Produced by Adrian Mastronardi and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
MAN
PAST AND PRESENT
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
LONDON: FETTER LANE, E.C. 4
NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
BOMBAY }
CALCUTTA } MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
MADRAS }
TORONTO: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
TOKYO: MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
MAN
PAST AND PRESENT
BY
A. H. KEANE
REVISED, AND LARGELY RE-WRITTEN, BY
A. HINGSTON QUIGGIN
AND
A. C. HADDON
READER IN ETHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1920
PREFACE TO NEW EDITION
Those who are familiar with the vast amount of ethnological literature
published since the close of last century will realize that to revise
and bring up to date a work whose range in space and time covers the
whole world from prehistoric ages down to the present day, is a task
impossible of accomplishment within the compass of a single volume.
Recent discoveries have revolutionized our conception of primeval man,
while still providing abundant material for controversy, and the rapidly
increasing pile of ethnographical matter, although a vast amount of
spade work remains to be done, is but one sign of the remarkable
interest in ethnology which is so conspicuous a feature of the present
decade. Even to keep abreast of the periodical literature devoted to his
subject provides ample occupation for the ethnologist and few are those
who can now lay claim to such an omniscient title.
Under such circumstances the faults of omission and compression could
not be avoided in revising Professor Keane's work, but it is hoped that
the copious references which form a prominent feature of the present
edition will compensate in some measure for these obvious defects. The
main object of the revisers has been to retain as much as possible of
the original text wherever it fairly represents current opinion at the
present time, but so different is our outlook from that of 1899 that
certain sections have had to be entirely rewritten and in many places
pages have been suppressed to make room for more important information.
In every case where new matter has been inserted references are given
to the responsible authorities and the fullest use has been made of
direct quotation from the authors cited.
Mrs Hingston Quiggin is responsible for the whole work of revision with
the exception of Chapter XI, revised by Miss Lilian Whitehouse, while
Dr A. C. Haddon has criticized, corrected and supervised the work
throughout.
A. H. Q.
A. C. H.
10 _October_, 1919.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1
II. THE METAL AGES--HISTORIC TIMES AND PEOPLES 20
III. THE AFRICAN NEGRO: I. SUDANESE 40
IV. THE AFRICAN NEGRO: II. BANTUS--NEGRILLOES--BUSHMEN--
HOTTENTOTS 84
V. THE OCEANIC NEGROES: PAPUASIANS (PAPUANS AND
MELANESIANS)--NEGRITOES--TASMANIANS 132
VI. THE SOUTHERN MONGOLS 163
VII. THE OCEANIC MONGOLS 219
VIII. THE NORTHERN MONGOLS 254
IX. THE NORTHERN MONGOLS (_continued_) 300
X. THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES 332
XI. THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES (_continued_) 388
XII. THE PRE-DRAVIDIANS: JUNGLE TRIBES OF THE DECCAN,
SAKAI, AUSTRALIANS 422
XIII. THE CAUCASIC PEOPLES 438
XIV. THE CAUCASIC PEOPLES (_continued_) 488
XV. THE CAUCASIC PEOPLES (_continued_) 501
APPENDIX 556
INDEX 562
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
(at the end of the volume)
PLATE I.
1. Hausa slave of Tunis (Western Sudanese Negro).
2. Zulu girl, South Africa (Bantu Negroid).
3, 4. Abraham Lucas, Age 32, South Africa (Koranna Hottentot).
5, 6. Swaartbooi, Age 20, South Africa (Bushman).
PLATE II.
1. Andamanese (Negrito).
2. Semang, Malay Peninsula (Negrito).
3. Aeta, Philippines (Negrito).
4. Central African Pygmy (Negrillo).
5-7. Tapiro, Netherlands New Guinea (Negrito).
PLATE III.
1, 2. Jemmy, native of Hampshire Hills, Tasmania (Tasmanian).
3, 4. Native of Oromosapua, Kiwai, British New Guinea (Papuan).
5, 6. Native of Hula, British New Guinea (Papuo-Melanesian).
PLATE IV.
1. Chinese man (Mixed Southern Mongol).
2. Chinese woman of Kulja (mixed Southern Mongol).
3, 4. Kara-Kirghiz of Semirechinsk.
5. Kara-Kirghiz woman of Semirechinsk.
6. Solon of Kulja (Manchu-Tungus).
PLATE V.
1. Jelai, an Iban (Sea-Dayak) of the Rejang river, Sarawak,
Borneo (mixed Proto-Malay).
2. Buginese, Celebes (Malayan).
3. Bontoc Igorot, Luzon, Philippines (Malayan).
4. Bagobo, Mindanao, Philippines (Malayan).
5, 6. Kenyah girls, Sarawak, Borneo (mixed Proto-Malay).
PLATE VI.
1. Samoyed, Tavji.
2. Tungus.
3. Ostiak of the Yenesei (Palaeo-Siberian).
4. Kalmuk woman (Western Mongol).
5. Gold of Amur river (Tungus).
6. Gilyak woman (N.E. Mongol).
PLATE VII.
1. Ainu woman, Yezo, Japan (Palaeo-Siberian).
2. Ainu man, Yezo, Japan (Palaeo-Siberian).
3, 4. Fine and coarse types of Japanese men (mixed Manchu-Korean and
Southern Mongol.)
5. Korean (mixed Tungus-Eastern Mongoloid).
6. Lapp (Finnish).
PLATE VIII.
1. Eskimo, Port Clarence, West Alaska.
2. Indian of the north-west coast of North America. ?Kwakiutl
(Wakashan stock).
3. Cocopa, Lower California (Yuman stock).
4. Navaho, Arizona (Athapascan linguistic stock).
5, 6. Buffalo Bull Ghost, Dakota of Crow Creek (Siouan stock).
PLATE IX.
1. Carib, British Guiana.
2. Guatuso, Costa Rica.
3. Native of Otovalo, Ecuador.
4. Native of Zambisa, Ecuador.
5. Tehuel-che man, Patagonia.
6. Tehuel-che woman, Patagonia.
PLATE X.
