CHAPTER IV_Prehistoric man（#44331）

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

Württemburg 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 |

+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+

| | | | |

| | Neolithic | -- | |

| | | | |

| | | |

| | Palaeolithic | |

| | | |

| 2. Deepest |Magdalenian|Magdalenian|} Myodes torquatus (the |

| stratum at | | |} Banded Lemming) |

| Ofnet | | |} |

| | | |} |

| 3. | -- | Solutréan |} Fauna of a northern |

| | | |} character throughout: |

| | | |} with Reindeer, |

| 4. | -- |Aurignacian|} Mammoth, Rhinoceros |

| | | |} tichorhinus and Horse |

| | | |} |

| 5. Deepest | -- |Mousterian |} Myodes obensis (a |

+-------------------+-----------+-----------+-------------------------+

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.| -- | Solutréan |

| | | |

| 6.| -- | Aurignacian |

| | | |

| 7.| -- | Mousterian |

| | | |

| 8.| -- | -- |

| | | |

| 9.| -- | -- |

| | | |

| 10.| -- | -- |

| | | |

+-----------------+-------------+-------------+

+-----------------------------------------+

| B. Alluvial deposits |

+-------------+-------------+-------------+

| S. Acheul | Willendorf | S. Acheul |

| (Tellier) | (Austria) | (Tellier, |

| [3] | [4] | etc.)[3] |

+-------------+-------------+-------------+

| -- | -- | -- |

| | | |

| -- | -- | -- |

| | | |

| -- | -- | -- |

| | | |

| Magdalenian | -- | -- |

| | | |

| -- | Solutréan | -- |

| | | |

| -- | Aurignacian | -- |

| | | |

| -- | -- | Mousterian |

| | | |

| -- | -- | Acheulean |

| | | |

| -- | -- | Chellean |

| | | |

| -- | -- | "Industrie |

| | | grossière" |

+-------------+-------------+-------------+

[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 Jalón 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 "Strépyan" 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 Strépyan 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. Solutréan } 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. Strépyan. 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 Strépyan 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 Strépyan stage, and it is

therefore possible that further reduction may follow.

Leaving these problems of the Galley Hill implements and the Strépyan

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 Depèret.

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, Brückner, 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] +-------------+-------------+--------------+

+------------------------+---- -------+-------------+--------------+

| |=============++ | |

| =Glacial IV= 2nd | Mousterian || Solutréan | -- |

| Pleistocene(2) | || [4] | |

| Glaciation of Boule. | ++============++ |

| "Würmian" of Penck | | || |

| | | || |

| _Interglacial_ =3= | Acheulean | Mousterian || Magdalenian |

| = Riss-Würm interval | (Obermaier) | (warm phase)|| |

| (Penck) | Chellean | || |

| | | || |

| =Glacial III= 1st | Chellean | Mousterian || -- |

| Pleistocene Glaciation | | (cold phase)|| |

| of Boule. "Rissian" | | || |

| of Penck | | || |

| | | || |

| _Interglacial_ =2= | ? | Acheulean || Solutréan |

| = Mindel-Riss interval | | Chellean ++=============|

| | | | |

| =Glacial II= | ? | ? | -- |

| | | | |

| _Interglacial_ =1= | ? | ? | Mousterian |

| | | | |

| =Glacial I= "Günzian" | ? | ? | -- |

| | | | |

+------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------+

+------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+

| | 1908 | 1908 | 1878 |

| Penck's scheme[1] +--------------+------------+-----------------+

+------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| =Glacial II= | -- | ? | Chalky |

| | | | |

| _Interglacial_ =1= | -- | ? | Brandon beds |

| | | | |

| =Glacial I= "Günzian" | -- | ? | Cromer Till. |

+------------------------+--------------+------------+-----------------+

[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

Solutréan industry by each in turn. The löss 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_

Solutréan. _Günz_, _Mindel_, _Riss_, _Würm_, 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

Günzian 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 Dürnten, 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 = Würm), whereas Professor Penck places them in

his penultimate grand period (Riss), carrying them down into the

succeeding (Riss-Würmian) 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 Würmian). The associated fauna is

alleged to indicate that the age is not post-Würmian, 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-Würm) 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 Château de Bohun (Ain, Rhone Basin, France, 1889),

and Conliège (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 Solutré. The consensus of opinion regarding the position of

Solutré (_i.e._ its typical implements) is very extensive and quite

definite. In effect, the type of Solutré is assigned to the newer

(_jüngerer_) löss deposits. But these are also widely recognised as

entirely post-glacial. Moreover in the last few years, the excavations in

these particular löss-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 Solutréan

implements too far back. The attempt to overcome this objection by

attributing an earlier (? inter-glacial) age to the special variety of

löss 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) löss of the third terrace at S. Acheul. According to

the theory, the type of Solutré, 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 (Würmian),

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 Brünn (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 Anklänge'). 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

Truchère-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. Brélade'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 Übergangsform, &c.

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

[3] Schwalbe, 1899. Zeitschrift für 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 Homo 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 für 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 für Anthropologie. Band 35, 1909,

p. 287.

[16] Peyrony (and Capitan), 1909-1910. Bulletins de la Société

d'Anthropologie de Paris, Jan. 20, 1910.

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

Vol. 199 B.

[18] Sera, 1909. Atti della Società 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. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, I.

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

1895.

[25] Schwalbe, 1906. "Der Schädel von Brüx." Zeitsch. für Morphologie

und Anthropologie.

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

Part 10. 1910.

CHAPTER IV

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

[28] Schmidt, 1909. Archiv für 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. Congrès international d'Archéologie préhistorique.

Paris, 1900.

[31] Rutot, 1904, ?1903. Quoted in Schwalbe 1906. "Vorgeschichte, usw."

Zeitschrift für Morphologie und Anthropologie.

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

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

[33] Laville, 1910. Bulletin de la Société 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. Mammifères tertiaires.

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

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

[51] Schliz, 1909. Archiv für Anthropologie. Band 35, Ss. 239 et seq.

"Die vorgeschichtlichen Schädeltypen der deutschen Länder."

[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 für

Morphologie und Anthropologie.

_Recent publications containing a summary of the latest discoveries._

Birkner. Beiträge 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'Université. Bruxelles, January 1911.

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

1909.

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

Spulski. Zentralblatt für 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

Brückner, 116

Brünn, 56, 57, 82

Brüx, 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

Corrèze (_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, château, 122

Dénise, 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

Günz, glacial phase of, 119

Hauser, 39, 55: _v._ Homo

Heidelberg, _v. Homo heidelbergensis_

High-level terrace gravels (of Thames), 83

Hinton, 83, 101-104, 115, 125

Hippopotamus, 70, 78, 120

Hoernes, 20, 117, 120

Homo _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

Jalón river (Aragon) implements, 101

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

Jersey, _v._ S. Brélade

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

Löss, 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. Brélade, 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

Solutré-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

Strépy, 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

Würm: glacial phase of, 119

Württemburg, 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: (Corrèze) -> (_Corrèze_)

p. 72: (Corrèze). [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: für Ethnologie, 1895, s. 338. -> S. 338.

p. 155: für Anthropologie. Band 35, s. 62 -> S. 62

p. 156: für Ethnologie. Band XL. s. 390 -> S. 390

p. 156: 2nd Edn -> Edn.

p. 156: Sollas 1908 -> Sollas, 1908

p. 157: Die morphologische Abstämmung -> 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.