the case of the bones from Monte Hermoso, the association in one
and the same skeleton would provide so large a skull in proportion to the
rest of the body, that the result becomes not only improbable, but
impossible. It is therefore necessary to treat the bones separately. If
this is done, there is no reason to regard the thigh-bone as other than
that of a large monkey of one of the varieties known to have inhabited
South America in prehistoric as well as in recent times.

The vertebra is more interesting. It is small but thick and strong in a
degree out of proportion to its linear dimensions. Professor
Lehmann-Nitsche supposes that it may have formed part of a skeleton like
that of Pithecanthropus, that is to say that it is not part of a pygmy
skeleton. On the other hand, Dr Rivet considers that the Monte Hermoso
vertebra could be matched exactly by several specimens in the large
collection of exotic human skeletons in the National Museum, Paris. Be
this as it may, there is no doubt that the atlas vertebra in question
constitutes the most interesting discovery of its kind made so far in
South America. It is important to notice that time after time the
attempts made to demonstrate the early origin of Man in the American
Continent have resulted in failure, which in some instances has been
regrettably ignominious.


              _Combe Capelle_ (_H. aurignacensis hauseri_).

Returning to Europe, it is to be noted that in a rock-shelter near
Combe-Capelle (Dordogne), the excavations of Dr Hauser led to the
discovery in 1909 of an entire human skeleton of the male sex. The
interment (for such it was) had taken place in the Aurignacian period.
The skeleton presents a very striking appearance. In stature, no
important divergence from the Neanderthal type can be noted. But the more
vertical forehead, more boldly-curved arc of the brain-case, the
diminished brow-ridges, large mastoid processes and distinct canine
fossae provide a complete contrast between the Aurignac man and those of
the Neanderthal group. Moreover the Aurignac jaw has a slight projection
at the chin, where an 'internal process' is now distinct. The brain-case
has dolicho-cephalic proportions in a marked degree. The limb bones are
straight and slender, and not so much enlarged in the regions of the
several joints.

The Aurignac skeleton of Combe Capelle has been associated with several
others by Professor Klaatsch. By some authorities they are considered as
transitional forms bridging the gap between the early Palaeolithic types
and those of the existing Hominidae. But Professor Klaatsch evidently
regards them as intruders and invaders of the territory previously
occupied by the more lowly Neanderthaloid type.


                             _Galley Hill._

Among the skeletons which have been thus associated with the Aurignac
man, are three which have for many years attracted the attention of
anthropologists. For this reason, no detailed account of their characters
will be given here. Of the three instances referred to, two are the
fragmentary skull-caps of the skeletons found at Bruex and at Bruenn in
Moravia. The latter specimen is generally described as Bruenn (91) to
distinguish it from Bruenn (85), a different and earlier find of less
interest.

It will suffice to mention here that both specimens agree in possessing
what may be described as a distinctly mitigated form of the characters so
strongly developed in the Neanderthal skull and its allies. The Aurignac
and Bruex skulls are distinctly longer and narrower than that of Bruenn
(91). The limb bones are not available for the purposes of evidence.

The third specimen possesses a very much greater interest. It is known as
the Galley Hill skeleton from the site of its discovery near Northfleet
in Kent. Since it was first described by Mr E. T. Newton (in 1895), much
literature has accumulated about the difficult problems presented by the
Galley Hill skeleton. By some authors it is regarded as clearly
associated with the other examples just mentioned (Bruex, Bruenn, and
Aurignac). Others reject its claims to high antiquity; of the latter some
are courteous, others are scornful, but all are absolutely decided.
Having investigated the literature as well as I could, and having seen
the cranium, I decided that the claims to great antiquity made on its
behalf do really justify its inclusion. But I am quite convinced that the
skeleton will give no more than very general indications. Thus the bones
are fragile in the extreme. And besides this, the skull is so contorted
that measurements made in the usual way must be extraordinarily
misleading and the possible error is too great to be successfully allowed
for (cf. Fig. 18).

  [Illustration: Fig. 18. Outline tracing of the Galley Hill skull,
                 viewed from above. (From Klaatsch.)
                 --- Galley Hill.          =---= Ancient German.
                 ...  Neanderthal.         =...=  Modern South German.]

To insist upon these points is the more important since nowadays various
indices based on such measurements of the Galley Hill cranium will be
found tabulated with data yielded by other skulls, and yet no mark of
qualification distinguishes the former figures.

The description of the skeleton may be given in a very few words. In the
great majority of its characters, it is not seen to differ from modern
human beings (though the stature is small, viz. 1600 mm., 5 ft. 3 in.).
And so far as I am able to judge, the characters claimed as distinctive
(separating the Galley Hill skull from modern dolichocephalic European
skulls) are based upon observations containing a very large possibility
of error.

Having regard to such statements, the inference is that the Galley Hill
skull does not in fact differ essentially from its modern European
counterparts. Similar conclusions have been formed in regard to the other
parts of this skeleton. It is important to note that the specimen does
not lose its interest on this account.


                               _Summary._

From the foregoing descriptions, it follows that of the most ancient
remains considered, at least three divisions can be recognised. In the
first place, come the examples described as Pithecanthropus and _Homo
heidelbergensis_ (Mauer). In the second category come instances as to
which no reasonable doubt as to their definitely human characters now
exists (save possibly in the case of the Taubach tooth and the Hermoso
atlas). Of the members of this second series, two sub-divisions here
designated (_A_) and (_B_) can be demonstrated; these with the first
examples complete the threefold grouping set out in the table following,
with which Table A, p. 85, should be compared.

  GROUP I.  Early ancestral forms.  _Ex. gr. H. heidelbergensis._

  GROUP II.
       _Subdivision A.  <DW25> primigenius.          Ex. gr. La Chapelle._
                                                   {H. fossilis. _Ex.
       _Subdivision B.  H. recens_; with varieties {gr. Galley Hill._
                                                   {H. sapiens.

Taking the first group (Pithecanthropus and _Homo heidelbergensis_) it is
to be noticed that close correlation is quite possible. Besides this,
evidence exists in each case to the effect that far-distant human
ancestors are hereby revealed to their modern representatives. Of their
physical characters, distinct indications are given of the possession of
a small brain in a flattened brain-case associated with powerful jaws;
the lower part of the face being distinguished by the absence of any
projection of the chin. The teeth indicate with some degree of
probability that their diet was of a mixed nature, resembling in this
respect the condition of many modern savage tribes. Beyond this, the
evidence is weak and indefinite. It is highly probable that these men
were not arboreal: though whether they habitually assumed the distinctive
erect attitude is a point still in doubt. And yet again, while the
indications are not clear, it is probable that in stature they were
comparable, if not superior, to the average man of to-day.

Passing from this division to the second, a region of much greater
certainty is entered. Of the second group, one subdivision (_A_) retains
certain characters of the earlier forms. Thus the massive continuous
brow-ridge persists, as do also the flattened brain-case with a large
mass of jaw-muscle, and a ponderous chinless lower jaw. For the rest, the
points of contrast are much more prominent than those of similarity. The
brain has increased in size. This increase is very considerable in
absolute amount. But relatively also to the size of the possessor, the
increase in brain-material is even more striking, for the stature and
consequently bulk and weight are less. The thigh-bone offers important
points of difference, the earlier long slender form (in _P. erectus_)
being now replaced by a shorter, curved, thick substitute. If there has
been inheritance here, marked and aberrant variation is also observed.

The second subdivision (_B_) remains for consideration. Here the stature
has not appreciably changed. The limb bones are long, slender, and less
curved than those of the other associated human beings (_A_), and herein
the earliest type is suggested once more. But the differences occur now
in the skull. The brain is as large as in the other subdivision (_A_)
and in modern men. The brain-case is becoming elevated: the brow-ridges
are undergoing reduction; this process, commencing at their outer ends,
expresses to some extent the degree of reduction in the muscles and bone
of the lower jaw. The teeth are smaller and the chin becomes more
prominent. The distinction from modern types of humanity is often
impossible.

In the next chapter some account is given of the circumstances under
which the bones were discovered, and of the nature of their surroundings.




                               CHAPTER III

                       ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS AND CAVES


The principal characters of the oldest known human remains having been
thus set forth, the circumstances of their surroundings next demand
attention. A brief indication of these will be given with the aid of the
illustrations provided in the original memoirs in each case, and the
order of descriptions followed in the preceding chapter will be observed.

_Pithecanthropus._ The remains of Pithecanthropus were recovered from an
alluvial deposit at Trinil. A section of this is shewn in Fig. 19. An
idea may thus be gained of the very considerable amount of superincumbent
materials. The associated fauna cannot be compared directly to that of
any Western European locality. But in comparison with the modern fauna of
Java, the strata in which the Pithecanthropus was found shew a
predominance of extinct species, though not of genera. Elephants and
hippopotami were present: they point to a close relation between the
fauna of Trinil and that of certain Siwalik strata in India, referred to
a late Pliocene age. The difference of opinion upon this point has been
mentioned in the preceding chapter: here it will suffice to repeat that a
final conclusion does not appear to have been reached, and that the
experts who have examined the strata in situ still differ from each
other.

  [Illustration: Fig. 19. Section of the strata at Trinil in Java. _A_
                 vegetable soil. _B_ Sand-rock. _C_ Lapilli-rock. _D_
                 Level at which the bones were found. _E_ Conglomerate.
                 _F_ Clay. _H_ Rainy-season level of river. _I_ Dry-season
                 level of river. (From Dubois.)]

_Mauer._ Impressed by the similarity of the conditions at Mauer to those
of the fossiliferous tufa-beds near Taubach and Weimar, Dr Schoetensack
had anticipated the possibility of obtaining valuable fossil relics from
the former locality. For some twenty years, Dr Schoetensack kept in touch
with the workmen of Mauer, and thus when the jawbone was found, he was
summoned at once. Even so, the jaw had been removed from its
resting-place, and broken in two fragments. Yet there is no doubt as to
the exact position in which it was found. Sand and loess (a fine earthy
deposit) had accumulated above it to a thickness of seventy feet. The
nature of the surroundings may be estimated by reference to the
illustration (Fig. 20) reproducing Dr Schoetensack's photograph of the
sand-pit. The sands which contained the mandible represent an alluvial
deposit, and so far resemble the Trinil beds in Java. The attempt to
institute an exact comparison would be unprofitable, but on the whole it
would seem that, of the two, the Mauer sands represent the later stage.
The fauna associated with the Mauer jaw includes such forms as _Elephas
antiquus_, _Rhinoceros etruscus_, _Ursus arvernensis_, _U. deningeri_ (an
ancestral form of _U. spelaeus_), together with a species of horse
intermediate between _Equus stenonis_, and the fossil horse found at
Taubach. The cave-lion, bison, and various deer have also been
recognised.

  [Illustration: Fig. 20. View of the Mauer sand-pit. X (in white)
                 position of jawbone when found. (From Birkner, after
                 Schoetensack.)]

The aspect of this collection shews a marked similarity to that of the
so-called Forest-bed of Cromer, though at the same time indicating a
later age. The Mauer jaw must therefore be assigned to the very earliest
part of the Pleistocene epoch. In his original memoir, Dr Schoetensack
gave no account of any associated 'industry,' in the form of stone
implements. But now (1911) Professor Rutot unhesitatingly (though the
reasons are not stated) ascribes to the horizon of the Mauer jaw, that
division of the eolithic industries termed by him the "Mafflien." Upon
the correctness of such a view judgment may well be reserved for the
present.

_Taubach_. The bone-bed (_Knochenschicht_) of Taubach whence the two
human teeth were recovered, lies at a depth of some 15 feet (5.2 m.) from
the adjacent surface-soil. No fewer than eleven distinct horizons have
been recognised in the superincumbent strata. Palaeoliths had often been
obtained from the same stratum as that which yielded the human teeth. Dr
Weiss referred it to the first, i.e. the earlier of two inter-glacial
periods judged to have occurred in this region. The associated fauna
includes _Elephas antiquus_, _Rhinoceros merckii_, _Bison priscus_, with
Cervidae and representatives of swine, beaver and a bear. The similarity
of this assemblage to that of the Mauer Sands has been noted already.

The hippopotamus however does not seem to have been recorded in either
locality. Nevertheless, the general aspect of the mammalian fauna is
'southern' (_faune chaude_ of French writers). Upon this conclusion, much
depends, for the Palaeolithic implements (claimed as contemporaneous with
the extinct 'southern' mammals recorded in the foregoing paragraphs) are
said to correspond to the type of Le Moustier. But Mousterian implements
are (it is alleged) practically never associated with 'southern' animals,
so that in this respect the Taubach bone-bed provides a paradox. Without
discussing this paradox at length, it may be stated that the implements
just described as 'Mousterian' are not recognised as such by all the
experts. Thus Obermaier identifies them with those of Levallois, _i.e._ a
late S. Acheul type (cf. Obermaier, 1909). Others declare that the type
is not that of Le Moustier, but of Chelles. The latter type of implement
is found habitually in association with the southern fauna, and thus the
paradox described above may prove to be apparent only and not real. But
the unravelling of the different opinions relating to the Taubach finds
is among the easier tasks presented to anyone desirous of furnishing a
clear statement of the actual state of our knowledge on these matters.
The difficulties with which the whole subject bristles may thus be
realised.

_Krapina._ Researches productive of evidence as to the existence of
Palaeolithic man in Croatia, were commenced at Krapina so long ago as
August, 1899, by Professor Kramberger. A preliminary report was
published in December, 1899. Until the year 1904 these researches passed
almost unnoticed in this country. The site was not exhausted until 1905.
The actual excavations were made in a rock-shelter on the right bank of
the Krapini[vc]a river, near the village of Krapina. The rock-shelter had
been to some extent invaded not long before the archaeological work
commenced, and evidence of early human occupation of the site was
revealed in the form of dark bands of earth, containing much charcoal.
These bands were seen as lines in the lower parts of the exposed section
of the cave contents. Fragments of human and other bones to the number of
several thousands were removed. In one season's work six hundred stone
implements were found.

A section of the several strata has been published and is reproduced in
Fig. 21. Human bones or artefacts were found throughout a wide series of
strata, in which no variations of a cultural nature were detected.
Throughout the period of human occupation, the Palaeolithic inmates of
the cave remained on an unaltered and rather lowly level of culture. This
is described by some authorities as Mousterian, by others as Aurignacian;
in either case as of an early Palaeolithic aspect.

  [Illustration: Fig. 21. Section of the Krapina rock-shelter. 3, 4
                 strata with human remains. 1 _b_ former level of
                 river-bed. (From Birkner, after Kramberger.)]

But when the animal remains are considered, Krapina seems to present the
difficulty already encountered in the case of Taubach. For there is no
doubt but that the 'southern' fauna is to some extent represented at
Krapina. This qualified form of statement is employed because one
representative only, viz. _Rhinoceros merckii_, has been discovered,
whereas its habitual companions, _Elephas antiquus_ and Hippopotamus,
have left no traces at Krapina. Other animals associated with the
cave-men of Krapina are not so commonly found in the presence of the
_Rhinoceros merckii_. Thus the _Ursus spelaeus_, _U. arctos_, _Bos
primigenius_, and the Arctomys (Marmot) are suggestive of a more northern
fauna. But the presence of even a possibly stray _Rhinoceros merckii_ is
sufficient to confer an aspect of great antiquity on this early Croatian
settlement. No evidence of formal interments has come to light, and as
regards the cannibalistic habits of the human cave-dwellers, no more than
the merest surmise exists.

_S. Brelade's Bay, Jersey._ In the cave thus designated, old hearths were
met with at a depth of twenty-five feet below the surface. Human beings
are represented by teeth only. No evidence of interments has been
recorded. The implements are of Mousterian type. Associated with the
hearths and implements were many fragmentary remains of animals. Up to
the present time, the following forms have been identified: _Rhinoceros
tichorhinus_ (the hairy rhinoceros), the Reindeer, and two varieties of
Horse. So far as this evidence goes, the age assigned to the implements
is supported, or at least not contra-indicated. It is most improbable
that the period represented can be really earlier than the Mousterian,
though it might be somewhat later. That the Krapina teeth (which so
curiously resemble those of S. Brelade's Bay in respect of the fusion of
their roots) should be assigned to the same (Mousterian) epoch is perhaps
significant.

_La Chapelle-aux-Saints_ (_Correze_). This is the best example of an
interment referable to the early Palaeolithic age (Fig. 22). Two reasons
for this statement may be given. In the first place, the skeleton lay in
a distinctly excavated depression, beneath which no signs of an earlier
settlement are recorded. Secondly, the superincumbent strata can be
assigned to one period only of the archaeological series, viz. that of Le
Moustier. Indications of the preceding period (S. Acheul) as well as of
the subsequent one (Aurignac) are practically negligible. Moreover the
surroundings had not been disturbed since the interment: this is shewn by
the leg-bones of a large bovine animal (Bison or Bos) found in their
natural relations just above the head of the human skeleton.

  [Illustration: Fig. 22. Plan of the cave at La Chapelle-aux-Saints
                 (Correze). (From Boule.)]

The latter lay on the back, the right arm bent, the left extended; both
legs were contracted and to the right. In general, this attitude recalls
that of the skeletons of La Ferrassie and the Grotte des Enfants
(Grimaldi). At Le Moustier too, the skeleton was found in a somewhat
similar position.

At La Chapelle-aux-Saints, the associated fauna includes the Reindeer,
Horse, a large bovine form (? Bison), _Rhinoceros tichorhinus_, the Ibex,
Wolf, Marmot, Badger and Boar.