1. Sita Wanniya, a Henebedda Vedda, Ceylon (Pre-Dravidian).
2. Sakai, Perak, Malay Peninsula (Pre-Dravidian).
3. Irula of Chingleput, Nilgiri Hills, South India
(Pre-Dravidian).
4. Paniyan woman, Malabar, South India (Pre-Dravidian).
5. Kaitish, Central Australia (Australian).
6. Mulgrave woman (Australian).
PLATE XI.
1, 2. Dane (Nordic).
3. Dane (mixed Alpine).
4. Breton woman of Guingamp (mixed Alpine).
5. Swiss woman (Nordic).
6. Swiss woman (Alpine).
PLATE XII.
1. Catalan man, Spain (Iberian).
2. Irishman, Co. Roscommon (Mediterranean).
3, 4. Kababish, Egyptian Sudan (mixed Semite).
5. Egyptian Bedouin (mixed Semite).
6. Afghan of Zerafshan (Iranian).
PLATE XIII.
1, 2. Bisharin, Egyptian Sudan (Hamite).
3. Beni Amer, Egyptian Sudan (Hamite).
4. Masai, British East Africa (mixed Nilote and Hamite).
5. Shilluk, Egyptian Sudan (Nilote, showing approach to Hamitic
type).
6. Shilluk, Egyptian Sudan (Nilote).
PLATE XIV.
1, 2. Kurd, Nimrud-Dagh, lake Van, Kurdistan, Asia Minor (Nordic).
3, 4. Armenian, Kessab, Djebel Akrah, Kurdistan (Armenoid Alpine).
5. Tajik woman of E. Turkestan (Alpine).
6. Tajik of Tashkend (mixed Alpine and Turki).
PLATE XV.
1, 2. Sinhalese, Ceylon (mixed "Aryan").
3. Hindu merchant, Western India (mixed "Aryan").
4. Kling woman, Eastern India (Dravidian).
5. Linga Banajiga, South India (Dravidian).
6. Vakkaliga, Canarese, South India (mixed Alpine).
PLATE XVI.
1, 2. Ruatoka and his wife, Raiatea (Polynesian).
3. Tiawhiao, Maori, New Zealand (Polynesian).
4. Maori woman, New Zealand (Polynesian).
5, 6. Girls of the Caroline Islands (Micronesian).
We offer our sincere thanks for the use of the following photographs:
A. H. Keane, _Ethnology_ (1896), IV. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; IX. 3, 4;
XII. 6; XIV. 5, 6.
A. H. Keane, _Man, Past and Present_ (1899), I. 2; II. 3; V. 2;
VI. 4, 5, 6; VII. 5; IX. 1, 2; X. 4, 6; XII. 5.
A. R. Brown, II. 1.
Prof. R. B. Yapp, II. 2.
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, II. 4; V. 4; VII. 1, 2;
VIII. 1, 2, 3, 4; IX. 5, 6; XV. 1, 2.
Dr Wollaston, cf. _Pygmies and Papuans_, p. 212; II. 5, 6, 7.
Dr G. Landtman, III. 3, 4.
Anthony Wilkin, III. 5, 6.
Prof. C. G. Seligman, V. 1; (_The Veddas_, pl. V) X. 1; XII. 3, 4;
XIII. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6.
L. F. Taylor, V. 3.
A. C. Haddon, I. 3, 4, 5, 6; III. 1, 2; IV. 1; V. 5, 6; VII. 6;
XI. 1, 2, 3; XII. 1, 2; XIII. 4; XVI. 1, 2, 3, 4.
Miss M. A. Czaplicka, VI. 1, 2, 3.
Dr W. Crooke (cf. _Northern India_, pl. III), XV. 3.
Baelz, VII. 3, 4.
Bureau of American Ethnology, VIII. 5, 6.
E. Thurston (_Castes and Tribes of Southern India_, II. p. 387),
X. 3; (ibid. IV. pp. 236, 240), XV. 5; XV. 6.
Sir Baldwin Spencer and F. J. Gillen and Messrs Macmillan & Co.
(_Across Australia_, II. fig. 169), X. 5.
Prof. J. Kollmann, XI. 5, 6.
P. W. Luton, XII. 2.
Prof. F. von Luschan and the Council of the Royal Anthropological
Institute (_Journ. Roy. Anth. Inst._, XLI., pl. XXIV, 1, 2,
pl. XXX, 1, 2), XIV. 1, 2, 3, 4.
Dr W. H. Furness, XVI. 5, 6.
CHAPTER I
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The World peopled by Migration from one Centre by Pleistocene
Man--The Primary Groups evolved each in its special Habitat--
Pleistocene Man: _Pithecanthropus erectus_; The Mauer jaw, _Homo
Heidelbergensis_; The Piltdown skull, _Eoanthropus Dawsoni_--General
View of Pleistocene Man--The first Migrations--Early Man and his
Works--Classification of Human Types: _H. primigenius_, Neandertal
or Mousterian Man; _H. recens_, Galley Hill or Aurignacian Man--
Physical Types--Human Culture: Reutelian, Mafflian, Mesvinian,
Strepyan, Chellean, Acheulean, Mousterian, Aurignacian, Solutrian,
Magdalenian, Azilian--Chronology--The early History of Man a
Geological Problem--The Human Varieties the Outcome of their several
Environments--Correspondence of Geographical with Racial and
Cultural Zones.
In order to a clear understanding of the many difficult questions
connected with the natural history of the human family, two cardinal
points have to be steadily borne in mind--the specific unity of all
existing varieties, and the dispersal of their generalised precursors
over the whole world in pleistocene times. As both points have elsewhere
been dealt with by me somewhat fully[1], it will here suffice to show
their direct bearing on the general evolution of the human species from
that remote epoch to the present day.
It must be obvious that, if man is specifically one, though not
necessarily sprung of a single pair, he must have had, in homely
language, a single cradle-land, from which the peopling of the earth
was brought about by migration, not by independent developments from
different species in so many independent geographical areas.
It follows further, and this point is all-important, that, since the
world was peopled by pleistocene man, it was peopled by a generalised
proto-human form, prior to all later racial differences. The existing
groups, according to this hypothesis, have developed in different areas
independently and divergently by continuous adaptation to their several
environments. If they still constitute mere varieties, and not distinct
species, the reason is because all come of like pleistocene ancestry,
while the divergences have been confined to relatively narrow limits,
that is, not wide enough to be regarded zoologically as specific
differences.
The battle between monogenists and polygenists cannot be decided until
more facts are at our disposal, and much will doubtless be said on both
sides for some time to come[2]. Among the views of human origins brought
forward in recent years should be mentioned the daring theory of
Klaatsch[3]. Recognising two distinct human types, Neandertal and
Aurignac (see pp. 8, 9 below), and two distinct anthropoid types,
gorilla and orang-utan, he derives Neandertal man and African gorilla
from one common ancestor, and Aurignac man and Asiatic orang-utan from
another. Though anatomists, especially those conversant with anthropoid
structure[4], are not able to accept this view, they admit that many
difficulties may be solved by the recognition of more than one
primordial stock of human ancestors[5]. The questions of adaptation to
climate and environment[6], the possibilities of degeneracy, the varying
degrees of physiological activity, of successful mutations, the effects
of crossing and all the complicated problems of heredity are involved in
the discussion, and it must be acknowledged that our information
concerning all of these is entirely inadequate.
Nevertheless all speculations on the subject are not based merely on
hypotheses, and three discoveries of late years have provided solid
facts for the working out of the problem.
These discoveries were the remains of _Pithecanthropus erectus_[7] in
Java, in 1892, of the Mauer jaw[8], near Heidelberg, in 1907, and of the
Piltdown skull[9] in Sussex in 1912. Although the Mauer jaw was accepted
without hesitation, the controversy concerning the correct
interpretation of the Javan fossils has been raging for more than twenty
years and shows no sign of abating, while _Eoanthropus Dawsoni_ is too
recent an intruder into the arena to be fairly dealt with at present.
Certain facts however stand out clearly. In late pliocene or early
pleistocene times certain early ancestral forms were already in
existence which can scarcely be excluded from the _Hominidae_. In range
they were as widely distributed as Java in the east to Heidelberg and
Sussex in the west, and in spite of divergence in type a certain
correlation is not impossible, even if the Piltdown specimen should
finally be regarded as representing a distinct genus[10]. Each
contributes facts of the utmost importance for the tracing out of the
history of human evolution. _Pithecanthropus_ raises the vexed question
as to whether the erect attitude or brain development came first in the
story. The conjunction of pre-human braincase with human thighbone
appeared to favour the popular view that the erect attitude was the
earlier, but the evidence of embryology suggests a reverse order. And
although at first the thighbone was recognised as distinctly human it
seems that of late doubts have been cast on this interpretation[11], and
even the claim to the title _erectus_ is called in question. The
characters of straightness and slenderness on which much stress was laid
are found in exaggerated form in gibbons and lemurs. The intermediate
position in respect of mental endowment (in so far as brain can be
estimated by cranial capacity) is shown in the accompanying diagram in
which the cranial measurements of _Pithecanthropus_ are compared with
those of a chimpanzee and prehistoric man. The teeth strengthen the
evidence, for they are described as too large for a man and too small
for an ape. Thus _Pithecanthropus_ has been confidently assigned to a
place in a branch of the human family tree.
[Illustration: POSITION OF P. ERECTUS.
(Manouvrier, _Bul. Soc. d'Anthrop._ 1896, p. 438.)]
The Mauer jaw, the geological age of which is undisputed, also
represents intermediate characters. The extraordinary strength and
thickness of bone, the wide ascending ramus with shallow sigmoid notch
(distinctly simian features) and the total absence of chin[12] would
deny it a place among human jaws, but the teeth, which are all
fortunately preserved in their sockets, are not only definitely human,
but show in certain peculiarities less simian features than are to be
found in the dentition of modern man[13].
[Illustration: GENEALOGICAL TREE OF MAN'S ANCESTRY.
(A. Keith, _The Antiquity of Man_, 1915; fig. 187, p. 501.)]
The cranial capacity of the Piltdown skull, though variously
estimated[14], is certainly greater than that of _Pithecanthropus_, the
general outlines with steeply rounded forehead resemble that of modern
man, and the bones are almost without exception typically human. The
jaw, however, though usually attributed to the same individual[15],
recalls the primitive features of the Mauer specimen in its thick
ascending portion and shallow notch, while in certain characters it
differs from any known jaw, ancient or modern[16]. The evidence afforded
by the teeth is even more striking. The teeth of _Pithecanthropus_ and
of _Homo Heidelbergensis_ were recognised as remarkably human, and
although primitive in type, are far more advanced in the line of human
evolution than the lowly features with which they are associated would
lead one to expect. The Piltdown teeth are more primitive in certain
characters than those of either the Javan or the Heidelberg remains. The
first molar has been compared to that of Taubach, the most ape-like of
human or pre-human teeth hitherto recorded, but the canine tooth (found
by P. Teilhard in the same stratum in 1913[17]) finds no parallel in any
known human jaw; it resembles the milk canine of the chimpanzee more
than that of the adult dentition.
It cannot be said that any clear view of pleistocene man can be obtained
from these imperfect scraps of evidence, valuable though they are.
Rather may we agree with Keith that the problem grows more instead of
less complex. "In our first youthful burst of Darwinianism we pictured
our evolution as a simple procession of forms leading from ape to man.
Each age, as it passed, transformed the men of the time one stage nearer
to us--one more distant from the ape. The true picture is very
different. We have to conceive an ancient world in which the family of
mankind was broken up into narrow groups or genera, each genus again
divided into a number of species--much as we see in the monkey or ape
world of to-day. Then out of that great welter of forms one species
became the dominant form, and ultimately the sole surviving one--the
species represented by the modern races of mankind[18]."
We may assume therefore that the earth was mainly peopled by the
generalised pleistocene precursors, who moved about, like the other
migrating faunas, unconsciously, everywhere following the lines of least
resistance, advancing or receding, and acting generally on blind impulse
rather than of any set purpose.
That such must have been the nature of the first migratory movements
will appear evident when we consider that they were carried on by rude
hordes, all very much alike, and differing not greatly from other
zoological groups, and further that these migrations took place prior to
the development of all cultural appliances beyond the ability to wield a
broken branch or a sapling, or else chip or flake primitive stone
implements[19].