It would seem that this particular cave had served only as a tomb. For
other purposes its vertical extent is too small. The stone artefacts are
all perfect tools: no flakes or splinters being found as in habitations.
The animal remains are supposed to be relics of a funeral feast (or
feasts). But the presence of the Rhinoceros is perhaps antagonistic to
such an explanation.

_Le Moustier_ (_Dordogne_). The skeleton lay on its right side, the right
arm bent and supporting the head; the left arm was extended. The stratum
upon which the body rested consisted largely of worked flint implements.
These are assigned to the later Acheulean and earlier Mousterian epochs.

Two features in contrast with the conditions at La Chapelle are to be
noticed. It is doubtful whether the skeleton at Le Moustier had been
literally interred. It seems rather to have been placed on what was at
the time the floor of the grotto, and then covered partly with earth on
which implements were scattered. Indications of a definite grave were
found at La Chapelle. Again at Le Moustier, other parts of the same
grotto had been occupied as habitations of the living. At La Chapelle
this seems not to have been the case.

The evidence of the accompanying animal remains also differs in the two
cases. At Le Moustier, only small and very fragmentary animal bones with
the tooth of an ox were found in the immediate vicinity of the human
skeleton. An extended search revealed bones of _Bos primigenius_ in the
cave. No bones of the Reindeer were found and their absence is specially
remarked by Professor Klaatsch, as evidence that the skeleton at Le
Moustier is of greater antiquity than the skeleton accompanied by
reindeer bones at La Chapelle. In any case, it would seem that no great
lapse of time separates the two strata.

_La Ferrassie._ The skeleton was found in the same attitude as those of
La Chapelle and Le Moustier, viz. in the dorsal position, the right arm
bent, the left extended, both legs being strongly flexed at the knee and
turned to the right side. The bones were covered by some 3.5 m. of
_debris_: stone implements were yielded by strata above and below the
body respectively. Beneath the skeleton, the implements are of Acheulean
type, while above and around it the type of Le Moustier was encountered.
Aurignacian implements occurred still nearer the surface.

In regard to the evidence of interment the conditions here resemble those
at Le Moustier rather than those of La Chapelle. The human skeleton did
not appear to have been deposited in a grave, but simply laid on the
ground, covered no doubt by earth upon which flint implements were
scattered. But the cave continued to be occupied until at the close of
the Aurignacian period a fall of rock sealed up the entrance. It is
difficult to realise the conditions of life in such a cave, after the
death of a member of the community, unless, as among the cave-dwelling
Veddas of Ceylon, the cave were temporarily abandoned (Seligmann, 1911).
It is possible that the normal accumulation of animal remains created
such an atmosphere as would not be greatly altered by the addition of a
human corpse, for Professor Tylor has recorded instances of such
interments among certain South American tribes. But it is also
conceivable that the enormously important change in custom from
inhumation to cremation, may owe an origin to some comparatively simple
circumstance of this kind. The animal remains at La Ferrassie include
Bison, Stag, and Horse, with a few Reindeer. The general aspect is thus
concordant with that at La Chapelle.

_Pech de l'Aze._ It is impossible to decide whether the child's skull had
been buried intentionally or not. The associated fauna is apparently
identical with that of La Ferrassie and La Chapelle.

_Forbes Quarry_ (_Gibraltar_). Of the surroundings of the Forbes Quarry
skull at the time of its discovery nothing is known. In 1910 the present
writer explored Forbes Quarry and a small cave opening into it. But no
evidence of the presence of prehistoric man was obtained. Bones of recent
mammalia and certain molluscs found during the excavations, throw no
light on this subject.

_Andalusia._ At the time of writing, only the following information is
available as to the surroundings of these human cave-bones. They were
discovered on or near the floor of a deep fissure leading to a series of
labyrinthine passages. The walls of the fissure or cave were decorated
with drawings of animals resembling those at Cretas in Aragon. Besides
the mineralised bones, other fragments of less antiquated aspect were
found. Potsherds were also obtained, but I have no information as to the
occurrence of implements.

_Grotte des Enfants_ (_Mentone_). With regard to the two 'negroid'
skeletons of this cave, the first important point is the enormous
thickness of accumulated _debris_ by which the bones were covered. A
depth of some twenty-four feet had been reached before the discovery was
made (Fig. 23).

  [Illustration: Fig. 23. Two sections of the Grotte des Enfants, Mentone.
                 _I._ stratum in which the "Grimaldi" skeletons were
                 found. (From Boule.)]

The bodies had been definitely interred, large stones being found in
position, adjusted so as to protect the heads particularly. The bodies
had been placed on the right side. Of the woman, both arms were bent as
were the lower limbs. The male skeleton has the right arm flexed, but the
left extended (as in the cases of La Chapelle, Le Moustier, and La
Ferrassie).

It is practically certain that the skeletons do not belong to an epoch
represented, as regards its culture or fauna, by strata lower than that
which supported the human remains. This conclusion is very important
here. For the evidence of the stone implements accompanying the human
bones is fairly definite: it points to the Mousterian age. The animal
bones are those of the Reindeer and Cave Hyaena. The presence of the
former animal supports the conclusion arrived at on the evidence of the
human artefacts. The presence of the Cave Hyaena does not controvert that
conclusion.

But an interesting fact remains to be considered. Below the two human
skeletons, the animal remains are those of the 'southern' fauna. All the
characteristic representatives were found, viz. _Elephas antiquus_,
_Rhinoceros merckii_, and Hippopotamus. The Hyaena was also associated
with these large animals. It is not clearly stated whether implements of
Mousterian type occurred in these, the deepest strata of the cave-floor.
Were this so, the contention made in respect of the Taubach implements
(cf. _supra_, p. 67) would be remarkably corroborated, as would also the
somewhat similar suggestion made in regard to Krapina. For the moment,
however, it must suffice to attribute these human remains of negroid
aspect to the Mousterian period at Mentone. Inasmuch as the reindeer
appears in several strata overlying the remains of the Grimaldi race (for
so it has been named by Dr Verneau), it is certainly conceivable that the
two individuals are Aurignacian or even later. But this is to enter a
wilderness of surmise. Human skeletons were actually found in those more
superficial strata and also were associated with the Reindeer. But their
cranial features are of a higher type (Cro-Magnon) and contrast very
clearly with those of the more deeply buried individuals.

_South America._ The two discoveries mentioned in the preceding chapter
were made in the so-called Pampas formation of Argentina. This formation
has been subdivided by geologists into three successive portions, viz.
upper, middle and lower. The distinction is based partly upon evidence
derived from the actual characters of deposits which differ according to
their level. But the molluscan fauna has also been used as a means of
distinction. The whole formation is stated by some to be fluviatile.
Other observers speak of it as Loess. This need not necessarily exclude a
fluviatile origin, but speaking generally that term now suggests an
aerial rather than a subaqueous deposit. The upper subdivision is
designated the yellow loess in contrast to the brown loess forming the
middle layer. Opinion is much divided as to the exact geological age of
the Pampas formation. Ameghino refers it to the Pliocene period,
excepting the lower divisions which he regards as upper Miocene.
Professor Lehmann-Nitsche assigns Pliocene antiquity to the lowest
subdivision only. Dr Steinmann regards the middle and lower subdivisions
as equivalents of the 'older' loess of European Pleistocene deposits. The
latter determinations are more probably correct than is the first.

_Baradero._ The Baradero skeleton was obtained from the middle formation
or brown loess, in a locality marked by the presence of mollusca
corresponding with modern forms, and contrasted with the Tertiary
Argentine mollusca. The skeleton was in a 'natural' (_i.e._ not a
contracted) position, the head being depressed on the front of the chest.
No associated implements or remains of mammalian skeletons are recorded.

_Monte Hermoso._ The vertebra and femur were found in the lower
subdivision of the Pampas formation. We have seen that Ameghino refers
this to the Miocene epoch: Lehmann-Nitsche speaks of it as Pliocene,
Steinmann's opinion suggests a still later date, while Scott also
declares that no greater age than that of the Pleistocene period can be
assigned. The two specimens were obtained at very different times, an
interval of many years separating the dates of the respective
discoveries. So far as is known, no mammalian or other animal remains
have been yielded by the strata in question, so that the whole case in
regard to evidence is one of the most unsatisfactory on record. Indeed
the whole question of 'dating' the Argentine discoveries, whether
absolutely or relatively, must be regarded as an unsolved problem.

_Combe Capelle_ (_Dordogne_). The circumstances of this discovery were as
follows. The skeleton lay in an extended position, and it had been placed
in an excavation made for the purpose of interment. This excavation
entered a stratum distinguished as Mousterian. But the interment is
considered to be later, and of Aurignacian antiquity. Stone implements of
Aurignacian type were disposed around the skeleton: in addition to these,
a number of molluscan shells were arranged about the skull. This
suggestion of ornament would of itself suggest the later period to which
the skeleton is assigned. No remains of animals are mentioned in the
accounts accessible to me.

_Bruex_ (_Bohemia_). The Bruex skeleton was discovered in 1871. It lay some
five feet beneath the surface in a deposit which seems to be an ancient
one of fluviatile origin. The Biela river is not far from the spot. The
bones were very fragmentary, and in particular the skull-cap has been
reconstructed from no less than a dozen fragments. The limb bones were
also fractured. Near the skeleton, some remains of an Ox were found on
the same level. Two feet above the skeleton, a stone implement, seemingly
a Neolithic axe, was brought to light.

The information is thus meagre in the extreme, and when the condition of
the skull is taken into account, it is evident that the Bruex skeleton is
not one upon which far-reaching arguments can be successfully based. The
interest of the specimen depends above all upon the results of the
careful analysis of its characters made by Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906).

_Bruenn_ (1871). This discovery was made at a depth of 4.5 metres in red
loess. Close to the human bones lay the tusk and the shoulder-blade of a
Mammoth. The same stratum subsequently yielded the skull of a young
Rhinoceros (_R. tichorhinus_): some ribs of a Rhinoceros are scored or
marked in a way suggestive of human activity: other ribs of the same kind
were artificially perforated. More noteworthy, however, is a human
figurine carved in ivory of a Mammoth tusk. Several hundreds of the shell
of _Dentalium badense_ lying close to the human remains were truncated in
such a way as to suggest that they had once formed a necklace.

_Galley Hill_ (_Kent_). The gravel-pit whence the skeleton was obtained
invades the 'high-level terrace-gravel' of the Thames valley. Such is the
opinion of expert geologists (Hinton[26]). In the gravel-pit a section
through ten feet of gravel is exposed above the chalk. The bones were
eight feet from the top of the gravel. Palaeolithic implements of a
primitive type have been obtained from the same deposit at Galley Hill.
No precise designation seems to have been assigned to them. From the
published figures, they seem to correspond to the earlier Acheulean or to
the Chellean type. One in particular, resembles the implements found at
Reculver, and I have recently seen similar specimens which had been
obtained by dredging off the Kentish coast near Whitstable. Some of the
Galley Hill implements are compared to the high plateau forms from
Ightham. These must be of great antiquity. Professor Rutot in 1903
assigned the Galley Hill skeleton to a period by him named Mafflian. This
diagnosis seems to have been based upon the characters of the implements.
Recently however (1909) Professor Rutot has brought the skeleton down
into the Strepyan epoch, which is much less ancient than that of Maffle.

The associated fauna comes now into consideration. From the Galley Hill
gravel-pit no mammalian remains other than the human skeleton have been
reported, but the fauna of the 'high-level terrace' has been ascertained
by observations in the vicinity of Galley Hill as well as in other parts
of the Thames basin. The mollusc _Cyrena fluminalis_, indicative of a
sub-tropical climate, has been found in these strata. As regards the
mammalian fauna, it is interesting to compare the list given by Mr E. T.
Newton in 1895, with that published by Mr M. A. C. Hinton in 1910 on the
basis of independent observations.

                        _Mr Newton's list_, 1895.

     1. Elephas primigenius.
     2. Hippopotamus.
     3. Rhinoceros: species uncertain.
     4. Bos.           "        "
     5. Equus.         "        "
     6. Cervus.        "        "
     7. Felis leo.     "        "

                        _Mr Hinton's list_, 1910.

     1. Elephas antiquus (a more primitive form than E. primigenius).
     2. No Hippopotamus (this occurs later, in the Middle Terrace).
     3. Rhinoceros megarhinus.
     4. Bos: species uncertain.
     5. Equus: species similar to the Pliocene E. stenonis.
     6. Cervus: 3 species: one resembles the Fallow-deer (C. dama), a
        'southern' form.
     7. Felis leo.
     8. Sus: species uncertain: bones of limbs shew primitive features.
     9. Canis: species uncertain.
    10. Delphinus: species uncertain.
    11. Trogontherium: species differing from the Pliocene form.
    12. Various smaller rodents, such as Voles.

No definitely 'Arctic' mammals are recorded: the general aspect of the
above fauna shews a strong similarity to the Pliocene fauna, which
appears to have persisted to this epoch without much alteration of the
various types represented.


                                 TABLE A

  Table headings:
  Col I:   Classification by characters of human bones[1]
  Col II:  Example
  Col III: Circumstances and surroundings - Immediate Surroundings (ImS)
  Col IV:  Circumstances and surroundings - Associated animals (Asa)
  Col V:   Circumstances and surroundings - Name of types of associated
                                            implements (Nai)

        I               II                III, IV, V                VI
  Division II
   Subdivision (1) Combe Capelle  ImS Cave                       Interment
      _B_                         Asa Reindeer
                                  Nai Aurignacian

       "       (2) Galley Hill    ImS Alluvial drift of              ?
                                      High Terrace[3]                No
                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
                                      {Rhinoceros megarhinus[2]
                                      {Trogontherium (Rodent)
                                      {Mimomys (Rodent)
                                  Nai  Acheulean to ?Strepyan

       "       (3) Grimaldi       ImS Cave                       Interment
                    (Mentone)     Asa {Reindeer
                                      {Hyaena spelaea
                                      {Felis spelaea
                                      {(Marmot in higher strata)
                                  Nai Mousterian ?
                                       also Aurignacian

   Subdivision (4) La Ferrassie   ImS Cave                       Interment
      _A_                         Asa {Reindeer
                                      {Bison priscus
                                  Nai Mousterian

       "       (5) Pech de l'Aze  ImS Cave                        (Head
                                  Asa {Reindeer                    only
                                      {Bison priscus              found?)
                                  Nai Mousterian

       "       (6) Le Moustier    ImS Cave                       Interment
                                  Asa {Bos primigenius
                                      {_No reindeer_
                                  Nai Mousterian

       "       (7) La Chapelle    ImS Cave                       Interment
                                  Asa {Reindeer (_scarce_)
                                      {Bison priscus
                                  Nai Mousterian

       "       (8) S. Brelade     ImS Cave                           ?
                                  Asa {Reindeer
                                      {Bos ? sp.
                                      {Rhinoceros tichorhinus
                                  Nai Mousterian

       "       (9) Krapina        ImS Cave (Rock-shelter)
                                  Asa {Rhinoceros merckii
                                      {Cave Bear
                                      {Bos primigenius
                                      {Marmot (Arctomys)
                                  Nai Mousterian

       "       (10) Taubach       ImS Alluvial Deposit[4]            No
                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
                                      {Rhinoceros merckii
                                      {Felis leo
                                      {No Hippopotamus
                                  Nai {? Mousterian
                                      {? Upper Acheulean
                                      {  = Levallois
                                      {? Chellean

  Division I   (11) Mauer         ImS Alluvial deposit               No
                                  Asa {Elephas antiquus          interment
                                      {Rhinoceros etruscus(5)
                                      {Ursus arvernensis
                                      {No Hippopotamus
                                  Nai None found

       "       (12) Trinil        ImS Alluvial deposit               No
                                  Asa {Hippopotamus?             interment
                                      {Rhinoceros sivasoudaicus
                                      {Other Sivalik types
                                  Nai None found by Dubois

  [1] South American remains and some others are omitted owing to
      insufficiency of data relating to their surroundings.

  [2] Names of fossil varieties of Rhinoceros. These are very confused.
      The term R. _leptorhinus_ should be avoided altogether. R.
      _megarhinus_ represents the R. _leptorhinus_ of Falconer and
      Cuvier. R. _merckii_ represents R. _hemitoechus_ of Falconer, which
      is the R. _leptorhinus_ of Owen and Boyd Dawkins. R. _tichorhinus_
      is R. _antiquitatis_ of Falconer and some German writers.

  [3] The formation of the High Terrace drift is earlier than the date of
      arrival of the 'Siberian' invasion of Britain by certain Voles.
      Already in Pliocene times, some Voles had come into Britain from
      the south-east of Europe. But the Galley Hill man, if contemporary
      with the High Terrace drift, had arrived in Britain ages before the
      appearance of _Homo aurignacensis_ supposed by Klaatsch to be
      closely allied, and to have come into Europe through Central if not
      Northern Asia. The 'High Terrace' mammals have a 'Pliocene' facies.

  [4] The upper strata at Taubach yielded Reindeer and Mammoth. Near
      Weimar, Wuest says the stratigraphical positions of _R. merckii_ and
      _R. antiquitatis_ have been found inverted.

  [5] Typical Val d'Arno (Pliocene) form.




                               CHAPTER IV

                    ASSOCIATED ANIMALS AND IMPLEMENTS


The most important of recent discoveries of the remains of early
prehistoric man have now been considered. Not only the evidence of the
actual remains, but also that furnished by their surroundings has been
called upon. It is evident that the last decade has been remarkably
productive of additions to the stock of information on these subjects.

In the next place, enquiry has to be made whether any relation exists
between the two methods of grouping, viz. (1) that in which the
characters of the skeletons are taken as the test, and (2) that dependent
upon the nature of the surroundings. A first attempt to elucidate the
matter can be made by means of a tabulated statement, such as that which
follows.

In constructing this table, the various finds have been ordinated
according to the degree of resemblance to modern Europeans presented by
the respective skeletons. Thus Division II with Subdivision _B_ heads the
list. Then follows Subdivision _A_, and finally Division I will be found
in the lowest place. This order having been adopted, the remaining data
were added in the sequence necessarily imposed upon them thereby.

(_a_) In an analysis of this table the several columns should be
considered in order. Taking that headed 'Immediate surroundings,' it is
evident that whereas most of the members of Division II were 'cave-men,'
two exceptions occur. Of these, the Galley Hill skeleton is by far the
most remarkable. The Taubach remains represent, it will be remembered, a
form almost on the extreme confines of humanity. That it should resemble
the members of Division I, themselves in a similar position, is not very
remarkable. And indeed it is perhaps in accordance with expectation, that
remains of the more remote and primitive examples should be discovered,
so to speak, 'in the open.' All the more noteworthy therefore is the
position of the Galley Hill man, whose place according to his
surroundings is at the end of the list opposite to that assigned to him
by his physical conformation.

(_b_) Passing to the 'Associated animals,' similar conclusions will be
formed again. Thus in the first place, most of the 'cave-men' were
accompanied by remains of the Reindeer. Le Moustier and Krapina are
exceptions but provide Bison or Urus which are elsewhere associated with
the Reindeer. Otherwise Galley Hill and Taubach again stand out as
exceptions. Moreover they have again some features in common, just as has
been noted in respect of their alluvial surroundings. For the Elephant
(_E. antiquus_) is identical in both instances. But the Rhinoceros of the
'high level' terrace gravel is not the same as that found at Taubach, and
though the succession is discussed later, it may be stated at once that
the _Rhinoceros megarhinus_ has been considered to stand in what may be
termed a grand-parental relation to that of Taubach (_R. merckii_), the
_Rhinoceros etruscus_ of the Mauer Sands representing the intervening
generation (Gaudry[27], 1888). For the various names, reference should be
made to the list of synonyms appended to Table A. Should further evidence
of the relative isolation of the Galley Hill skeleton be required, the
gigantic beaver (Trogontherium) is there to provide it, since nowhere
else in this list does this rodent appear. The paradoxical position of
the Galley Hill skeleton having been indicated, it is convenient to deal
with all the examples of skeletons from alluvial deposits taken as a
single group, irrespective of their actual characters.

(i) The study of the animals found in the corresponding or identical
_alluvial deposits_, leads to inferences which may be stated as follows.
The Trinil (Java) fauna will not be included, since the Javanese and
European animals are not directly comparable. If attention is confined to
the remaining instances, viz. Galley Hill, Taubach and Mauer, agreement
is shewn in respect of the presence of _Elephas antiquus_, and this is
absent from all the cave-deposits considered here [_v. infra_ (ii) p.
90]. A rhinoceros appears in all three localities, but is different in
each. Finally, two (viz. Galley Hill and Mauer) of the three, provide at
least one very remarkable mammalian form, viz. Trogontherium (_Mimomys
cantianus_ is equally suggestive) of the high-level gravels, and the
_Ursus arvernensis_ of the Mauer Sands.

The significance of these animals may be indicated more clearly by the
following statement. If the history of _Elephas antiquus_ be critically
traced, this animal appears first in a somewhat hazy atmosphere, viz.
that of the transition period between Pliocene and Pleistocene times. It
is a more primitive form of elephant than the Mammoth. Indeed, Gaudry[27]
(1888) placed it in a directly ancestral relation to the last-mentioned
elephant. And though the two were contemporary for a space, yet _Elephas
antiquus_ was the first to disappear. Moreover this elephant has much
more definite associations with the southern group of mammals than has
the Mammoth. Its presence is therefore indicative of the considerable
antiquity of the surrounding deposits, provided always that the latter be
contemporaneous with it. With regard to the Rhinoceros, the species _R.
megarhinus_ and _R. etruscus_ have been found in definitely Pliocene
strata. The former (_R. megarhinus_) seems to have appeared earliest (at
Montpellier), whereas the Etruscan form owes its name to the late
Pliocene formations of the Val d'Arno, in which it was originally
discovered. The third species (_R. merckii_) is somewhat later, but of
similar age to _Elephas antiquus_, with which it constantly appears. It
is remarkable that the _R. etruscus_, though not the earliest to appear,
seems yet to have become extinct before the older _R. megarhinus_. The
latter was contemporary with _R. merckii_, though it did not persist so
long as that species. With regard to the three alluvial deposits, the
Rhinoceros provides a means of distinction not indicated by the
elephantine representative, and the presence of _R. etruscus_ is a test
for very ancient deposits. From what has been stated above, it follows
that of the three localities the Mauer Sands have the more ancient
facies, and it is significant that here also the human form proves to be
furthest removed from modern men. But the other localities are not
clearly differentiated, save that the Taubach strata are perhaps the more
recent of the two.

Coming next to the 'peculiar' animals; the _Ursus arvernensis_ of Mauer
is almost as distinctively 'Pliocene' as its associate, _Rhinoceros
etruscus_. The Taubach strata have yielded nothing comparable to these,
nor to the Trogontherium (or Mimomys) of the high-level terrace gravel.
These animals are also strongly suggestive of the Pliocene fauna.

To sum up, it will be found that the evidence of the Elephant is to the
effect that these alluvial deposits are of early Pleistocene age. It
leads to the expectation that the fauna in general will have a
'southern,' as contrasted with an 'arctic' aspect. From the study of the
Rhinoceros it appears that the Mauer Sands are probably the most ancient
in order of time, that the strata of Taubach are the latest of the three
and that _Elephas antiquus_ will occur there (as indeed it does).

The other animals mentioned clinch the evidence for the Pliocene
resemblance, and (at latest) the early Pleistocene antiquity of the Mauer
Sands and the high-level terrace gravels. Within the limits thus
indicated, the deposit of Mauer is again shewn to be the oldest, followed
by the terrace-gravels, while Taubach is the latest and youngest of the
three. All the characteristic animals are now entirely extinct.

For the reasons stated above, the fossil Javanese mammals of Trinil have
not been discussed. It will suffice to note that on the whole they
indicate a still earlier period than those of the European deposits in
question.

(ii) The animals associated with the _cave-men_ now call for
consideration. The great outstanding feature is the constancy with
which the Reindeer is found. This leads to a presumption that the climate
was at least temperate rather than 'southern.' Beyond this, it will be
noted that in general the cave-fauna is more familiar in aspect, the
Reindeer having survived up to the present day, though not in the same
area. Again, save in one locality, not a single animal out of those
discussed in connection with the alluvial deposits appears here. The
exception is the Krapina rock-shelter. The surviving animal is
_Rhinoceros merckii_, described above as one of the later arrivals in the
epochs represented by the alluvial deposits. Krapina does not provide the
Reindeer, and in this respect is contrasted again with the remaining
localities. Yet the presence of the Marmot at Krapina may be nearly as
significant as that of the Reindeer would be.

Another cave, viz. the Grotte des Enfants, may also need reconsideration.
For instance, the _Rhinoceros merckii_ was found in the deepest strata of
this cave: but I do not consider that adequate evidence is given of its
contemporaneity with the two human skeletons here considered. But the
Reindeer is found in the same cave, as indicated in the table.

With the exception of Krapina therefore, the conditions are remarkably
uniform. This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence from many caves not
described in detail here because of the lack of human bones therein or
the imperfection of such as were found. Such caves have yielded abundant
evidence in regard to the 'associated fauna.' A few of the more important
results of the investigation of the mammals may be given. Thus the
distribution of the Reindeer is so constant that except in regard to its
abundance or rarity when compared with the remains of the horse in the
same cave, it is of little or no use as a discriminating agency. The
Mammoth (_E. primigenius_) was contemporaneous with the Reindeer, but was
plentiful while the Reindeer was still rare. A similar remark applies to
the Hairy Rhinoceros (_R. tichorhinus_), and also to the Cave-Bear. The
Cervidae (other than the Reindeer), the Equidae, the Suidae (Swine) and
the smaller Rodentia (especially Voles) are under investigation, but the
results are not applicable to the finer distinctions envisaged here.

To sum up the outcome of this criticism; it appears that of the
cave-finds, Krapina stands out in contrast with the remainder, in the
sense that its fauna is more ancient, and is indicative of a southern
rather than a temperate environment. The latitude of Krapina has been
invoked by way of explaining this difference, upon the supposition that
the _Rhinoceros merckii_ survived longer in the south. Yet Krapina does
not differ in respect of latitude from the caves of Le Moustier and La
Chapelle, while it is rather to the north of the Mentone caves. Lastly,
some weight must be attached to the alleged discovery at Pont Newydd in
Wales, of Mousterian implements with remains of _R. merckii_.

The fauna of the other caves suggests temperate, if not sub-arctic
conditions of climate. In all cases, the cave-finds are assignable to a
period later in time than that in which the fluviatile deposits
(previously discussed) were formed. The cave-men thus come within the
later subdivisions of the Pleistocene period.

(_c_) The fifth column of the table gives the types of stone implements
found in association with the respective remains. As is well known, and
as was stated in the introductory sentences of this book, stone artefacts
constitute the second great class of evidence on the subject of human
antiquity. As such they might appropriately have been accorded a
separate chapter or even a volume. Here a brief sketch only of their
significance in evidence will be attempted. The value of stone implements
in deciding upon the age of deposits (whether in caves or elsewhere)
depends upon the intimacy of the relation existing between various forms
of implement and strata of different age. How close that intimacy really
is, has been debated often and at great length. Opinions are still at
variance in regard to details, but as to certain main points, no doubt
remains. Yet the study is one in which even greater specialisation is
needed than in respect of comparative osteology. The descriptions
following these preliminary remarks are based upon as extensive an
examination as possible, both of the literature, and of the materials.

To discuss the validity of the claims made in favour of or against the
recognition of certain individual types will be impossible, save in the
very briefest form. The better-known varieties have received names
corresponding to the localities where they were first discovered, or
where by reason of their abundance they led to the recognition of their
special value as a means of classification. These designations will be
employed without further definition or explanation, save in a few
instances.

Commencing again with the fifth column of the table, the first point to
notice is that no implements at all have been discovered in immediate
association with the fossil remains at Mauer and Trinil (Java). Yet in
the absence of evidence, it must not be concluded that the contemporary
representatives of mankind were incapable of providing such testimony.
Evidence will be adduced presently to show the incorrectness of such a
conclusion.

In the next place, the great majority of the cave-men are associated with
implements of one and the same type, viz. the Mousterian, so called from
the locality (Le Moustier) which has furnished so complete an example of
ancient prehistoric man.

Lastly, the Galley Hill skeleton maintains the distinctive position
assigned to it, for as in the previous columns, it disagrees also here
with the majority of the examples ranged near it.

If enquiry be made as to the significance, _i.e._ the sequence in point
of time and the general status of the various types of implements
mentioned in the table, it will be found that all without exception are
described as of Palaeolithic type. Indeed they furnish largely the
justification for the application of that term (employed so often in
Chapter II) to the various skeletons described there.

To these Palaeolithic implements, others of the Neolithic types
succeeded in Europe. [It is necessary to insist upon this succession as
European, since palaeoliths are still in use among savage tribes, such as
the aboriginal (Bush) natives of South Africa.] Confining attention to
palaeoliths and their varieties, the discovery of a form alleged to fill
the gap separating the most ancient Neolithic from the least ancient
Palaeolithic types may be mentioned. The implements were obtained from
the cave known as Le Mas d'Azil in the south of France.

In Germany, the researches of Professor Schmidt[28] in the caverns of
Wuerttemburg have revealed a series of strata distinguished not only in
position and sequence but also by the successive types of stone
implements related to the several horizons. The sequence may be shewn
most concisely if the deposits are compared in a tabular form as follows
(Table I).

These caves give the information necessary for a correct appreciation of
the position of all the cave-implements in Table A. Reverting to the
latter, and having regard to the cave-men, both subdivisions of Division
II (cf. Table A) appear, but no example or representative of the
earliest form (designated by Division I). The fauna is entirely
Pleistocene, if we except such a trifling claim to Pliocene antiquity as
may be based upon the presence of _Rhinoceros merckii_ at Krapina.

The results of this enquiry shew therefore that genuine Mousterian
implements are of Pleistocene age, that they were fabricated by human
beings of a comparatively low type, who lived in caves and were by
occupation hunters of deer and other large ungulate animals. So much has
long been known, but the extraordinary distinctness of the evidence of
superposition shewn in Professor Schmidt's work at Sirgenstein, furnishes
the final proof of results arrived at in earlier days by the slow
comparison of several sites representing single epochs. That work also
helps to re-establish the Aurignacian horizon and period as distinctive.

                                TABLE I.

  +-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------------+
  |                   |  Type of Implement    |                         |
  |       Levels      +-----------+-----------+          Fauna          |
  |                   |   Ofnet   |Sirgenstein|                         |
  +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+
  |A. Most superficial|    --     |  Bronze   |                         |
  |                   |           |           |                         |
  |                   | Neolithic |    --     |                         |
  |                   |           |           |                         |
  |B. 1. Intermediate |  Azilian  |    --     |                         |
  |                   |                       |                         |
  |                   |      Palaeolithic     |                         |
  |                   |                       |                         |
  |   2. Deepest      |Magdalenian|Magdalenian|} Myodes torquatus (the  |
  |      stratum at   |           |           |} Banded Lemming)        |
  |      Ofnet        |           |           |}                        |
  |                   |           |           |}                        |
  |   3.              |    --     | Solutrean |} Fauna of a northern    |
  |                   |           |           |}  character throughout: |
  |                   |           |           |}  with Reindeer,        |
  |   4.              |    --     |Aurignacian|}  Mammoth, Rhinoceros   |
  |                   |           |           |}  tichorhinus and Horse |
  |                   |           |           |}                        |
  |   5. Deepest      |    --     |Mousterian |} Myodes obensis (a      |
  |      stratum at   |           |           |  Siberian Lemming)      |
  |      Sirgenstein  |           |           |                         |
  +-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+

When attention is turned from the cave-finds to those in alluvial
deposits, names more numerous but less familiar meet the view. As the
animals have been shewn to differ, so the types of implements provide a
marked contrast. Yet a transition is suggested by the claim made on
behalf of Mousterian implements for the Taubach deposits, a claim which
(it will be remembered) is absolutely rejected by some experts of high
authority.

In pursuing the sequence of implements from the Mousterian back to still
earlier types, cave-hunting will as a rule provide one step only, though
this is of the greatest value. In a few caves, implements of the type
made famous by discoveries in alluvial gravels at S. Acheul in France
(and designated the Acheulean type) have been found in the deeper levels.
Such a cave is that of La Ferrassie (cf. p. 74); another is that of La
Chapelle, in which (it will be remembered) the Acheulean implements
underlay the human interment. Kent's Hole in Devonshire is even more
remarkable. For the lowest strata in this cavern yielded implements of
the earliest Chellean form, though this important fact is not commonly
recognised. Such caves are of the greatest interest, for they provide
direct evidence of the succession of types, within certain limits. But
the indefatigable labours of M. Commont[29] of Amiens have finally welded
the two series, viz. the cave-implements and the river-drift implements,
into continuity, by demonstrating in the alluvial deposits of the river
Somme, a succession of types, from the Mousterian backwards to much more
primitive forms. These newly-published results have been appropriately
supplemented by discoveries in the alluvial strata of the Danube.
Combining these results from the river deposits, and for the sake of
comparison, adding those from the caves at Ofnet and Sirgenstein, a
tabulated statement (Table II) has been drawn up.

The two examples of human skeletons from alluvial deposits given in Table
A are thus assigned to epochs distinguished by forms of implement more
primitive than those found usually in caves; and moreover the more
primitive implements are actually shewn to occur in deeper (_i.e._ more
ancient) horizons where superposition has been observed. The greater
antiquity of the two river-drift men (as contrasted with the cave-men)
has been indicated already by the associated animals, and this evidence
is now confirmed by the characters of the implements.

It may be remarked again that the details of stratigraphical succession
have but recently received complete demonstration, mainly through the
researches of Messrs Commont, Obermaier[30], and Bayer[30]. The
importance of such results is extraordinarily far-reaching, since a means
is provided hereby of correlating archaeological with geological evidence
to an extent previously unattained.

(_d_) It will be noted that this advance has taken little or no account
of actual human remains. For in the nature of things, implements will be
preserved in river deposits, where skeletons would quickly disintegrate
and vanish.

                                TABLE II.