Herein lies the explanation of the curious phenomenon, which was a
stumbling-block to premature systematists, that all the works of early
man everywhere present the most startling resemblances, affording
absolutely no elements for classification, for instance, during the
times corresponding with the Chellean or first period of the Old Stone
Age. The implements of palaeolithic type so common in parts of South
India, South Africa, the Sudan, Egypt, etc., present a remarkable
resemblance to one another. This, while affording a _prima facies_ case
for, is not conclusive of, the migrations of a definite type of
humanity.
After referring to the identity of certain objects from the Hastings
kitchen-middens and a barrow near Sevenoaks, W. J. L. Abbot proceeds:
"The first thing that would strike one in looking over a few trays of
these implements is the remarkable likeness which they bear to those of
Dordogne. Indeed many of the figures in the magnificent 'Reliquiae
Aquitanicae' might almost have been produced from these specimens[20]."
And Sir J. Evans, extending his glance over a wider horizon, discovers
implements in other distant lands "so identical in form and character
with British specimens that they might have been manufactured by the
same hands.... On the banks of the Nile, many hundreds of feet above its
present level, implements of the European types have been discovered,
while in Somaliland, in an ancient river valley, at a great elevation
above the sea, Seton-Karr has collected a large number of implements
formed of flint and quartzite, which, judging from their form and
character, might have been dug out of the drift-deposits of the Somme
and the Seine, the Thames or the ancient Solent[21]."
It was formerly held that man himself showed a similar uniformity, and
all palaeolithic skulls were referred to one long-headed type, called,
from the most famous example, the Neandertal, which was regarded as
having close affinities with the present Australians. But this
resemblance is shown by Boule[22] and others to be purely superficial,
and recent archaeological finds indicate that more than one racial type
was in existence in the Palaeolithic Age.
W. L. H. Duckworth on anatomical evidence constructs the following
table[23].
Group I. Early ancestral forms.
_Ex. gr. H. heidelbergensis._
Group II. _Subdivision A. H. primigenius._
_Ex. gr. La Chapelle._
_Subdivision B. H. recens_; with varieties
{ _H. fossilis. Ex. gr. Galley Hill._
{ _H. sapiens._
H. Obermaier[24] argues as follows: _Homo primigenius_ is neither the
representative of an intermediate species between ape and man, nor a
lower or distinct type than _Homo sapiens_, but an older primitive
variety (race) of the latter, which survives in exceptional cases down
to the present day[25]. Clearly then, according to the rules of
zoological classification, we must term the two, _Homo sapiens var.
primigenius_, as compared with _Homo sapiens var. recens_.
Whatever classification or nomenclature may be adopted the dual division
in palaeolithic times is now generally recognised. The more primitive
type is commonly called Neandertal man, from the famous cranium found
in the Neandertal cave in 1857, or Mousterian man, from the culture
associations. To this group belong the Gibraltar skull[26], and the
skeletons from Spy[27], and Krapina, Croatia[28], together with the
later discoveries (1908-11) at La Chapelle[29] (Correze), Le
Moustier[30], La Ferassie[31] (Dordogne) and many others.
Palaeolithic examples of the modern human type have been found at Bruex
(Bohemia)[32], Bruenn (Moravia)[33] and Galley Hill in Kent[34], but the
most complete find was that at Combe Capelle in 1909[35]. The numerous
skeletons found at Cro-Magnon[36] and at the Grottes de Grimaldi at
Mentone[37] though showing certain skeletal differences may be included
in this group, the earliest examples of which are associated with
Aurignacian culture[38].
From the evidence contributed by these examples the main characteristics
of the two groups may be indicated, although, owing to the imperfection
of the records, any generalisations must necessarily be tentative and
subject to criticism.
The La Chapelle skull recalls many of the primitive features of the
"ancestral types." The low receding forehead, the overhanging
brow-ridges, forming continuous horizontal bars of bone overshadowing
the orbits, the inflated circumnasal region, the enormous jaws, with
massive ascending ramus, shallow sigmoid notch, "negative" chin and
other "simian" characters seem reminiscent of _Pithecanthropus_ and
_Homo Heidelbergensis_. The cranial capacity however is estimated at
over 1600 c.c., thus exceeding that of the average modern European, and
this development, even though associated, as M. Boule has pointed out,
with a comparatively lowly brain, is of striking significance. The low
stature, probably about 1600 mm. (under 5-1/2 feet) makes the size of
the skull and cranial capacity all the more remarkable. "A survey of
the characters of Neanderthal man--as manifested by his skeleton, brain
cast, and teeth--have convinced anthropologists of two things: first,
that we are dealing with a form of man totally different from any form
now living; and secondly, that the kind of difference far exceeds that
which separates the most divergent of modern human races[39]."
The earliest complete and authentic example of "Aurignacian man" was the
skeleton discovered near Combe Capelle (Dordogne) in 1909[40]. The
stature is low, not exceeding that of the Neandertal type, but the limb
bones are slighter and the build is altogether lighter and more slender.
The greatest contrast lies in the skull. The forehead is vertical
instead of receding, and the strongly projecting brow-ridges are
diminished, the jaw is less massive and less simian with regard to all
the features mentioned above. Especially is this difference noticeable
in the projection of the chin, which now for the first time shows the
modern human outline. In short there are no salient features which
cannot be matched among the living races of the present day.
On the cultural side no less than on the physical, the thousands of
years which the lowest estimate attributes to the Early Stone Age were
marked by slow but continuous changes.
The Reutelian (at the junction of the Pliocene and Pleistocene),
Mafflian and Mesvinian industries, recognised by M. Rutot in Belgium,
belong to the doubtful Eolithic Period, not yet generally accepted[41].
The lowest palaeolithic deposit is the Strepyan, so called from Strepy,
near Charleroi, typically represented at St Acheul, Amiens, and
recognised also in the Thames Valley[42]. The tools exhibit deliberate
flaking, and mark the transition between eolithic and palaeolithic
work. The associated fauna includes two species of elephant,
_E. meridionalis_ and _E. antiquus_, two species of rhinoceros,
_R. Etruscus_ and _R. Merckii_, and the hippopotamus. It is possible
that the Mauer jaw and the Piltdown skull belong to this stage.