             +---------------------------------------------+
             |              A. Caves[1]                    |
             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+
             |     Type of     |   Ofnet[2]  | Sirgenstein |
             |    Implement    |             |     [2]     |
             |                 |             |             |
             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+
             |               1.|             |   Bronze    |
             |                 |             |             |
             | Neolithic     2.|  Neolithic  |     --      |
             |                 |             |             |
             | Intermediate  3.|   Azilian   |     --      |
             |                 |             |             |
             | Palaeolithic  4.| Magdalenian | Magdalenian |
             |                 |             |             |
             |               5.|     --      |  Solutrean  |
             |                 |             |             |
             |               6.|     --      | Aurignacian |
             |                 |             |             |
             |               7.|     --      |  Mousterian |
             |                 |             |             |
             |               8.|     --      |     --      |
             |                 |             |             |
             |               9.|     --      |     --      |
             |                 |             |             |
             |              10.|     --      |     --      |
             |                 |             |             |
             +-----------------+-------------+-------------+

               +-----------------------------------------+
               |           B. Alluvial deposits          |
               +-------------+-------------+-------------+
               |  S. Acheul  | Willendorf  | S. Acheul   |
               |  (Tellier)  |  (Austria)  | (Tellier,   |
               |     [3]     |     [4]     |  etc.)[3]   |
               +-------------+-------------+-------------+
               |     --      |      --     |     --      |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      |      --     |     --      |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      |      --     |     --      |
               |             |             |             |
               | Magdalenian |      --     |     --      |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      |  Solutrean  |     --      |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      | Aurignacian |     --      |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      |      --     | Mousterian  |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      |      --     |  Acheulean  |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      |      --     |   Chellean  |
               |             |             |             |
               |     --      |      --     | "Industrie  |
               |             |             | grossiere"  |
               +-------------+-------------+-------------+

  [1] For the occurrence of Acheulean and Chellean implements in caves,
      v. page 98.

  [2] Schmidt, 1909.

  [3] Commont, 1908.

  [4] Obermaier and Bayer, 1909.

The next subject of enquiry is therefore that of the antiquity of Man as
indicated by the occurrence of his artefacts.

The succession of Palaeolithic implements has just been given and
discussed, as far back as the period marked by the Chellean implements of
the lower river gravels (not necessarily the lower terrace) of S. Acheul.
For up to this point the testimony of human remains can be called in
evidence. And as regards the associated animals, the Chellean implements
(Taubach) have been shewn to accompany a group of animals suggestive of
the Pliocene fauna which they followed.

But implements of the type of Chelles have been found with a more
definitely 'Pliocene' form of elephant than those already mentioned. At
S. Prest and at Tilloux in France, Chellean implements are associated
with _Elephas meridionalis_, a species destined to become extinct in very
early Pleistocene times. Near the Jalon river in Aragon, similar
implements accompany remains of an elephant described as a variety of _E.
antiquus_ distinctly approaching _E. meridionalis_.

In pursuing the evidence of human antiquity furnished by implements, a
start may be made from the data corresponding to the Galley Hill skeleton
in column 5 of Table A. Two divergent views are expressed here, since the
alternatives "Acheulean" or "Strepyan" are offered in the table. In the
former instance (Acheulean) a recent writer (Mr Hinton, 1910) insists on
the Pliocene affinities of the high-level terrace mammals. But as a
paradox, he states that the high-level terrace deposits provide
implements of the Acheulean type, whereas the Chellean type would be
expected, since on the Continent implements associated with a fauna of
Pliocene aspect, are of Chellean type. To follow Mr Hinton in his able
discussion of this paradox is tempting, but not permissible here; it must
suffice to state that the difficulty is reduced if Professor Rutot's[31]
view be accepted. For the Strepyan form of implement (which M. Rutot
recognises in this horizon) is older than the others mentioned and
resembles the Chellean type. To appreciate this, the sequence which
Professor Rutot claims to have established is here appended.

                        A. _Pleistocene Period._

                 (All Palaeolithic types except No. 1.)

   1. Azilian     }
                  }
   2. Magdalenian }
                  }
   3. Solutrean   } Types found in caves as well as in alluvial deposits.
                  }
   4. Aurignacian }
                  }
   5. Mousterian  }

   6. Acheulean. Fauna of S.-E. Britain has a Pliocene aspect. High-level
      terrace of Thames valley (Hinton, 1910).

   7. Chellean. Fauna of Continent has Pliocene affinities (Hinton, 1910).

   8. Strepyan. Galley Hill Skeleton. High-level terrace, Thames basin
      (Rutot, 1911).

   9. Mesvinian. Implements on surface of chalk-plateau, Ightham, Kent
      (Rutot, 1900).

  10. Mafflian. Galley Hill skeleton (Rutot, 1903). Mauer jaw (Rutot,
      1911).

  11. Reutelian. High-level terrace of Thames basin, Rutot, 1900. The
      Reutelian implement is "eolithic," and is found unchanged in stages
      assigned to the Pliocene, Miocene and Oligocene periods
      (Rutot, 1911).

The duration of the Pleistocene period is estimated at about 139,000
years (Rutot, 1904).

                          B. _Pliocene Period._

  12. Kentian (Reutelian).

                          C. _Miocene Period._

  13. Cantalian (Reutelian).

                         D. _Oligocene Period._

  14. Fagnian (Reutelian).

                           E. _Eocene Period._

  15. [Eoliths of Duan and other French sites: not definitely recognised
      in 1911 by Rutot.]

Several results of vast importance would follow, should the tabulated
suggestions be accepted unreservedly in their entirety.

An inference of immediate interest is to the effect that if Professor
Rutot's view be adopted, the high-level terrace of the Thames valley is
not contrasted so strongly with continental deposits containing the same
mammals, as Mr Hinton suggests. For Professor Rutot's Strepyan period is
earlier than the Chellean. It may be questioned whether Mr Hinton is
right in assigning only Acheulean implements to the high-terrace gravels.
Indeed Mr E. T. Newton (1895) expressly records the occurrence at Galley
Hill, of implements more primitive than those of Acheulean form, and
'similar to those found by Mr B. Harrison on the high plateau near
Ightham,'--_i.e._ the Mesvinian type of Professor Rutot. A final decision
is perhaps unattainable at present. But on the whole, the balance of
evidence seems to go against Mr Hinton; though _per contra_ it will not
escape notice that since 1903, Professor Rutot has 'reduced' the Galley
Hill skeleton from the Mafflian to the Strepyan stage, and it is
therefore possible that further reduction may follow.

Leaving these problems of the Galley Hill implements and the Strepyan
period, the Mesvinian and Mafflian types are described by Professor
Rutot as representatives of yet older and more primitive stages in the
evolution of these objects. As remarked above (Chapter III), the Mauer
jaw is referred by Professor Rutot to the Mafflian (implement) period of
the early Pleistocene age, though the grounds for so definite a statement
are uncertain.

More primitive, and less shapely therefore, than the Mafflian implements,
are the forms designated 'Reutelian.' They are referred to the dawn of
the Quaternary or Pleistocene period. But with these the initial stage of
evolution seems to be reached. Such 'eoliths,' as they have been termed,
are only to be distinguished by experts, and even these are by no means
agreed in regarding them as products of human industry. If judgment on
this vital point be suspended for the moment, it will be seen that
Professor Rutot's scheme carries this evidence of human existence far
back into the antiquity denoted by the lapse of the Pliocene and Miocene
periods of geological chronology. But let it be remarked that when the
names Kentian, Cantalian and Fagnian are employed, no claim is made or
implied that three distinctive types of implement are distinguished, for
in respect of form they are all Reutelian.

Herein the work of M. Commont must be contrasted with that of Professor
Rutot. For the gist of M. Commont's researches lies in the demonstration
of a succession of types from the more perfect to the less finished,
arranged in correspondence with the superimposed strata of a single
locality. A vertical succession of implements accompanies a similar
sequence of strata.

Professor Rutot examines the Pliocene deposits in England, Miocene in
France and Oligocene in Belgium, and finds the same Reutelian type in
all. The names Kentian, Cantalian, and Fagnian should therefore be
abandoned, for they are only synonyms for Pliocene-Reutelian, etc.

It is hard to gain an idea of the enormous duration of human existence
thus suggested. But a diagram (Fig. 24) constructed by Professor
Penck[32] is appended with a view to the graphic illustration of this
subject. The years that have elapsed since the commencement of the
Oligocene period must be numbered by millions. The human type would be
shewn thus not merely to have survived the Hipparion, Mastodon and
Deinotherium but to have witnessed their evolution and the parental forms
whence they arose.

  [Illustration: Fig. 24. Chart of the relative duration of Miocene,
                 Pliocene and Pleistocene time: (From Penck.)

                  1. Line of oscillation of level of lowest snow-line.
                     (Central Europe.)

                  2. Localities where 'eolithic implements' occur.

                  3. Names of representatives of ancestral forms of the
                     modern Horse. The claim of Anchitherium to occupy
                     the position it holds here, is strongly criticised
                     by Deperet.

                  4. Names of representatives of ancestral forms of
                     modern Elephants.

The chart is to be read from right to left. The gradual sinking of the
snow-line is to be noticed, and the oscillations of the same line during
the Glacial Period are also shewn (cf. Fig. 25).]

Such is the principal outcome of the opinions embodied in the tabulation
of Professor Rutot. That observer is not isolated in his views, though
doubtless their most energetic advocate at the present day. We must
admire the industry which has conferred upon this subject the support of
evidence neither scanty in amount, nor negligible in weight. But the
court is still sitting, no final verdict being yet within sight.

While the so-called Eocene eoliths of Duan (Eure-et-Loire) fail to
receive acceptance (Laville[33], 1906), even at Professor Rutot's hands
(1911), it is otherwise with those ascribed to the Oligocene period. Mr
Moir[34] of Ipswich has lately recognised prepalaeoliths beneath the
Suffolk Crag (Newbourn) at Ipswich resting 011 the underlying London
Clay.

Some objections to the recognition of the so-called 'eoliths' as
artefacts may now be considered.

(1) The case of the opponents rests mainly on a fourfold basis of
argument. Thus the nature of the splintering or chipping is called in
question. Some writers appeal to weathering, others to movements in the
deposits ('earth-creep,' and 'foundering of drifts,' Warren[35] 1905. and
Breuil, 1910), and others again to the concussions experienced by flints
in a torrential rush of water. The last explanation is supported by
observations on the forms of flints removed from certain rotary
machines used in cement-factories (Boule[36], 1905).

(2) A second line of opposition impugns the association of the flints
with the strata wherein they were found, or the geological age of those
strata may be called in question as having been assigned to too early a
period.

(3) Then (in the third place) comes the objection that the eoliths carry
Man's existence too far back; having regard to the general development of
the larger mammals, Pliocene Man might be accepted, but 'Oligocene' Man
is considered incredible. Moreover the period of time which has elapsed
since the Oligocene period must be of enormous length.

(4) In the last place will be mentioned criticism of the distribution of
the eolithic type (Obermaier[37], 1908).

(1) Having regard to the first of these arguments, the balance of
evidence appears so even and level that it is hardly possible to enter
judgment on this alone. But experiments recently carried out by Mr Moir,
and in Belgium by Munck and Ghilain (1907; cf. Grist[38], 1910) should
do much to settle this point.

Moreover the 'wash-tub' observations in cement-factories (Boule, 1905)
prove too much, for it is alleged that among the flint-refuse, fragments
resembling Magdalenian or even Neolithic implements were found. Yet such
forms are not recorded in association with the comparatively shapeless
eoliths. Further experiments are desirable, but so far they support
Professor Rutot and his school rather than their opponents.

(2) The position of the eoliths and the accuracy with which their
immediate surroundings are determined may be impugned in some instances,
but this does not apply to Mr Moir's finds at Ipswich, nor to the
Pliocene eoliths found by Mr Grist[38] at Dewlish (1910).

(3) While the general evidence of palaeontology may be admitted as
adverse to the existence of so highly-evolved a mammal as Man in the
earlier Tertiary epochs, yet the objection is of the negative order and
for this reason it must be discounted to some extent. If the lapse of
time be objected to, Dr Sturge[39] (1909) is ready to adduce evidence of
glacial action upon even Neolithic flints, and to propose a base-line for
the commencement of the Neolithic phase no less than 300,000 years ago.

(4) The distribution of the implements finds a weak spot in the defences
of the eolithic partisans. It is alleged that eoliths are almost always
flints: and that they occur with and among other flints, and but rarely
elsewhere. Palaeoliths (of flint) also occur among other flints, but they
are not thus limited in their association. This distinction is admitted
by some at least of the supporters of the 'artefact' nature of the
eoliths, and the admission certainly weakens their case.

The question is thus far from the point of settlement, and it may well
continue to induce research and discussion for years to come. That a
final settlement for the very earliest stages is practically unattainable
will be conceded, when the earliest conditions are recalled in
imagination. For when a human being first employed stones as implements,
natural forms with sharp points or edges would be probably selected. The
first early attempts to improvise these or to restore a blunted point or
edge would be so erratic as to be indistinguishable (in the result) from
the effects of fortuitous collisions. While such considerations are
legitimately applicable to human artefacts of Oligocene or Miocene
antiquity, they might well appear to be less effective when directed to
the Pleistocene representatives where signs of progress might be
expected. Yet Professor Rutot (1911) does not distinguish even the
Pleistocene Reutelian from the Oligocene (eolithic) forms. If, on such
evidence as this, early Pleistocene Man be recognised, Oligocene Man
must needs be accepted likewise. Professor Rutot's mode of escape from
this difficult position is interesting and instructive, if not
convincing. It is effected by way of the assumption that in regard to his
handiwork, Man (some say a tool-making precursor of Man) was in a state
of stagnation throughout the ages which witnessed the rise and fall of
whole genera of other mammals. That this proposition is untrue, can never
be demonstrated. On the other hand, the proposition may be true, and
therefore the unprejudiced will maintain an open mind, pending the advent
of more conclusive evidence than has been adduced hitherto.




                                CHAPTER V

                 HUMAN FOSSILS AND GEOLOGICAL CHRONOLOGY


In the preceding Chapter, the remains of Palaeolithic Man were studied in
relation to the associated animals (especially mammals), and again (so
far as possible) in connection with the accompanying implements. In the
comparison of the different types of implement, evidence was adduced to
shew that certain forms of these are distinctive of corresponding
geological horizons. Of the three series, (1) human remains, (2)
mammalian remains, (3) stone implements, the first two, (1) and (2), have
been compared as well as (1) and (3). A comparison between (2) and (3)
has now to be instituted. And this is of interest, for mammalian remains
have been found in the presence of implements where no human bones could
be discovered. Moreover the expectation is well founded, whereby the
mammalian fauna will prove to supply information unobtainable from either
human skeletons or implements by themselves. That information will bear
upon the climatic conditions of the different phases which mark the
geological history of Man. And in this way, a more perfect correlation of
the past history of Man with the later geological history of the earth
may be fairly anticipated.

In Chapter IV, use was frequently made of the expression 'southern,'
'temperate' or 'sub-arctic,' in connection with the various groups of
mammals mentioned in Table A. And while the geological period is limited,
during which these investigations are profitably applicable, yet the
matter is one of no small importance. For the very fact that the fauna
can be described in one case as 'southern' in character, in another as
'temperate,' suggests some variation of climate. And the relation of the
history of Man to the great variation of climate implied in the
expression 'Glacial Period,' may be reasonably expected to receive some
elucidation from this branch of study. It will be noticed that Man
himself is at present comparatively independent of climate, and even in
earlier times he was probably less affected than some other animals. But
while the importance of these studies must be recognised, it is also very
necessary to notice that as elsewhere so here the difficulties are great,
and pitfalls numerous.

It is no part of the present work to attempt a history of the stages
through which opinion passed in developing the conception embodied in the
phrase 'Ice-Age.' Long before that idea had been formulated, the presence
of animal remains both in cave and alluvial deposits was a matter of
common knowledge. The late Professor Phillips is believed to have been
the first to make definite use of the terms 'pre-glacial' and
'post-glacial' in reference to the later geological formations (1855).
And to the pre-glacial era that geologist referred most of the ossiferous
caves and fissures.

But in 1860, this, the accepted view, was overthrown by the late Dr
Falconer[40] at least so far as the caves (with the exception of the
Victoria Cave) then explored in Britain were concerned. In the same year,
the post-glacial position and antiquity of various brick-earths and
gravels of the Thames valley were considered to have been definitely
established by the late Professor Prestwich. It is very important to note
in this connection, that the palaeontological evidence of those
brick-earths was nevertheless held to indicate pre-glacial antiquity and
thus to contradict the evidence of stratigraphy. The method employed in
the latter mode of enquiry consisted in ascertaining the relation of the
boulder-clay to certain deposits distinguished by their fauna, the
Mollusca being especially employed in the identifications. Boulder-clay
seems, in this country, to have been taken as the premier indication of
the glacial period; it was supposed to be a submarine deposit formed
during a submergence of large parts of these islands in the course of
that period. That the late Sir Charles Lyell dwelt upon the problems of
the boulder clay should also be recalled, for he expressly recounts how
constantly it proved a barrier marking the extreme limit to which the
works of Man could be traced. Implements or even bones had been found in
the drift and above the boulder-clay, but not below.

For a while no attempt seems to have been made to subdivide the
boulder-clay or to question its exact identity over all the area occupied
by it. Yet such a subdivision might have resulted in explaining the
contradiction or paradox (curiously analogous to that propounded by Mr
Hinton in 1910, cf. p. 102 supra) just mentioned as existing between the
age to be assigned to the Thames river-drift upon (_a_) stratigraphical
evidence ('post-glacial'), and (_b_) palaeontological evidence
('pre-glacial').

That there might be several deposits of the boulder-clay with intervening
strata, does not appear to have been suggested. The Glacial period was
long regarded as one and indivisible. By some able geologists that view
is still held.