The Chellean industry[43], with the typical coarsely flaked
almond-shaped implements, occurs abundantly in the South of England and
in France, less commonly in Belgium, Germany, Austria-Hungary and
Russia, while examples have been recognised in Palestine, Egypt,
Somaliland, Cape Colony, Madras and other localities, though outside
Europe the date is not always ascertainable and the form is not an
absolute criterion[44].
Acheulean types succeed apparently in direct descent but the implements
are altogether lighter, sharper, more efficient, and are characterised
by finer workmanship and carefully retouched edges. A small finely
finished lanceolate implement is typical of the sub-industry or local
development at La Micoque (Dordogne).
The Chellean industry is associated with a warm climate and the remains
of _Elephas antiquus_, _Rhinoceros Merckii_ and hippopotamus. Lower
Acheulean shows little variation, but with Upper Acheulean certain
animals indicating a colder climate make their appearance, including
the mammoth, _Elephas primigenius_, and the woolly rhinoceros,
_R. tichorhinus_, but no reindeer.
The Mousterian industry is entirely distinct from its predecessors. The
warm fauna has disappeared, the reindeer first occurs together with the
musk ox, arctic fox, the marmot and other cold-loving animals. Man
appears to have sought refuge in the caves, and from complete skeletons
found in cave deposits of this stage we gain the first clear ideas
concerning the physical type of man of the early palaeolithic period.
Typical Mousterian implements consist of leaf-like or triangular points
made from flakes struck from the nodule instead of from the dressed
nodule itself, as in the earlier stages. The Levallois flakes, occurring
at the base of the Mousterian (sometimes included in the Acheulean
stage), initiate this new style of workmanship, but the Mousterian point
shows an improvement in shape and a greater mastery in technique,
producing a more efficient tool for piercing and cutting. Scrapers,
carefully retouched, with a curved edge are also characteristic, besides
many other forms. The complete skeletons from Le Moustier itself, La
Chapelle, La Ferassie, and Krapina all belong to this stage, which marks
the end of the lower palaeolithic period, the Age of the Mammoth.
The upper palaeolithic or Reindeer Age is divided into Aurignacian,
Solutrian, and Magdalenian[45] culture stages, with the Azilian[46]
separating the Magdalenian from the neolithic period. Each stage is
distinguished by its implements and its art. The Aurignacian fauna,
though closely resembling the Mousterian, indicates an amelioration of
climate, the most abundant animals being the bison, horse, cave lion,
and cave hyena, and human settlements are again found in the open. Among
the typical implements are finely worked knife-like blades (Chatelperron
point, Gravette point), keeled scrapers (Tarte type), _burins_ or
gravers, and various tools and ornaments of bone. Art is represented by
engravings and wall paintings, and to this stage belong statuettes
representing nude female figures such as those of Brassempouy, Mentone,
Pont-a-Lesse (Belgium), Predmost and Willendorf, near Krems. The
Neandertal type appears to have died out and Aurignacian man belongs to
the modern type represented at Combe Capelle. If the evidence of the
figurines is to be accepted, a steatopygous race was at this time in
existence, which Sollas is inclined to connect with the Bushmen[47].
The Solutrian stage is characterised by the abundance of the horse,
replaced in the succeeding period by the reindeer. The Solutrians seem
to have been a warlike steppe people who came from the east into western
Europe. Their subsequent fate has not been elucidated. The culture
appears to have had a limited range, only a few stations being found
outside Dordogne and the neighbouring departments. The technique, as
shown in the laurel-leaf and willow-leaf points, exhibits a perfection
of workmanship unequalled in the Palaeolithic Age, and only excelled by
late prehistoric knives of Egypt.
The rock shelter at La Madeleine has given its name to the closing epoch
of the Palaeolithic Age. The flint industry shows distinct decadence,
but the working in bone and horn was at its zenith; indeed, so marked is
the contrast between this and the preceding stage that Breuil is
convinced that "the first Magdalenians were not evolved from the
Solutrians; they were new-comers in our region[48]." The typical
implements are barbed harpoons in reindeer antler (later that of the
stag), often decorated with engravings. Sculpture and engravings of
animals in life-like attitudes are among the most remarkable records of
the age, and the polychrome pictures in the caves of Altamira, "the
Sistine chapel of Quaternary Art," are the admiration of the world[49].
In the cave of Mas-d'Azil, between the Magdalenian and Neolithic
deposits occurs a stratum, termed Azilian, which, to some extent,
bridges over the obscure transition between the Palaeolithic and
Neolithic Ages. The reindeer has disappeared, and its place is taken by
the stag. The realistic art of the Magdalenians is succeeded by a more
geometric style. In flint working a return is made to Aurignacian
methods, and a particular development of pygmy flints has received the
name _Tardenoisian_[50].
The characteristic implement is still the harpoon, but it differs in
shape from the Magdalenian implement, owing to the different structure
of the material. Painted pebbles, marked with red and black lines, in
some cases suggesting a script, have given rise to much controversy.
Their meaning at present remains obscure[51].
The question of prehistoric chronology is a difficult one, and the more
cautious authorities do not commit themselves to dates. Of late years,
however, such researches as those of A. Penck and E. Brueckner in the
Alps[52] and of Baron de Geer and W. C. Brogger in Sweden[53], have
provided a sound basis for calculations. Penck recognises four periods
of glaciation during the pleistocene period, which he has named after
typical areas, the Guenz, Mindel, Riss and Wuerm. He dates the Wuerm
maximum at between 30,000 and 50,000 years ago and estimates the
duration of the Riss-Wuerm interglacial period at about 100,000 years.
According to his calculations the Chellean industry occurs in the
Mindel-Riss, or even in the Guenz-Mindel interval, but it is more
commonly placed in the mild phase intervening before the last (Wuerm)
glaciation, this latter corresponding with the cold Mousterian stage. At
least four subsequent oscillations of climate have been recognised by
Penck, the Achen, Buehl, Gschnitz and Daun, and the correspondence of
these with palaeolithic culture stages may be seen in the following
table[54].