Yet even in those comparatively early days, some succession of
glaciations was suspected. In 1845, Ramsay recognised three phases of
ice-action in North Wales. In 1855, Morlot took in hand the work of
charting the extent of several Swiss glaciations. At last the possibility
of a subdivision of the boulder-clay was realised, and it was
demonstrated by the researches of Sir A. Geikie[41] (1863). But such
division of the boulder-clay leads directly to an inference of successive
periods of deposition--and when the earlier opinion (whereby the
boulder-clay was regarded as a submarine deposit) was partly abandoned in
favour of its origin as a 'ground-moraine,' the plurality of glaciations
was still more strongly supported. The work of Julien (Auvergne, 1869)
and Professor James Geikie (1873) carries the story on to the year 1878
which is marked by a very memorable contribution from Professor
Skertchley[42], by whom account was taken of the stratigraphical position
of stone implements. The names of these pioneers (and that of Croll
should be added to the list) may be fittingly recalled now that the names
of later continental observers figure so largely. But the work of
Professors Penck, Brueckner, Boule and Obermaier, admirable as it is, may
be regarded justly as an extension or amplification of pre-existing
research.

A multiplicity of glaciations demonstrated whether by successive
'end-moraines,' or by a series of boulder-clays or 'tills,' implies
intervening 'inter-glacial' epochs. To the earlier-recognised pre-glacial
and post-glacial periods, one or more inter-glacial phases must therefore
be added. Consequently the absence of evidence (indicative of Man's
existence) from the boulder-clay need not exclude his presence in the
inter-glacial deposits; and in fact the appearance of strongly-supported
evidence that some implements of only Neolithic antiquity occur in
inter-glacial surroundings, has been mentioned already (Chapter IV,
Sturge, 1909). And thus, whether the series be one of grand oscillations
constituting as many periods, or on the other hand a sequence of
variations too slight to deserve distinctive terms, the fact of
alternations prolonged over a considerable time seems to be established.
Attempts to correlate various phases in the history of the animal and
particularly of the human inhabitants of the affected area with these
changes, still remained to be made.

Of such attempts, an early one, if not absolutely the earliest, stands to
the credit of Dr Skertchley (1878). But in 1888 a much more definite
advance was made by Professor Boule[43]. Still later came the suggestions
of Professors Mortillet, Hoernes[44] (1903), Penck, Obermaier[45] (1909)
and Tornqvist. And the employment of implements in evidence was found
practicable by them. Ample compensation is thus provided for the lack of
human bones, a deficiency almost as deplorable in 1911 as it was when
Lyell called attention to it in 1863.

But the literature on this subject is so controversial and has attained
such proportions, that the attempt to present current views will be
limited to the discussion of the appended table (B). Here an endeavour
has been made to submit the views expressed by the most competent
observers of the day. The first point to which attention is directed
consists in the manner in which the several glacial periods are
distributed over the geological time-table. Boule claims one glaciation
of Pliocene antiquity, followed by two Pleistocene glaciations. The
remaining authors agree in ascribing all the glaciations to the
Pleistocene period. Herein they follow the lead of Professor Penck, whose
diagram of the oscillations in level of the snow-line in Central Europe
is reproduced in Fig. 25. In the next place, the fact that Professor
Penck's scheme was primarily intended to serve for the Swiss Alps must
not be overlooked. That this system should leave traces everywhere else
in Europe is not necessarily implied in accepting the scheme just
mentioned.

                                TABLE B.

                _List of types of associated implements._

  +------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+
  |                        |    1908     |     1908    |     1903     |
  |    Penck's scheme[1]   +-------------+-------------+--------------+
  |                        |  Boule[2]   |    Penck    |   Hoernes    |
  +------------------------+----  -------+-------------+--------------+
  | Postglacial =4= = with | Magdalenian | Magdalenian |      --      |
  | Achen and other        | Solutrean(4)|             |              |
  | oscillations (Penck)   |             |             |              |
  |                        |=============++            |              |
  | =Glacial IV= 2nd       | Mousterian  || Solutrean  |      --      |
  | Pleistocene(2)         |             ||    [4]     |              |
  | Glaciation of Boule.   |             ++============++             |
  | "Wuermian" of Penck     |             |             ||             |
  |                        |             |             ||             |
  | _Interglacial_ =3=     |  Acheulean  | Mousterian  || Magdalenian |
  | = Riss-Wuerm interval   | (Obermaier) | (warm phase)||             |
  | (Penck)                |  Chellean   |             ||             |
  |                        |             |             ||             |
  | =Glacial III= 1st      |  Chellean   | Mousterian  ||     --      |
  | Pleistocene Glaciation |             | (cold phase)||             |
  | of Boule. "Rissian"    |             |             ||             |
  | of Penck               |             |             ||             |
  |                        |             |             ||             |
  | _Interglacial_ =2=     |     ?       |  Acheulean  || Solutrean   |
  | = Mindel-Riss interval |             |  Chellean   ++=============|
  | (Penck)                |             |             |              |
  |                        |             |             |              |
  | =Glacial II=           |     ?       |      ?      |      --      |
  | "Mindelian" of Penck   |             |             |              |
  |                        |             |             |              |
  | _Interglacial_ =1=     |     ?       |      ?      | Mousterian   |
  | = Guenz-Mindel interval |             |             |  Chellean    |
  | (Penck)                |             |             |              |
  |                        |             |             |              |
  | =Glacial I= "Guenzian"  |     ?       |      ?      |      --      |
  | of Penck               |             |             |              |
  |                        |             |             |              |
  +------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+


  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
  |                        |    1908      |    1908    |      1878       |
  |    Penck's scheme[1]   +--------------+------------+-----------------+
  |                        |    Rutot     |   Sollas   |  Skertchley[3]  |
  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+
  | Postglacial =4= = with |  Neolithic   |     ?      |    Neolithic    |
  | Achen and other        |    period    |            |      period     |
  | oscillations (Penck)   |              |            |                 |
  |                        |              |            |                 |
  | =Glacial IV= 2nd       |    Lower     |     ?      | Hessle          |
  | Pleistocene(2)         | Magdalenian  |            | Boulder-clay    |
  | Glaciation of Boule.   |  Solutrean   |            |                 |
  | "Wuermian" of Penck     | Aurignacian  |            |                 |
  |                        |              |            |                 |
  | _Interglacial_ =3=     |  Mousterian  | Acheulean  |   Palaeoliths   |
  | = Riss-Wuerm interval   |    Upper     |            |     of the      |
  | (Penck)                |  Acheulean   |            | "modern-valley" |
  |                        |              |            |      type.      |
  |                        |              |            | Valley-gravels  |
  |                        |              |            |   of present    |
  |                        |              |            | Ouse, Cam, etc. |
  |                        |              |            |                 |
  | =Glacial III= 1st      |    Lower     | [Chalky    | Purple          |
  | Pleistocene Glaciation |  Acheulean   |Boulder-clay| Boulder-clay    |
  | of Boule. "Rissian"    |   Chellean   |  of Hoxne] |                 |
  | of Penck               |              |            |                 |
  |                        |              |            |                 |
  | _Interglacial_ =2=     |  Strepyan    |     ?      | Palaeoliths of  |
  | = Mindel-Riss interval |  Mesvinian   |            |"ancient-valley" |
  | (Penck)                |  Mafflean    |            |      type.      |
  |                        |              |            | ?Flood-gravels. |
  |                        |              |            | Valleys do not  |
  |                        |              |            |  correspond to  |
  |                        |              |            |  modern river   |
  |                        |              |            |                 |
  | =Glacial II=           |      --      |     ?      |     Chalky      |
  | "Mindelian" of Penck   |              |            |   Boulder-clay  |
  |                        |              |            |                 |
  | _Interglacial_ =1=     |      --      |     ?      |  Brandon beds   |
  | = Guenz-Mindel interval |              |            | with implements |
  | (Penck)                |              |            |                 |
  |                        |              |            |                 |
  | =Glacial I= "Guenzian"  |      --      |     ?      |   Cromer Till.  |
  | of Penck               |              |            |    Later than   |
  |                        |              |            |    Forest-Bed   |
  +------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+

  [1] Penck postulates four glaciations, all "pleistocene."

  [2] Boule recognises two pleistocene glaciations (seemingly Nos. III
      and IV of Penck), and one pliocene glaciation. The latter is not
      indicated in the Table.

  [3] Skertchley's scheme is now ignored, if not abandoned, by the best
      authorities. It has been introduced here on account of its
      historical interest only. Its correlation with the other schemes is
      speculative.

  [4] The differences between the rival schemes of Boule, Penck and
      Hoernes are best realised by comparing the position assigned to the
      Solutrean industry by each in turn. The loess and its divisions are
      not indicated in this Table.

  [Illustration: Fig. 25. Chart of the oscillations of the snow-level in
                 Central Europe during the Pleistocene period.
                 (From Penck.)

In the uppermost space. _N_ Neolithic Age. _Ma_ Magdalenian. _Sol_
Solutrean. _Guenz_, _Mindel_, _Riss_, _Wuerm_, denote the several glacial
phases.

This chart is to be read from right to left; on the extreme right the
snow-line is first shewn 300 m. above its present level. Then it falls to
nearly 1200 m. below the present level, the fall corresponding to the
Guenzian glaciation. After this it nearly attains its former level, but
does not quite reach the line marked + 300. This chart represents the
part marked Glacial Epoch in Fig. 24, with which it should be compared.]

In attempting to adjust the scale of glacial periods to that provided by
the succession of implement-forms, it is suggested that a commencement
should be made by considering the period designated Mousterian. If the
position of the Mousterian period can be correlated with a definite
subdivision of the Ice Age, then other periods will fall into line
almost mechanically.

The first enquiry to make is that indicated in the introductory
paragraphs of this Chapter, viz. what is the general nature of the fauna
accompanying Mousterian implements? Investigation of the records shews
that this is characteristically of a northern or a temperate, but not a
southern type. For the combination commonly regarded as indicative of the
southern type (viz. _Elephas antiquus_, _Rhinoceros merckii_, and
_Hippopotamus major_) is very doubtfully demonstrable in this
association, save in the very remarkable instance of the Grotte du
Prince, Mentone, and Boule (1906) makes somewhat laboured efforts to
explain this example, which is exceptional in his opinion. On the other
hand, that combination does occur in well-recognised inter-glacial
deposits, _e.g._ the Swiss Lignites of Duernten, etc.

The Mousterian implements commonly accompany much more definitely
northern animal forms, so that a glacial rather than an inter-glacial age
is indicated. But there are four such glacial phases from which to choose
in Professor Penck's scheme, and in Professor Boule's scheme there are
two (for the 'Pliocene glaciation,' appearing in the latter, is hardly in
question).

It will be seen (by reference to Table B) that Professor Boule assigns
typical Mousterian implements to the most recent glacial period (Boule's
No. III = Penck's No. IV = Wuerm), whereas Professor Penck places them in
his penultimate grand period (Riss), carrying them down into the
succeeding (Riss-Wuermian) inter-glacial period.

Much diligence has been shewn in the various attempts to decide between
these, the two great alternatives. (The view of Professor Hoernes, who
assigns the Mousterian types to the first inter-glacial period of Penck,
has received so little support as to render it negligible here.)

Upon an examination of the controversial literature, the award here given
is in favour of Professor Boule's scheme. The following reasons for this
decision deserve mention.

(1) Almost the only point of accord between the rival schools of thought,
consists in the recognition by each side that the Magdalenian culture is
post-glacial. But beyond this, the two factions seem to agree that the
Mousterian culture is 'centred' on a glacial period but that it probably
began somewhat earlier and lasted rather longer than that glacial period,
whichever it might be.

(2) The Chellean implements, which precede those of Mousterian type, are
commonly associated with a fauna of southern affinities. This denotes an
inter-glacial period. Therefore an inter-glacial period is indicated as
having preceded the Mousterian age. But after the Mousterian age, none of
the subsequent types are associated with a 'southern fauna.'

Indications are thus given, to the following effect. The Mousterian
position is such that a distinct inter-glacial period should precede it,
and no such definite inter-glacial period should follow it. The last
glacial period alone satisfies these requirements. The Mousterian
position therefore coincides with the last great glaciation, whether we
term this the fourth (with Professor Penck), or the third, with Professor
Boule.

(3) The Mousterian industry characterises a Palaeolithic settlement at
Wildkirchli in Switzerland: the position of this is indicated with great
accuracy to be just within the zone limited by the moraine of the last
great glacial period (Penck's No. IV or Wuermian). The associated fauna is
alleged to indicate that the age is not post-Wuermian, as might be
supposed. This station at Wildkirchli probably represents the very
earliest Mousterian culture, and its history dates from the last phase of
the preceding (_i.e._ the Riss-Wuerm) inter-glacial period. But it belongs
to Penck's glaciation No. IV, not to No. III.

(4) Discoveries of implements of pre-Mousterian (Acheulean) form in the
neighbourhood of the Chateau de Bohun (Ain, Rhone Basin, France, 1889),
and Conliege (Jura, 1908) are accompanied by stratigraphical evidence
whereby they are referred to an inter-glacial period later than the Riss
glaciation (Penck's No. IV, Boule's No. III).

The remaining arguments are directed against the position assigned by
Professor Penck to the Mousterian implements.

(5) Professor Penck admits that the epoch of the Mousterian type was
glacial, and he recognises that it was preceded by a definitely
inter-glacial epoch, with a southern fauna. But by selecting his No. III
as the glacial period in question he is led to postulate a subsequent but
warmer inter-glacial subdivision of the Mousterian period. The difficulty
is to find convincing evidence of this post-Mousterian inter-glacial
period, and of the corresponding 'southern' fauna. Professor Penck
believes that the 'southern' animals returned. Professor Boule can find
no post-Mousterian evidence of such a fauna. The constituent forms became
extinct or migrated southwards, never to return. If this contention be
true, and there is much in its favour, Professor Boule's view must be
adopted.

To shew how far-reaching some of the discussions are, attention may be
directed to the fact that in this particular argument, much turns upon
the nature of the implements found with the 'southern fauna' at Taubach
(_v. ante_ Chapters II and III). If the implements are of Mousterian
type, they support Professor Penck's view, for the 'warm Mousterian'
sought by him will thus be found: but if the type is Chellean, the
arguments of Professor Boule are notably reinforced.

(6) The position assigned to one stage in the series of implements will
affect all the rest. Professor Penck's view has been attacked with vigour
and also with great effect, on account of the position he allots to the
type of Solutre. The consensus of opinion regarding the position of
Solutre (_i.e._ its typical implements) is very extensive and quite
definite. In effect, the type of Solutre is assigned to the newer
(_juengerer_) loess deposits. But these are also widely recognised as
entirely post-glacial. Moreover in the last few years, the excavations in
these particular loess-deposits in Lower Austria have not only confirmed
that opinion, but have also revealed there the presence of Aurignacian
implements, which closely follow those of Mousterian type.

Professor Penck's scheme seems therefore to carry the Solutrean
implements too far back. The attempt to overcome this objection by
attributing an earlier (? inter-glacial) age to the special variety of
loess in question, has not been attended with conspicuous success.

Such are the main considerations upon which the decision has been taken
in favour of Professor Boule's chronological scale. But when such an
authority as Professor Sollas[46] (1908) is undecided, an amateur must
not attempt to ignore the difficulties to be met. And while it is
expedient to arrive at a final judgment, yet, in these controversies, the
tendency is very marked to allow theory to run too far ahead of fact.
Facts of the following kind are hard to reconcile with the schemes just
described. (i) A Mousterian type of implement is recorded by Commont from
the later (younger) loess of the third terrace at S. Acheul. According to
the theory, the type of Solutre, and not of Le Moustier, should have
occurred, (ii) In this country at least, an admixture of 'northern' and
'southern' animals in a single deposit, has been demonstrated not
infrequently, as in Italy also (Torre della Scalea, Cosenza). (iii)
Professor Boyd Dawkins[47] (1910) insists upon the occurrence of
Chellean, Acheulean, and Mousterian implements in one and the same
British river deposit.

Consequently the distinction of a northern from a southern fauna may yet
prove to be destitute of sound foundations. Many years ago, Saporta
pointed out instances of regions with a sub-tropical climate actually
adjacent to glacial areas. This subject has fortunately now the advantage
of the attention and criticism provided by such talented observers as Mr
Hinton, Professor Laville, and Professor Schmidt.

A trustworthy scheme of the relative chronology of culture (as denoted by
the forms of implements), of mammalian variation and evolution (as shewn
by the fauna), and of great climatic oscillations has not yet been
obtained, but it has not been shewn to be unattainable. Meanwhile the
schemes outlined in Table B mark a very great advance upon their
predecessors.

It may be of interest to note that Professor Penck believes that the
several periods varied both in duration and in intensity. Their relative
proportions are shewn in Professor Penck's diagram (Fig. 25). The smaller
oscillations, following the close of the last great glaciation (Wuermian),
should be noticed.




                               CHAPTER VI

           HUMAN EVOLUTION IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DISCOVERIES


In this, the concluding Chapter, account is taken of the bearing of the
foregoing discoveries and discussions, in relation with the light which
they throw on the story of human development.

A. Up to a certain point, the evidence is strikingly favourable to the
hypothesis of human evolution. By this is meant the gradual development
of the modern type of skeleton found in association with a large and
active brain, capable of manifesting its activity in a great variety of
ways. Most of the oldest human skeletons just described, differ from this
type. Although a difference cannot be demonstrated in respect of cranial
capacity, yet those older skeletons are usually distinguished by the
heavier jaw and by stout curved limb-bones of such length as to indicate
an almost dwarf stature. Still these indications, even though marking a
more primitive status, point undeniably to human beings. Passing beyond
these, a few fragments remain to suggest a still earlier stage in
evolution. And with these at least we find ourselves definitely on the
neutral ground between the territories of man and ape, though even here
on the human side of that zone.

In the same way, and again up to a certain point, the characters of human
implements confirm the inferences drawn from the skeleton. For the older
implements are re-gressively more and more crude, and an increasing
amount of skill is needed to distinguish artefact from natural object.

Again, the associated animals seem to become less familiar, and the
percentage of extinct species increases the further we peer into the
stages of the past.

One of the most remarkable researches ever published upon these subjects
is due to a group of scientists associated with Professor Berry of
Melbourne University. In this place, only the most important of their
memoirs (1910) can be called in evidence. In those particular
publications, the initial objective was an attempt to measure the degree
of resemblance between different types of skull. That endeavour may be
roughly illustrated by reference to Fig. 26, in which tracings of various
skull-outlines are adjusted to a conventional base-line. Should a
vertical line be drawn from the mid-point of the base-line so as to cut
the several contours, the vertical distances between the successive
curves could be measured. The distance separating Pithecanthropus (_P.E._
of the figure) from that of the corresponding curve for the Spy skull No.
1 (Spy 1 of the figure) is clearly less than the distance between the
curves for the second Spy skull (Spy 2) and the Papuan native.

  [Illustration: Fig. 26. Outline tracings of skulls reduced in size to a
                 common dimension, viz. the line _Gl_--_Op_, representing
                 a base-line of the brain-case. _Pe_, Pithecanthropus.
                 _Papua_, a New Guinea native. _Hl_, _Sm_, _At_ are from
                 skulls of monkeys. (After Dubois.)]

But Mr Cross used a much more delicate method, and arrived at results
embodied in the figure (27) reproduced from his memoir. A most graphic
demonstration of those results is provided in this chart. Yet it must be
added, that the Galley Hill skull, although shewn in an intermediate
position, should almost certainly be nearer the upper limit. This
criticism is based upon the conviction that many of the measurements upon
which the results are dependent, assign to the Galley Hill skull a
lowlier status than it originally possessed before it became distorted
(posthumously). Again the Pithecanthropus is apparently nearer to the
Anthropoid Apes than to Mankind of to-day. Let it be noticed however that
this is not necessarily in contradiction with the opinion expressed above
(p. 128 line 2). For Mr Cross' diagram is based upon cranial
measurements, whereas the characters of the thigh-bone of Pithecanthropus
tend to raise it in the general scale of appreciation. On the whole then,
the evolutionary hypothesis seems to receive support from three
independent sources of evidence.

  [Illustration: Fig. 27. (From Cross.)]

B. But if in one of the very earliest of those stages, a human form is
discovered wherein the characters of the modern higher type are almost if
not completely realised, the story of evolution thus set forth receives a
tremendous blow. Such has been the effect of the discovery of the Galley
Hill skeleton. Time after time its position has been called 'abnormal' or
'isolated,' because it provides so many contrasts with the skeletons
found in deposits regarded perhaps as leading towards but admittedly
more recent than the Galley Hill gravel. And the juncture is long past at
which its exact relation to that gravel could be so demonstrated as to
satisfy the demands raised in a connection so vital to an important
theory.

Some authors of great experience have refused to recognise in evidence
any claim made on behalf of the Galley Hill skeleton. Yet it is at least
pardonable to consider some of the aspects of the situation created by
its acceptance.

(i) For instance, the argument is reasonable, which urges that if men of
the Galley Hill type preceded in point of time the men of the lower
Neanderthal type, the ancestry of the former (Galley Hill) must be sought
at a far earlier period than that represented by the Galley Hill gravels.
As to this, it may be noted that the extension of the 'human period,'
suggested by eoliths for which Pliocene, Miocene, and even Oligocene
antiquity is claimed, will provide more than this argument demands. The
suggestion that a flint-chipping precursor of Man existed in Miocene time
was made as long ago as 1878 by Gaudry[48].

(ii) But if this be so, the significance of the Neanderthal type of
skeleton is profoundly altered. It is no longer possible to claim only an
'ancestral' position for that type in its relation to modern men. It may
be regarded as a degenerate form. Should it be regarded as such, a
probability exists that it ultimately became extinct, so that we should
not expect to identify its descendants through many succeeding stages.
That it did become extinct is a view to which the present writer
inclines. Attempts have been made to associate with it the aborigines of
Australia. But an examination of the evidence will lead (it is believed)
to the inference that the appeal to the characters of those aborigines is
of an illustrative nature only. Difficulties of a similar kind prevent
its recognition either in the Eskimo, or in certain European types,
although advocates of such claims are neither absent nor obscure.

Again, it is well to enquire whether any other evidence of degeneration
exists in association with the men of the Neanderthal type. The only
other possible source is that provided by the implements. This is
dangerous ground, but the opinion must be expressed that there is some
reason to believe that Mousterian implements (which rather than any other
mark the presence of the Neanderthal type of skeleton) do present forms
breaking the sequence of implement-evolution. One has but to examine the
material, to become impressed with the inferiority of workmanship
displayed in some Mousterian implements to that of the earlier Acheulean
types. In any case, a line of evidence is indicated here, which is not to
be overlooked in such discussions.

(iii) The Galley Hill skeleton has been described as comparatively
isolated. Yet if it be accepted as a genuine representative of Man in the
age of the gravel-deposits of the high-level terrace, it helps towards an
understanding of the characters of some other examples. Thus a number of
specimens (rejected by many authors as lacking adequate evidence of such
vast antiquity as is here postulated) appear now, in this new light, as
so many sign-posts pointing to a greater antiquity of that higher type of
human skeleton than is usually recognised. Above all (to mention but a
few examples), the cranium of Engis, with those from S. Acheul
(discovered in 1861 by Mr H. Duckworth), and Tilbury, the fragment of a
human skull from gravel at Bury St Edmunds, and a skeleton discovered
near Ipswich beneath the boulder-clay in October 1911, seem to find their
claims enhanced by the admission of those proffered on behalf of the
Galley Hill specimen. And since Huxley wrote his memoir on the skulls
from Engis and the Neanderthal, the significance of the former (Engis),
fortified by the characters of the Galley Hill skeleton, has been greatly
increased. Consequently it is not surprising to find confident appeals to
the characters of a Galley Hill Race or Stock, near associates being the
specimens mentioned in a preceding chapter as Bruenn (1891) and the
Aurignac man next to be considered. The relations of these to the
well-known Cro-Magnon type will be mentioned in the next paragraph.

C. The appearance of the higher type of humanity in the period next
following the Mousterian, viz. that distinguished by the Aurignacian type
of implement, has now to be discussed. As already remarked, the man of
Aurignac, as compared with him of the Neanderthal, has less protruding
jaws, the lower jaw in particular being provided with the rudiment of a
chin, while the limb bones are slender and altogether of the modern type.
Upon such contrasts a remarkable theory has been based by Professor
Klaatsch[49]. He made a comparison between the anthropoid apes on the one
hand, and the two human types on the other (Fig. 28). As a result, he
pointed out that the Orang-utan differs from the Gorilla much as the
Aurignac does from the Neanderthal man. Assuming this statement to be
correct, a hypothesis is elaborated to the effect that two lines of human
descent are here in evidence. Of these one includes an ancestor common to
the Orang-utan (an Asiatic anthropoid ape) and the Aurignac man; the
other is supposed to contain an ancestor common to the Gorilla (of
African habitat), and the Neanderthal man.

  [Illustration: Fig. 28. Various thigh-bones arranged to shew the
                 alleged similarity between _A_ Orang-utan and _B_
                 Aurignac man, as also between _C_ Neanderthal and _D_
                 Gorilla. _A_ and _B_, while resembling each other, are
                 to be contrasted with _C_ and _D_. They are referred to
                 as the A/O and N/G groups. (From Klaatsch.)]

The further development of the story includes the following propositions.
The more primitive and Gorilla-like Neanderthal type is introduced into
Europe as an invader from Africa. Then (at a subsequent epoch probably)
an Asiatic invasion followed. The new-comers owning descent from an
Orang-utan-like forerunner are represented by the Aurignac skeleton and
its congeners. In various respects they represented a higher type not
only in conformation but in other directions. Having mingled with the
Neanderthal tribes, whether by way of conquest or pacific penetration, a
hybrid type resulted. Such was the origin of the Cro-magnon race.

The hypothesis has been severely handled, by none more trenchantly than
by Professor Keith[50]. A notable weakness is exposed in the attribution
to the ancestors of the Orang-utan so close an association to any human
ancestral forms, as Professor Klaatsch demands. To those familiar with
the general anatomy of the Orang-utan (_i.e._ the anatomy of parts other
than the skeleton) the difficulties are very apparent.

Another effect of the hypothesis is that the so-called Neanderthaloid
resemblances of the aborigines of Australia are very largely if not
entirely subverted. This would not matter so much, but for the very
decided stress laid by Professor Klaatsch upon the significance of those
resemblances (cf. Klaatsch, 1909, p. 579, 'Die Neanderthalrasse besitzt
zahlreiche australoide Anklaenge'). Again in earlier days, Professor
Klaatsch supported a view whereby the Australian continent was claimed as
the scene of initial stages in Man's evolution. Finally, up to the year
1908, Professor Klaatsch was amongst the foremost of those who demand
absolute exclusion of the Orang-utan and the Gorilla from any
participation in the scheme of human ancestry.

Having regard to such facts and to such oscillations of opinion, it is
not surprising that this recent attempt to demonstrate a 'diphyletic' or
'polyphyletic' mode of human descent should fail to convince most of
those competent to pronounce upon its merits.

Yet with all its defects, this attempt must not be ignored. Crude as the
present demonstration may be, the possibility of its survival in a
modified form should be taken into account. These reflections (but not
necessarily the theory) may be supported in various ways. By a curious
coincidence, Professor Keith, in rebutting the whole hypothesis, makes a
statement not irrelevant in this connexion. For he opines that 'the
characters which separate these two types of men (viz. the Aurignac and
Neanderthal types) are exactly of the same character and of the same
degree as separate a blood-horse from a shire-stallion.' Now some
zoologists have paid special attention to such differences, when engaged
in attempts to elucidate the ancestry of the modern types of horse. As a
result of their studies, Professors Cossar Ewart and Osborn (and
Professor Ridgeway's name should be added to theirs) agree that proofs
have been obtained of the 'multiple nature of horse evolution' (Osborn).
If we pass to other but allied animals, we may notice that coarser and
finer types of Hipparion (_H. crassum_ and _H. gracile)_ have been
contrasted with each other. A step further brings us to the Peat-hog
problem (_Torf-Schwein Frage_ of German writers), and in the discussion
of this the more leggy types of swine are contrasted with the more stocky
forms. Owen (in 1846) relied on similar points for distinguishing the
extinct species of Bovidae (Oxen) from one another. The contrast maybe
extended even to the Proboscidea, for Dr Leith Adams believed that the
surest test of the limb bones of _E. antiquus_ was their stoutness in
comparison with those of _E. primigenius_. This is the very character
relied upon by Professor Klaatsch in contrasting the corresponding parts
of the human and ape skeletons concerned. But such analogies must not be
pressed too far. They have been adduced only with a view to justifying
the contention that the diphyletic scheme of Professor Klaatsch may yet
be modified to such an extent as to receive support denied to it in its
present form.

D. In commenting upon the hypothesis expounded by Professor Klaatsch,
mention was made of its bearing upon the status of the Cro-Magnon race.
This is but part of a wide subject, viz. the attempt to trace in descent
certain modern European types. It is necessary to mention the elaborate
series of memoirs now proceeding from the pen of Dr Schliz[51], who
postulates four stocks at least as the parent forms of the mass of
European populations of to-day. Of these four, the Neanderthal type is
regarded as the most ancient. But it is not believed to have been
extirpated. On the contrary its impress in modern Europe is still
recognisable, veiled though it may be in combination with any of the
remaining three. The latter are designated the Cro-Magnon, Engis, and
Truchere-Grenelle types, the last-mentioned being broad-headed as
contrasted with all the rest. Of Professor Schliz' work it is hard to
express a final opinion, save that while its comprehensive scope (without
excessive regard to craniometry as such) is a feature of great value, yet
it appears to lack the force of criticism based upon extensive
anatomical, _i.e._ osteological study.

E. The remarkable change in Professor Klaatsch's views on the part played
by the anthropoid apes in human ancestral history has been already
mentioned. In earlier days the Simiidae were literally set aside by
Professor Klaatsch. But although the anthropoid monkeys have gained an
adherent, they still find their claim to distinction most energetically
combated by Professor Giuffrida-Ruggeri[52]. The latter declares that
though he now (1911) repeats his views, it is but a repetition of such as
he, following De Quatrefages, has long maintained. In this matter also,
the last word will not be said for some time to come.

F. The significance of the peculiar characters of massiveness and cranial
flattening as presented by the Neanderthal type of skeleton continues to
stimulate research. In addition to the scattered remarks already made on
these subjects, two recently-published views demand special notice.

(i) Professor Keith has (1911) been much impressed with the exuberance of
bone-formation, and the parts it affects in the disease known as
Acromegaly. The disease seems dependent upon an excessive activity of
processes regulated by a glandular body in the floor of the brain-case
(the pituitary gland). The suggestion is now advanced that a
comparatively slight increase in activity might result in the production
of such 'Neanderthaloid' characters as massive brow-ridges and limb
bones. (Of existing races, some of the aborigines of Australia would
appear to exemplify this process, but to a lesser degree than the extinct
type, since the aboriginal limb bones are exempt.) Professor Keith adopts
the view that the Neanderthal type is ancestral to the modern types. And
his argument seems to run further to the following effect: that the
evolution of the modern from the Neanderthal type of man was consequent
on a change in the activity of the pituitary gland.

It is quite possible that the agency to be considered in the next
paragraph, viz. climatic environment, may play a part in influencing
pituitary and other secretions. But heavy-browed skulls (and heavy brows
are distinctive tests of the glandular activity under discussion) are not
confined to particular latitudes, so that there are preliminary
difficulties to be overcome in the further investigation of this point.
It is possible that the glandular activity occasionally assumed
pathological intensity even in prehistoric times. Thus a human skull with
Leontiasis ossea was discovered near Rheims at a depth of fifteen feet
below the level of the surrounding surface.

(ii) Dr Sera[53] (1910) has been led to pay particular attention to the
remarkably flattened cranial vaulting so often mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs. As a rule, this flattening has been regarded as
representative of a stage in the evolution of a highly-developed type of
human skull from a more lowly, in fact a more simian one. This conclusion
is challenged by Dr Sera. The position adopted is that a flattened skull
need not in every case owe its presence to such a condition as an early
stage in evolution assigns to it. Environment, for which we may here read
climatic conditions, is a possible and alternative influence.

If sufficient evidence can be adduced to shew that the flattened cranial
arc in the Neanderthal skull does actually owe its origin to
physiological factors through which environment acts, the status of that
type of skull in the evolutionary sequence will be materially affected. A
successful issue of the investigation will necessitate a thorough
revision of all the results of Professor Schwalbe's work[54], which
established the Neanderthal type as a distinct species (_Homo
primigenius_) followed closely and not preceded by a type represented by
the Gibraltar skull. Dr Sera commenced with a very minute examination of
the Gibraltar (Forbes Quarry) skull. In particular, the characters of the
face and the basal parts of the cranium were subjected to numerous and
well-considered tests. As a first result of the comparison of the parts
common to both crania, Dr Sera believes that he is in a position to draw
correct inferences for the Neanderthal skull-cap in regard to portions
absent from it but present in the Forbes Quarry skull.

But in the second place, Dr Sera concludes that the characters in
question reveal the fact that of the two, the Gibraltar skull is quite
distinctly the lowlier form. And the very important opinion is expressed
that the Gibraltar skull offers the real characters of a human being
caught as it were in a lowly stage of evolution beyond which the
Neanderthal skull together with all others of its class have already
passed. The final extension of these arguments is also of remarkable
import. The Gibraltar skull is flattened owing to its low place in
evolution. But as regards the flatness of the brain-case (called the
platycephalic character) of the Neanderthal calvaria and its congeners
(as contrasted with the Gibraltar specimen), Dr Sera suggests dependence
upon the particular environment created by glacial conditions. The effect
is almost pathological, at least the boundary-line between such
physiological flattening and that due to pathological processes is hard
to draw. Upon this account therefore, Dr Sera's researches have been
considered here in close association with the doctrines of Professor
Keith.

Dr Sera supports his argument by an appeal to existing conditions: he
claims demonstration of the association (regarded by him as one of cause
and effect) between arctic latitudes or climate on the one hand, and the
flattening of the cranial vault on the other. Passing lightly over the
Eskimo, although they stand in glaring contradiction to his view, he
instances above all the Ostiak tribe of hyperborean Asia. The
platycephalic character has a geographical distribution. Thus the skull
is well arched in Northern Australia, but towards the south, in South
Australia and Tasmania, the aboriginal skull is much less arched. It is
thus shewn to become more distinctly platycephalic towards the antarctic
regions, or at least in the regions of the Australian Continent
considered by Professor Penck to have been glaciated. So too among the
Bush natives of South Africa as contrasted with less southern types.

The demonstration of a latitudinal distribution in the New World is
complicated by the presence of the great Cordillera of the Rocky
Mountains and Andes. Great altitudes are held by Dr Sera to possess close
analogy with arctic or antarctic latitudes. Therefore the presence of
flat heads (artificial deformation being excluded) in equatorial
Venezuela is not surprising.