Penck and Brueckner Obermaier and others Rutot
Post-glacial {Daun } Azilian Proto-Neolithic}
with {Gschnitz} Azilian }
oscillations {Buehl } Magdalenian } Neolithic
{Achen } Magdalenian Solutrian and }
} Aurignacian }
IV. Wuerm. 4th Glacial } Mousterian Lower
Lower Mousterian Magdalenian
and Acheulean
Riss-Wuerm. 3rd Solutrian and Chellean Upper
Interglacial Aurignacian Mousterian
Warm Mousterian
III. Riss. 3rd Glacial Cold Mousterian Lower
Acheulean
Chellean
Mindel-Riss. 2nd Acheulean Mauer jaw Strepyan
Interglacial Chellean Pre-Palaeolithic Mesvinian
Mafflian
II. Mindel. 2nd Glacial } }
} }
Guenz-Mindel. 1st } No artefacts } No artefacts
Interglacial } }
} }
I. Guenz. 1st Glacial } }
James Geikie[55], under the heading, "Reliable and Unreliable estimates
of geological time," points out that the absolute duration of the
Pleistocene cannot be determined, but such investigations as those of
Penck "enable us to form some conception of the time involved." He
accepts as a rough approximation Penck's opinion that "the Glacial
period with all its climatic changes may have extended over half a
million years, and as the Chellean stage dates back to at least the
middle of the period, this would give somewhere between 250,000 and
500,000 years for the antiquity of man in Europe. But if, as recent
discoveries would seem to indicate, man was an occupant of our Continent
during the First Interglacial epoch, if not in still earlier times, we
may be compelled greatly to increase our estimate of his antiquity"
(p. 303).
W. J. Sollas, on the other hand, is content with a far more contracted
measure. Basing his calculations mainly on the investigations of de
Geer, he concludes that the interval that separates our time from the
beginning of the end of the last glacial episode is 17,000 years. He
places the Azilian age at 5500 B.C., the middle of the Magdalenian age
somewhere about 8000 B.C., Mousterian 15,000 B.C., and the close of the
Chellean 25,000 B.C.[56]
But when all the changes in climate are taken into consideration, the
periods of elevation and depression of the land, the transformations of
the animals, the evolution of man, the gradual stages of advance in
human culture, the development of the races of mankind, and their
distribution over the surface of the globe, this estimate is regarded by
many as insufficient. Allen Sturge claims "scores of thousands of years"
for the neolithic period alone[57], and Sir W. Turner points out the
very remote times to which the appearance of neolithic man must be
assigned in Scotland. After showing that there is undoubted evidence of
the presence of man in North Britain during the formation of the Carse
clays, this careful observer explains that the Carse cliffs, now in
places 45 to 50 feet above the present sea-level, formed the bed of an
estuary or arm of the sea, which in post-glacial times extended almost,
if not quite across the land from east to west, thus separating the
region south of the Forth from North Britain. He even suggests, after
the separation of Britain from the Continent in earlier times, another
land connection, a "Neolithic land-bridge" by which the men of the New
Stone Age may have reached Scotland when the upheaved 100-foot terrace
was still clothed with the great forest growths that have since
disappeared[58].
One begins to ask, Are even 100,000 years sufficient for such
oscillations of the surface, upheaval of marine beds, appearance of
great estuaries, renewed connection of Britain with the Continent by a
"Neolithic land-bridge"? In the Falkirk district neolithic
kitchen-middens occur on, or at the base of, the bluffs which overlook
the Carse lands, that is, the old sea-coast. In the Carse of Gowrie also
a dug-out canoe was found at the very base of the deposits, and
immediately above the buried forest-bed of the Tay Valley[59].
That the neolithic period was also of long duration even in Scandinavia
has been made evident by Carl Wibling, who calculates that the
geological changes on the south-east coast of Sweden (Province of
Bleking), since its first occupation by the men of the New Stone Age,
must have required a period of "at least 10,000 years[60]."
Still more startling are the results of the protracted researches
carried on by J. Nueesch at the now famous station of Schweizersbild,
near Schaffhausen in Switzerland[61]. This station was apparently in the
continuous occupation of man during both Stone Ages, and here have been
collected as many as 14,000 objects belonging to the first, and over
6000 referred to the second period. Although the early settlement was
only post-glacial, a point about which there is no room for doubt, L.
Laloy[62] has estimated "the absolute duration of both epochs together
at from 24,000 to 29,000 years." We may, therefore, ask, If a
comparatively recent post-glacial station in Switzerland is about 29,000
years old, how old may a pre- or inter-glacial station be in Gaul or
Britain?
From all this we see how fully justified is J. W. Powell's remark that
the natural history of early man becomes more and more a geological, and
not merely an ethnological problem[63]. We also begin to understand how
it is that, after an existence of some five score millenniums, the first
specialised human varieties have diverged greatly from the original
types, which have thus become almost "ideal quantities," the subjects
rather of palaeontological than of strictly anthropological studies.
And here another consideration of great moment presents itself. During
these long ages some of the groups--most African negroes south of the
equator, most Oceanic negroes (Negritoes and Papuans), and Australian
and American aborigines--have remained in their original habitats ever
since what may be called the first settlement of the earth by man.
Others again, the more restless or enterprising peoples, such as the
Mongols, Manchus, Turks, Ugro-Finns, Arabs, and most Europeans, have no
doubt moved about somewhat freely; but these later migrations, whether
hostile or peaceable, have for the most part been confined to regions
presenting the same or like physical and climatic conditions. Wherever
different climatic zones have been invaded, the intruders have failed to
secure a permanent footing, either perishing outright, or disappearing
by absorption or more or less complete assimilation to the aboriginal
elements. Such are some "black Arabs" in Egyptian Sudan, other Semites
and Hamites in Abyssinia and West Sudan (Himyarites, Fulahs and others),
Finns and Turks in Hungary and the Balkan Peninsula (Magyars, Bulgars,
Osmanli), Portuguese and Netherlanders in Malaysia, English in tropical
or sub-tropical lands, such as India, where Eurasian half-breeds alone
are capable of founding family groups.