It is felt that the foregoing statement, though made with every endeavour
to secure accuracy, gives but an imperfect idea of the extent of Dr
Sera's work. Yet in this place, nothing beyond the briefest summary is
permissible. By way of criticism, it cannot be too strongly urged that
the Eskimo provide a head-form exactly the converse of that postulated by
Dr Sera as the outcome of 'glacial conditions.' Not that Dr Sera ignores
this difficulty, but he brushes it aside with treatment which is
inadequate. Moreover, the presence of the Aurignac man with a
comparatively well-arched skull, following him of the Mousterian period,
is also a difficulty. For the climate did not become suddenly cold at the
end of the Mousterian period, and so far as evidence of arctic human
surroundings goes, the fauna did not become less arctic in the Aurignac
phase.




                              _Conclusion._


In section A of this chapter, an outline was given of the mode in which
the evolution of the human form appears to be traceable backwards through
the Neanderthal type to still earlier stages in which the human
characters are so elementary as to be recognisable only with difficulty.

Then (B) the considerations militating against unquestioning acquiescence
in that view were grouped in sequence, commencing with the difficulties
introduced by the acceptance (in all its significance) of the Galley Hill
skeleton. From an entirely different point of view (C), it was shewn that
many difficulties may be solved by the recognition of more than one
primordial stock of human ancestors. Lastly (F) came the modifications of
theory necessitated by appeals to the powerful influence of physiological
factors, acting in some cases quite obscurely, in others having relation
to climate and food.

The impossibility of summing up in favour of one comprehensive scheme
will be acknowledged. More research is needed; the flatness of a cranial
arc is but one of many characters awaiting research. At the present time
a commencement is being made with regard to the shape and proportions of
the cavity bounded by the skull. From such characters we may aspire to
learn something of the brain which was once active within those walls.
Yet to-day the researches of Professors Keith and Anthony provide little
more than the outlines of a sketch to which the necessary details can
only be added after protracted investigation.

It is tempting to look back to the time of the publication of Sir Charles
Lyell's 'Antiquity of Man.' There we may find the author's vindication of
his claims (made fifty years ago) for the greater antiquity of man. In
comparison with that antiquity, Lyell believed the historical period
'would appear quite insignificant in duration.' As to the course of human
evolution, it was possible even at that early date to quote Huxley's
opinion 'that the primordial stock whence man has proceeded need no
longer be sought ... in the newer tertiaries, but that they may be looked
for in an epoch more distant from the age of the Elephas primigenius than
that is from us.'

The human fossils at the disposal of those authors included the
Neanderthal, the Engis, and the Denise bones. With the Neanderthal
specimen we have (as already seen) to associate now a continually
increasing number of examples. And (to mention the most recent discovery
only) the Ipswich skeleton (p. 151) provides in its early surroundings a
problem as hard to solve as those of the Engis skull and the 'fossil man
of Denise.' But we have far more valuable evidence than Lyell and Huxley
possessed, since the incomparable remains from Mauer and Trinil provide
an interest as superior on the anatomical side as that claimed in
Archaeology by the Sub-crag implements.

Turning once more to the subject of human remains, the evolution of
educated opinion and the oscillations of the latter deserve a word of
notice. For instance, in 1863, the Engis skull received its full and due
share of attention. Then in a period marked by the discoveries at Spy and
Trinil, the claims of the Engis fossil fell somewhat into abeyance.
To-day we see them again and even more in evidence. So it has been with
regard to details. At one period, the amount of brain contained within
the skull of the Neanderthal man was underestimated. Then that opinion
was exchanged for wonder at the disproportionately large amount of space
provided for the brain in the man of La Chapelle. The tableau is changed
again, and we think less of the Neanderthal type and of its lowly
position (in evolutionary history). Our thoughts are turned to a much
more extended period to be allotted to the evolution of the higher types.
Adaptations to climatic influences, the possibilities of degeneracy, of
varying degrees of physiological activity, of successful (though at first
aberrant) mutations all demand attention in the present state of
knowledge.

If progress since the foundations were laid by the giant workers of half
a century ago appears slow and the advance negligible, let the extension
of our recognition of such influences and possibilities be taken into
account. The extraordinarily fruitful results of excavations during the
last ten years may challenge comparison with those of any other period of
similar duration.




                                APPENDIX


The forecast, made when the manuscript of the first impression of this
little book was completed, and in reference to the rapid accumulation of
evidence, has been justified.

While it would be impossible to provide a review of all the additional
literature of the last few months, it is thought reasonable to append
notes on two subjects mentioned previously only in the preface.

(A) A short account of the 'La Quina' skeleton has now appeared (in
'L'Anthropologie,' 1911, No. 6, p. 730).

The skull is of the form described so often above, as distinctive of the
Neanderthaloid type, but the brow-ridges seem even more massive than in
the other examples of that race. The cranial sutures are unclosed, so
that the individual is shewn to be of mature age, or at any rate, not
senile. The teeth are, however, much worn down. Nearly all the teeth have
been preserved in situ, and they present certain features which have been
observed in the teeth found in Jersey (S. Brelade's Cave).

The skeleton lay in a horizontal position, but no evidence of an
interment has been adduced. The bones were less than a metre below the
present surface, and in a fine mud-like deposit, apparently ancient, and
of a river-bed type. Implements were also found, and are referred
unhesitatingly to the same horizon as the bones. The Mousterian period is
thus indicated, but no absolutely distinctive implements were found. The
general stratigraphical conditions are considered to assign the deposit
to the base of what is termed the 'inferior Mousterian' level.

(B) The 'sub-boulder-clay' skeleton, discovered near Ipswich in 1911, was
in an extraordinarily contracted attitude. Many parts are absent or
imperfect, owing to the solvent action of the surroundings, but what
remains is sufficient to reveal several features of importance (cf. fig.
29).

Save in one respect, the skeleton is not essentially different from those
of the existing representatives of humanity. The exception is provided by
the shin-bone. That of the right limb has been preserved, and it presents
an anomaly unique in degree, if not in kind, viz.: the substitution of a
rounded for a sharp or keel-like edge to the front of the bone. It can
hardly be other than an individual peculiarity, though the Spy tibia (No.
1) suggests (by its sectional contour) the same conformation.

So far as the skeleton is concerned, even having regard to the anomaly
just mentioned, there is no good reason for assigning the Ipswich
specimen to a separate racial type.

Its interest depends largely upon the circumstances of its surroundings.
It was placed beneath about four feet of 'boulder-clay,' embedded partly
in this and, to a much smaller extent, in the underlying middle-glacial
sand which the bones just entered.

There is some evidence that the surface on which the bones lay was at one
time exposed as an old 'land-surface.' A thin band of carbonised
vegetable matter (not far beneath the bones) contains the remains of land
plants. On this surface the individual whose remains have been preserved
is supposed to have met with his end, and to have been overwhelmed in a
sand drift. The latter it must be supposed was then removed, to be
replaced by the boulder-clay.

Several alternatives to this rather problematical interpretation could be
suggested. The most obvious of these is that we have to deal here with a
neolithic interment, in a grave of which the floor just reached the
middle-glacial sand of the locality. If we enquire what assumptions are
requisite for the adoption of this particular alternative, we shall find,
I think, that they are not very different in degree from those which are
entailed by the supposition that the skeleton is really that of
'sub-boulder-clay' man.

The contracted attitude of the skeleton, and our familiarity of this as a
feature of neolithic interments, taken together with the fact that the
skeleton does not differ essentially from such as occur in interments of
that antiquity, are points in favour of the neolithic age of the
specimen. On the other hand, Mr Moir would urge that man certainly
existed in an age previous to the deposition of the boulder-clay; that
the implements discovered in that stratum support this claim; that the
recent discovery of the bones of a mammoth on the same horizon (though
not in the immediate vicinity) provides further support; that the state
of mineralisation of the bones was the same in both cases, and that it is
at least significant that they should be found on strata shewn (by other
evidence) to have once formed a 'land-surface.'

On the whole then, the view adopted here is, that the onus of proof rests
at present rather with those who, rejecting these claims to the greater
antiquity of this skeleton, assign it to a far later date than that to
which even the overlying Boulder-clay is referred. And, so far as the
literature is at present available, the rejection does not seem to have
been achieved with a convincing amount of certainty.

It is to be remarked, finally, that this discovery is entirely distinct
from those made previously by Mr Moir in the deposits beneath the Red
Crag of Suffolk, with which his name has become associated.

  [Illustration: Fig. 29. Human skeleton found beneath Boulder-clay near
                 Ipswich in 1911. (From the drawing prepared by Professor
                 Keith, and published in the _East Anglian Daily Times_.
                 Reproduced with permission.)]




                        REFERENCES TO LITERATURE

                                CHAPTER I


  [1] Dubois, 1894. Pithecanthropus, ein Uebergangsform, &c.

  [2] Blanckenhorn, 1910. Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie. Band 42, S. 337.

  [3] Schwalbe, 1899. Zeitschrift fuer Morphologie und Anthropologie. From
      1899 onwards.

  [4] Berry, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, XXXI.
      Part 1. 1910.

  [5] Cross, 1910. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, XXXI.
      Part 1. 1910.

  [6] Schoetensack, 1908. Der Unterkiefer des <DW25> heidelbergensis.

  [7] Keith, 1911. Lancet, March 18, 1911, abstract of the Hunterian
      Lectures.

  [8] Dubois, 1896. Anatomischer Anzeiger. Band XII. S. 15.


                           CHAPTERS II AND III

  [9] Avebury (Lubbock), 1868. International Congress for Prehistoric
      Archaeology.

  [10] Turner, 1864 (quoting Busk). Quarterly Journal of Science, Oct.
       1864, p. 760.

  [11] Nehring, 1895. Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie, 1895, S. 338.

  [12] Kramberger, 1899. Mittheilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft
       zu Wien. "Der Mensch von Krapina." Wiesbaden, 1906.

  [13] Marett, Archaeologia, 1911; also Keith, 1911. Nature, May 25, 1911.
       Keith and Knowles, Journal of Anatomy, 1911.

  [14] Boule, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome XIX. p. 519.

  [15] Klaatsch and Hauser, 1908. Archiv fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, 1909,
       p. 287.

  [16] Peyrony (and Capitan), 1909-1910. Bulletins de la Societe
       d'Anthropologie de Paris, Jan. 20, 1910.

  [17] Sollas, 1907. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
       Vol. 199 B.

  [18] Sera, 1909. Atti della Societa romana di Antropologia, xv.
       fasc. II.

  [19] Verner, 1910. Ann. Rep. Hunterian Museum. R.C.S. London. Saturday
       Review, Sep. 16, 1911, and five following numbers.

  [20] Verneau, 1906. L'Anthropologie. Tome XVII.

  [21] Lehmann-Nitsche, 1907. Rivista del Museo de la Plata, XIV. 1907.

  [22] Lehmann-Nitsche, 1909. Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift, Jena,
       VIII. 42.

  [23] Klaatsch, 1909. Praehistorische Zeitschrift, I.

  [24] Newton, 1895. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, August,
       1895.

  [25] Schwalbe, 1906. "Der Schaedel von Bruex." Zeitsch. fuer Morphologie
       und Anthropologie.

  [26] Hinton, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. Vol. XXI.
       Part 10. 1910.


                               CHAPTER IV

  [27] Gaudry, 1888. Les ancetres de nos animaux.

  [28] Schmidt, 1909. Archiv fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, S. 62, 1909.

  [29] Commont, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome XIX. p. 527.

  [30] Obermaier and Bayer, 1909. Korrespondenzblatt der Wiener
       anthropologischen Gesellschaft, XL. 9/12.

  [31] Rutot, 1900. Congres international d'Archeologie prehistorique.
       Paris, 1900.

  [31] Rutot, 1904, ?1903. Quoted in Schwalbe 1906. "Vorgeschichte, usw."
       Zeitschrift fuer Morphologie und Anthropologie.

  [31] Rutot, 1911. Revue de l'Universite. Brussels, 1911.

  [32] Penck, 1908. Zeitschrift fuer Ethnologie. Band XL. S. 390.

  [33] Laville, 1910. Bulletin de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris,
       1910.

  [34] Moir, 1910. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, July 16,
       1910. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 1911.

  [35] Warren, 1905. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol.
       XXXV., 1905, p. 337.

  [36] Boule, 1905. L'Anthropologie. Tome XVI. "Sur l'origine des
       Eolithes."

  [37] Obermaier, 1908. L'Anthropologie. Tome XIX. p. 613 (abstract),
       also p. 460 (abstract).

  [38] Grist, 1910. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Vol.
       XL. 1910, p. 192.

  [39] Sturge, 1909. Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, January 1909
       (published in 1911).


                                CHAPTER V

  [40] Falconer. 1865. Collected Memoirs. Vol. II. p. 587.

  [41] Geikie, A. 1863. Text-book of Geology, 1903, p. 1312 and footnote
       _ibidem_.

  [42] Skertchley, 1878. The Fenland, p. 551.

  [43] Boule, 1888. Revue d'Anthropologie, "Essai de stratigraphie
       humaine."

  [44] Hoernes, 1903. Urgeschichte des Menschen. (2nd Edn., 1908.)

  [45] Obermaier, 1909. L'Anthropologie. Tome XX. p. 521.

  [46] Sollas, 1908. Science Progress in the XXth Century, "Palaeolithic
       Man." (Reprinted in book-form, 1911.)

  [47] Boyd Dawkins, 1910. Huxley Lecture. Royal Anthropological
       Institute, 1911.


                               CHAPTER VI

  [48] Gaudry, 1878. Mammiferes tertiaires.

  [49] Klaatsch, 1909. Praehistorische Zeitschrift. Band I.

  [50] Keith, 1911. Nature, Feb. 16, 1911 ... also Dec. 15, 1910.

  [51] Schliz, 1909. Archiv fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, Ss. 239 et seq.
       "Die vorgeschichtlichen Schaedeltypen der deutschen Laender."

  [52] Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la
       Etnologia, XL. 2.

  [53] Sera, 1910. Archivio per l'Antropologia e per la Etnologia, XL.
       fasc. 3/4.

  [54] Schwalbe, 1906. "Vorgeschichte des Menschen," Zeitschrift fuer
       Morphologie und Anthropologie.


  _Recent publications containing a summary of the latest discoveries._

  Birkner. Beitraege zur Urgeschichte Bayerns. Bd XVII. 3/4. 1909.

  Branco. Der Stand unserer Kenntnisse vom fossilen Menschen, 1910.

  Buttel-Reepen. Aus dem Werdegang der Menschheit. 1911.

  Giuffrida-Ruggeri. "Applicazioni, &c." Monitore Zoologico Italiano.
    No. 2. 1910. Rivista d'Italia. Agosto, 1911.

  Keith. Hunterian Lectures, 1911. Ancient types of Mankind, 1911.

  Kohlbrugge. Die morphologische Abstammung des Menschen, 1908.

  Lankester. The Kingdom of Man. 1906.

  Leche. Der Mensch. 1911.

  McCurdy. "The Antiquity of Man in Europe." Smithsonian Report (1909),
    p. 531. 1910.

  Read and Smith, R. A. Guide to the Antiquities of the Stone Age.
    British Museum, 1911.

  Rutot. Revue de l'Universite. Bruxelles, January 1911.

  Schwalbe. Darwin and Modern Science (Centenary volume), Cambridge,
    1909.

  Sollas. Palaeolithic Man. (Cf. No. 46 supra.) 1911.

  Spulski. Zentralblatt fuer Zoologie. Band 17. Nos. 3/4. 1910.

  Wright. Hunterian Lectures, Royal College of Surgeons, 1907.




                                  INDEX


  Acheulean type of implement, 83; _v. also_ S. Acheul

  Acromegaly, 141

  Adloff, 30

  Ameghino, 54, 80

  Andalusia, 20, 76

  Andaman islands, aborigines of, 49

  Anthony, 37, 147

  Anthropoid Ape (_v. also_ Gorilla _and_ Orang-utan), 3, 13, 14, 17, 22

  Arctomys, 70, 73

  Atlas vertebra, 53, 54

  Aurignac, 49; implements of the type of, 70, 74, 81; skeleton from,
    135-138, 145; _v. also_ _Homo aurignacensis hauseri_

  Australian aborigines, 50

  Avebury, 17


  Badger, 73

  Baradero, 20, 53, 80

  Bayer, 99

  Berry, 9, 128

  Bison _priscus_, 67; (species unknown), 72, 73, 75

  Blanckenhorn (on Trinil strata), 4

  Bos (? species), 72; _primigenius_ (_v. also_ Urus), 70, 74, 86, 139

  Boulder-clay, 114, 115

  Boule, 18, 20, 37, 45, 108, 109, 116, 117, 120

  Brain, 3, 6, 7, 14, 37-39

  Brain-case (as distinct from the face), 37, 45, 47, 55, 60-62

  Branco, 54

  Breuil, 108

  Brow-ridges, 55, 61, 62

  Brueckner, 116

  Bruenn, 56, 57, 82

  Bruex, 56, 57; strata, 81

  Bury S. Edmunds, 134

  Bush Race (South African aborigines), 50, 145

  Busk, 19, 46


  Canine fossa (of face), 36, 37, 55

  Cave Bear, _v._ Ursus

  Cave Hyaena, 78

  Cervidae (_v. also_ Stag), 67, 92

  Chelles, implements, 68, 83, 98

  Classification of human fossil remains, 60; also Table A

  Combe-Capelle (Dordogne), 55, 56, 81

  Commont, 98, 99, 105, 125

  Correze (_v. also_ La Chapelle), 71

  Cranial base, 47

  Croll, 116

  Cro-Magnon, 79, 140

  Cromer, forest-bed fauna, 66

  Cross, 9, 130-132 (diagram, p. 131)

  Cyrena _fluminalis_, 83


  Dawkins, Boyd, 125

  de Bohun, chateau, 122

  Denise, 18, 147, 148

  Dewlish, eoliths from, 109

  Dolichocephalic proportions of skull, 55, 59

  Dordogne, 20, 45: _v. also_ _H. mousteriensis hauseri_

  Duan, Eocene eoliths, 106

  Dubois, references under _Pithecanthropus erectus_


  Elephas _antiquus_, 66, 67, 70, 78, 87, 88-90, 101, 120;
    _meridionalis_, 101, 109; _primigenius_, _v._ Mammoth

  Engis, 18, 19, 134, 147, 148

  Eocene period, 106

  Eoliths, 106-111

  Erect attitude, 7, 61, 147


  Falconer, 46, 114

  Forbes Quarry (_v. also_ Gibraltar), 19, 20, 32, 46-49, 76

  Forest-bed, _v._ Cromer

  Frizzi, 44


  Galley Hill, 20; gravel pit, 82, 84; skeleton, 56-59, 86, 95, 130-132,
    134

  Gaudry, 50

  Geikie, Sir A., 115

  Geikie, J., 116

  Germany, caves in, 95-98, 100

  Ghilain, 109

  Gibraltar (_v. also_ Forbes Quarry), 19, 46-49, 76, 143-144

  Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 140

  Gorilla (_v._ Anthropoid Ape), 136-138

  Grimaldi (_v. also_ Grotte des Enfants), 50-52

  Grotte des Enfants, 20, 76-79

  Grotte du Prince, 120

  Guenz, glacial phase of, 119


  Hauser, 39, 55: _v._ <DW25>

  Heidelberg, _v. <DW25> heidelbergensis_

  High-level terrace gravels (of Thames), 83

  Hinton, 83, 101-104, 115, 125

  Hippopotamus, 70, 78, 120

  Hoernes, 20, 117, 120

  <DW25> _aurignacensis hauseri_, 20, 55, 57, 135-138; _fossilis_, 20, 60;
    _heidelbergensis_, 1, 10-16, 22, 26, 27, 29, 32, 41-43;
    _mousteriensis hauseri_, 14, 20, 32, 39-45, 73; _neogaeus_, 20,
    53-55; _primigenius_, 27, 60

  Horse, 71, 73, 75

  Huxley, 9, 135, 147, 148


  Ibex, 73

  Implements, sequence of, 102, 103

  Interglacial phases, 67, 119, Table B

  Ipswich skeleton, 148, 151-152


  Jalon river (Aragon) implements, 101

  Jawbone, 11-16, 26, 27, 29-31, 34, 37, 41-43, 53, 55, 60, 62

  Jersey, _v._ S. Brelade

  Julien, 116


  Keith, 31, 137, 138, 140, 142, 144, 147

  Klaatsch, 20, 28, 36, 56; _diphyletic theory_, 135, 136, 139

  Kramberger, 20, 24, 27, 30

  Krapina, 20, 24-31, 32, 34, 42, 68-71; _fauna_, 91, 92


  La Chapelle-aux-Saints, 20, 33-39, 47, 71

  La Ferrassie, 20, 39, 45, 74, 75, 98

  Laloy, 30

  La Naulette, 18, and fig. 14

  La Quina, preface, vi, 39, 150

  Laville, 106, 125

  Lehmann-Nitsche, 20, 54, 80

  Le Mas d'Azil, 95, 97

  Le Moustier, 29, 45; _cave_, 73-75: _v. also_ Mousterian

  Leontiasis _ossea_, 142

  Levallois, 68

  Limb bones, 50, 55

  Loess, 79, 80; in Lower Austria, 124

  Lyell, 114, 117, 147, 148


  Macnamara, 46

  Maffle, implements of, 83, 102, 104

  Magdalenian period, 121

  Malarnaud, 18

  Mammoth, 18, 82, 92

  Manouvrier, 15, 34, 38

  Marett, 20, 30

  Marmot, 70, 73

  Mastoid process, 55

  Mauer, _v. also_ _H. heidelbergensis_, 65-66, 90, 104, 148

  Mentone, _v._ Grimaldi _and_ Grotte des Enfants

  Mimomys, 88, 89

  Mindel, glacial phase of, 119

  Miocene period, 80

  Moir, 106, 109

  Monte Hermoso, 20, 53, 54, 80

  Morlot, 115

  Mortillet, 117

  Mousterian period, 121-125; _types of implement of_, 67, 68, 70, 71, 78,
    94-98, 118, 134

  Munck, 109

  Mural decorative art in caves, 76


  Neanderthal, 18, 19, 24, 27, 34-36, 38, 47, 55, 131-138, 147, 148

  Negroid characters, 50, 52

  Nehring, 20

  Neolithic implements, 109

  Newton, 20, 57

  New World, _v._ S. America

  Nicolle, 30

  Northfleet, 57: _v._ Galley Hill


  Obermaier, 68, 99, 108, 116, 117

  Ofnet, 96-98, 100

  Oligocene period, implements in, 110

  Orang-utan, 136-138: _v. also_ Anthropoid Ape

  Ostiaks, cranial form, 144


  Pech de l'Aze, 20, 46, 75

  Penck, 106, 107, 116-124, 126

  Peyrony, 20, 45

  _Pithecanthropus erectus_, 1-9, 14, 15, 31, 54, 63-65, 148

  Pituitary gland and secretion, 141, 142

  Pleistocene mammals and period, 66, 84

  Pliocene strata, 64, 80

  Prestwich, 114

  Prince of Monaco, 50

  Prognathism, 36, 50

  Pruner-Bey, 49

  Pygmy types of mankind, 49, 54


  Ramsay, 115

  Reindeer, 71, 73-75, 78, 79, 86, 91, 92

  Rhinoceros _etruscus_, 66, 87-89; _megarhinus_, 87-89; _merckii_, 67,
    70, 78, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 120; _tichorhinus_, 71, 73, 82, 92

  Riss, glacial phase of, 119

  River-drift, 115

  Ronda, 49

  Roth, 20

  Rutot, 83, 102-107, 111


  S. Acheul, 68, 101, 134

  S. Brelade, 20, 30, 32, 71, 150, Table A

  Saporta, 125

  Schliz, 140

  Schmidt, 95, 125

  Schoetensack, 65, 66

  Schwalbe, 4, 9, 20, 27, 46, 82

  Scott, 80

  Sera, 20, 46-48, 142-146

  Sinel, 30

  Sirgenstein, 96-98, 100

  Skeletons, contracted position of, 73, 74, 78

  Skertchley, 116, 117

  Sollas, 20, 46, 124

  Solutre-period and implements of, 124

  South America, 20, 52-55, 79-81

  Southern fauna, 67

  Spy cave-men, 18, 19, 21, 24, 32, 34, 35, 44, 53

  Stag, 75: _v. also_ Cervidae

  Stature, 38, 44, 49, 59, 61

  Steinmann, 80

  Stone implements, value in evidence, 93

  Strepy, implements of, 83, 102, 104

  Sturge, 109, 117

  Suidae, _v._ Swine

  Swine, 67, 92, 139


  Taubach, 10, 20, 21-23, 31, 53, 67, 70, 86; _fauna_, 123; _implements_,
    78, 98, 101

  Teeth, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21-23, 26, 27, 29-31, 41, 42, 50, 53, 60, 62

  Tertiary mollusca, 80

  Tetraprothomo, 54

  Thames gravels, 83

  Tilloux, implements and fauna of, 101

  Tornqvist, 117

  Trinil, 66, _v. also_  _P. erectus_

  Trogontherium, 87, 89

  Turner, 19


  Ursus _arctos_, 70; _arvernensis_, 66, 88, 89; _deningeri_, 66;
    _spelaeus_, 66, 70, 72

  Urus, _v. Bos primigenius_


  Venezuela, 145

  Verneau, 20, 50, 51

  Verner, 20, 49

  Voles, 92; _v._ Mimomys


  Walkhoff, 30

  Warren, 108

  Weiss, 67

  Wildkirchli, 122

  Wolf, 73

  Wuerm: glacial phase of, 119

  Wuerttemburg, caverns of, 95-98, 100

                    *       *       *       *       *

     CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

                    *       *       *       *       *


THE CAMBRIDGE MANUALS OF SCIENCE AND LITERATURE


Published by the Cambridge University Press under the general editorship
of P. Giles, Litt.D., Master of Emmanuel College, and A. C. Seward,
F.R.S., Professor of Botany in the University of Cambridge.

A series of handy volumes dealing with a wide range of subjects and
bringing the results of modern research and intellectual activity within
the reach both of the student and of the ordinary reader.


                          80 VOLUMES NOW READY


                        _HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY_

  42 Ancient Assyria. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.

  51 Ancient Babylonia. By Rev. C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D.

  40 A History of Civilization in Palestine. By Prof. R. A. S.
     Macalister, M.A., F.S.A.

  78 The Peoples of India. By J. D. Anderson, M.A.

  49 China and the Manchus. By Prof. H. A. Giles, LL.D.

  79 The Evolution of Modern Japan. By J. H. Longford.

  43 The Civilization of Ancient Mexico. By Lewis Spence.

  60 The Vikings. By Prof. Allen Mawer, M.A.

  24 New Zealand. By the Hon. Sir Robert Stout, K.C.M.G., LL.D., and
     J. Logan Stout, LL.B. (N.Z.).

  76 Naval Warfare. By J. R. Thursfield, M.A.

  15 The Ground Plan of the English Parish Church. By A. Hamilton
     Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.

  16 The Historical Growth of the English Parish Church. By A.
     Hamilton Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.

  68 English Monasteries. By A. H. Thompson, M.A., F.S.A.

  50 Brasses. By J. S. M. Ward, B.A., F.R.Hist.S.

  59 Ancient Stained and Painted Glass. By F. S. Eden.

  80 A Grammar of Heraldry. By W. H. St J. Hope, Litt.D.


                               _ECONOMICS_

  70 Copartnership in Industry. By C. R. Fay, M.A.

   6 Cash and Credit. By D. A. Barker.

  67 The Theory of Money. By D. A. Barker.


                           _LITERARY HISTORY_

   8 The Early Religious Poetry of the Hebrews. By the Rev. E. G.
     King, D.D.

  21 The Early Religious Poetry of Persia. By the Rev. Prof. J. Hope
     Moulton, D.D., D.Theol. (Berlin).

   9 The History of the English Bible. By John Brown, D.D.

  12 English Dialects from the Eighth Century to the Present Day. By
     W. W. Skeat, Litt.D., D.C.L., F.B.A.

  22 King Arthur in History and Legend. By Prof. W. Lewis Jones, M.A.

  54 The Icelandic Sagas. By W. A. Craigie, LL.D.

  23 Greek Tragedy. By J. T. Sheppard, M.A.

  33 The Ballad in Literature. By T. F. Henderson.

  37 Goethe and the Twentieth Century. By Prof. J. G. Robertson,
     M.A., Ph.D.

  39 The Troubadours. By the Rev. H. J. Chaytor, M.A.

  66 Mysticism in English Literature. By Miss C. F. E. Spurgeon.


                        _PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION_

   4 The Idea of God in Early Religions. By Dr F. B. Jevons.

  57 Comparative Religion. By Dr F. B. Jevons.

  69 Plato: Moral and Political Ideals. By Mrs J. Adam.

  26 The Moral Life and Moral Worth. By Prof. Sorley, Litt.D.

   3 The English Puritans. By John Brown, D.D.

  11 An Historical Account of the Rise and Development of
     Presbyterianism in Scotland. By the Rt Hon. the Lord Balfour of
     Burleigh, K.T., G.C.M.G.

  41 Methodism. By Rev. H. B. Workman, D.Lit.


                               _EDUCATION_

  38 Life in the Medieval University. By R. S. Rait, M.A.

                                  _LAW_

  13 The Administration of Justice in Criminal Matters (in England
     and Wales). By G. Glover Alexander, M.A., LL.M.


                                _BIOLOGY_

   1 The Coming of Evolution. By Prof. J. W. Judd, C.B., F.R.S.

   2 Heredity in the Light of Recent Research. By L. Doncaster, M.A.

  25 Primitive Animals. By Geoffrey Smith, M.A.

  73 The Life-story of Insects. By Prof. G. H. Carpenter.

  48 The Individual in the Animal Kingdom. By J. S. Huxley, B.A.

  27 Life in the Sea. By James Johnstone, B.Sc.

  75 Pearls. By Prof. W. J. Dakin.

  28 The Migration of Birds. By T. A. Coward.

  36 Spiders. By C. Warburton, M.A.

  61 Bees and Wasps. By O. H. Latter, M.A.

  46 House Flies. By C. G. Hewitt, D.Sc.

  32 Earthworms and their Allies. By F. E. Beddard, F.R.S.

  74 The Flea. By H. Russell.

  64 The Wanderings of Animals. By H. F. Gadow, F.R.S.


                             _ANTHROPOLOGY_

  20 The Wanderings of Peoples. By Dr A. C. Haddon, F.R.S.

  29 Prehistoric Man. By Dr W. L. H. Duckworth.


                                _GEOLOGY_

  35 Rocks and their Origins. By Prof. Grenville A. J. Cole.

  44 The Work of Rain and Rivers. By T. G. Bonney, Sc.D.

   7 The Natural History of Coal. By Dr E. A. Newell Arber.

  30 The Natural History of Clay. By Alfred B. Searle.

  34 The Origin of Earthquakes. By C. Davison, Sc.D., F.G.S.

  62 Submerged Forests. By Clement Reid, F.R.S.

  72 The Fertility of the Soil. By E. J. Russell, D.Sc.


                                _BOTANY_

   5 Plant-Animals: a Study in Symbiosis. By Prof. F. W. Keeble.

  10 Plant-Life on Land. By Prof. F. O. Bower, Sc.D., F.R.S.

  19 Links with the Past in the Plant-World. By Prof. A. C. Seward, F.R.S.


                                _PHYSICS_

  52 The Earth. By Prof. J. H. Poynting, F.R.S.

  53 The Atmosphere. By A. J. Berry, M.A.

  65 Beyond the Atom. By John Cox, M.A.

  55 The Physical Basis of Music. By A. Wood, M.A.

  71 Natural Sources of Energy. By Prof. A. H. Gibson, D.Sc.


                              _PSYCHOLOGY_

  14 An Introduction to Experimental Psychology. By Dr C. S. Myers.

  45 The Psychology of Insanity. By Bernard Hart, M.D.

  77 The Beautiful. By Vernon Lee.


                   _INDUSTRIAL AND MECHANICAL SCIENCE_

  31 The Modern Locomotive. By C. Edgar Allen, A.M.I.Mech.E.

  56 The Modern Warship. By E. L. Attwood.

  17 Aerial Locomotion. By E. H. Harper, M.A., and Allan E. Ferguson,
     B.Sc.

  18 Electricity in Locomotion. By A. G. Whyte, B.Sc.

  63 Wireless Telegraphy. By Prof. C. L. Fortescue, M.A.

  58 The Story of a Loaf of Bread. By Prof. T. B. Wood, M.A.

  47 Brewing. By A. Chaston Chapman, F.I.C.

                    *       *       *       *       *

"A very valuable series of books which combine in a very happy way a
popular presentation of scientific truth along with the accuracy of
treatment which in such subjects is essential.... In their general
appearance, and in the quality of their binding, print, and paper, these
volumes are perhaps the most satisfactory of all those which offer to the
inquiring layman the hardly earned products of technical and specialist
research."--_Spectator_

"A complete set of these manuals is as essential to the equipment of a
good school as is an encyclopaedia.... We can conceive no better series
of handy books for ready reference than those represented by the
Cambridge Manuals."--_School World_

                       Cambridge University Press
                           C. F. Clay, Manager
                        LONDON: Fetter Lane. E.C.
                      EDINBURGH: 100 Princes Street

                    *       *       *       *       *




Transcriber's Notes:

The original spelling and minor inconsistencies in the spelling and
formatting have been maintained.

Inconsistent hyphenation and accents are as in the original if not marked
as a misprint.

Text in italics has been marked with underscores (_text_) and bold text
with equal signs (=text=)

The ligature oe has been marked as [oe] and the caron above c as [vc].

Table A has been re-arranged to fit the line size.

Table II and B have been split into two parts.

The table below lists all corrections applied to the original text.

  p. 9: to be justified, -> to be justified.
  p. 42: Fig 14. -> Fig. 14.
  p. 71: (Correze) -> (_Correze_)
  p. 72: (Correze). [From Boule.] -> (From Boule.)
  p. 73: (Dordogne) -> (_Dordogne_)
  p. 74: implements were scattered -> scattered.
  p. 79: in the preceding chapter, -> chapter
  p. 110: from the effects of fortuitious -> fortuitous
  p. 136: as also between _N_ -> _C_
  p. 154: Band XII, s. 15. -> Band XII. S. 15.
  p. 154: fuer Ethnologie, 1895, s. 338. -> S. 338.
  p. 155: fuer Anthropologie. Band 35, s. 62 -> S. 62
  p. 156: fuer Ethnologie. Band XL. s. 390 -> S. 390
  p. 156: 2nd Edn -> Edn.
  p. 156: Sollas 1908 -> Sollas, 1908
  p. 157: Die morphologische Abstaemmung -> Abstammung
  p. 158: v. also -> _v. also_
  p. 159: v. also -> _v. also_
  p. 159: Heidelberg, v. -> Heidelberg, _v._
  p. 160: v. also -> _v. also_
  p. 161: v. also -> _v. also_
  p. 161: Urus, v. -> Urus, _v._
  p. 166: By A. Wood, M.A -> M.A.





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Prehistoric Man, by W. L. H. Duckworth

*** 