The human varieties are thus seen to be, like all other zoological
species, the outcome of their several environments. They are what
climate, soil, diet, pursuits and inherited characters have made them,
so that all sudden transitions are usually followed by disastrous
results[64]. "To urge the emigration of women and children, or of any
save those of the most robust health, to the tropics, may not be to
murder in the first degree, but it should be classed, to put it mildly,
as incitement to it[65]." Acclimatisation may not be impossible but in
all extreme cases it can be effected only at great sacrifice of life,
and by slow processes, the most effective of which is perhaps Natural
Selection. By this means we may indeed suppose the world to have been
first peopled.
At the same time it should be remembered that we know little of the
climatic conditions at the time of the first migrations, though it has
been assumed that it was everywhere much milder than at present.
Consequently the different zones of temperature were less marked, and
the passage from one region to another more easily effected than in
later times. In a word the pleistocene precursors had far less
difficulty in adapting themselves to their new surroundings than modern
peoples have when they emigrate, for instance, from Southern Europe to
Brazil and Paraguay, or from the British Isles to Rhodesia and
Nyassaland.
What is true of man must be no less true of his works; from which it
follows that racial and cultural zones correspond in the main with zones
of temperature, except so far as the latter may be modified by altitude,
marine influences, or other local conditions. A glance at past and
existing relations the world over will show that such harmonies have at
all times prevailed. No doubt the overflow of the leading European
peoples during the last 400 years has brought about divers dislocations,
blurrings, and in places even total effacements of the old landmarks.
But, putting aside these disturbances, it will be found that in the
Eastern hemisphere the inter-tropical regions, hot, moist and more
favourable to vegetable than to animal vitality, are usually occupied by
savage, cultureless populations. Within the same sphere are also
comprised most of the extra-tropical southern lands, all tapering
towards the antarctic waters, isolated, and otherwise unsuitable for
areas of higher specialisation.
Similarly the sub-tropical Asiatic peninsulas, the bleak Tibetan
tableland, the Pamir, and arid Mongolian steppes are found mainly in
possession of somewhat stationary communities, which present every stage
between sheer savagery and civilisation.
In the same way the higher races and cultures are confined to the more
favoured north temperate zone, so that between the parallels of 24 deg. and
50 deg. (but owing to local conditions falling in the far East to 40 deg. and
under, and in the extreme West rising to 55 deg.) are situated nearly all
the great centres, past and present, of human activities--the Egyptian,
Babylonian, Minoan (Aegean), Hellenic, Etruscan, Roman, and modern
European. Almost the only exceptions are the early civilisations
(Himyaritic) of Yemen (Arabia Felix) and Abyssinia, where the low
latitude is neutralised by altitude and a copious rainfall.
Thanks also to altitude, to marine influences, and the contraction of
the equatorial lands, the relations are almost completely reversed in
the New World. Here all the higher developments took place, not in the
temperate but in the tropical zone, within which lay the seats of the
Peruvian, Chimu, Chibcha and Maya-Quiche cultures; the Aztec sphere
alone ranged northwards a little beyond the Tropic of Cancer.
Thus in both hemispheres the iso-cultural bands follow the isothermal
lines in all their deflections, and the human varieties everywhere
faithfully reflect the conditions of their several environments.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Ethnology_, Chaps. V. and VII.
[2] See A. H. Keane, _Ethnology_, 1909, Chap. VII.
[3] H. Klaatsch, "Die Aurignac-Rasse und ihre Stellung im Stammbaum des
Menschen," _Ztschr. f. Eth._ LII. 1910. See also _Praehistorische
Zeitschrift_, Vol. I. 1909.
[4] Cf. A. Keith's criticisms in _Nature_, Vol. LXXXV. 1911, p. 508.
[5] W. L. H. Duckworth, _Prehistoric Man_, 1912, p. 146.
[6] W. Ridgeway, "The Influence of Environment on Man," _Journ. Roy.
Anthr. Inst._, Vol. XL. 1910, p. 10.
[7] E. Dubois, "_Pithecanthropus erectus_, transitional form between Man
and the Apes," _Sci. Trans. R. Dublin Soc._ 1898.
[8] O. Schoetensack, _Der Unterkiefer des Homo Heidelbergensis_, etc.,
1908.
[9] C. Dawson and A. Smith Woodward, "On the Discovery of a Palaeolithic
Skull and Mandible," etc., _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._ 1913.
[10] This was the view of A. Smith Woodward when the skull was first
exhibited (_loc. cit._), but in his paper, "Missing Links among Extinct
Animals," _Brit. Ass._ Birmingham, 1913, he is inclined to regard
"Piltdown man, or some close relative" as "on the direct line of descent
with ourselves." For A. Keith's criticism see _The Antiquity of Man_,
1915, p. 503.
[11] W. L. H. Duckworth, _Prehistoric Man_, 1912, p. 8.
[12] For the relation between chin formation and power of speech, see E.
Walkhoff, "Der Unterkiefer der Anthropomorphen und des Menschen in
seiner funktionellen Entwicklung und Gestalt," E. Selenka,
_Menschenaffen_, 1902; H. Obermaier, _Der Mensch der Vorzeit_, 1912, p.
362; and W. Wright, "The Mandible of Man from the Morphological and
Anthropological points of view," _Essays and Studies presented to W.
Ridgeway_, 1913.
[13] Cf. W. L. H. Duckworth, _Prehistoric Man_, 1912, p. 10, and A.
Keith, _The Antiquity of Man_, 1915, p. 237.
[14] A. Smith Woodward, 1070 c.c.; A. Keith, 1400 c.c.
[15] G. G. MacCurdy, following G. S. Miller, _Smithsonian Misc. Colls._
Vol. 65, No. 12 (1915), is convinced that "in place of _Eoanthropus
dawsoni_ we have two individuals belonging to different genera," a human
cranium and the jaw of a chimpanzee. _Science_, N.S. Vol. XLIII. 1916,
p. 231. See also Appendix A.
[16] For a full description see _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._ March, 1913.
Also A. Keith, _The Antiquity of Man_, 1915, p. 320, and pp. 430-452.
[17] C. Dawson and A. Smith Woodward, "Supplementary Note on the
Discovery of a Palaeolithic Human Skull and Mandible at Piltdown
(Sussex)," _Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc._ April, 1914.
[18] _The Antiquity of Man_, 1915, p. 209.
[19] Thus Lucretius:
"Arma antiqua manus, ungues, dentesque fuerunt,
Et lapides, et item silvarum fragmina rami."
[20] _Jour. Anthrop. Inst._ 1896, p. 133.
[21] _Inaugural Address_, Brit. Ass. Meeting, Toronto, 1897.
[22] M. Boule, "L'homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints," _Annales de
Paleontologie_, 1911 (1913). Cf. also H. Obermaier, _Der Mensch der
Vorzeit_, 1912, p. 364.
[23] _Prehistoric Man_, 1912, p. 60.
[24] _Der Mensch der Vorzeit_, 1912, p. 365.
[25] This is not generally accepted. See A. Keith's diagram, p. 5 and
pp. 9-10.
[26] W. J. Sollas, "On the Cranial and Facial Characters of the
Neandertal Race," _Phil. Trans._ 1907, CXCIV.
[27] J. Fraipont and M. Lohest, "Recherches Ethnographiques sur les
Ossements Humains," etc., _Arch. de Biologie_, 1887.
[28] Gorjanovi[vc]-Kramberger, _Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina in
Kroatia_, 1906.
[29] M. Boule, "L'homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Saints," _L'Anthr._
XIX. 1908, and _Annales de Paleontologie_, 1911 (1913).
[30] H. Klaatsch, _Praehistorische Zeitschrift_, Vol. I. 1909.
[31] Peyrony and Capitan, _Rev. de l'Ecole d'Anthrop._ 1909; _Bull. Soc.
d'Anthr. de Paris_, 1910.
[32] G. Schwalbe, "Der Schaedel von Bruex," _Zeitschr. f. Morph. u.
Anthr._ 1906.
[33] Makowsky, "Der diluviale Mensch in Loess von Bruenn," _Mitt. Anthrop.
Gesell. in Wien_, 1892.
[34] See A. Keith, _The Antiquity of Man_, 1915, Chap. X.
[35] H. Klaatsch, "Die Aurignac-Rasse," etc., _Zeitschr. f. Ethn._ LII.
1910.
[36] L. Lartet, "Une sepulture des troglodytes du Perigord," and Broca,
"Sur les cranes et ossements des Eyzies," _Bull. Soc. d'Anthr._ de
Paris, 1868.
[37] R. Verneau, _Les Grottes de Grimaldi_, 1906-11.
[38] For a complete list with bibliographical references, see H.
Obermaier, "Les restes humains Quaternaires dans l'Europe centrale,"
_Anthr._ 1905, p. 385, 1906, p. 55.
[39] A. Keith, _The Antiquity of Man_, 1915, p. 158. See also W. J.
Sollas, _Ancient Hunters_, 1915, p. 186 ff.
[40] H. Klaatsch, "Die Aurignac-Rasse," _Zeitschr. f. Eth._ 1910, LII.
p. 513.
[41] The Mesvinian implements are now accepted as artefacts and placed
by H. Obermaier immediately below the Chellean, though M. Commont
interprets them as Acheulean or even later. See W. J. Sollas, _Ancient
Hunters_, 1915, p. 132 ff.
[42] R. Smith and H. Dewey, "Stratification at Swanscombe,"
_Archaeologia_, LXIV. 1912.
[43] So called from Chelles-sur-Marne, near Paris.
[44] Cf. J. Dechelette, _Manuel d'Archeologie prehistorique_, I. 1908,
p. 89.
[45] From Aurignac (Haute-Garonne), Solutre (Saone-et-Loire), and La
Madeleine (Dordogne).
[46] Mas-d'Azil, Ariege.
[47] W. J. Sollas, _Ancient Hunters_, 1915, pp. 378-9.
[48] "Les Subdivisions de paleolithique superieur," _Congres Internat.
d'Anth._ 1912, XIV. pp. 190-3.
[49] H. Breuil and E. Cartailhac, _La Caverne d'Altamira_, 1906. For a
list of decorated caves, with the names of their discoverers, see J.
Dechelette, _Manuel d'Archeologie prehistorique_, I. 1908, p. 241. A
complete _Repertoire de l'Art Quaternaire_ is given by S. Reinach, 1913;
and for chronology see E. Piette, "Classifications des Sediments formes
dans les cavernes pendant l'Age du Renne," _Anthr._ 1904.
[50] From La Fere-en-Tardenois, Aisne.
[51] Cf. W. J. Sollas, _Ancient Hunters_, 1915, pp. 95, 534 f.
[52] _Die Alpen in Eiszeitalter_, 1901-9. See also "Alter des
Menschengeschlechts," _Zeit. f. Eth._ XL. 1908.
[53] See W. J. Sollas, _Ancient Hunters_, 1915, p. 561.
[54] H. Obermaier, _Der Mensch der Vorzeit_, 1911-2, p. 332.
[55] _The Antiquity of Man in Europe_, 1914, p. 301.
[56] _Ancient Hunters_, 1915, p. 567.
[57] _Proc. Prehist. Soc. E. Anglia_, 1. 1911, p. 60.
[58] Discourse at the R. Institute, London, _Nature_, Jan. 6 and 13,
1898.
[59] _Nature_, 1898, p. 235.
[60] _Tiden foer Blekings foersta bebyggande_, Karlskrona, 1895, p. 5.
[61] "Das Schweizersbild, eine Niederlassung aus palaeolithischer und
neolithischer Zeit," in _Nouveaux Memoires Soc. Helvetique des Sciences
Naturelles_, Vol. XXXV. Zurich, 1896. This is described by James Geikie,
_The Antiquity of Man in Europe_, 1914, pp. 85-99.
[62] _L'Anthropologie_, 1897, p. 350.
[63] _Forum_, Feb. 1898.
[64] The party of Eskimo men and women brought back by Lieut. Peary from
his Arctic expedition in 1897 were unable to endure our temperate
climate. Many died of pneumonia, and the survivors were so enfeebled
that all had to be restored to their icy homes to save their lives. Even
for the Algonquians of Labrador a journey to the coast is a journey to
the grave.
[65] W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_, 1900, p. 586.